Senate committee hears divided views on bill to create state-run alternative to private driver’s ed

Senate Transportation held a hearing on Senate Bill 39 on a proposed state-run alternative to the current mandatory commercial driver’s education program for 16- to 18-year-olds.

Senator Tim Lang (Senate District 2), sponsor of the bill, told the committee the proposal would let eligible teens complete 40 hours of supervised driving (with parental certification), an approved classroom or online knowledge course, vision and knowledge exams at the DMV, and a state-conducted practical training course “designed after our very successful motorcycle training course.” Lang said the bill is the same as last year’s proposal except it raises the program fee to $350 to make the program “revenue positive” based on last year’s fiscal note.

The fiscal estimate and operational details were the focus of most testimony. John Marasco, director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, said the DMV would “make it work” if the bill passed but expressed concern about scale, staffing and vehicle purchases. Marasco suggested a phased pilot similar to the motorcycle training program, proposing a smaller start “—500 young people a year”—to reduce startup costs and allow the industry and DMV to adapt.

Sam Bissom, state driver coordinator, explained how his office revised the fiscal estimate from last year. He said prior fiscal assumptions used unrealistic year-round, full-time staffing levels; his calculations instead accounted for realistic daily lesson capacity, holidays, sick leave and vehicle overage. Bissom said the $72,000 annual figure cited for training specialists reflects salary plus substantial state benefits and that vehicle maintenance assumptions were conservative in his estimate.

Private-sector instructors and associations strongly opposed the bill. Michael Doucette, president of the New Hampshire Driver Education Teachers Association and owner of Precision Driving School, said the proposal would “devastate and eliminate over 65 private companies with over a hundred service locations around the state” because the statutory maximum payment to contractors in the bill would be too low for private schools to remain viable. He also said the state’s training and certification costs (college tuition, supervised training hours, classroom/car training) were underestimated and would not be covered by the compensation available under the bill.

Divergent views centered on whether a state option is necessary to improve affordability and access, and whether implementation costs and market impacts had been accurately estimated. Supporters argued the mandatory nature of driver education for those under 18 creates a public-policy obligation for a low-cost option; opponents warned the bill would displace incumbent small businesses and that the fiscal note understates training, facility and operating costs.

The committee heard no vote on the bill at the hearing; members asked DMV staff to provide more detailed, regionally specific wait-time and cost data and raised the possibility of a smaller pilot program or phased rollout.