The second commuter in our profile series, Maura Leahy, rides the bus. Commentator Herbert Pence thinks everyone who commutes down I-93 ought to thank her. Pence has managed transit systems in New England for over 30 years.
Public transit -- that stepchild of New Hampshire transportation -- does more good than all those people driving alone in their cars realize. Take Interstate – 93. I-93 is New Hampshire’s main artery, main vein and major economic muscle. Every day, mixed in with the cars and trucks, sooner or later you will spot a red, white and blue Concord Trailways bus.
Commentator Herbert Pence.
I don't want to do marketing for Concord Trailways. I just want to point out what those buses do for all the people who DON'T ride them. In a two-hour period, 6 am to 8 am, twelve bus trips to Boston carry about 550 passengers. The reverse is true in the afternoon.
Is this good just for the people on those buses?
No.
It's also good for the people in the cars traveling next to those buses. Without those buses, there would be another 500 cars on the road. Do you think those homebound rush hour drivers, crawling past the Salem rest area and squeezing from four traffic lanes down to two would appreciate competing for road space against an additional 500 automobiles?
To the east, at Exeter, Durham and Dover, commuters are using the State of Maine financed DOWNEASTER train for Boston commuter trips. While passenger numbers are small, they show people will use the rails when it is available and convenient.
Even if you forget about the positive environmental impacts of more people using public transit, there are significant economic plusses. Time is money. With fewer cars, congestion goes down, and trips take less time. A 15-minute cut in a daily commute, translates into 62 hours of saved time per year. Tourism is a big New Hampshire moneymaker. If weekend visitors can drive into the state with more ease or Bostonians without car have improved public transit, we become more competitive for regional visitor dollars.
More buses mean fewer cars. Fewer cars mean less spending to widen our roads or build new ones. At two million dollars per lane mile, that adds up.
But how much does New Hampshire support this kind of inter-city bus transit? Very little. Some state dollars went into bus terminals, like the ones at the Pease Tradeport, and Concord and another one going up by Exit 4 in Londonderry. That's about it. The Downeaster train got no support from New Hampshire.
It's in the state's interest to do a lot more. So here's a radical idea for this free-market loving state. Put public dollars directly into the private bus companies. Subsidize them. In exchange for specific reductions in fares and an increase in the number of trips.
For those of you who would like to argue that the private sector seems to be doing just fine providing the right amount of bus service, let me encourage you to take a closer look at those buses you pass on the highway. Down on the side, you can see the words "Owned by the state of New Hampshire."
Not that the state actually paid for those buses. The money came from Washington. The point is, we don't have a purely private system now. It's time to look at the bottom line costs and benefits. If the state wants to save money, help its citizens save some time, and boost the economy, it should invest in more public transit. Everyone will benefit.
I think the bus companies should be using their profitable routes to subsidise their unprofitable ones, not the taxpayer.
Although they do a good service, they are their to make money so we shouldn't be funding them from our taxes when we have to pay fares anyway. They should be relying on our fares, then maybe they'll be on time rather than turning up when they please.
No states subsidies for public transport!
I do not consider myself an expert on the needs for transportation. But, the idea of a general subsidy to any form of mass transit gives me the holy horrors.
I believe that things like mass transit sometimes need help getting off their feet. I may be wrong, but I believe the Downeaster train has or has had some help getting going.
Personally, I think that providing the right-of-way is a start. So, for example, designing new highway construction to have HOV lanes or rail/bus corridors included for the future are an enormous subsidy. But, the commercial users should -- at some point -- be expected to pay something toward the creation and ownership of such corridors.
Perhaps -- if a subsidy if felt to be appropriate -- we should subsidize the traveling person rather than some broad and general subsidy. For example, we could have the state rebate a percentage of the tickets that our residents use on mass transit. This makes far more sense to me than a general subsidy. It would encourage folks to use such means without fattening the pockets of those that are expected to be entrepreneurial.
Thanks for the opportunity to rant, Bill Gargan