Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Regional Transit Pat Feasibility topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Petersburg Area Transit seeks local participation in feasibility study for Emporia‑Greensville commuter route

Emporia City Council · January 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Petersburg Area Transit proposed a DRPT-funded feasibility study (50/50 local cost-share estimated $50,000–$100,000) to evaluate a commuter route connecting Petersburg and Emporia; no commitment to operating service was requested at this stage.

Petersburg Area Transit (PAT) presented a proposal to Emporia City Council on Jan. 20 to study a potential commuter/intercity route linking Petersburg, Brunswick County, Lawrenceville, Greensville County, and the City of Emporia.

Darius Mason, Director of PAT, said the feasibility study would examine routing, schedules, stops, demand and operating cost estimates to support an application to the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) for demonstration funding. PAT asked localities to participate in a 50/50 cost‑share for the study, estimated between $50,000 and $100,000 depending on scope. If the study supports a demonstration project, typical demonstration grants cover 80% of operating costs with a 20% local match; any operating commitment would require separate approval by each governing body.

Mason presented PAT’s FY25 cost metrics (net cost per vehicle mile $7.13; net cost per vehicle revenue hour $58.10; cost per rider $6.11) and provided an example operating estimate for an Emporia‑Greensville route: four daily trips, 42.4 miles round trip, an estimated annual operating cost of about $294,636 (based on PAT’s FY25 inputs). He stressed that these were planning estimates and that ridership and route design would determine final cost and funding needs.

Council members asked about grant timelines, survey participation, route design, and whether participation now would create binding obligations; Mason clarified that participation would be limited to surveys and feasibility work and that any later operating funding or service decisions would require separate Council approval. Council took no formal action and asked staff to gather additional information regarding grant timelines and possible local match options.