GEORGE Part Two
As I mentioned in my last post, the current GEORGE configuration seems geared toward taking residents to the Metrorail stations to commute out of the City. What other purposes could GEORGE serve?
The bus could allow non-residents to commute to their jobs in the City via Metrorail. The City has been working for years to increase tax revenue from businesses so the majority of the burden isn’t just on the residents. With that in mind, making it easier for people to get into the City via public transportation could help make Falls Church a more appealing location for businesses to locate.
People could use GEORGE to get into the City to shop, eat, entertain, or otherwise spend their money. Another way to reduce the tax burden on the residents is to increase the revenue from sales taxes we collect from people who come to the City to shop. Without evening and weekend service the bus won’t be able to get much traction in this area. I could imagine folks out in Fairfax County hoping on Metrorail to get into Falls Church for dinner, drinks, and a show at the State Theater - bus service could facilitate that.
City residents could use GEORGE to get around the City. I’ve talked to several folks who value Falls Church as a walkable city and a well implemented local bus service could really extend the range of that. On a regular basis I walk from my house on Little Falls to my office on South Maple (next to Pearson Square) - it would be cool if I could easily hop on a bus to head up to Pie-Tanza for lunch every once in a while. When the City Center is done it would be great if folks on the other side of town could easily get down there via bus.
All of these uses help keep cars off the streets - which reduces traffic, wear and tear on the roads, reduces pollution, and mitigates parking issues. I recently read a letter from Environmental Services Council - Climate Change, Energy Efficiency Task Group which points out the 70,000 rides provided by GEORGE potentially saves the use of over 5,000 gallons of gas and the associated CO2 production. Of course that is somewhat offset by the fuel use and CO2 production by the buses, but increasing usage of the bus would increase the savings without increasing the impact of the bus.
In addition to the environmental, traffic, and parking benefits of the bus service the City could benefit if the service promoted business growth in the City and encouraged non-resident spending in the City.
Up next, I’ll consider the different costs associated with running the bus service and how those costs might impact which changes to the service are viable. I should warn you - I don’t really know how the costs work so I’ll mostly be wondering out loud.
Andy,
Great analysis. I am not completely confident that enough analysis has been done on George to really make an informed decision. I also feel that if we cut George, we will never see it again. There are so many issues involved: What it is designed to do, what duplication of Metro services is it, should we be owning the buses or outsource the whole operation, what size buses should be used (I don’t think we have no exact figures on rider ship), parking impact, commercial impact, and things I probably haven’t even thought of. I do know that if our city vision is to make Falls Church a pedestrian friendly, walk able, vibrant city, we have to have some way to move people without individual automobiles. I look forward to your next post.
Gary, I definitely agree that rigorous evaluation of GEORGE hasn’t been done (or at least nobody is talking about it) and while it’s nice for people like me to speculate about what would work better I wish we could somehow get a more comprehensive assessment of things.
And I definitely agree that if we kill GEORGE now it will be almost impossible to start something up again in the future.
Looking at what Metro bus service currently offers is a key part of all this. How are Metro routes and schedules determined? Maybe the ideal solution is to convince Metro to tweak their service a bit?