Partisan observers of the political process often fall back on a lazy characterization of policy initiatives. Typically, it is liberals who deride the sharp changes in direction conservatives want to make, dismissing it as ideology. The implication is that rather than evaluate policy decisions on a case-by-case basis, conservatives are following a lock-step short list of priorities. If a new issue arises, they weigh it against that short list, rather than approach it with an open mind and fresh thinking and the ability to see shades of gray.
On the surface, the LePage administration’s decision to phase out by May 1 the GoMaine Commuter Connections van-pool program and hope riders can find similar service with a private company doesn’t seem purely based in conservative ideology. After all, state government does face perennial shortfalls in revenue, and it ought to scale back its reach into activities that are not strictly essential.
But dig a little deeper, and another picture emerges.
The van-pool program works. There are waiting lists to get rides on most of the 28 vans. In ten years, the number of routes has doubled. Rather than hope a private, Michigan-based firm takes up the slack — and find it may not be committed to keeping the vans running — the LePage administration and its Department of Transportation should have explored other fixes. Private business support or foundation grants might have been sought to match the federal funds used in the program.
The move betrays an animus toward state workers that has been seen bubbling below the surface of many of the governor’s initiatives. About half of those using the GoMaine van pools are state workers commuting to the capital to work.
The facts should not be subject to debate. All public officials bear a responsibility to limit the amount of carbon spewed into the atmosphere. Fuel prices will continue to climb, with gasoline perhaps someday soon staying above $5 per gallon. It is far cheaper to fuel and operate one van with 12 passengers than fuel and operate 12 cars. Keeping those dollars in Maine, rather than leaving the state to fuel suppliers, helps the local economy.
The passengers don’t get a free ride; they pay a share of the cost. Some of those who use this and other public transportation programs would have to buy, maintain, fuel and insure their own vehicles, a sizable investment that could tilt them toward leaving a job. And if the private van pool company maintains the routes, the cost to passengers will be nearly double on at least some.
Traffic is reduced by clustering commuters in cars, vans, buses and trains. If the 28 vans are taken out of service, another 280 cars could be added to the traffic stream. With more traffic, road wear is increased. With more traffic comes more vehicle crashes.
Pausing to consider keeping the GoMaine van-pool program is not liberal ideology. Rather, such consideration would be a sensible, dispassionate analysis of how government might help business get qualified employees to their doors from our far-flung population and realize savings in a half dozen other categories.
Rather than drop the van pools for an uncertain fate, the state ought to be thinking about ways to expand public transportation. In the coming years, connecting Maine people to education and jobs will be a challenge that will fall to state government, whether it likes it or not.
The math on this is pretty obvious. Public transportaion ought not be a liberal vs conservative issue; it removes cars from traffic, greenhouse gases from the air, and benefits even non-users, all for less cost than the subsidies perpetuating the unlevel playing field that makes driving SEEM cheaper. As gas prices rise, more working people will see the wisdom in using public transportation, and perhaps some of the unfair stigma will begin to dissipate. Good editorial, but I wish you hadn’t framed it in partisan political terms.
So let them carpool themselves, no need to have the Government involved.
Kudos to LePage for exposing more Gov waste.
Make them move closer to there work. I know people at BIW that drive over an hour to get there . How about doing away KV vans that drive people all the way to Portland from Waterville for DR appointments ?
Sounds good to me, basically let the people who use the service foot the total bill.
I don’t like to cut and paste, but this is such a glaringly uninformed comment it cries out for correction. Here goes:
The following is excerpted from SUBURBAN NATION: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2000)
THE AUTOMOBILE SUBSIDY
To what extent is automobile use a
“free” good? Government subsidies for
highways and parking alone amount to between 8 and 10 percent of our
gross national product, the equivalent of a fuel tax of approximately
$3.50 per gallon. If this tax were to account for “soft” costs such as
pollution cleanup and emergency medical treatment, it would he as high as
$9.00 per gallon. The cost of these subsidies-approximately $5,000 per
car per year-is passed directly on to the American citizen in the form
of increased prices for products or, more often, as income, property,
and sales taxes. This means that the hidden costs of driving are paid by
everyone: not just drivers, but also those too old or too poor to drive
a car. And these people suffer doubly, as the very transit systems they
count on for mobility have gone out of business, unable to compete with
the heavily subsidized highways.1
Even more irksome is the fact that spending on transit creates twice as
many new jobs as spending on highways. Every billion dollars reallocated
from road-building to transit creates seven thousand jobs.2 Congress’s
recent $41 billion highway bill, had it been allocated to transit,
would have employed an additional quarter-million people nationwide.
