Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would suggest to the member from Manchester that perhaps having two people on the blurb is to emphasize the fact that Merrimack is certainly the underdog here.…
Rep. Chris Christensen (R - Hills 21)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would suggest to the member from Manchester that perhaps having two people on the blurb is to emphasize the fact that Merrimack is certainly the underdog here. In the meantime, I rise in opposition to the ITL and I would like to request a division vote, Madam Speaker. Having said that, I think we all know, and I wish to emphasize also, that the committee spent considerable time on this. The subcommittee met many times. As you notice from the blurb, there were several alternatives in other bills that they considered and then, shortly after the Governor and Council decided
not to give us any toll relief in Merrimack, this bill came out as Inexpedient to Legislate. For
those of you who are new to this issue, it's an old one. It goes back for twenty years or more, but, let me just give a little bit of history. In the late seventies, Digital Equipment Corporation was expanding like crazy in the state of New Hampshire. They bought several
hundred acres of land in Merrimack and developed that land for their own use, but only a small portion of it. In the excitement of Digital building all over the state and especially in Merrimack, the Board of Selectmen got excited when the governor and Digital pushed for
more entrances to the highway, better transportation in that area and they said, "Wow, this is a great thing. We are going to have more development and it's a good thing for the state and it's a good thing for Merrimack." So, in that euphoria we asked for, or agreed to,
depending on who you want to listen to, tolls on those interchanges. Part of the expectation was that it would also take some traffic off of local roads. The blurb gives you some of that
history, but it doesn't necessarily give you some of the results. The result is that land never
got developed other than the original Digital plant until the last couple of years. Fidelity has come in taken over a site. We found development at Exit 8 just south of where the tolls are. If you go all the way through Nashua, there are no tolls. If you go through Manchester, no
tolls. If you are in Concord where the Everett Turnpike ends at exit 14, no tolls. Merrimack has the proud position of being the most gated community in the state of New Hampshire.
So, we have all these tolls and originally we were led to believe that all future expansion of
the turnpike system would also include more toll booths. Well, governors changed. Department of Transportation commissioners changed and on and on. Again we ended up as being the only area with ramp tolls all over the place. Hence our thought process of being
called a gated community. I would point out that as we mentioned the development at Exit 8 just before the tolls, development in Nashua just before the tolls. The major corporations
that we have in Merrimack, Anheuser Busch, for example and Codem Instrument. Those
were all there prior to the introduction of tolls, except the mainline toll at Exit 8. No ramp tolls. Since that time we haven't had or been able to attract other businesses. This has been detrimental to the town of Merrimack. It's been detrimental to the state for those jobs and
tax revenues that we might have received from business and profits tax. As you might
expect, we talked about Fidelity in the blurb. Fidelity moved in and as you would expect, it's their business, they bought cheap. That is part of the reason that they are there. The intent
of some of the road construction was to get traffic off of the main road or off of the Daniel Webster Highway, Route 3 in Merrimack. Because of the tolls, that never happened so all the truck traffic that should have gone on to the turnpike that was expected actually diverted
onto Route 3. In terms of total dollars, it costs Merrimack residents several hundred dollars
a year depending upon how many people work in and out of town. It's a burden to those people in Merrimack. It's not shared by any other part of the state. We still pay gas tax to
support roads in other places, but in addition, we pay an exorbitant amount in tolls. It's a burden on Merrimack but the total or net revenues, about a million a year, maybe slightly more now, but less in the early days, that million dollars is maybe 1% of the net revenues of
the Department of Transportation for the turnpike system. It's insignificant in terms of the budget for the Department of Transportation and for the turnpike system. There were a couple of other issues brought up. The bonds haven't been paid for. Over a million dollars a
year is only a token part of the financing of the turnpike system. The bonds would never have been paid off if they were relying only on Merrimack. It is a system wide issue and these tolls are insignificant for that effort as well. There is a question about removal of the
toll booths themselves and that's part of the fiscal note. In fact the bill does not require that those toll booths be removed. In fact, I bet we could get some people in Merrimack to remove them for free. But, if you have driven up the Maine turnpike, for example, in places where
they have eliminated tolls, the toll booth is still there. They have a couple of concrete barriers and a sign and that's it. There is no huge expense to that so those issues are kind of distracters, but they are not part of the fairness issue. I know many of you campaigned on an issue of fairness and told your constituents, "Well I don't know how I'm going to vote on every bill, but I'm going to do what's fair." And that's all that the people of Merrimack ask of you today, is to do what's fair. Oppose ITL so we can bring forward a motion of Ought to Pass. I will repeat that I have asked for a division vote. Thank you all very much. Speaker: The question before the House is on the committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 592. The Chair recognizes the member from Nashua, Rep. Campbell.
