SERVICE DEVELOPMENT 

PLAN 

NH CAPITOL CORRIDOR 

RAIL & TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS (PARTS A&B)

STATE PROJECT NUMBERS 16317 AND 68067-A 

DRAFT 

November 2014 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ ii 

Table of Contents 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 

1.0 RATIONALE, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................4 

1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 4 

Study Corridor Dynamics ...................................................................................................................... 5 

Project History and Planning Context ................................................................................................... 5 

Previous Corridor Planning ................................................................................................................... 6 

1.2 Project Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 7 

Project Need ......................................................................................................................................... 7 

1.3 Population and Employment ........................................................................................................ 9 

Population ............................................................................................................................................. 9 

Employment ........................................................................................................................................ 10 

1.4 Existing and Future Land Use ...................................................................................................... 12 

Travel Patterns and Market Analysis .................................................................................................. 12 

1.5 Transportation Facilities and Services ........................................................................................ 14 

Highway Facilities ................................................................................................................................ 14 

Public Transportation Services and Facilities ...................................................................................... 15 

Amtrak Downeaster Service ............................................................................................................... 15 

MBTA Commuter Rail Service ............................................................................................................. 15 

Regional and Local Bus Service ........................................................................................................... 15 

Freight Railroad Service and Facilities ................................................................................................ 15 

Air Travel ............................................................................................................................................. 16 

1.6 Economic Development and Land Use ....................................................................................... 16 

Access to Boston-based Employment ................................................................................................. 16 

Business Attraction in New Hampshire .............................................................................................. 16 

More Strategic and Sustainable Land Use Patterns............................................................................ 17 

Sustainability and Quality of Life ........................................................................................................ 17 

Environmental ..................................................................................................................................... 17 

Economic ............................................................................................................................................. 18 

Social ................................................................................................................................................... 19 

Quality of Life ...................................................................................................................................... 19 

1.7 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................... 19 

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 21 

2.1 Railway Facilities and Services .................................................................................................... 21 

Track Configuration............................................................................................................................. 24 

Ownership ........................................................................................................................................... 24 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ iii 

Railway Signal System and Traffic Regulation .................................................................................... 24 

Track Conditions and Potential for Upgrades ..................................................................................... 25 

Track Class and Maximum Speeds ...................................................................................................... 26 

Current Track Class and Speeds .......................................................................................................... 27 

Track Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 28 

Railway Bridges ................................................................................................................................... 28 

Highway Grade Crossings .................................................................................................................... 29 

Current Rail Passenger Services .......................................................................................................... 30 

Rail Freight Service .............................................................................................................................. 33 

2.2 Highway Facilities and Level of Service ....................................................................................... 36 

Highway Geometrics ........................................................................................................................... 36 

Breakdown Lanes & Managed Lanes .................................................................................................. 38 

Highway Level of Service .................................................................................................................... 38 

Peak Travel Speeds ............................................................................................................................. 39 

Travel Time Contours .......................................................................................................................... 40 

Highway Conditions Summary ............................................................................................................ 47 

2.3 Corridor Bus Services .................................................................................................................. 48 

Boston Express .................................................................................................................................... 48 

Concord Coach .................................................................................................................................... 51 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) ....................................................................... 51 

Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (MVRTA) ..................................................................... 52 

Greyhound .......................................................................................................................................... 52 

Dartmouth Coach ................................................................................................................................ 52 

Manchester Transit Authority (MTA) .................................................................................................. 52 

Nashua Transit System (NTS) .............................................................................................................. 52 

Concord Area Transit (CAT)................................................................................................................. 52 

Lowell Regional Transit Authority (LRTA) ........................................................................................... 52 

3.0 SERVICE ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................... 53 

3.1 Preliminary Intercity Passenger Rail Service Options ................................................................. 54 

Intercity 8 ............................................................................................................................................ 55 

Intercity 12 .......................................................................................................................................... 56 

Intercity 18 .......................................................................................................................................... 57 

3.2 Preliminary Commuter Rail Options ........................................................................................... 58 

Option 1: Concord Regional Rail Service............................................................................................. 59 

Option 2: Concord Commuter Rail Service ......................................................................................... 60 

Option 3: Manchester Regional Rail Service ....................................................................................... 60 

Option 4: Manchester Commuter Rail Service ................................................................................... 60 

Option 5: Nashua Commuter Rail Service ........................................................................................... 61 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ iv 

Option 6: Nashua Minimum Rail Service ............................................................................................ 61 

3.3 Preliminary Bus Service Options ................................................................................................. 63 

Base Service (Existing) ......................................................................................................................... 63 

Base+ (Base Expanded) ....................................................................................................................... 64 

BoS (Bus on Shoulder) ......................................................................................................................... 65 

Bus on Shoulder (BoS) Service ............................................................................................................ 66 

Benefits of BoS .................................................................................................................................... 67 

Safety .................................................................................................................................................. 67 

Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 68 

Bos+ (Expanded Bus on Shoulder) ...................................................................................................... 69 

3.4 Multimodal Options .................................................................................................................... 70 

3.5 Screening Preliminary Alternatives ............................................................................................. 70 

3.6 Final Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 72 

Concord Intercity Rail (IR8) ................................................................................................................. 73 

Manchester Regional Rail (CR 3) ......................................................................................................... 76 

Nashua Commuter Rail (CR 6) ............................................................................................................. 78 

Base+ (Base Expanded) ....................................................................................................................... 80 

BoS (Bus on Shoulder) ......................................................................................................................... 81 

BoS+ (Expanded Bus on Shoulder ) ..................................................................................................... 81 

3.7 Screening Final Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 82 

4.0 MARKET ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 85 

4.1 Ridership Forecasting .................................................................................................................. 85 

Limitations of the ARRF2 Model ......................................................................................................... 85 

Project Use of ARRF2 .......................................................................................................................... 86 

ARRF2 Base Case Lowell Line Forecast ............................................................................................... 87 

System Operational Characteristics .................................................................................................... 87 

CTPP Flows .......................................................................................................................................... 87 

ARRF2 Lowell Line Forecast: System Operational Characteristics ..................................................... 88 

Base CTPP Travel Flows ....................................................................................................................... 88 

4.2 Preliminary Intercity Rail Forecasts ............................................................................................ 89 

New Hampshire CTPP Worker Flows .................................................................................................. 89 

Comparison of Observed and Forecasted Ridership .......................................................................... 90 

City Boarding Distribution ................................................................................................................... 90 

Station Boarding Distribution ............................................................................................................. 91 

Preliminary Ridership and Boarding Estimates ................................................................................... 91 

Station Southbound Boarding Distribution ........................................................................................ 91 

Preliminary Estimates of Passenger Miles .......................................................................................... 91 

Final Intercity Rail Forecasts ............................................................................................................... 92 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ v 

4.3 Final Estimates of Passenger Miles ............................................................................................. 94 

Forecast Reductions in Automobile Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).................................................... 94 

5.0 RAIL SERVICE DESIGN AND OPERATIONS ............................................................................... 95 

Design Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 95 

Design Constraints, Assumptions and Paradigms ............................................................................... 95 

Intercity Passenger Rail Service Design Overview .............................................................................. 96 

Intercity 8 Rail Service ......................................................................................................................... 98 

6.0 STATIONS AND LAYOVER FACILITIES .................................................................................... 101 

Design Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 101 

Site Evaluation Criteria...................................................................................................................... 103 

Preliminary Station Sites ................................................................................................................... 104 

6.1 Nashua Station Options ............................................................................................................ 105 

Nashua: Crown Street ....................................................................................................................... 106 

North Nashua: Beazer-East ............................................................................................................... 111 

Bedford / Manchester Airport (MHT) ............................................................................................... 114 

6.2 Manchester Station Options ..................................................................................................... 118 

Manchester: Queen City Avenue ...................................................................................................... 118 

Manchester: Granite Street .............................................................................................................. 119 

Manchester: Spring Street / Bridge Street ....................................................................................... 123 

6.3 Concord Station Options ........................................................................................................... 126 

Concord: Depot Street ...................................................................................................................... 127 

Concord: Stickney Avenue ................................................................................................................ 129 

6.4 Evaluation of Station Sites ........................................................................................................ 134 

6.5 Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 135 

6.6 Station Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 136 

6.7 Layover Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 137 

Layover Design Requirements .......................................................................................................... 137 

Site Evaluation Criteria...................................................................................................................... 138 

Preliminary Layover Facility Sites ..................................................................................................... 140 

6.8 Concord Layover Facility Options ............................................................................................. 141 

Concord: Langdon Avenue Industrial Area ....................................................................................... 142 

Concord: Depot Street ...................................................................................................................... 142 

Concord: Stickney Avenue ................................................................................................................ 143 

6.9 Evaluation of Layover Facility Sites ........................................................................................... 145 

6.10 Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 145 

7.0 REQUIRED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND CAPITAL COSTS ................................................... 147 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ vi 

7.1 General Infrastructure Requirements ....................................................................................... 147 

Track .................................................................................................................................................. 147 

NHML Track Profile, Alignment and Maximum Allowable Speeds ................................................... 151 

Concerning Railway Curve Design ..................................................................................................... 152 

Setting New Passenger Speeds on the NHML .................................................................................. 153 

Estimated Costs for Track Upgrades ................................................................................................. 156 

New and Rebuilt Track ...................................................................................................................... 156 

Track Switches .................................................................................................................................. 158 

Automatic Highway Crossing Warning (AHCW) Systems ................................................................. 160 

Grade Crossing Track Renewals ........................................................................................................ 162 

Bridges .............................................................................................................................................. 162 

Stations ............................................................................................................................................. 163 

Layover Facilities ............................................................................................................................... 164 

Right of Way Improvements ............................................................................................................. 164 

Positive Train Control ........................................................................................................................ 165 

Railroad Appliances .......................................................................................................................... 166 

7.2 Non-Infrastructure Costs .......................................................................................................... 166 

Multipliers for Allowances ................................................................................................................ 166 

Railroad Services ............................................................................................................................... 166 

Land ................................................................................................................................................... 166 

Infrastructure Contingency ............................................................................................................... 167 

Rolling Stock ...................................................................................................................................... 167 

Trackage Rights ................................................................................................................................. 167 

7.3 Total Estimated Costs................................................................................................................ 168 

8.0 FORECAST OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES ..................................................................... 169 

8.1 Operating and Maintenance Costs ........................................................................................... 169 

Preliminary Estimates of O&M Cost ................................................................................................. 169 

Final Estimates of O&M Costs ........................................................................................................... 172 

8.2 Estimated Passenger Revenues ................................................................................................ 172 

Preliminary Estimates of Passenger Revenue ................................................................................... 172 

Final Estimates of Passenger Revenue.............................................................................................. 173 

8.3 Estimated Operating Cost Performance ................................................................................... 173 

9.0 PUBLIC BENEFITS ................................................................................................................. 174 

Vehicle Miles Traveled ...................................................................................................................... 174 

Station Area Benefits and Recommendations .................................................................................. 174 

Concord ............................................................................................................................................. 174 

Manchester ....................................................................................................................................... 175 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ vii 

Bedford/MHT .................................................................................................................................... 175 

Nashua .............................................................................................................................................. 175 

Economic Benefits ............................................................................................................................ 176 

Economic Benefits of Transportation Investments .......................................................................... 176 

Station Area Economic Development Benefits ................................................................................. 176 

Regional Economic Benefits .............................................................................................................. 177 

Equity Impacts .................................................................................................................................. 178 

Freight Service Benefits .................................................................................................................... 179 

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 181 

10.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCE ........................................................................................ 182 

10.1 Implementation ............................................................................................................................ 182 

10.1 Finance .......................................................................................................................................... 183 

10.2 Passenger Rail and Public Transportation Funding in the U.S. ..................................................... 184 

Common Sources of State Funding ................................................................................................... 184 

Common Sources of Local Funding ................................................................................................... 184 

Recent History in Passenger Rail Funding ......................................................................................... 185 

10.3 Annual Funding Needs .................................................................................................................. 187 

10.4 Federal Funding Sources ............................................................................................................... 187 

Federal Funding Sources and Financing Tools .................................................................................. 187 

FHWA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program ............................................ 188 

FRA Discretionary Programs ............................................................................................................. 188 

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery ........................................................... 189 

U.S. DOT TIFIA Credit Assistance ...................................................................................................... 189 

FRA Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program ................................................. 189 

10.5 Non-Federal Match Options for New Hampshire Services ........................................................... 190 

New Hampshire State Capital Program ............................................................................................ 191 

Parking Fees ...................................................................................................................................... 191 

Toll Revenue ..................................................................................................................................... 192 

Vehicle Registration Fees .................................................................................................................. 193 

Municipal Contributions ................................................................................................................... 193 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative .................................................................................................. 194 

Property Tax ...................................................................................................................................... 194 

Lottery Revenues .............................................................................................................................. 195 

Passenger Facility Charges ................................................................................................................ 195 

Value Capture ................................................................................................................................... 196 

MassDOT/MBTA Contributions ........................................................................................................ 196 

Fares .................................................................................................................................................. 197 

10.6 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 197 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ viii 

Appendix A: Intercity 8 Rail Service Option Schedule ............................................................................... 199 

Appendix B: Detailed Cost Estimates of Stations ...................................................................................... 200 

Appendix C: Detailed Cost Estimates of Layover Facilities ....................................................................... 204 

Table of Figures 

Figure 1-1: NH Capitol Corridor Study Area .................................................................................................. 4 

Figure 1-2: Current AM Peak Highway Volume-to-Capacity Ratios .............................................................. 8 

Figure 2-1: Existing Passenger Rail Services ................................................................................................ 22 

Figure 2-2: Historic and Existing Speed Profiles for NHML from Lowell, MA to Concord, NH ................... 23 

Figure 2-3: Current and Historical Speeds for NHML from Lowell, MA to Concord, NH ............................ 27 

Figure 2-4: Existing NHML MBTA Passengers Rail Services ........................................................................ 32 

Figure 2-5: Amtrak Downeaster Service Map ............................................................................................. 33 

Figure 2-7: New Hampshire Railroads by Owner and Type ........................................................................ 34 

Figure 2-6: New Hampshire Freight Rail Traffic by Commodity/Direction (percent of carloads) .............. 35 

Figure 2-8: Study Corridor Highways ......................................................................................................... 37 

Figure 2-9: Year 2013 AM Peak Hour Highway Level of Service ................................................................. 41 

Figure 2-10: Year 2013 PM Peak Hour Highway Level of Service ............................................................... 42 

Figure 2-11: Year 2013 Weekday Morning Inbound Speeds ...................................................................... 43 

Figure 2-12: Year 2013 Weekday Evening Outbound Speeds .................................................................... 44 

Figure 2-13: Year 2013 Evening Inbound AM Peak Period Travel Time Contours ...................................... 45 

Figure 2-14: Year 2013 Evening Outbound PM Peak Period Travel Time Contours ................................... 46 

Figure 2-15: Boston Express and Concord Coach Bus Routes .................................................................... 49 

Figure 2-16: Average Weekday Ridership and Service Velocity ................................................................. 50 

Figure 2-17: Boston Express Total Revenue Collected by Fare Type and Departure Time......................... 51 

Figure 3-1: Intercity Rail Service Options .................................................................................................... 54 

Figure 3-2: Intercity Rail Service Options .................................................................................................... 60 

Figure 3-3: Manchester Rail Service Options .............................................................................................. 61 

Figure 3-4: Nashua Rail Service Options ..................................................................................................... 62 

Figure 3-2: Bus on Shoulder in Minneapolis ............................................................................................... 66 

Figure 3-3: Preliminary Screening of Conceptual Alternatives ................................................................... 71 

Figure 3-4: Intercity 8 Rail Service .............................................................................................................. 73 

Figure 3-5: Proposed Maximum Passenger Speeds .................................................................................... 75 

Figure 3-6: Proposed Manchester Commuter Rail and Bus Service Configuration .................................... 76 

Figure 3-7: Proposed Nashua Commuter Rail and Bus Service Configuration ........................................... 78 

Figure 3-8: Existing Study Corridor Bus and Rail Services ........................................................................... 80 

Figure 4-1: ARRF2 Inputs ............................................................................................................................. 86 

Figure 4-2: Existing Lowell Line Station Buffers .......................................................................................... 87 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ ix 

Figure 4-3: NHML Proposed Station Buffers ............................................................................................... 89 

Figure 5-1: Proposed NHML Maximum Allowable Speeds ......................................................................... 97 

Figure 5-2: Intercity 8 Rail Service .............................................................................................................. 99 

Figure 5-3: Intercity 8 Stringline / Time-Distance Diagram ...................................................................... 100 

Figure 6-1: Potential Nashua Station Locations ........................................................................................ 105 

Figure 6-2: Site Photography .................................................................................................................... 106 

Figure 6-3: Parcel Map .............................................................................................................................. 107 

Figure 6-4: City of Nashua Excerpt from East Hollis Street Master Plan .................................................. 108 

Figure 6-5: City of Nashua Park and Ride Site Plan ................................................................................... 109 

Figure 6-6: City of Nashua Park and Ride Site Plan ................................................................................... 109 

Figure 6-7: Preliminary Station Design ..................................................................................................... 110 

Figure 6-8: Site Photography .................................................................................................................... 111 

Figure 6-9: Parcel Map .............................................................................................................................. 112 

Figure 6-10: Site Photography .................................................................................................................. 114 

Figure 6-11: Parcel Map ............................................................................................................................ 115 

Figure 6-12: Town of Bedford Concept Plans for Station Area (2010) ..................................................... 116 

Figure 6-13: Preliminary Station Design ................................................................................................... 117 

Figure 6-14: Historic Manchester Rail Station .......................................................................................... 119 

Figure 6-15: Site Photography .................................................................................................................. 119 

Figure 6-16: Parcel Map ............................................................................................................................ 120 

Figure 6-17: Preliminary Station Design ................................................................................................... 122 

Figure 6-18: Site Photography .................................................................................................................. 123 

Figure 6-19: Parcel Map ............................................................................................................................ 124 

Figure 6-20: Preliminary Station Design ................................................................................................... 125 

Figure 6-21: Potential Concord Station Locations .................................................................................... 126 

Figure 6-22: Historic Concord Rail Station ................................................................................................ 127 

Figure 6-23: Parcel Map ............................................................................................................................ 127 

Figure 6-24: Parcel Map ............................................................................................................................ 130 

Figure 6-25: Site Photography .................................................................................................................. 130 

Figure 6-26: City of Concord Storrs Street Extension Plans ...................................................................... 132 

Figure 6-27: Alternative City Plan for Storrs Street Extension .................................................................. 132 

Figure 6-28: Preliminary Station and Layover Design ............................................................................... 133 

Figure 6-29: Potential Concord Layover Yard Locations ........................................................................... 141 

Figure 6-30: Preliminary Station and Layover Design ............................................................................... 144 

Figure 7-1: Intercity Rail Service Option Proposed Track Configuration .................................................. 148 

Figure 7-2: Proposed and Historical Speed Profiles for NHML from Lowell to Concord .......................... 154 

Figure 7-3: NHML Curvature and Proposed Superelevation .................................................................... 155 

Figure 7-4: Proposed and Historical Speed Profiles for NHML from Lowell, MA to Concord, NH ............ 156 

Figure A-1: Intercity 8 Rail Service Option Schedule ................................................................................ 199 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ x 

List of Tables 

Table 1-1: Historical, Existing and Forecast Population in the Capitol Corridor Study Area ........................ 9 

Table 1-2: Zero Car Households in the Study Corridor ............................................................................... 10 

Table 1-3: Number of Jobs in the Five Counties that the Study Corridor Passes Through (2013 Q2) ........ 10 

Table 1-4: Projected Change in Industry Employment 2010 – 2020 .......................................................... 11 

Table 1-5: Capitol Corridor Study Goals and Objectives ............................................................................. 20 

Table 2-1: Passenger Service Summary 1910-1954 .................................................................................... 21 

Table 2-2: Federal Railroad Administration Track Class and Maximum Allowable Speeds (mph) ............. 26 

Table 2-3: MBTA Service, Ridership and Revenue Statistics ....................................................................... 31 

Table 2-4: MBTA NHML Peak Train Lineup ................................................................................................. 32 

Table 2-5: Highway LOS Thresholds ............................................................................................................ 39 

Table 2-6: Boston Express I-93 Service ....................................................................................................... 49 

Table 2-7: Boston Express Route 3 Service ................................................................................................. 49 

Table 2-8: Concord Coach I-93 Bus Service ................................................................................................. 51 

Table 2-9: MBTA I-93 Bus Service ............................................................................................................... 52 

Table 3-1: Preliminary Rail Service Options ................................................................................................ 53 

Table 3-2: Conceptual Bus Service Options ................................................................................................ 54 

Table 3-3: Initial Conceptual Design Miles and Travel Time to Boston ...................................................... 55 

Table 3-4: Historic Minimum Concord-Boston Travel Times ...................................................................... 55 

Table 3-5: Intercity 8 Preliminary Timetable .............................................................................................. 56 

Table 3-6: Intercity 12 Preliminary Timetable ............................................................................................ 56 

Table 3-7: Intercity 18 Preliminary Timetable ............................................................................................ 57 

Table 3-8: Initial Conceptual Designs: Miles and Minutes to Boston ......................................................... 59 

Table 3-9: Preliminary Bus Service Options ................................................................................................ 63 

Table 3-10: Base Service Bus Trips .............................................................................................................. 64 

Table 3-11: Base Service Travel Times to/from South Station ................................................................... 64 

Table 3-12: Base+ Trips ............................................................................................................................... 64 

Table 3-13: Base+ Travel Times .................................................................................................................. 65 

Table 3-14: BoS Trips................................................................................................................................... 65 

Table 3-15: BoS Travel Times ...................................................................................................................... 65 

Table 3-16: Estimated BoS Bus Travel Time Savings by Time of Day and Direction ................................... 68 

Table 3-17: BoS+ Trips ................................................................................................................................. 69 

Table 3-18: BoS+ Travel Times .................................................................................................................... 69 

Table 3-19: Preliminary Estimates of Basic Economic Performance Metrics for Preliminary Alternatives 70 

Table 3-20: Service Options Selected for Detailed Evaluation ................................................................... 71 

Table 3-21: Comparison of Intercity Rail Alternatives on Ridership and Net Operating Costs .................. 71 

Table 3-22: Final Service Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 72 

Table 3-23: Proposed Intercity 8 Timetable................................................................................................ 74 

Table 3-24: Intercity 8 Passenger Station Development Plan..................................................................... 75 

Table 3-25: Option 3 Passenger Station Development Plan ....................................................................... 77 

Table 3-26: Option 6 Passenger Station Development Plan ....................................................................... 79 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ xi 

Table 3-27: Key Economic Performance Metrics and Assumptions ........................................................... 82 

Table 3-28: Forecasts for Passenger Demand, Capital Cost, Operating Cost and Economic Metrics ........ 83 

Table 4-1: Lowell Line Base CTPP Flows ...................................................................................................... 88 

Table 4-2: Intercity Service Statistics .......................................................................................................... 89 

Table 4-3: Lowell Line Base and Intercity CTPP Flows ................................................................................ 90 

Table 4-4: Adjusted and Unadjusted Alternative New Riders Forecasts .................................................... 90 

Table 4-5: City Market/Level of Service Weighted Distribution Factors .................................................... 90 

Table 4-6: Preliminary Total Ridership and Southbound Boarding Forecasts ............................................ 91 

Table 4-7: Rounded Total Ridership and Station Level Boarding Estimates ............................................... 91 

Table 4-8: Forecast Southbound Boardings and Weekday Passenger Miles .............................................. 91 

Table 4-9: Intercity Rail Station Associations (June 26, 2014) .................................................................... 92 

Table 4-10: Intercity Rail Station Fares ....................................................................................................... 93 

Table 4-11: Annual Inter-City Rail Ridership Estimates .............................................................................. 93 

Table 4-12: Inter-City Rail Boarding Estimates ........................................................................................... 93 

Table 4-13: Passenger Miles ....................................................................................................................... 94 

Table 4-14: Inter-City Rail Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled ..................................................................... 94 

Table 5-1: Proposed Stations with Distance and Travel Time to Boston .................................................... 97 

Table 5-2: Historic Minimum Concord-Boston Travel Times ...................................................................... 97 

Table 5-3: Operating Characteristics of Proposed Intercity Rail Service Options ....................................... 98 

Table 5-4: Proposed Intercity 8 Timetable .................................................................................................. 99 

Table 6-1: Potential Station Sites .............................................................................................................. 102 

Table 6-2: Number of Required Intercity Rail Station Tracks ................................................................... 102 

Table 6-3: Preliminary Ridership Forecasts and Parking Space Requirements ........................................ 103 

Table 6-4: Preliminary Intercity Station Sites............................................................................................ 104 

Table 6-5: Site Evaluation Summary ......................................................................................................... 134 

Table 6-6: Estimated Station Construction Costs for Intercity Passenger Rail Development .................. 135 

Table 6-7: Assessed Land Value and Estimated Cost for Selected Station and Layover Sites .................. 136 

Table 6-8: First and Last Trains of the Day at Concord for the Intercity Service ...................................... 138 

Table 6-9: Potential Concord Layover Facilities ........................................................................................ 140 

Table 6-10: Concord Site Evaluation Summary ......................................................................................... 145 

Table 6-11: Estimated Layover Facility Capital Costs ................................................................................ 146 

Table 6-12: Assessed Land Value and Estimated Cost for Concord Layover and Station Site .................. 146 

Table 7-1: Maximum Passenger Train Speeds Through Curves on Shared Track ..................................... 153 

Table 7-2: Estimated Miles of New and Rebuilt Track by Type of Rail for Intercity 8 Rail Service ........... 157 

Table 7-3: Cost Parameters and Unit Costs for New Track ....................................................................... 157 

Table 7-4: New and Renewed Switches for Concord Intercity 8 Passenger Rail Option .......................... 158 

Table 7-5: New and Renewed Interlockings and Block Signals for Concord Intercity 8 Passenger Rail ... 159 

Table 7-6: Estimated Signal Costs for AHCW System Upgrades ............................................................... 161 

Table 7-7: Estimated Bridge Rehabilitation Costs ..................................................................................... 163 

Table 7-8: Allowances for Right of Way Improvements ........................................................................... 164 

Table 7-9: Unit Costs and Quantities of Railroad Appliances for Concord Intercity 8 Passenger Rail ...... 166 

Table 7-10: Professional Services and Incidental Items ............................................................................ 166 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ xii 

Table 7-11: Railroad Services and Estimated Days of Inspections and Flagging ...................................... 166 

Table 7-12: Assessed Land Value and Estimated Cost for Selected Station and Layover Sites ................ 167 

Table 7-13: Unit Costs and Quantities of Railroad Rolling Stock .............................................................. 167 

Table 8-1: Amtrak Chicago-Quad Cities Operating Cost Calculations ....................................................... 171 

Table 8-2: Amtrak Ethan Allen Operating Cost Calculation ...................................................................... 171 

Table 8-3: Preliminary Downeaster Operating Cost Calculation .............................................................. 171 

Table 8-4: Derivation of Preliminary Estimates of Intercity Rail Operating Costs .................................... 171 

Table 8-5: Final Estimates of Demand and Passenger Miles for Preferred Intercity Rail Service ............. 172 

Table 8-6: Preliminary Forecasts of Intercity Ridership and Revenue ...................................................... 173 

Table 8-7: Final Forecasts of Intercity Ridership and Revenue for Eight-Train-per-Day Service .............. 173 

Table 8-8: Final Intercity 8 Rail Service Option Performance Metrics ...................................................... 173 

Table 9-1: Total Development Potential for Preferred Intercity Rail Service .......................................... 177 

Table 9-2: Employment Impacts of Preferred Intercity Rail Service (Number of Jobs) ............................ 178 

Table 9-3: Forecast Gross Regional Product Impact of Intercity Rail Service (millions of 2014 dollars) .. 178 

Table 9-4: Equity Comparison of Intercity Rail and Existing Bus Service ................................................. 179 

Table 2-1: Common Sources of Local Funding .......................................................................................... 184 

Table 2-2: New Commuter Rail Systems in the U.S. and Primary Capital Funding Sources ..................... 185 

Table 4-1: Federal Funding Sources and Tools......................................................................................... 188 

Table 5-1: Summary of Funding Options for NHCC Alternatives .............................................................. 190 

Table 5-2: Annual Fare Revenue and Farebox Recovery Ratio ................................................................. 197 

Table 6-1: Intercity Passenger Rail Financial Assessment Summary (current year dollars in millions) .... 198 

Table B-1: Cost Factors Used to Calculate Proposed Station Capital Costs .............................................. 200 

Table B-2: Estimated Concord Station Capital Costs ................................................................................ 202 

Table B-3: Land Value of Proposed Intercity Passenger Rail Stations ...................................................... 203 

Table C-1: Cost Factors Used to Calculate Proposed Layover Facility Capital Costs ................................. 204 

Table C-2: Estimated Concord Layover Facility Capital Costs ................................................................... 206 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 1 

INTRODUCTION 

The New Hampshire Department of Transportation, working in concert with its counterparts in 

Massachusetts, conducted a 21-month project supported by both the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The New Hampshire Capitol Corridor (NHCC) Rail and 

Transit Study proceeded through 2013 and 2014 defining and evaluating opportunities to improve intercity transit service in the 73-mile corridor between Boston, MA and Concord, NH. 

Increasing transportation demand and growing concerns about mobility, economic development and 

quality of life have led the citizens and officials in New Hampshire and Massachusetts to explore options 

for new and improved transportation service along the northern end of the corridor. The NHCC Study 

evaluated a diverse set of rail and bus service options for improving connectivity along the corridor. 

These options would leverage existing transportation infrastructure, including railways owned by the 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and Pan Am Railways (PAR) as well as regional 

highways including U.S. Route 3, and I-93. A public-private partnership, supported by the State of New 

Hampshire, operates more than 80 weekday intercity and express bus trips between Concord, 

Manchester, Nashua and downtown Boston. The last permanent passenger rail service to Concord 

ceased operation in 19671. 

Study activities included: 

• Evaluating existing conditions: The study team engaged public and private stakeholders in New 

Hampshire and Massachusetts to understand the transportation and economic development 

problems they hope to address and the constraints they face in solving these problems. The 

team documented current and future conditions within the corridor to guide the development of 

alternatives that respond to current and future market conditions and infrastructure constraints. 

• Developing alternatives: The study developed a mix of three intercity rail, six regional and 

commuter rail, and three bus service alternatives that respond to opportunities and constraints 

along the corridor to address stakeholder concerns. 

• Evaluating alternatives: For each proposed service option, the study team estimated the cost to 

develop and operate the service, and projected future ridership. Parallel efforts evaluated how 

the service alternatives could be financed and managed and their impact on the environment, 

economic development, the existing transportation network, and the region’s high quality of life. 

• Recommendations: The alternatives were screened and refined to yield a mix of transportation 

service development options for New Hampshire and Massachusetts to consider for 

implementation. The recommended options include: 

o The most attractive of the three intercity rail service options, linking Boston and Concord 

with eight daily, 89-minute trips of making intermediate stops in Manchester, Manchester 

Airport, Nashua, Lowell and Woburn. 

 

1

 There was short-lived demonstration train in 1980-81. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 2 

o A regional rail service that would extend MBTA commuter rail service 30 miles north from its 

current terminus in Lowell, MA to Manchester, NH. 

o A Nashua commuter rail service that could potentially be implemented as a stepping stone 

towards regional service to Manchester. 

o Several bus options aimed at increasing the frequency, speed and reliability of existing 

commuter bus services. 

Organization of Joint FRA / FTA Study and the Service Development Plan 

The unique nature of the corridor is reflected in the innovative combination of funding streams used to 

finance this study. The FTA and FRA jointly funded this study to ensure that the broadest possible 

universe of alternatives was considered to address the corridor’s transportation issues. While these two 

funding streams supported one study, each agency designated the use of their funds for specific tasks 

and geographies. This Service Development Plan responds to the Federal Railroad Administration’s 

desire to identify and implement corridor projects and programs that will: 

• Serve as a catalyst for growth in regional economic productivity and expansion by stimulating 

domestic manufacturing, promoting local tourism, and driving commercial and residential 

development; 

• Increase mobility by creating new choices for travelers in addition to flying or driving; 

• Reduce national dependence on oil, and; 

• Foster livable urban and rural communities. 

In particular this project also lays the groundwork for the development of future intercity rail services 

north from Boston into New Hampshire and beyond. 

A Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan (PRCIP) that consists of the preparation of a NEPA 

environmental review will become the foundation for potential future efforts including engineering 

design, environmental reviews, permitting and construction. 

Service development planning is the technical analysis of new passenger rail (and related public 

transportation) services by progressively narrowing the set of reasonable alternatives that can best 

meet corridor needs. The Service Development Plan (SDP) lays out the overall scope and approach for 

the proposed service alternative as selected through the NEPA screening process. Among the primary 

objectives of the SDP are: 

• Clearly demonstrate the Rationale for new or improved passenger rail service; 

• Summarize analysis of the proposed new or improved passenger rail service and describe the 

alternative that would best address the Rationale and Purpose and Need as identified through the 

NEPA process; 

• Demonstrate the operational and financial feasibility of the new service; and 

• As applicable, describe how the implementation of the proposed Service Development Program 

may be divided into discrete phases. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 3 

This Service Development Plan focuses on the preferred intercity rail service option. In ten chapters it 

describes: 

1. Project Rationale, Goals and Objectives 

2. Existing Corridor Conditions 

3. Review of Service Alternatives including all modes and a review of metrics applied to screen and 

refine the final service options 

4. Market Analysis for the preferred intercity rail service 

5. Service Design and Operations for the preferred intercity rail service 

6. Infrastructure Requirements and Capital Costs for the preferred intercity rail service 

7. Stations and Layover Facilities for the preferred intercity rail service 

8. Projected Operating Costs and Revenues for the preferred intercity rail service 

9. Public Benefits of the preferred intercity rail service 

10. Implementation and Finance for the preferred intercity rail service 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 4 

1.0 RATIONALE, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

The fundamental starting point of any transportation planning effort is to identify the Rationale for 

improving transportation system service. To meet federal standards, this Rationale conforms to and 

supports the Purpose and Need Statement as mandated by the National Environmental Protection Act 

(NEPA)2. This Statement defines the public concern that provoked the need for the infrastructure 

investment studied in the environmental review process. The definition of the transportation problem, 

considers current and forecasted travel demand and capacity conditions. It also describes the 

transportation challenges and opportunities faced in the markets to be served by the proposed service. 

It also defines the goals and objectives the proposed service is intended to address. 

1.1 Project Description 

The New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Study is 

jointly funded by the Federal Railroad and 

Federal Transit Administrations. It was 

initiated by the New Hampshire Department of 

Transportation in cooperation with the 

Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

to explore and evaluate opportunities to 

improve public transportation service 

(intercity rail, commuter rail, express bus) 

along the 73-mile corridor between Boston, 

MA and Concord, NH. The corridor is 

presently served by express and intercity bus 

service between New Hampshire and Boston 

and by commuter rail and express bus service 

within Massachusetts. 

The most heavily used transit service in the 

corridor is the Massachusetts Bay 

Transportation Authority’s (MBTA) commuter 

rail service, which runs 25 miles between 

Lowell and Boston and carries more than 

17,000 passenger trips each weekday. 

Permanent passenger rail service has not been 

operated north of Lowell since 1967. A publicprivate partnership, supported by the State of New Hampshire, operates 80 weekday bus trips within 

the corridor between Manchester, Nashua and Boston. This service typically carries 1,800 passengers 

per day. A related private enterprise uses a state owned terminal to operate intercity bus service 

 

2

 For more information on the NHCC Purpose and Need Statement the reader is referred to the NHCC Project 

Purpose and Need Statement Technical Memorandum. 

Figure 1-1: NH Capitol Corridor Study Area 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 5 

between Concord and Boston that carries 150 passengers on typical day. Further south, several publicly 

operated express bus services link communities up and down the I-93 corridor in Massachusetts with 

downtown Boston. All together, the Massachusetts bus services carry 2,200 passengers on a typical day. 

For purposes of this study, the Capitol Corridor is defined as the area that includes the Nashua Regional 

Planning Commission (RPC), the Rockingham Planning Commission, the Southern New Hampshire 

Planning Commission, the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission, the Northern Middlesex Council of 

Governments, and the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). 

Study Corridor Dynamics 

Metropolitan Boston, like most large American cities, has been continuously extending its reach and 

geographic scope for decades. With a 20th Century highway network and 21st Century communication 

links, the economies of Boston, Nashua, Manchester and Concord have never been more closely 

intertwined. Boston’s zone of influence first moved beyond I-95/Route 128, then I-495 in 

Massachusetts, and now clearly extends into southern New Hampshire. It can be expected to continue 

expanding northward, in addition to westward and southward. 

The expansion of the metropolitan area and the Boston commuter-shed has contributed to congestion 

in the Capitol Corridor, especially near Boston and particularly on I-93. This congestion results partly 

from the fact that Route 3 loses its freeway functionality south of I-95/Route 128, which negatively 

impacts traffic flow on the Lowell-Nashua-Manchester side of the corridor. 

The congestion resulting from heavy north-south travel along corridor is exacerbated by sprawl-type 

suburban residential development patterns throughout parts of southern New Hampshire. Sprawl-type 

development contributes to increased vehicle miles travelled (VMTs) throughout the corridor. Denser 

development patterns do exist within the corridor, particularly in Nashua, Manchester and Concord. 

Business development and job creation in the northern two thirds of the corridor has not kept pace with 

residential growth, especially in the high-technology sectors that are flourishing in the southern third. 

This residential/employment disconnect exacerbates the transportation issues that are driving the 

Capitol Corridor study. 

The existing express and intercity bus services are not attractive to an especially broad market and 

employ a park and ride strategy with a focus mainly on collecting passengers at parking lots built near 

freeway interchanges. This is not a strategy that tends to promote the dense, sustainable development 

that leads to reductions in VMT. 

Project History and Planning Context 

Passenger rail service in the corridor started 175 years ago when a train from Boston first pulled into 

Nashua. Freight service on the line has run continuously since that time. Regular passenger rail service 

between Concord, NH and Boston, MA ended in 1967, with the exception of a brief restoration of 

service during a 1980-81 demonstration project. As the region has grown, traffic congestion on the 

main highway arteries has increased with adverse impacts on travel time and reliability for automobile 

and bus travel. Consequently, public interest in passenger rail service has grown as trains are insulated 

from highway congestion as well as concerns about air quality and sprawl. Since the 1980s, numerous 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 6 

studies and plans have supported the return of passenger rail service and expanded transit options in 

this corridor. 

• In 1984, the MBTA and the Boston and Maine Railroad studied an extension of commuter rail 

service to Nashua’s newly opened Pheasant Lane Mall. In the early 1990’s the NHDOT 

Commissioner Charles O’Leary and Congressman Dick Swett asked the MBTA to consider 

extending its commuter rail service into Nashua. 

• In 2006, the Community Advisory Committee to the New Hampshire DOT Commissioner 

recommended expanded passenger rail as one of the five “initial action items” in its final report, a 

component of the State’s long-range transportation plan. 

• In 2007, New Hampshire invested $35 million in new express bus services for travel from Greater 

Manchester and Nashua to Boston. NHDOT has also supported private bus service from Concord 

to Boston with purchase of buses and construction of a new bus terminal in Concord. 

• In 2007, the New Hampshire legislature created the New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority with a 

charge to establish passenger rail service in New Hampshire. 

• In 2009, the New Hampshire Climate Action Plan, prepared by the New Hampshire Climate 

Change Policy Task Force, recommended expanded passenger service as part of a balanced 

transportation system. 

Previous Corridor Planning

• In 2003, the state departments of transportation from New Hampshire, Vermont and 

Massachusetts commissioned a feasibility study for the Boston to Montreal rail corridor: Boston 

to Montreal High-Speed Rail Planning and Feasibility Study Phase I: Final Report. The study 

describes existing conditions, including within the Boston, MA to Concord, NH portion of the 

study corridor, and presents a ridership analysis of stations in the corridor. The study found that 

“further study of associated operational, engineering and cost/revenue factors is warranted”. 

• In 2004, NHDOT developed a Lowell, MA to Nashua, NH Commuter Rail Extension Project 

Environmental Assessment (2004), in anticipation of extending MBTA commuter rail service to 

New Hampshire. 

• The 2010 New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Project Overview, a white paper prepared for Amtrak 

detailed the corridor’s state of readiness to function as part of the federal High Speed and 

Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program. 

• Also in 2010, NHRTA commissioned Economic Impact of Passenger Rail Expansion along the New 

Hampshire Capitol Corridor. The report assessed the economic impacts of restoring intercity 

passenger rail service between Boston and Concord. The study supports the case that the 

implementation of passenger rail along this corridor is a net economic benefit for New 

Hampshire. 

• In 2011, the University of New Hampshire Survey Center conducted a poll of New Hampshire 

residents’ attitudes regarding the extension of commuter rail service on the Capital Corridor. It 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 7 

suggested that a majority of residents strongly favored extending commuter service into New 

Hampshire and a plurality supported using federal funding to study the issue. 

• In 2014, a second poll was conducted that found 68% of New Hampshire residents favor the 

Capitol Corridor project to extend passenger rail service up the Merrimack River valley into New 

Hampshire. Only 7% of the statewide sample opposed the service expansion, while twenty five 

percent were undecided or had no opinion. 

1.2 Project Purpose 

The purpose of the Capitol Corridor study was to: 

• Identify a multimodal public transportation strategy (considering intercity rail, commuter rail, 

express bus) that will leverage the existing transportation infrastructure to improve connectivity 

to and from Boston, the region’s largest economic hub; 

• Diversify transportation options and reduce single-mode reliance on roadways for the movement 

of people and goods; 

• Support mobility options that match emerging demographic trends and preferences in the 

corridor, and; 

• Maintain the region’s high quality of life through strategic infrastructure investments. 

Project Need 

The dynamics of the Capitol Corridor have contributed to the need for improved public transportation 

service, as described below. 

• Projected population growth will result in increased roadway congestion. As population density 

increases over the coming years, an increased number of multi-modal transportation options to 

Boston, the region’s largest employment center, will be critical to mitigate corresponding 

increases in roadway congestion, particularly along I-93 and Route 3. 

• New Hampshire’s existing transportation network does not effectively connect existing modes. 

Increased levels of corridor transit investment will improve local and regional mobility by linking 

travelers to the network of existing transportation modes: roadway, buses, commuter rail, heavy 

rail, light rail, bicycles, and airplanes. These increased linkages will improve ridership and usage 

across all of the modes, while promoting sustainable mobility. 

• Regional economy suffers from singular dependency on roads for movement of goods and 

passengers. Investing in transportation infrastructure that provides an alternative to roadway 

transport will provide new linkages for New Hampshire’s businesses, industries and residents to 

the New England and national transport network. 

• New Hampshire is experiencing a young professional “brain drain.” While the region’s overall 

population is projected to grow in the coming decades, young professionals are choosing to leave 

southern New Hampshire to be closer to the employment, cultural and social opportunities that 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 8 

are associated with larger urban centers. Improved transit connectivity will support the attraction 

and retention of young professionals within the Capitol Corridor. 

• New Hampshire is getting older. New Hampshire’s senior population continues to grow. 

Improved transportation services that support “car-light” mobility will be required to 

accommodate these emerging demographic and lifestyle trends, and will continue to make New 

Hampshire attractive to residents from childhood through retirement. 

• Residential development 

patterns resulting from 

population growth may negatively 

impact the region’s existing 

quality of life. If population 

growth is not guided through 

strategic infrastructure 

investments that promote 

efficiency, the resulting 

uncoordinated sprawldevelopment patterns will diminish 

the region’s high quality of life and 

negatively impact its unique 

character. 

• Improved transportation options 

will attract employers to New 

Hampshire and improve 

employment options for New 

Hampshire residents. A mismatch 

between locations of residence and 

employment forces many in New 

Hampshire to spend comparatively 

long periods of time commuting to 

work. Investing in more efficient 

transportation modes will improve 

connectivity between existing 

centers of residence and 

employment, and increased levels 

of multi-modal access may catalyze 

additional business investment 

within New Hampshire. 

• The existing transportation network cannot accommodate increased levels of demand without 

negative environmental consequences. The expansion of existing roadways and construction of 

new roadways will not be sufficient to sustainably accommodate the projected growth in travel 

Figure 1-2: Current AM Peak Highway Volume-to-Capacity Ratios
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 9 

demand, causing negative environmental consequences associated with an increased number of 

vehicle miles traveled and corresponding congestion. 

1.3 Population and Employment 

Population 

While both the New Hampshire and the Massachusetts portions of the corridor are projected to grow 

over the next two decades, the Massachusetts portion is projected to grow at a slightly faster pace. It 

can be anticipated that this population growth will increase demand on the transportation network, 

which may result in increased levels of congestion and travel times, particularly in the southern portion 

of the corridor which already experiences intense peak hour highway congestion. 

Table 1-1: Historical, Existing and Forecast Population in the Capitol Corridor Study Area 

Geography 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2035 

Total 

Change 

2010-

2035 

Percent 

Change 

2010-

2035 

MA study area 3,474,873 3,666,175 3,782,361 3,942,000 4,093,000 4,182,000 399,639 10.6% 

NH study area 647,011 733,134 775,520 801,029 832,598 840,034 64,514 8.3% 

Total 4,121,884 4,399,309 4,557,881 4,743,029 4,925,598 5,022,034 464,153 10.2% 

Source: MAPC, NMCOG, MVPC, NH OEP/CNHRPC 

Note: areas include Boston Region MPO, NMCOG, MVPC, CNHRPC, SNHRPC, Nashua RPC, and Rockingham Planning 

Commission, 

The nation’s largest population cohort falls between the ages 35 and 64. The fraction of New 

Hampshire’s total population that falls within that age cohort is higher than Massachusetts, New 

England or the nation. The growth of New Hampshire’s population over age 65 increased at a 

significantly faster rate between 2000 and 2011 than in Massachusetts, New England or the nation as a 

whole. 

The median age has increased within the study corridor, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New England 

and the United States. The increase in median age has been greatest within the study corridor (four 

years), which is more than twice the nationwide increase in median age during the same time period 

(1.7 years). 

Residents of New Hampshire and the study corridor are older and aging at a faster pace than the 

surrounding states and the nation. As New Hampshire’s residents age, a robust multi-modal 

transportation network that reduces reliance on single-car ownership will be necessary to support the 

continued mobility and maintain the quality of life of these residents. 

In addition to understanding existing and projected population growth, it is important to ensure that the 

specific needs of mobility-challenged populations are taken into consideration when developing and 

evaluating transport investment strategies. These households rely on public transportation for local and 

regional travel. Maximizing project benefits to these populations while minimizing adverse impacts is 

important to the success of expanded public transportation services (rail or bus) in the Capitol Corridor. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 10 

Table 1-2: Zero Car Households in the Study Corridor 

Geography 

Zero Car 

Households 

Total 

Households 

Percent of 

Households 

with Zero Cars 

Boston Region MPO 193,254 126,402 15.3% 

Merrimack Valley Planning Commission 13,644 143,769 9.5% 

Northern Middlesex Council of Governments 9,099 129,979 7.0% 

Massachusetts Total 215,997 1,537,150 14.0% 

Central New Hampshire RPC 2,958 54,519 5.4% 

Nashua RPC 3,533 87,570 4.0% 

Rockingham Planning Commission 2,798 80,423 3.4% 

Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission 5,937 124,784 4.8% 

New Hampshire Total 15,226 347,296 4.4% 

STUDY CORRIDOR TOTAL 231,223 1,884,446 12.3% 

Source: American Community Survey 2010 Five-Year Data 

Employment 

Employment levels within the five study corridor counties are shown in Table 1-3. Employment has 

generally been growing at one to two percent per year over the last five years. 

Table 1-3: Number of Jobs in the Five Counties that the Study Corridor Passes Through (2013 Q2) 

Geography 2013 Q2 2012-2013 Change 

New Hampshire 602,462 1.1%

Hillsborough County, NH 193,248 1.2%

Merrimack County, NH 75,768 1.0%

Rockingham County, NH 139,900 1.6%

Massachusetts 3,352,700 1.3%

Middlesex County, MA 847,700 1.9%

Suffolk County, MA 608,100 1.7%

New Hampshire Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics; http://ledextract.ces.census.gov/ 

Massachusetts Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, County Employment and Wages in Massachusetts – Second Quarter 

2013; http://www.bls.gov/ro1/maqcew.htm 

Massachusetts and New Hampshire each forecast industry growth (by the North American Industry 

Classification System) to 2020. Massachusetts organizes the projections by Workforce Investment Areas 

(WIAs), while New Hampshire uses the RPC jurisdictions. While the WIA boundaries do not exactly 

conform to the Capitol Corridor study area, the study area generally falls within four WIAs. 

Table 1-4 highlights the fastest-growing industries through 2020. The fastest-growing industry in each 

geography is highlighted in bold font. The fastest growing industries in Massachusetts are – with the 

exception of construction – service-oriented industries: finance and insurance, professional, scientific 

and technical services, and other services. New Hampshire’s fastest-growing industry – with the 

exception of professional, scientific and technical services in Nashua RPC – is health care and social 

assistance. These findings reflect New Hampshire’s comparatively higher older population and the role 

of Boston as a regional finance, technology and business service hub. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 11 

Table 1-4: Projected Change in Industry Employment 2010 – 2020 

NAICS Industry 

Massachusetts New Hampshire 

Boston 

WIA 

Greater 

Lowell 

WIA 

Lower 

Merrimack 

Valley 

WIA 

Metro 

North 

WIA 

North 

Shore 

WIA 

Rockingham 

RPC 

Central 

NH 

RPC 

Southern 

NH RPC 

Nashua 

RPC 

Construction 50% 41% 

Wholesale Trade 49% 33% 

Retail Trade 

Transportation and 

Warehousing 34% 

Finance and 

Insurance 60% 20% 

Professional, 

Scientific and 

Technical Services 

36% 44% 27% 22% 17% 23% 26%

Administrative / 

Support / Waste 

Mgmt. / 

Remediation 

 24% 26% 19% 20% 19% 

Health Care and 

Social Assistance 24% 25% 25% 24% 

Arts, 

Entertainment and 

Recreation 

33% 35% 

Other Services 43% 37% 

Source: Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, the Bureau of New Hampshire Employment 

Security 

Households within the study corridor have a median income over $80,000 per year. This is greater than 

median incomes of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New England and the nation. This may reflect the 

fact that the study corridor includes the most densely developed areas of Massachusetts and New 

Hampshire (where residents tend to have higher incomes) and excludes the majority of the lower 

density, rural areas (where residents tend to have lower incomes). Median household income within 

the study corridor has risen by two percent (in 2011 constant dollars) between 2000 and 2011, which 

outperformed New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New England, and the nation. 

While the study corridor fraction of the population living below the poverty line is lower than for all of 

New Hampshire, all of Massachusetts or the entire nation, it has increased 18 percent increase between 

2000 and 2011. As the population living in poverty grows, it will be increasingly important to provide 

these residents with lower-cost mobility options that reduce the need to own a car. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 12 

1.4 Existing and Future Land Use 

A legacy of New Hampshire and Massachusetts’ colonial and nineteenth century industrial past is the 

prevalence of the traditional town center pattern of development, which was designed to support 

pedestrian rather than vehicular traffic. This style of development has a comparatively high-density mix 

of uses in the “downtown” that is easily accessed on foot from the surrounding residential areas. While 

some infrastructure elements have been retrofitted to facilitate driving, the historic downtown 

development patterns of Boston, Lowell, Nashua, Manchester and Concord, and other smaller towns 

within the study corridor, reduce the prioritization of cars and elevate the role of pedestrian and nonmotorized modes of transportation. 

