Committee Summary for House Public Works and Highways (01/28/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB375 00:06:23.800 - 9:04:54 AM	Public Hearing	allowing municipalities to designate sections of state and local highways for all terrain vehicles.	McGuire, Dan(R)[A+]2024
HB181 00:49:29.280 - 9:48:00 AM	Public Hearing	relative to making the state responsible for maintaining Opticom systems for fire and emergency on state roads and making an appropriation therefor.	Proulx, Mark(R)[B]2024
HB300 01:19:04.280 - 10:17:35 AM	Public Hearing	relative to directing the department of transportation to issue a request for proposals regarding the Conway Branch rail line and establishing a study committee to investigate the future of railroads in the state.	Horrigan, Timothy(D)[CT]2024
HB100 01:40:54.560 - 10:39:25 AM	Public Hearing	prohibiting the use of state funds for new passenger rail projects.	Ankarberg, Aidan(I)[A-]2024

HB375: Dan McGuire, Representative from Epsom Support00:06:23.800 - 9:04:54 AM; Representative Dan Maguire introduced House Bill 375, which aims to allow ATVs on certain roads to enhance tourism. He explained that the idea came from observing the capabilities and costs of modern ATVs, suggesting they are nearly standard vehicles. He cited successful implementations in Berlin and Colebrook, where ATV road access has boosted local economies. Maguire proposed that the bill would provide a structured approach for municipalities to designate roads for ATV use, including requirements for maps, signage, and speed limits. He mentioned a potential speed limit of 30 or 40 mph and additional safety features like directional signals, although he is open to adjustments based on committee feedback.
HB375: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:11:25.000 - 9:09:56 AM; An unnamed speaker, likely a committee member, asked about potential conflicts with existing laws for agricultural vehicles, which have different requirements for road use. They noted their vehicle, a side-by-side, is registered for road use under agricultural regulations but lacks some of the safety features proposed in HB375.
HB375: Dan McGuire, Representative from Epsom Information Only00:12:18.760 - 9:10:49 AM; Representative Maguire responded to the query about potential conflicts with existing agricultural vehicle regulations. He clarified that the bill is intended to supplement, not interfere with, current uses of roads, focusing more on tourism and occasional use rather than conflicting with agricultural uses.
HB375: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:13:13.920 - 9:11:44 AM; Another unnamed speaker, possibly a committee member, inquired about the applicability of the bill to golf carts, noting their increasing use in communities. They asked if the bill could also cover golf carts if they meet certain specifications.
HB375: Dan McGuire, Representative from Epsom Information Only00:14:02.959 - 9:12:33 AM; Representative Maguire addressed the question about golf carts, indicating that if a golf cart meets the specifications outlined in RSA 25-a:4, it could potentially be included under the provisions of HB375. He noted that golf carts are typically used in summer, which might limit their relevance in New Hampshire compared to ATVs.
HB375: Representative Brown Information Only00:14:33.320 - 9:13:04 AM; Representative Brown inquired about the exemption for municipalities and the Bureau of Trails from the permitting process and requirements of RSA 215:83 as mentioned in line six of the bill. He expressed confusion about what this exemption entails, particularly regarding bridge or connector usage on designated highways. He requested clarification from the committee or other relevant speakers.
HB375: Alan Hennessy, State Maintenance Engineer for the New Hampshire Department of Transportation Information Only00:16:22.920 - 9:14:53 AM; Alan Hennessy addressed the committee regarding concerns about the bill. He specifically discussed the exemption for municipalities and the Bureau of Trails from the permitting process, which is crucial for the Department of Transportation's regulation of highways. He questioned how the exemption might affect the department's ability to authorize and regulate highway usage. Hennessy also recommended that the bill should follow RSA 215-A:69, which requires public hearing signage to inform road users about ATV travel on designated road segments and impose regulations on ATV riders. He expressed willingness to answer questions on these points.
HB375: Representative Malone Information Only00:18:35.480 - 9:17:06 AM; Representative Malone asked Alan Hennessy about available data on ATV safety in New Hampshire, specifically regarding accident rates. Hennessy clarified that he deals with highway maintenance and not ATVs directly, suggesting that State Police and Fish and Game would be better sources for such data.
