Posts

Does Commuter Rail Create Jobs?

Josh Elliott-Traficante

May 2015

Supporters of bringing commuter rail north from Lowell into New Hampshire have been touting the economic development potential of the project. But does rail in and of itself, construction and operation aside, create jobs? While studies of proposed passenger commuter rail lines often predict job creation, studies of lines that have been built and operating have found that these projects do not create jobs by themselves, but they can influence where already planned investments will happen.

The proposed MBTA extension would not be New Hampshire’s only passenger rail connection. The Downeaster, which runs ten trains a day between Boston and Maine, makes stops in Exeter, Durham, and Dover.

Service began in 2001, which provides an excellent case study to gauge the impact of rail here in the state. According to US Census data, after more than ten years of passenger rail service, the number of jobs increased in Dover, remained virtually unchanged in Durham, and fell in Exeter.[1]

Rail Chart 1

 

The St. Louis Federal Reserve has some words of wisdom for those who view rail as a tool for boosting the economy: “Rather than relying solely on rail to create economic development, city planners and officials should first address a key question: Why is economic development not occurring in a given area in the first place?”[2]

The Experience Studies:

While most proposed rail projects usually include projections of job growth, it is important to remember that these are projections, not actual experience. Rather than rely on these, looking at studies of passenger commuter rail lines that have been in service for a few years is more helpful. These studies have shown that simply having rail service does not create jobs.

The most comprehensive analysis of rail’s impact on job creation was commissioned by the Federal Transit Administration and concluded that “(r)ail transit investments do not stimulate real economic growth; rather they only influence where already-committed growth takes place,”[3] adding that “rail investments cannot overcome the effects of a weak regional economy.”[4]  One example the FTA study looked at was the experience of two cities along a commuter rail line in Pennsylvania. One city had substantial growth in both apartment development and commercial real estate, while another city had nearly none. They concluded that the rail line had not influenced outcomes, but the difference was a result of different attitudes towards growth, zoning laws, and land availability.[5]

More recent studies have come to similar conclusions. The experience of the Coaster commuter rail line in San Diego is particularly helpful because it shares many similarities to the proposed Capitol Corridor project. Both are roughly the same length and both connect midsized cities (40,000-100,000) to the largest city in the region. A study of the impacts of the Coaster found that though there were minor gains in value for some types of residential property near the non-Downtown San Diego stations, commercial property values fell nearly 10%.[6] Though an inexact proxy, weak demand for commercial property is not indicative of strong job growth. If the same experience is realized for the Capitol Corridor, Boston could gain jobs at Manchester and Nashua’s expense.

Researchers at the Brookings Institution also found little evidence that rail transit investments have significant impacts on urban form. The only way for rail to have an impact, they found, would be to make private car ownership and usage prohibitively expensive.[7]

Closer to home, a study of the MBTA commuter rail system, the operator proposed for New Hampshire, found that “development patterns are governed by the dominant forces of the day, and even given the large investments, commuter rail is no longer one of those forces.”[8] The director of Harvard’s Rappaport Institute, which conducted the study, summarized the findings stating “(T)he history of commuter rail in Massachusetts suggests that while commuter rail can be helpful, it generally has not revitalized communities or reduced sprawl.”[9]

The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank conducted research into the economic impacts of light rail, and found that “the general consensus from the academic literature and the findings in this report is that light rail is not a catalyst for economic development, rather light rail can help guide economic development.”[10] In other words, rail does not create growth, but can impact where that growth happens. Though light rail and commuter rail fulfill different transit needs, the underlying argument that proponents use, that rail creates jobs, is the same.

The New Hampshire Experience: The Downeaster

New Hampshire has an excellent test case with the Downeaster, which runs from Boston north to Brunswick, Maine, and makes stops in Exeter, Durham, and Dover. Service to all of these stations began in December 2001. Though the Downeaster is technically not a commuter rail service, it is a functional equivalent by offering multiple departures a day and runs over a fairly short distance.

According to the data from the US Census Bureau, job creation between 2000 and 2012 between each of these towns is mixed. In Exeter, the total number of jobs located in the town dropped about 300. In Durham, the number of jobs was virtually unchanged, while Dover saw just over 1,000 new jobs.

These municipalities do not exist in a vacuum, so it is useful to pair them with similar, non-rail served communities, to act as control. Exeter was paired with Epping and Dover with Rochester. Durham, only seeing minor changes in jobs numbers, was left unpaired.

