City Council Discusses GEORGE, Special Exceptions
By GEORGE BROMLEY
Falls Church Times Staff
July 21, 2010
Monday evening’s work session saw the Falls Church City Council continue its deliberations on the fate of GEORGE. The local bus service, which is funded only through September, faces an uncertain future.
The Council presently is considering five options for GEORGE (costs for each, which assume 30% state reimbursement for operating, are shown in parentheses):
1. Continue the service at the present level ($147,160).
2. Keep both routes, but reduce operating hours ($121,050).
3. Discontinue 26W; retain 26E ($63,490).
4. Discontinue 26W; reduce hours of 26E ($49,560).
5. Terminate the service (none).
Reduced service would limit the buses’ operation to 7 to 9 a.m. and 5 to 7 p.m. The GEORGE task force has recommended Option 2.
New members Johannah Barry and Ira Kaylin spoke in favor of retaining the service, but former mayor Robin Gardner felt that it was no longer viable. Councilman Lawrence Webb concurred and stressed that the City’s greater commitment is to Metro.
Mayor Nader Baroukh stated he would like to retain the service but was very concerned about the drain on the Northern Virginia Transit Commission (NVTC) trust fund account, which has a current balance of $91,514. The mayor rejected tax increases as a potential fund source.
City Manager Wyatt Shields held out a slim hope that Falls Church might receive transit funding through a federal grant, but cautioned that there was no guarantee the funds would be available even if the earmark were approved by Congress. A final decision on GEORGE must be made before the Council’s summer recess, which begins August 10.
Before discussing GEORGE the Council held a joint session with the Planning Commission and reviewed the special exception process, which has been used to advance the construction of several large mixed use projects in the past decade, including the Byron, Pearson Square, and the Spectrum, and pending projects such as the Gateway.
Planning Commission chairman John Lawrence wryly observed that it seems special exceptions are now “the rule.” Perhaps this will remain so as the two bodies seemed generally in accord on the process, with Mayor Baroukh suggesting that only “tweaks” were necessary.
Councilman Ron Peppe and Vice Mayor Dave Snyder were absent Monday evening.
By George Bromley
July 21, 2010
I think discontinuing George would be a mistake. The economy will turn around and to start up another service at that time would be costly. We are hoping to revitalize city center at which point George would be more attractive. Option two with the reduced service hours is similar to cutting the service altogether. Perhaps I’m behind the eight ball on this one, but are local businesses incentivized in some way to promote the use of George to their employees who might use metro or travel through town?
Maybe somebody named George would pick up the cost? Maybe it could be renamed after somebody willing to pick up the cost (i.e., GIANT Bus, DirecTV bus, The Yellow Cab 534-1111, Don Beyer Volvo/Kia Express, Hair Cuttery short-cut…). Maybe it’s best we cancel it…
As a member of the GEORGE task force I have recommended another incremental funding for 2 or 3 months to give the city time to find out if the reprogramming of Section 5309 funds in the amount of some $730,000 (I believe that is close) will be successful and whether the State funding may be increased based on the recent discovered surplus. These amounts going into the NVCT fund held for us could be used to offset Metro Capitol funding and thus leave a surplus (perhaps $500,000+/-) in our NVCT fund balance, more than enough to keep GEORGE and Metro going for several more years with the addition of the annual state contributions without the need for city operating funds.
With regards to the discussion on the Special Exception I have never understood the need for a secondary criteria since those items should not be constrained in a list as in Sec. 48-90 (d)(2). An open negotiation could bring other items not in the list. Also all the items in (d)(2) (secondary criteria) should be part of (d) (1) (primary criteria). If you look at all the things we are working towards in new development it is everything in the secondary criteria. All 14 items (primary and secondary criteria) should be on the table for an SE approval. That is what makes it “Special”…..
I agree with the first comment, from vlfrance, that discontinuing the GEORGE service would be a great mistake. The writer is probably correct in saying that the economy will turn around, and I think it likely would end up being much more expensive to start a new service, than to continue the present service. I agree that it would be good if local employers would provide more incentives for their employees to use the GEORGE bus. I hope the Council goes with Option 1, to continue service at the present level. I take the GEORGE bus most weekdays, and I would gladly pay a higher fare, rather than cut back service, given a choice.
