Does the bulk of the NH population really want to spend billions for a system that would only serve 1/10th of 1% of the population?
There exists a FaceBook page called “Passenger Rail for Concord and New Hampshire” dedicated to promoting commuter rail from Massachusetts to Concord, NH. Rumor has it that the founder of the page does not live in NH, but is from Boston…
The page recently posted an October 7, 2019 article by transit engineer (retired) Dick Lemieux after which some commenters accused Lemieux of not providing any ‘facts’. Lemieux is a qualified professional who has been providing factual information for many years, information which would indicate that commuter rail should NOT be supported. Dick’s facts come from sources such as the EPA and the NH DOT…
From his October 7 piece in the Monitor:
“According to the EPA, the number of days that ozone (smog) levels in New Hampshire exceeded healthy levels peaked at 42 unhealthy days in 1988 and has been trending downward ever since.
The EPA estimates that, between 1980 and 2015, aggregate emissions of six common transportation pollutants fell by 65% while the population grew by 14% and vehicle miles traveled grew by 106%.
Americans are traveling more than twice as far while generating only one-third as much air pollution. The average pollution per vehicle-mile traveled has fallen by a stunning 83%.
Congratulations, drivers! All those extra dollars you spent on emission controls on your vehicles have paid off handsomely in terms of healthier air. Instead of thanking you, the powers that be are trying their darndest to undo those gains. Professional and amateur environmentalists and health guardians have been curiously silent.
As if totally ignorant of such astounding success, the New Hampshire Legislature has combined forces with train lobbyists to plunge us into a more polluted future by attempting to shift an insignificant share of commuter trips from clean highway vehicles to trains that are driven by much, much dirtier locomotives.”
When Governor Sununu failed to veto SB 241 he opened the floodgates for more taxes — sales, income or both. He let the bill become law without his signature, showing his ambivalence. Perhaps he doesn’t want to anger his business contacts, but at the same time, knows his conservative base is dead set against this boondoggle. Let’s hope the legislature will have the common sense to repeal SB 241 in the future.