Epping and Exeter:

From an infrastructure point of view, Epping and Exeter are quite alike; both have access to NH 101, which links the Seacoast with Manchester. Exeter has three exits off the highway, with a fourth just over the line in Stratham.  Epping has two exits off 101, with a third just over the line in Brentwood and is roughly equidistant between Interstate 95 and Interstate 93.

Demographically, Exeter is more than twice the size of Epping, although Epping added nearly four times the number of people (935) between the 2000 and 2010 census that Exeter did (298). Despite having similar highway access, and Exeter having a much larger population and a passenger rail station, Epping added 1,442 jobs over the time period, while Exeter lost 328.

Rail Chart 2

Rochester and Dover:

Rochester and Dover are similar communities in in terms of transportation connections. Both are close to, or on the Maine border and have four exits off of the Spaulding Turnpike, which connects to Interstate 95 in Portsmouth.

Population wise they are virtually identical; Rochester has 29,752 residents, while Dover has 29,987. In the last census, Rochester added 1,291 people, while Dover added 3,103, displacing the former as the fifth largest city in the state. Though the two cities are next to each other, the economies are quite different.

Dover’s job base is more service oriented, with a large number of jobs in insurance and finance (Liberty Mutual) and healthcare (Wentworth Douglass Hospital). The latter is particularly significant as one of the few bright spots in jobs market has been in the healthcare sector. Rochester’s economy on the other hand is more manufacturing oriented, a sector which saw 35,000 jobs lost statewide in this time period. The city was not immune to that decline, losing more than 1,700 jobs.

Rail Chart 3

 

Drawing Conclusions:

An analysis of town by town jobs numbers here in New Hampshire shows that merely having access to passenger rail does not create jobs. After a decade of continuous rail service in Dover added jobs, Durham remained unchanged, while Exeter lost jobs.

Can Dover’s impressive growth be attributed to regular passenger rail service? Not necessarily; both Epping and Concord saw greater growth rates over the time frame, and neither has passenger rail service. With the exception of the redevelopment of the downtown mills, the majority Dover’s growth has been on the peripheries of the city in industrial and business parks.

Rail Chart 4

It does not appear that Rochester’s loss has been Dover’s gain either. Comparing the jobs figures, there is no evidence that Rochester’s lost jobs simply moved to Dover. Rather, larger employment trends explain this shift. Statewide, the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen by more than 35,000, replacing them with roughly the same number of service sector jobs. Dover, with its large service sector, was well positioned to benefit from this trend, while Rochester, with its large manufacturing sector, was harmed by it.

Exeter’s loss of jobs is particularly telling because it turns the entire notion that rail service creates jobs on its head. The argument that rail minimized Exeter’s job losses does not hold much weight since neighboring Epping saw substantial gains.

What does this tell us about commuter rail’s ability to create jobs? From the studies that have been conducted after rail service has started and the experience of the Downeaster here in New Hampshire, simply having commuter rail does not create jobs. Rail, whatever its benefits may or may not be, is not a tool to spur job creation.

Click here to download a PDF version of this report.

 

 

[1] United States Census Bureau, ZIP Code Business Patterns Survey

[2] Thomas A. Garrett, St. Louis Federal Reserve, “Light Rail Transit in America” pg 25.

[3] Federal Transit Administration, “An Evaluation of the Relationships Between Transit & Urban Form” Pg. 11.

[4] Ibid 15.

[5] Ibid 16.

[6] Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan, “Land Value Impacts of Rail Transit Services in San Diego County” Pg. 24.

[7] Brookings Institution, Urban and Regional Policy and Its Effects, Vol. 3. Pg 284.

[8] Eric Beaton, “Impact of Commuter Rail in Greater Boston” Pg 46.

[9] David Luberoff, “Commuter Rail Can Take Us Only So Far”, Boston Globe, November 3, 2006.

[10] Garrett, St. Louis Federal Reserve, “Light Rail Transit in America” Pg 25.

/3 Comments/by

UPDATED: Commuter Rail in New Hampshire

February 2015

Josh Elliott-Traficante

This week, the Capitol Corridor Rail and Transit Study’s final report was released. The study, which began in 2013, examined a number of transit options for the corridor, with most of the public and political attention focused on the possibility of extending commuter rail into the state. The final study looked at 7 transit options, three for commuter rail, three for bus and a ‘no build’ option. These options were reduced to 5 with the elimination of two of the bus proposals from further consideration. This piece details the commuter rail options presented in the report.

