 | ||
The Greater Baltimore Bus Initiative (GBBI) (pronounced GIBBY) was a sweeping overhaul planned by the Maryland Transit Administration under the administration of then-Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich and his transportation secretary Robert Flanagan that was said to be the largest single-phase overhaul in the history of the agency and its parent companies.
Contents
According to Ehrlich and Flanagan, the initiative was a series of improvements to the transit system in the Baltimore area. While some of the proposed changes were obvious improvements, others were heavily opposed by riders, elected officials, and advocates, who considered them inconveniences and losses of service. As a result, a scaled-back version of the plan dubbed Phase I was implemented on its originally scheduled date, October 23, 2005, that included about one-third of the original plans and some modifications to those. Of those plans not implemented on this date, some were entirely scrapped, and others delayed.
During 2006, a second wave of changes dubbed Phase II was proposed and was modified during that year. Though Flanagan continued to state these were improvements, these plans continued to be viewed as controversial and resulted in legislative action to delay their implementation.
Following these political battles and the change of administration in the state of Maryland, the remainder of GBBI was officially canceled in on May 9, 2007, with no further routing changes being made under that name. But in September 2007, MTA announced that a series of hearings would be held the following month regarding a new wave of proposed changes. Though not titled "Greater Baltimore Bus Initiative" or anything similar, some of the planned changes did resemble those previously announced as part of GBBI. Most of these new routings were implemented on February 17, 2008.
Background
Announced in the Summer 2005, the GBBI plan involved routing and scheduling changes to all but six of the agency's then 59 local bus lines and some of its commuter services. These modifications included some expansions, increased frequency of service on some lines, consolidation of some lines, and elimination of others.
According to MTA, service would be improved in the following ways:
- Frequency would be increased in many areas
- Service would be simplified from a set of lines with many branches each to a set of routes with all trips following the identical route
- There would be longer layovers, allowing for more recovery time and better reliability
- Lines would be made more direct with fewer transfers being made necessary and fewer deviations off the main routes
- Bus stops would be better placed to strike a balance between access and efficiency
- Rapid west-east crosstown service would be provided on a new No. 40 Line that would operate from Security Square Mall to Essex Park-and-Ride
- Some lines would be combined for single-seat service to a broader range of areas
- Duplication of service by multiple bus lines would be reduced in order to use the savings generated to provide additional service on other lines
- Improved bus service would be provided to landmarks where ridership was in greater demand, including colleges, universities, hospitals, and shopping malls.
- Improved crosstown service would be provided, as most riders today are not trying to travel downtown, but rather other places in the city
- Improved midday service would be provided, as midday ridership has steadily increased over the years
The plan did not meet well with riders, community activists, and elected officials. According to critics, the plan had the following problems:
A series of hearings were held during that summer pertaining to the changes. Many of the modifications were met with heavy criticism from the riders, the media, elected officials, and civic organizations, and as a result, many planned changes were either delayed or not implemented at all.
Phase I
On October 23, 2005, the original planned date with the changes to take effect, a scaled-back version of the plan, dubbed Phase I, was implemented. Service was added, eliminated, reduced, or modified on just 26 lines in the system, where MTA believed these changes would have only a minimal negative impact. Lines involved in these changes included nos. 2, 4, 8, 10, 13, 20, 23, 24, 31, 33, 35, 44, 65, 77, 86, 102, 103, 105, 150, 160, M-1, M-6, M-8, M-10, M-12, and M-17 (see "changes" below for more details).
Nevertheless, the changes were met by riders with disdain, and were protested by the NAACP and various unions. Many riders were still forced to walk farther, transfer, or wait longer for buses, and some riders were left without any service. Others complained that the new lines were less reliable. Critics complained that the GBBI changes made travel more difficult for many riders. Some of the complaints of riders that were reported in the Baltimore Sun were as follows:
Revisions to Phase I
Around New Year's Day 2006, MTA announced that there would be some revisions to the original changes proposed due to various issues. These included:
Activists were disappointed when no reversals were announced for Route M-6 at this time. However, a handful of Route M-6 trips were reintroduced in March, which was not enough to please activists.
Phase II
In 2006, a Phase II was proposed that was met with even more controversy. This phase was delayed several times for various reasons, and ultimately scrapped in 2007 following the election of Governor Martin O'Malley in favor of incremental changes.
In March of that year, MTA announced that there would be a Phase II of GBBI. In the announcement, it was declared that twenty-three local bus lines would undergo routing and/or scheduling changes, or else be consolidated with other lines, and these changes would take place on June 11, 2006. According to MTA literature produced at the time, these changes were all improvements that would, for the most part, have a positive impact on riders. Then Maryland transportation secretary Robert Flanagan said that only 46 riders would lose their daily bus service.
The plan was heavily criticized, not only because some riders would lose service or else find it more difficult, but because no hearings were being held to get input from riders. Flanagan said that hearings held during the previous year were sufficient, and that those who had concerns about these changes could write letters to MTA to express their views.
The plan was delayed when the 2006 General Assembly wrote language into their budget that stated that no improvements could be made on any MTA bus lines until MTA held a minimum of two hearings, besides several other stipulations.
As a result of the language found in the budget passed by the Maryland General Assembly, the June 11 improvements were delayed. In late June 2006, two hearings were held per requirement. At the hearings, riders mostly voiced concerns pertaining to the negative impact felt by the October 2005 changes, as well as minor details of the planned ones.
A second version of phase II was proposed later in 2006, in which some of the original Phase II proposals were modified based on earlier complaints, but it never took effect, with the exception of additional service being added on five bus lines in October of that year. On October 8, 2006, part of Phase II was implemented. All other plans were scheduled to be implemented on February 11, 2007. However, as Martin O'Malley replaced Robert Ehrlich as Maryland governor, and much of the administration saw changes, MTA has delayed further implementing any part of GBBI in order to give the O'Malley administration a chance to place their stamp of approval upon the changes, but the administration announced it was scrapping the plan on May 9, 2007 in favor of incremental changes three times a year. The first set of changes, which affected 19 bus lines, and were mostly very minor, took place on June 10, 2007.
February 2008 plans
In September 2007, MTA announced a set of hearings that would be held the following month regarding a series of changes to ten lines. This was not considered to be a part of the already canceled GBBI, though some of the changes that were proposed resembled those under GBBI. Most notably, plans included:
Additionally, several other changes never included in GBBI were proposed:
On February 17, 2008, all these changes were implemented, except Route 61 service continued to operate during peak hours only.