The Washington, DC region is great >> and it can be greater.


Montgomery at-large candidates diverge on growth, development issues

The most controversial primary in Montgomery County this year might be for the at-large council seat. More so than any race, this one focuses on how the county should grow and whether it can meet the increasing demand for urban, transit-served communities.

Photo by dan reed! on Flickr.

There are six candidates vying for four at-large seats on the County Council. The incumbents include Nancy Floreen and George Leventhal, both elected on a pro-growth slate in 2002 and finishing their third terms; former teacher Marc Elrich, who won on a slow-growth platform in 2006; and Hans Riemer, a former political campaign director elected in 2010. The challengers are Beth Daly, director of political ad sales for Telemundo, and Vivian Malloy, retired Army nurse and member of the county's Democratic Central Committee.

All six candidates filled out the Action Committee for Transit's questionnaire for the scorecard, which is based on both their responses and public statements. This year, how ACT rated the candidates' responses has become a story of its own.

Riemer, Leventhal, and Floreen want more housing in urban areas; Daly and Elrich say we'll have enough

As with the Purple Line, all six candidates say they support building in the county's downtowns and near transit, where more people are interested in living and where an increasing share of the county's growth is happening. But they disagreed on where exactly to build, and how much new housing was necessary.

Riemer. Image from Maryland Manual On-line.
Most of the candidates focused on ways to meet the growing demand for housing in urban areas. Hans Riemer, George Leventhal, and Nancy Floreen all voted in favor of five master plans that would allow over 15,000 new homes to be built around Metro or future Purple Line stations, especially on the less-affluent eastern side of the county.

Riemer pointed to accessory apartments as one way to increase affordable housing, while Floreen named specific impediments to building more affordable housing, such as the county's parking requirements and developer fees. Both Riemer and Vivian Malloy advocated increased funding for the county's affordable housing programs.

Meanwhile, Elrich and Daly both say the county is growing too fast, though much of the county is pretty stable. Elrich has been especially critical of plans to around future Purple Line stations at Long Branch and Chevy Chase Lake, both of which he voted against.

Daly. Image from her campaign website.
Both candidates have said that there are 46,000 approved but still-unbuilt homes in Montgomery County, suggesting that the county doesn't need more. But Lisa Sturtevant, a researcher at the Center for Housing Policy, says that the county will actually need nearly 84,000 new homes to meet the demand for housing over the next 20 years.

Candidates say they support the Purple Line, though Daly is hesitant

Leventhal. Image from his campaign website.
All four incumbents support the approved Purple Line route between Bethesda and New Carrollton, which the federal government has approved and could break ground next year if Congress approves the final piece of funding. "The Purple Line is my top priority," said Councilmember George Leventhal, who co-founded the group Purple Line Now! Councilmember Elrich has been lukewarm to the project in the past, but replied that he supported it as well.

Malloy. Image from her campaign website.

Both Vivian Malloy and Beth Daly wrote in their questionnaires that they support the Purple Line. Daly has expressed some skepticism about the Purple Line both in the questionnaire and in public appearances, which earned her a minus on the scorecard.

Support for complete streets, but disagreement over how to make them

Floreen. Image from Maryland Manual On-line.
Most of the candidates unequivocably supported pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly streets. Riemer noted that he and District 1 councilmember Roger Berliner are working on a new "urban roads" bill that would create safer streets for pedestrians and cyclists in the county's urban areas.

Elrich and Floreen say they support complete streets, but have also pointed to the road code bill they passed in 2008, which encourage pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly street design but allowed wide roads that encourage drivers to speed. Daly wrote that she supported complete streets "in the more densely populated regions of the county."

Strong support for Bus Rapid Transit, and opposition to new highways

Elrich. Image from Maryland Manual On-line.
Candidates also generally supported the county's Bus Rapid Transit plan, which Marc Elrich first proposed. When asked if they would convert existing traffic lanes to bus lanes, Elrich, Leventhal, Riemer and Malloy all said yes. "Studies show that repurposing a curb lane already being used by buses, the increase in transit riders can offset the drivers displaced from the curb-lane," wrote Elrich.

Daly testified in favor of BRT at public hearings last year, but said she wanted to "look at creative solutions" for creating bus lanes on narrow, congested roads. Floreen, who has been skeptical of the BRT plan, said her support would "depend on the particular location."