Because they do not pay the full price of driving, most car owners choose
to drive as much as possible. They are making the correct economic
decision, but not in a free-market economy. As Hart and Spivak note,
an appropriate analogy is Stalin’s Gosplan, a Soviet agency that set
arbitrary “correct” prices for many consumer goods, irrespective of
their cost of production, with unsurprising results. In the American
version of Gosplan, gasoline costs one quarter of what it did in 1929 (in
real dollars).3 One need look no further for a reason why American cities
continue to sprawl into the countryside. In Europe, where gasoline costs
about four times the American price, long-distance automotive commuting
is the exclusive privilege of the wealthy, and there is relatively little
suburban sprawl.
The American Gosplan pertains to shipping as well. In the current
structure of subsidization, trucking is heavily favored over rail
transport, even though trucks consume fifteen times the fuel for the
equivalent job. The government pays a $300 billion subsidy to truckers
unthinkingly, while carefully scrutinizing every dollar allocated to
transit. Similarly, we try to solve our commuter traffic problems by
building highways instead of railways, even though it takes fifteen
lanes of highway to move as many people as one lane of track.4 This
predisposition toward automobile use is plainly evident in the prevalent
terminology: money spent on roads is called “highway investment,” while
money spent on rails is called “transit subsidy.”
I’m with you, Hank. You and Ms. Kay “get it”. Excellent citation.
There’s only 250 people that use this service, half are State employee’s and there’s a waiting list. Come on Hank come to the light.
How much do you think it would cost you for a fire engine and crew at your house? Would you foot the whole bill?
I can see the bill now first there would be a rate just for the truck to show up next any thing they use he would be charged for an that would cost a lot plus all the firemen that show up he would half to pay for an that includes fire depts. for out of town . Now that could cost at least 4,000 more . Plus if the police showed up he would half to pay for them to .
Why should the drones in government be given yet another freebie on the back of the taxpayer? If they want to carpool then let them do it themselves. The entitled arrogance of public employees in Maine knows no bounds.
Whether provision of vans benefits the greater good or only the beneficiaries would be a good topic for discussion (and I would need a lot more convincing than the writer has provided), but the writer seems to have hit the nail on the head with the term animus as it applies to the governor and his like-minded followers as the terminology in your post indicates – DRONES, FREEBIE, ENTITLED ARROGANCE.
In other words, it wouldn’t matter what was actually happening – you already have only one opinion that would not in any way be associated with REASON.
As a State Employee my unbounded arrogance and pride is based on the fact that even if I knew it was you on the other side of the counter I would give you the best service I know how to provide because you are a citizen, a Mainer, and deserve the best service possible. I have pride in giving you both respect and service without judging whether you deserve it or not.
Er… the part of the cost they don’t pay is a free ride. Especially if it’s almost all of the cost, a point your editorial doesn’t examine.
$40.00 a month per head in a 7 passenger van is $280 Per month, that will not even cover the costs of fuel and oil changes, let alone the initial cost of the van, the repairs, tires, ect. I wonder what whiz kid in Augusta did the math on this.
If people want to carpool to save money they will do it without government intervention.
Just one more example of the state spending everyones tax dollars to benefit a select few. Thank you Governor for shutting this down.
Over half are State employees. Keep digging Governor. Let’s see the numbers from the beginning of this service until present date. We don’t need to borrow more Chinese money for new vans.
Now it is time to look at the fleet of State cars used by employees and the rent free housing. How about it Maine Heritage Policy Center? The Heitage folks seem like the only journalistic outfit willing to do investigative reporting in Maine.
It is a welfare program. If you work at a place then you need to get there and home. Why is it always the paxpayers who are forced to pay for peoples choices mostly bad. If we got rid of all welfare we coudl pay far less taxes and people could afford there own car and gas.
Gun guy, CARS are a welfare program. When was the last time you paid to park, for example? Or the true cost of a gallon of gas? It is nothing but hypocrisy to denounce public transportation as wasteful and then demand that government do something about gas prices, which are kept artificially low by taxes on all of us, whether we own a car or not. If we got rid of car welfare, we could afford more and better public transportation.
The gov keeps gas prices low? What world do you live in cause here where I live they are way high. A HUGE chunk of the price of gas is a TAX so how is that keeping prices down? Look at Amtrak and tell me public transportation is economical! FYI I have never paid to park my car in Maine? Is there a place in Maine that charges to park? Cars put money INTO the revenue stream far more then they use. You can not say the same for public transportation as it like all welfare could not exist without TAXING the people who EARN the money….