Another traditional land use pattern, particularly within the New Hampshire portion of the corridor, 

includes rural, farmland and open spaces. These land uses, and the environmental assets they preserve, 

are a critical element of New Hampshire’s identity and a major factor in the continued high quality of life 

for New Hampshire residents. 

As the population has grown over the decades and development has spread outside of these traditional 

town centers, auto-oriented, lower-density residential and commercial development patterns have 

emerged. These patterns, which can be found throughout the study corridor, are typically dominated by 

the segregation of land uses (as opposed to the mixed-use patterns that can be found in the town center 

style of development). These separated land uses are connected by comparatively few limited access 

roadways, which can result in increased levels of traffic congestion during peak travel times. 

Both Massachusetts’ and New Hampshire’s population is projected to grow over the next two decades; 

according to recent research one-quarter of New Hampshire residents were born in Massachusetts and 

the population of Massachusetts-born residents is growing faster than the population born in the state3

. 

Regardless of the source of the population growth, it will continue to exert increased development 

pressure on New Hampshire’s communities. In the absence of a strategic land use framework, this 

pressure could result in increased levels of congestion, encroachment into open spaces, and a reduced 

quality of life. 

Communities throughout New Hampshire and Massachusetts, including those within the study corridor, 

have recognized the potential costs associated with policy and regulatory inaction, and have undertaken 

numerous land use and development planning activities that are designed to encourage more 

sustainable land use patterns. 

Travel Patterns and Market Analysis 

Market analysis provides a critical first step to estimate travel demand in the Capitol Corridor. The 

market analysis provides the “big-picture” travel flows in the study area and identifies their relationship 

to the corridor by quantifying the total size of the travel market and key origin-destination travel 

patterns. 

 

3

Kenneth M. Johnson; Many New Voters Make the Granite State One to Watch in November; Carsey

Institute; http://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/IB-NHVoter08.pdf
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 13 

The geographic area of the Capitol Corridor travel market is defined by the existing track alignment 

along the banks of the Merrimack River extending north from Lowell through the proposed station 

locations of Nashua, Manchester and ending in Concord. This corresponds roughly with the US Route 3 

corridor in New Hampshire. The full length of the corridor varies by alternative, but at its maximum, 

generally runs from Concord’s intercity bus terminal adjacent to the rail corridor in the north, to Boston 

North Station in the south. This section will focus on the New Hampshire market in the proposed study 

area.4

This analysis focuses on the three main work and business travel markets in the Capitol Corridor, these 

are: 

• New Hampshire to Massachusetts, 

• New Hampshire to New Hampshire, and 

• Massachusetts to New Hampshire. 

Mobility of individuals and their ability to reach places of employment, particularly to locations outside 

their areas of residence, is highly dependent on the availability of an automobile. Workers without an 

automobile, or access to one, are transit dependent if they live outside walking or biking distance of 

their jobs. 

Corridor population5

 within the proposed service catchment area is an important indicator of the 

potential use of transportation infrastructure and services. The corridor connects the three largest cities 

in New Hampshire: Concord, Manchester and Nashua. These cities, as well as the other communities 

on the corridor, represent nearly 39 percent of the population and just over 41 percent of the 

employment in the entire State of New Hampshire. Concord, Manchester and Nashua by themselves 

account for 24 percent of the population and just over 27 percent of the employment in the state. 

• New Hampshire to Massachusetts Work Trip Market - The New Hampshire communities within 

the corridor generate approximately 200,000 work trips, of which over 28,000 (14 percent) are 

destined for locations in eastern Massachusetts. Of these 28,000 trips, approximately 10,000 (35 

percent) are destined to locations along the existing MBTA Lowell commuter rail line. These trips 

are the main component of the New Hampshire to Massachusetts market that would be served 

by the Capitol Corridor. 

• The main destinations of the New Hampshire work trips are Lowell and Boston/Cambridge. 

Lowell attracts just over 2,000 work trips from the corridor communities and Boston/Cambridge 

attracts just over 4,000. The Boston/Cambridge trips face severe congestion during work 

commuting times and are considered a very strong market for the Capitol Corridor service. 

 

4

The New Hampshire market is considered to be communities along the corridor and consists of; Concord, Manchester, 

Nashua, as well as Bow, Pembroke, Hooksett, Goffstown, Bedford, Londonderry, Merrimack, Litchfield, and Hudson.

5

Population, employment and commuting to work numbers are from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community 

Survey 5-year estimates.
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 14 

• New Hampshire to New Hampshire Work Trip Market - Of the approximately 200,000 work trips 

generated by the New Hampshire corridor communities, just over 170,000 remain in New 

Hampshire and a large majority of these nearly 148,000 stay within the corridor itself. Not all of 

these trips are part of the market that the Capitol Corridor project would serve, but they do show 

the relatively large number of work trips within New Hampshire. 

• The intra-New Hampshire market consists primarily of the work trips among the major cities of 

Concord, Manchester and Nashua. Excluding intra-city trips, the work trip market between these 

cities approaches 10,000 trips each weekday. 

• Massachusetts to New Hampshire Work Trip Market - This market is the smallest of the three 

major work trip markets, with a total of 1,370 work trips from the Massachusetts communities in 

the corridor to the cities of Concord, Manchester or Nashua. The majority of these trips are from 

the cities of Lowell (773) and Boston (300). Similar to the trips from New Hampshire to Boston, 

the trips from Boston face the severe congestion during peak commuting hours. 

1.5 Transportation Facilities and Services 

The Capitol Corridor’s robust transportation network includes roadways, highways, transit services, 

intercity passenger rail service, freight railroads, airport, and pedestrian and cyclist facilities. Despite 

the dense, multi-modal nature of this transportation network, peak highway demand outstrips available 

capacity and opportunities exist to improve connectivity between the current modes. 

Highway Facilities 

The limited access highways that connect New Hampshire’s major population centers to metropolitan 

Boston are I-93, US Route 3/Everett Turnpike, I-95/Route 128, I-293, and, I-495. These limited access 

highways cover 134 miles of limited access freeway facilities and interchanges, shared between the 

States of New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The breakdown on the corridor mileage is as follows: 

• I-93: 65 miles; 

• US Route 3: 49 miles; 

• I-95/Route 128: 11 miles; 

• I-293: 11 miles, and; 

• I-495: 9 miles. 

The corridor has experienced rapid population growth, and many of the new residents commute to jobs 

in Greater Boston. New Hampshire and Massachusetts have expanded the highway system to 

accommodate increasing traffic, and the prospects for additional expansion are unlikely due to financial 

and environmental constraints. At a minimum, the advent of passenger rail service may delay the need 

for further highway widening. Traffic volume at the state line on US Route 3/Everett Turnpike in Nashua 

grew by nearly 26 percent from 2002 to 2009, to 88,200 (average daily traffic), and projections are for 

continued traffic growth in the corridor in both states. More detail on existing highway conditions is 

provided in Chapter 2: Existing Conditions of this Service Development Plan. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 15 

Public Transportation Services and Facilities 

The Capitol Corridor has a variety of commuter and local bus operators, as well as MBTA commuter rail 

service and Amtrak intercity passenger rail service on the Downeaster line. 

Amtrak Downeaster Service 

Intercity passenger rail service between Boston and Portland was restored in 2001, after an absence of 

more than 35 years. The Downeaster service features five daily round trips between Portland and 

Boston North Station, with eight intermediate stops—Woburn, Haverhill, Exeter, Durham-UNH, Dover, 

Wells, Saco, and in season, Old Orchard Beach. On November 1, 2012, two daily Downeaster trains 

were extended to Freeport and Brunswick, ME. Ridership on the Downeaster service in Fiscal 2013 was 

nearly 560,000 passengers, up 3.4 percent from the year before. Most trains make the Boston-Portland 

trip in two hours, thirty minutes.6 More detail on existing intercity passenger rail service is provided in 

Chapter 2: Existing Conditions of this Service Development Plan. 

MBTA Commuter Rail Service 

On a typical weekday in 2013, Lowell was served by 44 MBTA revenue trains to and from Boston’s North 

Station. The 25-mile trip serving up to seven intermediate station stops takes 44 to 49 minutes. Six 

weekday non-revenue “dead head” trains run between Lowell and Boston to stage the service because 

there is no facility for the overnight storage or maintenance of the trains in Lowell. Typical weekday 

MBTA ridership on the entire line is 17,500 passenger trips, including both northbound and southbound 

travel. Lowell is the busiest station on the line with 4,280 weekday boardings and alightings. The 

running time between Lowell and Boston ranges between 45 and 49 minutes with a maximum allowable 

speed of 70 mph. The daily schedule includes approximately 150 daily deadhead train miles. More 

detail on existing commuter rail service is provided in Chapter 2: Existing Conditions of this Service 

Development Plan. 

Regional and Local Bus Service 

Seven regional and four local bus operators provide service within New Hampshire and intercity service 

to Boston and beyond. Boston Express provides the primary commuter service within the study area 

along the heavily congested Massachusetts segments of Interstate 93. Existing traffic congestion along I93 and Route 3 significantly impact scheduled travel times for express and intercity bus services. For 

instance, Boston Express’ 6:30am southbound departure from Londonderry (Exit 4) on the I-93 service is 

scheduled for a one hour trip to Boston South Station. Meanwhile, the 9:50am southbound departure is 

scheduled for a two hour and twenty minute trip, which is a built-in or induced delay of one hour and 

twenty minutes. More detail on existing bus services is provided in Chapter 2: Existing Conditions of this 

Service Development Plan. 

Freight Railroad Service and Facilities 

The New Hampshire Main Line (NHML) was, and remains, a principal artery of the Boston and Maine 

(B&M) Railroad’s network and a key economic link between the Granite State and the national 

economy. Since the 1980s the B&M has belonged to a regional amalgam of railroads initially called the 

 

6

Amtrak Fact Sheet, Fiscal Year 2013, State of New Hampshire
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 16 

Guilford Rail System, later changing its name to Pan Am Railways (PAR). Headquartered in Billerica, MA, 

PAR owns and operates the former B&M and Maine Central Railroads as an integrated system, roughly 

running from Bangor to Albany with numerous branches in New Hampshire and other New England 

states. North of Chelmsford, Pan Am refers to the route as its “Northern Branch.” More detail on 

existing rail freight rail service is provided in Chapter 2: Existing Conditions of this Service Development 

Plan. 

Air Travel 

Expanded public transportation in the corridor could create an additional connection between the 

Manchester-Boston Regional Airport and Boston. This would create a system in which the three 

principal Boston-area airports are connected by rail (with the MBTA Blue Line connection at BostonLogan Airport and the MBTA commuter rail connection to Providence’s TF Green Airport). ManchesterBoston Regional Airport is an important economic engine for New Hampshire and the region; creating 

jobs, facilitating commerce and providing access to the global marketplace. Manchester-Boston Regional 

Airport contributes over $1 billion annually to the region's economy and accounts for more than 3,500 

jobs in the three-county region contiguous to the airport. A connection to the airport through an 

intermodal station adjacent to the airport access highway would create new rail-air connectivity. 

Manchester-Boston Regional Airport strongly supports the development of passenger rail service in New 

Hampshire as part of a multi-modal solution to meet the growing and changing transportation needs of 

the region. The airport incorporated a review of passenger rail service (and an anticipated airport rail 

station) as a focus of its 2011 Master Plan Update and determined that there are important synergies 

between passenger rail and air passenger transportation systems. Manchester-Boston Regional Airport 

will benefit from both rail ridership by enplaning passengers (air travelers originating from the area and 

using passenger rail service to travel to the airport from their home or business) and deplaning 

passengers (air travelers accessing New England through Manchester-Boston Regional Airport and using 

passenger rail service to travel from the airport to their final destination). 

1.6 Economic Development and Land Use 

Access to Boston-based Employment 

Public transportation investment along the Capitol Corridor will improve multimodal connectivity 

between New Hampshire’s residents and Boston, the region’s major employment center. Expanded 

access to Massachusetts’ diversified employment base will benefit existing New Hampshire residents, 

and may encourage them to stay in their current communities rather than moving closer to Boston. 

Business Attraction in New Hampshire 

In addition to improved access to Boston’s employment market, public transport investment in the 

corridor may be leveraged to lure businesses into New Hampshire. Millennials – the 18- to 34- year olds 

that will rival the Baby Boomers in size and cultural influence – have repeatedly stated a preference for 

built environments that support a car-light or car-free urban-style existence. These Millennials are the 

rising “creative class” – those workers whose career orientation is towards ideas and innovation rather 

than heavy manufacturing and assembly lines. As businesses – particularly tech-oriented businesses – 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 17 

look for lower-cost alternatives to downtown Boston and more Millennial-friendly environments than 

the Route 128 corridor, the communities of the Capitol Corridor can increase their attractiveness by 

investing in non-automotive transport. Improved connectivity will not only improve access to Bostonbased employment, but can draw these “creative class” workers (and the companies that want to hire 

them) into the New Hampshire portion of the Capitol Corridor. 

More Strategic and Sustainable Land Use Patterns 

Access to the Boston employment market and the attraction of businesses into New Hampshire both 

rely on the efficient flow of people between their homes and places of employment. Regardless of any 

transport investment, travel in the corridor is anticipated to increase. In the absence of transportation 

network investment, this growth in travel will lead to increased levels of congestion and decreased 

levels of mobility. Simply expanding the roadway network is not a solution to this problem as it would 

likely induce additional demand, that in turn would further exacerbate the congestion problem. 

While mobility problems are most directly solved by transportation investment, land use patterns play a 

critical role in supporting the efficient movement of people and goods. In addition to using public 

transportation investment to expand transportation network capacity, strategic land use planning that 

focuses higher-density, mixed-use development near public transportation stations can reduce demand 

on the transportation network by supporting trip efficiencies. This land use pattern would reflect a 

return to the traditional New England “town center” style of development. 

More efficient land use patterns can also encourage the expansion of employment opportunities closer 

to home, resulting in shorter travel distances. This would reduce demand on the transportation 

network, which would reduce overall travel times and congestion. 

Sustainability and Quality of Life 

A sustainable transportation system is one that meets and balances the existing environmental, social 

and economic needs of a community without compromising resources for future generations. 

Environmental 

A portion of the New Hampshire character is rooted in the natural beauty of the state, including its 

mountain ranges, chains of lakes, sea coast, and protected forest land. The environmental impacts of 

increased levels of development and corresponding growth in transportation network demand may 

negatively impact these environmental assets unless proactive investments in sustainable infrastructure 

are pursued. 

New Hampshire’s Energy, Environmental, and Economic Development Benchmark Report7

, released by 

the New Hampshire Energy and Climate Collaborative in 2012, reports that transportation accounts for 

35 percent of the New Hampshire’s energy use and 46 percent of the its greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions. Total transportation-related energy consumed and GHG emission rates have remained flat in 

recent years, even though VMT and per capita VMT have decreased approximately five percent between 

 

7

 http://www.unh.edu/news/releases/2012/jun/ds28climate.cfm 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 18 

the peak in 2006 and the most recent data in 2009. At the same time, public transport use has 

increased 25 percent between 2000 and 2010. 

Because the New Hampshire Capitol Corridor is home to the three largest cities in the state (Concord, 

Manchester and Nashua) as well as two major north-south arteries (Route 3 and I-93), transportation 

network investments that support mode shift away from automobiles are likely to support a decrease in 

per capita VMT and may support reductions in GHG emissions. 

Economic 

The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies’ From Tailwind to Headwind: New Hampshire’s 

Shifting Economic Trends8, published in 2012, found that demographic trends in the state are related to 

economic trends. The state’s economic advantage has traditionally been rooted in three areas: 

consistent population growth, increased productivity, and a more resilient economy than its 

competitors. However, data shows that population growth is slowing, labor force participation is 

declining (due to the aging of the population), and the rate of growth in educational attainment is 

slowing. 

Like the Baby Boomer generation before them, the sheer size of the Millennial generation, those born 

between approximately 1982 and 2003, means their preferences will shape every aspect of the 

country’s economy and culture in the coming decades. Communities that invest in infrastructure and 

that make policy decisions which are attractive to this generation will be successful in creating an 

economic framework for sustainable growth. This is particularly important for New Hampshire, which is 

aging at a higher-than average rate. A 2013 report by U.S. Public Interest Research Group, A New 

Direction: Our Changing Relationship with Driving and the Implications for America’s Future9

, found that: 

• Young people aged 16-to-34 drove 23 percent fewer miles on average in 2009 than they did in 

2001—a greater decline in driving than any other age group. The severe economic recession was 

likely responsible for some of the decline, but not all. 

• Millennials are more likely to want to live in urban and walkable neighborhoods and are more 

open to non-driving forms of transportation than older Americans. 

• If the Millennial-led decline in per capita driving continues for another dozen years, even at half 

the annual rate of the 2001-2009 period total vehicle travel in the United States could remain well 

below its 2007 peak through at least 2040—despite a 21 percent increase in population. 

The New Hampshire Capitol Corridor is home to one of the largest private employers in the state (BAE 

Systems), and the state’s largest labor pool. Public transport investment within this corridor will provide 

a lower-cost commuting alternative that links New Hampshire residents with employment opportunities 

while increasing New Hampshire’s attractiveness as a place to do business. 

 

8

 http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/New_Hampshire_New_Reality_2012_final1.pdf 

9

 http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/A%20New%20Direction%20vUS.pdf 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 19 

Social 

In his 2012 report New Hampshire Demographic Trends in the Twenty-First Century10, Kenneth Johnson 

of the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire documents several trends that can be 

extracted from the most recent census data: 

• New Hampshire’s population increase is slowing, New Hampshire’s population is aging, the pace 

of demographic change is uneven in the state, and the state is becoming more diverse. 

• Young adults are migrating to metropolitan cores, family age residents are migrating to suburbs, 

major metropolitan cores are losing older residents, and rural counties are losing young adults. 

• Many towns in the New Hampshire Capitol Corridor, including Manchester and Nashua, have the 

largest concentrations for young persons (<18) in the state. 

Quality of Life 

Granite State Future is a statewide project coordinating the development of regional plans in each of the 

RPC’s jurisdictions. It recognizes the interconnection between development patterns, availability of 

housing choices, and diversity of transportation choices as a means to preserve natural resources, 

community vitality and promote energy efficiency. Public transportation investment within the Capitol 

Corridor would be a powerful investment that can be leveraged to implement this regional, multidiscipline vision to maintain New Hampshire’s high quality of life. 

1.7 Goals and Objectives 

A set of goals, objectives and evaluation measures were developed to determine how well a public 

transportation (intercity rail, commuter rail, or express bus) investment along the Capitol Corridor will 

address regional and corridor needs. These goals and objectives, summarized below, build on the stated 

objectives of current and recent planning in the corridor as described above. This body of work 

demonstrates the role that integrated transportation and land use planning can play in supporting an 

economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable community. A major public transportation 

investment would be a significant step in implementing this integrated planning approach within the 

Capitol Corridor. 

 

10 http://gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committee_websites/waysmeans/DOI%202013/Report-JohnsonDemographic-Trends-NH-21st-Century.pdf 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 20 

Table 1-5: Capitol Corridor Study Goals and Objectives 

Goals Objectives

Economic Development 

and Land Use 

Support the vision for 

growth laid out in local 

and regional development 

plans 

• Improve access to higher-paying jobs in Greater Boston 

• Support development patterns and lifestyle choices that are 

attractive to younger, highly educated professionals 

• Leverage the younger, highly educated employee base to attract 

new businesses and grow existing ones 

• Promote concentrated development (TOD) to mitigate sprawl 

development patterns 

• Improve the potential for additional freight rail business through 

infrastructure upgrades 

Transportation and 

Mobility 

Leverage the existing 

transportation network to 

improve access and 

mobility within the 

corridor and throughout 

the region 

• Mitigate congestion within the study corridor, particularly towards 

the southern end of the corridor 

• Expand the capacity of the transit network 

• Increase transit ridership and mode share through expansion of 

the existing rider base and attraction of choice riders 

• Provide travel time savings 

• Improve the efficiency, convenience and reliability of transit 

service 

System Integration

Invest in transportation 

improvements that 

complement the existing 

multi-modal 

transportation network 

• Increase corridor modal connectivity 

• Provide connections to other corridors within the region 

• Increase access to Manchester-Boston Regional Airport through 

additional transit service 

• Balance system capacity (Amtrak, MBTA, Boston Express, Concord 

Coach) 

• Ensure operating efficiency 

Sustainability

Support transportation 

investments that 

contribute to an 

environmentally, 

economically, and socially 

sustainable community 

• Leverage existing transportation infrastructure to qualify for 

federal transportation investment dollars 

• Mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from 

anticipated development 

• Support growth patterns that attract and retain residents from 

childhood through retirement 

• Improve access to other tourism, recreation and cultural 

attractions in greater Boston and New Hampshire 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 21 

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 

This chapter describes existing travel conditions, services and facilities along the Capitol Corridor. The 

review covers rail, bus and highway conditions, services and facilities. 

2.1 Railway Facilities and Services 

The first passenger train in New Hampshire arrived in Nashua from Lowell, Massachusetts in October 

1838.11 Passenger rail service along this alignment was soon extended to Manchester and Concord with 

further extensions into the White Mountains and westerly to Hanover and White River Junction. The 

New Hampshire Main Line (NHML) was, and remains, a principal artery of the Boston and Maine (B&M) 

Railroad’s network. Consequently, the line functions as a key economic link between the Granite State 

and the national economy. NHML passenger service ran for almost 130 years until it was abandoned in 

1967. Passenger service was briefly restored in 1980, but abandoned again when federal funding 

expired. Freight service has been operated continuously for 175 years. 

Based on a review of Twentieth Century passenger timetables, the fastest trips between Boston and 

Concord were offered in the 1950s when the new light Budd RDC self-propelled diesel rail cars made the 

73 mile trip in as little as 82 minutes. During the steam age, in the first half of the century, the shortest 

travel times were 120 minutes for the same destination pair. 

In the first quarter of the Twentieth Century, there were 29 passenger stations between Boston and 

Concord (see Error! Reference source not found.). With the rise of the highway network, that number 

was gradually reduced to 16 in 1945. 

Table 2-1: Passenger Service Summary 1910-1954 

Year Number of 

Stations 

Nashua 

Trains 

Manchester 

Trains 

Concord 

Trains 

1910 29 30 28 28

1926 29 26 24 24

1945 16 18 17 17

1954 16 19 22 21

Source: Jacobs analysis of historic public timetables 

The numbers of weekday passenger trains serving the line also declined from a high of 30 in 1910 to a 

low of 18 in 1945. In 1954, with the introduction of new Budd RDC cars and post-war prosperity, the 

B&M slightly expanded the frequency of passenger trains along the line. However, by the late 1960s, 

the passenger service was no longer profitable and was discontinued due to the growth of the interstate 

highway system. 

 

11 New Hampshire Department of Transportation. New Hampshire State Rail Plan 2012. p. 21. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 22 

Figure 2-1: Existing Passenger Rail Services 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 23 

A review of B&M employee timetables showing speed limits for the line during the 1950s and 1960s 

indicated that the maximum allowable speed along most of the line between Lowell and Concord was 70 

mph with numerous speed restrictions for curves, densely settled urban areas with a high density of 

grade crossings and railway yards (see Figure 2-2). 

Figure 2-2: Historic and Existing Speed Profiles for NHML from Lowell, MA to Concord, NH 

When passenger service was abandoned due to declining ridership in the late 1960s, the B&M stopping 

maintaining the line for passenger speeds and lowered the maximum allowable speeds to 40 mph south 

of Manchester and 30 mph north to Concord. Currently, the short segment between Lowell and 

Chelmsford is part of the B&M’s existing freight mainline and is still operated and maintained at a 60 

mph freight standard. The maximum allowable passenger speeds between Lowell and Boston are 

between 60 and 70 mph. 

Since the 1980s, the B&M has belonged to a regional amalgamation of railroads initially called the 

Guilford Rail System, later changing its name to Pan Am Railways. Today the Pan Am, headquartered in 

Billerica, Massachusetts, owns and operates the former B&M and Maine Central Railroads as an 

integrated system. This system generally runs from Bangor, Maine to Albany, New York with numerous 

branches in New Hampshire and other New England states. North of Chelmsford, Pan Am refers to the 

route as its “Northern Branch.” 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 24 

Track Configuration 

Once a busy mainline railway, the NHML was double tracked to Concord and beyond. However, today 

the railway is largely single tracked north of Chelmsford with some passing sidings, yards in Nashua and 

Manchester, and numerous turnouts to customer sidings.12 A track configuration chart for the segment 

north of Lowell can be found in Chapter 3: Service Alternatives. The 48-mile segment between Lowell 

and Concord has 26 switches off the mainline to yards, customers, sidings and branches. The most 

notable freight customers along the line are Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH), Quebec Cement, 

Anheuser Busch and Nashua Corporation. The PSNH power plant in Bow regularly receives unit trains 

of coal (approximately 100 annually) and is by far the state’s largest volume receiver of rail freight. This 

may change in the future as PSNH considers a potential future conversion to natural gas turbines. 

The NHML has two active branches: 

• The Hillsboro Branch leads west from Nashua approximately 30 miles to Bennington, NH. The 

eastern most 12 miles to Wilton are owned and operated by Pan Am Railways. The 18 miles 

between Wilton and Bennington, are owned by the State of New Hampshire and operated by 

the Milford-Bennington Railroad. 

• New England Southern Railroad (NEGS) operates north from Concord using 18 miles of the 

state-owned line that runs north from Concord toward Lincoln. 

Ownership 

In Massachusetts, the southernmost 34.5 miles of the line were acquired by the Massachusetts Bay 

Transportation Authority (MBTA) in the 1960s. At that time the MBTA acquired most of the mainline 

assets of the B&M and the New Haven Railroads in eastern Massachusetts. Today, the southernmost 

25.4 miles of the route between Boston and Lowell are busy with passenger traffic operated by the 

MBTA and Amtrak, and some local freight services operated by Pan Am. 

In New Hampshire, the NHML is property of Pan Am Railways. In 2011, Pan Am conveyed trackage 

rights to the MBTA for the operation of passenger trains on the NHML northward into New Hampshire 

between the state line and Concord. 

Railway Signal System and Traffic Regulation 

The train control signal system for the route supports Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee 

(NORAC) Rule 261 between North Station and Manchester. Rule 261 allows for bi-directional operation 

with automatic wayside block signals on all mainline tracks. North of Manchester, there are no wayside 

signals and operations are governed by Data Communication System (DCS) rules, wherein a Form D train 

order issued over the radio by the railroad dispatcher in Billerica, Massachusetts is necessary to move a 

train. 

 

12 The line is double tracked for the 25 miles between Boston’s North Station and the Gallagher Intermodal 

Terminal in Lowell. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 25 

Track Conditions and Potential for Upgrades 

Inspection of MBTA and Pan Am timetables and track charts coupled with a hi-rail inspection trips in 

April and June 2014 between Lowell, Massachusetts and Concord, New Hampshire provided the 

following information concerning track conditions. 

Railway track is the structure consisting of rails, fasteners, tie plates, ties and stone ballast that guides 

and supports the train as it moves down the railroad. More than 150 years of development has led to 

near universal standards for track design but marginal innovations are made every few years. The 

predominant track form worldwide consists of flat-bottom steel rails that support and guide the wheels 

of the rail vehicle. The rails are seated on steel plates that are fastened to and supported by timber ties. 

The ties are laid in a bed of crushed stone, also known as ballast. 

For generations, the rails were laid in 39-foot sections that were tied together with joint bars and bolts. 

The joints in the rail are a weak point in the track structure, subject to substantial maintenance to 

provide a smooth route for the vehicle wheels. Loose and damaged joints diminish ride quality, tie life 

and maximum allowable speeds. Beginning in the 1950s US railroads started welding their rails into long 

continuous ribbons that significantly improved ride quality and eliminated most maintenance associated 

with joints. The conversion to welded rail has been a long process. Today, most heavily trafficked and 

higher speed railways use track constructed with continuously welded rails fastened to the ties with an 

array of resilient elastic steel fasteners that further reduce maintenance and improve ride quality. 

Routes with less traffic have generally not been updated with welded rail or the newer fastening 

devices. 

In recent decades, the US rail industry has been using heavier rail for main line track construction. 

Heavier rail can support greater axle loads and higher train speeds with less stress, damage, and 

resulting maintenance compared to lighter rail. Rail weight is graded in pounds per yard. For most new 

construction, the MBTA and Amtrak use rail in the range of 132 to 136 lbs/yard, but substantial portions 

of both networks use rail in range of 112 to 115 lbs/yard. For instance, most of Amtrak’s Downeaster 

route between Boston and Brunswick runs on 115 lbs rail. Pan Am Railway’s main line is built with 100, 

112 and 115 lbs rail. 

The traditional rule of thumb for track life has been that timber ties should be replaced after 20 years 

and rail should be expected to last 50 years. The MBTA has had several bad experiences with concrete 

ties and is not installing them on their commuter rail road. With the materials technology and 

manufacturing advances of the second half of the 20th Century, both rail and ties are showing longer 

lifecycles but there is considerable variability in longevity. Depending on a variety circumstances, some 

timber ties last as long as 40 years while other ties fail in as little as four years after installation. Heavier 

traffic tends to reduce track life. Moisture from poor drainage and weak ballast support also tends to 

hasten the deterioration of wooden ties. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 26 

• Inspections - US railway track used for passenger operations is subject to two inspections per 

week that visually check for track defects and obstructions. The most common defects are loose 

or missing fasteners which are fixed by the inspection patrol, as discovered. In addition to 

frequent inspections, a program of renewal and replacement is required to keep the track up to 

the desired Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) standard. 

• Ballast - Once installed, operating track is maintained by periodically renewing (supplementing) 

the ballast while refining any deviation in the grade and cross level of track. 

• Ties - There are typically 24 ties per 39-foot section of rail. Only eight to ten of those ties need 

to be in good condition to support 60 mph passenger trains. The remainder can be allowed to 

deteriorate. In order to maintain a constant distribution of good ties in the track structure, the 

ties are periodically renewed to replace the worst with new ties. 

• Rail - Rail is regularly ground to keep the surface smooth and in good condition. The rail is also 

subject to regular ultrasonic inspection to find hidden defects in the steel. Where the rail is 

jointed, defective rails are cutout and replaced. The mechanism for replacing a bad spot in a 

string of welded rail requires cutting to remove the bad spot and welding in a plug rail to replace 

it. Wholesale rail replacement programs are infrequent, unless anticipated changes to traffic on 

the line require greater strength or higher allowable speeds. 

Track Class and Maximum Speeds 

Standards for track maintenance and maximum speeds are set by the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA). Tracks maintained to a higher standard are allowed to operate at a higher speed. Passenger 

train speeds generally range between 60 mph for FRA Track Class 3 up to the Class 7 maximum speed of 

125 mph (see Table 2-2). Currently, the Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington is the only 

route in the United States that permits speeds in excess of 125 mph.1314 Most passenger routes and mainline 

freight routes are maintained to FRA Class 3 or 4. Branch lines and other lightly used routes are 

maintained to FRA Class 2 or 1. 

Table 2-2: Federal Railroad Administration Track Class and Maximum Allowable Speeds (mph) 

Track Class Freight Trains Passenger Trains 

Excepted 10 N/A 

1 10 15 

2 25 30 

3 40 60 

4 60 80 

5 80 90 

6 110 

7 125 

8 160 

9 200 

49 CFR 213.9 - CLASSES OF TRACK: OPERATING SPEED LIMITS (Classes 1-5), and 49 CFR 

213.307 - CLASS OF TRACK: OPERATING SPEED LIMITS (Classes 6-9) 

 

13 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 

49, Track Safety Standards Part 213, Subpart A to F, Class of Track 1-5, July 11, 2013 

14 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 

49, Track Safety Standards Part 213, Subpart G, Class of Track 6 and Higher, July 11, 2013 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 27 

Current Track Class and Speeds 

Within the southern 25 miles of the NHML between Boston and Lowell, the MBTA currently operates 

daily commuter rail service, independent of most freight operations, with some segments maintained to 

a 70 mph speed standard. Most of trackage is rated for 60 mph passenger operations. It is presumed 

that any future passenger rail trains operating within this section of commuter rail territory would use 

existing track and be restricted to the current time table speeds. 

Existing rail traffic north of Lowell consists solely of freight movements with varying levels of train 

volume depending on the location. The greatest traffic is on the southern portion of the route between 

Lowell and North Chelmsford, MA. Traffic density between North Chelmsford and Concord, NH 

decreases as the route extends north of the New Hampshire state line into Nashua, Manchester, Bow 

and Concord with typically no more than two train movements per day north of Bow. 

North from Lowell is a three-mile section of track to North Chelmsford that experiences heavy freight 

traffic. This segment of Pan Am Railway’s east-west main line is maintained for a maximum freight 

speed of 40 mph (Class 3). 

At North Chelmsford the line splits at a wye. The western leg is Pan Am’s east-west main line and 

northern leg is the lesser-traveled NHML. The NHML line runs northerly another seven miles to the New 

Hampshire state line where right of way and track ownership changes from the MBTA to Pan Am 

Railways. 

Pan Am’s ownership continues thirty-nine miles to the north through the cities of Nashua, Manchester 

and Concord, NH with mostly 40 and 30 mph freight speeds on predominately Class 3 track north to Bow 

with Class 2 track north to Concord. Figure 2-3 shows the current freight train speeds between Lowell 

and Concord. 

Figure 2-3: Current and Historical Speeds for NHML from Lowell, MA to Concord, NH 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 28 

Track Conditions 

The track conditions along the route are consistent with the assigned FRA Track Class and maximum 

speeds. Over the 25 miles where the MBTA operates its Lowell commuter rail service, all of the rail is 

welded with the latest major tie renewal completed in 1992. The oldest rail on this segment was 

manufactured in 1980. Much of the track uses 132 lbs rail but approximately 20 of the 51 track miles 

between Boston and Lowell uses 115 lbs rail. 

The character of the Pan Am main line between milepost (MP) 25.5 and MP 28.5 varies radically from 

the MBTA service segment. The track is jointed here and the northbound track is primarily constructed 

with 100 lbs rail manufactured in 1927. The southbound track is mostly constructed with 112 lbs relay 

rail from 1965. Relay rail is rail that had been previously used at a different location where it was 

removed and reinstalled at its present location. Field inspection indicates that tie conditions along this 

segment are commensurate with the track class. (e.g., at least 10 out of every 24 ties are in good 

condition.) 

The density and composition of traffic on the line change north of the wye at North Chelmsford. Fewer 

trains are operated but one of the regular trains is a long (approximately 90 car), heavy (over 10,000 

tons) coal train bound for the power plant in Bow at MP 68, approximately 40 miles north of the wye. 

Similar to the Pan Am main line, the rail is almost all jointed. There are approximately two miles of 

welded rail just north of downtown Manchester. Nearly all of the rail is 112 lbs manufactured during 

the first half of the 1940s. Records supplied by Pan Am indicate that the last major tie renewals took 

place in the 1990s but field inspections indicate that the line seems to be in a near constant state of spot 

tie renewal to maintain sufficient track structure to safely support the coal train. North to Manchester 

the line is rated as FRA Class 3. North to Bow, the nominal track condition is FRA Class 2. Informal 

inspection of the line indicates that the coal train’s requirements force Pan Am to keep approximately 

half the ties in good condition to support and guide the heavy train. Where the vertical profile of the 

railroad is not restricted by grade crossings, the bed of ballast supporting the coal train tends to be deep 

with full ballast shoulders. 

Railway Bridges 

A review of Pan Am track charts and inspection and rating reports indicate that there are 25 bridges 

along the NHML between Lowell’s Gallagher Terminal and Concord. The FRA requires all rail carriers to 

implement bridge management programs that include annual inspections of railroad bridges and 

determination of the safe load capacity of the structure. Pan Am reports rate the 25 structures along 

the route subject to passenger rail restoration generally fair to good, with one bridge noted in poor 

condition. 

The locomotive is the heaviest vehicle in a passenger train with a typical weight of 250,000 pounds. All 

of the rated bridges along the route are qualified to carry this load. Most of the bridges are rated to 

safely carry cars with a gross weight of 286,000 pounds or more. The bridge classified as being in the 

poorest condition is rated to carry a capacity of 263,000 pounds. The two longest bridges crossing the 

Merrimack River are not rated and should be inspected before passenger service is restored. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 29 

Highway Grade Crossings 

There are 35 locations identified between Lowell’s Gallagher Terminal and Stickney Avenue in Concord 

where roadways or pedestrian paths cross the railway at grade. Grade crossings are of particular 

concern as they present the greatest accident hazard on the railway due to the potential for 

vehicle/pedestrian conflicts with trains. Grade crossings will require sensitive treatment should 

substantially greater volumes of trains be reintroduced along the route. Federal safety regulations 

require trains to sound their horns at all grade crossings. A federally sanctioned “quiet zone” may be 

established cooperatively with the local community working with the railroad to make substantial 

investments that reduce the likelihood of accidents 

The density of 35 crossings along the 48-mile route is relatively low for a suburban railway. The railway 

generally hugs the bank of the Merrimack River and only several of the streets are heavily travelled. 

Most of the grade crossings lead to relatively small riverfront residential enclaves or industrial sites. Of 

the 35 grade crossings, 21 are public roads, 13 are private driveways, and one is an informal community 

crossing. 

Public grade crossings are roadways that are under the jurisdiction of and maintained by, a public 

authority. Private grade crossings are on privately-owned roadways, such as those leading into an 

apartment complex, housing estate or commercial / industrial development. A private crossing is not 

intended for public use and is not maintained by a public road authority. Nationwide there are 

approximately 148,000 public crossings and 95,000 private crossings. 

• Lowell: There are NO grade crossings on the study corridor in the City of Lowell. 

• Chelmsford: There are three private crossings in the Town of Chelmsford. One of these actually 

functions as a public crossing since it leads into a substantial new residential development on 

the riverfront. 

• Tyngsborough: There are two private crossings in the Town of Tyngsborough. One leads to an 

older established residential enclave. The other leads to several commercial buildings and a 

boat launching ramp. 

• Nashua: There are four public crossings in the City of Nashua, three of which are heavily 

travelled. There is also one private unprotected crossing and one informal crossing used by local 

residents to recreationally access undeveloped land along the riverfront. 

• Merrimack: There are four private crossings in the Town of Merrimack, all of which are lightly 

travelled. 

• Bedford: There are NO public or private grade crossings in the Town of Bedford. 

• Manchester: There are 13 public and one private crossing in the City of Manchester. Seven of 

the crossings are located along a single mile of the route adjacent to Manchester’s Mill District. 

Granite Street is undoubtedly the most heavily trafficked crossing along the study corridor. 

• Hooksett: There are two public crossings in the Town of Hooksett. Neither grade crossing is 

heavily travelled. 

• Bow: There are two public and two private grade crossings in the Town of Bow. Three lead into 

a single farm or industrial plant and one is a busy local street. 

• Concord: There are NO roadway grade crossings along the study corridor in the City of Concord.
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 30 

Current Rail Passenger Services 

On a typical weekday in the spring of 2013, Lowell was served by 44 MBTA revenue trains to and from 

Boston’s North Station. The 25-mile trip serves up to seven intermediate station stops. The running 

time between Lowell and Boston ranges between 45 and 49 minutes with a maximum allowable speed 

of 70 mph. Six weekday non-revenue “dead head” trains run between Lowell and Boston to stage the 

service because there is no facility for the overnight storage or maintenance of the trains in Lowell. 

Typical weekday MBTA ridership on the entire line is 17,500 passenger trips including both northbound 

and southbound travel. Lowell is the busiest passenger station on the line with 4,280 weekday 

boardings and alightings. 

The current NHML MBTA service provides 64 weekday passenger trains to and from North Station (see 

Table 2-3). Of those trains, 44 are revenue trains running between Boston and Lowell and six are the 

aforementioned non-revenue deadhead trips. The remaining 14 trains are a mix of peak-period, shortturn trains between Woburn and Boston and a variety of express and reverse-peak trains running 

between Boston and Haverhill via the Wildcat Route. The line also serves 10 Amtrak Downeaster trains 

from Portland to Boston North Station via Woburn and the Wildcat Route. 

The Lowell service requires four train sets in the morning and five train sets in the afternoon. As shown 

in 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 31 

Table 2-4, the peak five trains are required to be six, five, six, seven and five cars long. The seven car 

train regularly carries 652 passengers. All but one car assigned to the Lowell service is a single-level 

coach. The maximum length of any train berthing at North Station is eight cars. As ridership on the 

NHML grows, the number of higher capacity bi-level coaches on the route will need to be increased. 

Table 2-3: MBTA Service, Ridership and Revenue Statistics 

Station 

Mile 

Post 

Amtrak 

Weekday 

Revenue 

Trains 

MBTA 

Weekday 

Revenue 

Trains 

Typical 

Weekday 

Southbound 

Boardings 

Cash 

Fare 

Average 

Revenue 

per 

Passenger 

Boarding 

Typical Total 

Weekday 

Passenger 

Revenue 

Lowell 25.5 44 2,141 $6.75 $6.67 $28,566 

North Billerica 21.8 44 1,427 $6.25 $6.38 $18,195 

Wilmington 15.2 47 758 $5.25 $5.09 $7,711 

Woburn 12.6 10 57 1,743 $4.75 $4.77 $16,640 

Mishawum 11.9 6 50 $4.75 $4.95 $495 

Winchester 7.8 49 1,002 $4.25 $4.34 $8,701 

Wedgemere 7.3 48 740 $4.25 $4.36 $6,459 

West Medford 5.5 49 884 $1.70 $1.83 $3,244 

North Station 0 10 58 n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Totals 10 58 8,745 $5.15 $90,011 

Source: MBTA Conductor’s Audit Reports Thursday - February 9, 2012 and Jacobs Analysis 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 32 

Table 2-4: MBTA NHML Peak Train Lineup 

Set

Peak 

Train

Single Level

Coaches 

Bi Level

Coaches Seats 

Peak 

Riders 

N 310 6 684 579

O 304 4 1 636 493

P 306 6 684 600

Q 308 7 798 652

R 327 5 570 480

A stringline diagram, also referred to as a time-distance diagram, is helpful for planning the flow of 

traffic on a railroad. These diagrams are a graphical depiction of the timetable and provide a visual 

representation of trains scheduled to operate on a corridor. The diagrams show distance and station 

locations along the x-axis and time along the y-axis. The stringlines show the time and location of each 

scheduled trip. The slope of line indicates direction and relative speed with upward lines representing 

northbound trips and downward lines representing southbound trips. Intersecting lines show when and 

where trains will meet and identify where passing sidings or double tracking will be required. 

A stringline diagram illustrating current weekday passenger operations on the line is shown in Figure 2-4 

For reference, North Station is located at Milepost 0 and Lowell is at Milepost 25. Nashua, Manchester 

and Concord are located at Mileposts 39, 55 and 73, respectively. The timetable of services can be 

found in Chapter 3: Service Alternatives. 

Figure 2-4: Existing NHML MBTA Passengers Rail Services 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 33 

Figure 2-5: Amtrak Downeaster Service Map

Stringline diagrams are used to identify potential schedule conflicts (meets/passes), potential open slots 

for new service and resource planning (crews, locomotives, etc.). The schedule is also impacted by 

certain track restrictions that determine line capacity such as physical track layout, number of tracks and 

the number and spacing of sidings. If a stringline becomes vertical, it means that the train must stop at 

that location for the duration of the vertical line. Required changes in scheduled departures and arrivals, 

station dwell times, and train meets can be identified and adjusted in the stringline diagram and then 

used to update the timetables. 

Amtrak Downeaster service between North 

Station and Brunswick, Maine also operates 

on the line as far north as Woburn. It then 

uses the “Wildcat Route” to travel 

northeasterly Haverhill, MA and on to 

Maine. Each Downeaster train serves 

passengers to and from the north at North 

Station and Woburn. No southbound 

Amtrak passengers are allowed to board at 

Woburn and no northbound tickets to 

Woburn are sold from North Station. The 

Downeaster averages 1,400 passengers per 

day at all stations. The typical daily 

passenger traffic at Woburn is 30 boardings 

and alightings. 

Rail Freight Service 

The New Hampshire rail system is 

composed of five primary owners of the 

railroad lines: Pan Am Railways, New 

Hampshire Northcoast Corporation, New 

England Central Railroad, St. Lawrence & 

Atlantic Railroad and the State of New 

Hampshire (see Figure 2-6). In addition to 

these five primary owners, four of which 

are also railroad operators, there are six 

additional freight railroads that either operate on small segments of track in New Hampshire or over 

track owned by others, such as state-owned lines. These include: Claremont-Concord Railroad, Green 

Mountain Railroad, Milford-Bennington Railroad, New Hampshire Central Railroad, New England 

Southern, and Twin State Railroad. 

New Hampshire’s population and industry are well served by three intermodal terminals located near 

the state’s borders in Worcester, MA; Ayer, MA; and Auburn, ME. New Hampshire and the rest of New 

England is often referred to as a cul-de-sac in the national rail network, since the area is primarily a 

freight destination, and no major rail routes traverse the region. Rail volumes in New England tend to be 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 34 

Figure 2-6: New Hampshire Railroads by Owner and Type 

Source: New Hampshire State Rail Plan, 2012 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 35 

considerably lower than other parts of the nation, with only a single Class I rail connection between 

Boston and Albany, NY. 

Approximately 85 percent of national rail freight tonnage is bulk commodities, such as agriculture and 

energy products, automobiles and components, construction materials, chemicals, equipment, food, 

metals, minerals, and pulp and paper. Figure 2-7 illustrates that the commodities most commonly 

shipped to New Hampshire are coal and petroleum products bound for local consumption. 

Figure 2-7: New Hampshire Freight Rail Traffic by Commodity/Direction (percent of carloads) 

Source: New Hampshire State Rail Plan, 2012

The commodity most commonly shipped from New Hampshire is sand and gravel bound for cement and 

asphalt plants in Massachusetts. Almost 80 percent of the rail cars moving through the state are 

through movements between Maine, Eastern Canada and balance of the US. 

The NHML connects to the national freight network only at Lowell, MA. This corridor currently receives 

three quarters of all rail freight tonnage shipped into New Hampshire. While the freight received is 

quite diverse, traffic flow is dominated by coal for electric generation shipped to Bow, NH. Clay, 

concrete, glass, and stone also comprise much of the remaining rail freight tonnage moving on the 

corridor. Other products shipped along the corridor include farm products, lumber and wood products, 

food, chemicals, and some nonmetallic minerals. Significantly more freight rail traffic is shipped into 

Southern New Hampshire than is shipped out. Shippers categorize the small amount of outbound 

freight rail traffic as miscellaneous freight. 

Most rail traffic currently shipped to New Hampshire is for local consumption and the volume of 

outbound rail traffic other than building materials is quite minor. Unless there is major shift New 

Hampshire’s economy to produce, process or consume large volumes of bulk commodities, it is unlikely 

that the total volume of rail traffic to or from the Granite State will grow at a rate that varies 

significantly from expected population growth. That is not to say that rail freight in the state would not 

benefit from improvements to a key rail line serving the state’s major population centers, but the 

magnitude of benefit for long journeys on the national network will likely be relatively small. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 36 

2.2 Highway Facilities and Level of Service 

This element of the existing conditions chapter summarizes the physical characteristics and usage 

patterns of the major limited access highways serving the Capitol Corridor. For more information on the 

NHCC Highway Facilities and Level of Service the reader is referred to the NHCC Project Task 2: Highway 

Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum. More detail concerning the highway network and its 

performance is found in NHCC Project Document Task 2: Highway Existing Conditions. 

The Capital Corridor’s limited access highways that connect New Hampshire’s major population centers 

to metropolitan Boston are I-93, US Route 3 / Everett Turnpike, I-95 / Route 128, I-293, and, I-495. An 

overall corridor study map showing the subject corridors is shown in Figure 2-8.These highways cover 

268 directional miles of limited access freeway facilities and interchanges, shared between the States of 

New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The breakdown on the corridor mileage is as follows: 

• 130 directional miles on I-93; 

• 98 directional miles on US Route 3; 

• 22 directional miles on Route 128 / I-95; and, 

• 18 directional miles on I-495. 

Most analysis focuses on I-93 since it is the only direct link into Boston from the study corridor. US 

Route 3, I-95/Route 128 and I-495 all feed into I-93 for the purposes of travel along the Capitol Corridor 

to and from the regional core. 

Highway Geometrics 

I-93 southbound offers three lanes for travel between Hooksett and I-293 where it drops a lane until it 

reaches the State Line in Massachusetts. A fourth general purpose (GP) lane is added in the vicinity of 

Wilmington near the Route 125 interchange. 

Near Medford and Somerville, MA, south of Exit 30, I-93 southbound splits into one high occupancy 

vehicle (HOV) lane and three GP lanes. After Exit 28, the three GP lanes on I-93 southbound drop to two 

GP lanes for approximately 1,360 feet before regaining the third GP lane at Exit 29. 

I-93 is currently being widened to four GP travel lanes in each direction in New Hampshire between Exits 

1 and 5 from the Massachusetts State Line to Manchester, NH for a distance of approximately 19.8 

miles. The project is expected to be completed in 2018. For the purposes of this study the widening 

project is presumed to be complete. 

US Route 3 / The Frederick Everett Turnpike southbound generally carries two GP travel lanes from 

Concord to I-89 where it adds a third lane. US Route 3 carries three GP lanes from I-89 to the I-93 split. 

After the I-93 split, US Route 3 generally carries two GP lanes from Manchester, NH to NH Route 101, 

where US Route 3 widens and fluctuates between three and four lanes. It narrows and fluctuates 

between two and three GP lanes from Exit 13 in Merrimack, NH to Exit 8 in Nashua, NH. From Exit 8 and 

to the Massachusetts State Line, US Route 3 fluctuates between four and three GP lanes. In 

Massachusetts, US Route 3 generally carries three GP lanes from the State Line to Route I-95/128 in 

Burlington, MA. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 37 

Figure 2-8: Study Corridor Highways 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 38 

I-95/Route 128 northbound generally carries four GP lanes between US Route 3 and I-93. It should be 

noted that north of I-93, I-95 has a lane drop from four to three GP travel lanes. 

I-495 northbound generally carries three GP lanes between US Route 3 and I-93. 

I-93 northbound generally carries four GP travel lanes from Exit 29 in Somerville, MA to Exit 41 in 

Wilmington, MA. After Exit 41, a lane is dropped and there are three GP lanes up to the State Line. In 

New Hampshire, I-93 northbound carries two GP lanes from the State Line to Exit 5 in Manchester, NH. 

After Exit 5, I-93 northbound fluctuates between two and four lanes up to Exit 7 where it generally 

settles to three GP lanes up until the US Route 3/Frederick Everett Turnpike merge. As noted above, I93 is currently being widened to four GP travel lanes in each direction in New Hampshire from the State 

Line to Manchester, NH for a distance of approximately 19.8 miles. 

US Route 3 northbound generally carries three GP travel lanes from Burlington, MA though the State 

Line to Merrimack, NH. Starting before Exit 10, US Route 3 northbound fluctuates between three and 

two lanes up to the I-93 merge. North of the I-93 merge, US Route 3 northbound fluctuates between 

three and four GP lanes. After the I-89 interchange, US Route 3 northbound carries two GP lanes up to 

Concord, NH. 

