Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Big Dreams at the GRTC

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Amy Biegelsen with Style Weekly has written a solid piece about the challenges facing John Lewis as he seeks to modernize the GRTC, the Richmond regional bus system. Lewis, who took on the CEO post two years ago, has big ambitions. Writes Biegelsen:

Lewis dreams of turning GRTC into a bus rapid transit system such as those available in Cleveland or Los Angeles. Such systems basically try to offer riders the speed and psychological comforts of a rail system. … The buses come with electronic devices that prompt traffic lights to remain green as the bus approaches, greatly reducing commute times. “We can make a great-looking vehicle almost look like a rail line,” Lewis says, “but it’s still a bus so that you have a lot of flexibility.” By designing the buses to look more trainlike, he says, “you get away from the stigma of regular buses.” …

Lewis is in the process of adding global positioning system (GPS) capacity to all city buses, giving GRTC the ability to tell its customers exactly where the buses are at all times. … Buses with GPS onboard can broadcast stops out loud for blind riders and flash them on display boards for the deaf. … With the full fleet beaming back information about their exact whereabouts to GRTC headquarters, it’s only a short jump for Lewis to be able to provide updated information to riders on their cell phones and BlackBerries. By next year, he expects the system to be capable of texting riders directly. For example, the system could alert a specific rider when the bus is five minutes from a stop close to his office, allowing him to orchestrate his schedule without having to block out waiting time.

But the challenges are formidable. Despite its reputation as one of the best-run ransit systems in the country, GRTC takes in only 25 percent of its revenue through passenger fares. GRTC’s public ownership is a huge problem. Decision-making is hobbled by joint ownership by the City of Richmond and the counties of Henrico and Chesterfield, which often have conflicting agendas. Also, as a government entity, GRTC is strapped for cash and has limited latitude to experiment with new ideas to attract riders.

The route structure is archaic. Says Lewis: “Our route system right now pretty much exactly follows the route systems of our old trolleys that were here 50 years ago. Basically, all we did was rip out the rails and put a bus on there. Well, traveling habits have changed. People’s living and commuting patterns have changed. We’ve got to change along with it.”

Lewis would like to provide new kinds of services for affluent, Internet-savvy, Blackberry-carrying riders living in low-density suburbs. In one innovation, GRTC has launched a service ferrying Richmonders to Fredericksburg where they can connect with the Virginia Railway Express. It’s a sad commentary that connecting Richmonders with Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C., is easier to accomplish than to connect them with suburban malls in Henrico and Chesterfield.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

5 responses to “Big Dreams at the GRTC”

  1. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “The buses come with electronic devices that prompt traffic lights to remain green as the bus approaches, greatly reducing commute times.”

    Well, so much for all the money we spent on re-timing traffic lights.

    This is one of those ideas that sounds great, but might have huge unintended consequences. Supppose buses eventually get to the point where they carry 10% of passenger trips. Do we really want a handful of buses carying ten percent of the traffic gliding around town at will, while hopelesy snarling the 90% of everyone else?

    Is there a real “better public benefit” argument that can be made here? Or is it just because I’m a public agency I get to use technology that would obviously be illegal for anyone else?

  2. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    The suggested “innovations” are a perfect example of the “tinkering” we note in the string on METRO above.

    Thinkering will not work, it takes Fundamental Change.

    EMR

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m not sure I see unique about GRTC.

    It’s basically trying to address the same issue that METRO is or for than matter most transit systems predicated on moving people at rush hour.

    but Ray’s comment about the timing of the signals.. interesting…

    question – How would we feel about giving a 10-15 person carpool priority at the lights since it’s a one vehicle “footprint” verses 15 cars.. worth of footprint..

    is that “worth” it?

    the basic stategy… is to get folks out of SOLO vehicles into HOVs.

    this.. is.. the strategy .. whether it is Metro, bus rapid transit, HOV and HOT lanes.

    it boils down to whether SOLO vehicles should have the same “righs” as HOVs.

    If the strategy of moving SOV to HOVs is deemed to be fundamentally unfair/wrong/pick your perjorative then .. we’re gonna have to go back to square one with regard to addressing congestion.

    That would be Plan 3 since Plan 1 was “build your way out of it” and Plan 2 is get folks out of their SOVs.

  4. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “the basic stategy… is to get folks out of SOLO vehicles into HOVs.

    this.. is.. the strategy .. whether it is Metro, bus rapid transit, HOV and HOT lanes.”

    Wrong, that is NOT the basic strategy. The basic mission is to get the most people where they want to go and when they want to get there at the lowest social cost while also providing a wide variety of living accomodations, etc.

    One possible strategy to achieve that mission is to use more HOV’s. One possible strategy is Fundamental Change. One possible strategy is more satelllite cities. One possible strategy is vertical housing.

    It remains to be seen which of these strategies will a)work, and b)have the lowest social cost.

    —————————–

    “How would we feel about giving a 10-15 person carpool priority at the lights since it’s a one vehicle “footprint” verses 15 cars.. worth of footprint..”

    I think the argument is the same. The goal is to achieve the lowest total social cost. What happens when everyone uses buses or carpools, do we give everyone priority? What happens when everyone uses Metro or transit, do we still let them ride at 30 to 50% of what it costs?

    Now, if it turns out that transit/vans are carrying 50 or 60% of the people, then mabe it makes sense to give them priority.

    Or how about this? One city is using traffic light chaining. I don’t know how it works, but it has something to do with allowing cars to “chain” or tailgate behind the buses when they go through the light. In that case you would give buses/vans light priority, but it would extend to the next 4/5 cars immediately behind.

    This gives auto users incentive to support more buses/vans, and to travel at the same speed as buses/vans.

  5. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    We can make SOV’s one quarter the size and one tenth the horsepower for all I care. I see no reason for automobiles to be both the symbol and instrument of aggression.

    We are going to have to “build our way out” but what we build may include a lot of other things besides highways. All we have to do is decide what, and then agree on the costs, the benefits, and the distribution of each.

    It is a snap, really.

Leave a Reply

Read More