New Hampshire Commuter Rail Discussion

F-Line had pointed out how there is difficulty getting the commuter rail at least to Plaistow.
I'm wondering if at least in the case of Plaistow, maybe the Downeaster could make a stop there, as the train passes through Plaistow anyway on its run to Portland. At least until such a time that the commuter rail to Plaistow can be agreed upon. Not necessarily all Downeaster trains, but perhaps one or two "key" trains a day could stop there in each direction. This way, Plaistow gets some service, while not adding running time to all trains on the route. Such a service, IMHO, could serve to
"break the ice" for commuter rail, as it would be a placeholder for any subsequent commuter rail. Perhaps this has been discussed before, so please bear with me here.

Frankly, I think that until such time that New Hampshire kicks in some financial support for any service, things should remain just as they are. One could almost say that the folks in Maine have been getting fleeced from the freeloading attitudes of both PAR [a nicely upgraded ROW] and the state of New Hampshire [3 stops].

atlantis wrote:F-Line had pointed out how there is difficulty getting the commuter rail at least to Plaistow.
I'm wondering if at least in the case of Plaistow, maybe the Downeaster could make a stop there, as the train passes through Plaistow anyway on its run to Portland. At least until such a time that the commuter rail to Plaistow can be agreed upon. Not necessarily all Downeaster trains, but perhaps one or two "key" trains a day could stop there in each direction. This way, Plaistow gets some service, while not adding running time to all trains on the route. Such a service, IMHO, could serve to
"break the ice" for commuter rail, as it would be a placeholder for any subsequent commuter rail. Perhaps this has been discussed before, so please bear with me here.

The Downeaster already stops @ Haverhill which is not too far down the track so there's no need for any of the 10 trains to stop there.

If NH decides not to do anything about Plaistow then let it remain that way until they decide to put forth the necessary funding, etc. Given that Haverhill isn't too too far a drive from the border the urgency of it becoming a reality might not be that high even if it is a priority in some way.

atlantis wrote:F-Line had pointed out how there is difficulty getting the commuter rail at least to Plaistow.
I'm wondering if at least in the case of Plaistow, maybe the Downeaster could make a stop there, as the train passes through Plaistow anyway on its run to Portland. At least until such a time that the commuter rail to Plaistow can be agreed upon. Not necessarily all Downeaster trains, but perhaps one or two "key" trains a day could stop there in each direction. This way, Plaistow gets some service, while not adding running time to all trains on the route. Such a service, IMHO, could serve to
"break the ice" for commuter rail, as it would be a placeholder for any subsequent commuter rail. Perhaps this has been discussed before, so please bear with me here.

I agree with all of the other previous posters and would simply add this.

"It's a New Hampshire problem" and solely a New Hampshire problem. Let them figure out what they think should be done. Plaistow adds nothing to the Downeaster of any benefit that I can see. I'm not even confident there would be additional riders, as most of them likely board at HHL.

If New Hampshire feels they have a problem with the commute to Boston then they should consider how to solve this problem. If commuter rail happens to be one of those solutions then they should take steps to implement a commuter rail solution. Until then as far as I'm concerned they can "take it or leave it". For the moment the answer seems to be that they are in fact very satisfied with the available options. In regards to the funding scheme there will be a day of reckoning eventually. When or how I don't know but it will come in due time.

There's no reason Plaistow commuters can't commute from Haverhill. There's a bigger market Manchester/Londonderry/Derry/Salem.

>obliterated

It was my understanding railbanked ROWs cannot be obstructed?

eustis22 wrote:It was my understanding railbanked ROWs cannot be obstructed?

Correct. Question is, "Was the RoW railbanked whole or abandoned in part?"

gokeefe wrote:

eustis22 wrote:It was my understanding railbanked ROWs cannot be obstructed?

Correct. Question is, "Was the RoW railbanked whole or abandoned in part?"

NHDOT owns all of the M&L under landbanking except for the segment from town line-to-town line in Derry. The line is unobstructed throughout that ownership break, but there is one tricky portion in downtown Derry for 1-2 blocks on either side of Route 102 where it basically went straight through the parking lots of what are now retail businesses and condos. And for a lot of Derry it ran right by the side of the road. Inconvenient if you ever envision a full commuter rail schedule running that close to the sidewalk. But you're not talking consequential blockers by any means. The line IS completely intact up to the airport fence, all of these driveways are secondary access points to buildings that already have primary access driveways on the other side, and downtown Derry is not exactly built-over with density. Nor will it encroach the ROW any further because the trail is protecting the property lines. You just might have to build it single-track there. But it's not like the service density on this end-to-end line is going to demand much more than single + ample number of passing sidings for most of its length.