HB375: Representative Vurt Information Only00:19:46.000 - 9:18:17 AM; Representative Vurt sought clarification on the implications of the exemption mentioned in section one of the bill. He expressed confusion about how municipalities and the Bureau of Trails being exempt from the permitting process would affect the determination and regulation of ATV travel on highways. Hennessy explained that without the department's involvement in the permitting process, they would not be aware of or able to approve ATV usage on specific road sections.
HB375: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:21:13.360 - 9:19:44 AM; The speaker raised concerns about the implications of allowing ATVs on expressways, questioning if municipalities could permit ATVs on highways temporarily without clear guidelines. They highlighted the uncertainty regarding how such permissions would be managed in towns intersected by expressways.
HB375: Representative Rockmore Information Only00:22:16.000 - 9:20:47 AM; Representative Rockmore asked for clarification on whether towns like Berlin and Dover had already opened their roads to ATVs through a coordinated effort with OHV groups and regulatory agencies.
HB375: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:22:50.640 - 9:21:21 AM; The speaker confirmed that in Berlin and Gorham, designated routes for ATVs are marked with signage indicating where ATVs can enter and exit state roads, highlighting the need for clear signage.
HB375: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:23:31.080 - 9:22:02 AM; The speaker discussed the potential responsibilities of towns regarding signage and permitting processes for ATVs on state roads, expressing uncertainty about how the bill would define access and departure points.
HB375: Captain Michael Eastman, Fish and Game Oppose00:24:51.200 - 9:23:22 AM; Captain Eastman from Fish and Game, initially not planning to testify, spoke in opposition to the bill due to its wording. He explained existing laws that allow municipalities to open roads to OHVs and clarified the differences between various types of vehicles like ATVs and UTVs. He noted the existing regulations for OHV use on state highways in specific counties and mentioned another related bill, HB367. He also addressed concerns about accidents, enforcement, and the use of golf carts and special commercial plates, emphasizing that current laws already cover many of the issues the bill aims to address.
HB375: Representative Brown Information Only00:32:40.880 - 9:31:11 AM; Representative Brown questioned Captain Michael Eastman about the value added by the bill to the existing permitting process managed by the Department of Transportation. He specifically asked about the implications of section two of the bill which seeks to preempt existing permitting statutes. Captain Eastman responded by discussing the existing permitting process for snowmobile trails, particularly highlighting an example in Gorham, where portions of Route 16 are open for such use except for a busy section near Berlin due to safety concerns related to traffic and smaller vehicles.
HB375: Captain Michael Eastman, Fish and Game Oppose00:34:33.199 - 9:33:04 AM; Captain Eastman further elaborated on the issues with the bill, mentioning the ATV definition and the potential for municipalities to open up roads and state highways for OHV use, which raises concerns about different funding mechanisms for town and state roads. He expressed concerns about the impact of low-pressure tires on road maintenance and suggested that existing bills using similar mechanisms might be more appropriate for continuing with established review processes.
HB375: Representative Lewis Information Only00:36:47.800 - 9:35:18 AM; Representative Lewis inquired about the types of accidents Fish and Game responds to, specifically whether they include incidents on roads or just trails. Captain Eastman clarified that the majority of accidents they track are on trails, but local police departments handle accidents on roads using traditional motor vehicle accident forms, and these are not always reported to Fish and Game.
HB375: Craig Reny, Chief of the Bureau of Trails, Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Information Only00:38:03.960 - 9:36:34 AM; Craig Reny clarified that the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources is not taking a position on the bill but wanted to clarify the existing permit process between the Bureau of Trails and the Department of Transportation. He explained that the process involves reviewing and submitting applications for highway crossings and connectors, ensuring safety, and highlighted the upcoming bill in the RR&D committee concerning OHV use in five counties. He also answered a question about the duration of the permit process, stating it generally takes a few months.
HB375: Unnamed Representative Information Only00:39:34.280 - 9:38:05 AM; An unnamed representative asked Craig Reny about the duration of the permit process for highway crossings or connectors. Reny responded that it typically takes a few months and involves multiple steps including site visits and safety assessments. He also mentioned the use of a GIS mapping tool by the Department of Transportation to streamline the process and improve communication between agencies.