Meanwhile, all six candidates say they oppose the M-83 highway, which would go from Montgomery Village to Clarksburg, and would prefer a less costly alternative that involved transit.

Voters face two different paths in this race

The conventional wisdom is that Nancy Floreen, who's raised the most money, and Marc Elrich, who received the most votes four years ago, are safe. That makes the real contest between George Leventhal and Hans Riemer, who have spent their terms encouraging new investment in the county's downtowns and discouraging it in environmentally sensitive areas, and Beth Daly, who's called herself "Marc's second vote" and has mainly talked about slowing things down across the board.

Of all of the races in Montgomery County, this one may offer the starkest differences in candidates' positions when it comes to transportation and development issues. Simply because the voices in the at-large race have been so strong, changing any one of them this year could have a big impact on the county's direction over the next four years.

Full disclosure: Dan Reed worked in George Leventhal's council office from 2009-2010.

Dan Reed is an urban planner at Nelson\Nygaard. He writes his own blog, Just Up the Pike, and serves as the Land Use Chair for the Action Committee for Transit. He lives in downtown Silver Spring. All opinions are his own. 
Ronit Aviva Dancis lives in Bethesda. She serves on the board of the Action Committee for Transit. 


Add a comment »

Great synopsis, Dan, Ronit & John.
I've started referring to the folks that wrap themselves in the "Progressive" (root word: progress) and then try to subtly or overtly slow down any progress from actually happening as "Picket Fence Progressives." Many of these folks moved or stayed here to enjoy the benefits of smart planning (which MoCo does as well as any of the large jurisdictions around), without realizing what it takes to keep up that quality of life.
Stagnation is not a viable strategy as we fall behind our neighbors in Arlington, Fairfax and DC, (and the "creative solutions that is code for "death by study" approach on issues that have already been examined as a "compromise" is even worse) but that's what Marc and Beth seem to be aiming for, and it's very shortsighted.

by Joe in SS on Jun 19, 2014 2:30 pm • linkreport

So which ones given pluses by ACT said they were planning to spend over half the County's average yearly budget on BRT - for THEIR home neighborhoods?

by asffa on Jun 19, 2014 8:29 pm • linkreport

This is a good take on where things are. And I have to agree with most of what Joe in SS has stated. The mantra often spoken by slow growth folks is that all of the density have been accounted for. But then you have to wonder how the County will grow. No doubt it will be in places where transit will be - along Purple Line station areas, including in Bethesda and White Oak. The County cannot be left to bypass all the economic growth by the slow growth obstructionists.

It is also funny to read that Daly will be "Marc's second vote". Why is someone running if they cannot independently make decisions?

And oh that all of Clarksburg and take all their property taxes and transportation impacts taxes that they already paid. And we will throw them a bus...Politics is such a pathetic way to make a living for these folks.

by Truth about M-83 on Jun 19, 2014 8:43 pm • linkreport

Truth - hey, but they're getting to repurpose Rockville's own lanes for the bus.
I hope Daly isn't going to be "Marc's second vote" because that's not what I want, and I early voted.

by asffa on Jun 19, 2014 8:49 pm • linkreport

@asffa: Too bad if you wasted a vote:) We have been recommending that folks vote only for candidates who support M-83:) And it seems overall early voting is not very strong except in one area of the County - Upcounty! Hopefully, there is a message in all of this to At-large Council candidates.

by Truth about M-83 on Jun 19, 2014 9:10 pm • linkreport

Well said Truth. Pitting one part of the county over another will hurt everyone in the long run. BRT will benefit everyone by providing a dependable transit route for those near to it and reducing congestion for those who have to, or chose to ride. Also, the economic benefits of intelligently capturing a share of the growth we are expected to have will fill the whole county's chauffeurs, and by the look of our trailer park school expansions, we could use it.

by Thayer-D on Jun 20, 2014 5:26 am • linkreport

Mr. Reed, please note that Ms. Vivian Malloy is currenly serving her last term on the Central Commiittee.

by KSWANN on Jun 20, 2014 9:02 am • linkreport

" Pitting one part of the county over another will hurt everyone in the long run. "
Which is the intention of BRT.

You don't see BRT plans for Chevy Chase, Wisconsin Ave, Oldtown Gaithersburg, Downtown Bethesda, Downtown Silver SPring, Kensington, anywhere highest density with lots of money, most parking woes, etc. - do you?

