Stopping GEORGE Bus Risks Big Loss in Transit Subsidies
The City’s budget proposal to save taxpayers $600,000 by ending GEORGE bus service fails to consider the resulting loss to the City of state and federal transit subsidies.
According to a study by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, the City pays only a fraction of the cost to operate GEORGE, with the rest provided by transit subsidies. But neither the City’s proposed budget nor previous years’ budgets make that clear.
The NVTC coordinates public transit for Northern Virginia and is responsible for allocating some $200 million annually in regional, state and federal funds. GEORGE receives a share of that funding, based upon costs incurred by the City.
The 2009 NVTC Handbook gives budget projections for public transportation in Northern Virginia. The projection for Falls Church lumps together grant money for the City Center’s planned “intermodal transit center” together with subsidies for GEORGE. The budget projection is that the City would pay only about 10 percent of the total cost.
The NVTC told us that if the City discontinues GEORGE, it will lose all the state subsidy, which last year was $250,000. This year the subsidy could be as much as $350,000 because GEORGE costs have risen.
How much federal money would be lost is unclear. However, the NVTC notes that “Falls Church has obtained a $1.7 million federal earmark for an intermodal transportation center which NVTC is prepared to obtain on behalf of the City. With no GEORGE service, the impact on that project is uncertain,” it warns.
City Manager Wyatt Shields told us he’s not clear about how much subsidy would actually be lost if GEORGE is discontinued. He promised to have that dollar figure by April 13 when the City holds a public hearing on GEORGE. The public hearing is a requirement to discontinue GEORGE.
City Transportation Planner Wendy Block Sanford told us she also has a lot of unanswered questions about GEORGE. “We’re trying to straighten this all out,” she said, noting that she is swamped with emails asking about GEORGE.
On the subject of subsidies, it appears that GEORGE riders transferring to or from the Metro are riding the bus for free – at least if they use a SmarTrip card, which is available to anyone. The GEORGE fare is 50 cents, but the SmarTrip card gives a 50-cent reduction to passengers boarding GEORGE from the Metro. Likewise, if a passenger pays 50 cents to ride GEORGE and subsequently boards the METRO, SmarTrip deducts 50 cents from the Metro fare.
The City has never publicized the fact that GEORGE is effectively free to passengers with SmarTrip cards. But it has complained that WMATA, the regional transit authority, has only been reimbursing the City about half the amount of the fares collected. Virtually all GEORGE passengers ride to or from the Metro.
Read the NVTC GEORGE study here.
Read the 2009 NVTC Handbook here (see page 39).
Read the City’s GEORGE presentation here.
Read the FCT on “How to Save GEORGE” here.
Read the FCT on “Lots of Ideas on GEORGE” here.
By George Southern
April 1, 2009
This would be a scoop, wouldn’t it?
Very interesting post.
Obviously the City needs to figure out what’s up before any decision on GEORGE is made. I’ve heard several different explanations for various aspects of the issue and they don’t all add up. It’s not clear who has the correct information.
“City Manager Wyatt Shields told us he’s not clear about how much subsidy would actually be lost if GEORGE is discontinued.”
“City Transportation Planner Wendy Block Sanford told us she also has a lot of unanswered questions about GEORGE.”
…. So amazing then that the Mayor and Vice Mayor are so convinced that GEORGE should be eliminated…. It seems to me that Mr. Shields has caused political damage to the city political leadership by getting complete buy in on an idea that is far from clear or completely researched. What a shame…
George, great reporting. I would love to meet you. You know what’s going on….
The City Manager has confirmed to me that after extensive review resulting from the many questions raised, staff has concluded that the net savings in his proposed budget for the elimination of the GEORGE service does not require any adjustment for loss of subsidy or otherwise. It seems that the revenue stream produced by the 2% NVTC fuel tax, which is held in trust by NVTC, is sufficient to fully pay the City’s obligations as a member of the WMATA Compact.