HB375: Representative Bogert Information Only00:41:23.079 - 9:39:54 AM; Representative Bogert asked Mr. Rener about the specifics of HB375 concerning the expansion of OHRV (Off-Highway Recreational Vehicle) use on highways. He clarified that the current law allows OHRV use in Grafton and Coos counties, with specific areas mentioned such as a highway crossing on Route 114. He pointed out that the bill would open up OHRV use across the entire state, which includes both highway crossings/connectors and on-highway use. He further inquired about the types of highways and byways included in the bill, to which Mr. Rener confirmed it applies to all classes of highways without specifying types. Additionally, Representative Bogert asked about another house bill that aims to expand the counties without changing the existing permit processes. Mr. Rener affirmed that the safeguards and processes would remain the same. Lastly, Representative Bogert confirmed with Captain Eastman that dirt bikes are included under OHRVs but not under the ATV definition.
HB181: Representative Mark P from Hillsboro 15, Manchester Ward 8 Support00:49:29.280 - 9:48:00 AM; Representative Mark P introduced HB181, which focuses on the maintenance and repair of the Opticom system used by emergency vehicles to change traffic lights. He noted that the system's effectiveness at state intersections has declined over time, leading to confusion and safety concerns for emergency services. He is seeking a solution to ensure regular maintenance and repair, acknowledging that funding is a concern but emphasizing the need for reliable operation of the system.
HB181: Representative Bogert Information Only00:50:54.680 - 9:49:25 AM; Representative Bogert asked Representative P about the initial installation and purchase of the Opticom equipment, to which Representative P responded that the DOT was responsible. He also inquired about which types of vehicles use the system, and Representative P clarified that it is mainly used by municipal vehicles such as fire, police, and ambulances, with limited use by state vehicles. Representative Bogert then asked about the maintenance responsibilities, and Representative P explained that municipalities maintain systems on their roads, while the state is responsible for state roads. This led to a discussion on ensuring maintenance responsibilities are upheld.
HB181: Representative Brown Information Only00:53:05.720 - 9:51:36 AM; Representative Brown expressed concerns about the maintenance of the Opticom system on state roads, suggesting that ensuring municipalities maintain their systems while the state takes responsibility for state roads could resolve the issue. He asked about the existence of a maintenance schedule, to which Representative P responded that while he was unsure about a formal schedule, municipalities typically address issues as they arise. Representative Brown emphasized the importance of regular testing to prevent accidents, indicating a need for more structured maintenance.
HB181: Municipality Representative Information Only00:54:37.520 - 9:53:08 AM; The speaker clarified that the part of the traffic signal preemption system installed on municipal vehicles is maintained by the municipality itself, not the state.
HB181: Leo Leon Barones, Public Works Information Only00:55:21.839 - 9:53:52 AM; Leo Leon Barones from Public Works was introduced but did not provide any substantive testimony in the provided transcript snippet.
HB181: Lee Bonis, Administrator of the Bureau of Traffic at DOT Information Only00:55:25.480 - 9:53:56 AM; Lee Bonis, the Administrator of the Bureau of Traffic at the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the State Traffic Engineer, provided detailed information about traffic signal preemption systems. He explained that these systems, often referred to as Opticom, are used to interrupt normal traffic signal cycles for emergency vehicles and other priority users. He outlined the components of the system, including initiators on vehicles, detectors, and preemption circuitry in traffic signal cabinets. Bonis mentioned the use of optical technology for these systems and noted its challenges, such as false calls and limited detection range. He also discussed alternative technologies like GPS and radio transponders used by some municipalities. He explained that while DOT installs preemption systems on new state highway signals, maintenance is the responsibility of municipalities. He highlighted the variation in municipal use and maintenance of these systems across the state, with some cities like Concord, Manchester, and Nashua maintaining their systems effectively. Bonis noted that the proposed legislation, if passed, would shift the maintenance responsibility to the DOT, which would require additional resources and could lead to a more consistent level of maintenance across the state. However, he also mentioned potential drawbacks, such as increased workload, liability concerns, and the possibility that some municipalities might receive less attention than they currently do. He concluded by addressing the potential administrative costs associated with the bill and the need for funding if the bill were to pass.