IF...40 years from now when we're elderly...restoration is an acute enough need that trumps the trail by enough magnitude...it will not be a difficult de-abandonment. And will never ever require median-running on 93. There are easier ways around the airport. Instead of turning north at Harvey Rd. you can stay on the south side of the fence on due-west alignment with Wieczorek Drive, then cross the Merrimack on a new span and junction with the NH Main right there. That's all of 1.8 miles of "new" ROW, way cheaper to swing than running up 93 for miles and miles to find the first injection point onto the old north-of-airport ROW or all the way to the NH Main. Or...you can deviate onto the power line ROW at the point where the current ROW passes under 93, flank the east side of the airport parallel to Route 28, and rejoin the north end of the old ROW where S. Willow St./28 curves around the north airport fence. About 3.5 miles of "new" ROW, also many miles shorter than the 93 median.



NHDOT is just justifying the existence of such a wastefully wide highway median. There is no transit that would ever run there when the population density and all the high-use stops cluster around the old ROW and detouring around that airport gap on one or more pretty short, dead-obvious, and wide-open trajectories is a way better use of future funds.

Plaistow residents are standing up against the proposed layover with a lawn sign campaign. The signs depict a large steam locomotive (PM #1225?) belching smoke with the bold text NO LAYOVER. I have seen zero signs in support of the big T.

It wasn't railbanked when that part was obliterated by airport expansion. I'm not sure what parts of that line are banked. You could PROBABLY get some kind of commuter rail service from Salem to North Station if you put the money into the ROW with a station somewhere around Rockingham Park - but north of there it just doesn't look good.

Doing a little research, I found that all traffic north of Derry ended in 1987 and it was "the early 1990s" (I would guesstimate 1991 based on other articles about the airport) when "Part of the line was sold to Manchester Airport to extend one of the runways".

djlong wrote:It wasn't railbanked when that part was obliterated by airport expansion. I'm not sure what parts of that line are banked. You could PROBABLY get some kind of commuter rail service from Salem to North Station if you put the money into the ROW with a station somewhere around Rockingham Park - but north of there it just doesn't look good.

Doing a little research, I found that all traffic north of Derry ended in 1987 and it was "the early 1990s" (I would guesstimate 1991 based on other articles about the airport) when "Part of the line was sold to Manchester Airport to extend one of the runways".

Railbanking law went into effect in 1986, and in addition to that many in-progress ICC abandonment dockets as of '86 were granted an expedited amendment process to stick in the new landbanking exemption when the law took effect. Likewise, there was another slate of re-opened dockets from ~1982-85 that got re-amended as landbanks in cases where ROW property had not yet changed hands or no further action had been taken on disbursement of the line (it is common practice to this day to re-open dockets for obscure administrative/paperwork reasons...the M&L itself in MA just had its closed '08 docket reopened for a 'do-over' because PAR forgot to submit a map!). I know the MBTA did a 'do-over' landbank amendment to the 1984 abandonment of Bay Colony's trackage rights on the Greenbush Line west of Cohasset, so these types of maneuvers were more common in the Northeast where the states owned or actively sought purchase of majority of their rail networks.


So in all likelihood every piece of the M&L that NHDOT owns is real-deal landbanked. Except for that curious ownership gap in Derry. Obviously it's physically impossible for the airport to ever give up the 'interim' use of the ROW, but like I said there are wide-open bypass options on both the north and south ends of the runway fence for a re-route that are going to be permanently available should that day ever come. And render an I-93 median a completely non-preferred alternative because the extra mileage involved is so much more expensive than just swerving around the airport.

p42thedowneaster wrote:Plaistow residents are standing up against the proposed layover with a lawn sign campaign. The signs depict a large steam locomotive (PM #1225?) belching smoke with the bold text NO LAYOVER. I have seen zero signs in support of the big T.

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/new_ha ... eb43c.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yup. There will never be a train station in Plaistow the way this is deteriorating. It's all over but the shouting.



