Martin L. Gross and Thomas F. Irwin
The Eagle-Tribune's editorial of July 15, ("Rail service bills many to benefit a few") accuses the Conservation Law Foundation and many others of having "made a fetish of rail service" by pushing harder for restoration of commuter rail service in New Hampshire.
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines "fetish" as, among other things, "an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion." Yet, there's nothing "irrational or obsessive" about CLF or anyone else supporting reactivation of rail as a critical part of New Hampshire's transportation planning. Indeed, when gas prices are skyrocketing, highway construction costs are galloping, carbon emissions are driving climate change, and highway-induced sprawl is scarring our landscape, rail makes perfect sense as a transportation option for commuters and residents in the Granite State.
In fact, passenger rail service is enjoying a renaissance nationwide, as travelers weary of the increasing cost of gas flock to train service and other affordable forms of public transportation. A nearby example: With three stops in New Hampshire, Amtrak's Downeaster, running from Portland to Boston, has experienced an explosive 28 percent increase in ridership during its latest fiscal year and is considering expanding service yet again to meet growing demand. Are the Downeaster's passengers indulging a fetish. or are they instead exercising a sensible choice?
Merely because passenger rail will require public financial support doesn't make it a fetish either, any more than any other form of transportation, including the single-user automobile. Does The Eagle-Tribune object to publicly funded highway projects, on the ground that taxpayers in one region of the state may not actually use roadways maintained or improved with their tax dollars elsewhere? Does it object to supporting schools with revenues derived from taxpayers who are childless or whose children go to private schools?
In contending that rail would only "benefit a few." the editorial ignores that rail restoration has broad economic impact, bringing with it public benefits that go far beyond the individuals who make direct use of the service. Strategically located train stations are powerful economic engines that can revitalize downtowns and promote compact, mixed use development. As was emphasized at last week's forum at N.H. Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, commuter rail service has played a pivotal role in the economic and quality-of-life transformation of nearby Lowell, and the Downeaster is projected to catalyze billions of dollars of economic development in Maine and New Hampshire.
And, of course, rail can provide other significant benefits beyond pure economics. Because trains consume 21 percent less energy per passenger mile than automobiles, they help combat global warming and reduce reliance on foreign oil. These benefits can't be matched by dumping more public investment into support for single-user automobile traffic. Shifting more travel to rail will also reduce wear, tear and congestion on our state and local roads, easing the ever-increasing economic burden of maintaining and expanding roadways.
The benefits of investing in rail are being more widely recognized by transportation planners at both the state and federal levels. The N.H. Department of Transportation, in a recently released draft of its Long Range Transportation Plan, acknowledges the need for New Hampshire to transform its transportation network into a more balanced system — one that includes rail, and that advances the broader goals of promoting economic development and smart growth that give people the opportunity to drive less. At the federal level, a congressionally established commission has concluded that our nation's "highway era" has come to an end. It has recommended substantial changes in transportation policy and investment to ensure a balanced system that gives people the opportunity to drive less by including rail and public transit as essential, integrated components.
The paper's own readers understand this, too. Responses to The Eagle-Tribune's editorial, as posted on the newspaper's Web site, overwhelmingly demonstrate that people in New Hampshire see the value and need for rail. As noted in one comment: "It's archaic thinking like this that works to ensure N.H. will never meet its growing transportation needs."
Ironically, rather than the supporters of rail, it may be The Eagle-Tribune's position that involves "irrational reverence and obsessive devotion" to old solutions that no longer work, and that are out of touch with existing circumstances and the needs of New Hampshire citizens. In short, it's a "highway fetish" which, if New Hampshire is to have a truly sustainable transportation system that gives people choices, must come to an end.
nnn
Martin L. Gross is chairman of the New Hampshire State Board of the Conservation Law Foundation. Thomas F. Irwin is senior attorney for the CLF's New Hampshire Advocacy Center.
><p>
