I would love to see an extensive commuter rail system that would allow people to travel throughout the New England area. From Bangor to Boston, from Burlington to Providence, from Laconia to New Haven, and all stops between, but I feel that we generally favor talking about infrastructure improvements over actually completing infrastructure projects.

Kathy great work keeping the commuter rail debate going. Presenting both sides of an issue is what you do best. Looking forward to hearing what the opponents have to say and what the studies will recommend.

Almost every damn "manhole" in the city is sinking and cars are swerving to avoid them, but we have new carpet in city hall, new digs for the city clerk's office, millions being spent on a new road (Broad St 'Parkway') for which there is no groundswell of need, and now more money is wanted for another boondoggle project.

My sense is that not a single person advocating for this gross waste of money will ride their new rails more than a couple of times a year, but they'll be smug in the satisfaction that they've found yet another way to take from the taxpayers to satisfy their egos.

I suspect that there's a committee already formed to decide which politician's names will go on which bridges and stations.

I have no problem with commuter rail as long as the commuters using the rail pay for their commute. In MA now, the commuter rail rider pays for less than half the cost of their ride. The rest is made up for by taxes and fees not related to the rail system. The commuters should pay their fair share and not rely on subsidies from others..

I might take the train occasionally but it would never have worked for my commute. I've worked for companies in Waltham, Newton, Framingham, Bedford and Cambridge, Nothing anywhere near north station...

Rail is not just about commuters. Freight is a profitable industry for many railroads in the west. Trucking gets more and more expensive every year................

This line served as the route for Boston to Montreal service, it ran through Concord, New Hampshire, along this line until 1966.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Line

A copy of what a scheduel might look like
http://www.nhrra.org/capitol.php

NHRRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization. One of the requirements of retaining that designation is not engaging in any political activity. The IRS says a 501(c)(3) organization " ... may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities ... "

According to the NHRRA website's list of their initiatives, they are focused on the 'action' item of getting rail service reestablished in NH. "The NHRRA aims to jump-start the project regarding this corridor, getting Phase II of the study going." is one of their stated action items. Since they do not put forth a plan to raise the funds via donations, it's clear to me that they are lobbying for governmental (i.e., taxpayer) support.

In my opinion, this organization is participating in banned 'action' activities, as well as governmental lobbying, another unacceptable practice for an organization striving to maintain its 501(c)(3) status, and should lose their tax exempt status.

It upsets me greatly that an organization dedicated to establishing a service that taxpayers will have to support can do so under the tax exempt banner of being a 501(c)(3) organization.

"Revenue Code: section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity....
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention."

I'd say Part (c) is sufficiently vague that whether they can do this legally depends on Executive practises over time, which history I think would tend to support them as Atlant says. --DP

The last time I checked this rail proposal's operating costs would be paid for in part by special property tax assessments on homes and business in towns close to the line in addition to the taxes you already are paying. Many are already stretched to the limit with current levels of property taxation. This is completely uneconomical to operate. Just add more buses if more capacity is needed. The bus line service currently in place works well.