I-95/Route 128 southbound carries three GP travel lanes into the I-93 interchange and adds a fourth 

lane south of the interchange which carries through to and beyond US Route 3.

I-495 southbound carries three GP travel between I-93 and US Route 3.

Breakdown Lanes & Managed Lanes 

Peak period breakdown travel lanes on I-93 northbound and southbound between Exits 45 and 47 exist 

at this time, but will be permanently removed with the reconstruction of the Methuen interchange at 

Route 110/113 and I-93. 

There is an existing managed lane on I-93 southbound that begins in Medford, MA. After Exit 30 and 

before Exit 28, I-93 southbound splits into one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane and three GP lanes. 

There is a 4-foot painted buffer separation between the HOV lane and the adjacent GP lanes. The HOV 

lane ends at the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge at the I-93/Route 1 merge. There are no other 

entrances or exits for the southbound HOV lane between the Mystic Avenue on-ramp entrance and the 

Zakim Bridge. Buses, carpools (defined as two or more occupants), motorcycles, and vanpools using the 

HOV Lane can save up to ten minutes during morning peak period commute. The HOV restrictions apply 

between 6:00 AM and 10:00 AM, Monday through Friday. 

Highway Level of Service 

Level of Service (LOS) is commonly used to describe the operating conditions for ground transportation 

facilities. LOS for freeway facilities is calculated from vehicular speed, volume, and density. LOS ranges 

from LOS A to F, where LOS A describes free-flow operations, LOS E describes operations at capacity, 

and LOS F describes breakdown conditions and unstable traffic flow. 

LOS analysis for freeway sections is based upon density of vehicles. Density is measured in passenger 

cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). LOS is a term used to denote different operating conditions that occur 

at a given roadway segment under various traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure of the effect 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 39 

of a number of factors including roadway geometrics, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and 

safety. 

The LOS for ramp merge and diverge points are based upon the density of vehicles upstream of the 

merge and downstream of the diverge points. Weave sections are defined as the segment of roadway 

bounded by an on-ramp followed with an off-ramp, creating a potential conflict for vehicles trying to 

enter the roadway and vehicles trying to exit the roadway within the same stretch of pavement. 

Given the regional scale of this study, LOS and volume-to-capacity (v/c) were identified as appropriate 

performance measures to evaluate the limited access freeway conditions during the weekday peak 

hours. The LOS criteria for freeway sections, ramp junctions, and weaving segments are shown in Table 

2-5. 

Table 2-5: Highway LOS Thresholds 

Year 2013 existing weekday morning peak hour LOS and volume-to-capacity ratios for inbound traffic 

towards metropolitan Boston are shown in Figure 2-9. Under current conditions, there is severe traffic 

congestion inbound towards Boston during the weekday AM peak hour. The vehicular demand exceeds 

capacity with a v/c ratio greater than 1.25 from Exits 36 to 27. Various sections between Exits 36 and 27 

have LOS E conditions. I-93 between I-95/Route 128 and I-495 is generally over-capacity with LOS E and 

F conditions. I-95/Route 128 between US Route 3 and I-93 is generally over-capacity with traffic 

congestion 

The existing weekday evening peak hour LOS and volume-to-capacity ratios for outbound traffic from 

metropolitan Boston are shown in Figure 2-10. Under current conditions, there is severe traffic 

congestion outbound from Boston during the weekday PM peak hour. The vehicular demand exceeds 

capacity with a v/c ratio greater than 1.25 for various segments between Exits 27 to 39. Various sections 

between Exits 27 and 39 have LOS E and F conditions. North of Exit 39 and up to I-495, I-93 is generally 

at or over capacity. I-95/Route 128 between US Route 3 and I-93 is generally over-capacity with traffic 

congestion, and predominately at or near capacity closer to US Route 3. 

Peak Travel Speeds 

Travel speed and time data for the network was collected via real-time, GPS-equipped, anonymous cell 

phone technology - through two internet mapping sources (www.google.com/maps and 

www.bing.com/maps). The internet data established current travel speeds and hot spot locations for 

congestion between the major population centers in New Hampshire and Boston. The data collection 

was undertaken in June 2013 during the weekdays - excluding Mondays and Fridays. 

Freeway Ramps Weaving

Density 

(cars/mile/lane)

Density 

(cars/mile/lane)

Density 

(cars/mile/lane)

A 0 – 11 0-10 0-10

B > 11 – 18 > 10-20 >10-20

C > 18 – 25 >20-28 >20-28

D > 25 – 35 >28-35 >28-35

E > 35 – 45 >35 >35-43

F Overcapacity Overcapacity >43

LOS

Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 40 

Year 2013 existing weekday morning peak period travel speeds for inbound traffic towards Boston are 

shown in Figure 2-11. The existing weekday evening peak period travel speeds for outbound traffic from 

metropolitan Boston are in Figure 2-12. 

Travel Time Contours 

Year 2013 existing weekday morning peak hour travel time contours for inbound traffic towards Boston 

are shown in Figure 2-13. The existing weekday evening peak hour travel time contours for outbound 

traffic from Boston are shown in Figure 2-14 

Travel times from Concord to Boston during the inbound AM commute are bottom-heavy due to the 

gradual increase in congestion approaching Boston. Nearing Boston, congestion is severe with speeds 

less than 30 mph. Travel times inbound currently take up to 20 minutes from Medford, Malden, and 

Everett - areas only 4 miles from Boston – with an average speed of 12 mph. Expanding radially by 

another 4 miles, the travel times into Boston double to 40 minutes – still with an average speed of 12 

mph. Between I-95 and I-495, travel times into Boston can take up to 60 minutes by vehicle. 

Travel times outbound from Boston during the PM commute are top-heavy due to the severe 

congestion experienced exiting Boston northbound – but not as severe as the morning peak hour. Travel 

times outbound currently take up to 20 minutes to Medford, Malden, and Winchester - areas only 7 

miles from Boston – averaging just over 20 mph. Expanding radially by another 7 miles, the travel times 

exiting Boston double to 40 minutes – still averaging just over 20 mph. Travel times to Lawrence 

currently take less than 60 minutes, and commutes to beyond Salem, NH take less than 70 minutes. 

Travel times from Boston to Concord take less than 90 minutes in weekday PM peak hour traffic. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 41 

Figure 2-9: Year 2013 AM Peak Hour Highway Level of Service 

 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 42 

Figure 2-10: Year 2013 PM Peak Hour Highway Level of Service 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 43 

Figure 2-11: Year 2013 Weekday Morning Inbound Speeds 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 44 

Figure 2-12: Year 2013 Weekday Evening Outbound Speeds 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 45 

Figure 2-13: Year 2013 Evening Inbound AM Peak Period Travel Time Contours 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 46 

Figure 2-14: Year 2013 Evening Outbound PM Peak Period Travel Time Contours 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 47 

Highway Conditions Summary 

Severe traffic congestion is evident entering and exiting Boston via I-93 North during the weekday peak 

periods. When travel speeds drop below 30 mph, traffic volumes are generally understood to exceed 

road capacity by over 25%. Average peak period speeds on I-93 have been shown to drop to as low as 12 

mph for the last eight miles inward to Boston-. 

The current freeway infrastructure on I-93 North is a contributing factor to the severe traffic congestion 

experienced entering and departing Boston. After Exit 28 in Somerville, the three general purpose lanes 

on I-93 southbound drops to two general purpose lanes for over 1,000 feet before regaining the third 

lane at Exit 29. This lane drop less than four miles away from Boston is currently a choke point causing 

severe congestion on I-93 on typical weekday AM conditions.

In New Hampshire, I-93 North is currently being widened to four GP travel lanes in each direction 

between Exits 1 and 5 from the MA State Line to Manchester, NH for a distance of approximately 19.8 

miles. This will add tremendous peak hour vehicular capacity and facilitate more efficient traffic 

operations in New Hampshire. 

However, the future lane imbalance with the I-93 SB lane drop from four lanes to three lanes between 

the NH State Line and Exit 41 in Wilmington, MA for approximately 11.5 miles is expected to be a key 

choke point and source of congestion in the future AM peak period. 

In the northbound direction during the PM peak period, after Exit 41 and the Route 125 interchange, I93 northbound drops a lane and consist of three GP lanes to the NH State Line. In the future, this 

reduction from four to three lanes at Exit 41, and back to four lanes in NH is expected to be choke point 

and a source of peak hour congestion in the weekday PM. 

Additionally, the peak period breakdown travel lanes on I-93 northbound and southbound between Exits 

45 and 47 will permanently be eliminated with the reconstruction of the Methuen interchange at Route 

110/113 and I-93.

With regards to managed lanes and the benefits of higher travel speeds and higher person throughputs, 

there is an existing managed lane on I-93 southbound that begins in Medford, MA. After Exit 30 and 

before Exit 28, I-93 southbound splits into one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane and three GP lanes. 

There is a 4-foot painted buffer between the HOV lane and the adjacent GP lanes. The HOV lane ends at 

the Bunker Hill Bridge at the I-93/Route 1 merge. There are no other entrances or exits for the 

southbound HOV lane between the Mystic Avenue on ramp entrance and the Zakim Bridge. 

While there is a managed lane for I-93 southbound that spans approximately two miles, it does not span 

the nine mile breadth of inbound congestion during the AM peak period which begins just south of I95/Route 128. There are no managed lanes northbound on I-93 to improve travel speeds or user 

throughput during the weekday PM peak period. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 48 

2.3 Corridor Bus Services15

In total, seven regional and four local bus transit operators provide service within New Hampshire and 

intercity service to Boston and beyond. All of these services are subject to the same highway congestion 

that affects automobile traffic on I-93 and other elements of the corridor highway network. Each of 

these services has access to the HOV lane on I-93 that travels 2.5 miles between the Shore Drive 

overpass in Somerville and the Bunker Hill Bridge,, potentially saving up to 10 minutes compared with 

morning peak travel in the general purpose lanes. 

Boston Express provides the primary commuter service from the study area to Boston along the heavily 

congested Massachusetts segments of Interstate 93. The service was initially introduced by NHDOT as a 

mitigation measure during highway construction along I-93. Concord Coach also provides intercity 

service to Boston along the central spine of New Hampshire as far north as Berlin, NH. In Massachusetts, 

the MBTA and MVRTA also provide commuter service to Boston along I-93 from communities to the 

north of the city. 

Additional New Hampshire regional bus service between communities outside of the study area and to 

Boston operates through the study area or along segments of the study corridor. Dartmouth Coach 

provides service from Dartmouth University in Hanover, NH and White River Junction, VT to Boston and 

travels non-stop through the study area along I-89 and I-93. Service to and from the New Hampshire 

Seacoast is operated by C&J from Dover, NH, Durham, NH, Portsmouth, NH and Newburyport, MA to 

Boston and New York City. Finally, Greyhound provides intercity service from Boston to Manchester, 

Concord and points north and west and from Boston to Nashua via Worcester, MA and Leominster, MA. 

Local bus service within the New Hampshire portion of the study area is provided by Concord Area 

Transit, Manchester Transit Authority and Nashua Transit Service. Local bus service in Massachusetts is 

also provided within the study area by the Lowell Regional Transit Authority. Interconnections between 

these local providers are limited. 

Boston Express 

Boston Express is a privately operated network of commuter buses that were originally procured by the 

State of New Hampshire as a mitigation measure for the expansion project on Interstate 93. NHDOT 

allocated capital investment to acquire the buses and construct a number of park and ride facilities. 

Two routes provide service to Boston South Station from the downtown Manchester bus terminal on 

Canal Street at Granite Street and via park and ride facilities on Route 3 or I-93. The Route 3 service 

makes stops at Exit 8 in Nashua and Exit 35 in Tyngsborough, MA, while the I-93 service makes stops at 

Exit 5 in North Londonderry, Exit 4 in Londonderry and Exit 2 in Salem. 

The I-93 service operates 24 peak period trips per day at 15–30 minute headways and 31 off-peak trips 

30-60 minute headways. The Route 3 service operates 14 peak period trips per day at 20-30 minute 

headways and 32 off-peak trips per day at 45-120 minutes headways. 

 

15 For more information on the Bus Services in the NHCC the reader is referred to the NHCC Project TASK 2: EXISTING BUS 

SERVICES Technical Memorandum. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 49 

Most Boston Express trips follow I-93 

directly to Boston South Station, but many 

of the southbound peak period trips on the 

I-93 service travel through downtown 

Boston to serve commuters on the way to 

or from South Station. Northbound trips to 

New Hampshire do not circulate through 

downtown, but depart directly from South 

Station and travel north on I-93. 

Existing traffic congestion along I-93 

significantly impacts Boston Express’ 

scheduled travel times. For instance, the 

6:30am southbound departure from 

Londonderry (Exit 4) on the I-93 service is 

scheduled for a one hour trip to South 

Station. Meanwhile, the 9:50am southbound 

departure is scheduled for a two hour and 

twenty minute trip, which is a built-in or 

induced delay of one hour and twenty 

minutes. 

Average daily ridership on the I-93 service is 

approximately 1,200 boardings and on the 

Route 3 service is approximately 600 daily 

boardings. 

Table 2-6: Boston Express I-93 Service 

I-93 Southbound Service I-93 Northbound Service

Average Weekday Ridership (March 2013) 613 602 

Peak Trips 12 12 

Off-Peak Trips 17 14 

Span of Service 4:00am – 9:50pm 7:15am – 11:55pm 

Peak Headways 20-30 min 15 min 

Off-Peak Headways 30-60 min 60 min 

Table 2-7: Boston Express Route 3 Service 

Route 3 Southbound Service Route 3 Northbound Service

Average Weekday Ridership (March 2013) 298 306 

Peak Trips 7 7 

Off-Peak Trips 16 16 

Span of Service 5:30am – 8:35pm 7:15am-11:00pm 

Peak Headways 30 min 20-30 min 

Off-Peak Headways 90-120 min 45-90 min 

Figure 2-15: Boston Express and Concord Coach 

Bus Routes 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 50 

Figure 2-16 shows the average weekday ridership and service velocity by the southbound time of arrival 

in Boston for March 2013. The black line shows scheduled service velocity in miles per hour by time of 

day. As would be expected service velocity is substantially higher for midday and evening trips. The red 

line shows average daily ridership for each scheduled trip. Boston Express suffers due to traffic 

congestion on I-93, because its service velocity is lowest when demand for its service is highest. 

Figure 2-16: Average Weekday Ridership and Service Velocity 

by Southbound Time of Arrival in Boston (March 2013) 

Most peak users of the Boston Express service are regular commuters as evidenced by their use of the 

discounted multi-ride commuter tickets. The off peak riders are much more likely to travel using a full 

fare one-way ticket. Figure 2-17 shows the number of passengers per hour who use a multi-ride 

commuter ticket (blue) and the number who purchase full fare, single ride tickets. 

Boston Express operates commuter service on a franchise from the State of New Hampshire and 

receives an annual subsidy. The subsidy is assessed each year based on operating revenue shortfalls. Its 

sister operation Concord Coach, operates as an entirely private entity and does not receive operating 

support for its intercity service. Both services use buses purchased with financial assistance from the 

State of New Hampshire. All the park and ride lots in the corridor used by Boston Express and Concord 

Coach were constructed and are owned by state or local governments. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 51 

Figure 2-17: Boston Express Total Revenue Collected by Fare Type and Departure Time 

Concord Coach 

Formerly known as Concord Trailways, Concord Coach Lines, Inc. is an intercity bus company originally 

founded in 1967, and expanded in 1988 with the purchase of the Trailways franchise. Concord Coach 

Lines operates along the I-93 corridor with service from Berlin, NH and Littleton, NH through Concord to 

Boston South Station and Logan Airport. It also operates service in the I-95 corridor between Bangor, ME 

and Boston. New Hampshire DOT tracks Concord Coach boardings at the Concord NH bus station on 

Stickney Avenue. In 2012, ridership averaged approximately 150 passenger boardings per day. 

Concord Coach operates a total of 13 northbound and 12 southbound trips per day between Concord, 

South Station and Logan Airport in Boston. Two roundtrips per day operate between Concord and 

Littleton. One roundtrip per day operates between Concord and Berlin and a truncated weekend-only 

service operates between Concord and as far north as North Conway. Boston Express tickets are crosshonored on all trips between Manchester, North Londonderry, Salem and Boston. 

Table 2-8: Concord Coach I-93 Bus Service 

Southbound Service Northbound Service

Ridership n/a n/a 

Peak Trips 4 5 

Off-Peak Trips 8 8 

Span of Service 5:00am-8:50pm 7:15am-11:20pm 

Peak Headways 60 min 60 min 

Off-Peak Headways 60 – 120 min 60 – 120 min 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 

The MBTA operates four peak-period, weekday-only express bus services within the study corridor along 

I-93 from Woburn, Burlington and West Medford to Haymarket and State Street in downtown Boston. 

Together these four routes carry almost 2,000 weekday passenger trips. These routes are subject to the 

same peak period traffic congestion on I-93 that adversely impacts motorists and other express bus 

services. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 52 

Table 2-9: MBTA I-93 Bus Service 

Route Garage Terminals 

Weekday Boardings 

Inbound Outbound Total 

325 Charlestown Elm St. - Haymarket Station 171 149 320 

326 Charlestown West Medford - Haymarket Station 227 207 434 

352 Charlestown Burlington - State Street 180 197 377 

354 Fellsway Woburn Line - State Street 365 427 792 

Total 943 980 1,923

Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (MVRTA) 

The MVRTA Boston Commuter Bus provides four inbound trips in the morning and four outbound trips 

in the evening via I-93. These buses, carry 257 passenger trips on a typical weekday and are subject to 

the same peak congestion that impacts other users of I-93. 

Greyhound 

Greyhound provides intercity service from Boston to Manchester, Concord and points north and west. 

Four daily Montreal-bound trips depart from Boston, three of which stop at Manchester Airport, two 

stop in Manchester and one stops in Concord. Of the four daily southbound trips from Montreal to 

Boston, one stops in Concord and Manchester, while all four stop at Manchester Airport. Greyhound 

also provides one trip per day between Boston, Nashua, Manchester and Concord via Worcester, MA 

and Leominster, MA. 

Dartmouth Coach 

Dartmouth Coach provides intercity service from New Hampshire’s Upper Valley to Boston and New 

York City. It does not make any stops or provide any service to communities within the study area. 

Manchester Transit Authority (MTA) 

The MTA provides bus service throughout Manchester and operates express service to Nashua and 

Concord. Thirteen routes provide scheduled service to Manchester and surrounding destinations. Two 

express routes provide service from downtown Manchester to Concord and from downtown 

Manchester to the Nashua Mall. The Concord Express originally served the Manchester-Boston Regional 

Airport (MHT), but that service was eliminated to low ridership. 

Nashua Transit System (NTS) 

The NTS comprises nine local routes that begin and end their trips at the downtown Transit Center 

behind City Hall. Each route operates 12-13 roundtrips per day on hourly headways. 

Concord Area Transit (CAT) 

The CAT operates three weekday routes serving the City of Concord and surrounding communities. Each 

route operates 12-13 hours per day. 

Lowell Regional Transit Authority (LRTA) 

The LRTA operates 12 local routes and one downtown shuttle serving the City of Lowell and the towns of 

Billerica, Burlington, Dracut, Chelmsford, Tewksbury, Tyngsborough, Westford and Wilmington. All 12 

routes now operate on hourly headways. The downtown shuttle operates on 30 minute headways from 

7:30 AM - 7:00 PM. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 53 

3.0 SERVICE ALTERNATIVES 

The study team held numerous meetings with a wide variety of stakeholders including public officials 

from New Hampshire and Massachusetts, all the regional public transportation providers, Amtrak, Pan 

Am Railways and the general public. The project rationale derived from the process of assembling and 

evaluating information concerning existing and likely future travel conditions in the corridor, . This 

research and consultation led the team to understand the opportunities and constraints it faced in 

frame alternatives for improved public transport service in the corridor. As the study was jointly funded 

by the Federal Railroad and Transit Administrations, the range of alternatives considered and developed 

covered both bus and rail service options. The bus service options included modifications to the 

frequency and operating conditions of the existing Boston Express commuter bus system. The rail 

service options included extensions of the MBTA’s Lowell Line service and options for intercity rail 

services that would overlay on the existing mix of passenger and freight rail services that are currently 

operated along the corridor. 

The most salient transport problem addressed in developing the alternatives was improving connections 

between Southern New Hampshire and the regional core in downtown Boston. The principal travel 

obstacle in the corridor is the extreme peak period highway congestion that slows Boston bound travel 

to a 12 mph crawl for the final eight miles of a typical morning peak trip into the city. 

The study team consulted with the MBTA, Pan Am, NHDOT, MassDOT, Boston Express and others to 

develop a set of two base, nine rail and three bus service options for preliminary screening. Using 

preliminary estimates of cost, demand and revenue the study team consulted with project stakeholders 

and the general public to screen the 14 preliminary options down to seven final options (three rail, three 

bus) for refinement and more detailed analysis. This chapter introduces the 14 preliminary options then 

reviews the final options in more detail. 

Table 3-1: Preliminary Rail Service Options 

Options 

Weekday Revenue Trains Route 

Miles 

Stations 

Nashua Manchester Concord Served

Base Service 0 0 0 26 8

INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL OPTIONS

Intercity 8 8 8 8 73 6

Intercity 12 12 12 12 73 6 

Intercity 16 18 18 18 73 6

COMMUTER AND REGIONAL RAIL OPTIONS

1. Concord Regional 30 8 8 73 13 

2. Concord Commuter 26 22 18 73 13 

3. Manchester Regional 34 16 0 56 12 

4. Manchester Commuter 30 20 0 56 12 

5. Nashua Commuter 34 0 0 39 10 

6. Nashua Minimum 16 0 0 35 9 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 54 

Table 3-2: Conceptual Bus Service Options 

Options 

Weekday Revenue Trips

ManchesterN. LondonderryLondonderrySalemNashuaTyngsboroSouth StationLogan Weekday Vehicle Miles%& Increase in Weekday Vehicle Miles

Airport 

Base (Existing Service) 18 46 17 39 24 23 80 58 3,932 0% 

 Base+ (Base Expanded) 32 40 39 40 38 38 120 120 5,850 49% 

BoS (Bus on Shoulder) 18 46 17 39 24 23 80 58 3,932 0% 

BoS+ (Bus on Shoulder Expanded) 32 40 39 40 38 38 120 120 5,850 49% 

3.1 Preliminary Intercity Passenger Rail Service Options 

The study team devised a hierarchy of 

three conceptual options that could be 

operated as an independent “Granite 

State” intercity rail service that would 

extend 73 miles northward from North 

Station to Concord. These options are 

based on historic and current physical 

attributes of the NHML, the schedule 

of passenger services on the line and 

general service parameters for Amtrak 

services in corridors of less than 150 

miles. Each service would: 

• Operate independently of the 

MBTA and Amtrak Downeaster 

passenger services already serving 

the southernmost 25 miles of the 

route; 

• Require no upgrades to 

infrastructure south of Lowell; 

• Require upgrades to rail 

infrastructure north of Lowell 

including; 

• Upgrade 48 miles of existing track 

to FRA Class 4 providing for 

maximum passenger train speeds 

of 70 mph, since no historic 

records show higher speeds along 

Figure 3-1: Intercity Rail Service Options 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 55 

the route since its opening in the 1800’s; 

• Establish Crown Street in Nashua as a passing point for northbound and southbound passenger 

trains (Intercity Options 12 and 18); 

• Install one or more industrial sidings between Nashua and Concord allowing passenger trains to pass 

or meet freight trains; 

• Install a passing siding on the PanAm mainline west of North Chelmsford to reduce the need for 

trains to stand east of North Chelmsford on the route between Lowell and Nashua; 

• Install Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee (NORAC) Rule 261 signals between 

Manchester and Concord (approximately 18 miles), and; 

• Install MBTA Positive Train Control protection. 

The services would stop at six passenger stations north of Boston. Details concerning these stations are 

provided in the NHCC Profit Stations and Layovers Technical Memorandum. The distance and travel 

time to Boston for each of these stations are listed in Table 3-3. 

Table 3-3: Initial Conceptual Design Miles and Travel Time to Boston 

Station Miles to Boston Time to Boston

Concord 73.4 1:36

Manchester 55.5 1:22

MHT / Bedford 50.1 1:09

Nashua 38.8 0:56

Lowell 25.5 0:38

Woburn 12.6 0:23

The projected travel times compare favorably with historic minimum travel times between Concord and 

Boston (see Table 3-4). 

Table 3-4: Historic Minimum Concord-Boston Travel Times 

1910 1926 1945 1954

Travel Time 2:00 2:05 1:35 1:22

Average Speed (mph) 37 35 46 54

Source: Jacobs analysis of archived public timetables 

Intercity 8 

The eight-train per day Intercity 8 Rail Option would provide four daily round trips over the 73 mile 

route stopping at five intermediate stations including the Manchester Airport (see Table XX). The endto- end trip time would be approximately 96 minutes. The service would entail 586 daily train miles. 

Presuming an average cost of $36 per train mile, Intercity 8 would cost approximately $8 million per 

year to operate. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 56 

Table 3-5: Intercity 8 Preliminary Timetable 

380 382 384 386 Station MP 381 383 385 387

6:38 10:38 14:53 19:53

Read Down

Concord NH 73.3

Read Up 

10:07 14:22 18:57 23:37

6:52 10:52 15:07 20:07 Manchester NH 55.7 9:41 13:56 18:31 23:11

7:05 11:05 15:20 20:20 MHT (Bedford) 50.1 9:33 13:48 18:23 23:03

7:18 11:18 15:33 20:33 Nashua 39.0 9:20 13:35 18:10 22:50

7:36 11:36 15:51 20:51 Lowell 25.5 9:02 13:17 17:52 22:32

7:52 11:52 16:07 21:07 Anderson/ Woburn 12.6 8:46 13:01 17:36 22:16

8:15 12:15 16:30 21:30 North Station 0.0 8:30 12:45 17:20 22:00

The service could be extended with possible connections to private bus services for North Country 

destinations. No substantial changes in express bus service for commuting to Boston via US 

Route3/Everett Turnpike or I-93 would be expected. Local bus service to the intercity rail stations could 

be offered but would not be integral to the service design. The service would use a single four-car train 

set stored in Concord. A spare locomotive and a spare coach would also be required. 

Intercity 12 

 The twelve-train per day Intercity 12 Rail Option would operate six daily round trips. The service would 

provide travelers in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts with more convenient morning 

northbound trips and evening 

southbound trips that would not be 

available with Intercity 8. The service 

would entail 880 daily train miles. 

Presuming an average cost of $36 per 

train mile, Intercity 12 would cost 

approximately $12 million per year to 

operate. 

As with Intercity 8, the service could 

be extended with possible connections 

to private bus services for North 

Country destinations. No substantial 

changes in express bus service for 

commuting to Boston via US Route 

3/Everett Turnpike or I-93 would be 

expected. Local bus service to the rail 

stations could be offered but would 

not be integral to the service design. 

The service would use two four-car 

train sets. One would be stored in 

Concord and the other in Boston. A 

spare locomotive and one spare coach would also be required. 

Table 3-6: Intercity 12 Preliminary Timetable

Southbound

Train 380 382 384 386 388 390

Concord NH 6:33 8:33 10:33 16:33 18:33 22:33

Manchester 6:47 8:47 10:47 16:47 18:47 22:47

MHT (Bedford) 7:00 9:00 11:00 17:00 19:00 23:00

Nashua 7:13 9:13 11:13 17:13 19:13 23:13

Lowell 7:31 9:31 11:31 17:31 19:31 23:31

Woburn 7:47 9:47 11:47 17:47 19:47 23:47

North Station 8:10 10:10 12:10 18:10 20:10 0:10 

Northbound

Train 381 383 385 387 389 391

North Station 6:20 8:23 10:23 16:23 18:23 22:23

Woburn 6:36 8:39 10:39 16:39 18:39 22:39

Lowell 6:52 8:55 10:55 16:55 18:55 22:55

Nashua 7:13 9:13 11:13 17:13 19:13 23:13

MHT (Bedford) 7:26 9:26 11:26 17:26 19:26 23:26

Manchester 7:34 9:34 11:34 17:34 19:34 23:34

Concord NH 8:00 10:00 12:00 18:00 20:00 0:00 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 57 

Intercity 18 

The eighteen-train per day Intercity 18 Rail Option would provide nine daily round trips. This would 

constitute bi-hourly, bi-directional service 18 hours per day between Concord and Boston. It represents 

an upper limit on the density of intercity service that could be considered between Central New 

Hampshire and Downtown Boston. The service would entail 1,319 daily train miles. Presuming an 

average cost of $36 per train mile, Intercity 18 would cost approximately $17 million per year to 

operate. As with the other options, Intercity 18 could be extended with possible connections to private 

bus services for North Country destinations. No substantial changes in express bus service for 

commuting to Boston via US Route3/Everett Turnpike or I-93 would be expected. Local bus service to 

the intercity rail stations could be offered but would not be integral to the service design. Like Intercity 

12, the service would use two four-car train sets. One would be stored in Concord and the other in 

Boston. A spare locomotive and one spare coach would also be required. 

Table 3-7: Intercity 18 Preliminary Timetable 

Southbound

Train 380 382 384 386 388 390 392 394 396

Concord NH 6:33 8:33 10:33 12:33 14:33 16:33 18:33 20:33 22:33

Manchester 6:47 8:47 10:47 12:47 14:47 16:47 18:47 20:47 22:47

MHT (Bedford) 7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00

Nashua 7:13 9:13 11:13 13:13 15:13 17:13 19:13 21:13 23:13

Lowell 7:31 9:31 11:31 13:31 15:31 17:31 19:31 21:31 23:31

Woburn 7:47 9:47 11:47 13:47 15:47 17:47 19:47 21:47 23:47

North Station 8:10 10:10 12:10 14:10 16:10 18:10 20:10 22:10 0:10 

Northbound

Train 381 383 385 387 389 391 393 395 397

North Station 6:20 8:23 10:23 12:23 14:23 16:23 18:23 20:23 22:23

Woburn 6:36 8:39 10:39 12:39 14:39 16:39 18:39 20:39 22:39

Lowell 6:52 8:55 10:55 12:55 14:55 16:55 18:55 20:55 22:55

Nashua 7:13 9:13 11:13 13:13 15:13 17:13 19:13 21:13 23:13

MHT (Bedford) 7:26 9:26 11:26 13:26 15:26 17:26 19:26 21:26 23:26

Manchester 7:34 9:34 11:34 13:34 15:34 17:34 19:34 21:34 23:34

Concord NH 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 58 

3.2 Preliminary Commuter Rail Options16

Meetings with MassDOT and the MBTA in the Spring of 2012 indicated a willingness to work with 

NHDOT on the provision of passenger service along the New Hampshire Main Line (NHML) from New 

Hampshire to North Station. This cooperation could come in the form of MBTA operation of trains into 

New Hampshire or the operation of intercity trains along the same route. It was stated that with the 

imminent relocation of the Spaulding Hospital immediately west of North Station that two new station 

tracks at the terminal would be opened providing capacity for one additional peak Amtrak train in each 

direction. MBTA would also be willing to extend its service into New Hampshire provided that the 

service extension was essentially transparent to existing MBTA passengers using the services offered 

between Lowell and Boston and that the net cost of the service extension to Massachusetts taxpayers 

would be zero. 

The “net cost of zero” would be achieved via a “Pilgrim Partnership” arrangement with NHDOT that 

would mimic the successful rail service funding and operational arrangements between Rhode Island 

and Massachusetts that allow the MBTA to offer passenger rail service into Rhode Island. The broad 

outline of the “Pilgrim Partnership” calls for the host state to provide the MBTA with an ongoing flow of 

capital funds. The funds, much of which would be federal formula grants, would be spent at the MBTA’s 

prerogative on rolling stock and facilities necessary for its overall commuter rail operation. Some of the 

funded assets may be used for the interstate service but none of the assets are dedicated or obligated 

to that service. With that capital funding in place, the MBTA would agree to operate trains into the 

neighboring state in exchange for the passenger revenue collected from out of state passengers. The 

funding host state would be responsible for upkeep of the fixed infrastructure in its state and any fees 

charged by the host railway. The MBTA would then pay for management, train crews, fuel, and 

maintenance of rolling stock. 

The study team devised a hierarchy of six conceptual rail services that could be operated as an extension 

of MBTA Lowell service northward into New Hampshire. These options were based on historic and 

current physical attributes of the NHML, the schedule of passenger services on the line and parameters 

of the MBTA’s offer to operate the service as integral portion of its other services to and from North 

Station. Each service would: 

• extend existing MBTA service into New Hampshire; 

• be generally transparent to existing MBTA customers; 

• have no impacts on existing Amtrak service between North Station and Maine; 

• require no upgrades to infrastructure south of Lowell, and; 

• require upgrades to rail infrastructure north of Lowell including: 

o Upgrades to existing track (up to 48 miles) to FRA Class 3 providing for maximum passenger 

train speeds of 60 mph17

; 

o Installation of second mainline track between North Chelmsford and downtown Nashua; 

 

16 For more information on the NHCC Preliminary Rail Alternatives the reader is referred to the NHCC Project TASK 

4: PRELIMINARY RAIL SERVICE OPTIONS Technical Memorandum. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 59 

o Installation of at least one siding between Nashua and Bow allowing passenger trains to 

pass or meet freight trains serving this segment; 

o Installation of NORAC Rule 261 signals between Manchester and Concord. (approximately 

18 miles), and; 

o Installation of MBTA Positive Train Control protection. 

Class 3 track was selected for the preliminary options to reduce costs. An upgrade to Class 4 would cost 

more for track upgrades and maintenance. The estimated difference in running times between Nashua 

and Lowell with an upgrade to Class 4 would be one minute. Class 4 track would cut approximately six 

minutes on the running time between Concord and Lowell. For one commuter rail option (2) the team 

used Class 4 speeds (up to 70 mph) in order to establish an economic harmony between the existing 

MBTA schedules and rolling stock and crew requirements. 

The six conceptual commuter rail services are described below. The services would stop at up to six 

passenger stations north of Lowell. Table 3-8 lists the five stations with their distance to Boston and 

projected maximum and minimum travel times. Details concerning these stations are provided in the 

NHCC Project Stations and Layover Facilities Technical Memorandum. For more detailed information 

concerning the preliminary rail options the reader is referred to the NHCC Project Definition of Final 

Alternatives Technical Memorandum. 

Table 3-8: Initial Conceptual Designs: Miles and Minutes to Boston 

Station 

Miles to 

Boston 

Maximum 

Travel Time to 

Boston 

Minimum 

Travel Time to 

Boston 

Concord 73.4 1:54 1:46

Manchester 55.5 1:32 1:25

MHT / Bedford 50.1 1:24 1:17

Downtown Nashua 38.8 1:14 1:02

Nashua South 35.5 1:08 0:54

Option 1: Concord Regional Rail Service 

Option 1 provides a mix of commuter train service for Nashua with a lower frequency regional service 

provided for Manchester and Concord. The service adds six new stations to the line with eight weekday 

trains for Concord and Manchester and 30 weekday trains for Nashua. All MBTA deadhead trains are 

eliminated. A layover facility for one train set would be required in Concord and for three trains in the 

vicinity of Nashua. The service would require an additional train set conservatively estimated at seven 

coaches. Additional coaches on the other five train sets assigned to the service would be required to 

carry the new passengers on to the NHML services. Up to twelve coaches and one locomotive would be 

added to the MBTA’s weekday line up of equipment for one new seven car train and five additional 

coaches on existing consists assigned to the service. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 60 

Option 2: Concord Commuter Rail Service

Compared with Option 1, Option 2 

provides a more ambitious level of 

service for Concord (and Manchester). 

It is the only commuter rail option that 

would require Class 4 track and would 

necessitate extensive track upgrades, 

with maximum speeds between Lowell 

and Concord restored to their historic 

maximum of 70 mph where possible. 

Like Option 1 it adds six new stations to 

the line but provides 18 trains to 

Concord, 22 to Manchester and 

MHT/Bedford, with 26 trains to 

Nashua. Four MBTA train sets assigned 

to the line are stored overnight in the 

vicinity Concord. 

Owing to the higher maximum speeds, 

the travel times from Concord, 

Manchester and Nashua would be 

somewhat shorter, approximately 105 

minutes, 90 minutes and 66 minutes 

respectively. The largest time saving 

resulting from the higher speeds is for 

the 73 mile trip to Concord. Like 

Option 1, the service would require an 

additional train set of conservatively 

estimated at seven coaches. Up to 12 coaches and one locomotive would be added to the MBTA’s 

weekday line up as in Option 1. 

Option 3: Manchester Regional Rail Service

Option 3 provides a mix of commuter train service for Nashua with a lower frequency regional service 

provided north to Manchester. MBTA service would be extended 30 miles to downtown Manchester. 

The service adds five new stations to the line with 16 weekday trains for Manchester and 34 for Nashua. 

As with Options 1 and 2, all MBTA deadhead trains are eliminated. A layover facility for four train sets 

would be constructed in the vicinity of Manchester. Up to 12 coaches and one locomotive would be 

added to the MBTA’s weekday line up of equipment. 

Option 4: Manchester Commuter Rail Service

Option 4 provides more extensive service for Manchester compared with the Options 1 through 3. As 

with Option 3, MBTA service would be extended 30 miles to downtown Manchester. The service adds 

five new stations to the line with 20 weekday trains for Manchester and 30 for Nashua. As with the 

previous options, all MBTA deadhead trains are eliminated. As with Option 3, a layover facility for four 

Figure 3-2: Intercity Rail Service Options 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 61 

train sets would be constructed in the 

vicinity of Manchester. Also as with 

the previous options, up to 12 coaches 

and one locomotive would be added to 

the MBTA’s weekday line up. 

Option 5: Nashua Commuter Rail 

Service

Option 5 provides commuter train 

service to and from Downtown Nashua 

with no rail service beyond to 

Manchester or Concord. It could be 

developed and operated as an interim 

service coordinated with bus service 

for Manchester and Concord until 

service is implemented further north. 

MBTA service would be extended 13 

miles from Lowell to Downtown 

Nashua. The service adds two new 

stations to the line with 34 weekday 

trains for Nashua. A layover facility for 

four train sets would be constructed in 

the vicinity of Nashua. As with the 

other options, up to 12 coaches and 

one locomotive would be added to the 

MBTA’s weekday line up. 

Option 6: Nashua Minimum Rail Service 

Option 6 provides a minimal peak only commuter rail service to and from South Nashua with no rail 

service beyond Nashua to Manchester or Concord. It is specifically designed to minimize the MBTA 

operating cost of extending service to Nashua. Like Option 5, it could be developed and operated as an 

interim service coordinated with bus service while markets and finances for more New Hampshire were 

given time to develop. 

MBTA service would be extended 9.7 miles to the South Nashua station located at or immediately across 

the New Hampshire State Line. The service adds one new station to the line with 16 weekday trains for 

Nashua. As with Option 5, a layover facility for four train sets would be constructed in the vicinity of 

South Nashua. Similar to the previous options, up to 13 coaches and one locomotive would be added to 

the MBTA’s weekday line up of equipment. The South Nashua station would be located approximately 

at Milepost 35.2 in the vicinity of Pheasant Lane Mall or Spit Brook Road. 

Figure 3-3: Manchester Rail Service Options 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 62 

Rail Option 6 is proposed to provide service from Boston North Station to South Nashua during peak 

periods only and would travel only as 

far north as Lowell, MA during off-peak 

periods. The rail service could 

potentially be supplemented by a 

schedule of feeder buses that would 

extend the reach of off-peak trains 

north to South Nashua to ensure that 

adequate mid-day mobility and travel 

options are available to daily 

commuters. Six inbound and six 

outbound buses could be provided 

throughout the day and could be 

operated with a single vehicle. 

To schedule the feeder service with a 

single bus, the study team decided to 

prioritize travel time for southbound 

passengers. The proposed timetables 

found in the NHCC Project Definition of 

Final Alternatives Technical 

Memorandum show that southbound 

trips are scheduled to provide five 

minutes for the transfer from bus to 

rail. This will require that the bus 

portion of the trip is operated reliably 

to ensure that the connection to the 

train is made on time. The northbound trips will depart using the same bus and passengers will 

therefore wait approximately fifteen minutes for the transfer from rail to bus. This is due to the time 

required for crews to turn the train in Lowell. This longer transfer time built in to the schedules will 

allow for any delays on outbound rail trips from Boston and ensure that transferring passengers are not 

left at the station in Lowell. 

Figure 3-4: Nashua Rail Service Options 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 63 

3.3 Preliminary Bus Service Options18

Recognizing that any rail service would require a substantial investment in upgrading track and 

constructing support facilities, the study team also developed options that could improve the frequency 

and or travel time of express and intercity bus service offered in the corridor. Recognizing that peak 

period bus service from New Hampshire to Boston is mired in the same crawling automobile traffic that 

slows travel for motorists, the study team spent considerable time researching the potential benefits of 

offering Bus-on-Shoulder (BoS) service along I-93 in Massachusetts. The team also developed options 

that would expand the frequency and directness of bus service between downtown Boston and 

southern New Hampshire. The mix of more and frequent service resulted in three bus service options 

for consideration plus the base (existing) service option as summarized in Table 3-9. 

Table 3-9: Preliminary Bus Service Options 

Options 

Weekday Revenue Trips

ManchesterN. LondonderryLondonderrySalemNashuaTyngsboroSouth StationLogan AirportWeekday Vehicle Miles%& Increase in Weekday Vehicle Miles

Base (Existing Service) 18 40 19 32 37 21 80 58 3,932 0% 

 Base+ (Base Expanded) 32 39 38 39 37 37 120 120 5,850 49% 

BoS (Bus on Shoulder) 18 40 19 32 37 21 80 58 3,932 0% 

BoS+ (Bus on Shoulder Expanded) 38 39 38 39 37 37 120 120 5,850 49% 

This portion of the Service Development Plan describes how Bus-on-Shoulder could be developed to 

offer some peak travel time savings. It then goes on to summarize the three bus service investment 

options. Additional details on the preliminary bus option can be found in the NHCC Project Definition of 

Final Alternatives Technical Memorandum. 

Base Service (Existing) 

The Base Service currently offered in the corridor is used as a baseline to compare the performance of 

any proposed transit service expansion to existing conditions. It is assumed to include any planned 

improvements to the highway network that would be in place by 2030, such as the NHDOT I-93 

improvement project and various interchange and lane improvements within Massachusetts. This 

option also includes the existing park and ride lots throughout the corridor. It maintains the current 

express and intercity bus service between New Hampshire, South Station and Logan Airport along I-93. It 

does not incorporate any expansion of rail service on the Capitol Corridor, but includes the proposed 

commuter rail extension to Plaistow, NH. Table 3-10and Table 3-11 list the number of weekday trips 

 

18 For more information on the NHCC Preliminary Bus Alternatives the reader is referred to the NHCC Project TASK 

4: PRELIMINARY BUS SERVICE OPTIONS Technical Memorandum. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 64 

and scheduled travel times between the park and ride lots and the South Station bus terminal 

and the preliminary timetable can be found in the NHCC Project Definition of Final Alternatives 

Technical Memorandum.

Table 3-10: Base Service Bus Trips 

Manchester

N. Londonderry 

(Exit 5) 

Londonderry 

(Exit 4) 

Salem 

(Exit 2)

Nashua 

(Exit 8) 

Tyngsboro 

(Exit 35) 

South 

Station

Logan 

Airport

SB Trips 8 21 7 20 12 11 42 31 

NB Trips 10 25 10 19 12 12 38 27 

Total 18 46 17 39 24 23 80 58 

Table 3-11: Base Service Travel Times to/from South Station 

Manchester 

N. Londonderry 

(Exit 5) 

Londonderry 

(Exit 4) 

Salem 

(Exit 2) 

Nashua 

(Exit 8) 

Tyngsboro 

(Exit 35) 

Max 

Off-peak 2:15 1:40 1:50 1:20 1:45 1:30 

Peak 2:20 1:30 1:45 1:25 1:50 1:35 

Min 

Off-peak 1:05 1:05 1:15 0:45 1:04 0:50 

Peak 1:40 1:05 1:00 0:45 1:00 1:05 

Base+ (Base Expanded) 

The Base+ Option increases the frequency of bus service along the study corridor by providing additional 

peak period, point-to-point, non-stop trips from each of the New Hampshire park and ride lots to Boston 

South Station. The service would add approximately 40 trips to the daily schedule, and would provide 

more frequent service to and from each of the existing park and ride lots. The additional service would 

require approximately ten additional vehicles and drivers. There are no transit priority measures 

proposed in this option that would aim to increase service velocities or decrease travel times. 

Peak period point-to-point service would be provided between each park and ride lot and Boston South 

Station at 30 minute headways, except for Manchester service which would be operated at 60 minute 

headways throughout the day. Hourly off-peak service would provide service to each park-and-ride lot 

within the I-93 or Route 3 corridors. Table 3-12 and Table 3-13 list the number of weekday trips and 

scheduled travel times between the park and ride lots and the South Station bus terminal and the 

preliminary timetable can be found in the NHCC Project Definition of Final Alternatives Technical 

Memorandum. 

Table 3-12: Base+ Trips 

Manchester

N. Londonderry 

(Exit 5) 

Londonderry 

(Exit 4) 

Salem 

(Exit 2)

Nashua 

(Exit 8)

Tyngsboro 

(Exit 35) South Station

SB Trips 16 20 19 20 18 18 60

NB Trips 16 20 20 20 20 20 60

Total 32 40 39 40 38 38 120
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 65 

Table 3-13: Base+ Travel Times 

Manchester

N. Londonderry 

(Exit 5) 

Londonderry 

(Exit 4) 

Salem 

(Exit 2) 

Nashua 

(Exit 8) 

Tyngsboro 

(Exit 35) 

Max 

Off 2:15 1:40 1:50 1:20 1:45 1:30 

Peak 2:20 1:30 1:45 1:25 1:50 1:35 

Min 

Off 1:05 1:05 1:15 0:45 1:04 0:50 

Peak 1:40 1:05 1:00 0:45 1:00 1:05 

BoS (Bus on Shoulder) 

The Bus on Shoulder option aims to provide faster peak period service by utilizing Bus on Shoulder (BoS) 

operations. The option would not add any additional trips, but would provide faster, more reliable travel 

times between New Hampshire and Boston South Station. The proposed timetables maintain the 

existing arrival and departure times at South Station and modify the departure and arrival times at New 

Hampshire park and ride lots based on the estimated travel time savings that would be possible from 

BoS operation. The service would not require any additional vehicles to operate the proposed schedule. 

It could potentially reduce vehicle requirements by allowing vehicles to operate more reliably so that 

they could provide multiple peak period roundtrips. Table 3-14 and Table 3-15 list the number of 

weekday trips and scheduled travel times between the park and ride lots and the South Station bus 

terminal and the preliminary timetable can be found in the NHCC Project Definition of Final Alternatives 

Technical Memorandum. 

This option could potentially be combined with a viable passenger rail option or advanced as a 

Transportation Systems Management (TSM) approach or be implemented as a companion to a potential 

rail service improvement. A TSM is a Federal Transit Administration designation for an option that would 

contain a collection of low cost transportation improvements that seek to mitigate congestion or 

enhance the operational capacity of the existing transportation network. 

Table 3-14: BoS Trips 

Manchester 

N. Londonderry 

(Exit 5) 

Londonderry 

(Exit 4) 

Salem 

(Exit 2) 

Nashua 

(Exit 8) 

Tyngsboro 

(Exit 35) 

South 

Station 

SB Trips 8 21 7 20 12 11 42

NB Trips 10 25 10 19 12 12 38

Total 18 46 17 39 24 23 80

Table 3-15: BoS Travel Times 

Manchester

N. Londonderry 

(Exit 5) 

Londonderry 

(Exit 4) 

Salem 

(Exit 2) 

Nashua 

(Exit 8) 

Tyngsboro 

(Exit 35) 

Max 

Off 1:35 1:20 0:00 1:00 1:20 1:05

Peak 2:10 1:27 1:37 1:15 1:40 1:25

Min 

Off 1:25 1:05 0:00 0:45 1:04 0:50

Peak 0:53 0:52 0:57 0:37 0:51 0:51
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 66 

Bus on Shoulder (BoS) Service 

Bus use of highway shoulders has been an operational 

practice in North America for over 20 years. This 

growing practice allows professional bus drivers the 

discretionary authority to drive within highway 

shoulders to reduce travel times and increase the 

reliability of transit service. The longstanding history of 

bus-on-shoulder (BoS) operations and the increasing 

number of communities pursuing such projects point to 

the success of this practice in terms of both passenger 

and institutional benefits, and automobile driver 

acceptance. Many agencies have demonstrated that 

BoS can safely and cost-effectively improve transit 

service on congested roadways. 

Highway shoulders, generally used as an emergency 

breakdown lane and for emergency response vehicles 

can be easily adapted for bus use. The key design 

requirements are a minimum lane width of 10 feet (12 

feet preferred), adequate shoulder pavement strength, 

drainage inlets level with roadway, and signage. 

Conflicts with pavement edge rumble strips and lateral 

obstructions adjacent to shoulders sometimes need to 

be addressed. The costs for these upgrades vary 

widely, but are modest compared with most highway 

widening and interchange reconstruction costs.19

 

Two of the earliest and most extensive BoS networks are operated in Minneapolis and Ottawa. Both 

systems have been in safe operation for more than 20 years. In Ottawa, buses can use the shoulders of 

limited access highways at any time with maximum allowable speeds of 62 mph (100 kmh). The more 

conservative, Minneapolis system allows buses to use the shoulder of the highway when the speed of 

general traffic drops below 35 mph. Buses on the shoulder may operate at speeds 15 mph faster than 

travel in other lanes up to a maximum speed of 35 mph. The more liberal Ottawa approach is consistent 

with current general purpose vehicle use of highway shoulders on I-93 and I-95 in Greater Boston where 

automobiles are allowed to travel at 65 mph in the shoulder during peak periods. 

With over 300 miles of bus-on-shoulder operations, the Twin Cities and Ottawa examples are the most 

extensive North American BoS networks. Many other communities have found this practice to be 

advantageous. As of 2012, transit buses were also operating on shoulders in Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, 

 

19 Martin, Peter C. (2006). TCRP Synthesis 64: Bus Use of Shoulders, A Synthesis of Transit Practice, Transportation 

Research Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C. 2006, 100 pp. 

Figure 3-5: Bus on Shoulder in Minneapolis 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 67 

Washington, New Jersey, Georgia, Delaware, California, Florida, Kansas, North Carolina, Ohio and 

Ontario. 

Locally, the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission and Massachusetts DOT are evaluating BoS 

operations for I-93 in Massachusetts. That study assumes that BoS service along I-93 would follow the 

Minnesota operating model of 35 mph maximum speeds between I-495 and the Leonard P. Zakim – 

Bunker Hill Bridge in Boston. 

Benefits of BoS 

The direct benefits of BoS include reduced travel times and increased service reliability. BoS allows bus 

operators to maintain travel speeds, even in the case of unexpected traffic conditions, in turn increasing 

the reliability of the transit service. Not only are actual travel times reduced once buses are allowed to 

bypass congestion, but customers perceive even greater reductions in travel time. Since perceptions are 

a key determinant in travel mode decisions, perceived travel time savings are a real catalyst for 

increased transit market share. 

Safety 

Despite the long history of BoS, communities considering new BoS systems are often concerned with 

potential safety impacts. These concerns often focus on the ability of buses to merge in and out of 

general purpose lanes around highway entrances and exits or vehicles stopped on the shoulder 

(disabled vehicles, tow trucks, emergency responders, etc). BoS networks in operation, however, have 

proven that thoughtfully designed BoS operations are inherently safe. 

