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
- Syracuse, Iowa crowned top party schools - 0
- Parking fines cause disputes, raise revenues - 1
- Jon Cavaiani dies at 70; desperate stand in '71 led to Medal of Honor - 0
- Meriam Ibrahim, family welcomed as long journey ends in Manchester - 2
- Moose International files suit to claim Claremont lodge - 0
- NH man's wife flies to Rome, meets Pope Francis after giving birth on death row in Sudan - 2
- Manchester postpones Fourth of July celebration - 0
- Reports say Sudanese Christian woman released; Manchester relative hopeful - 0
- 'Cadillac' health tax costs draw big worry - 13
READER COMMENTS: 2
- Another View - Rick Santorum: When Israel needs our help, we have to be there - 0
- Man killed in Pelham motorcycle accident wasn't wearing helmet - 0
- Too much FahrvergnŘgen: Nashua man charged with indecent exposure while driving - 2
- Dan Tuohy's Granite Status: Garcia to air her first TV ad - 0
- Boston Red Sox hammer Jays for seven runs in 11th, win 11-7 - 0
- NH Motor Speedway to again host two Sprint Cup Series weekends in 2015 - 0
- St. Anselm football players practice ini August heat - 0
- White, Glenn lift Fisher Cats over Harrisburg, 6-4 - 0
- KSC field hockey first in coaches poll - 0
Backyard boulder kills Raymond homeowner
Reports: Market Basket doomsday plan would shutter 61 of 71 stores if deal not struck soon
GOP for legal pot? Hemignway's high help
Ohio's Rob Portman: GOP can win back Senate