 

Q: What is the Capital Corridor Project?

A: It is a proposal to extend commuter rail service north from Lowell, MA to Concord, NH, with intermediate stops in Nashua, Manchester Boston-Regional Airport and downtown Manchester. The line would roughly follow the Merrimack River. Trains would run into North Station in Boston.

 

Q: What were the rail options looked at by the study?

A: There were three rail options that were explored:

Nashua Minimum: This would be an extension of the MBTA Lowell Commuter Rail line, with service identical to what is found elsewhere on the MBTA system. It would run from Boston north, with a single New Hampshire stop in South Nashua. The service plan would have 20 trains a day.

Manchester Commuter: This would be an extension of the MBTA Lowell Commuter Rail line, with service identical to what is found elsewhere on the MBTA system. It would run from Boston north, making stops in South Nashua, Downtown Nashua, Manchester Airport and Downtown Manchester. The service plan would have 34 trains a day to Nashua, with 16 trains a day continuing on to Manchester.

Intercity 8 (Concord): This would be an Amtrak style train service, similar to the Downeaster. It would run from Boston north, making stops in Downtown Nashua, Manchester Airport, Downtown Manchester, and Concord. As the name suggests, there would be 4 southbound and 4 northbound trains per day, for a total of 8 trains a day.

 

Q: How much would it cost to build?

A: Costs are highly dependent on the scope of the improvements, such as single or double tracking the line, how far the line would run and frequency of service. The study provided costs in 2014 dollars as well as ‘Year of Expenditure’ dollars. Year of Expenditure dollars, which are estimates of the cost when building actually begins, are used below.[i]

Nashua Minimum: $148.6 million

Manchester Commuter: $303.4 million

Intercity 8 (Concord): $316.9 million

 

Q: Will Massachusetts pay for the upgrades for the section of track from Lowell to the state line?

A: They could. New Hampshire did sign an agreement with Massachusetts in 2001, with New Hampshire taking responsibly for all capital improvements required for such a service, including those needed in Massachusetts.[ii] However, there are signs that the case may be different today. As part of a larger deal, the MBTA acquired the trackage rights from Pan Am Railroad to run commuter trains as far north as Concord.[iii]

In addition, there is limited space for expansion at the Lowell station, and the lack of a layover yard on the line requires 6 trains a day to run without carrying revenue passengers so as to have trains in the right place for rush hour. Expansion into New Hampshire could relieve pressure on the Lowell station and find space for a layover yard. However, there is still the question where the MBTA can find the money for it.

 

Q: How much would it cost to run?

A: Operating expenses are the day to day costs, such as salaries for employees and fuel for the locomotives. A number of factors that go into projecting operating expenses, such as the number of trains in service and how many runs a day they are completing.[iv]

Nashua Minimum: $4.1 million

Manchester Commuter: $10.7 million

Intercity 8 (Concord): $7.7 million

 

Q: Would New Hampshire need to subsidize commuter rail?

A: Yes. Commuter rail service will require annual subsidies to maintain service. The study estimates that passenger fares will cover between 41% and 64% of operating and maintenance costs.

Nashua Minimum: $2.3 million, with fares cover 44% of costs

Manchester Commuter: $3.9 million with fares cover of costs 64%

Intercity 8 (Concord): $4.5 million with fares cover of costs 41%

These percentages, called a ‘Farebox Recovery Ratio’ for the Nashua Minimum and Intercity 8 are reasonable. However, the 64% used by the study for the Manchester Commuter is out of line when compared to existing commuter rail lines.

Assuming a farebox recovery ratio of 64%, would make the Capitol Corridor route the best performing commuter rail line in the nation. For comparison, the Downeaster covers 55%, the MBTA Commuter Rail System as a whole covers 48%. The best performing in the country, MetroNorth, covers 62.4%.[v] Given the experience of the MBTA and the Downeaster, a more reasonable ratio for the route would be in the 45%-50% range.

Subsidies required if Manchester Commuter farebox recovery ratio adjusted to:

45%: $6.0 million per year

50%: $5.4 million per year

 

Q: But isn’t the Boston Express Bus Service subsidized too?

A: It is, but to a far lesser extent than rail would be. Like most public transportation, this service is subsidized by the Federal government, through CMAQ grants. The Everett Turnpike Route received a subsidy of $119,000 in 2013, with fares covering 95% of costs. Each round trip rider on the route is subsidized to the tune of $226.30 per year. Rail service on the other hand, would require subsidies of $1,730.10 per rider, per year, more than 7.5 times higher than the bus.

