Home » Opinion » Editorials
Off rail: The study we don't need
Last year the all-Republican Executive Council voted against spending $1.9 million to "study" whether commuter rail would work for New Hampshire. Supposedly the study would be objective. But the New Hampshire Department of Transportation already has studied commuter rail and determined that it would not be cost-effective. And the passion with which commuter rail believers have pushed this allegedly objective study indicates that they all believe it will reach the conclusion they want it to reach.
When the legislative Capital Budget Overview Committee approved the study two weeks ago, Nashua Board of Aldermen President Brian McCarthy, a rail supporter, called it "great news" and was quoted by The Telegraph of Nashua as saying "this gets us closer to having rail as a reality."
Nashua Mayor Donnalee Lozeau told The Telegraph, "Getting this study done is so important because whether you're for rail or not for rail, unless the study is done, we're not going to be able to move forward or not move forward."
Well. It does not take a $1.9 million study to "not move forward" with commuter rail. All it takes is the realization that the money to build a rail line (estimated at $300 million, but likely more) and operate it (estimated at about $8 million a year, but likely more) is not available. The state does not have it. Nashua has nothing close to it. And Washington, $16.4 trillion in debt and counting, has run deficits of more than $1 trillion a year for each of the last four years because it hasn't the money to fund all of its existing commitments.
Sure, commuter rail is popular in Nashua. That is for two reasons. One, people think a line will run through the Gate City. It might not. Two, they expect others to pay for it. They might not.
The primary allure of passenger rail is that it is something for nothing. Public officials in cities that lie on potential future rail lines perceive massive benefits at tiny costs. They envision thousands of new residents and lots of business growth, with the costs borne primarily by federal and state taxpayers, not local taxpayers.
The 3-2 Democratic majority on the Executive Council, which is the next body to consider whether to approve taxpayer money for this "study," is expected to approve the study. Unlike the last council, the new one is receptive to the idea that fiscal responsibility means spending other people's money on one's own luxuries.
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Kuster's abortion lies: Claims against Garcia are untrue - 28
- The Obamaconomy: Shea-Porter shows its flaw - 29
- Smith schools Hassan: Leadership in Londonderry - 0
- Where officers live: Manchester is missing the point - 4
- Leo Bernier: For Hillsborough County Commission - 0
- Insurance exchanges Sam's Club or Obama's club? - 11
- Garcia and Guinta: For a change, send them to DC - 22
- Jeanne's travel ban: She doesn't want Obama here - 14
- Making it up: Shameless state Senate attacks - 9
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Salem coach Rich has seen playoff runs from both sidelines - 0
- Monarchs' Schultz leads by example - 0
- Manchester Marathon day to draw about 1,700 runners - 0
- Roger Brown's First and 10: Londonderry vs. Salem is a playoff contest - 0
- Another View - Jeanne Shaheen: What it means to put New Hampshire first - 0
- Another View -- Scott Brown: To change direction, we need to change senators - 1
- Patricia LaFrance: For Hillsborough County Attorney - 0
- Giving Max effort for the Wildcats - 0
- Another View -- Cass R. Sunstein: The hidden tax you pay when you wait - 0
School's out for voters
Trump fired up over NH mailer