PART outlines service reductions

The Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation, or PART, is proposing service reductions, including scaling back 30-minute service on the system’s urban routes out of Greensboro, Winston-Salem and High Point to peak hours before 8 a.m. and after 4 p.m., and reducing rural routes to Davidson, Yadkin and Davie counties to two trips per day.

The proposed service reductions come as PART faces a $1.2 million budget shortfall after participating counties declined to enact a car license fee to compensate for declining revenues from vehicle rental taxes.

Executive Director Brent McKinney said in a press release today that the reductions are necessary to strengthen the authority’s financial base and that van pools might be able to pick up some of the slack in rural areas.

PART plans to hold a public hearing on the recommended reductions on May 9 at 8:30 a.m. at 7800 Airport Center Drive in Greensboro.

Route Proposed Reductions:

• Route 1 Winston-Salem Eliminate 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. trips
• Route 2 Greensboro Eliminate 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. trips
• Route 3 High Point Eliminate 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. trips
• Route 4 Medical Conn. No Reduction
• Route 5 Amtrak Conn. No Reduction
• Route 6 Surry County Reduce to 2 morning trips and 2 evening trips
• Route 8 Davidson US 52 Reduce to 1 morning trip and 1 evening trip
• Route 9 Davidson Bus. 85 Reduce to 1 morning trip and 1 evening trip
• Route 10 Randolph Co. No Reduction
• Route 13 Yadkin Co. Reduce to 1 morning trip and 1 evening trip
• Route 14 Davie Co. Reduce to 1 morning trip and 1 evening trip
• PTIA Shuttle Reduce to 5 Shuttles Peak Hour and 1 Mid-Day


Billy Jones said...

So while Mayor Perkins and his cronies promote more development far outside the city limits in the name of more jobs for Greensboro, the options for getting to those jobs grow smaller.

Jordan Green said...

I agree completely: Decent regional transit is critical to broadening employment and educational opportunities for people who are teetering between self-sufficiency and poverty. The more jobs you're able to get to, the better your chances of landing one. This is a relatively small investment for a big return. It's the county commissions that determine funding for PART, so those who care about this service should make their voices heard to both PART and their county commissions.

Billy Jones said...

Agreed, but let's not forget that Perkins, Carroll and others would use City resources to farther tax County PART resources for their own personal gain.

Jordan Green said...

Billy, maybe you're more concerned with perceived political favors to Roy Carroll than service cuts to PART, but I think we may be talking past each other here. If I get your drift, it seems that you're suggesting that public investment in utilities to attract data centers in eastern Guilford would further stretch PART resources. But data centers don't typically employ a lot of people (their appeal is their contribution to the taxbase), so I don't imagine that they would be great candidates for PART service. But if they did employ a lot of people, I'm not sure I would see the problem with using PART to get workers out there. By its very nature it's a regional system that transports people from county to county. People rely on the system to commute from Davidson County to Cone hospital and from Greensboro to WSSU. How are those any different than commuting from Greensboro or Burlington to jobs in eastern Guilford?

Billy Jones said...

I am concerned about political favors but urban sprawl is also a huge concern and using taxpayer dollars to promote urban sprawl.

As for commuting-- it's a sorry way to do things no matter where from and where to and local leaders should be looking to reduce commuting instead of promoting schemes that increase commuting and urban sprawl.

That said, if all goes according to plan I'll soon be commuting to Burlington. Luckily I can do most of it via motorcycle and at times when traffic is lighter.

Jordan Green said...

Sure. When it comes to particulars, I wouldn't say no to living-wage jobs anywhere, but urban reinvestment is the most sustainable jobs plan, so I share your concern about subsidizing sprawl.