HB181: Representative Clud Information Only01:08:51.040 - 10:07:22 AM; Representative Clud asked for clarification on the term 'administrative costs' mentioned in the bill, specifically regarding the funding for maintenance of traffic signal preemption technology systems. Lee Bonis responded that these costs would include the overhead of operating the maintenance unit at the Bureau of Traffic, such as staff, oversight, and training, as well as increased interactions with municipalities.
HB181: Representative Jack Information Only01:11:12.040 - 10:09:43 AM; Representative Jack inquired about the reasons behind the declining maintenance of preemption systems on state roads by municipalities, despite their understanding of the responsibility. Lee Bonis speculated that there might be a misunderstanding about the responsibilities, especially with state-owned signals, and suggested that outreach to municipalities and fire departments could help clarify these responsibilities.
HB181: Boger Information Only01:13:02.719 - 10:11:33 AM; Boger inquired about the process of installing new signal systems during road work and the use of memorandums of understanding to outline responsibilities. He was informed that currently, all projects within municipalities have municipal agreements detailing the scope of work and responsibilities. Historically, such documentation was less consistent, relying more on informal agreements. Boger also asked about the inclusion of such agreements in future upgrades to ensure past practices are brought up to current standards.
HB181: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:15:30.920 - 10:14:01 AM; The speaker clarified that while the signal cabinet itself is owned by the State of New Hampshire, components within, such as those for a preemption system, could be the responsibility of the municipality if added post-construction. They noted that for new signals, such systems are included as part of the project and fall under the municipality's responsibility.
HB181: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:16:30.800 - 10:15:01 AM; The speaker responded to a query about whether municipalities notify the state when accessing signal cabinets. They explained that there is no automatic alert system, but municipalities typically contact the state for access. In cases where the accessing party is unfamiliar or a contractor, a state technician may be present to assist and learn from the work being done.
HB300: John Cluder Information Only01:19:04.280 - 10:17:35 AM; John Cluder introduced House Bill 300 on behalf of the prime sponsor, Representative Oregon, who was unable to attend. He clarified that he had no position on the bill and would not be able to answer questions, suggesting that the committee listen to other testimonies for insights and technical expertise.
HB300: Jason Briggs Oppose01:19:55.800 - 10:18:26 AM; Jason Briggs, representing the Conway Scenic Railroad in North Conway, New Hampshire, was called to testify in opposition to House Bill 300.
HB300: David Briggs, Conway Scenic Railroad Oppose01:20:03.120 - 10:18:34 AM; David Briggs from Conway Scenic Railroad expressed opposition to HB300. He praised the committee for their attentiveness to public testimony, contrasting it with his experiences in Maine. Briggs highlighted that Conway Scenic Railroad operates 57 miles of track without state subsidies, employs 76-80 people full-time year-round, and carried 150,000 passengers in 2024, doubling since 2018. He opposed the bill, particularly the sections that could lead to the removal of rails and ties for recreational use, arguing that once tracks are removed, they are difficult to reinstall. He emphasized the economic and environmental benefits of rail, including lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to cars and trucks, and warned about potential issues like increased homeless activity if trails replace rails. Briggs urged the committee to vote down HB300, suggesting that the existing system should not be fixed if it isn't broken.
HB300: Shelley Winters, Director of the Division of Aeronautics, Rail, and Trans, Department of Transportation Information Only01:25:50.760 - 10:24:21 AM; Shelley Winters from the Department of Transportation provided background information and expressed concerns about the duplicative nature of HB300 compared to House Bill 1468 passed the previous year. She explained that the state owns 21 miles of the Conway Branch, which connects to an active freight line. Under HB1468, a planning group was convened, and the recommendation was to use the corridor for an interim recreational rail trail. The management of the 21 miles is being transferred from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (DNCR). Winters mentioned that the state would retain a reversionary clause for future rail uses, and DNCR would manage the day-to-day operations of the trail. She highlighted ongoing efforts to update the state rail plan, which would be delivered within the year, further suggesting that HB300 might be redundant.
