[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6366447,"mediaKeyId","2159508-a8b789412f868ccc184e5fbc8aea0803","parentId",2159508,"title","Bill to bar state funding for new passenger rail projects draws split testimony; DOT warns wording may be too broad","audioSeconds",374,"startMs",8156000,"endMs",8530000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2159508-a8b789412f868ccc184e5fbc8aea0803&start=8156&end=8530","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2159508-a8b789412f868ccc184e5fbc8aea0803/thumbnail_8156000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6366447/New-Hampshire/Bill-to-bar-state-funding-for-new-passenger-rail-projects-draws-split-testimony-DOT-warns-wording-may-be-too-broad","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6366447-3aabdf580dad8c95d994951e4970d608/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198414&Signature=BPg~NH8xab7oVL2It3H7GtxFGz1NtmAG~VKOo53XjTcwhRQ3VNdtJ~s7ADfyIIbwh14InFGjnrL9ab-HMvpTycyQyL2RA3v-YV2K8bG9sPU2603qe7VGQrjnU0idhlpUXuvWTez1LEdYuMxRSoB4bea6GIeEKxOm9VcsWoGUcUuoiUBrFmBKbsbCBJAbl3rTnrZ610lEox9NzLzwyRnGGu9F8XcQYU8ucR9HcXwoKnOhmq10sPeU8FIDjpbPOoGg0LrE-0RBV01dPpiK~z89NxPdgu1S7WI9vG1-6Ga2L6KFl30m0FBQjTwTnE4yieeIvsw0n1K5Um5T9hsWI~wb3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","NH House of Representatives Committee","date","2025-01-28T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Ross Barry introduced House Bill 100, which would prohibit the use of state funds for new passenger rail projects. Barry said his intent is to stop recurring spending on the Nashua–Manchester–Concord commuter rail project (project number cited in testimony) and argued the project has been studied repeatedly without producing sustainable ridership.

\"This commuter rail project ... is fetch. It is never gonna happen,\" Barry said, urging the Legislature to stop spending on studies and planning for a corridor he described as unlikely to be used at commuter volumes.

The hearing produced sharply divided testimony. Supporters of the measure emphasized fiscal priorities and the high cost of subsidizing passenger rail. Representative Jess Edwards, a co‑sponsor, said budgets require prioritization and argued New Hampshire should not adopt new recurring spending obligations while other liabilities (pensions, lawsuits, education) compete for scarce resources.

Opponents included municipal officials, business groups and DOT. Peggy Gilmore of the Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce said rail investments have shown local economic development benefits and attract workforce talent. Duke‑stakeholders from rail operations and municipal representatives urged caution about broad language that could unintentionally bar support for existing or non‑commuter passenger services.

DOT and agency staff told the committee the bill's text raises definitional concerns. Shelly Winters, director of the Division of Aeronautics, Rail and Transit, said the bill's title uses the word \"new\" but the statutory text does not and that the measure replaces the narrower term \"commuter rail\" with the broader phrase \"passenger rail.\" She said that wording could unintentionally encompass existing Amtrak services (the Downeaster and Vermonter), the COG Railway, Conway Scenic and other passenger uses that have already accessed state revolving funds and grants. Winters identified statutory financing mechanisms such as the railroad revolving loan fund (statutes referenced during testimony) that have been used for projects involving existing passenger operations and said the department was concerned about inadvertently restricting those options.

Representative Ralph Bohm and other opponents recounted prior studies from the 1990s and the frequent conclusion that commuter rail was not financially feasible without ongoing subsidies. Proponents of passenger rail noted successful examples such as the Downeaster (Portland–Boston) and pointed to potential federal funding and local economic benefits.

Testimony also touched on prior work: DOT said project 40818 had been removed from the current 10‑year plan and that the department is updating the statewide rail plan this year. DOT repeated it has no active, funded commuter project in the 10‑year plan.

The committee closed the public hearing after a range of testimony. DOT asked for clearer statutory language so the bill would not inadvertently block existing passenger services or state loan programs, and to define what \"state funds\" and \"passenger rail\" mean in the context of existing programs and financing mechanisms.

