8/19/12

Comparisons of Maine and New Hampshire usually favor the latter. New Hampshire’s low-tax, limited-government policies are often cited as a cause of the Granite State’s greater prosperity. The comparisons usually leave out all the things New Hampshire doesn’t provide for citizens, but, as measured by personal income growth, there’s little doubt recent decades have been kinder to New Hampshire than Maine.

But on one point that may be critical to 21st century economic development, moving people by rail, Maine is incontestably far ahead.

When the private passenger railroad system collapsed in the 1960s, only essential routes were taken over by the then-fledgling Amtrak public system. Neither Maine nor New Hampshire had any regularly-scheduled passenger trains.

Then-N.H. Gov. Hugh Gallen, a Democrat and early supporter of President Jimmy Carter, wangled enough federal support to run passenger trains from Manchester to Boston in the early 1980s. But with ancient equipment, an inconvenient schedule, and no track improvements, the service died as soon as the grant ran out.

Maine learned the lesson. When George Mitchell was U.S. Senate majority leader, he obtained enough money to build new highway bridges in Bath and Portland – and to re-launch passenger train service from Portland to Boston. The federal grants included enough money to overhaul the line, bring train speeds up to levels competitive with highways, and good equipment – the Metroliner cars Amtrak was retiring as it launched the high-speed Acela, which now runs from Boston to Washington.

Thanks to considerable noncooperation from the line’s owner, now calling itself Pan-Am Rail, it took years to get agreements in place, but in 2001 the Downeaster chugged out of Portland on its inaugural run to Boston, with every Maine politician of note on board.

Since then, the Downeaster has been a star performer for Amtrak, carrying well over 500,000 passengers a year, and recording yearly increases throughout the economic downturn.

New Hampshire continues its obstinate refusal to even look at passenger service – even though the Downeaster stops in Durham and Exeter, and has spurred measurable improvements in both downtowns.

Last year, the Republican Executive Council, over Democratic Gov. John Lynch’s objection, actually turned down a $300,000 federal grant to study service along the Concord-to-Boston corridor, a necessary preliminary to restoring trains. This has become a signature issue for some Republicans. Governors of Florida, Wisconsin, and Ohio turned down new service funded 100 percent by federal stimulus grants, with states like Maine picking up extra funding as a result.

Running trains from Manchester and Nashua to Boston is every bit as feasible as running trains from Portland and from Brunswick — where service will be extended later this year; the only difference lies in the minds of politicians.

Anyone living along the Eastern seaboard, still by far the most densely populated part of the country, realizes that trains are an obvious alternative to congested highways and airports. It’s much easier to get into a central city by train than any other mode of transportation.

And while it’s clear that trains are coming back, the actual statistics are startling. Since the Acela runs were introduced in 2000, Amtrak has dramatically increased its share of nonhighway travel. Between Washington and New York, 75 percent of passengers choose the train, and between New York and Boston, Amtrak’s share has jumped from 20 percent to 54 percent.

The secret, as it was for the Downeaster, was to improve service and shave travel times. On routes up to 250 miles, it’s faster to go by train than by air, once time spent getting in and out of airports is included. The New York Times quoted an aviation writer and airline consultant – who frequently rides the Acela – about choosing the train. “Even I’m guilty of it,” he said. “On the train, you’ve got power outlets and Wi-Fi, you can talk on the phone – it’s usable time.”

And it’s also time Americans are always short of. With an aging population, many of them reluctant to drive long distances, high gasoline costs, and a trend back to cities among young people, it’s clear states that invest in rail service will reap continuing rewards.

Visit the new train stations in Portland, Wells, Saco and – in a few more months – Freeport and Brunswick, and you will see public transportation that’s clean, safe, convenient, and efficient. Connecting to the much larger markets to our south makes sense on multiple levels.

Mainers get this. Even Gov. Paul LePage doesn’t have anything negative to say. New Hampshire, for whatever reason, does not. And it’s just possible the economic arcs of the two states will head in different directions over the next 50 years.