Editor’s note: This commentary is by Fred Jagels of Cabot.
In the mid-1970s I spent a good amount of time investigating the potential for public transportation in Vermont. As transportation planner for the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission, it was part of my job.
I concluded that since no parts of Vermont satisfied the minimal criteria for break-even support of a bus line (high density residence within one quarter mile of a bus route), urban style bus routes, as the basis for a comprehensive system, were largely out of the question. Light rail, by orders of magnitude, was much less viable than the bus.
I settled on what we would today call a shared system (not that different from today’s Uber or Lyft). The virtue of a shared system is that the cost of ownership of rolling stock and the compensation paid to drivers is transferred from public coffers to private pocketbooks. At the same time, overheads (maintenance, storage, payroll services, etc.) are virtually eliminated as a public responsibility.
Generally speaking, the potential for increasing ridership depends upon the comprehensiveness of service: i.e., the hours of service during the course of a day and the geographical area of service that the participating vehicles can cover. The problem with bus service in low density areas is that these criteria can never be realized. Long before comprehensive service can be achieved, limits on the size of the subsidy needed for the upfront costs rule it out. A shared system eliminates this upfront bottleneck and has the potential to slowly, through positive feedback, build greater ridership through incremental increases in service.
This did not mean that public, or quasi public, intervention of some sort was not needed. The proposal I came up with in 1976 involved public participation and funding in two areas:
— Certification of drivers (background checks, bonding/insurance requirements) and the issuance of visible evidence of that certification affixed to the participating vehicle.
— The funds formerly spent on rolling stock and driver wages were instead to be invested in an on-the-ground infrastructure intended to enhance access, safety and security. In my proposal, this involved an array of strategically placed sheltered “bus stops” whose locations were determined from available highway data.
Actual operation of the system was expected to naturally evolve as it organically responded to demand and as new drivers saw an opportunity to help pay for the vehicles they already owned. At that time, car and van pooling was in its infancy. An intervention such as this was expected to greatly expand these possibilities, paving the way for the critical mass needed for more comprehensive service. Fares were to be negotiable. Given that the commuter trip was (and remains) by far the greatest user of transportation fuels, the commuter trip was the main target. However, in time, given the inherent flexibility, it could serve evening and weekend needs as the demand rose.
(Not included then, but highly desirable, would be a coordinating nonprofit — or an authority if administered that way–charged with promotion and publicity to connect the details of the system with the public).
In 1976 I therefore drew up a pilot project for Washington County, complete with mapped shelter locations. Two local legislators agreed to sponsor the bill and it was introduced to the Legislature.
Nothing came of these efforts. We do not have such a system today.
Nevertheless, some very similar initiatives are being tried out right now in Central Vermont. This suggests that the time may be right to dust off this 43-year-old proposal and see if it can be modified and upgraded technically to serve our needs today.
The overwhelming objection in 1976 was fear. Fear that something could go wrong or somebody could be harmed. The prevailing mood was that only a thoroughly iron-clad system was acceptable. The catch, of course, is that an iron-clad system is so expensive that its very expense prevents it from carrying out its mission.
Since that time we have accumulated experience with organizations such as Uber and Lyft. We have greater experience with public-private partnerships. We have been able to see that the fear factor is overblown.
This is not to deny that there are numerous roadblocks, real and petty, ready to trip up such a proposal. American life has not gotten any simpler since 1976. Whoever or whatever group decides to take on a project like this might first direct their attention to an examination of the impediments in Vermont law and custom that stand in the way of greater public and private cooperation.
It would be interesting to have feedback from Vermonters on this idea.