In the Twin Cities area approximately half of all bus routes operated by the region’s two largest transit 

providers operate on corridors that have the option to use BoS at some point along the route. The 

number of accidents involving these buses is low considering the scope of BoS operations. During the 

initial ten years, between 1991 and 2001, there were 200 BoS accidents. Since the Twin Cities BoS 

system averaged 90 miles over this period, the number of accidents can be expressed as 0.2 accidents 

per mile per year. Most accidents were minor scrapes or mirror clips. No injuries were reported. Since 

2001, there has been one injury.20 An automobile struck a BoS bus from the rear killing the automobile 

driver. After 15 years of operations, Minneapolis Metro Transit reserves only $7,000 per year for 

damages resulting from BoS-related accidents. In other words, Metro Transit currently budgets 

approximately $26 per mile, annually, for BoS-related damages and contingencies. 

Travel on the shoulder is advantageous only under congested conditions when buses have an 

opportunity to bypass slow moving traffic. Because buses only operate on shoulders when traffic in 

general purpose lanes is slow, the potential for accidents, especially those causing injury, are low. 

Whether operating a bus or private auto, drivers’ ability to react to changing conditions is much greater 

at low speeds. For example, merging around obstructions is relatively easy for both buses and slow 

moving traffic on congested roadways. 

 

20 State and Local Policy Program, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota (June 

2007). Bus-only Shoulders in the Twin Cities. Prepared for the FTA. Retrieved from 

http://www.hhh.umn.edu/img/assets/11475/Bus/Only/Shoulders/Report/FINAL.pdf
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 68 

Existing Conditions 

I-93 in New Hampshire is currently undergoing reconstruction to add two general purpose lanes in each 

direction as a congestion mitigation measure. Travel is not currently permitted on the shoulders. I-93 in 

Massachusetts is three lanes in either direction between the State Line and Exit 41 (Route 125) in 

Andover. South of Exit 41, an additional general travel lane is added in each direction. 

Peak vehicles in Massachusetts have been allowed to travel at speeds for up to 65 mph along the 

shoulders of I-93 north of Exit 41 since 199921. Traffic flow in the peak periods is facilitated by the use of 

the shoulder in the peak direction between 6:00am and 10:00am in the morning, and between 3:00pm 

and 7:00pm in the afternoon. Shoulder use is not currently permitted for use by transit vehicles or 

commercial buses. Permission to use the breakdown lane for full speed general purpose traffic 

operations was extended by the Federal Highway Administration as an interim measure until a fourth 

lane is added north of Exit 41. 

Table 3-16: Estimated BoS Bus Travel Time Savings by Time of Day and Direction 

Arrival Time at 

Boston South Station

Morning Peak Southbound

6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00

Typical Day

From NH State Line 0:07 0:08 0:08 0:09 0:08 0:08 0:12 0:13

From I-495 0:07 0:08 0:08 0:09 0:08 0:08 0:12 0:13

From I-95 0:07 0:08 0:08 0:09 0:08 0:07 0:08 0:08

BadTrafficDay

From NH State Line 0:12 0:23 0:26 0:37 0:24 0:27 0:02 0:00

From I-495 0:12 0:23 0:26 0:33 0:23 0:27 0:02 0:00

From I-95 0:10 0:21 0:13 0:16 0:15 0:27 0:02 0:00

Departure Time from 

Boston South Station

Afternoon Peak Northbound

4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00

Typical Day

To I-95 0:00 0:01 0:02 0:02 0:02 0:00 0:00

To I-495 0:00 0:01 0:02 0:02 0:02 0:00 0:00

To NH State Line 0:00 0:01 0:02 0:05 0:03 0:00 0:00

Bad Traffic

Day 

To I-95 0:06 0:07 0:09 0:12 0:08 0:07 0:01

To I-495 0:09 0:12 0:13 0:15 0:16 0:11 0:09

To NH State Line 0:10 0:19 0:18 0:29 0:25 0:20 0:13

BoS operations would preclude shoulder use for private automobiles so that some mitigating measure 

may be necessary if BoS were implemented on this portion of I-93 before it is widened in 

 

21 Use of the breakdown lane for travel in the peak periods was instituted in 1999 after Andover State 

Representative Barry Finegold brought legislators and officials from Massachusetts and New Hampshire together 

to discuss options to reduce congestion on I-93. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 69 

Massachusetts’ Essex County. There are currently no funded Massachusetts plans to widen I-93 

between the State Line and Exit 41. 

MassDOT is planning to reconstruct Exit 46 in Methuen. When complete a short portion of the highway 

between the state line and Exit 41 will not have breakdown lane creating a potential choke point for any 

BoS implementation north of the Merrimack River. Typical peak traffic operates at free flow conditions 

along this segment so the impact on BoS benefits at this location would be minimal. 

As noted in Chapter 2 of the SDP, Boston Express scheduled morning peak travel times are as much as 

45 minutes longer than off peak travel times due to congestion along their route (see Table 3-16). BoS 

operations could reduce some, but not all of this congestion related delay from the bus schedules. 

Using a methodology detailed in the NHCC Project Definition of Final Alternatives Technical 

Memorandum, the study team estimated that travel time savings from a MN-Style BoS operation would 

save as much as 12 minutes on typical day. On days where the impacts of traffic congestion are 

compounded by accidents or incidents the savings would escalate to as much as 37 minutes based on 

estimates derived from the study sample data. 

Bos+ (Expanded Bus on Shoulder) 

The BoS+ service option provides faster and more frequent service by combining the increased service 

of Base+ with BoS operations to improve reliability and service velocity. Like the Base+ option, the 

service would add approximately 40 trips to the schedule, but would provide more frequent service to 

and from each of the existing park and ride lots than the Bus on Shoulder Option. The additional service 

would require approximately ten additional vehicles and drivers. 

Peak period point-to-point service would be provided between each park and ride lot and Boston South 

Station at 30 minute headways, except for Manchester service which would be operated at 60 minute 

headways throughout the day. Hourly off-peak service would provide service to each park-and-ride lot 

within the I-93 or Route 3 corridors. Table 3-17 and Table 3-18 list the number of weekday trips and 

scheduled travel times between the park and ride lots and the South Station bus terminal and the 

preliminary timetable can be found in the NHCC Project Definition of Final Alternatives Technical 

Memorandum. 

Table 3-17: BoS+ Trips 

Manchester 

N. Londonderry 

(Exit 5) 

Londonderry 

(Exit 4) 

Salem 

(Exit 2) 

Nashua 

(Exit 8) 

Tyngsboro 

(Exit 35) 

South 

Station 

SB Trips 16 20 19 20 18 18 60

NB Trips 16 20 20 20 20 20 60

Total 32 40 39 40 38 38 120

Table 3-18: BoS+ Travel Times 

Manchester

N. Londonderry 

(Exit 5) 

Londonderry 

(Exit 4) 

Salem 

(Exit 2) 

Nashua 

(Exit 8) 

Tyngsboro 

(Exit 35) 

Max Off 1:35 1:20 0:00 1:00 1:20 1:05 

Peak 2:10 1:27 1:37 1:15 1:40 1:25 

Min Off 1:25 1:05 0:00 0:45 1:04 0:50 

Peak 0:53 0:52 0:57 0:37 0:51 0:51 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 70 

3.4 Multimodal Options 

Throughout the study process, representatives of New Hampshire’s intercity bus operators (Boston 

Express, Concord Coach, C&J and Dartmouth Coach) have indicated a willingness to work with NHDOT 

on the continued provision of commuter bus service along the I-93 corridor from New Hampshire to 

South Station. The continuation or expansion of the existing Boston Express bus service does not 

preclude the opportunity for a combined bus and rail option in a later phase of the study. Some multimodal alternatives suggested by stakeholders included: 

• Rail in the Route 3 corridor with Bus on Shoulder in the I-93 corridor; 

• Rail serving the North Station market with bus serving the South Station market, and; 

• Rail service during peak commute hours and bus service during off-peak hours. 

The intercity bus operators are very supportive of implementing a Bus on Shoulder strategy on I-93, and 

the co-location or sharing of station and park and ride facilities between the various modes. 

3.5 Screening Preliminary Alternatives22

The study team developed preliminary estimates of ridership, operating costs, capital costs along with 

land use, economic development and environmental impacts of the nine rail and three bus alternatives 

to screen the alternatives down to a more manageable number for final evaluation. The team’s 

recommendations were reviewed with all stakeholders including the Federal Railroad Administration 

and Federal Railroad Administration as well as the general public before being finalized. Table 3-19 

shows the basic performance metrics calculated for each alternative. 

Table 3-19: Preliminary Estimates of Basic Economic Performance Metrics for Preliminary Alternatives 

 

Typical 

Weekday 

NH 

Passengers 

Required 

Capital 

Expenditure

(Millions) 

Annual 

Operating 

Cost 

(Millions)

Annual 

Incremental 

Passenger 

Revenue 

(Millions) 

Net 

Operating 

Cost 

(Millions)

Intercity 8 1,460 $162 $7.7 $3.5 $4.2

Intercity 12 1,720 $174 $11.6 $4.1 $7.45

Intercity 16 2,040 $174 $17.3 $4.9 $12.4

1. Concord Regional 2,700 $226 $11.1 $6.1 $5.0 

2. Concord Commuter 3,020 $206 $13.3 $7.1 $6.1 

3. Manchester Regional 3,120 $164 $9.7 $7.2 $2.5 

4. Manchester Commuter 3,060 $164 $9.9 $7.1 $2.8 

5. Nashua Commuter 2,040 $124 $6.8 $4.2 $2.6 

6. Nashua Minimum 1,480 $124 $5.2 $2.7 $2.4 

Base+ 346 $6 $3.0 $0.8 $2.2 

BoS 692 $7 $0.0 $1.7 $0.0 

BoS+ 1,038 $14 $3.0 $2.5 $0.5 

 

22 For more information on the NHCC Preliminary Screening the reader is referred to the NHCC Project Task 5: 

Preliminary Screening of Alternatives Technical Memorandum. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 71 

Figure 3-6 summarizes the overall 

economic, land use/economic 

development and environmental 

estimates. After extensive consultation 

primarily focusing on the fiscal 

constraints faced by the State of New 

Hampshire, three rail and three bus 

alternatives were selected for more 

detailed evaluation (see Table 3-20). 

The two commuter rail options with the 

lowest potential net operating cost, the 

one intercity rail option with the lowest 

preliminary net operating cost and the 

three low cost bus alternatives were 

recommended for refinement and 

detailed evaluation 

The Intercity 8 alternative was selected 

from the three Intercity Rail Service 

Options, because of its low net 

operating cost and reasonable mobility 

benefit perspectives. As shown in Table 

3-21, the numbers of additional riders 

attracted by more frequent service with 

Options 12 and 18 did not keep pace 

with the forecast cost of the additional 

service. 

Table 3-20: Service Options Selected for Detailed Evaluation 

Service Option 

Required Capital Expenditure

(Millions) 

Net Operating Cost

(Millions 

Intercity 8 $162 $3.6 

Manchester Regional $164 $2.5 

Nashua Minimum $124 $2.4 

Base+ $6 $2.2 

BoS $7 $0.0 

BoS+ $14 $0.5 

Table 3-21: Comparison of Intercity Rail Alternatives on Ridership and Net Operating Costs 

Typical Weekday NH Passengers 

Net Operating Cost 

(Millions) 

Intercity 8 1,460 $3.6 

Intercity 12 1,720 $6.9 

Intercity 16 2,040 $11.8 

Figure 3-6: Preliminary Screening of Conceptual 

Alternatives 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 72 

3.6 Final Alternatives23

The balance of this chapter describes the refinements to the six final alternatives with special emphasis 

on the preferred intercity and commuter rail alternatives. Among the most salient of the refinements 

was resolution concerning the disposition of express bus services should any of the rail service options 

be implemented. The final alternatives included; 

Table 3-22: Final Service Alternatives 

Concord 

Intercity 

Rail (IR8) 

• Four daily intercity passenger rail round trips between Concord, NH and Boston, MA 

making intermediate stops at Manchester, Bedford/MHT Airport, Nashua Crown 

Street, Lowell, MA and Woburn, MA. 

• Base BX service is retained. 

Manchester 

Regional 

Rail (CR 3) 

• Extends MBTA commuter rail service north from Lowell, MA to Manchester, NH with 

intermediate stops at South Nashua, NH/Tyngsborough, MA, Nashua Crown Street and 

Bedford/MHT Airport. 

• BX I-93 service to Manchester, North Londonderry, Londonderry and Salem is retained. 

• BX Route 3 service to Manchester, Nashua and Tyngsboro is eliminated. 

Nashua 

Commuter 

Rail (CR 6) 

• Extends MBTA commuter service north from Lowell, MA to Manchester, NH with an 

intermediate stop at South Nashua, NH/Tyngsborough, MA. 

• BX I-93 service to Manchester, North Londonderry, Londonderry and Salem is retained. 

• BX Route 3 service to Manchester, Nashua and Tyngsboro is eliminated. 

Base+ • New Hampshire’s Boston Express (BX) bus service is increased from current 80 buses 

per day to 120 buses per day. 

• All peak buses run direct and non-stop between each New Hampshire park and ride lot 

and Boston South Station with service every 30 minutes. 

• Each park and ride lot sees hourly off-peak (but not direct) service. 

• No changes to existing passenger rail services. 

BoS • Existing Boston Express (BX) bus service of 80 daily trips is permitted to operate within 

the I-93 shoulder south of I-495 to bypass congestion in general travel lanes. 

• Savings of 8 to 12 minutes predicted during the AM peak period. 

• No significant travel time savings predicted during in the PM peak period. 

BoS+ • The Base+ service of 120 daily trips is permitted to operate within the I-93 shoulder 

south of I-495 to bypass congestion in general travel lanes. 

• Savings of 8 to 12 minutes predicted during the AM peak period. 

• No significant travel time savings predicted during in the PM peak period. 

 

23 For more information on the NHCC Final Rail and Bus Alternatives the reader is referred to the NHCC Project 

DEFINITION OF FINAL ALTERNATIVES Technical Memorandum. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 73 

Concord Intercity Rail (IR8) 

• Four daily intercity passenger rail round trips between Concord, NH and Boston, MA making 

intermediate stops at Manchester, Bedford/MHT Airport, Nashua Crown Street, Lowell, MA and 

Woburn, MA. 

• Base BX service is retained. 

The eight-train per day Intercity 

8 Rail Option would provide four 

daily round trips over the 73 

mile route stopping at five 

intermediate stations (see Figure 

3-7. The end to end trip time 

would be approximately 96 

minutes and the service would 

operate 586 daily train miles. 

A proposed timetable is shown 

in Table 3-23. Presuming an 

average cost of $36 per train 

mile, the Intercity 8 Option 

would cost approximately $8 

million per year to operate. 

The service could be extended 

with possible connections to 

private bus services for North 

Country destinations. No 

changes are proposed to express 

bus service for commuting to 

Boston via I-93 or Route 3. Local 

bus service to the intercity rail 

stations could be offered but 

would not be integral to the 

service design. A Boston Express 

/ Concord Coach / rail fare 

integration scheme similar to that employed by the Downeaster at Portland, ME could be employed at 

the Concord and Manchester stations that would be shared by both intercity rail and coach bus services. 

Anticipated ridership responses to the service initiative would include new riders attracted to the 

intercity rail service. It is anticipated that few current MBTA passengers living in New Hampshire would 

shift from using MBTA Lowell and North Billerica Stations to the new intercity rail service. Some BX and 

Concord Coach customers might shift to intercity rail service from Nashua, Manchester and Concord. 

The overall increase in the quality and frequency of transit options to Manchester and Concord may 

stimulate bus ridership as has seemed to be the case at the shared terminal in Portland, ME. 

Figure 3-7: Intercity 8 Rail Service 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 74 

Table 3-23: Proposed Intercity 8 Timetable 

380 382 384 386 Station MP 381 383 385 387

6:41 10:41 14:56 19:56 

Read Down 

Concord NH 73.3 

Read Up

10:05 14:20 18:55 23:35 

6:54 10:54 15:09 20:09 Manchester NH 55.7 9:39 13:54 18:29 23:09 

7:07 11:07 15:22 20:22 MHT (Bedford) 50.1 9:31 13:46 18:21 23:01 

7:20 11:20 15:35 20:35 Nashua 39.0 9:18 13:33 18:08 22:48 

7:36 11:36 15:51 20:51 Lowell 25.5 9:02 13:17 17:52 22:32 

7:52 11:52 16:07 21:07 Anderson/ Woburn 12.6 8:46 13:01 17:36 22:16 

8:15 12:15 16:30 21:30 North Station 0.0 8:30 12:45 17:20 22:00 

No improvements south of MBTA’s Lowell Gallagher Terminal would be required. North of Lowell the 

railroad would be upgraded to permit safe, reliable operation of eight daily passenger trains at speeds of 

up to 75 mph. Recommended upgrades to track, bridges, crossings, and signals are summarized below. 

The intercity 8 service option would require more extensive infrastructure upgrades than the commuter 

rail options as it is approximately 18 miles longer than the Option 3 Manchester Regional service. The 

service would also operate at higher maximum speeds; up to 75 mph between MHT and Nashua and 70 

mph at many other locations (see Figure 3-8). 

Unlike Options 3 and 6, no double track would be required between North Chelmsford (MP 28.5) and 

the southern end of the Tyngsboro Curve (MP 32). Industrial sidings would be created at three key 

areas of freight activity in Nashua and Merrimack to eliminate conflicts between local freight deliveries 

and through passenger trains. At these locations the existing mainline track would be retained as an 

industrial siding with an entirely new parallel mainline track constructed in the same alignment for use 

by through trains. Adding a second track would be straightforward as the railway was once entirely 

double tracked with the double track bed still largely intact. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 75 

Figure 3-8: Proposed Maximum Passenger Speeds 

Four new passenger stations would be constructed (see Table 3-24). They would be a mix of high level 

platforms and low level platforms with MBTA “mini-high” platforms for handicapped accessibility. High 

level platforms would be preferred at all locations. A low-level with mini-high platform approach would 

be employed where no path was available for Pan Am freight trains to avoid using the platform track to 

ensure a clear route for wide freight loads. The platforms at Nashua and Manchester would be less 

complex than for the commuter rail options because no intercity trains would turn from northbound to 

southbound at these stations. 

Table 3-24: Intercity 8 Passenger Station Development Plan 

Station MP Type Comments

Concord 73 HL 

Single High Level platforms located on the stub end terminal track to 

the east of the main line 

Manchester 55 LL 

Single Low Level platform with mini-high to the east of the single 

mainline track 

MHT/Bedford 52 LL Single Low Level platform with mini-high to the west of the single 

mainline track 

Nashua 39 LL 

Single Low Level platform with mini-high to the west of the single 

mainline track 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 76 

Manchester Regional Rail (CR 3) 

• Extends MBTA commuter rail service north from Lowell, MA to Manchester, NH with intermediate 

stops at South Nashua, NH/Tyngsborough, MA, Nashua Crown Street and Bedford/MHT Airport. 

• BX I-93 service to Manchester, North Londonderry, Londonderry and Salem is retained. 

• BX Route 3 service to Manchester, Nashua and Tyngsboro is eliminated. 

The Manchester Regional Rail 

Option would extend MBTA 

service 30 miles north from 

Lowell to downtown 

Manchester. The service 

initiative would provide all day 

commuter rail service between 

Boston and Nashua with a lower 

frequency regional service 

provided north to Manchester 

(see Figure 3-9). The service 

adds four new stations to the 

line with 16 weekday trains for 

Manchester and 34 weekday 

trains for Nashua. Eight optional 

connecting bus trips could be 

added between Nashua and 

Manchester to supplement the 

schedule of rail services with 

additional midday and evening 

mobility options. All existing 

MBTA deadhead trains on the 

Lowell Line would be eliminated. 

A layover facility for four train 

sets would be constructed in the 

vicinity of Manchester. The 

number of weekday MBTA train 

miles operated on the line 

would increase 42% to 2,068. 

Six MBTA trains would be 

marginally adjusted with most changes required on light ridership reverse peak trains. Up to 12 coaches 

and one locomotive would be added to the MBTA’s weekday equipment line up. 

Ridership response to this service initiative is anticipated to include new riders attracted to rail service 

provided to the proposed New Hampshire stations. It is assumed that some current MBTA rail 

passengers living in New Hampshire would shift to these new stations from the existing MBTA Lowell 

Figure 3-9: Proposed Manchester Commuter Rail and Bus Service 

Configuration 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 77 

and North Billerica Stations. It is also anticipated that many or most passengers from the discontinued 

BX Route 3 service would shift to the commuter railroad. Ridership impacts on the BX I-93 mainline 

services to Londonderry and North Londonderry and Salem would be likely negligible. 

Five new passenger stations would be constructed for Option 3 (see Table 3-25). They would be a mix of 

high level platforms and low level platforms with MBTA “mini-high” platforms for handicapped 

accessibility. High level platforms would be preferred at all locations. A low-level with mini-high 

platform approach would be employed where no path was available for Pan Am freight trains to avoid 

using the platform track to ensure a clear route for wide freight loads. 

Table 3-25: Option 3 Passenger Station Development Plan 

Station MP Type Comments

Manchester 55 HL Single High Level platform to the east of the eastern 

mainline track. 

MHT/Bedford 52 LL Single Low Level platform with mini-high to the west of the 

single mainline track 

Nashua 39 HL Single island High Level platform between two mainline 

tracks. Oversize freight would run around platform using 

yard tracks. 

Tyngsboro / South Nashua 35 LL Single Low Level platform with mini-high to the west of the 

single mainline track 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 78 

Nashua Commuter Rail (CR 6) 

• Extends MBTA commuter service north from Lowell, MA to at South Nashua, NH/Tyngsborough, 

MA. 

• BX I-93 service to Manchester, North Londonderry, Londonderry and Salem is retained. 

• BX Route 3 service to Manchester, Nashua and Tyngsboro is eliminated. 

The South Nashua Minimum 

service option provides a 

minimal peak-period only 

commuter rail service to and 

from South Nashua with no rail 

service further north to 

Manchester or Concord. It is 

specifically designed to minimize 

the MBTA operating cost of 

extending service to Nashua. It 

could be developed and 

operated as an interim service 

coordinated with bus service 

while markets and finances for 

more New Hampshire were 

given time to develop. 

MBTA service would be 

extended 13.5 miles north from 

Lowell to the South Nashua 

Station located near the 

Massachusetts – New 

Hampshire State Line (see Figure 

3-10). The service adds one 

new station to the line with 20 

weekday trains for South 

Nashua. A layover facility for 

four train sets would be 

constructed in the vicinity of 

South Nashua. Up to 6 coaches 

and one locomotive would be added to the MBTA’s weekday line up of equipment. 

The number of weekday MBTA train miles operated on the line would increase only 3% to 1,496. 

Schedules for several MBTA trains would be marginally adjusted with most changes required on light 

ridership reverse peak trains. 

Optional midday and early evening feeder bus service between Lowell and South Nashua could provide 

connecting service to fill out a complete schedule of services. Four midday and two early evening bus 

Figure 3-10: Proposed Nashua Commuter Rail and Bus Service 

Configuration 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 79 

round trips linking South Nashua with the Lowell MBTA train station could supplement the peak only rail 

service. Boston Express I-93 service to Manchester, North Londonderry, Londonderry and Salem would 

be retained, while Route 3 service to Nashua and Tyngsboro would be eliminated. 

Ridership response to this service initiative is anticipated to include new riders attracted to rail service 

provided to the proposed new station. It is assumed that some current MBTA rail passengers living in 

New Hampshire would shift to this new station from the existing MBTA Lowell and North Billerica 

Stations. It is also anticipated that many or most passengers from the discontinued BX Route 3 service 

would shift to the commuter railroad. Ridership impacts on the BX I-93 mainline services to 

Londonderry and North Londonderry and Salem would be likely negligible. 

One new passenger stations would be constructed for Option 6 (see Table 3-26). They would be a mix of 

high level platforms and low level platforms with MBTA “mini-high” platforms for handicapped 

accessibility. High level platforms would be preferred at all locations. A low-level with mini-high 

platform approach would be employed where no path was available for Pan Am freight trains to avoid 

using the platform track to ensure a clear route for wide freight loads. 

Table 3-26: Option 6 Passenger Station Development Plan 

Station MP Type Comments

South Nashua / 

Tyngsboro 

35 LL 

Single Low Level platform with mini-high platform to the west of the 

single mainline track. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 80 

Base+ (Base Expanded) 

• New Hampshire’s Boston 

Express (BX) bus service is 

increased from current 80 

buses per day to 120 buses 

per day. 

• All peak buses run direct and 

non-stop between each New 

Hampshire park and ride lot 

and Boston South Station 

with service every 30 

minutes. 

• Each park and ride lot sees 

hourly off-peak (but not 

direct) service. 

• No changes to existing 

passenger rail services. 

The Base+ Option increases 

transit service frequency and 

directness within the study 

corridor by providing peak 

period point-to-point, non-stop 

trips from each of the New 

Hampshire park and ride lots to 

points within downtown Boston 

(southbound trips only), South 

Station and Logan Airport. The 

service would add approximately 

40 trips to the schedule and would require approximately ten additional vehicles. There are no transit 

priority measures proposed in this option that would result in increased service velocities or decreased 

travel times. 

Peak period point-to-point service would be provided at 30 minute headways, except for Manchester 

service which would be operated at 60 minute headways throughout the day. Hourly off-peak service 

would provide non-point-to-point service between each park and ride lot within the I-93 or Route 3 

corridors and Boston South Station and Logan Airport without circulating through downtown Boston. A 

timetable for the proposed service is included in NHCC Project Definition of Final Alternatives Technical 

Memorandum. 

Anticipated ridership response to this service initiative would include increased ridership at all BX park 

and ride lots and some possible reduction of ridership on MBTA commuter rail service from Lowell and 

perhaps North Billerica, MA. 

Figure 3-11: Existing Study Corridor Bus and Rail Services 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 81 

BoS (Bus on Shoulder) 

• Existing Boston Express (BX) bus service of 80 daily trips is permitted to operate within the I-93 

shoulder south of I-495 to bypass congestion in general travel lanes. 

• Savings of 8 to 12 minutes predicted during the AM peak period. 

• No significant travel time savings predicted during in the PM peak period. 

The Bus on Shoulder (BoS) Option aims to provide faster peak period service by permitting buses to 

operate within the I-93 shoulder south of I-495 to bypass peak congestion in Massachusetts. Typical 

Southbound AM peak period savings would be 8 to 12 minutes depending upon arrival time. Typical 

Northbound PM peak period savings would be approximately 5 minutes. The option would not add any 

additional trips or operate in a point-to-point manner, but would provide faster, more reliable peak 

travel times. The proposed schedules maintain the existing arrival and departure times at South Station 

and modify the departure and arrival times at New Hampshire park and ride lots based on the estimated 

travel time savings resulting from bus on shoulder operation. The service would not require any 

additional vehicles to operate the proposed schedule. A timetable for the proposed service that 

reflects time savings estimated using a variety of sources is included in NHCC Project Definition of Final 

Alternatives Technical Memorandum. 

Ridership response to the service initiative is anticipated to include increased ridership at all BX park and 

ride lots and some possible reduction of ridership on MBTA commuter rail service from Lowell and 

perhaps North Billerica. 

BoS+ (Expanded Bus on Shoulder ) 

• The Base+ service of 120 daily trips is permitted to operate within the I-93 shoulder south of I-495 to 

bypass congestion in general travel lanes. 

• Savings of 8 to 12 minutes predicted during the AM peak period. 

• No significant travel time savings predicted during in the PM peak period. 

The BoS+ option merges the increased frequency and directness of the Base+ Option with the peak 

period congestion bypass feature of the BoS Option. It would offer faster and more direct peak service 

with more frequent off-peak service to all New Hampshire park and ride lots. The timetable prepared 

for this analysis merges the BoS and Base+ service concepts and can be found in NHCC Project Definition 

of Final Alternatives Technical Memorandum. Ridership response to this service initiative is anticipated 

to include increased ridership at all park and ride lots and some possible reduction of ridership on MBTA 

commuter rail service from Lowell and perhaps North Billerica. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 82 

3.7 Screening Final Alternatives24

In refining and then screening the various service options, the study team coordinated extensively with 

the FRA, FTA, MBTA, MVRTA, Pan Am Railways and Boston Express regarding the design of the 

alternatives and the necessary infrastructure and rolling stock investments. Schedules, stringline 

diagrams and corresponding track configuration diagrams were prepared for each of the rail options. 

Schedules and equipment rosters were prepared for the bus options. From this information the team 

was able to make more detailed and accurate estimates of costs for each rail and bus service option. 

Another round of ridership forecasts was prepared using more sophisticated forecasting techniques. 

Separate models were used for the intercity rail, commuter rail and express bus options. Amtrak’s 

ridership forecasting team prepared the patronage forecasts for the Intercity 8 Option. Each of the key 

economic performance metrics and their assumptions are described in Table 3-27 and the final 

estimates of cost and demand are summarized in Table 3-28. 

Table 3-27: Key Economic Performance Metrics and Assumptions 

Economic Performance 

Metric Evaluation Assumptions 

New NH Transit 

Passenger Trips 

Includes all new transit trips originating in New Hampshire including rail 

trips diverted from Lowell to Nashua. It also includes any changes in Boston 

Express (BX) ridership. 

New Corridor Transit 

Passenger Miles 

Includes all transit trip miles made by passenger rail and BX. It reflects 

downward adjustments in BX passenger miles for options where BX service 

is reduced or eliminated. 

Total Project Value 

(Millions)

Includes the cost of all necessary infrastructure investment, including 

railroad improvements, stations, rail yards and bus shoulder lanes. It also 

includes the value of any rolling stock (buses or trains) necessary for the 

option. Finally it also includes the prorated value of the MBTA's 37-mile 

Nashua to Concord trackage rights based on the length of the option in New 

Hampshire. The Intercity 8 option would use Amtrak's statutory trackage 

right, not the rights acquired by the MBTA. 

NH Costs after Federal 

Grants and MA 

Contributions 

(Conservative Case)

Assumes that MBTA contributes rolling stock and trackage rights to the 

project, but does not contribute to the cost of infrastructure improvements 

north of Lowell. It also assumes that the FTA does not consider the MBTA 

contribution of rolling stock or trackage rights as contributing to eligible 

project value. Consequently, the 50% FTA grant would cover half of the 

infrastructure investment. This also assumes that FRA would fund half of 

the overall project value for the intercity rail project and that no federal 

capital funding would be available for the bus options. 

 

24 For more information on the NHCC Final Screening and Selection of the Local Preferred Alternatives the reader is 

referred to the NHCC Project Task 5: Final Screening of Alternatives Technical Memorandum. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 83 

Economic Performance 

Metric Evaluation Assumptions 

Annual Operating Cost

(Millions)

Updated preliminary cost estimates for commuter rail options. Final 

estimates for intercity and bus options. Assumes weekday only operation 

for commuter rail and bus services. Intercity service would operate 365days 

per year. 

Net Operating Cost 

(Millions)

Annual operating costs minus forecast passenger revenue and federal 

formula funds. FTA fixed guideway formula funding is distributed for 

commuter rail service but not for bus or intercity rail programs. 

Annual NH Debt Service Assumes that NH share of project cost would be retired with 20 year bonds 

at 5% annual interest. 

NH Annual Total Cost Sum of Net Operating Cost and Annual Debt service

NH Annual Cost Per New 

Passenger Mile 

This efficiency metric shows NH Annual cost divided by new annual transit 

passenger miles. 

NH Annual Cost per New 

NH Rider 

This efficiency metric shows NH Annual cost divided by new annual NH 

transit passengers. 

Table 3-28: Forecasts for Passenger Demand, Capital Cost, Operating Cost and Economic Metrics 

 

Concord 

Intercity 

Manchester 

Regional 

Nashua 

Minimum 

Expanded 

Bus 

Bus on 

Shoulder 

Bus on 

Shoulder+

New NH Transit 

Passenger Trips 946 2,568 670 338 48 374 

New Corridor Transit 

Passenger Miles 48,853 90,506 5,542 15,905 2,112 17,495 

Forecast Capital Cost 

(Millions) $256 $246 $119 $10 $7 $17 

NH Costs after Federal 

Grants and MA 

Contributions 

(Pessimistic Case)

$128 $97 $49 $10 $1 $17 

Annual Operating Cost 

(Millions) $8 $11 $4 $3 $0 $3 

Net Operating Cost 

(Millions) $5 $2 $2 $2 $0 $2 

Annual NH Debt 

Service (Millions) $10 $8 $4 $1 $1 $1 

NH Annual Total Cost 

(Debt Service and 

Operating Deficit)

(Millions)

$15 $9 $6 $3 $1 $4 

NH Annual Cost Per 

New Passenger Mile $1.19 $0.41 $3.89 $0.75 $1.11 $0.80 

NH Annual Cost per 

New NH Rider $61 $14 $32 $35 $49 $37 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 84 

Review of the forecast performance indicates that the Manchester Regional Rail service, while expensive 

from a capital and operating cost perspective, would generate the greatest mobility benefits and the 

lowest unit costs per passenger mile and per passenger. The bus options would be relatively 

inexpensive but would generate limited mobility benefits with resulting high unit costs per passenger 

and per passenger mile. The Intercity 8 Rail option would be slight more expensive to construct than the 

Manchester Regional Rail service. It would also attract fewer passengers and fewer passenger miles, 

resulting in a reduced operating efficiency. The Nashua Minimum rail service option would be half as 

expensive as the other rail options but would attract many fewer passengers, resulting in relatively 

unattractive measures of efficiency. 

The balance of this Service Development Plan focuses on the most attractive Intercity Rail Service with 

some discussion of the Manchester Regional Rail service that could be implemented as a precursor or 

complement to intercity service for Concord. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 85 

4.0 MARKET ANALYSIS 

This chapter describes the methods and findings of the project’s market analyses and patronage 

forecasts for the intercity rail options. Two sets of forecasts were prepared. The first set, prepared in 

2013 supported preliminary analyses and screening. A second, more detailed, set of forecasts was 

prepared for each of the final options including the preferred eight-train per day Concord-Boston 

intercity rail option. 

4.1 Ridership Forecasting25

Preliminary forecasts for the Capitol Corridor rail service options were prepared using the Federal 

Transit Administration’s (FTA) Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model 2.0 (ARRF2). Since the 

proposed service was only 73 miles long (shorter than some commuter rail lines in New York, Florida, 

and California) it was decided that the ARRF2 model would provide reasonable first estimates of 

potential ridership for both the commuter and intercity rail options under consideration in the corridor. 

These first forecasts were for initial screening purposes. After initial screening, more robust forecasts 

were developed in consultation with the FRA and FTA. 

Limitations of the ARRF2 Model 

The ARRF2 model is intended to develop order-of-magnitude estimates of rail ridership. The results 

presented in the preliminary estimates are considered to have “sketch planning” levels of accuracy 

sufficient for preliminary screening purposes. 

• The ARRF2 model produces daily ridership estimates for new proposed rail services. 

• As an “order of magnitude model,” the total ridership forecast provides a rough estimate of 

ridership. 

• The model does not produce boarding or alighting data by station. Tthis chapter outlines how 

boardings by station data were estimated from the ARRF2 results. 

• The boardings per station include riders that may have previously boarded at the Lowell station 

or any other station, but now choose to board at a new station. The CTPS on-board survey 

completed in 2008-2009 indicates that for the existing Lowell line, Boston’s North Station 

accounts for 85 percent of all inbound alightings. It is reasonable to expect local or regional 

passenger service on this line would have a similarly high percentage of inbound alightings at 

North Station. 

 

25 For more detail on the preliminary forecasts for all the rail options the interested reader is referred to NHCC Project 

Memorandum: Preliminary Ridership Forecast Based on the Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model 2.0 Prepared by 

Cambridge Systematics, August 23, 2013 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 86 

Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model 2.0 (ARRF2) Overview 

The model as described in the ARRF2 Model Application Guide is as follows: 

This model estimates total unlinked rail transit trips for light rail and commuter rail systems by 

applying a series of expected rail shares to the amount of total (all mode) travel to work occurring 

within the rail corridor as recorded in the Year 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP). 

Ridership is adjusted up or down to account for the level-of-service (speed and frequency) of the 

modeled rail line as compared to the baseline values for the rail lines used to calibrate the model. 

This model is intended to develop order-of-magnitude estimates of ridership for new rail lines in 

metropolitan areas. 

The model uses the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) worker flows, station locations, and 

service operational characteristics to estimate ridership. The service operational characteristics are 

based on the proposed service, the rail station locations with distance-buffers using Geographic 

Information System (GIS) software and the CTPP data to estimate the worker flows within the service 

area. Figure 4-1 shows the input data setup required to run the ARRF2 model. 

Figure 4-1: ARRF2 Inputs 

Project Use of ARRF2 

For the Capitol Corridor preliminary forecast, ARRF2 was applied to the existing MBTA Lowell Commuter 

Rail line to determine a baseline value. Each alternative was analyzed as in incremental addition to the 

service corridor. 

Input Data

1. System Operational Characteristics

 1a. Directional Route Miles

 1b. Weekday Train Revenue Miles

 1c. Weekday Train Revenue Hours

 1d. Average Speed in MPH (if blank, computed from 1b and 1c)

 1e. Trains per day per direction (if blank computed from 1a and 1b)

2. CTPP Flows

 2a. Home within 2 miles of any station and Work within 1 mile of any station

 2.a.i Employment <50,000 / square mile

 2.a.ii Employment >50,000 / square mile

 2b. Home within 6 miles of a PNR station and Work within 1 mile of any station

 2.b.i Employment <50,000 / square mile

 2.b.Ii Employment >50,000 / square mile

3. Suburban-CBD Service flag

 3a. Code 1 if service is designed for connecting suburban areas to CBD

 otherwise, code 0
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 87 

ARRF2 Base Case Lowell Line Forecast 

The ARRF2 model was used to produce daily ridership forecasts for the commuter and intercity rail 

service options. Prior to analyzing the alternatives, the existing MBTA Lowell commuter rail line was 

tested using the ARRF2 model. The purpose of this was to establish a benchmark for the ARRF2 model 

to use as an adjustment to the alternative forecasts. 

The ARRF2 model uses buffers around the rail stations to determine the catchment area for work flows. 

Figure 4-2 shows the one-, two-, and six-mile buffers around the existing MBTA Lowell commuter line. 

The ARRF2 model produced a forecast of 9,096 riders using the Lowell line’s operational characteristics 

and the CTPP worker flows. 

System Operational 

Characteristics 

ARRF2 uses several system 

characteristics that describe the rail 

service’s operational parameters as 

inputs to the forecasts. Specific 

characteristics used by the model 

include directional route miles, 

average train speed, and the 

number of trains per day. The 

directional route miles are used to 

provide the model with information 

regarding the extent of the system. 

The figures for average train speed 

and number of trains inform the 

model concerning the quality of 

service being provided. The 

weekday train revenue miles and 

weekday revenue hours are used to 

calculate the average train speed. 

The weekday revenue miles and the 

directional route miles are used to 

calculate the number of trains per 

day. 

CTPP Flows 

CTPP data was used to approximate the market of trips that travel within the corridor. These worker 

flows were split into various submarkets which were used to estimate the magnitude of “walk-to” and 

“drive-to” markets for each train station. The “walk- to” flows are estimated using the number of 

households which are within a two-mile radius of any train station on the line. These flows are further 

segmented by the number of households which have travel flows to areas within a one-mile radius of 

Figure 4-2: Existing Lowell Line Station Buffers 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 88 

any station, by employment densities less than 50,000 employees per square mile and by work flows to 

areas with more than 50,000 employees per square mile. 

The park-and-ride flows are estimated using the number of households that are within a six-mile radius 

of any train station on the line. These flows are further segmented by the number of households which 

have workflows to areas within a one-mile radius of any station, by areas with employment densities 

less than 50,000 employees per square mile and those with work flows to areas with greater than 

50,000 employees per square mile. 

ARRF2 Lowell Line Forecast: System Operational Characteristics 

The Lowell station is 25.5 rail miles from North Station in Boston which gives the base service a total of 

51 direction route miles of service. Based on the current train schedules, the service offers 1,299 

weekday train revenue miles and 38.52 weekday train revenue hours. 

Base CTPP Travel Flows 

Using the two-mile station buffering procedure for the existing Lowell line, the total number of 

households within two miles of a station that had employment within one mile of a station was 16,111 

households (see Table 4-1). Of these households, 8,231 are employed in areas with less than 50,000 

employees per square mile and 7,880 are in areas with more than 50,000 employees per square mile. 

The six-mile buffer for park and ride trip estimation, results in 49,909 households within six miles of a 

station and also are employed within one mile of a station. A total of 22,770 and 27,139 households are 

employed in areas with less than, and greater than 50,000 employees per square mile, respectively. 

Table 4-1: Lowell Line Base CTPP Flows 

CTPP Flows Base 

Home within two miles of any station and Work within one mile of any station

Employment <50,000/square mile 8,231

Employment >50,000/square mile 7,880

Home within six miles of a PNR station and Work within one mile of any station

Employment <50,000/square mile 22,770

Employment >50,000/square mile 27,139
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 89 

4.2 Preliminary Intercity Rail Forecasts 

The operational characteristics of the proposed intercity regional services are based on the number of 

daily trains and the average speed. These values are shown in Table 4-2. 

Table 4-2: Intercity Service Statistics 

Intercity 8 Intercity 12 Intercity 18

Directional Route Miles 146.8 146.8 146.8

Weekday Train Revenue Miles 46 46 46

Weekday Train Revenue Hours 8 12 18

The buffers used for the alternative 

analysis are presented in Figure 4-3. 

Depending on the stations included 

in each intercity and commuter rail 

alternative, some or all of these 

buffers were used. 

New Hampshire CTPP Worker 

Flows 

The worker flows can be broken 

down into three groupings for the 

alternatives including the existing 

Lowell line worker flows plus each 

incremental extension. These 

groupings are the Nashua flows, the 

Nashua/Manchester flows, and the 

Nashua/Manchester/Concord flows. 

ARRF2 evaluated the incremental 

differences in service to analyze the 

alternatives. The CTPP flows shown 

in Table 4-3 are for the entire 

corridor and include those for the 

existing Lowell line. It shows that 

the incremental difference in flows 

for each of the alternative is simply 

the difference between the 

alternative flow and the base flows for the MBTA Lowell line. 

Figure 4-3: NHML Proposed Station Buffers 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 90 

Table 4-3: Lowell Line Base and Intercity CTPP Flows 

CTPP Flows 

Base 

(A) 

Intercity Rail Markets

(Concord, Manchester, 

Nashua) 

(B) 

Incremental 

Intercity Flows

(B-A) 

Home within two miles of any station and Work within one mile of any station

Employment <50,000/square mile 8,231 11,046 2,815

Employment >50,000/square mile 7,880 8,147 267

Home within six miles of a PNR station and Work within one mile of any station

Employment <50,000/square mile 22,770 30,951 8,181

Employment >50,000/square mile 27,139 27,818 679

Comparison of Observed and Forecasted Ridership 

The MBTA Lowell line sees approximately 8,745 daily boardings, whereas the base forecast was for 

9,096 boardings. Using this actual and alternative forecast ridership and a boarding factor of 1.9, a 

combined scaling and rider-to-board conversion factor was developed to adjust the alternative 

forecasts. The scaling factor corrects for error in the base condition (existing) forecast, and the boarding 

factor converts boardings to riders. Table 4-4 lists the unadjusted and adjusted forecast for each 

alternative. 

Table 4-4: Adjusted and Unadjusted Alternative New Riders Forecasts 

Alternative Unadjusted Forecast Adjusted Forecast 

Base 9,096 8,745

Intercity 8 659 633

Intercity 12 769 740

Intercity 18 913 878

City Boarding Distribution 

The gross forecasts of ridership were allocated to three origin regions as a first step toward deriving 

station level forecasts. The CTPP flow data and service information for each city were combined to 

allocate boardings at the city level. Since these market shares were based on the magnitude of worker 

flows within the corridor, it is understandable that Nashua was shown to have the largest market share 

(see Table 4-5). This means that while Manchester is the larger city, more Nashua residents work in the 

Boston area than residents of Manchester. These market shares were then weighted by the number of 

trains that would stop in each city for the various alternatives. 

Table 4-5: City Market/Level of Service Weighted Distribution Factors 

Alternative 

Market Distribution

Nashua Manchester Concord

Intercity 8 0.51 0.39 0.10

Intercity 12 0.51 0.39 0.10

Intercity 18 0.51 0.39 0.10
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 91 

Station Boarding Distribution 

The second step in deriving station level forecasts was to distribute the city level forecasts to the 

proposed stations. To allocate the boardings in cities with two or more stations, the team used the 

population within the six-mile catchment area and an accessibility factor. For the intercity services, the 

only necessary station allocation involved MHT/Bedford and the downtown Manchester Station which 

were allocated at 53 percent to Downtown Manchester and 47 percent for Bedford/MHT. 

Preliminary Ridership and Boarding Estimates 

Table 4-6 presents the preliminary total ridership and southbound boarding estimates for the three 

intercity rail service options as determined using the ARRF2 forecasting model. 

Table 4-6: Preliminary Total Ridership and Southbound Boarding Forecasts 

Total Ridership Southbound Boardings 

Intercity 8 1,260 630

Intercity 12 1,480 740

Intercity 18 1,760 880

Station Southbound Boarding Distribution 

Preliminary station level southbound boarding and total ridership estimates are presented in Table 4-7. 

Table 4-7: Rounded Total Ridership and Station Level Boarding Estimates 

Alternative 

Total 

Ridership 

Northbound 

Boardings Southbound Passenger Boardings 

Boston Nashua Bedford /MHT Manchester Concord

Intercity 8 1,260 600 320 120 130 60

Intercity 12 1,480 700 370 140 160 70

Intercity 16 1,760 840 440 160 190 90

Preliminary Estimates of Passenger Miles 

Estimates of the passenger miles that would be expected from each service option were developed for 

the purposes of comparing alternatives on their mobility benefits and to facilitate derivation of revenue 

forecasts (see Table 4-8). Weekday passenger mile estimates were derived by multiplying the forecast 

southbound boardings at each station multiplied by the distance from each station to Boston North 

Station. This product was then doubled to reflect the mileage resulting from returning northbound 

trips. 

Table 4-8: Forecast Southbound Boardings and Weekday Passenger Miles 

Intercity Rail 

Station 

Miles to 

Boston 

Forecast SB Boardings Weekday Passenger Miles 

Intercity 

8 

Intercity 

12 

Intercity 

18 

Intercity 

8 

Intercity 

12 

Intercity 

18 

Concord 73.3 60 70 90 8,796 10,262 13,194

Manchester 55.7 130 160 190 14,482 17,824 21,166

MHT/ Bedford 50.1 120 140 160 12,024 14,028 16,032

Nashua 39 320 370 440 24,960 28,860 34,320

Totals 630 740 880 60,262 70,974 84,712
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 92 

Final Intercity Rail Forecasts 

A separate more refined forecast for the selected Intercity 8 Rail service option was prepared in 

collaboration with Amtrak and its ridership forecasting consultant; which has been supporting Amtrak’s 

Market Research & Analysis Department with ridership and ticket revenue forecasts for all of Amtrak’s 

services across the United States26. For the purposes of this study, Amtrak estimated ridership on the 73 

mile, eight-train-per-day Concord service by analogy to the nearby 114 mile 10-train-per-day 

Downeaster service. Each station on the proposed intercity rail service was associated with a 

Downeaster “surrogate” station with similar travel time, station demographics, and train service 

characteristics. The model was then factored for differences between the surrogate Downeaster station 

and the proposed Capitol Corridor station. The Capitol Corridor stations and their Downeaster surrogate 

stations are shown in 

Table 4-9.

Table 4-9: Intercity Rail Station Associations (June 26, 2014) 

NHML Existing and Proposed Stations Surrogate Downeaster Stations 

Station Name 

Miles to 

Boston Population Station Name 

Miles to 

Boston Population

Boston North Station 0.0 2,667,000 Boston North Station 0.0 2,667,000 

Woburn, MA 12.6 1,087,000 Woburn, MA 12.6 1,087,000 

Lowell, MA 25.2 746,000 Haverhill, MA 32.1 662,000 

Nashua, NH 39.0 340,000 Exeter, NH 51 187,000 

Bedford, NH 50.1 120,000 Durham, NH 62 83,000 

Manchester, NH 55.7 266,000 Exeter, NH 51 187,000 

Concord, NH 73.3 166,000 Dover, NH 68 162,000 

Station Name Employment Income Station Name Employment Income 

Boston North Station 1,705,000 146,275,000 Boston North Station 1,705,000 146,275,000 

Woburn, MA 574,000 60,660,000 Woburn, MA 574,000 60,660,000 

Lowell, MA 370,000 40,388,000 Haverhill, MA 287,000 32,237,000 

Nashua, NH 169,000 16,025,000 Exeter, NH 90,000 9,128,000 

Bedford, NH 59,000 5,332,000 Durham, NH 36,000 3,297,000 

Manchester, NH 134,000 12,112,000 Exeter, NH 90,000 9,128,000 

Concord, NH 88,000 6,740,000 Dover, NH 64,000 5,921,000 

Notes: 1) Based on county-level demographic data from Moody's Economy.com 

2) Demographics calculated as follows: Determine the population, employment, and income within a 10, 

15, 20, and 25-mile radius around the stations (as the crow flies), then multiply by factors of 1.4, 0.9, 0.5, 

and 0.2 respectively. The sum of these four numbers is the assumed station catchment area. 

3) Demographic differences between the primary and surrogate stations are adjusted for in the model. 

 

26 For more detail on the final forecasts for all the final options the interested reader is referred to NHCC Project Report: Final 

Ridership Prepared by Cambridge Systematics, September 2014. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 93 

The model used Fiscal Year 2013 Amtrak Downeaster ridership/revenue data. In the Amtrak model for 

the Downeaster, Boston-Woburn (13 miles) has a higher observed yield than Boston-Haverhill (34 miles) 

in FY13. This Boston-Woburn/Boston-Lowell assumption has been maintained for the Capitol Corridor 

ridership estimates. The fares used in the ridership estimates are listed in Table 4-10. 

Table 4-10: Intercity Rail Station Fares 

Capitol Corridor Station Surrogate Station Weekday Fares Weekend Fares

Boston North Station Boston North Station - -

Woburn Woburn $12 $12

Lowell Lowell $6 $9

Nashua Haverhill, MA $7 $11

Bedford/MHT Durham, NH $10 $14

Manchester Exeter, NH $9 $14

Concord Dover, NH $13 $15

This intercity rail forecasting model, like most intercity rail forecasting models, predicts annual riders for 

station pairs along the line. The projected ridership by station pair is listed in Table 4-11. Total ridership 

along the line is projected to be 354,100 passengers per year. 

Table 4-11: Annual Inter-City Rail Ridership Estimates 

Concord Manchester Bedford/MHT Nashua Lowell

Concord

Manchester 900

Bedford/MHT 200 1,000

Nashua 600 1,400 1,600

Lowell 1,300 900 4,200 700

Woburn 900 500 5,700 800 100

Boston 52,800 130,900 43,600 91,600 14,400

The station pair ridership data is condensed to the New Hampshire station level annual ridership by 

summing the station trip origins and destinations at each station. The station level ridership forecast are 

converted to annual boardings by dividing the ridership by two, and annual boardings are converted to 

daily boardings by dividing by 365 days. These data are shown in Table 4-12. 

