Lots of Ideas on GEORGE Bus – Will Any of Them Work?

Here’s a rundown of all the ideas we’ve seen the last few weeks on what to do about GEORGE, the City’s debt-ridden bus service:

First is from City Manager Wyatt Shields, who has to find a way to balance the budget: Dump GEORGE entirely and save $450,000 next year. End of story.

(But what happens to the buses themselves, which cost over $1 million in 2002? Couldn’t the City recoup some money by selling them? It turns out that the City signed the buses over to WMATA (the Metro authority) for “a nominal fee.” In return, Metro was to operate and maintain the buses for an hourly rate of $63, which since has risen to $99. If we kill GEORGE, does Metro keep the buses for free? See the COMMENT at bottom of page.)

The Falls Church News-Press said that Shields’ recommendation to kill George “may not be wise” -– at least if GEORGE were used “for its economic development potential, rather than as a private taxi cab for already overly-pampered commuting residents.”

City Council member Dan Maller wrote in the Falls Church Times:

Thank you for this forum.  I am determined to find a way to preserve the system so we can make a decisive transition to something that would work and be a better representation of our community values.  I believe that these 40-passenger diesel city buses are absolutely wrong for our needs, so once we get beyond the immediate crisis we need a medium and long-term plan that provides service using smaller vehicles powered by CNG, electricity, hydrogen, compressed air, horses, dogs, strapping Ukrainian lads, or whatever.

There appears to be a strong consensus that Falls Church cannot afford to operate the GEORGE system in the current fashion, and that the value added for residents is far less than the cost.  My opinion is that we should be able to come up with a plan that provides the bulk of the benefit at a fraction of the cost, or we have no business in the transit business. I am actively working to come up with the outline of a plan and I would welcome any feedback on this site or by email to dmaller@fallschurchva.gov. I would hope to have at least one brainstorming session (formal or informal) including GEORGE users prior to recommending anything formally.

The short-term options are to terminate the program entirely on June 30 or to find ways to reduce the subsidy to a number that the community would support (a tax increase or alternative program cuts).  My starting suggestion is a 1/2¢ property tax increase which would provide about $175,000, combined with a very serious and decisive look at the structure of the program.

The City’s Economic Development Authority held a special meeting March 23 to consider GEORGE. A formal statement should be issued in a couple of days, but the consensus at the meeting seemed to be that the City should preserve a smaller, cheaper GEORGE rather than discontinue it entirely. Even though the service is not cost-effective, it does help “brand” the City as a desirable place to live.

The Village Preservation and Improvement Society agrees with Maller that City Council should restructure GEORGE to reduce costs rather than scrap it entirely. Examples include partnering with the ART bus, reducing “platform hours” to shorter morning and evening rush hour times, and doubling the fare.

Mike Gardner, the Mayor’s husband, writing in “Blueweeds,” calls GEORGE a “vanity bus.” The City cannot afford it, “and any local politician who says it can is being incredibly irresponsible.”

On another blog, “Falls Church Insider,” EDA member Andy Rankin suggests:  Switch to “shuttle buses”; change the routes so they don’t duplicate Metrobus; and implement night and weekend service for access to entertainment and dining spots.

The Falls Church Chamber of Commerce issued a statement on its position, clarifying that it has no official position. But the “general consensus,” according to Executive Director Sally Cole, is that “while GEORGE is not working now, there must be some way to fix it so that it supports our businesses and the City’s economic development.”

Last (and least?), your obedient servant listed his own ideas in an earlier opinion column. Most are reflected above. The two most crucial are: Replace the big buses with smaller versions more appropriate for neighborhood streets. And then, actually run GEORGE on those neighborhood streets instead of largely duplicating Metrobus routes. I also recommended making GEORGE free to ride, noting that it’s probably not cost-effective to charge 50-cent fares. Now we’ve learned that the Metro Authority has been pocketing half the fare to cover the cost of collection. 

I’ll add another idea: Cut service WAY back. There may not be a compelling reason even to service West Falls Church Metro at this point. Ridership figures indicate most of the demand is for service to East Falls Church, where the parking lot fills up early. 

Page 1 Photo: Adam E. Moreira

Above Photo: Falls Church Times: George Southern

Links

GEORGE Service Options: http://fallschurchva.gov/Content/Docs/GeorgePresentationFY2010.pdf

Falls Church News-Press: http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4236:editorial-the-budget-a-fcs-future&catid=16:local-commentary&Itemid=78

Falls Church Times: http://fallschurchtimes.com/2009/03/06/opinion-how-to-save-george-the-wayward-bus/#comment-430

Blueweeds: http://blueweeds.typepad.com/blue_weeds/2009/03/the-hairy-george-issue.html

Falls Church Insider: http://www.fallschurchinsider.com/2009/03/george-okay-heres-what-i-think/