(The following column by Mark Richardson appeared on the Union Leader website on July 24. Mr. Richardson, of Bedford, N.H., is a member of the New Hampshire Railroad Revitalization Association.)
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Passenger trains move people around quickly, efficiently and safely. They are environmentally friendly, aid national security by reducing reliance on scarce resources, and help at times like this when one in four state residents does not drive and $4-a-gallon gas hurts many of those who do.
These — and many other — benefits are clear. The issue in New Hampshire, with no sales or income tax, is the belief that trains always lose money. Prudence is laudable, but we need to stop looking at only train operating costs and start looking at the overall economic impact rail service has on communities.
Private companies can only compare the cash costs and revenues related to running the train itself. State government can justifiably take a wider view and should look at the effect on overall finances from rail service, not just the narrower view of the train service itself. This includes, for example, revenues such as new property taxes that wouldn’t have existed without the initial rail investment.
What would be different if we took that wider view? Maine, for example, has a passenger train called the Downeaster that actually has three stops in our state on its way from Boston to Portland. It has been so successful that Maine is investing a further $30 million to extend service beyond Portland to Brunswick.
The service currently requires annual cash support of around $8 million per year. Is Maine showing a lack of fiscal responsibility? No, it is it the overall anticipated economic impact of the Downeaster that provides the key.
Forecasts indicate likely private investment in Maine of more than $7 billion over the next 20 years — $130 million already — as well as 17,000 new jobs and 40,000 new residences, investments that would not occur without rail service. Property taxes from these developments should eventually rise to $75 million per year, providing Maine with a 160 percent return on its investment. Maine provides us with a mature, sophisticated model for investing for the future.
The New Hampshire Capital Corridor is a project under way here aimed at providing frequent, reliable passenger rail service between Concord, Manchester, Bedford, Nashua and Boston, a more densely populated corridor than in Maine.
Skeptics in New Hampshire still say our residents won’t use trains, yet more than 50 percent of Downeaster passengers already get on or off in New Hampshire. This supports UNH studies which indicate that 85 percent of state residents support passenger rail.
But will this project simply help export jobs to Boston? This is unlikely, as the service will help regenerate downtown Nashua, Manchester and Concord, and bring jobs to the state, not take them away. The Bedford stop will help the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport expand, and a stop right outside the entrance of Pheasant Lane Mall would bring Massachusetts residents here to shop tax-free.
The construction cost, estimated by the New Hampshire Rail Revitalization Association at around $200 million, could be reduced by federal grants and private contributions to a state match of $30 million, or $2 million annually after bonding. With $10 million needed each year to run the service, the total annual support to start with will be around $12 million. However, based on Maine’s experiences, it is likely that the economic impact will create new state revenues in excess of this figure within 8 to 10 years.
This is responsible, long-term investing in our infrastructure that offers a real return for residents. It should prove compelling to fiscal conservatives, normally opposed to passenger rail, as it strips out peripheral “feel good” factors and concentrates only on the economic return.
New Hampshire must compete across New England, as our region must do nationally and our nation globally. Only world-class infrastructure allows us to do so. A rail project like this is not something we can’t afford to do; it is something we can’t afford not to do.