Table 4-12: Inter-City Rail Boarding Estimates 

Station 

Annual Daily 

Ridership Boardings Boardings

Concord, NH 56,700 28,350 78

Manchester, NH 135,600 67,800 186

Bedford / MHT, NH 56,300 28,150 77

Nashua, NH 96,700 48,350 132

Total 345,300 172,650 473
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 94 

4.3 Final Estimates of Passenger Miles 

An estimate of the passenger miles that would be expected from the final intercity rail service option 

was developed to facilitate derivation of revenue forecasts and for the purposes of comparing with 

other non-intercity rail alternatives on their mobility impacts. Weekday passenger mile estimates were 

derived by multiplying the annual station pair forecasts by the station pair distance and dividing by 365. 

Table 4-13: Passenger Miles 

Station 

Passenger Miles

Annual Daily 

Concord 2,014,305 5,519 

 24,762 

Manchester 3,725,930 10,208 

Bedford/MHT 1,408,625 3,859 

Nashua 1,889,190 5,176 

Lowell 353,965 970 

Woburn 242,810 665 25,314 

Boston 8,642,665 23,679 

 Total 18,277,490 50,075 50,075 

Forecast Reductions in Automobile Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 

The preferred intercity rail option would provide new service in the corridor, but unlike the existing 

commuter bus and proposed commuter rail services, it was not designed for the work-trip market in the 

corridor. It is assumed that the intercity rail riders will all be new transit riders that have diverted trips 

from automobiles. To convert passenger miles to vehicle miles, an average vehicle occupancy of 1.67 

27persons per vehicle was used. The VMT shown in Table 4-14reduction from the inter city rail service is 

not concentrated in the morning and afternoon peak periods as it is with the commuter bus and 

commuter rail options. 

Table 4-14: Inter-City Rail Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Station VMT Reduction 

Concord 3,305 

 14,827 

Manchester 6,113 

Bedford/MHT 2,311 

Nashua 3,099 

Lowell 581 

Woburn 398 15,158 

Boston 14,179 

 Total 29,985 29,985 

 

27 2009 National Household Survey Data, http://nhts.ornl.gov/tables09/fatcat/2009/avo_TRPTRANS_WHYTRP1S.html 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 95 

5.0 RAIL SERVICE DESIGN AND OPERATIONS 

This chapter describes the service design and provides an operations overview for the preferred 

Intercity Passenger Rail Service. The Intercity 8 Rail Service alternative was selected from the three 

Intercity Rail Service Options, because of its low net operating costs and reasonable level of mobility 

benefit. The number of additional riders attracted by more the frequent service that would be offered 

by Options 12 and 18 did not keep pace with the forecast cost of the additional service. In preliminary 

estimates, the Intercity 8 option was projected to carry 946 daily passengers at a net operating cost of 

$3.6 million. By comparison, the Intercity 12 and 18 options would carry 1,104 and 1,308 daily 

passengers respectively at net operating costs of $6.9 and $11.8 respectively. 

Design Objectives 

In designing the Intercity 8 Service Option, the study team worked to maximize the service frequency 

that could be effectively offered with a single set of equipment and limited crews serving the five major 

population centers along the corridor: Concord, Manchester and Nashua in New Hampshire and Lowell 

and Boston in Massachusetts. The design also provides service to the suburban Massachusetts 

intermodal hub in Woburn that is served by intercity passenger rail service between Portland, Maine 

and Boston (Amtrak Downeaster). The operating characteristics of the successful Downeaster service 

were influential to the design of the Intercity 8 option. Both services (the Downeaster and the potential 

“Granite State”) would offer arrivals and departures at North Station at similar times of day. 

Design Constraints, Assumptions and Paradigms 

In designing the service, the study team was guided by the following constraints, assumptions and 

paradigms: 

• The new service must overlay onto the existing schedule and mix of passenger trains currently 

using North Station including all of the MBTA’s north side commuter rail service and Amtrak’s 

Downeaster service. The design needed to be particularly cognizant of the 68 weekday MBTA 

and Amtrak passenger trains that use portions of the route between Lowell and Boston. 

• In order to gain acceptance from the host railway, the service needs to be completely 

transparent to existing MBTA customers. 

• In order to minimize required capital investment and maximize the benefits from a limited 

capital budget, it was assumed that there would be no upgrades to infrastructure south of 

Lowell where successful passenger services are already offered. Instead, investments would be 

focused along the portions of the route that are currently “freight-only”. 

• Also to minimize required capital investment, the service was designed to respect limited 

capacity at North Station. The MBTA has allowed that one new peak period arrival/departure by 

an intercity train could be accommodated at North Station once the currently inoperable Tracks 

11 and 12 are put into service. 

• Also to minimize capital expenditure, any track improvements would need to stay within the 

existing rail right of way. The line follows the banks of the Merrimack River for most of its route 

between Lowell and Concord. Since the frequency of curves and degree of curvature associated 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 96 

with the line is quite high due to its riverine routing, this constraint had a significant impact on 

maximum allowable speeds north of Lowell. 

• To provide for harmonious operations with Pan Am Railways (PAR) (the freight carrier and 

owner of the route in New Hampshire), the study team focused on providing industrial siding 

tracks at key locations along the line to avoid conflicts between intercity passenger trains and 

local freight train pick-ups and deliveries at customer locations. 

Intercity Passenger Rail Service Design Overview 

Meetings with Amtrak, MassDOT and the MBTA in the spring of 2013 indicated a willingness to work 

with NHDOT on the provision of passenger service along the New Hampshire Main Line (NHML) from 

New Hampshire to North Station. This cooperation would take the form of Amtrak operation of 

intercity trains into New Hampshire or MBTA operation of commuter trains along the same route. The 

MBTA felt that two new station tracks would be opened at North Station with the imminent relocation 

of the Spaulding Hospital immediately to the west, providing capacity for one additional peak Amtrak 

train in each direction. MBTA would also be willing to extend its service into New Hampshire provided 

that the service extension was essentially transparent to existing MBTA passengers using the services 

offered between Lowell and Boston. 

The study team devised a hierarchy of three conceptual services that could be operated as an 

independent Amtrak “Granite State” service 73 miles northward from North Station to Concord, NH. The 

options were based on historic and current physical attributes of the NHML, the schedule of passenger 

services on the line and general service parameters for Amtrak services in corridors of less than 150 

miles. Each service would: 

• Operate independently of the MBTA and Amtrak Downeaster passenger services already serving 

the southernmost 25 miles of the route; 

• require no upgrades to infrastructure south of Lowell; 

• require upgrades to rail infrastructure north of Lowell including: 

o Upgrades to 48 miles of existing track to FRA Class 4 providing for maximum passenger train 

speeds of at least 70 mph28

; 

o Establishing Downtown Nashua as a passing point for northbound and southbound 

passenger trains (Intercity Options 12 and 18); 

o Installation of two or more industrial sidings between Nashua and Concord allowing 

passenger trains to pass or meet freight trains serving these segments; 

o Installation of a passing siding on the PAR freight mainline west of North Chelmsford to 

reduce the need for trains to stand east of North Chelmsford on the route between Lowell 

and Nashua. MassDOT and MBTA have since committed to providing this passing siding 

independent of this planning initiative to solve capacity problems on the adjacent Fitchburg 

route also shared by MBTA and PAR trains; 

 

28 Seventy mph was initially selected as no historic records showed higher speeds along the route since its opening 

in the 1800’s. Further later analysis indicated that 75 mph Maximum Allowable Speeds could be supported for a 

relatively short segment between Nashua and Manchester. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 97 

o Installation of Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee (NORAC) Rule 261 signals 

between Manchester and Concord (approximately 18 miles), and; 

o Installation of Positive Train Control protection. 

The proposed services would call at six passenger stations north of Boston (see Table 5-1). 

Table 5-1: Proposed Stations with Distance and Travel Time to Boston 

Station

Miles to 

Boston

Approximate Travel

Time to Boston

Concord 73.4 1:29 

Manchester 55.5 1:09 

MHT / Bedford 50.1 1:01 

Nashua 38.8 0:48 

Lowell 25.5 0:32 

Woburn 12.6 0:16 

The projected travel times compare favorably with historic minimum travel times between Concord and 

Boston (see Table 5-2). The presumed maximum allowable speeds between Lowell and Concord are 

shown in Figure 5-1: Proposed NHML Maximum Allowable SpeedsFigure 5-1. 

Table 5-2: Historic Minimum Concord-Boston Travel Times 

1910 1926 1945 1954

Travel Time 2:00 2:05 1:35 1:22

Commercial Velocity (mph) 37 35 46 54

Source: Jacobs analysis of archived public timetables 

Figure 5-1: Proposed NHML Maximum Allowable Speeds 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 98 

Table 5-3 summarizes the three conceptual Amtrak services that were considered for the restoration of 

passenger service on the line. The Intercity 12 and Intercity 18 options were ultimately screened out 

from further consideration. 

Table 5-3: Operating Characteristics of Proposed Intercity Rail Service Options 

Options 

Weekday Revenue Trains 

Route 

Miles Stations

Weekday 

Nashua Manchester Concord Train Miles

Intercity 8 8 8 8 73 6 586

Intercity 12 12 12 12 73 6 880

Intercity 18 18 18 18 73 6 1,319

Each intercity rail and commuter rail service was designed using custom train scheduling and stringline 

diagraming tools that are used for many rail scheduling and planning assignments at the MBTA and 

other passenger railroads. Given the relatively low density of freight traffic on the NHML, it was decided 

in consultation with the FRA that full RTC simulation models of the route would not be necessary for this 

particular study. 

Intercity 8 Rail Service 

• Four daily intercity passenger rail round trips between Concord, NH and Boston, MA making 

intermediate stops at Manchester, Bedford/MHT Airport, Nashua Crown Street, Lowell, MA and 

Woburn, MA. 

• Base Boston Express bus service is retained. 

The eight-train per day Intercity 8 Rail Option would provide four daily round trips over the 73 mile 

route stopping at five intermediate stations (see Figure 5-2). The end to end trip time would be 

approximately 96 minutes and the service would operate 586 daily train miles. 

A proposed timetable for the service is shown in Table 5-4. A full NHML schedule is found in Figure A-1 

in the Appendix and a stringline time distance diagram showing the proposed service integrated with 

the existing MBTA service on the line are found in Figure 5-3. 

Presuming an average cost of $36 per train mile based on recent experience of the nearby Amtrak 

Downeaster service, the Intercity 8 Option would cost approximately $7.7 million per year to operate. 

The service could be extended with possible connections to private bus services for North Country 

destinations. No changes are proposed to express bus service for commuting to Boston via I-93 or 

Route 3. Local bus service to the intercity rail stations could be offered but would not be integral to the 

service design. A Boston Express / Concord Coach / rail fare integration scheme similar to that employed 

by the Downeaster at Portland, Maine could be employed at the Concord and Manchester stations that 

would be shared by both intercity rail and coach bus services. 

It is presumed that service would be offered with a single push-pull locomotive hauled train set with 

four coaches. The rolling stock would be similar in configuration and performance to the equipment 

used for the Downeaster and MBTA commuter rail service. The train set would be stored and serviced 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 99 

overnight at the Concord Station 

where a plug-in and basic 

cleaning and servicing facilities 

would be provided. It is 

assumed that the intercity 

service would be operated from 

the same pool of equipment 

used to provide Downeaster 

service with an extra locomotive 

and control coach added to that 

pool to offset the additional 

burden this service would 

create. Amtrak would provide 

heavy maintenance at its 

facilities in Boston’s 

Southampton Street Yard or 

further south on the Northeast 

Corridor as is the practice with 

the Downeaster equipment. 

Two crews would be required to 

provide service each day. One 

crew would handle Trains 380 to 

383; while the other crew would 

handle Trains 384 to 387. A full 

roster of three crews plus a 

spare would be necessary to 

handle routine service 

requirements. The minimum 

required crew would be an engineer and conductor although it is likely that Amtrak would operate the 

service with a third crew member to assist with operation of doors and management of passengers. 

Table 5-4: Proposed Intercity 8 Timetable 

380 382 384 386 Station MP 381 383 385 387 

6:39 10:39 14:54 19:54 

Read Down 

Concord NH 73.3 

Read Up

9:59 14:14 18:49 23:39 

6:58 10:58 15:13 20:13 Manchester NH 55.7 9:38 13:53 18:28 23:08 

7:07 11:07 15:22 20:22 MHT (Bedford) 50.1 9:30 13:45 18:20 23:00 

7:20 11:20 15:35 20:35 Nashua 39.0 9:17 13:32 18:07 22:47 

7:36 11:36 15:51 20:51 Lowell 25.5 9:02 13:17 17:52 22:32 

7:52 11:52 16:07 21:07 Anderson/ Woburn 12.6 8:46 13:01 17:36 22:16 

8:15 12:15 16:30 21:30 North Station 0.0 8:30 12:45 17:20 22:00 

Figure 5-2: Intercity 8 Rail Service 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 100 

For the purposes of this study, it was presumed that the service would be operated by Amtrak. Certain 

economies in crewing, equipment maintenance and administrative overhead might be available if the 

service were operated by the MBTA and its passenger rail contractor in a manner similar to the 

operation of their new 78-mile Cape Flyer service. The Cape Flyer was started in the summer of 2013 

as a seasonal weekend only experiment. After two seasons of operation it appears that it may become 

permanent and a model for the operation of other short distance intercity rail services into Boston. 

 Figure 5-3: Intercity 8 Stringline / Time-Distance Diagram 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 101 

6.0 STATIONS AND LAYOVER FACILITIES 

This chapter describes the design requirements and evaluation criteria used to identify and assess 

potential sites for the passenger rail stations and layover facilities proposed to support the NHCC 

Intercity Rail service options. It then describes the recommended sites, evaluates their performance and 

provides preliminary designs, where appropriate. A total of eight intercity passenger rail stations and 

three layover site options were identified through a combination of stakeholder meetings and public 

outreach, review of existing and historical conditions, previous studies and field inspections. Four 

stations and one layover facility were recommended for the intercity passenger rail service. 

Design Requirements 

Each of the rail stations would require ADA compliant platforms for passengers to board and alight the 

trains, provide a canopy for shelter, have provisions for buses and automobiles to pickup and drop-off 

passengers, and provide direct access to and from major highways and nearby land uses. All, but one, of 

the stations would require parking designated for rail passengers. The sites located in downtown 

Manchester are too constrained to provide dedicated commuter parking, but ample public parking 

capacity is located within short walking distance of the identified sites. 

Where possible, the study team strove to design platforms that were “high-level” for their full length. 

High-level platforms ease boarding for all passengers by eliminating the need for stairways to climb into 

and out of the passenger coaches. High-level platforms may conflict with freight train movements; 

therefore, a short 85-foot long section of high-level platform, commonly referred to as a “mini-high” 

might be substituted for a full length high platform at some stations. Platform specifications29 are listed 

below; 

• Low-level platforms must be eight inches above the top of rail; 

• High-level platforms must be 48 inches above top of rail; 

• The preferred side platform width is 12 feet; 10 feet is acceptable and eight feet is the absolute 

minimum width; 

• Long side-platforms may taper to a minimum width of eight feet at the ends; 

• The preferred center-island platform width is 22 feet for a minimum of half the platform length; 

• Long center-island platforms may taper to a minimum width of 12 feet at the ends; 

• Outbound platforms should be 765 feet long (shorter platform lengths could be accommodated 

for the initial service but longer platforms would provide more room for growth and flexibility in 

service design and operations), and; 

• Inbound platforms of a minimum 710 feet would be permissible. 

 

29 See pp. 2-6 to 2-8. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 102 

Table 6-1 identifies the eight potential intercity rail station site locations and the preliminary 

requirements for the site. 

Table 6-1: Potential Station Sites 

Station Requirements Potential Sites

Nashua ● Downtown Station to anchor future Nashua TOD 

● Park and Ride Availability 

● Integrate with local NTS bus service 

● Crown Street 

● Beazer East 

Bedford / MHT 

Airport

● Park and Ride Station for Commuter Rail and 

Intercity Rail Options 

● Shuttle Bus to MHT airport 

● Direct Access to Route 3 and I-293 

● NHDOT parcel below the Ray 

Wieczorek Drive / Pearl Harbor 

Memorial Bridge 

Manchester ● Downtown anchor to support existing development 

and Manchester TOD 

● Integrate with local MTA bus service and 

Downtown Intercity Bus Terminal 

● Queen City Avenue 

● Granite Street 

● Spring Street / Bridge Street 

Concord ● Downtown Station to anchor Concord TOD 

● Integrate with existing Intercity Bus Terminal and 

local CATS bus service 

● Park and Ride availability 

● Depot Street 

● Stickney Avenue 

Table 6-2 lists the number of station tracks required for the intercity rail service option. This was 

determined by evaluating the need for trains to turn or meet in stations, as indicated by the preliminary 

service schedules. 

Table 6-2: Number of Required Intercity Rail Station Tracks 

Station Tracks 

Nashua 1

Bedford / MHT Airport 1

Manchester 1

Concord 1

The number of parking spaces proposed for each station was based on two factors: (1) forecast 

ridership and (2) functional station type (see Table 6-3). Downtown stations would provide parking only 

where available at the rate of one parking space for every two forecast riders. The regional park and 

ride station at Bedford/MHT would provide one space for each forecast rider. The Nashua Crown Street 

station site is currently owned by the City of Nashua and has been proposed to accommodate up to 255 

parking spaces. Only accessible parking spaces are proposed for downtown Manchester, since there are 

many pay-for-parking lots within close proximity of each of the proposed station sites. Finally, there is 

an existing, heavily-utilized park and ride lot at Stickney Avenue in Concord. Due to the nature of 

intercity travel, at least 100 additional spaces are proposed at this location even though this would 

exceed the one-space per forecasted rider standard. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 103 

Table 6-3: Preliminary Ridership Forecasts and Parking Space Requirements 

Total Nashua Bedford/MHT Manchester Concord

Ridership Forecasts 730 200 210 240 80 

Parking Space Requirements 545 255 210 0- 100 

Site Evaluation Criteria 

The following list of evaluation criteria was developed to guide the station site selection process. The 

evaluation criteria measures were given a rating of one for poorly performing sites to five for highly 

performing sites. The environmental criteria was designated as Yes or No, while the Ownership criteria 

was designated G for government-owned or P for privately-owned. 

1. Market 

• Does the site adequately serve the travel market of Boston-bound travel for residents of 

Nashua, Manchester, Concord and surrounding towns? 

2. Access 

• Is the site adequately served by major roads with connections to the regional highway 

network? 

• Is there existing parking available at the site? 

3. Track Operational Characteristics 

• Is the track straight and free of existing sidings? 

• Are there any grade crossings adjacent to the site? 

• What are train deadhead cost savings and travel time efficiencies? 

• Requirement for new traffic/train signals? 

• Are bridge structures required for roadway access or yard leads? 

• Maintain freight rail movements/clearances 

4. Parcel Size/Configuration/Ownership 

• Is there adequate land available for station platforms and facilities? 

• Is there sufficient land for parking lots sized to meet ridership forecasts? 

• What is the assessed value per acre? 

• Would displacement of residents/businesses be required? 

5. Land Use 

• What are the predominant surrounding land uses? 

• What are municipal and community aspirations/priorities? 

• Consideration of environmental justice including accessibility by minority populations and 

low-income households 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 104 

6. Sensitive Receptors 

• Are there any residential buildings or educational, medical or religious facilities near the site 

that would have a heightened sensitivity to noise or vibration impacts? 

7. Environmental 

• Is the site adjacent to a river or within a flood zone? 

• Is the site in or adjacent to jurisdictional wetlands? 

• Does the site have a history of contamination? 

• Has the site been designated as threatened or endangered species habitat? 

• Does the site have nearby sensitive receptors for noise/air quality impacts? 

8. Ownership 

• Is the property owned by state or local government or is it privately held? 

• Is property for sale or held by single or multiple owners? 

Preliminary Station Sites 

Multiple locations were identified for each of the five proposed stations based on field inspections, 

interviews with local officials, and a review of previous studies. Each of the evaluated sites and their 

milepost (MP) distance from Boston are listed in Table 6-4 and discussed in detail below. Several sites 

were eliminated during the preliminary assessment, while eight locations were advanced for further 

evaluation. 

Table 6-4: Preliminary Intercity Station Sites 

Station Sites Evaluated Milepost

Nashua

25 Crown Street 38.8 

Beazer East 41.0 

Bedford / MHT Airport NHDOT parcel below Ray Wieczorek Drive 50.1 

Manchester

Queen City Avenue / Jac-Pac 54.9 

Granite Street 55.7 

Spring Street / Bridge Street 56.4 

Concord

Depot Street 72.6 

Stickney Avenue 73.4 

Once the station sites were identified, schematic designs were overlaid on annotated aerial imagery 

prepared by Jacobs Engineering in September 2013. These schematic designs included tracks, switches, 

platforms, roadways, pathways, parking, circulation, buildings, and other related features. Parcel 

mapping information provided by the municipalities and NHDOT was also incorporated as part of the 

schematic designs. It will be necessary for the schematic designs to be reviewed by Amtrak, MBTA, Pan 

Am, NHDOT and other stakeholders prior to being finalized. The following sections describe and 

document each station site with findings from the initial site review. Parcel mapping, site photos, 

previous station site plans, preliminary schematics, and the proposed conceptual station plan are 

presented for preliminary environmental and financial review.
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 105 

6.1 Nashua Station Options 

Figure 6-1 illustrates the location of the two potential station locations that could be developed as a 

Nashua Station. They are Crown Street, and the Beazer-East site. 

Figure 6-1: Potential Nashua Station Locations 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 106 

Nashua: Crown Street 

This site is located south of Crown Street site and north and west of the Pan Am rail yard. It is the 

approximate location of Nashua’s historic main line train station. Another station was located on the 

Hillsboro Branch at Railroad Square on Main Street. 

Potential station locations were also evaluated at Bridge Street and East Hollis Street with regard to how 

a full-length (765 foot) passenger rail station platform could be configured on the site. The Bridge Street 

site was eliminated because only 520 feet would be available for a platform between the Nashua River 

railroad bridge on the north and the Bridge Street crossing on the south. The East Hollis Street site 

located between Bridge Street and East Hollis Street was also eliminated as the platform length would 

be limited to approximately 400 feet. Site features and challenges include: 

City-owned and locally preferred location for a downtown Nashua station 

• The station platform would be located adjacent to the Triangle Pacific building, which could 

potentially be redeveloped 

• It is the only viable site near downtown that can accommodate platform requirements 

• City plans call for 255 parking spaces and reuse of existing industrial buildings 

• Additional parking supply would be constrained by the size of the parcel 

Figure 6-2: Site Photography 

Facing southeast towards the Pan Am Rail Yard Facing south towards the vegetated area west of the 

Pan Am Rail Yard where the proposed platforms would 

be located
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 107 

Figure 6-2: Site Photography 

 Facing northwest as the NHML continues north, the 

Hillsboro Branch turns off towards the west

Facing west towards downtown Nashua

Figure 6-3: Parcel Map 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 108 

Evaluation 

Category Rating Notes

Market 4 Close (0.8 miles) to Main Street in downtown Nashua 

Access 4 Multiple local road access points 

Track 5 Only viable stretch of track in the downtown area 

Land use 4 Future park and ride site for the city, mixed industrial/residential 

Parcel 5 Seven acre site owned by the city, designated for transit 

Environmental Y Potential soil remediation, unknown; most likely urban fill. Possible 

complications from site demolition 

Owner G Government owned (City of Nashua) 

Noise Y Mixed residential neighborhoods near site 

Miscellaneous Y City would like to utilize this site as a park and ride location 

Assessment: Advanced 

This site is recommended as a downtown station for the City of Nashua. Local officials have been 

contemplating a station at Crown Street for several years with well-developed plans shown in Figure 6-4. 

The City and State recently cooperated to acquire the site with the intention of developing a park and 

ride lot independent of the proposed rail service, as shown in Figure 6-5 and Figure 6-6. 

Since this location would rely on pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, a new sidewalk would be necessary 

on the south side of Crown Street and east of Arlington Street to ensure safe access to the site. A 

pedestrian/bicycle connection off Harvard Street would provide improved accessibility from the 

surrounding neighborhoods. 

Figure 6-4: City of Nashua Excerpt from East Hollis Street Master Plan 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 109 

Figure 6-5: City of Nashua Park and Ride Site Plan 

Figure 6-6: City of Nashua Park and Ride Site Plan 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 110 

Figure 6-7: Preliminary Station Design 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 111 

North Nashua: Beazer-East 

The Nashua Beazer-East site is located in the southwest corner of a large industrial parcel owned by 

Beazer-East, Inc. The site was formerly owned by Koppers Company, a manufacturer of railroad ties. 

Their manufacturing operations included treating ties with creosote. The site was found to be 

contaminated with creosote and is currently in the process of being cleaned up. It is contemplated that 

the site will be developed once the remediation effort is completed. Land is principally residential 

immediately west of the site. Greeley Park is located to the south is owned by the City of Nashua, and is 

primarily used as a site for launching boats on the Merrimack River. Hills Ferry Road is currently the only 

access roadway across the railroad tracks into the site. The existing 36.5 kw power line right-of-way 

proposed to allow the extension of Henry Burke Highway into site with an overpass over the tracks, 

although this option was eliminated from further consideration in 2011. Two small industrial buildings 

are the only buildings currently on the parcel. The brownfield site is north of downtown Nashua and 

does not relate well to current or future rail service or City of Nashua redevelopment plans. However, it 

does present a large undeveloped parcel along the railway. Site features and challenges include: 

• The site has 96 acres available, providing multiple options 

• Access issues include the need to navigate through a residential neighborhood 

• It may be possible to extend Hills Ferry Road into Greeley Park 

• Further north, Pennichuk Street is another potential access path with local access options from 

Route 3 via Daniel Webster Highway and Concord Street 

• Planned development at the site is mixed use retail and residential 

• The site is free of wetlands but adjacent to Merrimack River 

• Site is contaminated with creosote and is currently undergoing remediation 

Figure 6-8: Site Photography 

Monitoring wells Remediation building
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 112 

Figure 6-8: Site Photography 

Hills Ferry Road at-grade crossing Existing signal

Figure 6-9: Parcel Map 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 113 

Evaluation 

Category Rating Notes

Market 2 

The North Nashua site is closer to Merrimack and City of Nashua 

residents would need to drive north to go south 

Access 2 Indirect from Route 3, with access through a residential neighborhood

Track 5 Straight track, no issue

Land use 3 Vacant parcel, but adjacent to existing neighborhood

Parcel 5 Large vacant parcel, plenty of land

Environmental Y 

Site has existing soil contamination; would not interfere with proposed 

use 

Owner P 

Privately owned, available for development; a station here could help 

spur redevelopment 

Noise Y Vacant lot with adjacent neighborhood

Miscellaneous Y Need to create new access

Assessment: Eliminated 

This site was eliminated from further consideration due to the nature of its poor relation to potential rail 

service, site access constraints, and existing soil contamination. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 114 

Bedford / Manchester Airport (MHT) 

The proposed Manchester Airport (MHT) station in Bedford would provide a location for air-rail 

passenger interchange and also serve as a regional park and ride for northern Hillsborough and southern 

Merrimack counties. The site is located under the Ray Wieczorek Drive / Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge 

that provides a direct connection between Route 3 and Manchester-Boston Regional Airport (MHT). 

This site has also been proposed as a development node within the Town of Bedford (Figure 6-12). A 

proposed shuttle bus would meet all trains and provide connecting service along the 2.8 mile (6 minute) 

route between the MHT Airport passenger terminal and the proposed station. Similar air-rail shuttle 

connections are used with great success at airports in Baltimore, Boston, and Milwaukee. The station 

parking lot would be managed to avoid use by air passengers and keep spaces available for rail 

passengers. The mode of operation at the Amtrak MKE station in Milwaukee or at the Amtrak BWI 

station in Baltimore would be considered for parking management. The Town of Bedford supports this 

station location and has developed plans for mixed use redevelopment in the vicinity of the station. Site 

features and challenges include: 

• NHDOT owns the property on the south side of the bridge, some of which was set aside as 

mitigation as part of the bridge construction 

• Property on the north side of bridge is privately held by WB Merrimack River Realty 

• Sebbens Brook is a valuable environmental resource located on the south side of the bridge 

• Access is difficult to the south of the bridge, although there may be the potential to develop site 

access through the existing parcel south of the brook 

• A small brook and wetland areas also exist on the north side of the bridge 

• A propane gas service yard on the north side of the bridge may need to be relocated 

• A power line bisects the site north of the bridge 

Figure 6-10: Site Photography 

Railroad right-of-way facing south Overhead power lines
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 115 

Figure 6-10: Site Photography 

Railroad right-of-way facing north Wetlands adjacent to the proposed station

Figure 6-11: Parcel Map 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 116 

Evaluation 

Category Rating Notes

Market 5 Only direct access point to the airport 

Access 5 Direct access to the site from Ray Wieczorek Drive 

Track 5 Straight unencumbered track 

Parcel 4 Potential need to utilize multiple parcels 

Land use 5 Mostly vacant, surrounding transportation uses 

Sensitive 

Receptors 5 No sensitive receptors 

Environmental Y Wetlands – Values need to be assessed 

Ownership G/P State owns some of the parcels, some are privately held 

Assessment: Advanced 

The proposed MHT station has been previously identified as a potential passenger rail station by state 

and local officials. Local plans, published in 2010, embrace the concept of a rail station along the river 

near the bridge linking Route 3 with the Manchester/Boston Regional Airport. The station would be a 

focal point for regional travel and local development as well as for air-rail intermodal passenger 

transfers. An 800-foot long platform is proposed to be located on the west side of the tracks. The site 

also has ample room to accommodate the necessary parking without the need for additional land 

acquisition. 

Figure 6-12: Town of Bedford Concept Plans for Station Area (2010) 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 117 

Figure 6-13: Preliminary Station Design 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 118 

6.2 Manchester Station Options 

Three station sites for downtown Manchester were identified and evaluated. Key roles to be fulfilled by 

the downtown Manchester station include serving as a downtown anchor to support existing 

development; to support future Manchester “Transit Oriented Development” (TOD); to integrate the 

passenger rail service with the local MTA bus hub, and; to provide multimodal connections with 

Manchester’s downtown intercity bus terminal. 

Manchester: Queen City Avenue 

The station proposed at the former “Jac-Pac” site is located under the Queen City Avenue bridge, where 

it crosses the railway. This location is situated approximately 7,500 feet (30-minute walk) from the 

downtown bus terminal and the southern end of Manchester’s most intense urban development. 

Assessment: Eliminated 

The Queen City Avenue site was suggested by local officials but eliminated early in the site selection 

process due to its weak relationship to the existing downtown and distance from other transit services. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 119 

Manchester: Granite Street 

Manchester’s main passenger rail 

station stood for many decades on 

the south side of Granite Street 

before the building was demolished 

and the site redeveloped. The site is 

proximate to the center of 

Manchester’s densest urban 

development, across the street from 

the intercity bus terminal and a short 

walk to the Manchester Transit 

Authority’s downtown hub at 

Veteran’s Park. Site features and 

challenges include: 

• Close to downtown, ample private pay-parking available in nearby garages and surface lots 

• Across Granite Street from the existing Intercity Bus Terminal 

• City of Manchester owns parcel 930-6 which is presently used for public parking 

• 1,500 feet (5-minute walk) to MTA’s local bus hub at Veteran’s Park 

• Direct access to I-293 (Exit 5) 

• Existing development adjacent to the site and along the rail right-of-way 

Figure 6-15: Site Photography 

 Facing south towards the location of proposed station 

platforms from the Granite Street at-grade crossing

Facing north towards the Millyard from the Granite 

Street at-grade crossing

Figure 6-14: Historic Manchester Rail Station 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 120 

Figure 6-15: Site Photography 

Facing northeast towards the intercity bus terminal 

from the Granite Street at-grade crossing

Facing west towards I-293

Figure 6-16: Parcel Map 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 121 

Evaluation 

Category Rating Notes

Market 5 Located within downtown Manchester 

Access 5 Direct access from I-293 with public parking lots and garages nearby 

Track 5 Straight track, with no issues 

Parcel 5 Tight space, may need surrounding properties for station facilities and 

parking would need to be located off-site 

Land use 4 Existing commercial uses 

Sensitive 

Receptors 4 Surrounding commercial buildings 

Environmental N Nothing obvious 

Ownership P Privately owned parcels 

Assessment: Advanced 

This site is recommended as the downtown station for the City of Manchester. The recommended 

station design would close the Depot Street crossing and develop the city-owned parcel on the corner of 

Granite and Canal Streets that is presently used for public parking. A two track station option has been 

developed with a high level platform serving the east track. This would enable the efficient operation of 

a terminal station and allow for unimpeded freight traffic to and from the north. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 122 

Figure 

6-17: Preliminary Station Design
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 123 

Manchester: Spring Street / Bridge Street 

The Manchester Spring Street / Bridge Street site is located on the north end of the Millyard District 

near the Spring Street grade crossing and under the Bridge Street overpass. The property is owned by 

the City of Manchester. There are a large number of jobs and existing surface and structured parking 

lots proximate to the site. Site features and challenges include: 

• City of Manchester-owned parcel 

• Indirect access to I-293 (Exit 6) 

• Ample private parking available in adjacent surface and structured parking lots 

• 2,500 feet (10 minute walk) from Intercity Bus Terminal at corner of Canal and Granite 

• 2,900 feet (12 minute walk) to MTA local bus hub at Veteran’s Park 

Figure 6-18: Site Photography 

 Facing north the location of proposed station platforms 

from the Spring Street at-grade crossing

Facing south from the Spring Street at-grade crossing

 Facing southeast towards existing parking structure 

from the Spring Street at-grade crossing

Facing west towards the Millyard from the Spring Street 

at-grade crossing
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 124 

Figure 6-19: Parcel Map 

Evaluation 

Category Rating Notes

Market 5 Located within downtown Manchester 

Access 4 Indirect access from I-293, public parking garage nearby 

Track 3 Curve in track, may require eliminating one or more grade crossings 

Parcel 4 Tight space, may need surrounding properties for station 

Land use 5 Existing commercial uses 

Sensitive Receptors 4 Surrounding commercial buildings 

Environmental N Nothing obvious 

Ownership P Privately owned parcels 

Assessment: Advanced 

This site has the potential to operate as the downtown station for the City of Manchester. The 

recommended station design would construct an 800-foot long station platform on the east side of the 

tracks (see Figure 6-20). 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 125 

Figure 6-20: Preliminary Station Design 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 126 

6.3 Concord Station Options 

Figure 6-21 illustrates the location of the two potential station locations that could be implemented to 

serve the Concord Intercity 8 Rail Service Option. They are Depot Street and Stickney Avenue. 

Figure 6-21: Potential Concord Station Locations 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 127 

Concord: Depot Street 

The Depot Street location is the site 

of Concord’s historic passenger rail 

depot that was demolished in 1960. 

The site is a block from Main Street 

and a short walk to the State 

Capital. The former railway yard at 

this location however, has been 

redeveloped as a strip mall with a 

large parking lot. 

Site features and challenges 

include: 

• Privately-owned site with 

active retail uses and 

proposed for 

redevelopment 

• City of Concord officials are less interested in this site as a railway depot 

• Nearby Liquor Commission Warehouse is being sold 

• Land adjacent to I-93 has been identified by NHDOT for proposed highway widening and 

realignment 

Figure 6-23: Parcel Map 

Figure 6-22: Historic Concord Rail Station 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 128 

Evaluation 

Category Rating Notes

Market 5 Close to downtown Concord 

Access 5 Access from Main Street; Could have access from I-93 

Track 4 Slight curve in the track at this location, but enough straight tracks for 

platform 

Parcel 5 Large enough to be suitable for redevelopment 

Land use 4 Existing commercial development 

Noise 5 Located between I-93 and commercial development 

Environmental N Nothing obvious 

Ownership P Privately owned 

Assessment: Eliminated 

Local officials are more supportive of the nearby Stickney Avenue site where the railway station could 

be built on public land and would be much closer to the existing intercity bus terminal. Consequently, 

preliminary plans for the Depot Street site were not prepared. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 129 

Concord: Stickney Avenue 

Stickney Avenue extends approximately 2,000 feet between I-393 and Loudon Road and runs parallel to 

I-93 and the Pan Am Railways New Hampshire Main Line (NHML). The railroad forks at this location 

several blocks north of the Depot Street site. The NHML heads northwest toward Lebanon, White River 

Junction, Montpelier and Montreal. The New Hampshire Southern Railroad (NEGS) branch diverges 

northerly towards the Lakes Region and the White Mountains. The NHML line is the former Boston and 

Maine line, now owned by the State of New Hampshire, and is the anticipated route of a restored 

passenger rail service between Boston and Montreal. The design of the station at this site should not 

preclude any future extension of passenger rail service along either branch. 

Concord’s state-owned intercity bus terminal is also located on Stickney Avenue. The City of Concord is 

interested in developing its passenger rail terminal on state-owned land immediately west of the bus 

terminal. The City is also planning to extend Storrs Street northward on the west side of the site to 

connect with South Commercial Street and encourage redevelopment of the site (Figure 6-26 and Figure 

6-27). Plans for the terminal area need to reserve space to restore a run around track used by the NEGS 

that was removed but not replaced in the course of an abandoned project to build a hotel on the site. 

Site features and challenges include: 

• NHDOT planning to demolish former highway garage buildings on the east side of the site 

• Existing track spur creates constraints 

• There is ample vacant land for parking 

• Direct access to I-93 (Exit 4) 

• Intercity bus terminal is located at the furthest point from existing rail line and it would be 

difficult to combine the two facilities 

• Large U-Haul rental and self-storage facility located adjacent to the site and across from existing 

intercity bus terminal 

• The Friendly Kitchen soup kitchen devoted to feeding the hungry opened in a new purpose-built 

structure on the north end of the site in late 2012 

• Existing neighborhood: 

o Five houses located on Herbert Street 

o One duplex at 6 Higgins Street 

o Homeless encampments and squatting in vacant buildings
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 130 

Figure 6-24: Parcel Map 

Figure 6-25: Site Photography 

Tracks behind abandoned NHDOT buildings Railroad right-of-way under I-393 overpass
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 131 

Figure 6-25: Site Photography 

Houses on Herbert Street U-Haul rental and self-storage facility

Friendly Kitchen Railroad right-of-way behind Friendly Kitchen

Evaluation 

Category Rating Notes

Market 5 Close to existing intercity bus terminal and park and ride lot 

Access 4 

Close to I-393, but needs a more direct access point from I-393 and I-93; 

This would be solved with proposed reconstruction of I-93 and extension 

of Storrs Street 

Track 3 Track realignment necessary due to proposed Storrs St Extension and to 

maintain freight access north of Concord 

Parcel 5 Large site with flexibility and potential for redevelopment 

Land use 5 Former NHDOT buildings 

Sensitive 

Receptors 4 Adjacent to I-93 but proximate to commercial and residential uses 

Environmental Y Potential remediation 

Ownership G Government ownership 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 132 

Assessment: Advanced 

This site is highly rated as it could hold both a station and layover yard. The station would have one 

platform serving one or two tracks and the joint station/layover facility. Current requirements call for 

only one track, but with future expansion of intercity service, two storage tracks may eventually be 

required. A layover yard would be required at or near the terminus of the proposed Intercity 8 rail 

service option. The preliminary station design shows that there is ample land within the larger site for 

the construction of a railway station with parking, train layover on the station tracks or on an adjacent 

track and NEGS run around track while still allowing for the City of Concord’s redevelopment plans to 

proceed. 

Figure 6-26: City of Concord Storrs Street Extension Plans 

Figure 6-27: Alternative City Plan for Storrs Street Extension 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 133 

Figure 6-28: Preliminary Station and Layover Design 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 134 

6.4 Evaluation of Station Sites 

Table 6-5 summarizes the evaluation criteria described earlier in this report that were used to guide the 

layover site selection process. Criteria were given a rating of one for poorly performing sites to five for 

highly performing sites. The Owner criteria was designated was designated G for government-owned or 

P for privately-owned, while the Environmental criteria was designated as Yes or No. 

The Beazer East site in Nashua was eliminated from further consideration due to the nature of its poor 

relation to potential rail service, site access constraints, and existing soil contamination. The Queen City 

Avenue site was eliminated early in the site selection process due to its weak relationship to the existing 

downtown and distance from other transit services. Finally, the Depot Street site in Concord was 

eliminated because local officials are more supportive of the nearby Stickney Avenue site where the 

railway station could be built on public land and would be much closer to the existing intercity bus 

terminal. 

Table 6-5: Site Evaluation Summary 

MarketAccessTrackParcelLand UseNoiseEnvironmentalOwnershipAssessment

Nashua

Crown Street 4 4 5 4 5 3 Y G Advanced

Beazer East 2 2 5 3 5 3 Y P Eliminated 

Bedford / MHT 

Ray Wieczorek Dr 5 5 5 4 5 5 Y G/P Advanced

Manchester

Queen City Ave - - - - - - - - Eliminated 

Granite Street 5 5 5 5 4 4 N P Advanced

Bridge Street 5 4 3 4 5 4 N P Advanced

Concord

Depot Street 5 5 4 5 4 5 N P Eliminated 

Stickney Avenue 5 4 3 5 5 4 Y G Advanced
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 135 

6.5 Cost Estimates 

Capital cost estimates were developed for each of the advanced station sites using unit costs that were 

generated for a directly applicable peer site. The MBTA Fitchburg Commuter Rail - Wachusett Extension 

Project is currently underway and moving in to construction. The detailed capital costs were prepared 

by Jacobs Engineering and partner Keville Enterprises, Inc. in January, 2013. The estimated construction 

cost with escalations and contingencies came to $13,303,000 for a single track siding station with one 

800-foot high-level side platform and 360 parking spaces. 

These detailed costs were used to inform cost estimates for each of the proposed station sites through 

the use of allocation factors. These allocation factors included variables such as the number of parking 

spaces, number of platforms, number of side tracks, square feet of existing wetlands and whether there 

was the possibility of contaminated soils (see Table B-1 in the Appendix). This allowed for the 

application of the Wachusett station unit costs even where the characteristics of the sites were 

different. The costs for Pheasant Lane Mall include a parking garage that was estimated at ten times the 

cost per space of a surface space. This figure is consistent with Jacobs estimates for other parking 

garages. The summary of unit costs is shown in Table 6-6, and a detailed accounting of the capital cost 

calculation is contained in Table B-2 in the Appendix. 

Table 6-6: Estimated Station Construction Costs for Intercity Passenger Rail Development30 

Nashua

Crown 

Street

Bedford 

/ MHT

Manchester Concord 

Stickney

Avenue

Granite 

Street

Spring 

Street

Milepost 38.8 50.1 55.7 56.4 73.4

Parking 255 190 0 0 100

Platforms 1 1 1 1 1

Contaminated Soils 0.5 0 0.5 0 0

Square Feet of Wetlands 0 0 0 0 0

Side Tracks 0 0 0 0 0

Total direct cost $4,212,500 $3,594,256 $2,761,239 $2,512,925 $3,082,046

Estimated contractor cost $5,200,037 $4,436,858 $3,408,557 $3,102,030 $3,804,571

Estimated contractor allowances $987,537 $842,602 $647,318 $589,105 $722,525

Escalation to Oct 2013 (3.8% / year) $226,747 $193,346 $152,938 $138,351 $167,296

Escalated estimated construction cost $5,730,308 $4,886,203 $3,865,020 $3,496,381 $4,227,866

Construction contingency $573,030 $488,620 $386,501 $349,638 $422,786

Estimated construction cost $6,303,339 $5,374,824 $4,251,522 $3,846,019 $4,650,653

Unit cost resources: MBTA Fitchburg Commuter Rail - Wachusett Extension Project: PS&E Construction Estimate; Jacobs / 

Keville Enterprises, Inc.; January, 2013

 

30 For more detail on station cost estimates the reader is referred to NHCC Technical Memorandum: TASK 4: SITE EVALUATION 

AND PRELIMINARY DESIGNS - PASSENGER STATIONS July 2014 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 136 

Beyond the railroad right of way that will be shared with Pan Am Railway freight trains, land will be 

required for stations facilities and parking. The cost for this land was estimated by consulting local 

public assessor records in Tyngsboro, Nashua, Bedford, Manchester and Concord to determine the 

current assessed value of each parcel that had been identified as necessary for a station (see Table B-3 

in the Appendix). Where only a portion of the parcel would be required for the rail facility, GIS tools 

were used to determine what fraction of the overall parcel would be necessary and to prorate the cost 

accordingly. 

Acquisition of private land for transportation improvements can be a litigious process. The summary of 

estimate land costs in Table 6-7 includes an allowance of 220 percent to account for negotiations, 

takings, eminent domain and legal costs. The 220 percent was derived from the study team’s 

experience working on similar projects in other jurisdictions, but it is possible that New Hampshire’s 

experience may be different. 

Table 6-7: Assessed Land Value and Estimated Cost for Selected Station and Layover Sites 

Parcel Size 

(Acres)

Required 

Portion

Assessed 

Value per 

Acre

Estimated 

Value

Estimated Cost with 

220% Assemblage 

Factor

Crown Street 6.826 1 $ 45,224 $308,700 $987,840 

Bedford / MHT 6.000 0.33 $ 29,416.67 $444,400 $1,422,080 

Granite Street 0.5544 1 $ 279,132.58 $148,800 $476,160 

Stickney Avenue 6.08 1 $ 237,990 $1,447,000 $4,630,400 

6.6 Station Recommendations 

Stations at Crown Street in Nashua and the Bedford / MHT Airport site below Ray Wieczorek Drive are 

recommended for the Intercity 8 Rail service option. The station site at Granite Street in Manchester is 

favored over the Spring Street / Bridge Street site as it provides better access to Route 3 and the existing 

Intercity Bus Terminal. Finally, a station at Stickney Avenue in Concord is recommended for the intercity 

rail service. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 137 

6.7 Layover Facilities 

This section of the chapter describes the identification of potential sites for overnight storage and 

servicing of the intercity rolling stock in the vicinity of the proposed northern terminus in Concord. 

Layover Design Requirements 

Wherever the eventual layover facility is located, the project would need to provide a small railroad 

yard, capable of storing 1,000-foot long train sets (one locomotive and up to nine coaches allowing for 

service expansion). Only one track would be required for the Intercity Rail service options as the second 

consist used for the Intercity 12 and 18 options would be stored overnight in Boston, but room to 

expand each facility to accommodate at least one additional train would be desirable. Three potential 

locations in Concord were identified for a layover facility for overnight storage and light servicing for one 

train set with expansion space for at least one additional train set: 

• Langdon Avenue Industrial Area 

• Depot Street 

• Stickney Avenue 

A crew building would be required at each site and include a materials and equipment storage locker for 

mechanical personnel to store cleaning and maintenance materials onsite and perform running repairs 

to equipment. The facility’s entrance would be paved, and have parking for a minimum of six cars. 

There would be 20-foot wide service lanes located on at least one side of each track with 4-foot wide 

walkways built between the tracks. High mast lighting with walkway lights would be located in the 

service walkways. The entire layover facility should be fenced in, and if necessary, noise walls could be 

constructed at additional expense beyond preliminary cost estimates. 

Spill pans would be required under the locomotive (northern) end of each track, complemented by 

oil/water separators. Near the locomotive end of the track, air compressor and electric power hookups 

would be required so that locomotives could be shut down while still allowing for lights and HVAC in the 

coaches. These power and air connections would eliminate the need for locomotives to do a cold 

startup each morning. Two separate small buildings housing the power and air compressor would be 

required. Potable water along the tracks and sanitary service equipment would also be provided onsite. 

An inspection pit located under the yard lead, prior to the ladder leading towards the tracks would also 

be desirable. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 138 

Site Evaluation Criteria 

In addition to ensuring that a site is of sufficient size and of a suitable configuration to support storage 

and maintenance, overnight noise is the overwhelming consideration in the siting of commuter rail 

layover facilities. Engines in the yard will need to be started at least 30 minutes before the first 

southbound train and the last train engine to pull into the layover yard would be shut down 

approximately 30 minutes after arrival of the last train of the night (see Table 6-8). At Concord, 

locomotives would power up before 6:30 am and be powered down after midnight. 

Table 6-8: First and Last Trains of the Day at Concord for the Intercity Service 

Time of First AM Train Time of Last PM Train

6:38 am 11:37 pm

A diesel locomotive can often be as loud as a jackhammer when pulling or pushing a string of cars and 

approximately as loud as a lawnmower while idling. Nighttime noise is the number one source of 

complaints relative to layover facilities. Given these characteristics, an acceptable site must be distant 

from homes, hospitals and other sensitive receptors. Sites with the lowest levels of complaints tend to 

be at locations where there is already a high level of ambient noise such as on the skirt of a busy 

highway. 

The following list of evaluation criteria was developed to guide the layover site selection process. The 

evaluation criteria measures were given a rating of one for poorly performing sites to five for highly 

performing sites. The Environmental criteria were designated as Yes or No, while the Ownership criteria 

was designated G for government-owned or P for privately-owned. 

1. Terminus 

• Does the site adequately serve the proposed rail service options with northern terminals in 

Concord? 

• What are deadhead cost savings and travel time efficiencies? 

2. Track Operational Characteristics 

• Is the track straight and free of existing sidings? 

• Are there any grade crossings adjacent to the site? 

• Requirement for new traffic/train signals? 

• Any bridge structures required for roadway access or yard leads? 

• Are freight train movements/clearances maintained? 

3. Access 

• Would new roads be required for access for staff and deliveries? 

• Are local roadways compatible with the site to allow yard movements efficiently in a manner 

that would not extensively conflict with local roadways? 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 139 

4. Parcel Size/Configuration 

• Is there adequate land available for layover tracks and maintenance facilities? 

• Would displacement of residents/businesses be required? 

5. Land Use 

• Is the site currently zoned for industrial or compatible land uses? 

• What are the predominant surrounding land uses? 

• What are municipality and community aspirations/priorities? 

• Are there any environmental justice issues including possible impacts on minority populations 

and low-income households? 

6. Sensitive Receptors 

• Are there any residential buildings or educational, medical or religious facilities near the site 

that would have a heightened sensitivity to noise or vibration impacts? 

7. Environmental 

• Is the site adjacent to a river or within a flood zone? 

• Is the site in or adjacent to jurisdictional wetlands? 

• Does the site have a history of contamination? 

• Has the site been designated as threatened or endangered species habitat? 

8. Ownership 

• Is the property owned by State or local government or is it privately held? 

• Is property for sale, single owner versus multiple, publicly owned land? 

• What are potential land acquisition costs based on assessed value per acre 

• Would there be relocation costs resulting from displacement of residents/businesses? 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 140 

Preliminary Layover Facility Sites 

Based on field inspections, interviews with local officials and review of earlier studies, three potential 

were identified for the Concord layover facility. The evaluated sites are listed in Table 6-9 and discussed 

in detail on the following pages. Several tentative sites were eliminated very early during the 

preliminary assessment, while three were advanced for formal preliminary evaluation. 

Table 6-9: Potential Concord Layover Facilities 

Sites Evaluated Milepost

Langdon Avenue Industrial Area 72.0

Depot Street 72.6

Stickney Avenue 73.4

Once the layover facility sites were identified, schematic designs were overlaid on annotated aerial 

imagery prepared by Jacobs Engineering in September 2013. These schematic designs include tracks, 

switches, platforms, roadways, pathways, parking, circulation, buildings, and other related features. 

