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

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.