The current GEORGE configuration is not particularly compatible with people commuting into the City – it’s configured to help people (like Mr. Whitehead) commute out of the City. That’s a valid use for GEORGE but the question seems to be if the community thinks it’s a amenity worth the cost. I think it’s a non-starter to try and get City businesses to encourage more use by their staff – with the current configuration our best bet is to encourage more residents to use it to get to the Metro.
I have often made the argument that we should try and keep the bus running, even at a small and fairly ineffective level, because it would be cheaper than canceling it and starting it up again later (and I do think that at some point in the future we’ll need better public transportation options that link Metro to the businesses in the City). However, I don’t have much of a basis for that argument. If we shut GEORGE down now how hard would it be to access whatever funds we currently use to get another service started up in a few years? I know GEORGE was hard to get going – but a lot of that seems like it was tied to our attempts to get electric buses. If three years from now the City wanted to operate a shuttle from EFC Metro up and down Washington could we use NVCT funds for that?
I believe that GEORGE should be discontinued. It is a major economic drain on the City’s already strained budget and the number of empty buses running through the streets is discouraging. Moreover, the amount of taxpayer subsidy for the few riders that GEORGE has is disporportionate to the actual benefit that it brings to the City. Running a bus system for Falls Church is simply an issue of economies of scale and governmental subsidy. Are the GEORGE riders willing to pay what it costs to operate the system? Probably not. There was an idea of giving the buses to ART and letting ART operate them. It was thought that doing so would get us off the hook for refunding the residual value of the buses to the federal government.
I have come up from Metro constantly at West Falls Church only to see empty GEORGE buses leaving the station. The data is there. The lack of ridership is well documented. Are we running empty buses out of pride for the Little City?
Barry, Has the GEORGE Task Force looked into the experience of the free Alexandria Trolley option that runs from the King Street Metro Station down to the Potomac River waterfront (about 1.5 miles) every day, seven days a week, from 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.? You generally have to wait only about 20 minutes along King Street to hitch a ride. It has a number of stops along the way. How does Alexandria support that, I wonder. My guess is that it is subsidized, but I don’t know exactly what support it receives to keep it going. Who could provide that information? Also, the DASH bus is also available at $1.50 per trip. Here’s a delineation of the route: http://www.dashbus.com/routes/default.aspx?id=20448.
I attended a Smart Growth program last night on Arlington’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM). It is a nationally recognized program and Loundon County and D.C. transportation offices are working with the Arlington TDM (which is much more than just a bus system). All public transportation is subsidized. A community has to invest in it to make it happen. Arlington has grown by some 30% over the last 10 years and have not added one more car to their roads (they study all aspects of transportation). Ultimately we need to work with Arlington if we are to ever have a tranportation system. We just don’t have the staff or money to do it ourselves. NVCT, VDOT and the state fund a lot of what Arlington is doing and we just don’t have the horsepower to make it work for us. Yes, NVCT can be used in the future but what will be the restart up costs? Karen, the DASH and Trolley are good examples of public investments. They are not cheap or free, they are investments. Richard, I ride GEORGE everyday I have Never seen you ride it. Every morning there are between 14 and 20 riders on the bus I take and every night 6 to 8. I am hopeful that we can have a presentation by Arlington TDM and have them explain how they have increased economic development in the county with their TDM service. Currently the city has $725,000 in Federal transportation dollars that must be used for transportation. Once reprogrammed, that money can be used for GEORGE Not Costing the city a dime. That is where I am coming from, the problem is the reprogramming may take another 3 months and by then the GEORGE is Gone…..
Barry, I wonder if you know about the “reprogramming” of funds. Sounds like the funds are planned for another project/purpose? If so, what is the trade-off? I’m sorry I still have a hard time with my tax bill paying for the current underutilized service. We may need to start another system in the future, if we can afford it. If we move in that direction in the future we would have an opportunity to configure equipment and routes more effectively based on specific goals. Do we need something that goes into the residential neighborhoods or something that travels the Metro bus route with more “charm”. Do we want to supply a commuter line for just Metro stations? Do we want something that’s dedicated to bringing customers to our business sector (such as it is)?