Parcel mapping information provided by the municipalities and NHDOT was also included in the 

schematic designs. It will be necessary for the designs to be reviewed by Amtrak, MBTA, PanAm, 

NHDOT and other stakeholders before being finalized. 

The following sections describe and document each layover facility site with findings from the initial site 

review. Parcel mapping, site photos, earlier plans where appropriate and preliminary schematic designs 

are included for environmental and financial review. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 141 

6.8 Concord Layover Facility Options 

Figure 6-29 illustrates the location of the three potential layover yards that could be implemented to 

serve the Concord Intercity 8 Rail Service Option. They are the Langdon Avenue Industrial Area, Depot 

Street, and Stickney Avenue. 

Figure 6-29: Potential Concord Layover Yard Locations 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 142 

Concord: Langdon Avenue Industrial Area 

The industrial area located near Langdon Avenue in Concord is 1.3 miles south of the proposed Stickney 

Avenue terminal station could be developed as a layover yard. 

Evaluation 

Category Rating Notes

Terminus 4 Over one mile south of the proposed Concord terminal station at 

Stickney Avenue 

Track 5 Long straight track section 

Access 4 Access to South Main Street via Lehoux Ave 

Parcel 4 Adequate space for storage tracks and facilities 

Land Use 5 Vacant / existing industrial uses 

Sensitive Receptors 2 Nearby residential neighborhood 

Environmental N Nothing obvious 

Ownership P Privately owned 

Assessment: Eliminated 

The site lies within 1,000 feet of residential neighborhoods west of Main Street and development of the 

site would require the taking of privately owned land. The availability of land to develop a combined 

station and layover yard at Stickney Avenue eliminated this site from further consideration. 

Concord: Depot Street 

This state-owned parcel near Depot Street and adjacent to I-93 would make an ideal site for a layover 

yard since the busy highway would help attenuate the sound of the trains overnight. 

Evaluation 

Category Rating Notes

Terminus 5 One-half mile south of the proposed Concord terminal station at 

Stickney Avenue 

Track 4 Straight track section, former rail yard 

Access 4 Access to Storrs St via mall parking lot access roads 

Parcel 4 Adequate space for storage tracks and facilities, located between 

existing strip mall and I-93 

Land Use 5 Vacant / transportation / existing commercial uses 

Sensitive Receptors 5 Adjacent to I-93 and removed from downtown Concord 

Environmental N Nothing obvious 

Ownership ROW 

Assessment: Eliminated 

The City and State have other development plans for this site which is located one-half mile south of the 

proposed Stickney Avenue terminal station, so it was eliminated from further consideration. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 143 

Concord: Stickney Avenue 

This option would co-locate the layover facility with the proposed station on a state-owned parcel near 

the existing intercity bus terminal. As noted earlier in this chapter, Stickney Avenue extends 

approximately 2,000 feet between I-393 and Loudon Road and runs parallel to I-93 and Pan Am 

Railway’s New Hampshire Main Line (NHML). The railroad forks at this location which is several blocks 

north of the Depot Street site. The NHML heads northwest toward Lebanon, White River Junction, 

Montpelier and is the anticipated route of a restored passenger rail service between Boston and 

Montreal. The New Hampshire Southern Railroad (NEGS) branch diverges northerly towards the Lakes 

Region and the White Mountains. The design of the layover facility at this site should not preclude any 

future extension of passenger rail service along either branch. 

The study team determined that the intercity passenger rail service options would require overnight 

storage for only one train set and that the train could be stored and serviced at the Concord terminal 

station. This would be consistent with current practice for the Downeaster operations in Portland and 

other minor intercity rail services such as Oklahoma City’s Heartland Flyer. This site and the proposed 

station were discussed extensively earlier in this chapter. 

Evaluation 

Category Rating Notes

Terminus 5 Co-located with proposed Concord terminal station at Stickney Ave 

Track 3 Track realignment necessary due to proposed Storrs St Extension and 

to maintain freight access north of Concord 

Access 5 Access via Stickney Avenue 

Parcel 5 Adequate space for storage tracks and facilities 

Land Use 5 Former NHDOT buildings 

Sensitive Receptors 4 Adjacent to I-93 but proximate to commercial and residential uses 

Environmental Y Potential remediation 

Ownership G Government ownership 

Assessment: Advanced 

This site is highly rated as it could accommodate both a station and layover yard. Current requirements 

call for only one track, but two storage tracks may eventually be required with the future expansion of 

intercity service. The station would have one platform serving one or both tracks and at the joint 

station/layover facility. The preliminary design shows that there is ample land within the larger site for 

the construction of a railway station with parking, train layover on the station tracks or on an adjacent 

track, a NEGS run around track and still allow for the City of Concord’s redevelopment plans to proceed. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 144 

Figure 

6-30: Preliminary Station and Layover Design 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 145 

6.9 Evaluation of Layover Facility Sites 

Table 6-10 summarizes the evaluation criteria that were used to guide the layover site selection process. 

Criteria were given a rating of one for poorly performing sites to five for highly performing sites. The 

Owner criteria was designated was designated G for government-owned or P for privately-owned, while 

the Environmental criteria was designated as Yes or No. 

The Langdon Avenue site and the Depot Street site in Concord were eliminated because local officials 

are more supportive of the nearby Stickney Avenue site where the railway station could be built on 

public land and would be much closer to the existing intercity bus terminal. 

Table 6-10: Concord Site Evaluation Summary Terminus Track Access Parcel Land Use Sensitive Receptors

EnvironmentalOwnershipAssessment

Langdon Avenue Industrial Area 4 5 4 4 5 2 N P Eliminated

Depot Street South 5 4 4 4 5 5 N ROW Eliminated

Stickney Avenue 5 3 5 5 5 4 Y G Advanced

6.10 Cost Estimates 

Costs to develop layover yards for overnight storage and light maintenance of the service rolling stock 

were estimated for the one site that advanced through preliminary evaluation. Estimates relied on unit 

costs recently generated by Jacobs Engineering for a directly applicable peer site. The MBTA Fitchburg 

Commuter Rail - Wachusett Extension Project is currently underway and moving in to construction. The 

estimated Wachusett layover construction cost with escalations and contingencies came to $13,303,000 

for a layover facility with six tracks including 9,655 track-feet available for the storage of trains. 

These detailed costs were used to inform cost estimates for each of the proposed layover facility sites 

through the use of allocation factors. These allocation factors included variables such as the number of 

storage positions, total track length (feet) and whether there was the possibility of contaminated soil 

disposal. This allowed for the application of the Wachusett layover facility unit costs even where the 

characteristics of the sites were different. The summary of unit costs is shown in Table C-1 in the 

Appendix. Detailed capital cost calculations are documented in Table C-2 in the Appendix. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 146 

Table 6-11: Estimated Layover Facility Capital Costs 

Milepost 73.4

Number of storage positions 1

Total track length (feet) 800

Possibility of contaminated soils 1

Total direct cost $3,100,795

Estimated contractor cost $3,827,716

Estimated contractor allowances $737,600

Escalation to Oct 2013 (3.8% / year) $188,091

Escalated construction cost $4,753,407

Construction contingency $475,340

Estimated cost with contingency $5,228,747

Source: MBTA Fitchburg Commuter Rail - Wachusett Extension 

Project: PS&E Construction Estimate; Jacobs / Keville Enterprises, 

Inc.; January, 2013

Beyond the railroad right of way that will be shared with Pan Am Railway freight trains, additional land 

will be required for layover yards. The cost for this land was estimated by consulting local public 

assessor records in Concord to determine the current assessed value of each parcel that had been 

identified as necessary for a layover yard (see Table C-3 in the Appendix). Where only a portion of the 

parcel would be required for the rail facility, GIS tools were used to determine what fraction of the 

overall parcel would be necessary and to prorate the cost accordingly. 

Acquisition of private land for transportation improvements can be a litigious process. The summary of 

estimate land costs in Table 6-12 includes an allowance of 220 percent to account for negotiations, 

takings, eminent domain and legal costs. The 220 percent was derived from the study team’s 

experience working on similar projects in other jurisdictions, but it is possible that New Hampshire’s 

experience may be different. 

Table 6-12: Assessed Land Value and Estimated Cost for Concord Layover and Station Site 

Site

Parcel 

Size 

(Acres)

Assessed 

Value per 

Acre

Estimated 

Value

Estimated Cost with 

220% Assemblage 

Factor

Stickney Avenue 6.08 $ 237,990 $1,447,000 $4,630,400 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 147 

7.0 REQUIRED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND CAPITAL COSTS 

This chapter describes the nature and cost of infrastructure improvements and other investments that 

would be necessary to operate the proposed intercity rail service. General information on stations is 

presented in this chapter, while more detailed information on station siting and design is presented in 

Chapter 6: Stations and Layover Facilities. 

7.1 General Infrastructure Requirements 

The study team consulted with MassDOT, MBTA, and Pan Am Railways and determined that no 

improvements would be required south of MBTA’s Lowell Gallagher Terminal. North of Lowell the 

railroad would be upgraded to permit safe, reliable operation of eight daily passenger trains at speeds of 

up to 75 mph. Recommended upgrades to track, bridges, crossings, and signals are summarized below. 

The Intercity 8 service option would require more extensive infrastructure upgrades than the proposed 

commuter rail options as it is approximately 18 miles longer than the Manchester Regional service. The 

service would also operate at higher maximum speeds; up to 75 mph between Nashua and 

Bedford/MHT and 70 mph north of Manchester. 

Track 

Study team engineers had originally recommended that this option be supported by replacing all of the 

over 70 year old 112 lb mainline rail between Lowell and Concord with new continuous welded rail 

(CWR) of a similar weight. The infrastructure requirements for each of the three remaining rail options 

were revisited in meetings with Pan Am Railways (PAR), MassDOT, the MBTA and NHDOT as the study 

progressed. The study team was able to refine the preliminary infrastructure requirements based on 

their feedback and with the aid of two hi-rail trips along the corridor with railroad officials. The principal 

adjustments in the track upgrades necessary for the intercity passenger rail service include: 

• Reconsidered needs and limits of industrial freight sidings designed to avoid conflicts with 

passenger trains. Required sidings include: 

o Nashua Corporation (B41.8 to B42.5); 

o Anheuser-Busch (B43.8 to B44.8); 

o Merrimack Running Track/Jones Chemical (B45.6 to B47.9), and; 

o Public Service of New Hampshire Receiving Track (B66.4 to B 68.5). 

• Reappraisal of existing track conditions to reduce required track upgrades: 

o Replace only one-third of all ties due to better than anticipated tie conditions. One-half 

of all ties had initially been slated from replacement at the outset of the study. 

o Retaining or relaying existing rail on tangent track and industrial sidings instead of 

replacing all rails to utilize all life left in existing rail and minimize initial required capital 

outlays. Relay and retained rail would need to be replaced in a multiyear program that 

would begin approximately ten years after start of service. 

Pan Am Railways supplied more detailed data on bridge conditions, track conditions, crossings and other 

infrastructure in March of 2014. Using this information together with field inspections of track, 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 148 

crossings and selected bridges, the study team engineers were able to assemble more detailed 

evaluations of the conditions of existing assets and revise their estimates of cost accordingly. 

The track configuration necessary to support the service was identified by inspection of the time 

distance stringline diagrams with consideration of the timing and nature of freight uses on the line. 

• Between Boston and Lowell, the line is busy with passenger service but has only limited 

unscheduled local freight service. No upgrades to the well maintained double track rail network 

would be required along this segment. 

• Between Lowell and North Chelmsford the line is a segment of PAR’s east-west mainline. This 

three-mile segment of double tracked railway carries up to eight through and several local 

freight trains each day. Threading eight non-stop intercity trains through this short double track 

segment should not prove challenging. 

• From North Chelmsford to Concord, the line is 45 miles of mostly single track. Segments of 

second mainline track are recommended through the yards in Nashua and Manchester. 

Industrial sidings are recommended at locations were local trains stop to serve local customers. 

The industrial sidings will keep local freight trains from blocking the main while they serve 

customers. 

The proposed track configuration is found in Figure 7-1. No improvements are recommended for the 

tracks shown as black. Rail and ties will be replaced or renewed on existing tracks shown in green. Red 

tracks and switches represent new construction. 

Figure 7-1: Intercity Rail Service Option Proposed Track Configuration 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 149 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 150 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 151 

Unlike the higher frequency commuter rail options, no double track would be required between North 

Chelmsford (MP 28.5) and the southern end of the Tyngsboro Curve (MP 32). As noted above, industrial 

sidings would be created at three key areas of freight activity in Nashua and Merrimack to eliminate 

conflicts between local freight deliveries and through passenger trains. At these locations the existing 

mainline track would be retained as an industrial siding with an entirely new parallel mainline track 

constructed in the same alignment for use by through trains. Adding a second track would be 

straightforward as the railway was once entirely double tracked with the double track bed still largely 

intact. 

NHML Track Profile, Alignment and Maximum Allowable Speeds 

The NHML north of Lowell to Concord runs along the banks of the Merrimack River. This alignment has 

mostly gentle grades, with none steeper than 0.35 percent. The horizontal alignment curves to follow 

the river with few tangent (straight) segments more than one mile long. Between Lowell and Concord, 

29.6 of the 48.5 track miles are curved. This constitutes 61 percent of the route. Many of the curves are 

sufficiently tight to impact maximum train speeds. The engineering required to achieve trains speeds of 

80 mph or higher is substantially more challenging when the radius of the railway curve is less than 

3,820 feet (1.5 degrees of curvature). Between Lowell and Concord there are 19.6 miles of such 

restrictive curves which constitute 40 percent of the route miles. 

As noted earlier, the maximum historic passenger speed along the NHML was 70 mph. This reflects 

what clearly had been a long and careful analysis balancing the desire for passenger speed with 

maintenance costs, safety and freight economy. The calculation of maximum speeds through tight 

curves on tracks shared with freight trains involves a number of factors. Freight trains place operational 

and physical limits on maximum passenger train speeds through curves on tracks shared by freight and 

passenger trains. In order to ensure passenger comfort and safety through curves at higher speeds, 

tracks can be banked or superevelated. The extent of the bank is measured in inches reflecting the 

difference in elevation between the outside rail and its corresponding inside rail along the curve. With 

increased train speeds and sharper curves, more superelevation is required. However, when heavy 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 152 

freight trains move slowly (or stop) along a curve with high superelevation, the weight of the train can 

put unacceptable stresses on the lower inside rail of the curve. Consequently the maximum speed for a 

passenger train through a curve that is shared with freight trains is limited by the physical and 

operational demands of the freight service. 

Passenger trains often run through curves at speeds that generate centrifugal forces somewhat greater 

than that compensated by the superelevation. In these circumstances, known as underbalance, the 

train and passengers tend to sway toward the outside of the curve. Using underbalance elevation in the 

geometric design of curves allows both a nominal amount of sway, considered safe and acceptable 

practice, and it alleviates some of the undue weight that heavy freight trains place on the low rail 

through the curves. A few specifics concerning the process of mathematically balancing freight and 

passenger train requirements are provided in the following paragraphs. 

Concerning Railway Curve Design 

Finding the right mix of superelevation and underbalance on curves is referred to as Equilibrium 

Elevation or Ee and is calculated by factoring the square of the speed, the degree of the curve and a 

derived constant value of 0.0007, shown in written form as: Ee= 0.0007 x Dc x V2

. Once Ee is found, its 

value is split between the sum of Ea (actual super-elevation) and Eu (underbalance or unbalance 

elevation), shown in written form as: Ee= Ea + Eu. The amount of actual elevation sets the maximum 

amount of cross level that is tolerated as a train stands on the curve. Unbalance elevation sets the 

amount of residual centrifugal force or sway that is tolerated as the passenger train traverses the curve 

at maximum speed. 

Maximum values for Eu and Ea are guided by the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance 

Association (AREMA) but the controlling railway authority generally dictates its own standards within 

the AREMA guidelines. 

• Underbalance (Eu) - Maximum values for Eu are typically three inches for passenger trains 

traveling on shared track.31 The MBTA tries to use a more conservative value for the amount of 

unbalanced (deficiency) elevation allowed, using 1.5 inches as the preferred limit and allowing 

up to 2.75 inches as a maximum. This provides improved passenger comfort, better 

compatibility with freight operations and a margin below the FRA mandated three inch 

maximum.32 A three inch maximum is used in this analysis. 

• Actual Elevation (Ea) - The MBTA limits Ea to a maximum of six inches but recommends that Ea 

be limited to four inches on shared use track.33 “Maximum Ea shall be six inches except it is 

desirable to limit Ea to four inches on routes where through freights operate and where trains 

are likely to stop or operate below the design speed on a regular basis. Amtrak track design 

 

31 American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) Manual for Railway Engineering, Volume 1 - 

Track, Chapter 5, Part 3, 2012 

32 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Railroad Operations, Commuter Rail Design Standards Manual, Volume 

1, Section I – Track and Roadway, Chapter 3 – Geometric Design Criteria, Revision No. 1, April 19, 1996., Page 3.7. 

33 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Railroad Operations, Commuter Rail Design Standards Manual, Volume 

1, Section I – Track and Roadway, Chapter 3 – Geometric Design Criteria, Revision No. 1, April 19, 1996.
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 153 

standards allow an Ea maximum of six inches for passenger only track but face similar 

constraints as the MBTA when sharing track with heavy freight trains.34 

Using the strictest design guidelines of Max Ea=4 and Max Eu=2.75, Figure 7-1 shows how the maximum 

allowable passenger speed decreases as a function of increasing curvature. Also note that passenger 

trains speeds of 80 mph cannot be sustained on shared track on curves greater than 1.5 degrees. 

However, as is often the case, design standards and other criteria used to determine geometric railroad 

alignments can be relaxed or otherwise modified, depending on numerous factors including operational 

and maintenance input from the predominate users. Other wayside factors like crossings, adjacent 

curves, station platforms, average train speeds vs. posted zone speed, yard limits, train make-up and 

equipment types, bridge/culvert conditions and other physical constraints also need to be considered in 

setting superelevation and train speeds during final track design. 

Table 7-1: Maximum Passenger Train Speeds Through Curves on Shared Track 

Degree of 

Curvature 

Radius of 

Curve (feet) 

Maximum Passenger 

Train Velocity (mph) 

1.0 5,730 98

1.5 3,820 80

1.6 3,581 78

2.0 2,865 69

2.5 2,292 62

3.0 1,910 57

3.5 1,637 52

4.0 1,433 49

4.5 1,274 46

5.0 1,146 44

5.5 1,042 42

6.0 955 40

6.5 882 39

7.0 819 37

Maximum Cant (inches) 4

Max Cant Deficiency(inches) 2.75

Setting New Passenger Speeds on the NHML 

An inventory and geometric analysis of the existing mainline horizontal curvature was prepared to 

evaluate the restoration of passenger rail service on the NHML north of Lowell to Concord, NH with 

Class 4 speeds. The following three vectors were computed for the 48.5 miles of new passenger railroad 

using the formulae described above. 

• Vnominal - Shows the maximum allowable Class 4 passenger speed at all points along the line 

assuming the least restrictive criterion of Max Ee = 9 is applied (Ea=6, Eu=3) 

 

34 Amtrak Engineering, Track Design Specification, Spec No. 63, Revised August 1, 2013. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 154 

• Vproposed – Is manually derived from Vnominal to smooth out speed limits and keep the value 

of Ea under five inches

• Ea based on Vproposed – is the calculated superelevation (Ea) at each point along the railway 

necessary to support Vproposed. 

Figure 7-2 compares the values of Vnominal and Vproposed with the historic maximum speeds along the 

NHML before the Federal Railroad Administration established maximum values for Ea and Eu. 

Figure 7-2: Proposed and Historical Speed Profiles for NHML from Lowell to Concord 

The proposed maximum speed profile for passenger trains would generally provide for maximum speeds 

of 60 mph northward to Nashua, then 75 mph to Bedford/MHT and 60 mph to Manchester. North of 

Manchester the maximum passenger speed would be 70 mph with five areas of speed restrictions as 

low as 50 mph. The proposed speeds (Vproposed) are in some cases less than the historic maximum 

speeds which required superelevation and underbalance standards in several areas that are not possible 

in the 21st Century. The proposed speeds are also generally below the maximum allowable passenger 

speed in order to keep the required superelevation below 5 inches. 

Figure 7-3 shows the degree of curvature and the inches of superelevation at each point along the rail 

corridor that would be necessary to support the speed profile described by Vproposed. In no case is the 

proposed superelevation in excess of five inches. A total 6.5 miles of track with superelevation greater 

than four inches but less than five inches is necessary to support Vproposed speeds. This track with high 

superelevation would constitute 13 percent of the route between Lowell and Concord. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 155 

Figure 7-3: NHML Curvature and Proposed Superelevation 

In summary, the study team’s evaluation of tradeoffs between speed and maintenance expense suggest 

that the railway can be economically restored to a 60 mph (FRA Class 3) passenger speed standard for 

most of its length with only a few geometrically imposed speed restrictions. FRA Class 4 operations 

allowing a 75 mph maximum speed may be economically achievable between the Nashua River and the 

point where the railway crosses the Merrimack River into Manchester. North of Manchester some 

substantial segments of 70 mph may be achievable for a modest increase in capital cost and 

maintenance expense (see Figure 7-4). 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 156 

Figure 7-4: Proposed and Historical Speed Profiles for NHML from Lowell, MA to Concord, NH 

With these track improvements in place, the study team’s analysis indicates that travel times of 89 

minutes for the 73 miles between Concord and Boston would be achievable making intermediate stops 

at Manchester, Bedford/MHT, Nashua, Lowell and Woburn. 

Estimated Costs for Track Upgrades 

Study team engineers developed cost estimates of the various necessary upgrades using information 

from current and recent passenger rail development projects elsewhere in New England together with 

inventory prices from the MBTA’s commuter rail department. 

New and Rebuilt Track 

Costs for labor and materials for new and rebuilt track were developed using track construction metrics, 

costs experienced on the MBTA’s recent and current work improving its line to Fitchburg and using 

current prices for materials in the MBTA/MBCR inventory system. The length in miles of new and 

rebuilt track required for each service option is summarized in Table 7-2. Retaining or relaying (‘Relay’) 

existing rail from another location on tangent track sections and industrial sidings instead of replacing all 

rails can maximize the lifespan left in existing rail and minimize initial required capital outlays. Relay and 

retained rail would need to be replaced in a multiyear program that would begin approximately ten 

years after start of service. Details showing where track would be replaced, rebuilt and renewed are 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 157 

found in the NHCC Study Conceptual Track Plans for Intercity 8 Rail Service. Cost parameters for new 

and rebuilt track are summarized in 

Table 7-3. 

Table 7-2: Estimated Miles of New and Rebuilt Track by Type of Rail for Intercity 8 Rail Service 

Replace Rail 

with CWR 

Replace Rail with 

Relay Rail 

New Track 

with CWR 

New Track with 

Relay Rail 

26.1 27.0 4.6 6.8 

Table 7-3: Cost Parameters and Unit Costs for New Track 

Cost Element Quantity Unit Cost Subtotal Source 

Cost of New Track (New 115# CWR) $1,155,088/mile $218.77/foot 

Materials $616,894 

Wood ties 3,249 $47.21 $153,396 MBCR Inventory Value 

Ballast (tons) 1,500 $33.64 $50,460 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

Subballast (tons) 1,000 $36.13 $36,130 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

Plates 6,498 $15.00 $97,477 MBCR Inventory Value 

Spikes 19,495 $0.50 $9,748 MBCR Inventory Value 

Anchors 6,498 $1.50 $9,748 MBCR Inventory Value 

Thermite welds 6.6 $512.23 $3,381 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

CWR rail (LF) 10,560 $24.30 $256,555 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

Labor 5,280 $101.93 $538,193 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

 

New Track (Jointed Relay Rail) $970,381/mile $183.78/foot 

Materials $432,188 

Wood ties 3,249 $47.21 $153,396 MBCR Inventory Value 

Ballast (tons) 1,500 $33.64 $50,460 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

Subballast (tons) 1,000 $36.13 $36,130 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

Plates 6,498 $15.00 $97,477 MBCR Inventory Value 

Spikes 19,495 $0.50 $9,748 MBCR Inventory Value 

Anchors 6,498 $1.50 $9,748 MBCR Inventory Value 

Joint bars (pr) 271 $65.00 $17,600 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

Bolts 1,625 $2.50 $4,062 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

Bond wires 135 $5.67 $768 MBCR Inventory Value 

Relay rail (LF) 10,560 $5.00 $52,800 Jacobs Engineering Estimate 

Labor 5,280 $101.93 $538,193 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

Cost of New 115# CWR Replacement Rail $662,678/mile $125.51/foot 

Materials $353,914 

CWR rail (LF) 10,560 $24.30 $256,555 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

Ties (33% of ties) 1,083 $47.21 $51,132 MBCR Inventory Value 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 158 

Cost Element Quantity Unit Cost Subtotal Source 

Anchors 6,498 $1.50 $9,748 MBCR Inventory Value 

Plates (10%) 650 $15.00 $9,748 MBCR Inventory Value 

Thermite welds 6.6 $512.23 $3,381 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

Spikes (67%) 13,062 $0.50 $6,531 MBCR Inventory Value 

Ballast (tons) 500 $33.64 $16,820 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

Labor 3,029 $101.93 $308,763 Adjusted down for reduced material 

 

Cost of Used (Relay) Replacement Rail $477,971/mile $90.52/foot 

Materials $169,208 

Relay rail (LF) 10,560 $5.00 $52,800 Jacobs Engineering Estimate

Ties (33% of ties) 1,083 $47.21 $51,132 MBCR Inventory Value 

Anchors 6,498 $1.50 $9,748 MBCR Inventory Value 

Plates (10%) 650 $15.00 $9,748 MBCR Inventory Value 

Joint bars 271 $65.00 $17,600 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

Bolts 1,625 $2.50 $4,062 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

Bond wires 135 $5.67 $768 MBCR Inventory Value 

Spikes (67%) 13,062 $0.50 $6,531 MBCR Inventory Value 

Ballast (tons) 500 $33.64 $16,820 Fitchburg ML Improvement Project 

Labor 3,029 $101.93 $308,763 Adjusted down for reduced material 

Track Switches 

The need for new and renewed switches in the track structure was identified as the track configuration 

was finalized for each option. Costs for new switches were derived using reported costs for installed 

switches on the MBTA’s ongoing Fitchburg Line Improvement Project. Switch renewals were estimated 

at two-thirds of the installed cost for an entirely new switch. New and renewed switches for the 

Concord Intercity 8 Rail Option is listed in Table 7-4. 

Table 7-4: New and Renewed Switches for Concord Intercity 8 Passenger Rail Option 

Switch Location and Type Installed Cost Quantity

New #15 Crossover (B25.8) $632,475 1 

Renew #15 Crossover (B25.9) $421,650 1 

New #15 Turnout (CPF-NC) $316,238 1 

Renew #15 Turnout (CPF-NC) $210,825 1 

New #15 Crossover (B29) $632,475 1 

New #10 Turnout (B29.7) Courier Corp $184,000 1 

New #20 Turnout (B32.1) Tyngsboro Curve $434,526 1 

New #15 Turnout (B34.2) to Layover Facility $316,238 

Renew #15 Turnout (CPN9) $210,825 1 

Renew #15 Crossover (B37.9) Robies $421,650 1 

Renew #15 Turnouts Nashua Yard/Station (B38.7) $210,825 1 

New #10 Hand Throw (B42.3) Nashua Corp Siding $184,000 2 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 159 

Switch Location and Type Installed Cost Quantity

Renew #10 Turnout to Nashua Corp $122,667 2 

New #10 Hand Throw (B43.5) Anheuser Busch $184,000 2 

Renew #10 Turnout (B43.6) Anheuser Busch $122,667 1 

New #15 Turnout (B45.4) Merrimack Running Track $316,238 1 

New #10 Hand Throw (B45.6) to NE Pole Siding $184,000 1 

Renew #10 Hand Throw (B46.1) Jones Chemical $122,667 1 

Renew #15 Turnout (B47.8) CPN 20 $210,825 1 

Renew #10 Turnouts to Manchester Customers $122,667 1 

Renew #15 Turnout (B55.3) Manchester Yard $210,825 1 

New #15 Turnout (B55.6) to Layover Facility $316,238 1 

New #15 Turnout (B55.7) CPN 28 to Concord $210,825 1 

Renew #10 Hand Throw (B66.1) Cement Quebec $122,667 1 

Renew #15 Turnout (B66.4) Perini Siding $210,825 1 

Renew #10 Hand Throw (B67) Coastal Wood $122,667 1 

New #10 Hand Throw (B68) PSNH Siding $122,667 1 

Renew #15 Turnout (B72.7) Concord Yard $210,825 1 

Renew #10 Hand Throw (B73) Scrap Yard $122,667 1 

New #15 Turnout (B73.6) Loudon Rd/Concord Station $316,238 1 

Interlockings and Block Signals 

The New Hampshire Main Line has a fully functioning Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) signal system in 

place between Lowell and CPN28 in Manchester that would be renewed and upgraded for the new 

passenger service. Existing block signals were identified by reference to PAR documentation. New and 

renewed interlockings were identified in the track configuration planning process (see Table 7-5). 

Estimated signal costs for new interlockings were based on the average value for six new interlockings 

constructed on the nearby MBTA Fitchburg Main Line. Estimated costs to renew block signals were 

derived from the same source. Costs for interlocking renewal were estimated at two-thirds the cost of a 

new interlocking. 

Table 7-5: New and Renewed Interlockings and Block Signals for Concord Intercity 8 Passenger Rail 

Interlocking Location and Treatment Installed Cost Quantity

Renew CPF-LO $683,295 1

Renew Western Avenue $683,295 1

New CPF-NC $1,024,942 1

New CPN2 Crossover (B29) $1,024,942 1

New CPN4 $1,024,942 1

Renew CPN6 So Nashua Station $1,024,942 1

Renew CPN9 $683,295 1

Renew Nashua $683,295 1

Renew CPN13 (12.86) Hills Ferry $683,295 1

New CPN 18 $1,024,942 1

Renew CPN20 $683,295 1
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 160 

Interlocking Location and Treatment Installed Cost Quantity

New Manchester $1,024,942 1

Renew CPN28 (Granite Street) $1,024,942 1

New Concord $1,024,942 1

Block Signals 

Renew 27/27.1 $147,872 1

Renew 30.6/30.7 $147,872 1

Renew 352/353 (So Nashua) MP7 $147,872 1

Renew 14.4/14.5 Mast Road $147,872 1

Renew 16.0/16.1 Anheuser Busch $147,872 1

Renew 500/499 (MP22) $147,872 1

Renew 540/539 (West Mitchell Street) $147,872 1

Renew 28.6 (Commercial Street) $147,872 1

Automatic Highway Crossing Warning (AHCW) Systems 

The rail line has 35 highway and pedestrian crossings between Lowell and Concord. The study team 

inspected each crossing with an accompanying PAR signalman to determine its condition and identify 

necessary signal and warning system upgrades for each crossing. The site survey ran south to north to 

view the conditions at each of the 35 crossings from Wotton Street in Chelmsford, MA to Hall Street in 

Bow, NH. The specific cities and towns visited and the number of active crossings includes Chelmsford 

(3), Tyngsboro (2), Nashua (6), Merrimack (4), Manchester (14), Hooksett (2), and Bow (4). 

The study team’s estimate includes all material and labor to purchase and install new equipment and 

remove and dispose of old equipment including a 5 percent design contingency. The estimate includes 

costs for crossing houses complete with racks, crossing controllers, relays and wiring necessary for the 

control of the wayside equipment. Constant warning time control equipment has been included in the 

estimate due to the variation in speeds between passenger trains and freight trains which will both 

coexist on the line. Wayside equipment has been determined for each location to be either a two or four 

quadrant gate system or flasher-only system with foundations, cable, lights, and bells. A cost for a power 

service up-grade at each location has been included. All estimated backup details are based on currentyear 2014 dollars. This estimate does not include any costs for the operating contractor (force account), 

future escalation, contractor’s general conditions, overhead, profit, bond or any other allowances. Other 

general information and assumptions used in developing this cost estimate include: 

1. Review of information contained in the US DOT Crossing Inventory. 

2. Material and labor costs for contractor work are based on various sources including estimating 

publications, historical contractor rates from similar project bids, and experience of the 

estimators. A material list estimate from Safetran Systems dated 2004 was also used as 

reference. Material costs from that estimate where used have been escalated to be consistent 

with recent cost information. 

3. The cost estimate includes assumption of manpower and assumes all work will be done on 

straight time. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 161 

4. The overall cost does not include any credit for salvageable equipment. 

5. The cost estimate does not include any cost for upgrades to the wayside signal system. 

6. Costs are included for interface at locations where electric switch locks may be required. 

7. Cost was added at Crown Street and E. Hollis Street in Nashua between the main line and the 

Hillsboro Branch line specifically for a crossing control interface between the two locations. 

8. From the site survey it was observed that the Manchester traffic signals along Canal Street 

provide signage and a steady flashing yellow light in advance of the crossing for warning 

motorists. Cost for an upgrade to this traffic system is not included. 

9. From the site survey it was observed that several locations have traffic signals within 200 feet of 

the Highway Rail Grade Crossing Warning System and will need to be interconnected to preempt the traffic signals in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD). 

The resulting signal cost estimates for each crossing are enumerated in Table 7-6. 

Table 7-6: Estimated Signal Costs for AHCW System Upgrades 

City State Grade Crossing MP Cost

Chelmsford MA Wotton Street 29.1 $241,750 

Chelmsford MA Wellman Road 29.6 $260,650 

Chelmsford MA Cross Street 30.0 $298,576 

Tyngsboro MA New England Marine 30.5 $298,576 

Tyngsboro MA Helena Dr/River Rd 33.5 $258,203 

Segment Total $1,357,755 

Nashua NH East Glenwood 36.9 $258,203 

Nashua NH Crown Street 38.8 $324,364 

Nashua NH East Hollis Street 38.9 $297,767 

Nashua NH Bridge Street 39.0 $266,267 

Nashua NH Hills Ferry Road 40.8 $258,203 

Merrimack NH Mast Road 42.4 $258,203 

Merrimack NH Anheuser Busch 43.7 $258,203 

Merrimack NH Star Drive 44.1 $258,203 

Merrimack NH New England Pole 45.7 $258,203 

Manchester NH Pine Island Road 52.1 $220,403 

Manchester NH Winston Road 52.6 $225,653 

Manchester NH West Mitchell Street 54.0 $291,635 

Manchester NH Sundial Avenue (Dunbar St) 54.6 $225,653 

Manchester NH Bryon Street 54.7 $238,757 

Manchester NH Depot Street 55.6 $13,304 

Segment Total $3,653,026 

Manchester NH Granite Street 55.7 $26,174 

Manchester NH Pleasant Street 55.9 $288,485 

Manchester NH Pedestrian Crossing #1 56.0 $132,190 

Manchester NH Spring Street 56.2 $288,485 

Manchester NH Kidder Street 56.3 $288,485 

Manchester NH Pedestrian Crossing #2 56.5 $132,190 

Manchester NH Commercial Street 56.6 $288,485 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 162 

City State Grade Crossing MP Cost

Manchester NH Eve Street (Chauncey Ave) 58.7 $263,453 

Hooksett NH Old Londonderry Turnpike 64.3 $263,453 

Hooksett NH Edgewater Drive 64.8 $263,453 

Bow NH Johnson Road 66.3 $263,453 

Bow NH Robinson Ferry 68.3 $263,453 

Bow NH Gavins Falls Road 69.8 $263,453 

Bow NH Hall Street 71.0 $284,453 

Segment Total $3,309,669 

Grade Crossing Track Renewals 

Each of the highway grade crossings would also be renewed with new track, and paving material. The 

estimated cost for upgrading each of highway grade crossings was based on the average value to 

upgrade the track and crossing material for six substantial crossings on the MBTA’s ongoing Fitchburg 

Line Improvement Project at $165,950 per crossing. 

Bridges 

There are 25 railroad bridges along the route between Lowell and Concord spanning an aggregate 2,100 

feet over waterways and roadways. The study team obtained inspection reports, plans and 

documentation for each bridge from PAR and the MBTA. The study team combined this information 

with selected field inspections to estimate costs to rehabilitate each of the railroad bridges along the 

route. The assessment of the bridge structures was limited to review and evaluation of this available 

information only. The scope of this study does not include bridge inspection and/or development of an 

independent load capacity rating for any of the bridges. Available information utilized in the assessment 

and evaluation of the 25 bridges within the study limits includes the following: 

1. Bridge Inspection Reports obtained from MBCR 

2. Bridge Inspection Reports obtained from Pan Am 

3. Bridge Rating Reports obtained from Pan Am 

4. Bridge Plans obtained from Pan Am 

5. Video and photos from a Hi-Rail trip along the rail corridor 

6. Photographs of some bridges where access was possible 

7. GIS mapping and online aerial photos of the bridges 

A Bridge Summary Sheet was developed for each bridge to summarize the basic information and 

condition of each bridge as identified in available bridge inspection reports. Based on condition ratings, 

inspector notes and available photographs, a recommended scope of repairs is presented, with concept 

level cost item quantities identified. The recommended repairs are also given a weighted rating of 

"Minor", "Moderate" or "Extensive" based on a subjective evaluation of the available information. Unit 

costs for various repair/rehabilitation work items are utilized for each of the three weighted ratings, and 

the appropriate unit cost is then applied to the specific cost item quantity for the given bridge. 

The condition of each bridge is summarized in Table 7-7. Bridge repair cost information was developed 

for the purpose of establishing order-of-magnitude capital investment levels, and considered as 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 163 

representative of preliminary conceptual repair/rehabilitation requirements. As project design 

advances, development of more accurate needs and associated costs at each bridge based on further 

engineering assessment will be required, including hands-on inspections and load capacity ratings for 

two bridges that have not recently been rated. 

Table 7-7: Estimated Bridge Rehabilitation Costs 

City/Town 

Bridge 

No. 

Length 

(Feet) Bridge Structure 

Deck 

Type Spans

Rehabilitation 

Costs 

Lowell, MA 

25.62 30' +/- Deck Plate Girder Open 1 $41,000 

25.69 154'-6" Deck Plate Girder Open 4 $99,000 

26.20 163'-0" Thru Truss Open 1 $183,000 

Chelmsford, MA 

28.65 43'-8" Stone Arch Ballast 2 $29,000 

29.10 13'-0" I-Beam Open 1 $58,000 

Tyngsboro, MA 

32.46 45'-9" Frame Trestle Open 6 $1,647,000 

32.56 12'-3" Reinforced Concrete Ballast 1 $50,000 

Nashua, NH 

37.87 17'-3" Stone Arch Ballast 1 $5,000 

39.22 113'-2" Thru Truss Open 1 $72,000 

39.39 35'-0" Reinforced Concrete Ballast 2 $75,000 

41.77 47'6" Deck Plate Girder Ballast 1 $422,000 

Merrimack, NH 

44.76 16'-0" Reinforced Concrete RCS 1 $95,000 

44.92 108'-8" Deck Plate Girder Ballast 3 $1,011,000 

46.22 111'-6" Deck Plate Girder Ballast 2 $980,000 

47.80 10'-0" Reinforced Concrete RCS 1 $8,000 

Bedford, NH 51.84 655'-3" Thru Truss Ballast 4 $5,956,000 

Hooksett, NH 

60.53 12'-0" Reinforced Concrete RCS 1 $50,000 

61.21 15'-0" Reinforced Concrete RCS 1 $21,000 

64.32 487'-6" Thru Truss Ballast 3 $4,478,000 

Bow, NH 

67.63 15'-0" Reinforced Concrete RCS 1 $21,000 

70.82 17'-0" Reinforced Concrete RCS 1 $21,000 

71.12 11'-0" Reinforced Concrete RCS 1 $21,000 

Concord, NH 

71.47 16'-0" Reinforced Concrete RCS 1 $23,000 

71.54 10'-0" Reinforced Concrete RCS 1 $21,000 

73.33 Unknown I-Beam Timber 1 $16,000 

Stations 

Costs for station development were estimated for a number of alternative sites, as described in the Task 

4 - Definition of Alternatives: Site Evaluation and Preliminary Designs - Passenger Stations. Estimates 

relied on unit costs recently generated for the MBTA’s on-going improvements to the Fitchburg line. 

Those detailed capital costs were prepared by Jacobs Engineering and Keville Enterprises, Inc. in January, 

2013 and are included in an Appendix to the above referenced Task 4 project document. The estimated 

Wachusett station construction cost with escalations and contingencies came to $13,303,000 for a 

station facility with a single track siding station with one 800-foot high-level side platform and 360 

parking spaces. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 164 

Detailed costs for Wachusett were used to inform cost estimates for each of the proposed station sites 

through the use of allocation factors. These include variables such as the number of parking spaces, 

number of platforms, number of side tracks, square feet of existing wetlands and whether there was the 

possibility of contaminated soil disposal. This allowed for the application of the Wachusett station unit 

costs even where the characteristics of the sites were different. The costs for a station at the Pheasant 

Lane Mall site include a parking garage that was estimated at ten times the cost per space of a surface 

parking space. This figure is consistent with Jacobs estimates for other parking garages. Detailed 

capital cost calculations are documented in an Appendix to the above referenced Task 4 project 

document. 

Layover Facilities 

Costs to develop layover yards for overnight storage and light maintenance of the service rolling stock 

were estimated for a number of alternative sites, as described in the Task 4 - Definition of Alternatives: 

Site Evaluation and Preliminary Designs – Layover Facilities. Estimates relied on unit costs recently 

generated for the MBTA’s on-going improvements to the Fitchburg line. The estimated Wachusett 

layover construction cost with escalations and contingencies came to $13,303,000 for a layover facility 

with six tracks including 9,655 track-feet available for the storage of trains. 

These detailed costs were used to develop cost estimates for each of the proposed layover facilities 

through the use of allocation factors. These allocation factors included variables such as the number of 

storage positions, total track length (feet) and whether there was the possibility of contaminated soil 

disposal. This allowed for the application of the Wachusett layover facility unit costs even where the 

characteristics of the sites were different. Detailed capital cost calculations are documented in an 

Appendix to the above referenced Task 4 Project Document. 

Right of Way Improvements 

Restoration of passenger service on the New Hampshire Main Line will require some right of way 

improvements including relocation of fiber optic lines where new tracks are being restored to the right 

of way, vegetation removal, reestablishing ditches and cleaning shoulder ballast. The right of way hosts 

three separate private fiber optic installations north from Lowell to Nashua, two between Nashua and 

Manchester and one from Manchester north to Concord. Based on the experience of Jacobs 

telecommunications engineers, an allowance of $290,400 per route mile was used to estimate the costs 

of installing replacement fiber optic lines where new tracks were being laid. Allowances for other 

improvements were derived from earlier studies of the same right of way with costs escalated to 

current-year 2014 and are listed in Table 7-8. 

Table 7-8: Allowances for Right of Way Improvements 

Right of Way Improvement Unit Unit Cost

Relocate Fiber Optic Lines Route Mile $ 290,400 

Vegetation Management Route Mile $ 20,925 

Reestablish ditches Route Mile $ 39,600 

Shoulder ballast cleaning Track Mile $ 39,930 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 165 

Positive Train Control 

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) created a new infrastructure requirement for all US 

passenger railroads. This new requirement should reduce the likelihood of: 

• Train to train collisions; 

• Injuries to rail roadway workers; 

• Over-speed derailments, and; 

• Accidents due to misaligned switches to sidings. 

Under the RSIA, all conventional passenger railroads must operate with Positive Train Control (PTC) as 

soon as possible after December 2015. The MBTA installation of PTC is lagging the 2015 deadline like 

most of its peers and its ultimate costs are unknown. The study team employed a 2009 economic 

analysis prepared by the Federal Railroad Administration35 to account for the cost of PTC, and then 

escalated the estimates to the current year at 4% per annum. 

At the most basic level, all PTC systems require three equipment elements: 

• Wayside Devices – Equipment to detect, monitor and communicate the status of track and 

switches installed in the field. 

• Locomotive/Cab Car Devices – Equipment to monitor and control train status relative to 

information on field conditions communicated from central control and wayside equipment. 

• Central Office Equipment – To integrate and communicate information concerning the status of 

trains, track maintenance crews, switches, signals and tracks. 

The relevant work to install onboard locomotive and cab car devices should be completed for the MBTA, 

PAR and Amtrak fleets well before the proposed passenger rail service north of Lowell could be 

implemented. Similarly the PAR and MBTA dispatching offices should have the relevant Central Office 

Equipment by that time. Any new passenger railway mileage will require the installation of wayside 

devices. 

Using information from the above referenced FRA study, the study team conservatively estimated that 

the more expensive Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES) wayside equipment would be 

deployed on the route with an average cost of $147,215 per track mile. If Enhanced Traffic 

Management System (ETMS) is installed, the PTC costs may be lower than estimated here. 

 

35 Roskind, Frank D, Senior Industry Economist, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety Analysis POSITIVE TRAIN 

CONTROL SYSTEMS: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, 49 CFR 

PARTS 229, 234, 235, AND 236 [DOCKET NO. FRA-2006-0132, NOTICE NO. 1] RIN 2130-AC03 July 10, 2009 202 302 9704 pp 112-

119 (Retrieved from http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/PTC_/RIA_/Final.pdf on July 21, 2009) 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 166 

Railroad Appliances 

Various appliances such as train defect detectors, rail lubricators and electric locks for hand thrown 

turnouts would be required on the refurbished line. Installed unit costs for these appliances and 

estimated quantities required are listed in 

Table 7-9. 

Table 7-9: Unit Costs and Quantities of Railroad Appliances for Concord Intercity 8 Passenger Rail 

Railroad Appliance Installed Cost Quantity

Train Defect Detector $45,000 1

Rail Lubricator Unit $8,000 6

Electric Locks for Industrial Sidings $75,000 5

Electric Locks for Customer Turnouts $75,000 12

7.2 Non-Infrastructure Costs 

Multipliers for Allowances 

As per typical practice, costs for various professional services and incidental non-itemized expenditures 

are estimated on the basis of total costs for all rail infrastructure improvements. These multipliers for 

professional services and incidental work are listed in Table 7-10. 

Table 7-10: Professional Services and Incidental Items 

Culverts and retaining walls 3% of infrastructure cost

Environmental (soil disposal, noise abatement, LEED) 3% of infrastructure cost 

Final Engineering Design 8% of infrastructure cost 

Construction phase engineering services 4% of infrastructure cost 

Railroad Services 

Mechanisms for estimating the costs for railroad project management, inspections and protective 

flagging are reviewed in Table 7-11. 

Table 7-11: Railroad Services and Estimated Days of Inspections and Flagging 

for Concord Intercity 8 Passenger Rail Option 

Unit Cost Quantity

Railroad Project Management 3% of Infrastructure cost N/A

Maintenance & Protection of Railroad (Inspections) $2.000 / day 270

Flagging $2.000 / day 540

Land 

Beyond the railroad right of way that will be shared with PAR freight trains, land will be required for 

stations, parking and overnight train storage yards. The cost for this land was estimated by consulting 

local public assessor records in Tyngsboro, Nashua, Bedford, Manchester and Concord to determine the 

current assessed value of each parcel that had been identified for a potential station or layover yard. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 167 

Where only a portion of the parcel would be required for the rail facility, GIS tools were used to 

determine what fraction of the overall parcel would be necessary and to prorate the cost accordingly. 

Acquisition of private land for transportation improvements can be a litigious process. An allowance of 

220 percent was added to all raw land costs to allow for negotiations, takings, eminent domain and legal 

costs. The 220 percent was derived from the study team’s experience working on similar projects in 

other jurisdictions. New Hampshire’s experience may be different. 

Table 7-12: Assessed Land Value and Estimated Cost for Selected Station and Layover Sites 

 for Concord Intercity 8 Passenger Rail Option 

Facility Type 

Parcel 

Size 

(Acres)

Required 

Portion 

Assessed 

Value per 

Acre 

Estimated 

Value 

Estimated 

Cost with 

220% 

Assemblage 

Factor 

Stations 

Nashua - Crown Street 6.826 1 $ 45,224 $308,700 $987,840 

Bedford / MHT 6.000 0.33 $ 29,416.67 $444,400 $1,422,080 

Manchester - Granite Street 0.5544 1 $ 279,132.58 $148,800 $476,160 

Concord - Stickney Avenue 6.08 1 $ 237,990 $1,447,000 $4,630,400 

Layover Yards 

Concord - Stickney Avenue 6.08 1 $ 237,990 $1,447,000 $4,630,400 

Infrastructure Contingency 

In accordance with federal recommendations, a thirty-five percent contingency was applied to the sum 

of all infrastructure, engineering and land costs described above to allow for unforeseen and unusual 

circumstances that might have been unaccounted for in this conceptual engineering cost estimate. 

Rolling Stock 

For the Concord Intercity 8 Rail service, the Amtrak Downeaster’s standard consist of four coaches with 

a locomotive was used as a model (see Table 7-13). It was further assumed that the Intercity 8 service 

would operate in the same equipment pool with the Downeaster’s five train sets adding one more fourcar train set, one spare coach and one spare locomotive to Amtrak’s North Station complement. 

Table 7-13: Unit Costs and Quantities of Railroad Rolling Stock 

for Concord Intercity 8 Passenger Rail Option 

Rolling Stock Purchase Price Quantity

Coaches $2,530,000 5

Locomotives $5,320,000 2

Trackage Rights 

The proposed rail services would be operated on a mix of tracks owned by the MBTA in Massachusetts 

and by the successors to the Boston and Maine Railroad in New Hampshire. The MBTA recently 

transferred $35 million dollars to PAR in exchange for the right to offer commuter rail service on 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 168 

B&M/PAR tracks approximately 37 miles north from Tyngsboro, MA to Concord, NH. The value of these 

rights to the MBTA and PAR is approximately $946,000 per route mile. Without this transaction, the 

MBTA and NHDOT would need to purchase trackage rights from PAR to operate into New Hampshire. 

Consequently one of the cost elements for the commuter rail options is the $946,000 per route mile 

one-time trackage fee for every route mile operated into New Hampshire. 

Intercity routes operated by Amtrak, in contrast to the MBTA, have statutory rights to operate over 

every railroad in the nation without paying trackage fees. Consequently the trackage rights and 

resulting fees would not be a concern or a cost for the Concord Intercity 8 Rail service option. 

7.3 Total Estimated Costs 

The Concord Intercity 8 Rail Service Option is projected to cost $172 million for infrastructure and land 

plus a $60 million contingency allowance. The cost also includes $23 million for the purchase of rolling 

stock that would the responsibility of NHDOT. 

Table 7 14: Summary of Projected Capital Costs 

for Concord Intercity 8 Passenger Rail Option 

Main Line Tracks $42.1 

Track Switches $7.8 

Interlockings $12.0 

Block Signals $1.2 

Grade Crossing Signals $8.3 

Grade Crossing Track Renewals $5.6 

Bridges $15.4 

Stations $18.7 

Layovers $4.8 

Right of Way Improvements $8.8 

Positive Train Control $9.5 

Railroad Appliances $1.0 

Direct Construction Expense Subtotal $135.2 

Multipliers for Allowances $24.3 

Railroad Services $5.7 

Land for Stations $2.0 

Land for Layovers $1.4 

Assemblage Allowance (220%) $4.3 

Subtotal Land $6.3 

Contingency $60.0 

Grand Total (INFRASTRUCTURE) $231.5 

Coaches $12.7 

Locomotives $10.6 

Grand Total (ROLLING STOCK) $23.3 

Trackage Rights $0.0 

Total Project Value $254.8 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 169 

8.0 FORECAST OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES 

This chapter describes the preliminary and final estimates of operating costs and passenger revenues 

anticipated for the preferred intercity rail service option. 

