HRT outlines plan to shrink low‑ridership routes, expand high‑frequency backbone and microtransit pilots

Hampton Roads Transit officials told the Newport News City Council on Oct. 14 they are proposing a System Optimization Plan (SOP) that would reduce low‑ridership local bus service and reinvest saved operator hours and local funding into higher‑demand, higher‑frequency regional backbone routes and microtransit zones.

The presentation, led by Ray Amorusso, HRT chief planning and development officer, said the agency is chronically short of bus operators and is missing service: “In the month of June, as an example, for the entire month, we missed about 1,200 trips because of lack of bus operators.” Amorusso said the SOP aims to match the published schedule to available operators and improve reliability so the system “will be there when we say we will be there.”

HRT framed the SOP as a way to move resources away from hourly routes with very low boardings toward routes with higher demand and toward microtransit, a demand‑responsive van service that HRT is piloting in Newport News. Amorusso described the existing microtransit zone as “approximately 23 square miles” and said two proposed additional zones would cover about 17 square miles (North Newport News) and about 9 square miles (Newsome Park). He said the pilot zone now operating in Newport News is funded with an 80% state trip grant and a 20% local match and is “doing very well in its performance to date.”

Why it matters: HRT told the council the SOP would enable more frequent 15‑minute service on regional backbone routes for large parts of the region without raising municipal costs for that higher frequency because the additional frequency is funded by the 2020 General Assembly RTS program. Amorusso said the draft plan would reduce less than 3% of total boardings in the system and that expanding backbone service could place “over 300,000 more Hampton Roads residents” within walking distance of high‑frequency service.

Performance metrics and cost tradeoffs discussed by HRT included: an operating‑cost‑per‑passenger local benchmark of $19.63, a local average of 6.84 passengers per hour, and examples of very low performing routes carrying about three passengers per hour. Amorusso said the systemwide cost per hour for a bus route averages about $126, while the microtransit pilots average about $72 per hour, and that microtransit can be more cost‑effective where demand is low.

Council questions focused on budget effects, coverage, and fare policy. Councilman Harris asked how shifting service would affect the city’s contribution and whether adopting microtransit would increase Newport News’ overall allocation to HRT; Amorusso responded that under the agency’s modeling the local funds that currently support eliminated fixed‑route service would be shifted to microtransit, and “if everything works out right … it should be revenue cost neutral.”

Amorusso also said HRT will examine fare policy changes to allow free transfers between microtransit and fixed routes, a planned mobile fare system with fare capping, and a separate sustainability study to identify additional revenue and cost containment opportunities. HRT said fare box recovery is currently about 6–7% and the agency would like to reach double digits.

Next steps: Amorusso said HRT is briefing member city councils during October–November, will refine recommendations through November, return to councils in January with a final plan, brief the HRT Commission in February, and seek Commission adoption in April. He said implementation would be phased, with the earliest service changes possible in October 2026 and further possible changes in May and October 2027.

No vote or formal direction to HRT was recorded at the work session; the presentation served as an information briefing and Q&A.

"We won't be missing trips because we'll have a smaller network of bus routes to support those operators," Amorusso said, describing the reliability goal.

HRT officials said the SOP seeks to preserve fixed‑route coverage where needed while using microtransit as an overlay for low‑demand areas and as a mitigation where routes are recommended for elimination.