Hinesburg moves to pull out of Green Mountain Transit as service reductions loom

Hinesburg, one of nine municipalities that pay an annual fee to help fund Green Mountain Transit, is beginning the process of pulling out of the Chittenden County-based transit system.

The town, which had for months questioned the fairness of its roughly $53,000 contribution, has just one Green Mountain Transit bus route, which runs between its village area and Burlington.

The route is partly managed by Tri-Valley Transit, and the nonprofit transit agency has told Hinesburg it would be willing to take over full operation of the system later this year, according to Town Manager Todd Odit. Town officials opted to pursue that option at a May 15 meeting.

“The future of the route looks more stable by transitioning completely to Tri-Valley Transit than by staying with Green Mountain Transit,” Odit said at last week’s meeting. Tri-Valley Transit’s board of directors is expected to vote on the matter at a June 4 meeting

The anticipated change comes as Green Mountain Transit faces an uncertain financial future. With one-time pandemic relief money ending next year, a more than $2 million budget gap forecasted for fiscal year 2026 is forcing the agency to reconsider the routes it offers.  The agency’s general manager, Clayton Clark, anticipates a 20 to 30% reduction in its service next year as a result.

Green Mountain Transit restarted fares this week, after pausing them during the Covid-19 pandemic. But it still faces increasing fuel and labor costs amid declining ridership and stagnant revenue.

Clark, however, suggested in an interview Wednesday that Hinesburg’s departure from Green Mountain Transit — the state’s only public transit organization that functions as a municipality —  wouldn’t hurt the agency’s bottom line. In fact, because some of Green Mountain Transit’s federal funding is allocated based on ridership per mile, he said that it could be a net financial gain.

The Hinesburg route costs roughly the same to operate as other lines but only moves roughly 5,000 passengers a year. The agency’s two most-traveled lines — the most popular line between Burlington and Williston and the second most popular line between Burlington and Essex — both serve 400,000 riders annually, according to Clark.

Also, the town’s contribution was smaller compared to other member municipalities. Burlington pays roughly $2 million into the system annually, while Williston pays about $280,000.

Odit, at the May 15 selectboard meeting, suggested leaving the regional transit agency would put Hinesburg in a better position if Green Mountain Transit were to eliminate the route. “Depending on the future of (GMT), if Hinesburg didn’t make this change, there would be a possibility that we would lose the service or have a reduction in service but still be a contributing member,” he said. “This seems to be kind of a win-win solution all around.”

Trouble ahead

Clark is upfront about the fact that Green Mountain Transit is indeed contemplating cuts. “The service two years from now is likely to be significantly less than it is at this moment,” he said.

Reductions to routes, he continued, could begin by June 2025. The agency is exploring transferring some bus routes in Franklin, Grand Isle and Lamoille counties to other nonprofit transit agencies.

Clark added that the agency is going to “need to be focusing on where the ridership is higher, so that the cost per ride is much more reasonable.”

Ridership on Green Mountain Transit buses has rebounded a bit in recent years, reaching 85% of pre-pandemic levels in 2023. And leaders expect the fare collections that began this week will bolster the budget.

But pre-pandemic fare collections only accounted for about 20% of the agency’s revenue, while state, federal and municipal contributions made up the bulk of its funding. And anxiety remains among GMT leadership over the agency’s dependency on municipal assessments.

“We have pretty good coverage for an area of our population,” Clark said. “And essentially, that’s what’s going to have to be corrected, is that we are providing a bit more service than our population can probably afford. Unless the state and municipalities are willing to provide those additional funds, then that’s why the cuts will be necessary.”

If a larger municipal contributor to the agency, such as South Burlington or Winooski, chose to pull out, it would mean a “death spiral” for the agency, Clark said. “If we lost a partner that was more central to our service, I could see Green Mountain Transit collapsing.”

“When we go over this fiscal cliff, we’re going to be asking these communities to be paying the same for less service,” Clark said, referring to the $2 million budget gap in 2026. “I suspect that some of these communities are going to have a problem with that because they have their own fiscal challenges.”

Green Mountain Transit is not alone in facing a severe financial shortfall

“They are a perpetually under-resourced entity, which is the case with all public transit,” said Sen. Thomas Chittenden, D-Chittenden-Southeast, who serves on the Senate Transportation Committee. “I think they’re under a stressful time where the costs are going up, ridership down, and they need to somehow balance the books.”

Vermont legislators began the 2024 session by looking at alternative funding sources for statewide transit agencies. In January they received a report that analyzed several new revenue sources that transit agencies could draw on.

Options, none of which lawmakers ultimately pursued, included a fee on rental cars, a new tax on electric vehicle charging, or a tax on delivery companies such as UPS or FedEx, according to Chittenden.

While measures for creating a sustainable source of revenue for public transit is on lawmakers’ minds, there seemed to be little appetite in passing new funding mechanisms this past legislative session.

Phil Pouech, Hinesburg’s state representative and a member of the House Transportation Committee, pointed to an increase in DMV charges last year as influencing the lack of political will to pursue new fees to fund public transit. And while lawmakers acknowledge the financial stress local transit systems are under, some have also suggested that the transit system needs to readjust.

“We need to realize that there are not as many people using the buses and we have to align our service schedule to what the actual demand is,” Chittenden said.

Chittenden pushed for a $1 million cash infusion for Green Mountain Transit in this year’s transportation bill, which was whittled down to $630,000. He said he expects the conversation about additional funding models will continue into the next session.

“I expect it will be looked at closely next year,” Pouech agreed. Not only will Green Mountain Transit’s financial problems be coming to a head, he said, but “the other rural ones also will be running into problems.”

Clark said he has continued to lobby for additional state funding for Green Mountain Transit, and hopes the discussion will gain momentum during next year’s legislative session.

“I think that they may feel a little differently about supporting GMT,” he said, referring to state lawmakers. “At that point in time, they’ll be able to see, this is all the service that will be cut if action is not taken.”

Read the story on VTDigger here: Hinesburg moves to pull out of Green Mountain Transit as service reductions loom .