8.1 Operating and Maintenance Costs 

Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs comprise those expenses necessary for operation of the 

railway service. It is generally comprised of four principal elements: 

• Transportation: Train crews, fuel, dispatching, train supplies, revenue collection, station staffing 

(if any) and transport supervision. 

• Maintenance of Equipment (MoE): Sometimes referred to as “Mechanical”, includes the 

maintenance and cleaning of locomotives and coaches. 

• Maintenance of Way (MoE): Sometimes called “Engineering”, includes maintenance of track, 

signals, communications, right of way, bridges, stations, and other facilities. 

• Administration: includes general management, marketing, human resources, accounting, 

material management and other similar support functions. 

Two stages of O&M cost estimates were prepared for the study: 

1. A set of preliminary estimates were prepared for each of the three intercity rail (as well as the 

six commuter rail and three bus options). 

2. Refined final estimates were prepared for the final intercity rail service design (as well as the 

two final commuter rail and three final bus options.) 

This document describes the assumptions and methods that were applied to derive the preliminary and 

final O&M cost estimates. 

Preliminary Estimates of O&M Cost 

The study team’s approach for estimating O&M costs were different for the intercity rail, commuter rail, 

commuter bus and feeder bus service components. The intercity rail estimates are described below. 

For information concerning the other service options the reader is referred to the NHCC Project 

Operations & Maintenance Cost Methodology Report: Draft September 2014 

Service and operations planning for each intercity rail option was developed to include estimates of 

daily train miles, rolling stock requirements, track miles required, number and location of stations, and 

schedules of service. The three preliminary options were reviewed with Amtrak staff assigned to advise 

the study team and revised to reflect their feedback. The study team also consulted with Amtrak for 

guidance on preparing preliminary estimates of operating costs for the Service Development Plan. The 

team was referred to documentation from several recent service development plans: 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 170 

• Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service: Chicago-Rockford-Galena-Dubuque; Prepared 

by M.W. Franke, Sr. Director - Corridor Planning and R.P. Hoffman Principal Officer - Midwest 

Corridors, Amtrak, Chicago, Illinois, Revised June 22, 2007 

• Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service: Quad Cities-Chicago; Prepared by M.W. Franke 

Assistant Vice President – State and Commuter Partnerships (Central), R. P. Hoffman Principal 

Officer – Midwest Corridors and B. E. Hillblom Senior Director - State Partnerships; Amtrak 

Chicago, Illinois January 7, 2008 

• Feasibility Report of Proposed Amtrak Service: Chicago – Peoria; Prepared by Policy and 

Development Department (Central) Amtrak, Chicago, Illinois September 26, 2011. 

• New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity Passenger Rail Study: Identification and Evaluation of 

Alternatives; March 9, 2012. 

Review of these documents revealed that the preliminary (and final) operating cost estimates for Service 

Development Plans are typically derived in two ways. A measure of annual train miles is often the only 

cost factor used to derive a very simple and transparent operating cost estimate while other studies rely 

on Amtrak staff to develop estimates. The study team elected to use the annual train mile approach as 

documentation concerning Amtrak’s methodology is not publicly available. The cost per train mile 

figures from the referenced reports ranged from $29.78 to $33.08 in the Amtrak Chicago-Quad Cities 

Report (Table 8-1) to $66.01 in the Amtrak Ethan Allen Report (Table 8-2). 

Amtrak reviewed these findings and agreed that the average costs per train mile published for the 

Amtrak Downeaster service would be used to estimate operating costs for Capitol Corridor intercity rail 

options. The use of the Downeaster service between Portland, ME and Boston, MA is especially 

appropriate since this service also operates on tracks owned by MBTA and PanAm and runs into 

Boston’s North Station. Table 8-3summarizes the cost factors that contribute to that service’s $36.02 

cost per train mile figure. This metric is roughly equivalent to the costs applied for Midwestern and New 

York/Vermont services reviewed in the studies recommended by Amtrak. Using the simple cost of $36 

per train mile, the preliminary estimates of operating cost in Table 8-4 were derived for the three 

intercity service options. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 171 

Table 8-1: Amtrak Chicago-Quad Cities Operating Cost Calculations 

Route A

UP 

Belvidere

Route B

ICE 

Airport 

Route C

CN 

Direct 

Route D

ICE-CN 

Hybrid 

Length of Route (miles) 184.0 188.6 182.2 181.0

No. of Rail Carriers 4 5 2 4

Proposed Scheduled Running Time (hours:minutes) 5:25 5:42 5:10 5:22

“Order of Magnitude” Capital Cost ($ millions) $43.8 $48.9-$55.4 $32.3 $34.5

Estimated Annual Ridership 53, 600 44, 300 74, 500 58, 400

Estimated Annual Revenue ($ millions) $1.1 $1.0 $1.5 $1.2

Estimated Annual Operation Expense ($millions) $4.1 $4.1 $4.4 $4.2

Estimated Annual Operation Contract ($millions) $3.0 $3.1 $2.9 $3.0

Train Hours 5.4 5.7 5.2 5.4

Annual Ridership

Annual Train Miles 134,320 137,678 133,006 132,130

Annual Train Hours 3,954 4,161 3,772 3,918

Cost per Train Mile $30.52 $29.78 $33.08 $31.79

Cost per Train Hour $1,036.88 $985.34 $1,166.59 $1,072.07

Source: Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service: Chicago-Rockford-Galena-Dubuque; M.W. Franke, Amtrak Sr. Director - 

Corridor Planning and R.P. Hoffman, Amtrak Principal Officer - Midwest Corridors; Revised June 22, 2007 

Table 8-2: Amtrak Ethan Allen Operating Cost Calculation 

"Fully Allocated Unit Operating Cost" per Train Mile $ 66.01

Source: New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity Passenger Rail Study Identification and Evaluation of 

Alternatives – Phase One; 3/9/2012 

Table 8-3: Preliminary Downeaster Operating Cost Calculation 

Annual Budget $15,000,000

One Way Trip Length 114

Trips per Day 10

Trips per Year 3,652.5

Annual Train Miles 416,385

Cost per Train Mile $36.02

Source: Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) 2013

Table 8-4: Derivation of Preliminary Estimates of Intercity Rail Operating Costs 

Intercity 

Service 

Option 

Trips

per 

Day 

Train 

Miles per 

Day 

Train 

Miles per 

Year 

Annual 

Operating Cost 

(@ $36/train mile) 

Preliminary Estimate of 

Annual Operating Cost 

(millions) 

Intercity 8 8 586 214,036 $7,705,296 $8

Intercity 12 12 880 321,054 $11,557,944 $12

Intercity 18 18 1,319 481,581 $17,336,916 $17
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 172 

Final Estimates of O&M Costs 

The Operations and Maintenance costs evolved over the preliminary stages of the study then were 

updated at the project close to reflect newer, but not substantial different information concerning 

operating costs for the Downeaster service used as a cost model for this service. An updated O&M cost 

estimate is discussed below. 

The intercity rail service option that advanced through preliminary screening was developed to a higher 

level of detail, including estimates of daily train miles, rolling stock requirements, track miles required, 

number and location of stations, and schedules of service. 

Revenue forecasts were then prepared so that the required operating support could be identified. Table 

8-5 contains the final estimates of boardings and passenger miles for the preferred intercity passenger 

rail service option and identifies new transit trips that would be attracted to the service. 

Table 8-5: Final Estimates of Demand and Passenger Miles for Preferred Intercity Rail Service 

Boardings

Miles to 

Boston 

Passenger 

Miles 

Concord 78 73.70 11,497 

Manchester 186 55.80 20,758 

MHT / Bedford 77 50.10 7,715 

Nashua 132 38.70 10,217 

New NH Boardings 473 

Annual Boardings (Millions) 2.78 

Annual NH Project Boardings (Millions) 0.24 

Incremental Daily Passenger Miles 48,853 

Annual Passenger Miles (Millions) 17.8 

8.2 Estimated Passenger Revenues 

Two rounds of revenue forecasts were prepared for the study. The preliminary forecasts were used to 

screen the options down to the final set of multimodal transportation investment options, including the 

preferred Intercity Rail service option. The final revenue forecast was based on the final ridership 

forecast for the eight-train-per-day Concord service design. 

Preliminary Estimates of Passenger Revenue 

The preliminary estimates of passenger revenue were based on the ridership forecasts described in 

Chapter 4: Market Analysis. For screening purposes the service was assumed to use a fare structure 

similar to the MBTA’s commuter rail fares and that daily ridership would be converted to an annual 

estimate using a factor of 284.4 based on MBTA experience. The use of a commuter rail annualization 

factor was considered prudent since the forecast model used for preliminary estimates was a commuter 

rail model. The resulting preliminary forecasts of annual revenue are shown in the Table 8-6. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 173 

Table 8-6: Preliminary Forecasts of Intercity Ridership and Revenue 

Intercity Rail 

Station 

One 

Way 

Fare 

Average 

Revenue per 

Passenger 

Forecast SB Boardings Annual Revenue (millions) 

Intercity 

8 

Intercity 

12 

Intercity 

18 

Intercity 

8 

Intercity 

12 

Intercity 

18 

Concord $12.00 $11.26 60 70 90 $0.4 $0.4 $0.6 

Manchester $11.00 $10.01 130 160 190 $0.7 $0.9 $1.1 

Bedford/MHT $11.00 $10.01 120 140 160 $0.7 $0.8 $0.9 

Nashua $10.00 $9.41 320 370 440 $1.7 $2.0 $2.4 

Totals 630 740 880 $3.5 $4.1 $4.9 

Revenue per Passenger Mile $0.21 $0.20 $0.20 

Final Estimates of Passenger Revenue 

The final estimate of passenger revenue for the preferred intercity passenger rail service option was 

based on the Downeaster ridership model forecasts prepared by Amtrak and the Downeaster’s average 

revenue per passenger mile of $0.173. Since the Amtrak model generated annual ridership estimates, it 

was unnecessary to apply an annualization factor. 

Table 8-7: Final Forecasts of Intercity Ridership and Revenue for Eight-Train-per-Day Service 

 

Miles to 

Boston 

Typical 

Daily 

Boardings 

Annual 

Boardings

Annual 

Passenger 

Miles 

Annual 

Revenue 

(millions) 

Concord 73.3 78 28,350 4,156,110 $0.7 

Manchester 55.7 186 67,800 7,552,920 $1.3 

Bedford/MHT 50.1 77 28,150 2,820,630 $0.5 

Nashua 39 132 48,350 3,771,300 $0.7 

Totals 473 172,650 18,300,960 $3.2 

8.3 Estimated Operating Cost Performance 

Table 8-8 lists the performance metrics for the preferred intercity passenger rail service option that can 

be used to compare its productivity and required operating support against the other study options. The 

intercity service is forecast to require $4.5 million of annual operating support beyond proceeds from 

passenger revenues. 

Table 8-8: Final Intercity 8 Rail Service Option Performance Metrics 

Performance Metric Cost 

Operating Cost per New Transit Passenger Trip $31.91 

Operating Cost per New Transit Passenger Mile $0.43 

Revenue per New Transit Passenger Mile $0.173 

Operating Deficit (millions) $4.53 

Operating Deficit per New Transit Passenger Trip $18.78 

Operating Deficit per New Transit Passenger Mile $0.25 

Required Operating Support (millions) $4.5 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 174 

9.0 PUBLIC BENEFITS 

This chapter reviews the quantifiable public benefits that would be derived from the construction and 

operation of intercity passenger rail service in Concord-Boston NHML rail corridor. These benefits 

include: 

• Reduced Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on parallel highways leading to reduced congestion and 

improved air quality; 

• Station area benefits stimulating and supporting sustainable land use patterns; 

• Economic development benefits resulting from construction and operation of the rail service; 

• Positive equity impacts on low income and minority populations in New Hampshire, and; 

• Freight service benefits. 

Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Public transportation investments generally have some impact in reducing automobile traffic in the 

corridors where they operate. Reduced automobile traffic in turn tends to have a positive impact on air 

quality and roadway congestion. As estimated in Chapter 4: Market Analysis, the preferred intercity rail 

service option would reduce daily vehicle miles on the corridor’s limited access highways by 44,794. 

Station Area Benefits and Recommendations 

Restoration of intercity passenger rail service between Concord and Boston along the NHML is expected 

to result in positive benefits that will stimulate and support new development. Ideally this would lead 

to sustainable development in the dense downtown cores of Concord, Manchester and Nashua and help 

to encourage sustainable development in the vicinity of the proposed airport station. 

The study carefully considered existing development and zoning in each of the proposed station areas to 

reach the findings and recommendations summarized below36

. 

All three cities within the NH study area have – to varying degrees - existing transit-supportive zoning 

and land use plans and policies. Some of the potential station locations would be better suited for 

transit-oriented development and supporting growth in transit use than others. The station locations in 

the urban centers of Concord, Manchester and Nashua are all primed for future transit growth and 

transit-oriented development. 

Recommendations to build on existing transit-supportive zoning and land use plans and policies include; 

Concord 

• Continue to implement the Opportunity Corridor Master Plan. This plan has many of the 

elements necessary to promote a transit-supportive environment. 

• Create policies to limit parking and consider charging a higher rate. Consider updating the 

zoning code to allow for parking maximum requirements instead of parking minimums for new 

 

36 For more information on station area development and land use the interested reader is referred to NHCC 

Project Report: Land Use and Economic Development Analysis, January 2014 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 175 

development. Parking supply can require less land if managed in parking structures, as opposed 

to surface lots. 

• Allow for greater residential and commercial densities and zoning incentives for increased 

development in station area. 

• Define maximum setbacks to encourage higher density development. Consider removing 

minimum setbacks. 

• 150-foot minimum lot frontages are too large to allow for the diverse mix of uses that the OCP 

district permits. A smaller frontage, such as the 22-foot minimum allowed in the CBP district, 

would create a more walkable and pedestrian friendly environment. 

• Update the floor area ratio to at least one, to promote more density in the OCP district. 

Manchester 

• Implement recommendations in the Master Plan to update the zoning ordinance to allow for 

mixed use and high density residential. 

• Allow multi-family and elderly housing as a permitted use instead of as a conditional use. 

• Define specific parking maximums to allow for consistent development and to ensure parking 

supply does not exceed demand. Consider charging a higher rate for parking. 

• Allow for residential and commercial densities, zoning incentives for increased development in 

station area. 

• Dimensional regulations are not defined for the CBD, the zoning immediately around the 

station, other than a floor area ratio of five. 

• The city should further define the maximum setbacks and other dimensional regulations to 

ensure that the urban design of new development enhances the walkability of the area. 

Bedford/MHT 

• The proposed station area lacks strong existing mixed-use or Transit Oriented Development 

(TOD) zoning. 

• The Town of Bedford has prepared plans and policies that support the development of a mixeduse transit hub at the proposed station location, but no progress has been made towards 

achieving this vision. 

• The potential station would primarily be used by residents who live in south suburban 

Manchester and for passengers traveling to and from the airport. 

• This station would likely function as a park and ride location, with less of a focus on transitoriented development. 

• The area could potentially benefit from more commercial development, serving the needs of 

passengers traveling to and from the airport. 

Nashua 

The area surrounding the proposed station is currently zoned General Industrial. The potential station 

could benefit from a zoning change to allow for more development, such as commercial and/or mixeduse. Former industrial spaces could also be redeveloped into commercial properties. Commercial uses 

could lead to more jobs near the transit station, making this a strong location in terms of the FTA 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 176 

criteria. Mixing-uses would add residential development opportunities, thereby increasing the 

population that lives within a half-mile of the proposed Crown Street station. 

• The allowed uses by zoning are not optimal for encouraging transit-oriented development and a 

more walkable and urban environment. 

• Specific urban design principles should be created, such as small or no minimum setbacks and 

narrow lot frontages to encourage higher density development. 

• The existing City of Nashua TOD land use code would be appropriate to apply to this location. 

• Recommend policies to limit parking and potentially charge for parking. 

• Consider updating the zoning code to allow for parking maximum requirements instead of 

parking minimums for new development. 

• Consider working with residential developers to unbundle parking from the residential unit. 

Economic Benefits 

Building upon the land use and economic development analyses, the study team prepared an economic 

development assessment aimed at capturing the potential economic benefits of the corridor 

alternatives. The study team’s analysis focused on the final alternatives, including intercity passenger 

rail to Concord and commuter rail to Nashua or Manchester. It also considered improvements to the 

existing commuter bus network. The Service Development Plan only reports the findings for the 

preferred intercity rail option compared to the No Build or No Action alternative37. 

Economic Benefits of Transportation Investments 

The study team examined the literature and findings from recent studies of similar regional public 

transportation enhancement projects. Numerous studies have identified a net positive benefit of 

transport investment to the regional economy, resulting in travel time savings and congestion reduction, 

expanded access to jobs and workforce, and new development attracted to station areas. Studies have 

also found a positive impact on property values within station areas. While only a few studies have 

specifically examined intercity passenger rail, evidence from other rail system expansions in the greater 

Boston region similarly suggests that transit investment will have a positive effect on the communities it 

serves. 

Station Area Economic Development Benefits 

The study team conducted interviews with local stakeholders to gather information on the impact that 

the various proposed services could have in encouraging new development over the next 20 years. 

There was general consensus that passenger rail service (intercity or commuter) to Boston is important 

for the future development of southern New Hampshire. While some high tech, residential and 

institutional development is currently occurring near several of the proposed station locations, 

respondents felt that this would be difficult to maintain or boost (particularly in the case of high tech) 

without expanded passenger rail service. It was widely expressed that these sorts of transportation 

 

37 For more information on economic development impacts the interested reader is referred to NHCC Project 

Report: Economic Development Assessment, September 2014 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 177 

enhancements can help to attract the type of workers necessary to facilitate growth, namely a younger 

demographic looking for urban to semi-urban living with walkable amenities. 

The study team also assembled data on land use and zoning to evaluate the potential impact of the 

various project alternatives on development and redevelopment. The study team estimates were 

measured in terms of commercial square footage (office and retail) and housing units. Table 9-1 shows 

that the eight trains per day serving Nashua, Manchester, and Concord in the Intercity 8 Rail Service 

could potentially encourage the development of approximately 2,200 new residential units and 1.3 

million square feet of commercial space supporting 3,700 new jobs by the year 2030. 

Table 9-1: Total Development Potential for Preferred Intercity Rail Service

Commercial

(Square Feet) 

Residential 

(Units) Jobs 

1,284,000 2,200 3,700 

Regional Economic Benefits 

The economic modeling tool IMPLAN was used to estimate the economic benefits to the southern New 

Hampshire region of each intercity and commuter rail alternative. The following economic benefits 

were evaluated: 

• Short-term benefits as a result of spending on construction of rail improvements in New 

Hampshire; and 

• Long-term benefits as a result of the attraction of more residents and jobs to southern New 

Hampshire. These include benefits from construction of new real estate, as well as ongoing 

benefits from new worker earnings reinvested in the local economy. 

Benefits of time savings to travelers cannot be directly monetized in this type of economic analysis. 

However, they are capitalized into land values, and therefore are indirectly considered through the real 

estate effects. Benefits of the bus alternatives were not estimated, as they would involve minimal 

capital investment, and stakeholder interviews suggested that associated development impacts would 

also be minimal. 

The economic modeling found that the preferred Intercity 8 Rail Service would generate the greatest 

construction impacts of all the final alternatives (intercity rail, commuter rail, bus) under consideration 

(see Table 9-2). It would, however, have less development-related benefits when compared to the 

Manchester Regional commuter rail option due its lower service frequency. Overall, the Intercity 8 Rail 

Service has the potential to generate 350 new jobs over the construction period (2019-2022), 2,460 jobs 

related to new real estate development between 2021 and 2030; and 1,140 new jobs annually in 2030 

and beyond (with benefits beginning to accrue after 2021) due to reinvested worker earnings. Table 9-3 

shows that this new real estate development is projected to add $750 million to the state’s output 

between 2021 and 2030, with reinvested earnings adding $140 million per year beyond 2030. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 178 

Table 9-2: Employment Impacts of Preferred Intercity Rail Service (Number of Jobs) 

Project 

Construction 

(2019-2022)

Real Estate 

Development 

(2021-2030)

Reinvested New 

Resident Earnings 

(Annual, 2030+)

350 2,460 1,140 

Table 9-3: Forecast Gross Regional Product Impact of Intercity Rail Service (millions of 2014 dollars) 

Project 

Construction 

(2019-2022)

Real Estate 

Development 

(2021-2030)

Reinvested New 

Resident Earnings 

(Annual, 2030+)

$100 $750 $140 

Equity Impacts38

Equitable access to transportation services – and the mobility benefits that these services confer on 

riders – is an important consideration when assessing the alternatives developed in the study. Any 

major new public transportation (intercity rail, commuter rail or express bus) service would support 

broad improvements in mobility. They are also a particularly critical tool in increasing the mobility of 

transit-reliant or -dependent populations, generally including households below the poverty line, 

minorities, and households in affordable housing units. U.S. Census data was used to calculate statistics 

related to income, race and housing for households and individuals in Census tracts within a half-mile of 

the various Capitol Corridor alternatives. This includes the; 

• Pan Am rail right-of-way between the state lines of New Hampshire and Massachusetts and the 

proposed rail station locations enroute to Concord, NH; 

• Boston Express bus route between the state lines of New Hampshire and Massachusetts and the 

existing Manchester, NH Boston Express station, and; 

• Concord Coach bus route between the state lines of New Hampshire and Massachusetts and the 

existing Concord, NH Concord Coach station. 

These data were also collected for the states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and the United 

States as a whole. Comparison between the alternatives within the larger geographic context supported 

the analysis of which alternatives minimize potential adverse impacts on concentrations of households 

below the poverty line, minority populations and households in affordable housing unit, while 

supporting equitable transit access by these populations. 

It is notable that no cuts to intercity or express bus services are contemplated should the Intercity 8 Rail 

service be implemented. The overall scope of transport services would actually be increased under this 

scenario. It is likely that the collocation of the bus and rail terminals in Concord and Manchester would 

 

38For more information on economic development impacts the interested reader is referred to NHCC Project 

Report: TASK 7: CORRIDOR, REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS, July 2014 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 179 

strengthen both the bus and rail services as it has at the Downeaster’s joint bus/rail terminal in Portland, 

Maine. 

Table 9-4 summarizes the findings of the equity analysis for the Intercity 8 Rail Service compared with 

the status quo of continued express and intercity bus services. It finds that the Intercity 8 Rail Service 

would offer service to concentrations of: 

• households below the poverty line; 

• minority populations, and; 

• households living in affordable housing units. 

It would also expand access to new transportation alternatives in downtown Nashua, Manchester and 

Concord which have among the state’s largest concentrations of transit-reliant or -dependent persons 

and households. 

Table 9-4: Equity Comparison of Intercity Rail and Existing Bus Service

Station 

RailExpress Bus

Average 

Median 

Income 

Pop 

Below 

Poverty

Line 

Minority 

Pop 

Affordable 

Housing 

Units

Existing 

Bus 

Services

Intercity 

8 Rail 

Concord, NH X X $39,000 18.0% 9.7% 398 X X 

Manchester, NH X X $30,300 29.5% 26.1% 675 X X 

Bedford / MHT X $65,500 4.5% 5.2% 0 X 

N. Londonderry, NH X $82,900 1.7% 4.7% minimal X 

Londonderry, NH X $84,700 3.9% 5.2% minimal X 

Nashua, NH X $80,500 4.4% 12.9% minimal X 

Nashua, NH: Crown St X $52,500 14.9% 12.2% 28 X 

Salem, NH X $75,300 3.7% 5.9% minimal X 

Sources: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2008-2012; various local New Hampshire Housing Authorities. 

The three populations considered as part of this equity analysis – population below the poverty line, 

minority populations, and households living in affordable housing units - tend to be concentrated in the 

central areas of Concord, Manchester and Nashua. When compared against the existing commuter bus 

services, the Intercity 8 Rail Service would offer comparatively higher levels of service and transit access 

to these populations with minimal adverse impacts anticipated. The equity of and access to the rail 

alternatives would improve as transit service extends north to Concord. The Intercity 8 Rail Service 

would reach more individuals and households living below the poverty line, minority households, and 

households living in affordable housing units. The existing commuter bus service (or improved bus 

services) would also not adversely impact these populations, but it would not offer expanded access to 

these populations through new station locations. 

Freight Service Benefits 

As noted in the discussion of existing services in Chapter 2, the NHML carries most of the state’s 

inbound rail freight, receiving three quarters of all rail freight tonnage shipped into New Hampshire. 

While the freight received is quite diverse, traffic flow is dominated by coal for electric generation 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 180 

shipped to Bow, NH. Clay, concrete, glass, and stone also comprise much of the remaining rail freight 

tonnage moving on the corridor. Other freight shipped along the corridor includes farm products, 

lumber and wood products, food, chemicals, and some nonmetallic minerals. Significantly more freight 

rail traffic is shipped into southern New Hampshire than is shipped out. Shippers categorize the small 

amount of outbound freight rail traffic as miscellaneous freight. 

Most rail traffic currently shipped to New Hampshire is for local consumption and the volume of 

outbound rail traffic other than building materials (predominately sand and gravel) is quite minor. 

Unless there is major shift New Hampshire’s economy to produce, process or consume large volumes of 

bulk commodities, it is unlikely that the total volume of rail traffic to or from the Granite State will grow 

at a rate that varies significantly from expected population growth. That is not to say that rail freight in 

the state would not benefit from improvements to a key rail line serving the state’s major population 

centers. This portion of the Service Development Plan briefly discusses how investment in intercity 

passenger rail service might benefit freight services and commodity shippers along the NHML. 

The largest rail shipper on the NHML (and the largest in the state) is Public Service of New Hampshire’s 

(PSNH) Merrimack Generating Station. Merrimack Station is PSNH’s largest power plant constituting 

approximately 10% of the state’s power generation capacity. At 496 megawatts it produces enough 

energy to supply 190,000 New Hampshire households, and employs about 100 people. Its two coal-fired 

units were built in the 1960s and were once the cheapest source of electricity for the state. 

But in recent years, New England has been become increasingly tied to natural gas. In 2013, natural gas 

powered plants produced 46 percent of the region’s power, up from 15 percent in 2000. At this time, 

natural gas is cheaper than all other forms of energy. Further growth in the use of natural gas however 

is limited by pipeline capacity to supply the region. Until deficiencies in the capacity of the regional gas 

supply network are addressed it is likely that Merrimack Station will continue to receive eight to ten unit 

trains of coal each month using the NHML. However in the long run, it seems likely that the gas 

network bottleneck will be addressed. At that time, the economic attractiveness of Merrimack Station 

might be reduced and eventually close. When and if, it does close the economic sustainability of this 45-

mile branch will be jeopardized. 

PSNH is not the only rail shipper on the NHML. The Nashua Corporation in Nashua, Anheuser-Busch and 

Jones Chemical in Merrimack, and Nylon Corporation of America in Manchester are among the more 

prominent of perhaps a score of firms that ship or receive rail freight via the NHML. Should PSNH close 

its operations, the economic attractiveness of rail shipping for these smaller firms could be substantially 

degraded as the fixed cost of maintaining the line is spread over fewer tons of freight. These 

enterprises and their contribution to the regional economy could be imperiled. 

The operation of intercity passenger (or commuter) rail on the line would provide one more user for the 

line that would defray some of the shared costs for its upkeep and operation. With a passenger rail 

service on the line, the cost of providing existing freight service would be somewhat reduced, potentially 

improving conditions for PSNH to keep operating its plant at Bow. No tangible estimate of this impact 

has been produced, but the positive influence of the passenger rail service on the economic operation of 

the 45-mile freight branch seems clear. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 181 

To facilitate shared operation of the line by freight and passenger services, the infrastructure 

improvements were designed to minimize the potential for conflicts between passenger and freight 

trains. The track configuration would offer two mainlines through Nashua and Manchester Yards. 

Industrial sidings would be established to allow local trains to service Nashua Corporation and the 

Anheuser -Busch brewery without blocking the main line. The Merrimack Running Track would restored 

to provide similar capacity for joint use by freight and passenger trains in this section and a new 

receiving track would be built at the PSNH facility to keep coal trains from standing on the main line. 

The locations of the sidings are at locations where local land use plans encourage industrial growth and 

development. Therefore, the investment in passenger rail service that encourages “transit-orienteddevelopment” may also encourage rail freight use by enhancing the capacity for freight operations in 

areas designated for heavy industry and facilitating the creation of “freight villages39” 

Conclusion 

The proposed intercity rail service would have demonstrable positive impacts in several areas. The 

following public benefits would be expected with the implementation of improved intercity or 

commuter rail service in the corridor: 

• Reduced Vehicle Miles Traveled on parallel highways, leading to reduced congestion and 

improved air quality; 

• Support for sustainable development patterns and uses within station areas; 

• Economic development in the form of jobs, commercial development and home construction; 

• Positive mobility impacts on low income and minority populations in New Hampshire, and; 

• Sustaining current industrial development in southern New Hampshire and supporting possible 

future growth in heavy industry. 

 

39 For more information on land use plans and local zoning in the vicinity of new industrial tracks and running 

tracks the interested reader is referred to NHCC Project Memorandum: New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Layover 

and Siding Facilities: Land Use and Zoning (May 2014) 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 182 

10.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCE 

10.1 Implementation 

The New Hampshire Capitol Corridor project was initiated to inform New Hampshire officials and 

interested stakeholders of the costs, benefits, requirements and obligations associated with 

substantially expanding non-automotive passenger transportation services in the Route 3 corridor 

encompassing Nashua, Manchester and Concord and linking them with Boston. The range of 

alternatives considered in the overall joint FRA/FTA project included: Intercity passenger rail service, 

extensions of existing MBTA commuter rail service and enhancements to the existing express bus 

network that serves south central New Hampshire. 

As the study is complete, New Hampshire officials have made no decisions regarding which public 

transportation enhancement, if any, they are prepared to support and pursue at this time. 

Should the New Hampshire decide that they are interested in developing an intercity rail service, the 

study and this document provides a “blueprint” for service design, infrastructure investment, likely 

ridership, revenues and costs. The study also provides full documentation relating to the National 

Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). This collection of analyses together with the NEPA 

documentation poises the intercity rail service project for implementation, provided that New 

Hampshire officials and the FRA identify a mutually attractive mechanism for financing the project. 

Should New Hampshire elect to develop an eight-train-per-day intercity passenger rail service, they 

would need to notify Amtrak, Pan Am Railway (PAR) and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation 

Authority (MBTA) of their intention to develop and operate the service. It has been presumed that 

Amtrak would be the operator, but under some of the most recent federal passenger rail legislation it is 

possible that MBTA, PAR or a third party could operate the service. Depending upon the selected 

operator, details concerning how PAR would be engaged in service operation would need to be 

identified and resolved. Under Amtrak operation, the model for PAR/Amtrak cooperation is found in the 

parallel Downeaster Corridor. Should MBTA be asked to operate the service, it already owns passenger 

rail trackage rights to Concord. The model for MBTA operation would include elements of its Pilgrim 

Partnership Agreement with Rhode Island and elements of its new seasonal CapeFlyer intercity service 

between Boston and Hyannis. It is also possible that PAR might elect to operate the service for NHDOT. 

These political and institutional considerations have not been fully explored in this technical study. 

It is likely that service implementation would involve the New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority (NHRTA). 

The NHRTA was legislatively created in 2007 as a mechanism to implement passenger rail service in the 

state, especially between Boston and Manchester and to stand as a liability buffer between the service 

and the state. It acts under a Memorandum of Understanding with NHDOT to promote passenger rail. 

The Authority was given bonding authority, but has no independent source of revenue that would allow 

it to issue (or retire) bonds that it might issue. The twenty-eight member Board of Directors represents 

potential host communities and state government; new members are to be added if service expands to 

areas not already represented. It is notable that many, if not most, state supported passenger rail 

services are operated through an independent authority rather than directly by the state DOT. Such 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 183 

authorities, among other considerations, provide a liability buffer between the railway operation and 

the state. The study team has conferred with NHDOT and the NHRTA concerning their potential roles in 

operating passenger rail service, but until funding is identified, no commitments have been made 

concerning the mechanism for management and oversight of the railway service. NHDOT and MassDOT 

have conferred extensively concerning their possible operation of passenger rail service in the state. 

Most of those discussions have focused on extensions of MBTA commuter rail service north into 

Manchester, but Massachusetts expressed willingness to cooperate with an intercity passenger rail 

service operated by others. Massachusetts in general is quite supportive of any new Boston-based rail 

services including those that cross interstate borders. 

Pan Am (PAR) entered into an engineering agreement with NHDOT to help manage the study and is 

working with MassDOT and Amtrak on the provision of new intercity passenger rail services elsewhere 

in New England. They have been generally supportive of the project and accommodating to the study 

team. 

10.1 Finance40

Implementation of intercity passenger rail service in the Capitol Corridor will require decisions about 

how to pay for the service. There are two types of costs that must be considered: 

• First are costs of implementing the new service. These costs, which range from buying more rail 

cars to operate longer trains to the construction of new rail infrastructure. Referred to as capital 

costs., these are incurred upfront, before revenue service can begin. 

• Second are the costs to operate and maintain the service, referred to as operating and 

maintenance (O&M) costs. These costs occur annually once service is begun. 

This portion of the Service Development Plan identifies the different sources of funds that can be used 

to fund these two types of costs. All funding options focus on ways to leverage available federal funds. 

The federal funds of most interest are those considered “discretionary” in nature; in other words, they 

would not otherwise be available to New Hampshire for other purposes. The majority of discretionary 

federal funds are available to cover capital costs. To a far lesser extent, other types of federal dollars – 

so called formula funds – are available to pay for operations and maintenance. Receipt of federal funds 

is subject to a variety of eligibility rules, and most federal funds must be “matched” by state and/or local 

funds. A typical minimum non-federal match requirement is 20 percent, but many programs in practice 

require a 50% match for discretionary funds. (20% is more typical of formula funding schemes.) 

Given the local match requirement, this assessment also identifies potential state and local sources of 

funds that could provide this match. 

No recommendation on preferred sources of funds is made as part of this assessment. Each of the 

options that were identified and evaluated will be subject to more discussion and decision making once 

 

40 For more information on project finance the interested reader is referred to NHCC Project Report: Financial Assessment, 

October 2014 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 184 

an alternative is identified as the preferred project for detailed development and ultimate 

implementation. 

10.2 Passenger Rail and Public Transportation Funding in the U.S. 

To provide context for understanding how public surface transport projects are funded across the 

United States, this section describes how other agencies have paid for new public transportation 

projects. A very broad range of funding sources is used to pay for the capital and O&M costs of projects 

across the country. As noted above, federal funds typically contribute a fairly large share of transit 

project capital costs; this section focuses on the non-federal (state/local) sources of funding typically 

used to match federal dollars. 

Common Sources of State Funding 

Most funding provided by states comes from General Fund appropriations, or through traditional taxes 

and fees, such as motor fuel taxes, sales taxes, and vehicle fees. State funding for public transportation 

(including intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, rail transit and bus) is generally used for both 

operating assistance and capital funds. Only a few states provide dedicated funding either for capital 

expenses (Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky and Nevada) or operating expenses (Maine, South Dakota and 

Wisconsin). 

Common Sources of Local Funding 

Transit funding at the local level is primarily provided through General Fund allocations and dedicated 

local option taxes and fees. Value capture mechanisms can also provide funding for transport 

investments. The application of dedicated local taxes and value capture mechanisms (defined below) 

for transport will be dictated by enabling legislation that allows or restricts the use of these funding 

sources for transit. Table 2-1 contains a list and description of common local funding options. 

Table 2-1: Common Sources of Local Funding 

Revenue Source Popularity41 Comments

Sales tax High Dedicated sales tax rates typically range from 0.25 to 1.0 percent.

Property tax Medium Some states provide enabling legislation that allows property tax 

revenues to be dedicated to public transport. 

Motor fuel tax Low Some local governments apply a tax on fuel to transportation. 

Vehicle fee Medium-Low Registration fees, driver license fees, car rental taxes and tolls. 

Employer/payroll 

tax 

Low Taxes imposed directly on employers for the amount of gross 

payroll paid are not commonly applied at the local level. 

Utility tax/fee Low Mainly used for local roads and streets. 

Room/occupancy 

tax 

Low Typically dedicated to tourism or tourism-related facilities. Can 

be tied to transportation investments needed to enhance the 

visitor experience, mobility and accessibility. 

 

41 “Popularity” indicates how commonly used to finance major public transport investments like new passenger rail services. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 185 

Revenue Source Popularity41 Comments

General revenue High Funding provided by local governments for public transport 

services, whether it is through a jurisdiction’s annual budget or an 

appropriations process. 

Value capture 

mechanism 

Medium-Low Special types of “property taxes” targeted to capture the benefits 

of services that improve property development. Typically low 

(less than five percent) yield relative to project cost. 

Impact fees High One-time charges to developers on new development. 

Commonly used for roads, seldom for public transport. 

Tax Increment

Financing 

Medium-Low Specific, common value capture mechanism. Additional levies are 

typically pledged to bonds issued to finance new transport 

services. 

Special 

assessment 

districts 

Medium-Low Another value capture mechanism. Additional property taxes 

dedicated to new services for the district. 

Joint development Medium-Low Partnership between the rail agency and a private developer, 

commonly applied to transit-oriented development (TOD) on land 

at or adjacent to train stations.

Recent History in Passenger Rail Funding 

To provide context for understanding how a passenger rail investment in the Capitol Corridor might be 

funded, information was assembled on eight new commuter or intercity rail systems that have opened 

in the U.S. over the past 15 years, as shown in Table 2-2. 

Table 2-2: New Commuter Rail Systems in the U.S. and Primary Capital Funding Sources 

System Location 

Year 

Opened

Length 

(mi) Federal State

Local 

General

Sales 

Tax 

Other 

Local

Sounder Commuter Rail Puget Sound, WA 2000 33 ● ● ●

Rail Runner Express Albuquerque, NM 2006 97 ● 

Music City Star Nashville, TN 2006 32 ● ● ● 

FrontRunner Salt Lake City, UT 2008 44 ● 

Northstar Line Minneapolis, MN 2009 40 ● ● ● ●

Capital MetroRail Austin, TX 2010 32 ● 

Westside Express Service Portland, OR 2009 15 ● ● 

A-Train Denton County, TX 2011 21 ● ●

Capital funding for these projects has come from a variety of sources. The most common source, used 

in half of the projects, is FTA Section 5309 New Starts funding, which accounted for an average of 43 

percent of these projects’ capital costs. One project, the Rail Runner Express extending between 

Albuquerque and Santa Fe, was funded entirely through state bonds backed by state road and highway 

revenues, including gasoline and diesel fuel taxes and federal highway aid. Local funding was more 

diverse: three systems used General Funds, mostly from local counties. Four projects used bonds 

backed by local sales taxes. Other local funding sources include a motor vehicle excise tax by Sounder 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 186 

Commuter Rail, and road tolls, which paid for 80 percent of the A-Train capital costs. The Northstar Line 

in Minneapolis received a contribution from the Minnesota Twins major league baseball team, helping 

to fund the terminal station next to the Target Field ballpark. 

For operating costs, local sales taxes are the most common primary source, used by six of the eight new 

rail systems: Sounder Commuter Rail (Puget Sound), Rail Runner Express (Albuquerque), FrontRunner 

(Salt Lake City), Northstar Line (Minneapolis), Capital MetroRail (Austin), and A-Train (Denton County, 

TX). The Westside Express Service in Portland, OR is primarily funded through a payroll tax. Operating 

costs for the Music City Star in Nashville are primarily funded through federal grants and contributions 

from Metro Nashville. 

It is also useful to consider how other passenger rail projects in the Northeast have been funded, 

particularly projects that represent extensions of the MBTA’s system. For projects wholly located within 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, funding for extensions has been provided by a mix of state and 

federal sources, including the following: 

• Extension of peak period commuter rail service from Framingham to Worcester was completed in 

1994 and paid for with MBTA funds. Off-peak service was added in 1996, and a number of infill 

stations were added in 2000 and 2002 with no federal contribution. 

• The 27.6-mile Greenbush Line to Scituate was a state air quality commitment project which 

opened for service in 2007. The $534 million project was also paid for with MBTA funds and no 

federal contribution 

• Half of the capital costs of improvements to the Fitchburg commuter rail line were paid for with 

an FTA Section 5309 Small Starts grant. The other half was paid for by state transportation bond 

proceeds. A 4.5 mile extension to a new Wachusett station was paid for by a TIGER grant (see 

page 189). Construction is underway with completion expected in 2015. 

Intercity passenger rail service between Portland, ME and Boston was restored in 2001. The 

construction cost of approximately $66 million was paid for by Congressional appropriations matched by 

state and local sources. Today, operation of the service is paid for through fares, which account for just 

under 50 percent of operating costs, federal funds (CMAQ, see page 188) allocated to operations, an 

annual subsidy from Maine of approximately $8 million, and an in-kind contribution from Massachusetts 

consisting of trackage rights. New Hampshire, which has three Downeaster stations in Exeter, Durham 

at the University of New Hampshire, and Dover, does not contribute financially. 

Extensions of MBTA service south into Rhode Island have been implemented in accordance with the 

“Pilgrim Partnership,” a 1989 cooperative agreement between the MBTA and Rhode Island DOT. These 

have included extension of MBTA commuter rail service to Providence, which was funded by RIDOT in 

part with “earmarks” in transportation appropriation bills (transportation earmarks have subsequently 

been prohibited by federal law) and state funds. In exchange for operation of the service by the MBTA, 

RIDOT conveys its portion of federal formula funds to the MBTA. Extension further south to Wickford 

Junction was paid for by an FTA Section 5309 Small Starts grant (50 percent of capital costs) and the 

remainder with a mixture of federal formula funds and state bonds. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 187 

In all cases, both nationally and in the Northeast, state sources of funding have been an integral part of 

each project’s financial plan, including both construction and ongoing operations. 

10.3 Annual Funding Needs 

This section reviews the capital and O&M costs needed to construct and operate the proposed intercity 

passenger rail service. Capital and O&M costs were estimated in current (2014) dollars42

. 

A four year construction period is assumed, beginning in 2019. The annual O&M costs for each 

alternative were also estimated based on costs for similar services provided elsewhere in New 

England.43

 

• Intercity Rail Service Capital Costs (Current Year): $256.5 million 

• Intercity Rail Service Capital Costs (Year of Expenditure): $316.9 million 

• Intercity Rail Service Annual O&M Costs: $7.7 million 

10.4 Federal Funding Sources 

This section describes the sources of federal funding that might be used to help pay for intercity 

passenger rail service in the Capitol Corridor. A key objective of any NHCC project financial plan will be 

to leverage federal sources to the greatest extent possible. Potential non-federal sources 

(state/local/other) are discussed in later sections. 

Federal Funding Sources and Financing Tools 

Within the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) administers 

the Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) program, which can be used for passenger 

rail projects, and in the past it has provided capital funding through the High-Speed Intercity Passenger 

Rail program (HSIPR). The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administers the primary funding 

programs available for public transportation investment. It has funded intercity passenger rail 

programs, most notably the 114-mile Downeaster service running between North Station in Boston and 

Portland Maine. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administers some federal-aid highway 

programs with flexible provisions that allow the transfer of funds for public transportation investments. 

In addition, federal finance tools are available that can be used to advance project implementation by 

leveraging future revenue streams of dedicated funding. 

This section summarizes potential federal funding and financing tools and their eligibility to fund the 

intercity passenger rail service to Concord on the NHML. Examples of other projects that have used 

these sources as part of their funding plan are identified. Table 4-1 provides a high level summary of the 

possible federal funding sources and tools discussed in this section. 

 

42 See Chapter 7: Required Infrastructure Improvements and Capital Costs of this Service Development Plan for more details. Or 

see Cost and Revenue Estimates Report, Capitol Corridor Rail & Transit Alternatives Analysis (Parts A&B), Jacobs Engineering, 

September 2014. 

43 See Chapter 8: Forecast Operating Costs and Revenues of this Service Development Plan for more details. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 188 

Table 4-1: Federal Funding Sources and Tools 

Funding Source 

Capital, 

Operations, Both Eligible Modes Comments 

FHWA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement Program (CMAQ) Both 

Commuter Rail 

Intercity Rail 

Intercity Bus 

Flex 

FRA High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

Program (HSIPR) Capital Intercity Rail No funding currently available 

U.S. DOT Transportation Investment 

Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Capital Commuter Rail Intercity Rail 

No funding 

currently available 

U.S. DOT Transportation Infrastructure 

Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Capital 

Intercity Rail 

Commuter Rail 

Intercity Bus 

Loan Program 

FRA Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement 

Financing (RRIF) Capital Intercity Rail Commuter Rail Loan Program 

FHWA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program 

The FHWA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program funds transportation 

system capital expansion and improvements that are projected to increase rail or bus ridership. It may 

also be used to fund travel demand management strategies, shared ride services, and pedestrian and 

bicycle facilities. Projects must have a transportation focus, reduce air emissions, and be located in or 

benefit an air quality nonattainment or maintenance area. Funding is distributed based on a formula 

that considers the severity of air quality problems. The Federal share is 80 percent for most CMAQ 

projects. 

In FY 2013, New Hampshire received $10.3 million in CMAQ funds. Using these funds for a project in the 

Capitol Corridor would require reallocation of some portion of the total NH apportionment. Under 

current rules, CMAQ funds can be used for the project’s capital expenses as well as operating costs for a 

limited period of time. Operating assistance is limited to certain activities, including new transit, 

commuter and intercity passenger rail services. Under the federal transportation funding bill MAP-21, 

the operating funding period was extended from three to five years. 

FRA Discretionary Programs 

FRA occasionally makes funding available through discretionary programs that provide grants to eligible 

projects through a competitive application process. For example, the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

Program (HSIPR) was created to make investments in a network of passenger rail corridors across the 

country. The program’s objectives are to build new high-speed rail corridors, upgrade existing intercity 

passenger rail corridors, and lay the groundwork for future high-speed rail services through planning 

efforts. More than $10 billion in grant funding was provided after the enactment of program through 

the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008, including a FY2010 grant of $2 

million to the New Hampshire Capitol Corridor for engineering and environmental analysis in the 

corridor. The program was highly competitive, with over $75 billion in total funding requests from 39 

states, DC and Amtrak. While the program is not currently funded and no new funding appears to be 

likely in the near term (thus no applications are being accepted), the intercity rail alternative could be 

eligible for future grant solicitations should additional funding be allocated under this program. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 189 

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery 

Another discretionary funding source is the U.S. DOT’s Transportation Investment Generating Economic 

Recovery (TIGER) program. Competitive grant applications are solicited on a periodic basis; there have 

been six rounds of funding since 2009, providing $4.1 billion to eligible road, rail, transit, and port 

projects. Rail and transit projects awarded TIGER funding have accounted for over 40 percent of total 

awards to date. The average award for transit projects was $17.6 million. The last round of awards was 

announced in September 2014. Should another round of funding be made available, the intercity 

passenger rail service (or some supporting infrastructure for its implementation) could be eligible 

projects for consideration. 

U.S. DOT TIFIA Credit Assistance 

The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program is a credit assistance 

program administered by the U.S. DOT that provides direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of 

credit. Surface transportation projects that cost $50 million or more are eligible, including those for 

state and local governments, transit agencies, railroad companies, special authorities, special districts, 

and private entities. Rail projects involving the design and construction of intercity passenger rail 

facilities or the procurement of intercity passenger rail vehicles are also eligible. The TIFIA loan or loan 

guarantee amount should not exceed 49 percent of eligible costs; for standby lines of credit, the limit is 

33 percent of the project costs. Dedicated revenues for repayment are required. Tax revenues, 

including sales taxes, are a common revenue pledge for TIFIA. A total of $1.0 billion has been authorized 

for this program in 2014. 

FRA Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program 

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program (RRIF) is an FRA loan program enacted 

under TEA-21 that provides direct federal loans and loan guarantees to finance the development of 

railroad infrastructure. Eligible applicants are railroads, state and local governments, governmentsponsored authorities and corporations, joint ventures that include at least one railroad, and limited 

option freight shippers who intend to construct a new rail connection. Loans can cover up to 100 

percent of project costs with interest rates equal to U.S. Treasury rates. SAFETEA-LU made amendments 

to the program but no changes were included in MAP-21. There have been few RRIF loans: out of a 

total of $35 billion in authorized funds, only $1.7 billion in loans have been awarded through FY2012. 

Reasons for the program’s underutilization may be a result of the lack of federal subsidy as there is for 

TIFIA. Therefore, the costs associated with FRA’s review of the RRIF loan application are covered by the 

applicants. In addition to this investigative fee, the applicant also pays a credit risk premium unless 

collateral is provided. Other issues include long loan processing times, and the perception that 

applicants bear the full risk of default. 

Eligible projects include acquisition, improvement, or rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment or 

facilities; refinancing existing debt incurred for the purposes above; or developing or establishing new 

intermodal or railroad facilities. The Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA), which 

operates the Downeaster passenger rail service between Portland and Boston, was approved for a RRIF 

loan in 2009, but this was relinquished in favor of the HSIPR grant awarded to the project. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 190 

10.5 Non-Federal Match Options for New Hampshire Services 

This section reviews possible options for providing non-federal match for a transportation service 

investment along the NHML. These options were narrowed down from the longer list above, since some 

of the most commonly used sources of local funding are not available in New Hampshire. These include 

dedicated sales tax revenues, which is the most common source of local match in the United States, 

payroll taxes, and fuel taxes. 

New Hampshire does not impose any sales or payroll taxes, and it assumed that they would not be 

implemented solely for a project on the NHML. Fuel taxes are constitutionally restricted in New 

Hampshire for use on construction, reconstruction and maintenance of public highways.44 Because of 

this, a rail project on the NHML would be ineligible for this source of funds, and a change to the 

constitution is not perceived to be possible. 

On the shorter list of legislatively possible New Hampshire revenue sources, a definition is first provided, 

followed by a judgment concerning feasibility and potential revenue estimate for each source. Ratings 

for feasibility reflect an assessment of 1) whether the source currently exists in New Hampshire; 2) 

whether public transport is an eligible expenditure for the funding source; 3) the extent of likely support 

for the source; and 4) actions (e.g., legislative) that would be required for use of the source as part of 

the project’s financial plan. 

The amount of revenue that might be generated from each source also is estimated. Each of the 

estimated yields is subject to change with alternative input assumptions and charge rates. The range of 

annual yield rating estimates are: greater than $5 million = High; $1-$5 million = Medium; less than $1 

million = Low. Table 5-1summarizes the funding options. In general, each of the feasible sources 

identified below will require significant effort and commitment to implement. As potential sources are 

evaluated, it will be important to consider the level of required effort in the context of likely yield. 

While revenue estimates are provided for all options, sources with low feasibility are unlikely to be 

available given significant implementation challenges, and are not considered as part of potential 

funding approaches. 

