O P I N I O N

The SOAPBOX

Stand up. Speak up. It’s your turn.

“Everyone loves trains. But when passenger rail enthusiasts get wound up, basic rules of business — like cost efficiency, the law of supply and demand, even common sense — go right out the window.”  (Bob Morrison: Downeaster’s run to Brunswick a poor investment – Lewiston Sun Journal, 8/10/2014)

In her Feb. 1 “Soapbox” piece (“Manchester needs passenger rail”), Rep. Kathy Staub says she doesn’t mind the state paying for things she will never use.  Okay, but evidently she supports the state paying for things that are grossly expensive but that almost nobody will use.

History proves that, given a choice between passenger rail and congested roads, commuters will overwhelmingly choose the latter.  I-93 in Mass and I-95 in Maine are highly visible nearby examples of under-utilized trains near over-capacity roads.  NH is no different.  There is insufficient rail demand to justify the expense.

For the second time in as many sessions, Rep. Ankarberg has introduced a bill that would prohibit spending state money on passenger rail.

That has a good ring to it…but wait!  So far there hasn’t been any state money spent on passenger rail; it’s all been federal funds.  Nothing in HB110 would slow the squandering of federal money so Rep. Staub has nothing to fear from the passage of HB110.

Beg to differ? Agree to disagree? Your thoughtful prose on topics of general interest are welcome. Send submissions for consideration to publisher@manchesterinklink.com, subject line: The Soapbox.