Q: Where would New Hampshire get the money to pay for the train?

A: The study offers a rough layout for paying the capital costs, include Federal grants, which would cover roughly half the project. It assumes, as mentioned above, that Massachusetts will pay nearly $96 million, for rolling stock, trackage rights, and improvements on the Massachusetts side of the border. That would leave New Hampshire with a balance of $26 million in capital costs, or $32 million in year of construction dollars.[vi]

That money would likely come from bond proceeds, but after the explosion of state debt from 2007 to 2011 the state’s borrowing capacity is limited. The last capital budget was roughly $125 million, with a backlog of nearly $400 million worth of other projects. Bonding for a rail would mean putting off other projects.

For the ongoing operating subsidies, the report offered a wide range of options, including an additional state wide property tax, increased car registration fees, or contributions from cities that have train stations, likely leading to increased property taxes. It also suggested using money from the federal highway program. However, using those dollars would mean other construction projects already in the 10 year highway plan, would go unfunded.[vii]

Q: Could the state use money from the Gas Tax to pay for both construction and the subsidy?

A: No, Part II, Article 6-a of the NH Constitution[viii] forbids the use of Highway Fund dollars on anything other than highways. In a particularly relevant case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled unanimously in a suit brought by the New Hampshire Motor Transport Association (NHMTA v NHDOT 2004) that the state could not use highway funds to build a commuter rail extension into Nashua.[ix]

Q: How does the Downeaster, which runs from Brunswick ME, through the NH Seacoast into Boston, address these costs?

A: The capital costs of constructing the rail line were financed by the federal government, with the balance made up by a bond issue, backed by the State of Maine. Those bonds were repaid with general fund tax dollars. Funding for the extension of service to Brunswick was paid for entirely by federal Stimulus money.

Federal CMAQ money is used to cover some of the operating losses. Under normal circumstances, CMAQ money is only allowed for the first several years of service, however, through special Congressional approval, Maine is allowed to use funds long after they would have otherwise been phased out. The remainder of the operating loss is covered by a state tax on rental cars. The Downeaster covers roughly 55% of its operating costs through fares.[x]

Q: Won’t bringing rail to New Hampshire ‘pay for itself’ by creating jobs and expanding the tax base?

A: Unfortunately no. The Federal Transit Administration[xi] did an exhaustive study on rail stations’ impact and found that they rarely create new growth. Instead stations typically just redistribute growth that would have taken place elsewhere. Likewise the Brookings Institution[xii] found little evidence that transit impacts urban structures. They found that the only way to make transit have an impact, would be to make using private vehicles prohibitively expensive.

In layman’s terms, a train station plays no role in whether or not an entrepreneur opens a business, but it does play a role where it opens. For example, rather than opening up in Londonderry, a business might opt to open up on Elm Street in Manchester.

 

Click here to download a pdf version of this report

 

[i] Appendix 3: Financial Plan, Page 6: http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/aerorailtransit/railandtransit/documents/fr-app-3-financial.pdf

[ii] “Joint Statement of Principles Concerning Proposed New Hampshire Capital Corridor Service” (2001)

[iii] http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/news_events/?id=21232

[iv] Appendix 7: Technical Report, Appendix E, Pg 2: http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/aerorailtransit/railandtransit/documents/fr-app-7-detailed-eval.pdf

[v] Data Table 26, National Transit Database (2013)

[vi] http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130108/NEWS06/130109259

[vii] Appendix 3: Financial Plan, Pages 7-13: http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/aerorailtransit/railandtransit/documents/fr-app-3-financial.pdf

[viii] http://www.nh.gov/constitution/formofgov.html

[ix] http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2004/motor050.htm

[x] Data Table 26, National Transit Database (2013).

[xi] Cervero and Seskin, “An Evaluation of the Relationships Between Transit and Urban Form” Pg 3.

[xii] Urban and Regional Policy and Its Effects, Vol. 3, Pg 248.

Link to the full study: http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/aerorailtransit/railandtransit/corridor-rail-transit.htm

/4 Comments/by

Q&A: Commuter Rail in New Hampshire

Author’s Note [February 2015]: With the Capitol Corridor Study released, this paper is now out of date.

To read the updated version of this piece that incorporates the study’s findings, please click here or copy and paste the following link into your browser:

http://www.jbartlett.org/updated-commuter-rail-in-new-hampshire

February 2013

Josh Elliott-Traficante

This week, the New Hampshire Executive Council is taking up a contract for a study looking at bringing commuter rail to the state.

