Paradox: Higher Gas Prices Are Hurting Mass Transit in Richmond

As far as municipal bus systems go, the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) is better run than most. A survey of 12 similarly sized bus companies showed that GRTC ranked second-lowest in costs per passenger and in the amount of government subsidy received per trip. But, according to David Ress at the Times-Dispatch, rising gas prices are compelling the GRTC to go back to the public well for another dip.

While sky-high gas prices ought to be nudging people out of their cars and into buses, they also jack up the bus company’s operating expenses. CEO John C. Lewis Jr. says GRTC needs another $2 million a year from the City of Richmond, its most generous benefactor, to maintain current levels of service at current fares. The alternative is to raise fares $.25 to $1.50 per ride and probably to cut back on routes. The bus company has daily ridership of 28,000.

Since 2005, when Lewis joined GRTC, gasoline has increased costs from $1 million a year to $4 million a year. The GRTC needs help. But help may be hard to find.

Councilman Bruce Tyler wonders if GRTC could be managed more efficiently. He cites excessive overtime payments and relatively empty buses on certain routes, especially Sunday.

I have little doubt that GRTC could be run more efficiently — I’ve seen plenty of near-empty buses too… Big, gas-guzzling buses carrying only two or three passengers. I can only wonder what kind of bureaucratic entanglement requires the company to run big buses instead of smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles on low-volume routes. The small-bus solution is so obvious that some inane and arbitrary rule must be preventing GRTC from trying it.

But the problem is far bigger than GRTC management — which, as I noted, is actually pretty good — or even obtuse government regulations. GRTC is providing shared-vehicle transportation services in one of the most auto-centric regions of Virginia, if not the United States. Development in the Richmond region is scattering across more land, smeared at lower densities, than even Northern Virginia or Hampton Roads.

As a consequence, huge swaths of the region are entirely unsuitable to bus transport. The distances from potential riders’ houses to the logical locations of bus stops are too far to conveniently walk — and, in any case, the streetscapes are inhospitable to pedestrians. Even if passengers persevered, the distances between destinations in the scattered, fragmented counties outside Richmond would mean longer ride times. And then there’s the question of whether there’s anything within walking distance at the destination.

The core market for GRTC is the City of Richmond and adjacent sections of Henrico County, the only places where settlement patterns are suitable for bus transit. But that market is shrinking. As household sizes get smaller, the same amount of housing stock holds fewer people. The city steadily lost population over the past few decades in a trend that appears to have bottomed out only recently. At the same time, spreading affluence has enabled poor people to purchase automobiles and drive themselves. (I know two immigrant women, a mother and daughter, who lived in the city and rode the bus to their jobs as domestics in Richmond’s West End for several years, then purchased a car as soon as they could save the money.)

GRTC’s Lewis is acutely aware that human settlement patterns are antithetical to traditional bus services, and he’s proposed some imaginative ideas to convert Henrico’s Broad Street into a Bus Rapid Transit corridor. But that requires an up-front capital investment that the cash-strapped GRTC doesn’t have.

Bacon’s bottom line: Here’s the irony: Higher gas prices should be a boon to buses. As the cost-benefit equation of driving cars vs. mass transit changes, more people should be opting for buses. Because buses have so much unused capacity, revenue from that ridership should drop straight to the bottom line. While ridership may be up somewhat (the article provides no numbers), it’s clearly not up enough to make up for the spike in gasoline prices. For all practical purposes, most citizens of the Richmond region have no mass transit option. Unless they move to the city (or Henrico), they are stuck in their cars.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. “As the cost-benefit equation of driving cars vs. mass transit changes, more people should be opting for buses.”

    Which creates a paradox since motorists subsidize transit. If everybody took the bus, the system would utterly collapse. That’s because the main purpose of “mass transit” is not transportation, but the creation of a class of people dependent upon the government to serve their needs. Witness what’s happening in NYC — Mayor Bloomberg is getting votes for his congestion tax by handing out millions in new bus routes to each individiual city council member. “Vote with me, you get a bus route.”

    The solution to transportation in NOVA is not to add more taxes, which is what tolls are. It’s to stop the raid on motorist money. Add up how much money is taken from motorists for registration fees, personal property tax, sales tax on cars, gas tax, and most importantly speeding tickets ($173 million/yr from tickets alone) and you have a huge pot of money that currently is blown on empty buses, wasteful and congestion-creating HOV onramp monstrosities like the Springfield interchange, pipe dream multi-billion dollar rail projects, and teachers’ union bribery. Just about zero is spent on new roads.

    Forbid use of that motorist money for any purpose but new construction and maintenance, kick out the “we’re not building any new roads” crowd at VDOT, and then you’ve got a solution to the congestion that comes from driving on tiny roads designed for 1960s traffic levels. Oh, and arrest all the NIMBYs.

  2. There is another (and better) article at Richmond.com from yesterday.

    http://www.richmond.com/news-features/23866

    It explains the overtime situation as well as the possibility that a fare increase would hurt Richmond residents but not county riders or VCU students since those services are paid via a different formula.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Since 2005, when Lewis joined GRTC, gasoline has increased costs from $1 million a year to $4 million a year. The GRTC needs help. But help may be hard to find.