No, the CSG associated developer lobby's plans pushed through the idea of slap the middle class with a tax increase and ruining their area's roads for local traffic AND local transit, to less than 30% speed increase for a more expensive new bus service with less local stops/access and cuts to the current service.

If the plans go through, some bus riders I know will no longer be able to ride the bus to their destination, and this is sold as a BONUS?!?! "Good for transit?"
Making bus riders no longer able to use public transit to get to their destination is dependably BAD transit.

When they discuss developmental additional of expensive condos, etc. on the BRT lines, the whole point of BRT is to excuse not building parking to save developers money. Rich people won't ride the bus. Not even a brand new bus.

As for school plans - They keep building short buildings, spending money on "green roofs" and "atriums" rather than more rooms in the schoolhouse that will be filled within months of finish. Nothing wrong with those things, but first the schools need to be built large enough. I lost a bet on how many months a recently constructed elementary would take after opening up before trailers would be added - I said six. It was *two*.

by asffa on Jun 20, 2014 9:03 am • linkreport


Sorry about that. I added that Vivian Malloy serves on the Democratic Central Committee. Thanks for the heads-up!

by dan reed! on Jun 20, 2014 9:08 am • linkreport

Many of those areas you mentioned are already developing and also have transit or planned transit options. BRT is supposed to be an economical alternative to light rail but the main idea being to spread out the web of dependable tranist to areas currently underserved. Some people will find the restricted roads a terrible inconvenience, but weighed against all those who will be able to travel faster without the burden of car payments, well that's government at it's finest.

I will whole heartedly agree with you on schools though. I'm all for green roofs, but for god's sake, let's build bigger schools in anticipation of the growth, much like we should build the BRT.

by Thayer-D on Jun 20, 2014 9:20 am • linkreport

What I'm looking at is having restricted and more congested roads, higher taxes, and more expense in gas and gas consumption from being stuck in traffic longer, and having to drive where we used to be able to take the bus. They're going to cut RideOn and MetroBus to do BRT.

You may be looking at a painting paid for a developer lobby with rainbows, that coincidentally has a bus in it.

And still no actual improvements where we need them!!

by asffa on Jun 20, 2014 9:32 am • linkreport

Umm, In the US and Canada, BRT isn't an intra-district transit service, more of a faster service for outlying areas to reach activity centers, or along corridors (like Rockville Pike), so of course you wouldn't have BRT "in" Chevy Chase or Bethesda or Silver Spring (etc.). You have different types of transit service there.

In South America, BRT does both, at the intra-city level it functions as a high frequency service "just like the subway" in Bogota (and probably Santiago), and serves more distant areas (Curitiba).

by Richard Layman on Jun 20, 2014 9:33 am • linkreport

Also, Bethesda, Silver Spring, Chevy Chase, and Kensington are all getting the purple line.

by drumz on Jun 20, 2014 9:35 am • linkreport

@drumz: I'm pretty sure Kensington is not getting the purple line, unless I missed some revision where they decided to take part of it outside the Beltway.

by Gray on Jun 20, 2014 9:55 am • linkreport

Yep, double checking the map confirms that I've apparently been putting Kensington somewhere it shouldn't be.

by drumz on Jun 20, 2014 9:58 am • linkreport

You're right Gray, Kensington isn't getting a purple line stop, but shoudl have a metro stop to augment the Marc service.

"What I'm looking at is having restricted and more congested roads, higher taxes, and more expense in gas and gas consumption from being stuck in traffic longer, and having to drive where we used to be able to take the bus."

Providing transit actually reduces congestion. Imagine our roads without the metro! And there will be more tax revenue with all the business that transit oriented communities generate, so push for lower taxes once the cauffers fill up. And save on gas by taking the BRT, just don't blame transit for raising your gas expenses. But if you insist on being able to drive everywhere you'd like and have all the rest of us wasting precious tax revenue to maintain an incredibly wastefull infrastructure for it's return, I can't help you with that. BTW, enjoy the cleaner air while your at it.

by Thayer-D on Jun 20, 2014 10:03 am • linkreport

Richard Layman -
Most of the people using the bus in this neighborhood are only going a neighborhood away, intra-districtly, or to the local Metro.
So you're basically agreeing with my view the BRT's purpose is to harm those riding the bus right now to please other cities' development plans.

by asffa on Jun 20, 2014 10:05 am • linkreport

Thayer-D If your argument is true, then why weren't there driving impact statements in the 7 million dollar "studies" done about BRT?
And causing "disappearing traffic" by congesting roads even less able to handle heavy loads is not safe nor is it "disappearing".

by asffa on Jun 20, 2014 10:08 am • linkreport

Without much, much higher densities in Montgomery County, the BRT discussion is just something of a distraction from having a real discussion on growth issues.