There is a common misconception that the state has not studied this idea recently; however two lengthy studies have been completed in the past six years. A 43 page study was done in 2007 by the Passenger Rail Taskforce which looked at service to Manchester and another of similar length was done in 2010 by TranSystems for the NH Rail Authority, NHDOT and the Nashua Rail Planning Commission which looked at the entire corridor to Concord. While neither study recommends for or against introducing commuter rail, they provide a wealth of information as to how much the route would cost.

From the studies it is clear that constructing the route in its entirety to Concord would cost roughly $300 million and require subsidies of $11 million a year to operate.

Since there has been discussion of extending rail either just into Nashua, or just as far north as Manchester with service to Nashua, cost estimates for these, calculated from data in the studies, have been included as well.

 

Q: What is the Capital Corridor Project?

A: It is a proposal to extend commuter rail service north from Lowell, MA to Concord, NH, with intermediate stops in Nashua, Manchester Boston-Regional Airport and downtown Manchester. Trains would run into North Station in Boston.

 

Q: How Much Would it Cost to Build?

A: Costs are highly dependent on the scope of the improvements, such as single or double tracking the line or how far the line would run. (i.e. just to Nashua or Manchester or all the way up to Concord.) NHDOT in the 2013-2022 Ten Year plan estimates the capital costs the cost at roughly $265 million[1] if the Corridor were completed in its entirety, while the most recent study puts the cost at closer $330 million in 2013 dollars.[2]

Lowell to Nashua: $53-$66 million

Lowell to Manchester with service to Nashua: $159-$200 million

Lowell to Concord with service Nashua and Manchester: $265-$330 million

 

Q: Won’t Massachusetts Pay for the Upgrades for the Section of Track from Lowell to the State Line?

A: Probably not. According to the Joint Statement of Principles Concerning Proposed New Hampshire Capital Corridor Service[3], signed between Massachusetts and New Hampshire in 2001, the state of New Hampshire is responsible for all capital improvements required, including those needed in Massachusetts. Furthering the point, Governor Deval Patrick’s recently released transportation proposal does not include the extension of commuter rail service north of Lowell, indicating a lack of interest in Boston for expansion on that line.[4]

 

Q: How Much Would it Cost to Run?

A: Once built, there are two different kinds of costs: operating expenses and ongoing capital expenses. Operating expenses are the day to day costs, such as salaries for employees and fuel for the locomotives. A number of factors that go into projecting operating expenses, such as the number of trains in service and how many runs a day they are completing. TranSystems[5]based their study on 5 round trips per day and the Passenger Rail Taskforce Study[6] with 4 round trips per day.

Lowell to Nashua: $2.7 million per year

Lowell to Manchester with service to Nashua: $8 million per year

Lowell to Concord with service to Nashua and Manchester: $13.25 million per year

In addition to operating expenses, there are also ongoing capital expenses beyond just building the railroad. Track needs to be replaced, locomotives breakdown, coaches need to be refurbished and so forth.

Lowell to Nashua: $600,000 per year

Lowell to Manchester with service to Nashua: $1.8 million per year

Lowell to Concord with service to Nashua and Manchester: $3 million per year

 

Q: Would the State Need to Subsidize Commuter Rail?

A: Yes. Both the TranSystems[7]study and the Passenger Rail Taskforce Study[8] highlight the need for ongoing subsidies to keep the train from going bankrupt. These two studies estimate that passenger fares will cover between 30% and 50% of operating costs. In addition, there are ongoing capital costs that need to be paid for as well. Taking those into account, estimates of total subsidies needed every year are as follows:

Lowell to Nashua:  $1.9 – $2.6 million per year

Lowell to Manchester with service to Nashua: $5.8 – $7.5 million per year

Lowell to Concord with service to Nashua and Manchester: $9.25 – $12.25 million per year

 

Q: Where Would the State get the Money to Pay for It?

A: The studies are largely silent on the specific sources of funding for either the capital costs or the operating subsidies, aside from relying on Federal money.

For the roughly $300 million in construction costs, the state would likely have to depend on either Federal grants or borrow the money through a bond issue. The New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority does have the authority to both solicit Federal dollars and issue bonds. Last month however, the State Treasurer urged lawmakers to limit capital bonding to under $125 million, making the latter unlikely.[9]

Money from the Federal CMAQ program (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality) can be used in the initial startup years to help cover the shortfall in operating costs. However, without special Congressional approval, it can only be used for a few years, not indefinitely. After the CMAQ money runs out, the state would have to find a source of money to cover the entirety of the shortfall itself.