Ending: The hearing exposed a policy divide. Supporters emphasized fiscal restraint and stopping repeated studies; opponents warned a broad prohibition could block existing passenger rail support, revolving loans and future federal/state funded opportunities. DOT asked lawmakers to refine the bill's language to avoid unintended consequences; no committee action was recorded in the transcript.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Public Works and Highways (01/28/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 100 would bar the use of state funds for new passenger rail projects; sponsors framed it as a fiscal safeguard against repeated, costly rail studies, while DOT and business groups warned the draft is overly broad and could block existing services and loan programs.","taxTitle","Public Works and Highways, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17759,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6366454,"Conway Scenic Railroad and DOT differ on HB 300; DOT says Conway branch planning already addressed",386,4796000,5182000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2159508-a8b789412f868ccc184e5fbc8aea0803&start=4796&end=5182","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2159508-a8b789412f868ccc184e5fbc8aea0803/thumbnail_4796000.jpg","/articles/6366454/New-Hampshire/Conway-Scenic-Railroad-and-DOT-differ-on-HB-300-DOT-says-Conway-branch-planning-already-addressed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6366454-a559ffcebf28f4d9b3f4b5b897315423/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198414&Signature=GLu4rXHUgXepHJYOUkLZ8UG7MPzYpIzc-yp42NCfe7hypz7uJOAeQ~UyfOafJ05TprDRlTgKa2m88TzDBFC4SjS9J6CJAWbyQvj~FQkIZVJJgxi3cmD03aqdkNO3l0Sdh99j1K3QKY45PRPswbn3ye4AaqP~25s7NnOYLqnYUsnFGEZMjvrHBdfxPuAwqpj1v52gNSPJUrDLwA4-u5gqr56tWORa2LewR9BNcZ7r7kwFvUSw79DFmWKLpA2zxwozl00vfcjGv5Ayk4iGwFo4e6TPP3wzq1-pv-h1X3hmfrWwmWmiAuYtVEuu3AtdzNK4bffQN6H6mbj~MfXUnAzadQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Conway Scenic Railroad testified in opposition to House Bill 300, saying the proposed study language and possible removal of rails could threaten freight and tourist rail operations and local economies.

Jason Briggs of Conway Scenic Railroad told the committee his operator employs 76–80 people full time and that rail service brings substantial tourism to the region. He warned that removing track is effectively irreversible and said communities that accept trail conversions often become responsible for ongoing maintenance tasks such as mowing and trash removal. \"Once the tracks are gone, that's very difficult to put them back,\" Briggs said.

Shelly Winters, director of the Division of Aeronautics, Rail and Transit at DOT, told the committee that the department has already convened a planning group under last year's House Bill 1468 to evaluate the Conway branch. DOT delivered a report earlier this year recommending interim recreational rail‑trail use for 21 miles of state‑owned corridor and said the department is preparing a transfer of management to the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (DNCR) with a reversionary clause to preserve future rail options if funding and need arise.

\"We convened a planning group to look at the best use and best value to the state currently for the 21 miles of state owned corridor,\" Winters said, and added the outcome of that process supported interim recreational use and a management transfer to DNCR. DOT and DNCR are working to submit the management transfer to Governor and Executive Council with further DNCR review on trail conversion steps.

Briggs and other witnesses urged caution about creating a study committee that duplicates or undercuts the work already completed under HB 1468. DOT and DNCR officials said public outreach and stakeholder meetings were part of the earlier process and that the department intends to retain a reversionary clause so the state could restore rail use if future conditions and funding support it.