HB300: Representative Jack Information Only01:28:28.159 - 10:26:59 AM; Representative Jack questioned the necessity of HB300, pointing out that the state is already updating its rail plan, which would cover the study of rail networks. He suggested that the bill might be duplicative.
HB300: Representative Bogart Information Only01:29:11.560 - 10:27:42 AM; Representative Bogart inquired about previous legislation related to the same area, asking if it pertained to the same 21 miles being discussed. Shelley Winters confirmed that it did and explained that the Department had looked at the whole 21 miles due to its contiguous nature. She noted that the previous bill had directed the removal of tracks for trail conversion, but no active removal had occurred yet.
HB300: Representative Brown Information Only01:31:44.600 - 10:30:15 AM; Representative Brown sought clarification on the impact of the proposed bill on existing railroad operations, specifically mentioning Conway Scenic Railroad's employment and passenger numbers. Shelley Winters clarified that the 21 miles in question are state-owned and not part of the existing Conway Scenic Railroad operations, which would not be affected by the proposed changes.
HB300: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:33:00.600 - 10:31:31 AM; The speaker inquired about the potential for rail development between their section of the railroad and Portland, Maine, specifically mentioning the Mountain Division. They clarified that the 21 miles under discussion would connect to Conway Scenic and then to the state-owned Mountain Division, which runs from the Maine town line to the Vermont border. They also asked if the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (DNCR) would have any interaction or involvement in grants or development on the Mountain Division to Fryeburg.
HB100: Representative Ross Berry Support01:40:54.560 - 10:39:25 AM; Representative Ross Berry introduced House Bill 100, aimed at prohibiting the use of state funds for new passenger rail projects. He focused specifically on project number 40818, the Nashua-Manchester-Concord commuter rail project, which he believes will never be realized despite repeated attempts. Berry argued that the project has been proposed twice before and failed due to lack of public interest. He likened the project to a failed trend from a movie, stating that it is outdated in today's world where remote work is increasingly common. Berry criticized the project's proponents for presenting unrealistic scenarios of its use and argued that future transportation will lean towards electric and autonomous vehicles, making rail less relevant. He highlighted the disruption to residents near the tracks, suggesting that the project would disturb more people than it would serve, and could lead to increased taxes without sufficient ridership to justify the costs. He concluded by urging the committee to stop funding a project that he believes will never happen, citing a recent vote in Nashua as evidence of growing public resistance to funding such initiatives.
HB100: Representative Jack Oppose01:46:29.199 - 10:45:00 AM; Representative Jack questioned the necessity of House Bill 100, pointing out that project 40818 was completed two years prior and no longer part of the state's 10-year plan or funding. He suggested that the goal of stopping the project had already been achieved without the need for the bill. In response, Representative Berry argued that the project could still be revived, as it had been brought back twice before, and the bill would help prevent future attempts.
HB100: Representative Ralph B, Hillsborough District 38, Hudson and Litchfield Support01:47:39.639 - 10:46:10 AM; Representative Ralph B testified in support of House Bill 100, drawing from his experience on a railway commission in the early 90s that studied the feasibility of bringing commuter rail to Nashua. He stated that the commission determined commuter rail was not financially viable, and the situation has only worsened since. He detailed the high costs associated with upgrading the existing tracks, which are currently only suitable for slow freight trains. B criticized the subsidies required for rail transportation, using examples from Massachusetts and the Amtrak Down Easter service. He argued that road transportation, which benefits all residents, should be prioritized over rail projects that he believes are underutilized and heavily subsidized. He suggested that state funds would be better spent on making New Hampshire more attractive to businesses to reduce the need for commuting. He also mentioned a past trial run of a train service that lasted only a year due to low usage, reinforcing his argument against funding such projects.
HB100: Representative Jurus Information Only01:51:45.719 - 10:50:16 AM; Representative Jurus asked Representative B about his experience living in Hudson, Massachusetts, and whether residents there had access to commuter rail stops. B responded by recalling a survey from the time that suggested it would be cheaper to transport residents by van rather than subsidize rail through property taxes. He noted the dissatisfaction among residents in the area about the tax burden for rail services they did not use. In follow-up questions, Jurus inquired if residents from Hudson and Litchfield might currently use commuter rail services in Lowell or North Billerica, to which B acknowledged the possibility but emphasized the lack of feasibility for a Nashua station due to previous rejections from potential sites like Pheasant Lane Mall.