 

Q: Couldn’t the State Use Money from the Gas Tax to Pay for Both Construction and the Subsidy?

A: No. Part II, Article 6-a of the NH Constitution[10]forbids the use of money from the Highway Fund on anything other than highways. In a particularly relevant case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled unanimously in a suit brought by the New Hampshire Motor Transport Association (NHMTA v NHDOT 2004) that the state could not use highway funds to extend commuter rail into Nashua.[11]

 

Q: How Does the Downeaster, which Runs from Brunswick ME, Through the NH Seacoast into Boston, Address These Costs?

A: The capital costs of constructing the rail line were financed by issuing bonds, backed by the State of Maine, which were repaid with tax dollars. Federal CMAQ money is used to cover some of the operating losses. Under normal circumstances, CMAQ money is only allowed for the first several years of service, however, through special Congressional approval, Maine is allowed to use funds long after they would have otherwise been phased out. The remainder of the operating loss is covered by a state tax on rental cars. The Downeaster covers roughly 53% of its operating costs through fares.[12]

 

Links to Past Studies:

Passenger Rail Task Force Study: (2007)

http://www.nashuarpc.org/publications/transportation/rail_proposal_draft.pdf

 

TranSystems: (2010)

http://www.snhpc.org/pdf/NHCCorridorOverview.pdf

 

Click here for a pdf version of Questions and Answers on Commuter Rail in New Hampshire

[1]http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/planning/typ/documents/unfundedlist.pdf

[12] http://www.kjonline.com/news/senate-oks-downeaster-subsidy_2012-03-14.html

/by

Rail Back on Track in New Hampshire?

A Look at the Costs Involved

Josh Elliott-Traficante

Yesterday’s approval by the Capital Budget Overview Committee to use Turnpike Credits to help fund a transportation study of the Capitol Corridor has revived hopes of commuter rail in New Hampshire. The Corridor project, if completed in its entirety, would see passenger rail service run from Concord through Manchester and Nashua, continuing south into North Station in Boston.

The project in terms of costs can divided roughly into four segments, totaling roughly $270 million from various sources:

1)      The Study: $4.4 Million

The study itself, the one moved forward Wednesday, will cost $4.4 million and take roughly a year to complete. Of the money being spent, $1.6 million the funds being used would come from from the state, while the balance would come from federal grants. Usually federal CMAQ grants require a state match but a clause in federal highway legislation allows money raised by tolls to be counted as that state’s match, allowing the state to receive the grants. The toll money, however, is not spent on the project itself and remains in the Turnpike Fund.

2)      Capital Costs, Construction: $250 Million

$250 million is a rough estimate of construction costs for the route by the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, as part of the latest 10 Year Highway Plan. This would include building roughly half a dozen stations along the route, building a second line in most areas, upgrading the existing one, rehabbing and upgrading countless rail crossings as well as reconstructing and expanding several bridges, including two across the Merrimack River. No funding source has been identified.

3)      Capital Costs, Rolling Stock: $15 Million

What good is a railway without locomotives and passenger coaches? This money would presumably come from the Federal CMAQ program. However, since CMAQ funding is a fixed amount based on the total appropriations the state receives every year, every dollar used for this project, would mean other local public transit projects might go unfunded. Under the current federal highway legislation, $15 million would represent roughly 1½ times the state’s annual CMAQ allocation.

4)      Operating Subsidies for 3 years: $5.25 Million

In addition to the capital costs of constructing the railroad and purchasing rolling stock, passenger rail will need subsidies. Every single regularly scheduled passenger route in the US relies on operating subsidies to run and New Hampshire would be no exception. Under NHDOT estimates, $5.25 Million would be needed over the course of the first three years of operation. Funding for this could also be done with federal CMAQ money.

It should be noted that these estimates do not include future capital expenses as well. While these are projections, they do give a sense of the cost of such a project. In comparison, the amount of money spent on just constructing the route ($250 million), spent elsewhere could fund the rest of the I-93 project from Exit 3 all the way up to Manchester, or it would fund all of the state’s pavement preservation and Red List Bridge needs for the next 10 years.

With more pressing transportation needs facing the state, such the maintenance and replacement of our aging infrastructure, one must ask, is passenger rail the best use of our limited resources?

/8 Comments/by