New Hampshire Executive Councilor Raymond S. Burton (R-Bath) has come out for high-speed rail corridor designation from Portland, Maine to Montreal, Quebec via the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad, portions of which cross Burton's northern N.H. district.
"Declaration of a High Speed Rail corridor starts the process of feasibility studies, encourages local, regional and state officials to look toward rail commuter and passenger service to regions that may not have enjoyed this service." Burton noted in explaining his support.
All of which raises the question as to whether Boston/Montreal rail service will come first to Maine rather than the far shorter route through New Hampshire via Nashua, Manchester, Concord, White River Jct. and Montpelier. But the N.H. routing, would involve working with Guilford Rail System as well as numerous other entities. It has been the subject of three recent public hearings where overwhelming support was registered.
There are 13 high-speed rail corridors designated nationwide by the Federal Railroad Administration which mandates that all institutional (political), infrastructure, ridership potential and public involvement be evaluated.
Although New Hampshire's commitment to the return of rail is often questioned, recent hearings over whether to double the width of I-93 from the Massachusetts State Line to Manchester -- some 18 miles at a cost of $420 million -- has raised questions about whether this form of mass transportation makes the most sense environmentally and for communities along the way. Adding lanes to highways has a way of attracting more vehicles and often, shortly after completion, the widened highway is as clogged as the old one. This is called the "magnet effect."
At the Concord rail hearing Nov. 12, several participants questioned consultant Parsons Brinckerhoff's figure of 12 cents per mile
as the cost of operating an automobile when the AAA uses 43.9-61.7 cents. But rail study director Ron O'Blenis defended his use of the lower figure
saying that was what automobile owners perceived as their cost, not what it actually was. In calculating potential ridership, it was this
perceived cost that would impact driver's decisions whether to take the
train.
P-B is now recommending that the rail feasibility study move into a second phase which would include looking more closely at the viability of bringing back rail, development of an operating plan, needed infrastructural improvements, capital and operating costs and the benefits of rail.