HB100: Representative Claudia Information Only01:54:52.400 - 10:53:23 AM; Representative Claudia expressed concern that the language of House Bill 100 might inadvertently apply to the Cog Railway, a tourist attraction, by prohibiting state funding for passenger railroads. Representative B acknowledged this concern but was unsure if the bill's language had been amended to address this issue.
HB100: Edgar Oppose01:55:18.920 - 10:53:49 AM; Edgar expressed opposition to the bill, stating that it would prevent the completion of a report on the costs of rail services. He argued that the public needs to see this report to make informed decisions about whether the rail service makes sense or not. He mentioned a previous report from when he was on a commission, but was unsure about the status of the latest report.
HB100: Representative Bom Oppose01:56:15.440 - 10:54:46 AM; Representative Bom argued against the bill, highlighting that it would prevent the release of a final report on rail services, which he believes is necessary for public judgment. He questioned the utility of rail services given the declining use and ongoing costs, suggesting that without seeing the full report, people might be misled about the project's viability.
HB100: Representative Rockmore Information Only01:56:58.000 - 10:55:29 AM; Representative Rockmore sought clarification on whether the bill would prevent the state from repairing tracks used for both freight and passenger services. He expressed concern that the state would be unable to assist even tourist attractions like the Contoocook Valley Scenic Railroad with track repairs, questioning the bill's broader implications on state support for rail infrastructure.
HB100: Representative Newman Information Only01:58:31.320 - 10:57:02 AM; Representative Newman inquired about the impact of the bill on the Cog Railway's plans to go electric, which reportedly receives state support. He was unsure about the ownership status of the Cog Railway but highlighted its self-sustaining nature and the potential effects of the bill on state-funded projects.
HB100: Representative Jack Information Only02:00:06.400 - 10:58:37 AM; Representative Jack clarified that while the title of the bill mentions 'new' passenger rail service, the actual text of the bill does not specify 'new', which could imply broader restrictions. He suggested that an amendment might be necessary to clarify the bill's intent.
HB100: Representative Charlie St. Clair, District 5, Laconia Oppose02:01:05.320 - 10:59:36 AM; Representative Charlie St. Clair from Laconia opposed the bill, emphasizing the ongoing success and necessity of passenger rail services like the Down Easter. He mentioned the train's full capacity during sports events and its reaching 10 million passengers. St. Clair presented a petition from his business in Laconia supporting rail development, arguing against the bill by highlighting the subsidies other transportation modes receive and the importance of a diverse public transportation system.
HB100: Representative Charlie St. Clair, District 5, Laconia Support02:04:37.480 - 11:03:08 AM; Representative St. Clair supports the expansion of the Down Easter train service, highlighting potential benefits for commuters and tourists. He mentioned the possibility of extending the service to Nashua, specifically mentioning Crown Street as a potential station location. He discussed the economic benefits seen in Dover due to the train, including housing development around the station. He offered to take committee members on a tour to demonstrate the train's popularity and its role in attracting residents from Massachusetts to New Hampshire. He also emphasized the use of federal money for the initial startup, pointing out the economic loss to New Hampshire if this money is not utilized. He responded positively to questions about Northbound commuting possibilities and the potential for federal money to upgrade spur lines in Manchester and Nashua.
HB100: Representative Vone Information Only02:09:34.159 - 11:08:05 AM; Representative Vone inquired about the New Hampshire Executive Council's approval of a $1.2 million loan to the Cog Railway for improvements. He was unaware of this and questioned whether it could be categorized as a subsidy, to which the response was affirmative.
HB100: Representative Boyd Information Only02:10:13.520 - 11:08:44 AM; Representative Boyd asked Representative St. Clair about data supporting Northbound traffic on the Down Easter to events in Portland, Maine. St. Clair confirmed the availability of such data and offered assistance in obtaining it. Boyd also inquired about data related to passengers disembarking at established locations like Ogunquit and Old Orchard Beach, to which St. Clair responded affirmatively.
