Much has been written of late about the expansion of Interstate 93 through Concord, with concerns about how the existing highway cuts off access to the Merrimack River from downtown.

What isn’t written is that access to the river from downtown was originally cut off in the mid- to late 1800s by a very extensive railroad yard that included 28 sidings and trunk lines – and was much wider than the current highway.

By 1900, the river was used as a dumping ground for industrial waste from mills in Penacook, Franklin and Laconia, and was also where these cities, as well as the city of Concord, discharged their sewer.

When the Everett Turnpike was built in the 1950s, the banks of the river were lined with old trash dumps and deteriorating rail lines. Whereas the river corridor was totally unattractive, locating the highway there made sense as a way to reduce the increased traffic congestion in downtown Concord caused by the ever-increasing tourist traffic in years following World War II.

By the 1970s, the combination of the Clean Water Act and mill closures helped remove the industrial waste, but it wasn’t until the early 1980s, when Concord’s sewer treatment plant finally came on line, that the Merrimack River started to run clean again.

Fast forward to the present, where we now have daily traffic congestion on I-93 and near gridlock during holiday weekends. With many towns and cities north of Concord now encouraging commercial and industrial development to help reduce property taxes, and with the state actively promoting tourism as a way to help prevent a state sales or income tax, traffic on the interstate will only increase.

The proposed I-93 widening will meet the traffic needs for a while, but after watching Boston’s Route 128 grow from two to three to four lanes and still plagued by traffic jams, periodic widening is not a permanent solution.

Human nature dictates that if it becomes too difficult to get to a certain location, people will then look to go elsewhere. This could eventually hurt the tourism industry and promote growth in areas where it may not be wanted.

I find it ironic that while many weekend tourists sit in gridlock on the interstate, polluting the air with their idling engines, there also sits an empty rail line right along the side the highway leading to their destinations in the Lakes Region and the White Mountains.

Regular commuters have the same rail line running right along their cars as they head south to their jobs in Manchester, Nashua or Massachusetts.

When the Downeaster commuter rail service was first proposed for the Seacoast area between Boston and Portland, many argued against it. But it is now one of the more successful Amtrak routes in the country and was even extended beyond Portland due to public demand.

Are Seacoast-area commuters different from Merrimack River valley commuters?

Many have lamented the outflow of young people from our state. Could this be due in part to a long, slow commute to their jobs?

Having a commuter rail in the Merrimack River valley could help keep young professionals in our state, reduce air and noise pollution through less traffic, make for easier access to tourist destinations and help lessen the need for even more widening beyond what is currently proposed.

Installing a pedestrian underpass or two below the highway could be a fairly cost-effective way to reach the river and allow the public to enjoy the benefits of a riverfront park. Reducing traffic on the highway with a commuter rail will provide even more long-term benefits for both the public and the environment.

And by the way, replacing the old state Highway Department building on Stickney Avenue with a grand looking train station would be an added attraction to the city, especially as viewed from the interstate.

(Ron Klemarczyk lives in Contoocook.)