Rep. David Campbell (D - Hills 33)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Honorable members of the House, I want to commend my Honorable colleague from Merrimack and all of his fellow Representatives because they have been nothing, if not, persistent in this issue and not without sympathy from our committee. That's why we did study the six bills they introduced last session on this issue and the one that we have already heard this session. But, as the blurb says and I can only reiterate it, it is a fairness issue for other communities in the state that have tolls and the fact that part of our research and we did have seven meetings as the Representative acknowledged. We did study this extensively over the summer. We had seven meetings and $48 million was spent in Merrimack. Not just on the ramps and the tolls, but on, as I point out in the blurb here, Camp Sergeant Road, which runs pretty much all the way from the Common Man restaurant, where the Daniel Webster Highway is, all the way down to 101A, a distance of several miles. The state of New Hampshire also continues to maintain, plow, and pave a big portion of that road. It's part of the turnpike system and it is not tolled in the sense that it's East/West not North/South and a ramp off of it. So those are all things we had to wrestle with and we tried to do the fair thing here and there is one possibility, one ray of hope, I guess for Merrimack and other communities because it has to really be, whatever we do for Merrimack, we will end up having to do for Hooksett and Rochester and Hampton. The list goes on and on. The turnpike system would be broke again. What ray of hope there is, is that DOT, at the Governor's request, is looking at the possibility of having some kind of volume discounts on the tolls which means that if you go through them 10 times a day or 5 times a day, you'll pay a different rate. They'll check into that in terms of its feasibility with the software and to see to what extent it would be somewhat revenue neutral. If you go through it once or twice a month, you may not get any discount. Something for us to at least consider. The EZ Pass discount is in the purview of the legislature. It is something that we would get a chance to look at, but at this point, the Public Works and Highways committee has just asked the DOT to examine this. We will certainly share the results with the town of Merrimack, but on behalf of Public Works and Highways and the unanimous 14-0 vote of that committee, I ask you to support the bill as Inexpedient to Legislate. Thank you. Speaker: Will the member yield to a question? The member yields, Representative Sprague you may inquire.
Rep. Dale Sprague (D - Straf 18)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you to my colleague from Nashua for taking my question. If I were to live in Rochester, and I work in Seabrook and I were to go down the Spaulding turnpike with three tolls or two tolls on the Spaulding and one toll in Hampton, would you believe that I'd paid $6 per day? $3 down and $3 back? And, would you further believe that my community also would really enjoy a discount, but we also realize it's unfair?
Rep. David Campbell (D - Hills 33)Thank you for your question. You would pay $6 if you didn't have EZ Pass because then you would get somewhat of a discount, but if you paid full price, you would pay $6. Again, I think that does emphasize the question of fairness and where does this ball of yarn unravel to. Thank you.
REGULAR CALENDAR - RETAINED BILLS - SPECIAL ORDERS (CONT'D)
SB 84, establishing procedural requirements to improve implementation of the 10-year highway plan. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. Rep. John A. Graham for Public Works and Highways: The bill as amended by the committee establishes a 6-year planning window for transportation infrastructure versus the current "ten-year" plan. This shortening of the planning horizon will provide some measure of certainty that the projects listed in the biennial transportation plan will actually be done. It also requires the department of transportation (DOT) to submit a plan that takes into account inflation in both revenue and cost, something that has been lacking in our transportation planning to date. Additionally, the bill contains a requirement that the DOT evaluate previously listed projects every two years and submit a list of those projects to be deleted based on one of several factors as outlined in the amendment. The bill, as amended, also changes the composition of the GACIT by adding members of the House and Senate to this body. This will allow early legislative input into planning process. The intent is to ensure that what is in the plan is financially and environmentally achievable. Vote 14-0.
Amendment (2642h) Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following: AN ACT establishing procedural requirements to improve implementation of a 6-year transportation improvement plan. Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:
1 State Transportation Improvement Plan. RSA 240 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
CHAPTER 240 STATE 6-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 240:1 Legislative Intent. The plan is intended to serve as the guideline for transportation projects in the state for the next 6 years. 240:2 Project Priority. To the extent practicable the projects shall be implemented in the order shown in the report. 240:3 Implementation of Plan. I. The department of transportation shall be responsive to requests for information relative to the plan. II. The plan shall include a list of projects intended to be under construction in the next 6 years with dates and costs of construction. However, preliminary studies, design, and right of way funding for long term projects that have been approved by the Governor's Advisory Commission on Intermodal Transportation (GACIT) and the department of transportation shall be included in the plan. III. Projects listed in the plan shall be listed by the year the funds are to be expended and the 6 years of the plan shall be financially constrained. IV. Projects listed in the plan, except projects which are solely for infrastructure preservation, shall be prioritized based on a department of transportation methodology that examines the certainty of a project relative to its scope, cost, constructability, permitibility, and public support, provided that the project has the following: (a) Preliminary design. (b) Environmental evaluation. (c) A public participation process. (d) Available and adequate funding. V. The following shall be considered for any project proposed for the plan: (a) Safety. (b) Multimodalism. (c) Land use. (d) Infrastructure preservation. (e) Overall corridor improvement. VI. Every 2 years, the department of transportation shall propose to the general court a list of projects to be removed from the 6-year plan if the department determines that any project: (a) Has significantly changed in scope; or (b) Is no longer financially and environmentally feasible; or (c) Lacks the necessary permits; or (d) For other reasons is unnecessary or unlikely to proceed. VII. Inflation shall be included in the costs calculated in the 6-year plan and shall also be included in calculating the necessary revenues. VIII. The department of transportation shall meet quarterly with GACIT which shall consist of 11 members including the governor or appointee, 5 executive councilors, the chairperson of the senate finance committee or designee, the chairperson of the house finance committee, or designee, the chairperson of the public works and highways committee, or designee, the chairperson of the transportation and interstate cooperation committee, or designee, and the commissioner of the department of transportation, or designee. IX. GACIT shall review: (a) Department of transportation financial status and issues. (b) The status and issues of transportation projects. (c) Other ongoing initiatives and issues. X. GACIT shall provide the first statewide review of the plan as drafted by the department of transportation with input from the regional planning commissions. 2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.