I do plan to continue to work to develop a proposal to preserve some portion of the GEORGE service, but I must say have not gotten much sign of support for the revenue side from Council colleagues. The outline which would seem reasonable is about 2 hours each serving both Metro stations in the morning and 1 hour each in the evening plus some service for special events and such. The WMATA bus contract has a minimum of six platform hours, so this level of service would not require any renegotiation with Metro, and the ART alternative is also possible but not significantly different. Unless other funds are made available this level of service would require a 1/2¢ increase in the proposed real estate tax rate. Obviously this would not be broadly popular, but I plan to make the proposal to ensure that we have a full debate of the merits of maintaining our own transit system.
I have questions for GEORGE users:
(1) What is the most effective way to provide this minimum level of service. It has been suggested that one route serving only one of the Metro stations would provide a greater level of service. Would service from 6-9a.m. and 7-9 p.m. from EFC or WFC only be worthwhile? There is some wasted driving time to and from the 4 Mile Run garage, so probably six hours of platform would give no more than five hours of service. Is this worthwhile?
(2) A fare increase to the Metro limit of $1.25/$1.35 could produce $30-50k of revenue and support an hour to 1 1/2 hours of additional service. Would elimination of the fare altogether with the minimal service level be preferable?
(3) Does anybody have some tangible and persuasive economic data to show the benefit of the GEORGE system to the City as a whole?
(4) Are there any other nuts and bolts or out of the box ideas on keeping the system sunning for some period to more fully develop alternatives?
The GEORGE buses do have an interesting “clean diesel” technology, which I believe may be somewhat outdated with the recently introduced low sulphur fuel which has allowed a whole new generation of diesel engines to be introduced. To my way of thinking, whoever is interested in developing a better GEORGE ought to step forward to help the City and the NVTC come up with an alternative so we can ask our Senators and Congressman Moran to deliver for us again.
I hope interested persons will attend the Town Hall meeting tomorrow 4/4 in the Community Center at 10:00 a.m. and/or the Public Hearing on Monday 4/13 in the Council Chambers. This is your chance to be heard.
South of the city along 95 there are spots where commuters needing a ride in town can meet with drivers heading in. How many FC residents drive by a GEORGE stop on their way to work? How many of those same drivers go by E/W FC Metro? What if people needing a ride simply waited at stops for a ride? The city could provide tokens to passengers who would give them to drivers giving them a lift. Drivers turn the tokens back into the city for cash. Cash back could vary from year to year as a function of incentives, gas prices, etc. At first you could run this system with GEORGE to ensure that there is in fact a ride. If the token system proves viable, GEORGE would not be needed. Maybe you keep them both with GEORGE at a reduced level. Think of this as incentivized spontaneous carpooling. Gas prices will go up again. While a clean diesel bus has a smaller carbon footprint, carpooling using trips alreading taking place could prove to be just as effective in meeting the goals of GEORGE. If it proves to be successful, it could potentially reduce the traffic.
Dan,
For your #2 (raising the fare) – do we know for sure that raising the fare will increase the revenue to the City? Currently we seem to get only about 50% of the fare – but it’s not clear if that ratio stays the same (50%) as the fare goes up or if the ratio would go up or down. This article suggests that the issue is that we don’t get a fare if the rider also takes Metro and uses a SmarTrip card. It sounds like almost all riders take Metro and I assume the number of SmarTrip users will only increase.
I guess my point it – unless/until we better understand how the fares work it sounds like raising fares might be a bad strategy. I’d rather see the bus be free. On the other hand, unless we’re changing the routes/schedules to do something other than serve the commuters then I don’t think we’ll get more riders if the service is free – and most riders could apparently get it free anyway if they use SmarTrip.
As for #3, I haven’t heard of any data like this and I doubt any exists. If nothing else, it would be costly to do a study to determine what the economic impact on the City is. My guess is that right now the primary economic impact relates to the perception that the City has a public transportation system, which probably pushes up property values some. Maybe it doesn’t actually impact property values but otherwise I’m not sure what economic impact there would be (since everything seems to indicate the main use for the bus is to get residents out of town to work).