At this point, I am willing to let George bounce out of the court and take my chances on the future.
I do appreciate your committment to the issue and the dedication to George, I just can’t agree.
TFC, I understand your position and I am not deaf to our finacial crisis. I only push this because we can keep it going without city funds. Back when West FC was building the big parking gargage, Metro gave the city $725,000 to start a shuttle system between the parking lot built by Bob Young across from Stacy’s Coffee shop to the West FC metro so people could park. Well the city never started the shuttle and pocketed the money which has been “renewed” several times but still reserved for Transportation. We know need to re-program it to give to Metro for our Capitol contribution, which will leave more money in the NVCT account we have for transportation operations (this is the short story). Bottom line, the NVCT fund has paid for all the operations in FY10 and can pay for coming years with this extra money. NO TAX PAYPARER MONEY INVOLVED.
Public transit should be a key component of our economic development and environmental strategy going forward, but of course the specific arguments for GEORGE in this regard are murky at best. The Alexandria Trolly is a great example of a service that benefits the business community, and Arlington has done a spectacular job of integrating their transportation decisions into their development and land use decisions; let’s hope we can learn a little, even if by osmosis.
GEORGE would generate $75k of revenue as presently operated, but cost about $150k in net subsidy or $3 per ride. GEORGE serves a couple of neighborhoods that are not well served by Metrobus. Why can’t anybody come up with an economic argument to support the subsidy? As I have said before, the availability of the bus no doubt enhances property values in the neighborhoods in question, but we do not have good data on how much, so maybe the answer is it is not enough. As I have also said before, building parking structures around the Metro is a very poor land use choice; it locks us into a suburban model rather than the urban (Arlington) model. The $728k of federal funds was for a West Falls Church shuttle, which was intended to construct parking offsite so there would not have to be more parking at the Metro, so maybe it is logical to use those funds to subsidize a better substitute for parking/shuttling. This may temporarily kick the can down the road, but it is high time to get a plan in place to provide a more comprehensive, longer term solution.
Mr. Maller…….does this mean you favor continuation of George or not? Thanks for continuing to be part of the dialog here.
Good point Dan, that is why I have referred to city staff a presentation by the Arlington TDM. Even though the county made a big investment it is paying off with increased economic development. I hope we have a briefing in FC and that the public attends. This is the key to the city transportation efforts….
Here is a link to their presentation material:
http://www.commuterpage.com/csg/
The above picture was taken by Bob Burnett back in March on the 26W at 8am. There were 22 riders all together, some not shown.
I supported the three month extension through 9/30, but I would not support any further expenditure from the NVTC Trust Fund, which is expected to fluctuate below zero as soon as the end of the current year even without the additional depletion. If we can reprogram the $728k I would use a portion to support GEORGE but ask for a study of alternatives which would include elements like a Transportation Demand Management Plan for the whole CIty to see what we can do to reduce our dependence on cars and to support economic development.
We have received many millions of federal earmarks and state DRPT funds over the past ten years, but we have somehow avoided spending these funds to create any lasting value for the City of Falls Church. I would suggest we start focusing on this like our future depended on it.
Barry, maybe we can create a new position of Transportation Manager and you can be the point man on this, or maybe the EDA can orchestrate the various parts to start something rolling.
Exactly my point Dan on the TDM……….We have a transportation advisory committee but from what I can tell all they do is aprove Stop signs………We just don’t have the staff horespower, planning is in critical need of staff that is why i think we need to work with Arlington and negotiate a partnership.
I think the value the current GEORGE adds to housing assessments is minimal (and probably impossible to determine anyway since so many factors go into it). It’s an interesting argument though (like how much did all of our property values go down when we decided to close the library on Sundays?).
Speaking of state and federal funds that we don’t end up using – a few months ago City Council had to make a last minute decision on some expiring transportation funds. The use selected (some kind of a pedestrian area on the edge of the City) didn’t seem very exciting to me. I was told that significant planning had gone into how to use the funds and the last minute approval didn’t really impact it – but the appearance was that we were rushed and had to pick something at the last minute.
Does anyone know if there are other chunks of funding that could have similar outcomes? Will Council be forced to make more last minute decisions?