Atkinson, NH is also hilariously fighting the layover site alternative that sits on the Haverhill side of the state line: http://goo.gl/maps/6V5Bs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Something about that being a grave inconvenience to the Post Office almost 1000 ft. away. Fortunately for Haverhill Line riders there's not a whole lot Atkinson pols can do to block a train yard that sits in Massachusetts except play Operation Chaos on the planned access driveway to Hilldale Ave. that would've snaked around the back lot of that small office building and shared their driveway. That does poke onto Live Free or Die terra firma. But they can easily just play switcheroo and flip the driveway to the south side of the building entirely in MA and say "nyah-nyah".

The blighted trucking yard would get land-swapped in the deal (they are amenable). And then there are no structures in Massachusetts within a well-buffered half-mile of the site except for the active Pan Am customer on Fondi Rd. (who I'm guessing has zero issue with idling trains). That's the MBTA's out. Given that the last umpteenth-round preferred alternatives presentation weren't much different from the prior rounds the T's telegraphing that it's sick of this and ready to wash its hands of all this trouble. I bet they pull out this year, act on the Hilldale Rd. site within their borders, and tell the Atkinson selectmen "Come at me, bro." from the safety of their home turf.

Bradford layover relocation has been ID'd by the state as a high-priority environmental justice project because that's a legit fumes and noise issue for the closely-abutting and poorly-buffered residents. The facility is overcrowded, which prevents schedule expansion after the double-track project is done. And is technologically substandard compared to most other layovers on the system with not nearly enough plug-in pads for shutting down the locomotives; when those tracks are stuffed back-to-back on the overnight and before shift changes about half the engines in the yard have to idle HEP-on. Which is legitimately unacceptable. That's an untenable situation that can't be easily fixed onsite, so pulling out of Bradford is a non-optional move. Haverhill has no issue whatsoever with the Hilldale Rd. site because Bradford is the pressing issue to them. And they'd much prefer out there vs. going back to the even smaller and even more densely-abutting MOW yard 3 blocks north of Haverhill station that served as the layover before Bradford opened in the 1980's.

Good news for Haverhill riders. Bradford gets all the relief it seriously needs, the schedules have room to expand, and everyone's happy. Maybe there's even a revival of the 1980-81 plan for a Rosemont St. station to load-spread away from the downtown stop. The T still owns the land. It's walking distance to the only areas of City of Haverhill that aren't in easy walking distance of Bradford or the downtown station. There's TOD potential immediately surrounding (esp. on that sprawling adjacent junkyard parcel). It does a somewhat effective job diverting I-495 and border-crossing traffic before it over-fills the downtown lots (not as much as Plaistow itself would've, but a good-enough consolation prize). The MVRTA bus that terminates at Cedar Brook shopping plaza at the state line from a North St. and Route 125 'loop' route...with a bus stop on the 125 flank at the end of Rosemont Rd. Easy enough to just take a short diversion and loop at the station during rush hour. And it would be relatively cheap stop to build and operate being at the grade crossing for easy ped access, being very near the Hilldale Rd. layover for convenient turns, with flat expanse of zoned-industrial land directly abutting. No one has talked about this as a Plan B because salvaging the Plaistow stop has been the priority, but I wouldn't be surprised if feelers get put out for Rosemont Redux as soon as Plaistow dies its merciful death.

Do you suppose they'll still roll all the way up to cpf-273 to access the inbound track for spite?

No doubt, the Plaistow folks will scream about all the traffic on Rte. 125 that would be going to a new Rosemont Ave. station. I can't say I blame them, though. It's a mess there during rush hours. I think the idea was to pull traffic off I-495, but can't remember if there was to be a connector off it to the new station or not.

This "theater of the absurd" tragi-comedy of watching New Hampshire kick and scream against any form of public transit not based on highways is becoming more impressive by the month. I can't wait to watch the horror show get completely out of control as New Hampshire continues to creak and groan towards complete gridlock on their routes to Boston. This is the formula that made the Lynchburg Northeast Regional such a success in Virginia. It will be no less impressive to watch the effect on New Hampshire ridership on the Downeaster, low gas prices or not. I can only begin to imagine how bad traffic on I-93 and US-3 will be by the time a political consensus in favor of commuter rail emerges. Based on current reactions I don't think we are anywhere close yet.

Manchester will happen when we have a solid plan in place to pay for it to be built and pay for it to operate.

I am all for spending money on infrastructure but this project will benefit so little of the state it has to be done right.