Ending: Testimony split between rail operators urging preservation of rail infrastructure and DOT saying it has performed the study and begun an administrative transfer to DNCR for interim recreational use. The committee closed the public hearing; no vote was recorded during the session.","Conway Scenic Railroad opposed House Bill 300, warning that mandated rail removal and new studies could harm tourist rail operators; DOT said it has already conducted a public planning process under last year's House Bill 1468 and is preparing a transfer of the 21‑mile Conway branch for interim recreational use.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6366459,"DOT says taking over OptiComm maintenance would expand workload; bill seeks centralized responsibility",387,2965000,3352000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2159508-a8b789412f868ccc184e5fbc8aea0803&start=2965&end=3352","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2159508-a8b789412f868ccc184e5fbc8aea0803/thumbnail_2965000.jpg","/articles/6366459/New-Hampshire/DOT-says-taking-over-OptiComm-maintenance-would-expand-workload-bill-seeks-centralized-responsibility","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6366459-d0dc98cd855097dac90c75c765907c5d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198414&Signature=RVkcM2Q~TKvokvJqh8urC51YDzMz-4oFYbA93bzf8io6aot7oSwRy9LKMk3~zToBQCPKQVZBzJXshwl3tMxYz13UDRfFv6ZULVtwJAFAmwZNsRsdfADtHE4s-3OLukaZNu5jZ0vczKanPaBwsulJZSSyT1Vz6W2BiS2butg8XZXVym064gqkrOxgMRuv-IPvR15IzArRIDNk4weLM0jBoJlDuESLw9Vt1KdxYL~lbYW2obQP9uW1t85hLDT28NiA6lmCsEcKd5~mLULdK-8yYFjCmz6gPaasSeAJGjAHwvNIkulmjTAl5~9eHH0WbDlZa4KDsSL5TRr790ozHFfmDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Mark Pru introduced House Bill 181, which would shift responsibility for traffic‑signal preemption systems (OptiComm and similar technologies) from municipalities to the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT).

\"The department does not take a position on this bill, but I'm here to provide some basic information,\" Lee Baronas, State Traffic Engineer and Bureau of Traffic administrator at DOT, told the committee. Baronas summarized how optical preemption systems work, why municipalities have maintained them historically and what shifting maintenance to DOT would mean.

Baronas said traffic signal preemption systems include vehicle‑mounted initiators, detectors at intersections and preemption circuitry in the signal cabinet. He said disparate local capacities have led to wide variation across municipalities: some cities have in‑house signal crews (Concord, Manchester, Nashua) while others rely on a road agent or hire contractors. \"Some towns don't need it. Some don't use it,\" he said. DOT currently assists municipalities but is not routinely responsible for ongoing maintenance of preemption systems on state highways.

DOT provided a fiscal note estimating workforce needs. Baronas told lawmakers DOT has four traffic signal crews and \"we would need at least 1 more crew of 2 plus a vehicle\" to absorb the expected workload. He said the fiscal note excludes work on vehicle emitters (the strobes or initiators mounted on emergency vehicles) and assumes an optical‑only approach rather than higher‑cost, GPS/cloud‑based systems.

Supporters of centralized maintenance told the committee that state responsibility could provide consistent performance and consolidation of training. Opponents and several members warned the change would remove local control and could deprioritize rapid local responses when state crews must triage requests statewide.

Representative Jack asked whether municipalities already receive documentation about responsibilities when DOT installs or upgrades intersections; Baronas said municipal agreements are now part of projects going forward but acknowledged historical projects sometimes relied on handshake agreements.

The committee closed the public hearing with testimony recorded; DOT said it could assist with outreach to municipalities to clarify responsibilities and that additional funding would be necessary to provide the statewide maintenance role required by the draft.

Ending: DOT asked lawmakers to define scope (optical vs other technologies), funding and whether municipal signals would be included; the fiscal note and the operational impact of adding crews were central to the committee's technical discussion.","House Bill 181 would transfer responsibility for traffic signal preemption systems (OptiComm and similar) from municipalities to the Department of Transportation; DOT told the committee the change would require more crews and new funding.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6366462,"Bill would let municipalities authorize limited on‑road ATV use; DOT, Fish & Game urge clarifying language",1144,379000,1523000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2159508-a8b789412f868ccc184e5fbc8aea0803&start=379&end=1523","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2159508-a8b789412f868ccc184e5fbc8aea0803/thumbnail_379000.jpg","/articles/6366462/New-Hampshire/Bill-would-let-municipalities-authorize-limited-onroad-ATV-use-DOT-Fish-Game-urge-clarifying-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6366462-db9f68c6c88377b5478ea302c8b7539c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198414&Signature=GQZKeQZ-AGPpTkTgJpv0EMSejy-qd6eFrkbu7Tc2ZuNTmRcEe5jyBeIyp5jV0HV~K8z5kvYyva~mVNbIE-Ykcusll4kcNej8jMaHsx1FmuHwMetK0LBeJCU2742Uj1PJ42IrprbVB0z-HNw3AszqlSeD4rPTzioz0YFF794ppQOgDV5jh0c0J5B~IarKK1A5H2sn3U8fCoinrpmz6KGZ6LA32yno0NWa8ZfBuNzZZ3N~~U8GXVwZKvekFH~PmEz2UtAjuxdxAS2jvDmn1Idf4xd7bTaLrx~DX9wTBIEHLHrSrczUsmupfgUYIYE1~vvkbRP49jz5GV7Ulm3wj3Q8~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Dan Maguire introduced House Bill 375, a proposal that would let a municipality designate specific segments of road for on‑road all‑terrain vehicle (ATV) use and require local maps and signage for those segments. Maguire told the Public Works and Highways committee the idea grew out of tourism uses in other towns and that the bill is voluntary for municipalities.