HB100: Representative Jess Edwards, Rockingham District 31, Auburn, Candia, Deerfield Oppose02:12:15.800 - 11:10:46 AM; Representative Edwards, a co-sponsor of the bill, expressed opposition to further spending on passenger rail, citing budget priorities such as pensions, education funding, and liabilities related to YDC. He argued that passenger trains do not pay for themselves and referenced the California bullet train project as an example of misallocated funds leading to other issues. He suggested a moratorium on spending general funds on this project, advocating for private sector involvement and pointing out potential local impacts and costs, such as those in Manchester.
HB100: Peggy Gilmore, Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce Support02:15:47.840 - 11:14:18 AM; Peggy Gilmore from the Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce supports the bill, emphasizing the potential economic development benefits of passenger rail in Nashua and Manchester. She highlights that good transportation and rail service can stimulate economic growth and attract young professionals to the southern part of the state, particularly those looking for access to Boston. Gilmore also mentioned the potential to alleviate workforce shortages by improving transportation options. She expressed concerns about prohibiting future rail projects without knowing the full impact and future needs, noting that this bill has been considered multiple times by the committee with varying outcomes.
HB100: Shelly Winters, Director of the Division of Aeronautics, Rail, and Transit at the Department of Transportation Oppose02:21:35.560 - 11:20:06 AM; Shelly Winters from the Department of Transportation opposes the bill due to concerns over the wording and its potential impact on future rail projects. She pointed out that the bill's use of 'passenger rail' instead of 'commuter rail' could be broadly interpreted, possibly affecting existing Amtrak services, the Cog Railway, and other passenger rail services like Conway Scenic, which contribute to tourism. Winters also highlighted the state's involvement in funding through the revolving railroad fund and the special railroad fund, which support passenger-related services. She clarified that there is currently no project in the state's 10-year plan related to commuter rail between Massachusetts, Nashua, Manchester, or Concord, and expressed concern that the bill could limit future options.
HB100: Shelly Winters, Director of the Division of Aeronautics, Rail, and Transit at the Department of Transportation Information Only02:21:35.560 - 11:20:06 AM; Shelly Winters continued her testimony by addressing a question about the design level related to a 30% level, clarifying it as a design level. She further responded to concerns about the wording of the bill, specifically whether it would ban future funding for improvements to tourist attractions like the Cog Railway. She expressed concern over the broad application of the terms 'passenger rail' and 'state funds' without clear definitions, which could affect funding for various projects. She also confirmed the Cog Railway's receipt of a $1.2 million loan from the railroad revolving loan funds and noted that other projects had received funding as well, although she was unsure about a specific $160,000 amount mentioned. She explained that the railroad revolving loan funds offer lower interest rates than private loans, which is why they are attractive to applicants.
HB100: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:25:42.160 - 11:24:13 AM; The speaker asked follow-up questions regarding the loan to the Cog Railway and other funding. They confirmed the details of the $1.2 million loan from 2012 and inquired about an additional $160,000 awarded for other projects. Shelly Winters confirmed the loan to the Cog Railway and mentioned other recipients like the Plymouth and Lincoln Railroad but was unsure about the $160,000 funding source.
HB100: Unidentified Speaker from Rockmore Information Only02:27:37.840 - 11:26:08 AM; The speaker from Rockmore asked about the interest rates of the loans from the railroad revolving funds. Shelly Winters explained that the rates are lower than private market rates, which is why the fund was established and continues to receive applications.

Milz, David(Chairman)(R)[B-]2024	Boyd, Bill(Clerk)(R)[B]2024	Melvin, Charles(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2024
Cloutier, John(D)[CT]2024	Boehm, Ralph(R)[B+]2024	Jack, Martin(D)[F]2024
Kaczynski, Thomas(R)[A]2024	Newman, Sue(D)[CT]2024	Edgar, Michael(D)[CT]2024
Faulkner, Barry(D)[CT]2024	Fedolfi, Jim(R)[B]2024	Brown, Richard(R)[A]2024
Bogert, Steven(R)[B+]2024	Juris, Louis(D)[CT]2024	Suiter, John(R)
Vallone, Mark(D)[F]2024	Rockmore, Ellen(D)	Louis, Darrell(R)