I do believe I have already explained this, and backed it up with a citation, above. Things are not always what they seem. You have never paid to park because we have instituted a tacit system of socialized parking, instead of making those who use the service pay for it directly. Funding for Amtrak, etc. is visible and obvious, but the much greater subsidies for the car culture are hidden and taken for granted by most of the population. You can find out more, if you are interested, at your public library.
England………Nine bucks a gallon. Cars put a lot more in than they cost, like pollution, like taxes to pay $Six Billion a year to oil companies, like screaming for more drilling when we export fuel now and the Canadian pipeline is only to move fuel to the refineries so they can export more.
I guess that means you did support the auto bailout because American made cars and jobs put more money into the economy than Korean imports.
I believe the Maine gas tax is either 24 or 26 cents a gall. you call the huge ? Tax payers put money into roads because the gas tax will not cover the cost of roads .
Wow, this writer really has an attitude. The comment about an “animus against state workers ” just might find its true source in the concept that the rest of us cannot afford to carry all the luxuries the state has granted its workers and she/he is just shooting the messenger who dares say it and works to correct it. I don’t buy into the easy notion that we hate state workers. I’m really sure that somewhere in there a nucleus of capable folks really efficiently work on our behalf, although I am sure of a couple of the departments it doesn’t touch. Oh my gosh, to think that they might have to provide their own transport and then realize how expensive it is, or that a private company will do it but at double the cost? Have these folks forgotten the idea of ride sharing with peers? I have no problem with the van pool idea if it is entirely paid for by the employees using it. Wondering what NH would be doing here.
If the Governor wants to eliminate van pools, why not actively solicit private sector proposals? The anti-public transport sentiment by some conservatives is hardly based on economic realities. While obviously practical for most families or individuals cars aren’t always the most efficient form of transport. Shared commuting allows people to live outside bigger cities, which supports supports smaller rural towns, it reduces congestion and the total demand on infrastructure (lowers taxes), reduces pollution and the need for imported energy. In other words while some like to bemoan subsidies for public transport, they happily ignore cost savings involved. Instead of merely throwing its hands up, the administration could actually do something progressive and facilitate or actively encourage private sector solutions for Maine’s commuting workers.
It is sad this writer had to make this political when it is merely an attempt to rein in costs that have gotten out of hand in Augusta and Washington DC. This administration should be applauded for eliminating anything that is costing all of us for the benefit of a few. I agree that the concept is correct, but it should be funded totally by the riders, not the public at large. As the riders will all realize, without federal and state funding this form of transportation may well be the answer but it will certainly cost them more out of their own pockets similar to any other worker that must get themselves to work. If you can’t afford to travel to your job without public assistance maybe it is time to look for a new job or make a decision to relocate to an area you can afford to commute from. While I don’t always agree with this governor and his politics he is a former businessman and this decision is good business sense for the taxpayers of Maine.
Giving the money to an out of state company is a good decision for Maine? Just like the “open for business” sign made in Texas?
”
About half of those using the GoMaine van pools are state workers commuting to the capital to work.”
Kind of tells you all you need to know. A taxpayer funded program created by political hacks, for hacks, to give hacks another free ride on the taxpayers’ back.
Paul, don’t stop with the vans, pink slip the hacks who get the free rides so we can save some REAL money.
READING might help. The rides are not free, the gov. does not want to close the program but outsource it to an out of state company. Maybe we just figure out what they would charge, remove the profit and raise the prices to cover the costs? Keep the money in Maine.
For as much of a screwing as each and every one of you are giving the public, you damn well should genuflect in the presence of a taxpayer.
Now go get an honest job in the dreaded private sector and stop nursing at the government mammary.
The vans will disappear if the public pays.
Using the hate the state employee logic. All State police are State employees, they almost all get to drive their cruisers home, get good pay and benefits. We should cut the pay for the State police and make they pay the fuel and maintenance for them to bring the cars home.
To those of you who hate State employees so much, I hope I have a chance to serve you in my job. I will give you the best, the most effective service you will get anywhere, whether you are wearing an “I heart LePage” button, a tea party flag, or tell me I am a drone. Why? Because state employees respect their fellow citizens and think you deserve to be treated better by the state, by your employers, and because we have pride in doing a good job.
What about all the KV buses that are an people don’t pay for that the tax payers do plus what other bus services that get money for the state or the federal government ? Tax payers pay for that too
They should also look at how much money is spent on the GOMAINE bus system. We need to see a simple comparison of how much taxpayer money is being spent on that system and how many riders are actually using it. I have used it a few times and was one of 3 people on a 30+ capacity bus burning copious amounts of fuel. Many of these bus lines should be reduced to passenger vans or eliminated. I support mass transit and use it whenever I can, but the fact is that public transit is not saving the environment or money if no one is using it. Look at the ridership rates if you don’t believe me.