    400% increase yikes how is that possible

    __________________________________

    I think this shows that mass transit is a very limited solution in general. Metro needs an extremely high density to operate and as Jim said Buses also need a high density.

    I know EMR will chime in and say well more people should be living in denser places but the facts speak for themselves that when given the choice and income people are leaving core areas in droves

    Bottom line… In general most people use buses because they can’t afford cars. Once a person has a car there is almost no incentive to take the slower, not always available (wait for schedule) bus unless your commute is in a congested zone but then guess what the BUSES ARE STUCK IN THE CONGESTION as well. At least with Metro you know with around 90%certainty that your trip will arrive on time.

    Oh and in terms of cost most bus routes are less than 25 miles. Even if your bus route is only 50 cents I think most people are willing to pay the $3.00 difference to drive your own vehicle, (totally in control, ability to stop at other locations, adjust climate/music, not tied to a schedule etc and in most cases a shorter commute time)

    -NMM

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Based on those figures, if the average is 30 passenger miles per gallon, then each passenger is traveling only around six miles. If they get 40 passenger miles per gallon then each passenger is traveling only 7.5 miles.

    Put another way the fuel cost is 7 to 12 cents per passenger mile, which is more than my Prius.

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the biggest predictor of transit usage is the income of people in the area. Density comes in a distant fourth in the equations.

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “In a typical family sedan, every 10 miles per hour you drive over 60 is like the price of gasoline going up about 54 cents a gallon. That figure will be even higher for less fuel-efficient vehicles that go fewer miles on a gallon to start with…

    Engineers at Consumer Reports magazine tested this theory by driving a Toyota Camry sedan and a Mercury Mountaineer SUV at various set cruising speeds on a stretch of flat highway. Driving the Camry at 75 mph instead of 65 dropped fuel economy from 35 mpg to 30. For the Mountaineer, fuel economy dropped from 21 to 18.

    Over the course of a 400-mile road trip, the Camry driver would spend about $6.19 more on gas at the higher speed and Mountaineer driver would spend an extra $10.32.

    So my inner economist asks: Is it worth it to drive 10 mph slower to save $6.19-$10.32?

    According to my calculations that 400 mile trip takes an extra 49 minutes. So another way to ask the same question is: are you willing to pay $6.19-$10.32 to save 49 minutes of travel time?

    Or yet another way, is your time worth more or less than $7.57-$12.64/hour?”

    From CNN.com and environmental economics.com.

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Humm similar issue with the HOT lanes

    Will you pay 3.25-6.50 to save a halfhour off your commute

    Back to the speed issue are you willing to get honked at and almost run over for the entire trip :-p

    Economics assumes people are entirely logical which I find not to be the case

    NMM

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Headline: “Hawaii Rail Trumps Dulles”

    The chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation last Friday committed to aiding Hawaii in getting $900 million in federal aid for its light rail plan and called the $3.7 billion plan “one of the most exciting projects in the whole country.”

    ….

    “Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann, who attended the Oberstar news conference, said he was surprised and pleased to hear Oberstar placed Honolulu’s project as a higher priority over the Washington D.C. metro line to Dulles International Airport.”

    http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/printarticle.asp?article=95320

    I bring this up to illustrate USDOT Mary Peters assertion that the Feds are taking Fed gas tax dollars from everyone across the country – and then doing what VDOT Richmond does – which is to allocate monies based as much or more on politics rather than other criteria …

    Mary Peters thinks that these monies are slush funds looking for spenders… and that each locality should decide what they want or do not want and how to pay for it .. without expecting Fed Gov Subsidies..

    … to wit:

    ….”n addition to the $11 million it hopes the city will contribute to its $43 million budget, GRTC gets $9.5 million from the state, $5.9 million from the federal government, …”

    http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-04-03-0206.html

    If Mary Peters gets her way – GRTC will also lose $5.9 million in funding….

    The question is – could GRTC or Dulles Rail operate without Federal Subsidies?

    Bonus question: should they operate without Fed Gov subsidies (or if they cannot.. then go away)?

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dulles Rail is not about the provision of rapid transit to Dulles Airport. It’s all about giving some Tysons Corner landowners added density, which, in turn, will let them flip their properties for windfall gains.

    Dulles Rail was hijacked years ago. I suspect that, if Virginia would again think about transportation issues as a goal, it could move Dulles Rail back to the median of the DTR and receive federal funding. Moreover, by eliminating four expensive stations (in favor of one station) and overhead construction, the costs for Dulles Rail would quickly become more reasonable.

    The big question is: Whether Governor Tim Kaine will abandon Al Qaeda? If so, he could probably see construction on the rail line begin before he leaves office. The only real losers would be those property owners who recently purchased land at Tysons on the flawed assumption that the density train would arrive. But then, it’s their own fault for believing the former landowners’ BS. Caveat Emptor.

    TMT

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “If you had to choose from the following categories, what do you believe should be the highest priority, in terms of investing money and resources, in order to achieve a meaningful technological advancement in the next 10 years?