\"For the record, my name is Dan Maguire. I represent the town of Epsom,\" Maguire said, explaining the measure would create \"ground rules of how this is to be done\" and that he is \"not wedded to any of the details.\" He described requirements in the draft including online and town‑hall maps, optional signage, seasonal designations, and equipment standards.

Committee members and state agencies raised safety, statutory and implementation concerns. Alan Hanscomb, state maintenance engineer at the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, told the committee that exempting municipalities and the Bureau of Trails from DOT's permitting process \"kind of subverts what the Department of Transportation does to regulate the highways\" and requested the exemption language be revisited. DOT asked the committee to follow the public‑notice and signage requirements it currently applies for on‑highway OHRV crossings.

Captain Michael Eastman of Fish and Game said his commission \"did oppose, this bill, just kind of the way that it's written,\" citing three issues: (1) the bill uses the term \"ATV\" while state law uses broader OHRV definitions that include UTVs and snowmobiles; (2) the exemption of a permitting review raises questions about which sections of state highway would be opened; and (3) funding and maintenance responsibilities differ between town and state roads. Eastman added Fish and Game tracks roughly \"about 60\" OHRV accidents annually statewide and said speed and operator experience are primary contributing factors.

Craig Rennie, chief of the Bureau of Trails at the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, said the Bureau already runs a coordinated permitting and review process with DOT for highway crossings and on‑highway connectors and that process \"works very well.\" He told the committee the permitting sequence includes on‑site review by district staff and then DOT engineering review, and that the agencies maintain a GIS mapping tool showing pending and approved highway crossing permits.

Discussion focused on several specific provisions of the draft. Maguire said the bill as written sets a maximum allowable road speed of 40 mph for designated segments but acknowledged he had intended 30 mph in his own recollection. The draft also would add equipment requirements that some modern off‑road vehicles do not include by default, such as directional signals, horns and emergency flashers; Maguire acknowledged that directional signals \"might be controversial.\" Committee members asked whether golf carts or slow‑moving agricultural plates would be covered; witnesses said those vehicles are regulated under different statutes and plates.

Witnesses emphasized the difference between town roads and state highways for maintenance and funding. DOT and Fish and Game asked for clearer language so the permitting and safety review processes remain intact and so that responsibilities for signage, law enforcement and pavement wear are explicit.

The committee held the public hearing on HB 375 with no formal vote recorded at the hearing.

Why it matters: the bill would change how municipalities may open roadways to recreational and utility OHRVs and could shift safety, maintenance and permitting responsibilities among towns and state agencies if enacted. The testimony shows agency consensus that permitting and safety processes already exist, but state and local responsibilities must be spelled out to avoid unintended openings of higher‑speed state routes.

Ending: The committee closed public testimony on House Bill 375 after agency testimony; sponsors and agencies signaled willingness to revise statutory language. The committee did not take a floor motion or recorded vote during the hearing.","Representative Dan Maguire introduced House Bill 375 to allow municipalities to designate sections of roadway for ATV use with mapping, signage and equipment requirements. DOT and Fish & Game testified that existing permitting procedures and vehicle definitions need clarification before the state should adopt the proposal as written.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill to bar state funding for new passenger rail projects draws split testimony; DOT warns wording may be too broad

Conway Scenic Railroad and DOT differ on HB 300; DOT says Conway branch planning already addressed

DOT says taking over OptiComm maintenance would expand workload; bill seeks centralized responsibility

Bill would let municipalities authorize limited on‑road ATV use; DOT, Fish & Game urge clarifying language