Table 5-1: Summary of Funding Options for NHCC Alternatives 

Funding Source Feasibility Yield 

Annual 

Estimate Comments 

NH State Capital Program High High $10.0 million 7.6% of 2014 debt payment (principal + 

interest) 

NH Parking Fees High Low $0.5 million Based on $3 per day parking fee 

Toll Revenue Medium High $12.3 million $0.25 increase at Hooksett and Bedford toll 

facilities 

Vehicle Registration Fees Medium High $5.9 million $5 fee on passenger vehicles and trucks 

statewide 

Municipal Contribution Medium Medium $1.0-3.0 

million 

$1 million/city with new stations; city 

discretion regarding source 

RGGI Medium Low $0.5 million Based on historical awards 

Property Tax Low High $15.7 million 0.1 mill applied statewide 

 

44 Part II, Article 6-a of the New Hampshire Constitution 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 191 

Funding Source Feasibility Yield 

Annual 

Estimate Comments 

Lottery Revenues Low Medium $3.7 million 5% of net proceeds. 

Passenger Facility Charges Low Medium $1.0 million 1⁄2 of $1.50 PFC increase beginning 2016. 

Value Capture Low Low -- Need more study to estimate 

New Hampshire State Capital Program 

The state of New Hampshire (Legislature/Governor) approves a capital budget every two years. The last 

approved budget, for years 2014-2015, was for $219.4 million (all projects, including highways, which 

are paid for with restricted revenues, i.e., fuel tax and highway user fees). The next cycle to approve the 

budget is initiated in the fall (projects are submitted by November 15). The budget is approved on 

February 15th of odd numbered years (i.e., the next budget will be approved in February 2015). The 

most recent budget included bond authority for the entire cost of the capital program ($219.4 million). 

Of this, $128.7 million are for projects funded with bonds that are repaid with unrestricted General Fund 

revenues. 

For NHDOT, bonds for highway projects are repaid with highway revenues (restricted). The capital 

budget included $2.2 million in General Fund bonds for the Aeronautics, Rail and Transit Division of the 

NHDOT. The proceeds provide matching funds to FAA and FTA grants. 

As of June 2013, the state had $963.2 million in outstanding general obligation debt, including bonds for 

Highways and the University of New Hampshire. 

Feasibility of this source is assessed as follows: 

• Existing source of funding for state capital investments through bonds repaid with unrestricted 

General Funds. 

• Currently providing matching funds to Federal grants for the Aeronautics, Rail and Transit Division 

of NHDOT. 

• Governor/Legislature support required. 

• Only for capital expenses. 

Yield is assessed as follows: 

• Would need to assess feasibility of fully or partially providing NHCC project capital funding needs 

through the State Capital Program, while maintaining reasonable debt to state revenue ratios. 

• The largest single funding allocation from bond proceeds in recent years was for $38 million, 

which is less than 15 percent of total funding needed for most costly of the NHCC alternatives. 

• Assumes an annual allocation of $10 million in unrestricted General Funds to repay bonds issued 

through the capital budget to pay for construction of the NHCC. At the current debt service level 

(FY2014 = $132.2 million), $10 million represents about 7.6 percent of unrestricted General Fund 

revenues required to repay bonds. 

Parking Fees 

Parking facilities associated with the intercity passenger rail service could generate funding to support 

operations and maintenance expenditures. Revenue would vary with parking occupancy and the 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 192 

number of vehicles that use the parking facility in an average day. If most travel is work-related, 

chances are that most parking spaces are occupied by a single vehicle any given day, and the parking 

turnover rate would be low. 

Feasibility: 

• Parking at rail stations will be provided as part of the NHCC project, so would be considered a 

future available source for funding. 

Yield: 

• An estimated 470 parking spaces would available at planned rail stations. If fully occupied 240 

days per year, and a per-day parking fee of $3.00, parking revenues would equal $0.3 million. 

For comparison, parking in Portland for the Downeaster is $4.00 per day. Most MBTA commuter 

rail park-and-ride facilities charge $4.00 per day; in Lowell, garage parking is priced at $5.00 per 

day. 

This fee could be extended to other park and ride facilities, specifically those used by riders of intercity 

bus service between New Hampshire and Boston. 

Toll Revenue 

Transactions on the NH Turnpike facilities were $108.7 million in 2012, generating $116.8 million, of 

which $43.5 million was generated in the Central NH facility. Operating expenses were $40.7 million 

and debt service was $33.3 million. Toll revenues and bond proceeds are used to fund the agency’s 

capital program. 

According to NHDOT’s 10-year plan, the bonding capacity of the NH Turnpike is capped at $766 million, 

of which $575 million has already been issued. 

Feasibility: 

• The use of turnpike toll revenue is restricted by state law to be used on the turnpike system.45

 

Changes to this law would require legislative action. 

• In addition to changes need to expand the use of toll revenue, any toll increase will require 

Governor and Council approval. 

Yield: 

• Based on the August 2012 Traffic & Revenue Study,46 transactions on the Central Turnpike are 

estimated at $51.0 million for FY2013. A 25-cent toll rate increase applied to transactions at the 

Hookset and Bedford toll facilities could generate $12.3 million, before accounting for potential 

diversion due to a toll rate increase. 

 

45 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XX/237/237-9.htm 

46 New Hampshire Turnpike System Traffic and Revenue Study, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, August 12, 

2012. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 193 

Vehicle Registration Fees 

New Hampshire currently collects vehicle registration fees at the state and local level that vary by type, 

size, value, and age of the vehicle. State fees are restricted to use on highways, but municipalities have 

more latitude on the use of at least a portion of their revenue. 

Feasibility: 

• Changes to registration fees would require legislative action to modify Section 261:141 

(Registration Fees) 47 and/or Section 261:153 (Municipal Permits for Registration)48 of Title XXI 

(Motor Vehicles) in the state statutes. 

• State-level registration fees are constitutionally restricted to be used for construction and 

maintenance of public highways, while local-level fees have a broader range of uses.49

• Fees are assumed to be applied statewide. 

Yield: 

• In 2011, nearly 840,000 passenger vehicle registrations and 334,000 truck registrations were 

processed in NH.50 Assuming a $5 fee statewide, this translates to approximately $5.9 million 

annually. 

This yield assumes a small statewide increase. Other assumptions could be made, including fee rates 

and geographies covered – i.e., only the municipalities served by a project in the Capitol Corridor. 

Municipal Contributions 

Cities often help pay for implementation and/or ongoing operation and maintenance of passenger rail 

projects. This has particularly applied to cities that receive a substantial new station that generates 

accessibility benefits as well as increases in development opportunities and property values. For this 

assessment, it is assumed that only the cities that will have rail stations – Nashua, Manchester, Concord, 

depending on the alternative – would make an annual contribution. 

Feasibility: 

• Cities would have the flexibility to identify their own sources of revenue, whether an existing 

source or a new source associated more directly with the project, such as a tax increment 

financing district, or some other value capture mechanism. 

Yield: 

• For purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that Nashua, Manchester, and Concord would 

contribute depending on the alternative selected. For example, each municipality might 

contribute as much as $1.0 million to the project on an annual basis. 

 

47 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/261/261-141.htm 

48 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/261/261-153.htm 

49 Part II, Article 6-a of the New Hampshire Constitution 

50 https://www.nh.gov/safety/documents/2011-annual-report.pdf
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 194 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

Proceeds from the auction of Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) emissions allowances in New 

Hampshire go to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction (GHGER) Fund. Ten percent of funds are set 

aside for a low-income residential energy reduction program. The remainder is awarded in grants 

through an RFP process, which is focused on electric and fossil fuel energy efficiency programs. There is 

a list of eligible programs that does not include transportation-related projects, although the list 

indicates eligibility is not limited to that list.51

As of 2013, New Hampshire had received over $57 million in allowance auction revenues over five 

years.52 Grant awards have ranged from as little as $8,000 to as much as $5 million. 

No New Hampshire transportation project has yet been awarded grants from the GHGER Fund. In the 

ten states that participate in RGGI, one percent of CO2 allowance proceeds have been used "for a wide 

variety of greenhouse gas reduction programs, including programs to promote the development of 

carbon emission abatement technologies, efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled, and programs to 

increase carbon sequestration." Therefore, there is some precedent in at least one of these states to 

use these funds for a transportation project. 

Feasibility: 

• Use of RGGI proceeds for passenger rail transit improvements in the NHCC would need to be 

confirmed. 

Yield: 

• For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that a project in the Capitol Corridor could 

receive annual grants of the same order of magnitude of historical grant awards through this 

program, or approximately $0.5 million per year. 

Property Tax 

Four types of property taxes are assessed in NH: town tax, local education tax, state education tax, and 

county tax. Property taxes are a common source of funding for rail transit projects in the U.S. 

Feasibility: 

• Major existing local source of revenue. 

• Currently, all state-levied property taxes are dedicated to education. Using this revenue source 

for the Capitol Corridor would require legislative action. 

Yield: 

• In 2012, total assessed property value in New Hampshire was $156.6 billion.53 The weighted 

statewide average of property tax rates was 20.71 mill. 

 

51 https://www.puc.nh.gov/Sustainable%20Energy/GHGERF.htm 

52 http://www.rggi.org/docs/Investment_of_RGGI_Allowance_Proceeds.pdf 

53 NH Department of Revenue Administration 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 195 

• Applying a tax rate of 0.1 mill (10 cents per $1,000 in assessed value) would generate 

approximately $15.7 million per year. 

Lottery Revenues 

New Hampshire has the oldest legal lottery in the United States. The state participates in or hosts a 

variety of lottery games, including scratch tickets and draw games. 

Feasibility: 

• Currently, all net lottery revenues in NH are dedicated to the state education fund. 

• A new lottery game dedicated to intercity passenger rail or more broadly for transportation use 

would likely be needed, rather than diverting revenues from existing games. In either case, 

legislative action would be required. 

Yield: 

• Lottery revenues in NH, net of prizes and administrative expenses, totaled $74.3 million in 2013. 

• If 5 percent could be applied to a transportation improvement project in the corridor, it would 

result in $3.7 million per year for the project. 

Passenger Facility Charges 

Manchester Airport currently collects the maximum $4.50 per enplanement passenger facility charge 

(PFC). Eligible projects include those improvements related to enhancing airport safety, capacity, 

security, and environmental concerns. Under its current approvals, the airport is authorized to collect 

PFC through November 2022. 

In the near term, the PFC revenues at the $4.50 level are fully committed, including payments to debt 

service on outstanding bonds, approved pay-as-you-go projects for which the airport has not yet 

reimbursed itself, and additional projects identified in the capital improvement program. 

Feasibility: 

• In the current FAA reauthorization proposals, the cap on PFC levels may be raised beyond the 

$4.50 level to provide additional funding available outside of FAA’s Airport Improvement Program 

(AIP). Beginning in FY 2016, the airport is assumed to increase its PFC level to $6.00. These 

additional collections are assumed to be used on a pay-as-you-go basis for future projects.54

 

• It appears that it is possible, but difficult, for a transit project to use this funding source given 

restrictions on project eligibility and the existing cap on PFC levels. If an eligible project could be 

developed, negotiations would be needed with the airport and FAA to include it in the airport’s 

future capital plan. 

Yield: 

 

54 http://www.flymanchester.com/sites/default/files/publicdocuments/Manchester%20Airport%20Master%20Plan%20Update.pdf 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 196 

• Enplanements at the airport have fallen since their 2.2 million peak in 2006, and totaled 1.36 

million in 2011.55 An additional $1.50 PFC would create an estimated $2 million annually. 

Assuming half of this increment could be directed towards a project in the corridor, this could 

provide $1 million annually to the project pending eligibility considerations. 

Value Capture 

Value capture includes revenue mechanisms such as impact fees, tax increment financing and special 

assessment districts. Without specifics on future development and potential development to result from 

implementation of new transit service in the corridor, it is difficult to generate estimates for impact fees 

or tax increment financing. An option is to estimate how much revenue could be generated through a 

special assessment district. Data needs/basic assumptions (for special assessment district example) are: 

• Taxable property values in the cities/towns served by each corridor alternative (NH Department 

of Revenue), or within some agreed upon distance from the corridor and/or station locations. 

• Historical trends on property value growth. 

• Property tax rate. 

• Alternatively, calculate tax rate, based on capital and O&M needs. 

It should be noted that changes in development patterns and property values take time - and often 

considerable time – to be realized based in large part on market conditions and demand. Therefore, 

value capture would not be a near-term source of revenue for an intercity passenger project. 

MassDOT/MBTA Contributions 

An additional source of funding for the two commuter rail alternatives could be the Massachusetts 

Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). 

NHDOT has had discussions with officials from these organizations about cost sharing arrangements for 

the commuter rail alternatives that would extend the MBTA’s existing Lowell Line into New Hampshire. 

Intercity passenger rail was also discussed. Based on these discussions, the following contributions 

might be considered to support a New Hampshire intercity passenger rail service. 

• First, the MBTA contributes track usage along its tracks (between Haverhill and Boston) and 

terminal space at North Station to Amtrak and the Downeaster at no charge. MassDOT has 

implied that it would offer a similar courtesy to a Granite State passenger rail service. It also 

explicitly offered that it could accommodate one additional peak intercity train (over and above 

the Downeaster) each morning and afternoon at North Station. 

• Second, the MBTA owns the corridor rail line to the New Hampshire/Massachusetts border. 

North of the border, the line is owned and operated by Pan Am Railways (PAR). The MBTA 

recently acquired trackage rights for commuter rail service on the PAR line north to Concord in 

exchange for other considerations worth approximately $35 million. These trackage rights would 

not be necessary if Amtrak operated the service as assumed by this exploratory report. They 

 

55 http://www.flymanchester.com/sites/default/files/statistics/MHT%20Enplanements%202000-2012.pdf 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 197 

could be employed for the project, however, if Massachusetts and New Hampshire were to 

collaborate to operate a new intercity passenger rail service without Amtrak’s involvement. 

Fares 

The operating and maintenance costs of each alternative will be offset by the fares collected from 

riders. The study team estimates that the proposed intercity passenger service would cover 

approximately 40 percent of its operating costs from fare revenues. 

Table 5-2: Annual Fare Revenue and Farebox Recovery Ratio 

Annual O&M Cost (A) $7.7 million

Fare Revenue (B) $3.2 million

Required Operating Support (A-B) $4.5 million

Farebox Recovery Ratio (A-B)/A 41 percent

Source: Jacobs Engineering, September 2014. 

10.6 Summary 

While final decisions on any major public transportation investment on the NHML will necessarily 

incorporate a broad range of considerations including benefits and impacts, the ability to identify stable 

and reliable sources of revenue will be critical to the advancement of passenger rail service in the 

Capitol Corridor. Leveraging available discretionary federal funds will be a key objective of any future 

funding plan. 

This section summarized key findings regarding the potential to leverage federal funds by alternative. 

Suggestions were also provided on other sources of potential revenue to provide match for federal 

funds. Any new source of revenue to help pay for a new intercity passenger rail service will be subject to 

considerable review and input by New Hampshire officials and corridor stakeholders. 

An intercity passenger rail service between Boston and Concord would rely on federal programs, namely 

FRA’s High Speed Intercity and Passenger Rail Program. However, the HSIPR currently has no funding 

available. For purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that half the capital costs of the project might 

be paid for by a future HSIPR appropriation. With the Concord Intercity 8 Rail Service being the most 

costly project considered and with the considerable uncertainty regarding available federal funding, this 

alternative likely would place a high burden on other state sources. Local sources of funding could 

include CMAQ, parking revenue, and contributions for the three municipalities with stations, Nashua, 

Manchester, and Concord. 

To help understand what this might mean in terms of an annual “bill” to New Hampshire for each 

alternative, debt service is calculated for the NH share of capital costs as well as construction payments 

made in advance of receipt of FTA funds. This annual debt service, which lasts only for the period of the 

bonds issued, is then added to the annual operating cost for each alternative, net of fares. The annual 

debt service must be viewed as a best case, since agreements with Massachusetts on cost sharing 

arrangements are subject to additional discussion and negotiation. 

All numbers are subject to change as additional work and coordination with potential funding partners is 

advanced. Table 6-1 presents a summary of the Intercity Passenger Rail Financial Assessment. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 198 

Table 6-1: Intercity Passenger Rail Financial Assessment Summary (current year dollars in millions) 

Infrastructure Cost $233.2

Rolling Stock Cost $23.3

Total Project Value $256.5

Potential Federal Grant $128.2* 

New Hampshire Share (After federal contributions) $128.2

Annual Payment to Retire NH Share56 $10.3

Annual Operating Cost $7.7

Annual Passenger Revenue $3.2

Required Operating Support $4.5

Annual NH Cost for Intercity Passenger Rail Service $14.8

* Assumes that 50% of capital funds are provided under FRA’s HSIPR program 

 

56 20 year bonds at five percent to retire the state/local match. Short term financing to cover lags in the federal 

reimbursement process during the construction process is not included in this estimate. The interest on the short 

term debt at three percent per annum to cover a $128.2 million grant would average approximately $1.9 million 

per year over a four year construction period. 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 199 

Appendix A: Intercity 8 Rail Service Option Schedule 

Figure A-1: Intercity 8 Rail Service Option Schedule 

New Hampshire Main Line: Proposed Intercity 8 Service Schedule Class IV

READ DOWN 302 304 352 306 208 680 308 380 310 212 356 312 358 314 682 316 318 382 320 322 222 324 684 326 384 686 360 232 330 334 336 DH333 236 338 340 342 #REF! 386 344 346 DH345 DH347

Concord NH 73.3 6:39 10:39 10:39 10:39

Manchester NH 55.7 6:58 10:58 10:58 10:58

MHT (Bedford) 50.1 7:07 11:07 11:07 11:07

Nashua Downtown 39.0 7:20 11:20 11:20 11:20

Nashua Tyngsboro 35.2 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A

Lowell 25.5 5:35 6:18 6:51 7:18 7:36 7:46 8:25 9:15 10:15 11:15 11:36 12:15 13:15 14:15 15:15 11:36 17:10 17:45 18:20 18:10 18:55 19:25 20:30 11:36 21:30 22:35 23:34 1:04

North Billerica 21.8 5:43 6:26 6:59 7:26 #N/A 7:54 8:33 9:23 10:23 11:23 #N/A 12:23 13:23 14:23 15:23 #N/A 17:18 17:53 #N/A 18:18 19:03 19:33 20:38 #N/A 21:38 22:43 #N/A #N/A

Wilmington 15.2 5:51 6:34 7:06 7:22 #N/A #N/A #N/A 8:07 8:41 9:31 10:31 11:31 #N/A 12:31 13:31 13:37 14:31 15:31 #N/A 17:26 18:01 #N/A 18:26 19:00 19:11 19:41 20:46 #N/A 21:46 22:51 #N/A #N/A

Anderson/ Woburn 12.6 5:55 6:38 6:55 7:13 #N/A 7:31 7:38 7:52 8:05 8:12 8:30 8:45 9:15 9:35 10:04 10:35 11:35 11:52 12:35 13:35 13:43 14:35 14:54 15:35 11:52 16:39 16:55 17:11 17:30 18:05 #N/A 18:30 19:04 19:15 19:45 20:50 20:59 11:52 21:50 22:55 #N/A #N/A

Winchester Center 7.8 6:02 6:46 7:04 7:21 #N/A #N/A 7:46 #N/A #N/A 8:20 8:39 8:52 9:23 9:42 #N/A 10:42 11:42 #N/A 12:42 13:42 13:50 14:42 #N/A 15:42 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 17:37 18:12 #N/A 18:37 #N/A 19:22 19:52 20:57 #N/A #N/A 21:57 23:02 #N/A #N/A

Wedgemere 7.3 6:04 6:49 7:06 7:24 #N/A #N/A 7:49 #N/A #N/A 8:23 8:41 8:54 9:26 9:44 #N/A 10:44 11:44 #N/A 12:44 13:44 13:52 14:44 #N/A 15:44 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 17:39 18:14 #N/A 18:39 #N/A 19:24 19:54 20:59 #N/A #N/A 21:59 23:04 #N/A #N/A

West Medford 5.5 6:08 6:53 7:10 7:28 #N/A #N/A 7:53 #N/A #N/A 8:27 8:45 8:58 9:30 9:48 #N/A 10:48 11:48 #N/A 12:48 13:48 13:56 14:48 #N/A 15:48 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 17:43 18:18 #N/A 18:43 #N/A 19:28 19:58 21:03 #N/A #N/A 22:03 23:08 #N/A #N/A

North Station 0.0 6:22 7:05 7:22 7:40 7:48 7:55 8:05 8:15 8:26 8:39 8:57 9:10 9:42 9:59 10:30 10:59 11:59 12:15 12:59 13:59 14:07 14:59 15:15 15:59 12:15 17:05 17:15 17:32 17:56 18:31 19:00 18:54 19:25 19:41 20:09 21:14 21:20 12:15 22:14 23:20 0:14 1:44

0:24 1:35

READ UP 3801 3803 301 3805 351 305 307 355 309 381 357 681 311 315 317 683 383 319 321 323 325 327 359 359 685 331 385 333 335 337 687 237 339 341 343 387 345 689 347

Concord NH 73.3 9:59 14:14 18:49 23:29

Manchester NH 55.7 9:38 13:53 18:28 23:08

MHT Airport (Goff's Falls) 52.0 9:30 13:45 18:20 23:00

Nashua Downtown 39.0 9:17 13:32 18:07 22:47

Nashua Tyngsboro 35.2 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A

Lowell 25.5 5:20 6:03 6:29 7:00 7:30 8:11 8:56 9:02 9:54 10:54 11:54 13:17 12:54 13:54 14:54 15:54 16:58 17:31 17:59 17:52 18:10 18:39 19:12 20:15 21:14 22:24 22:32 23:24 0:54

North Billerica 21.8 #N/A #N/A 6:22 #N/A 7:21 8:02 8:47 #N/A 9:47 10:47 11:47 #N/A 12:47 13:47 14:47 15:47 16:51 17:21 17:52 #N/A 18:03 18:32 19:05 20:08 21:07 22:17 #N/A 23:17 0:47

Wilmington 15.2 #N/A #N/A 6:14 #N/A 7:13 7:54 8:39 #N/A 9:39 10:39 11:39 #N/A 12:39 13:39 14:39 15:39 16:43 17:13 17:43 #N/A 17:55 18:23 18:57 19:23 20:00 21:00 22:09 #N/A 23:09 0:39

Anderson/ Woburn 12.6 #N/A #N/A 6:10 #N/A 6:45 7:08 7:50 8:17 8:35 8:46 9:02 9:23 9:35 10:35 11:35 11:53 13:01 12:35 13:35 14:35 15:35 16:38 16:45 17:08 17:18 17:38 17:36 17:50 18:18 18:52 19:03 19:19 19:55 20:55 22:05 22:16 23:05 23:18 0:35

Winchester Center 7.8 #N/A #N/A 6:03 #N/A #N/A 7:01 7:43 #N/A 8:28 #N/A #N/A #N/A 9:28 10:28 11:28 #N/A #N/A 12:28 13:28 14:28 15:28 16:30 16:38 17:00 #N/A 17:30 #N/A #N/A 18:10 18:44 #N/A 19:12 19:48 20:48 21:58 #N/A 22:58 #N/A 0:28

Wedgemere 7.3 #N/A #N/A 6:01 #N/A #N/A #N/A 7:41 #N/A 8:26 #N/A #N/A #N/A 9:26 10:26 11:26 #N/A #N/A 12:26 13:26 14:26 15:26 16:27 16:36 16:57 #N/A 17:27 #N/A #N/A 18:07 18:41 #N/A 19:10 19:46 20:46 21:56 #N/A 22:56 #N/A 0:26

West Medford 5.5 #N/A #N/A 5:57 #N/A #N/A 6:57 7:37 #N/A 8:22 #N/A #N/A #N/A 9:22 10:22 11:22 #N/A #N/A 12:22 13:22 14:22 15:22 16:23 16:32 16:53 #N/A 17:23 #N/A #N/A 18:03 18:37 #N/A 19:06 19:42 20:42 21:52 #N/A 22:52 #N/A 0:22

North Station 0.0 4:40 5:23 5:45 6:20 6:25 6:45 7:25 7:55 8:10 8:30 8:40 9:05 9:10 10:10 11:10 11:35 12:45 12:10 13:10 14:10 15:10 16:10 16:20 16:40 17:00 17:10 17:20 17:30 17:50 18:25 18:45 18:55 19:30 20:30 21:40 22:00 22:40 23:00 0:10
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 200 

Appendix B: Detailed Cost Estimates of Stations 

Table B-1: Cost Factors Used to Calculate Proposed Station Capital Costs 

Description 

Materials Material Cost 

Total 

Labor Total

Direct 

Cost 

Allocation Factor Calculated Unit Cost Quantity Units Unit Costs Manhrs Cost ($) 

 

SITE WORK 

Remove & dispose existing pavement 1,988 SY - 95 $33,987 $33,987 Zero $0 

Remove and stock curbing 160 LF - 85 $2,040 $2,040 Zero $0 

Clearing and grubbing 3.17 Acre - 85 $4,311 $4,311 Half fixed half variable based on parking spaces $2,156 + $6 per space 

Cut, cap and abandon monitoring well 2 EA - 85 $340 $340 1 if contaminated zero if not $340 

Site preparation - remove & dispose of boulders 4 EA $50.00 $200.00 110 $880 $1,080 Zero $0 

Cleaning & sweeping roadway 109 HR - 120 $13,080 $13,080 Unit $13,080 

Water for dust control 44,500 GL $0.04 $1,780.00 85 - $1,780 Unit $1,780 

Erosion control system (straw bale & silt fence) 4,677 LF $1.00 $4,677.00 72 $15,153 $19,830 Unit $19,830 

Silt sack 23 EA $100.00 $2,300.00 72 $1,656 $3,956 Unit $3,956 

Mobilization and demobilization for bulk excavation 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00 110 - $6,000 Unit $6,000 

Unclassified excavation 18,768 CY - 110 $92,902 $92,902 Unit $92,902 

Unclassified excavation - handling & off-site disposal 22,800 TN $18.00 $410,400.00 110 - $410,400 1 if contaminated zero if not $410,400 

Dispose of contaminated soil at in-state lined landfill 630 TN $35.00 $22,050.00 110 $3,119 $25,169 1 if contaminated zero if not $25,169 

Dispose of contaminated soil at in-state recycling facility 630 TN $75.00 $47,250.00 110 $3,119 $50,369 1 if contaminated zero if not $50,369 

Rock excavation 1,632 CY - 110 $31,416 $31,416 Unit $31,416 

Rock excavation - haul & disposal 2,203 TN $15.00 $33,048.00 110 - $33,048 Half fixed half variable based on parking spaces $16,524 + $46 per space 

Soils testing services (LSP) 364 HR - 110 $40,040 $40,040 Half fixed half variable based on parking spaces $20,020 + $56 per space 

Soil sampling and testing (assume 50-ft grid) 146 EA $180.00 $26,280.00 150 - $26,280 Half fixed half variable based on parking spaces $13,140 + $37 per space 

Grading 364,800 SF - 85 $124,032 $124,032 Half fixed half variable based on parking spaces $62,016 + $172 per space 

Ordinary fill (processed gravel) 14,540 CY $0.80 $11,632.00 110 $151,943 $163,575 Half fixed half variable based on parking spaces $81,788 + $227 per space 

Crushed stone - platform 50 CY $30.00 $1,500.00 110 $880 $2,380 Half fixed half variable based on parking spaces $1,190 + $3 per space 

Wetland replication area 3,000 SF $6.00 $18,945.00 85 $11,820 $30,765 Square feet of wetlands $10.26 

Subtotal $586,062.00 5,325 $530,718 $1,116,780 

Subtotal retaining walls $943,440.00 $1,265,872 $2,209,316 Based on site $220,932 

Subtotal drainage $204,092.00 2,301 $198,634 $402,726 Half fixed half variable based on parking spaces $201,363 + $559 per space 

Subtotal site work - parking lot and drop-off area $862,032.00 4,123 $375,564 $1,237,598 Parking Spaces (*10 for garage) $3,438 

Subtotal landscaping $183,659.00 3,459 $250,968 $434,626 Quarter fixed/3/4parking spaces $108,657 + $905 per space 

STATION ELEMENTS 

Subtotal Rail road Components (Lead Track at Station) $233,283.00 1,163 $145,611 $378,894 Side tracks $378,894 

Subtotal Platforms $584,900.00 2,037 $275,225 $860,125 Half platforms $430,063 

Subtotal Electrical $289,435.00 4,650 $391,260 $680,696 Platforms $680,696 

Subtotal Variable Message Signs $61,194.00 264 $22,903 $84,097 Platforms $84,097 

Subtotal Division 10 - Specialties $25,792.00 104 $8,867 $34,659 Unit $34,659 

Subtotal Division 2 - Site Improvements $38,250.00 85 $6,120 $44,370 Parking Spaces $123 

Subtotal Division 5 - Metals $271,227.00 2,230 $217,289 $488,516 Platforms $244,258 

Subtotal Water Supply System $46,463.00 473 $43,424 $89,887 Unit $89,887 

DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL $8,062,290 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 201 

Description 

Materials Material Cost 

Total 

Labor Total

Direct 

Cost 

Allocation Factor Calculated Unit Cost Quantity Units Unit Costs Manhrs Cost ($) 

CONSTRUCTION 

Subtotal General Requirements - 224 $33,600 $33,600 Direct Costs $33,600 

Subtotal Construction Staging Provisions $13,200.00 32 $2,304 $15,504 Direct Costs $15,504 

Subtotal Safety and Protection $58,900.00 884 $63,619 $122,519 Direct Costs $122,519 

TOTAL DIRECT COST $4,402,000 39,878 $3,832,000 $8,234,000 

General Conditions @ 13% $1,070,420 $1,070,420 

General Contractor Overhead @ 4% $372,176 $372,176 

General Contractor Profit @ 4% $387,064 $387,064 

General Contractor Bond @ 1% $100,637 $100,637 

ESTIMATED CONTRACTOR COST $10,164,000 

Traffic officers services 1 AN $54,000 $54,000 Unit $54,000 

Rodent control 1 AN $64,000 $64,000 $64,000 Unit $64,000 

Site utilities (existing - National Grid Verizon poles) 1 AN $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 Unit $24,000 

Electric company 1 AN $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 Unit $105,000 

Install water system 1 AN $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 Unit $9,000 

Risk allowance 1 AN $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Zero $1,100,000 

Dispose contaminated material (MCP compliance) at in-state facility 630 TN $30 $18,900 $18,900 1 if contaminated zero if not $18,900 

Dispose contaminated material at non-RCRA out-of-state facility 630 TN $65 $40,950 $40,950 1 if contaminated zero if not $40,950 

Hazardous / Special Waste Handling 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1 if contaminated zero if not $10,000 

LSP Services for Contaminated Soils Disposal 1,260 TN $20 $25,200 $25,200 1 if contaminated zero if not $25,200 

ALLOWANCES $1,397,050 $54,000 $1,451,050 

 

SUBTOTAL $11,615,000 

Escalation to Oct 2013 (based on 3.8% per year) @ 4.12% $478,899 

ESCALATED ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $12,094,000 

Construction Contingency 10% $1,209,400 

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST WITH CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY $13,303,000 

Source: MBTA Fitchburg Commuter Rail - Wachusett Extension Project: PS&E Construction Estimate; Jacobs / Keville Enterprises, Inc.; January, 2013 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 202 

Table B-2: Estimated Concord Station Capital Costs 

Nashua 

Crown 

Street 

Bedford / 

MHT 

Manchester Concord

Stickney 

Avenue 

Granite 

Street 

Spring 

Street 

Milepost 38.8 50.1 55.7 56.4 73.4 

Parking 255 190 0 0 100 

Platforms 1 1 1 1 1 

Contaminated Soils 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 

Square Feet of Wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 

Side Tracks 0 0 0 0 0 

SITE WORK 

Remove & dispose existing pavement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Remove and stock curbing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Clearing and grubbing $3,682 $3,293 $2,156 $2,156 $2,754 

Cut, cap and abandon monitoring well $170 $0 $170 $0 $0 

Site preparation - remove & dispose of boulders $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Cleaning & sweeping roadway $13,080 $13,080 $13,080 $13,080 $13,080 

Water for dust control $1,780 $1,780 $1,780 $1,780 $1,780 

Erosion control system (straw bale & silt fence) $19,830 $19,830 $19,830 $19,830 $19,830 

Silt sack $3,956 $3,956 $3,956 $3,956 $3,956 

Mobilization and demobilization for bulk excavation $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 

Unclassified excavation $92,902 $92,902 $92,902 $92,902 $92,902 

Unclassified excavation - handling & off-site disposal $205,200 $0 $205,200 $0 $0 

Dispose of contaminated soil at in-state lined landfill $12,585 $0 $12,585 $0 $0 

Dispose of contaminated soil at in-state recycling facility $25,185 $0 $25,185 $0 $0 

Rock excavation $31,416 $31,416 $31,416 $31,416 $31,416 

Rock excavation - haul & disposal $28,229 $25,245 $16,524 $16,524 $21,114 

Soils testing services (LSP) $34,201 $30,586 $20,020 $20,020 $25,581 

Soil sampling and testing (assume 50-ft grid) $22,448 $20,075 $13,140 $13,140 $16,790 

Grading $105,944 $94,747 $62,016 $62,016 $79,243 

Ordinary fill (processed gravel) $139,720 $124,953 $81,788 $81,788 $104,506 

Crushed stone - platform $2,033 $1,818 $1,190 $1,190 $1,521 

Wetland replication area $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Subtotal site preparation & earthwork $748,498 $469,820 $609,075 $365,936 $420,612 

Subtotal retaining walls $220,932 $220,932 $220,932 $220,932 $220,932 

Subtotal drainage $343,995 $307,638 $201,363 $201,363 $257,297 

Subtotal site work - parking lot and drop-off area $876,632 $653,177 $0 $0 $343,777 

Subtotal landscaping $339,552 $280,696 $108,657 $108,657 $199,204 

STATION ELEMENTS 

Subtotal Rail road Components (Lead Track at Station) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Subtotal Platforms $430,063 $430,063 $430,063 $430,063 $430,063 

Subtotal Electrical $680,696 $680,696 $680,696 $680,696 $680,696 

Subtotal Variable Message Signs $84,097 $84,097 $84,097 $84,097 $84,097 

Subtotal Division 10 - Specialties $34,659 $34,659 $34,659 $34,659 $34,659 

Subtotal Division 2 - Site Improvements $31,429 $23,418 $0 $0 $12,325 

Subtotal Division 5 - Metals $244,258 $244,258 $244,258 $244,258 $244,258 

Subtotal Water Supply System $89,887 $89,887 $89,887 $89,887 $89,887 

DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL $4,124,697 $3,519,339 $2,703,686 $2,460,547 $3,017,806 

CONSTRUCTION 

Subtotal General Requirements $17,190 $14,667 $11,268 $10,254 $12,577 

Subtotal Construction Staging Provisions $7,932 $6,768 $5,199 $4,732 $5,803 

Subtotal Safety and Protection $62,681 $53,482 $41,087 $37,392 $45,860 

TOTAL DIRECT COST $4,212,500 $3,594,256 $2,761,239 $2,512,925 $3,082,046 

General Conditions @ $547,624.98 $467,253.28 $358,961.12 $326,680.21 $400,666.04 

Subtotal $4,760,125 $4,061,509 $3,120,201 $2,839,605 $3,482,712 

General Contractor Overhead @ $190,405 $162,460 $124,808 $113,584 $139,308 

Subtotal $4,950,530 $4,223,970 $3,245,009 $2,953,189 $3,622,021 

General Contractor Profit @ $198,021 $168,959 $129,800 $118,128 $144,881 

Subtotal $5,148,551 $4,392,928 $3,374,809 $3,071,317 $3,766,902 

General Contractor Bond @ $51,486 $43,929 $33,748 $30,713 $37,669 

ESTIMATED CONTRACTOR COST $5,200,037 $4,436,858 $3,408,557 $3,102,030 $3,804,571 

Traffic officers services $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 

Rodent control $64,000 $64,000 $64,000 $64,000 $64,000 

Site utilities (existing - National Grid Verizon poles) $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 

Electric company $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 

Install water system $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 

Dispose contaminated material (MCP compliance) at in-state facility $9,450 $0 $9,450 $0 $0 

Dispose contaminated material at non-RCRA out-of-state facility $20,475 $0 $20,475 $0 $0 

Hazardous / Special Waste Handling $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 

LSP Services for Contaminated Soils Disposal $12,600 $0 $12,600 $0 $0 

ALLOWANCES $303,525 $256,000 $303,525 $256,000 $256,000 

SUBTOTAL $5,503,562 $4,692,858 $3,712,082 $3,358,030 $4,060,571 

Escalation to Oct 2013 (based on 3.8% per year) @ $226,747 $193,346 $152,938 $138,351 $167,296 

ESCALATED ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $5,730,308 $4,886,203 $3,865,020 $3,496,381 $4,227,866 

Construction Contingency $573,030.83 $488,620.35 $386,501.98 $349,638.06 $422,786.63 

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST WITH CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY $6,303,339 $5,374,824 $4,251,522 $3,846,019 $4,650,653 

Source: MBTA Fitchburg Commuter Rail - Wachusett Extension Project: PS&E Construction Estimate; Jacobs / Keville Enterprises, 

Inc.; January, 2013 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 203 

Table B-3: Land Value of Proposed Intercity Passenger Rail Stations 

Location Address Owner Assessed Value Land Use Size (acres) Improvements Land Total $/Acre Portion Land Cost

CONCORD SITES 

Stickney Ave 11 STICKNEY AV NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE OF $ 4,068,400 STATE-NH MDL 6.08 $ 2,621,400 $ 1,447,000 $ 4,068,400 $ 237,990 1 $ 1,447,000 

MANCHESTER SITES 

Bridge / Spring CANAL ST BOSTON AND MAINE CORP $ 64,300 NOTAX C VA 0.1695 $ - $ 64,300 $ 64,300 $ 379,351.03 1 $ 64,300 

Bridge / Spring CANAL ST BOSTON AND MAINE CORP $ 73,700 NOTAX C VA 0.5357 $ - $ 73,700 $ 73,700 $ 137,577.00 1 $ 73,700 

Granite St 100 GRANITE ST BOSTON AND MAINE CORP $ 78,700 NOTAX C VA 0.2300 $ - $ 78,700 $ 78,700 $ 342,173.91 1 $ 78,700 

Granite St CANAL ST CITY OF MANCHESTER $ 70,100 NOTAX C VA 0.3244 $ - $ 70,100 $ 70,100 $ 216,091.25 1 $ 70,100 

BEDFORD SITE

Bedford / MHT SOMERVILLE DR NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE OF $ 444,400 STATE NH MDL 6.000 $ 134,000 $ 176,500 $ 310,500 $ 29,416.67 0.33 $ 58,245 

NASHUA SITE

Crown St 25 CROWN ST NASHUA, CITY OF $ 1,274,200 6.826 $ 941,100 $ 308,700 $ 1,274,200 $ 45,224 1 $ 308,700 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 204 

Appendix C: Detailed Cost Estimates of Layover Facilities 

Table C-1: Cost Factors Used to Calculate Proposed Layover Facility Capital Costs 

Description

Materials

Labor Total 

Direct 

Cost Allocation Factor Calculated Unit Cost 

Man-hrs Cost ($)

Quantity Units Unit Costs Total Unit Total Unit Total

 

SITE WORK 

Miscellaneous site cleaning & clearing 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000 - $2,000 Track Feet $0.21 

Erosion and sedimentation control (hay bale & silt fence) 8,180 LF $1 $8,180 0.045 368 72 $26,503 $34,683 Track Feet $3.59 

Silt sack 15 EA $100 $1,500 1 15 72 $1,080 $2,580 Track Feet $0.27 

Temporary construction access road 56 ton $68 $3,808 0.09 5 85 $428 $4,236 Track Feet $0.44 

Clearing and grubbing 4 Acre - - 16 57 85 $4,811 $4,811 Track Feet $0.50 

Stripping and stockpiling of topsoil 745 CY - - 0.039 29 110 $3,155 $3,155 Track Feet $0.33 

Ordinary excavation 52,812 CY - - 0.039 2,033 110 $223,659 $223,659 Track Feet $23.17 

Unclassified excavation - handling & off-site disposal 64,170 TN $18 $1,155,060 110 - $1,155,060 Track Feet $119.63 

Dispose of contaminated soil at in-state lined landfill 1,780 TN $35 $62,300 - $62,300 Track Feet if contaminated, otherwise zero $6.45 

Dispose of contaminated soil at in-state recycling facility 1,780 TN $75 $133,500 - $133,500 Track Feet if contaminated, otherwise zero $13.83 

Rock excavation 1,000 CY - 0.175 175 110 $19,250 $19,250 Zero $0 

Rock excavation - haul & disposal 1,350 TN $18 $24,300 110 - $24,300 Zero $0 

Soils testing services (LSP) 896 HR - 1 896 110 $98,560 $98,560 Track Feet if contaminated, otherwise zero $10.21 

Soil sampling and testing (assume 50-ft grid) 194 EA $180 $34,920 - $34,920 Track Feet if contaminated, otherwise zero $3.62 

Tree removal - includes stumps 10 EA $1,200.00 $12,000 85 - $12,000 Zero $0 

Processed gravel ordinary fill 21,100 CY $0.8 $16,880 0.095 2,005 85 $170,383 $187,263 Track Feet $19.40 

Gravel borrow sub-base (processed gravel) 28 CY $0.8 $22 0.095 3 85 $224 $247 Track Feet $0.03 

Grading & finishing 483,958 SF - 0.004 1,936 85 $164,546 $164,546 Track Feet $17.04 

DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL $1,454,470 7,521 $712,599 $2,167,070 Total 

Subtotal Roadways & Walkways Pavements $708,237 2,710 $220,993 $929,230 Storage Positions $154,872 

Subtotal Landscaping $305,980 2,615 $188,294 $494,274 Number of track feet $51.19 

Subtotal Site Work - Drainage $35,943 538 $46,357 $82,299 Number of track feet $8.52 

TRACK WORK 

Surface and Align Track 9,655 TF - 0.1 966 145 $139,998 $139,998 Track Feet $14.50 

Tie with Assemblies 5,945 EA $100 $594,500 0.18 1,070 145 $155,165 $749,665 Track Feet $77.65 

Ballast 7,575 TN $15 $113,625 0.13 985 110 $108,323 $221,948 Track Feet $22.99 

Subballast 7,132 TN $17 $121,240 0.13 927 110 $101,984 $223,224 Track Feet $23.12 

No. 10 turnouts 6 EA $48,000 $288,000 220 1,320 145 $191,400 $479,400 Storage Positions $79,900 

Bituminous Pavement under switches 460 TN $68 $31,280 0.25 115 85 $9,775 $41,055 Storage Positions $6,843 

Switch Stands 6 EA $7,600.00 $45,600 20 120 145 $17,400 $63,000 Storage Positions $10,500 

Bump Post 6 EA $3,250.00 $19,500 2 12 85 $1,020 $20,520 Storage Positions $3,420 

Rubber Seal 2,470 LF $42.25 $104,358 0.05 124 85 $10,498 $114,855 Storage Positions $19,143 

Cable Trough at Feeder Receptacle 4 EA $2,500.00 $10,000 16 64 85 $5,440 $15,440 Storage Positions $2,573 

Snowmelters 6 EA $9,000.00 $54,000 56 336 85 $28,560 $82,560 Storage Positions $13,760 

12'x60' Oil Pan 6 EA $2,800.00 $16,800 16 96 85 $8,160 $24,960 Storage Positions $4,160 

DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL 1,398,902 6,134 777,721 2,176,625 

Subtotal Switch Heaters $120,185 1,580 $132,740 $252,923 Storage Positions $42,154 

LAYOVER FACILITY ELEMENTS 

Subtotal Site Structural $843,150 3,564 $315,656 $1,158,806 Unit $1,158,806 

Subtotal Division 3 - Concrete Work $21,865 217 $18,965 $40,831 Unit $40,831 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 205 

Description

Materials

Labor Total 

Direct 

Cost Allocation Factor Calculated Unit Cost 

Man-hrs Cost ($)

Quantity Units Unit Costs Total Unit Total Unit Total

Subtotal Division 4 - Masonry $12,454 554 $81,539 $93,993 Unit $93,993 

Subtotal Division 5 - Metals $101,991 245 $21,897 $123,889 Unit $123,889 

Subtotal Division 6 - Wood and Plastics $2,749 10 $805 $3,555 Unit $3,555 

Subtotal Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection $43,601 197 $16,749 $60,352 Unit $60,352 

Subtotal Division 8 - Doors and Windows $33,754 124 $10,521 $44,277 Unit $44,277 

Subtotal Division 9 - Finishes $20,393 410 $29,529 $49,923 Unit $49,923 

Subtotal Division 13 - Special Construction $56,160 - $56,160 Unit $56,160 

Subtotal Division 10 - Specialties $45,252 197 $14,756 $60,008 Unit $60,008 

Subtotal Division 12 - Furnishings 1 $36 $236 Unit $236 

Subtotal Division 33 - Site Utilities $170,320 2,792 $240,716 $411,036 Unit $411,036 

Subtotal Mechanical Work $47,131 359 $29,467 $76,599 Unit $76,599 

Subtotal Fire Protection System $9,701 102 $8,710 $18,412 Unit $18,412 

Subtotal Plumbing Systems 362 $30,774 $62,239 Unit $62,239 

Subtotal Electrical $1,361,985 6,386 - $1,897,024 Number of storage positions $316,171 per storage position 

Subtotal Communication Systems 1,214 $100,370 $290,393 Unit $290,393 

DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL $15,156,327 

CONSTRUCTION 

Subtotal General Requirements 

 

$71,095 622 $64,410 $135,505 Half fixed half variable based on 

number of storage positions 

$67,753 + $271,010 per storage 

position 

TOTAL DIRECT COST $7,087,000 38453 $3,599,000 $10,686,000 

General Conditions @ 13% $534,300 $534,300 

General Contractor Overhead @ 4% $448,800 $448,800 

General Contractor Profit @ 4% $466,760 $466,760 

General Contractor Bond @ 1% $121,358 $121,358 

ESTIMATED CONTRACTOR COST $12,257,000 

Traffic officers services 1 AN $54,000 $54,000 Unit $54,000 

Rodent control 1 AN $64,000 $64,000 - $64,000 Unit $64,000 

Site utilities (existing) 1 AN $48,300 $48,300 - $48,300 Unit $48,300 

Electric company 1 AN $315,000 $315,000 - $315,000 Unit $315,000 

Install water system 1 AN $6,000 $6,000 - $6,000 Unit $6,000 

Risk allowance 1 AN $1,300,000 $1,300,000 - $1,300,000 Zero $0 

Total Excavation 53800 CY 

Dispose Contaminated Material (MCP Compliance) at In-State Facility 1,780 TN $30 $53,400 - $53,400 1 if contaminated zero if not $53,400 

Dispose Contaminated Material at NON-RCRA Out-of-State Facility 1,780 TN $65 $115,700 - $115,700 1 if contaminated zero if not $115,700 

Hazardous / Special Waste Handling 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 - $10,000 1 if contaminated zero if not $10,000 

LSP Services for Contaminated Soils Disposal 3,560 TN $20 $71,200 - 71,200 1 if contaminated zero if not 71,200 

ALLOWANCES $1,983,600 $54,000 $2,037,600 

SUBTOTAL $11,615,000 

Escalation to Oct 2013 (based on 3.8% per year) @ 4.12% $478,899 

ESCALATED ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $12,094,000 

Construction Contingency 10% $1,209,400 

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST WITH CONTINGENCY $13,303,000 

Source: MBTA Fitchburg Commuter Rail - Wachusett Extension Project: PS&E Construction Estimate; Jacobs / Keville Enterprises, Inc.; January, 2013
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 206 

Table C-2: Estimated Concord Layover Facility Capital Costs 

Category of Expense Cost

SITE WORK (over and above station cost) 

Miscellaneous site cleaning & clearing $0 

Erosion and sedimentation control (hay bale & silt fence) $0 

Silt sack $0 

Temporary construction access road $0 

Clearing and grubbing $0 

Stripping and stockpiling of topsoil $0 

Ordinary excavation $0 

Unclassified excavation - handling & off-site disposal $0 

Dispose of contaminated soil at in-state lined landfill $0 

Dispose of contaminated soil at in-state recycling facility $0 

Rock excavation $0 

Rock excavation - haul & disposal $0 

Soils testing services (LSP) $0 

Soil sampling and testing (assume 50-ft grid) $0 

Tree removal - includes stumps $0 

Processed gravel ordinary fill $0 

Gravel borrow sub-base (processed gravel) $0 

Grading & finishing $0 

Subtotal Division 2 - Site Preparation & Earthwork $0 

Subtotal Roadways & Walkways Pavements $154,872 

Subtotal Landscaping $0 

Subtotal Site Work - Drainage $0 

TRACK WORK (over and above station cost) 

Surface and Align Track $0 

Tie with Assemblies $0 

Ballast $0 

Subballast $0 

No. 10 turnouts $0 

Bituminous Pavement under switches $0 

Switch Stands $0 

Bump Post $0 

Rubber Seal $0 

Cable Trough at Feeder Receptacle $0 

Snowmelters $0 

12'x60' Oil Pan $0 

Subtotal Track & Rail Work $0 

Subtotal Switch Heaters $0 

LAYOVER FACILITY ELEMENTS 

Subtotal Site Structural $1,158,806.00 

Subtotal Division 3 - Concrete Work $40,831.00 

Subtotal Division 4 - Masonry $93,993.00 

Subtotal Division 5 - Metals $123,889.00 

Subtotal Division 6 - Wood and Plastics $3,555.00 

Subtotal Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection $60,352.00 

Subtotal Division 8 - Doors and Windows $44,277.00 
DRAFT NHCC Service Development Plan │ November 2014 │ 207 

Category of Expense Cost

Subtotal Division 9 - Finishes $49,923.00 

Subtotal Division 13 - Special Construction $56,160.00 

Subtotal Division 10 - Specialties $60,008.00 

Subtotal Division 12 - Furnishings $236.00 

Subtotal Division 33 - Site Utilities $411,036.00 

Subtotal Mechanical Work $76,599.00 

Subtotal Fire Protection System $18,412.00 

Subtotal Plumbing Systems $62,239.00 

Subtotal Electrical $316,170.67 

Subtotal Communication Systems $290,393.00 

DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL $3,021,751 

CONSTRUCTION 

Subtotal General Requirements $79,044.58 

TOTAL DIRECT COST $3,100,795.92 

General Conditions @ $403,103.47 

Subtotal $3,503,899 

General Contractor Overhead @ $140,155.98 

Subtotal $3,644,055 

General Contractor Profit @ $145,762 

Subtotal $3,789,818 

General Contractor Bond @ $37,898.18 

ESTIMATED CONTRACTOR COST $3,827,716 

Subtotal ALLOWANCES- Section 01020 $737,600 

Traffic officers services $54,000 

Rodent control $64,000 

Site utilities (existing) $48,300 

Electric company $315,000 

Install water system $6,000 

Risk allowance $0 

Dispose Contaminated Material (MCP Compliance) at In-State Facility $53,400 

Dispose Contaminated Material at NON-RCRA Out-of-State Facility $115,700 

Hazardous / Special Waste Handling $10,000 

LSP Services for Contaminated Soils Disposal $71,200 

SUBTOTAL $4,565,316 

Escalation to Oct 2013 (based on 3.8% per year) @ $188,091.01 

ESCALATED ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $4,753,407 

Construction Contingency $475,340.68 

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST WITH CONTINGENCY $5,228,747 

Source: MBTA Fitchburg Commuter Rail - Wachusett Extension Project: PS&E Construction 

Estimate; Jacobs / Keville Enterprises, Inc.; January, 2013