Critics say rail agency might shortchange North Country, Lakes Region

By Chris Dornin

Lawmakers received half a dozen proposed amendments this week to a Senate bill that would create an unfunded rail authority to plan, design, build and manage future commuter and tourist lines similar to the Downeaster, which gets an $11 million annual subsidy from Maine to bring passengers from Portland to Boston.The new authority would eventually look into existing lines like the Hobo Railroad in the Lakes Region and the freight run from Portland through the New Hampshire North Country.The proposed quasi-public agency would have full autonomy to take out bonds, seek federal funds, hire staff, and administer all the states rail corridors. It would do all this without legislative oversight or an initial appropriation.Rep. Jim Ryan, D-Franklin, chairs the House Transportation Committee, and asked the bills supporters if they had evaluated the impact of a major free-standing agency like this on the states 10-year transportation plan.Isnt this another Department of Transportation? he asked.Catherine Corkery, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club and its 5,000 members statewide, warned the bill might shut all three regions out of getting new rail projects. Most of the initial board members for the authority would come from Manchester, Nashua, Bedford and Merrimack. Those towns would gain from the first major rail project spelled out in the bill, she said. Thats a commuter rail from Manchester to Nashua and Lowell, with connections to Boston. Its plan has already received substantial federal funding, and most of the designs are completed. Concord officials offered an amendment that would define this first project as reaching all the way north to the state capital.Corkery feared the few empowered towns in the south would wield the statutory clout to axe a project from another part of the state and keep any limited funding for their own region. She urged officials from the Seacoast, the Lakes and Coos County to lobby the House Transportation Committee to protect their interests before the bill goes to the House floor.Theres an imbalance in the makeup of the board, she told the House Transportation Committee. But it ought to represent the whole state. We do support taking rail out of the Department of Transportation, though. Thats huge. Its failed to bring rail to this state.Cliff Sinnott, executive director of the Rockingham Planning Commission, has followed the bill closely. He had shared the same initial concern as Corkery, but he asked the main author of the legislation how it would apply to the Seacoast.Steve Williams, director of the Nashua Regional Planning Commission, told him the board for the rail authority would include representatives from towns with existing rail lines. Sinnott assumed that clause brings at least Exeter, Dover and Durham to the planning table.Ill take Steve at his word on that, although the bill is ambiguous, Sinnott said. I agree we certainly want this part of the state included.Rep. Paul Ingersoll, D-Berlin, defended the interests of the North Country.The other side of the mountains often gets forgotten down here, he said. I dont see Northern New Hampshire in this bill. We have a rail line to Portland. It transports a lot of freight.Senator John Gallus, R-Berlin, agreed the issue transcends Manchester and Nashua.We have to take care of that line from Portland to Berlin, he said. The rails are in pretty decent condition. Its one of the best maintained lines in the state.Rep. Alida Millham, R-Gilford, said shes interested in anything that conserves energy and cuts auto emissions, which rail is supposed to do. But she likes to spend taxpayer money with care.The authority sounds intriguing, she said.Its unclear how it would deal with a major lawsuit that looms over all the states transportation projects. Attorney Tom Irwin of the Conservation Law Foundation is suing the state in federal court over its alleged failure to do a serious study of rail alternatives to widening Interstate 93 to four lanes each way. If the plaintiffs win the case, it might delay by far the largest highway project in the state. Regulatory snags have already driven up the cost of that 19-mile project north from Massachusetts. It was $275 million in the late 1990s, $450 million two years ago, and an estimated $700 million now.Irwin welcomed a rail agency, but agreed with Corkery it needs to have wider representation. He also hoped the state would do a solid study of a rail line in the I-93 median or one several miles to the east of the highway along an abandoned rail route that still exists. Several years ago the estimated cost for either of those projects was in the $200 million range.Rep. Gene Chandler, R-Bartlett, wasnt sure how the Berlin rail needs would stack up if the bill became law. But he had a strong opinion about the Law Foundation.I hope that case is dismissed out of hand, Chandler said. They ought to be made to pay the added costs of the construction. It would be pure folly to do what theyre asking the court for. The public should be outraged about it.