    Fuel efficiency and alternative fuels 37%
    Medical 30%
    Environment 14%
    Security and defense 10%
    Transportation 3%
    Space exploration 3%
    Telecommunications and media 2%
    Don’t know/not sure 1%

    http://www.fairfaxcountyeda.org/08releases/apr03-08.htm

    so… Gov Kaine should do what for NoVa?

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Back to the speed issue are you willing to get honked at and almost run over for the entire trip :-p”

    Exactly right. My usual commute is over little farm roads, until I get near the work center where there is more trafic and some traffic lights.

    Toodling along on my own on the baack raods I will frequently rack up 55 mpg, being in no hurry and able to “work” the terrain.

    But, when I have other traffic behind (or ahead) I have to introduce other considerations, and that can drop my mpg from (typical) 50 to 46.

    You are right. Either people are not logical, they value their time more than they say, or what they say and what they do are different.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Gov Kaine should do what for NoVa?”

    Well, gee. That looks a lot like my proposed list of budget priorites to be posted on back of the tax forms.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…a trading scam has come to light which undermines still more the claim that biofuels reduce emissions. To take advantage of US agricultural subsidies, European producers are shipping their fuel to the US, adding a splash of US fuel to qualify for 11p per litre in subsidy – then shipping it back to Europe to sell at a discount to domestic prices.

    The practice is not illegal, but the environmental cost of shipping fuel across the Atlantic – and back – makes a mockery of biofuel’s few remaining green credentials.”

    http://timesonline.typepad.com/environment/

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    So, if the GRTC buses aren’t as efficient as a Prius, then those passengers should instead be traveling in the more efficient Priuses, which means that those current Prius drivers who are enjoying both energy economy and time efficiency will see a drop. At least, they won’t get to where they’re going quite as easily, because the road will be crowded with Priuses. So, what is your time worth, Prius driver of today? Would an accurate measure of the advantages of a Prius with the GRTC versus a Prius without the GRTC show that, in fact, both serve each other? And if so, should that be factored into the cost-benefit analysis of the GRTC? I’m just saying.

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ” current Prius drivers who are enjoying both energy economy and time efficiency will see a drop. “

    Exactly. And not just the Prius drivers, but everyone else as well, and the cost to them will be greater than to the Prius drivers.

    The point of my post was not that Priuses ae so great, just that the fuel economy of buses is not that great, all things considered.

    Therefore, when we consider the value of buses, and how much we are willing to pay to keep them afloat – fuel economy of buses is not a big factor. And if they don’t burn less, they don’t pollute less either. We should stop using those excuses for funding transit, because they are apperently not true, or maybe only a little bit true.

    HOWEVER

    You are right, to some extent, that without buses and METRO and other transit we would have SOME additional delays. In order to avoid those delays auto drivers shuld be willing to help pay for transit.

    A little bit. And that little bit should be related to the value of the delays avoided.

    Unfortunately, we don’t really know what that is. I’d submit (without knowing any better, and without any data) it is not worth subsidizing half or more of transit costs.

    We could come up with some estimates of how much delay is avoided and what it is worth. But, we need to be careful to make an accurate assessment and not make grandiose claims that will undermine our argument.

    We have some examples of days when transit suddenly fails for some reason – accident, terrorism, or strike. But the resulting sudden congestion problems are probably not representative of what would happen without transit.

    Some studies have reported that you cannot claim that every metro trip eliminates one car trip, for example. I don’t know specifically why, but the claim is something like 3 to 1. It takes three transit trips to eliminate one congesting car trip, according to them.

    And, the congested periods are short, compared to the period of operation of transit. If you are claiming congestion reduction as a benefit of operating transit, then something like 3/5 ths of the day you are getting no benefit.

    Eventually, you come to the conclusion that there is no fuel savings, no cost savings, and very little congestion savings from transit. We would e better off to stop making that argument.

    The biggest benefit is probably to provide at least some mobility to people who would otherwise have none. Poor people, and people who don’t drive. Like Jim Bacon, I’m not convinced that circulating the city in giant, empty buses is the best way to do that.

    Except that Commuter Rail like VRE is populate by people who can well afford to pay the full cost.

    I have no beef with transit. I think transit is worth while, when it works well. We have a better chance of making it work well when we understand what it really does for us, and what it doesn’t do for us.

    We need to know what we are really getting vs what we are paying for. It is my opinion that SOME of what we are (presently) paying for is untrue hype, riding on the back of political dogma and “truisms”.

    WE need to go back to square one with a blank sheet of paper and no preconceptions. Where are those 28,000 people going to and coming from? And when? What is the cheapest fastest way to move them? If you had something cheaper and faster, how many MORE riders would it draw?

    What happens if you specify those 28,000 trips ad then issue an RFP to anyone who can move the people?

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Paradox: Higher Gas Prices Are Hurting Mass Transit “

    It is only a paradox if you think mass transit is more efficient than autos. If it is less efficient you would expect higher fuel prices to hurt mass transit more.

    RH

Leave a Reply