It is not an apples to apples comparison to say Bogota (a city with over 7 million residents!) and other few places where BRT is a success and speak of Montgomery County (puny 1 million residents in comparison) in the same breath. For all the hoopla around BRT, there is hardly any success stories that is comparable to Montgomery County.

All of this boils down to density. Without density, if BRT is to be a private enterprise, people will laugh anyone mentioning it out of the room. Only public money can be thrown at these losing enterprises. It is amazing that those who championed BRT will not support added density in areas that can be served by transit; doesn't matter it is bus or Purple Line or something else. It amazes me that the Council went chicken and did not take BRT all the way down to Friendship Heights/DC border! So for the forseeable future, BRT plans will only be paper, that transit advocates can salivate around. At the same time by the anti-road crowd and their cohorts on the Council will only help make the economic future of the County go down the drain.

The blind opposition to M-83 without any clue about the issue by many in this forum and on the County Council is the classic example. The Council has let the horse out of the barn and stood behind to approve all the density to place over 45,000 residents in Clarksburg. It is quite moronic now for anyone on the Council or County Executive to say that building M-83 is too expensive. Only if these folks had some backbone and did not start a 12 year study, the road would have cost much less (this is also a hint for Purple Line supporters to pay attention to, when folks say we need more study).

by Truth about M-83 on Jun 20, 2014 10:10 am • linkreport

asffa - You're starting to grasp at straws here.
I ride the buses along US 29, one of the three routes for the initial BRT, almost daily. ~80% of the riders that begin the trip at Silver Spring (where many buses leave with standing room only, even off-peak) continue at least as far as White Oak. A handful get off at Four Corners, and many continue north to places north of Randolph Road. They *are* going to the "local" (nearest) metro, but they traverse at least six neighborhoods to do it. That's what BRT is meant to help with. The local Metrobuses and RideOn buses will still operate too.

by Joe in SS on Jun 20, 2014 10:12 am • linkreport

From your comments, I know you won't ever be convinced that reducing your personal convenience with regard to automobile use can ever be offset with benefits to the larger community and envoronment, but this might help.

An interesting note from the article for those who would prefer to concentrate all density in one small area (ie: downtown DC) and keep the suburbs the bucolic efficient communities we have today, here's a sample quote...

"It's also important to note that some of the most walkable cities in the report are significantly more expensive than the locations that took the lower spots. New York City is a dramatic example of a metropolis where too many walkable urban places have been concentrated over a tiny landmass, creating an unsustainable housing situation.

In a phone interview, Leinberger advised spreading out walkable urban development across cities and suburbs to avoid what he called a “supply-side problem."

by Thayer-D on Jun 20, 2014 10:13 am • linkreport

Thayer-D Please don't stubbornly miss how we use the bus to get a place, and won't be able to do so if the BRT lobby gets their way. We're pretty typical customers, too, using common route and destination.

Look at how the Q routes will be abbreviated or change and the bus won't go where it does now or there will be less service.
BRT means reducing stops and other bus service to those living on the targeted routes.

by asffa on Jun 20, 2014 10:15 am • linkreport

General comment: It's been interesting to watch the Daly/Elrich supporters successfully turn these comment threads away from talking about the candidates, and on to strawman arguments. That's representative of the way they've smeared some of their opponents with fact free vitriol (not to say Beth or Marc have, but I've seen many people with their stickers out doing as much.)

by Joe in SS on Jun 20, 2014 10:20 am • linkreport

Joe in SS - Isn't there an express bus already for some of your route?

by asffa on Jun 20, 2014 10:21 am • linkreport

That's a good point Joe in SS. Back to Marc Elrich...

"Meanwhile, Elrich and Daly both say the county is growing too fast, though much of the county is pretty stable. Elrich has been especially critical of plans to around future Purple Line stations at Long Branch and Chevy Chase Lake, both of which he voted against."

He's for the BRT and Purple Line but thinks we don't need to accomodate any more development. That makes no sense. Those who are here now get the privelages but those who'd like to move here get no love? I know Mr. Elrich means well, but that's not progressive, that's regressive.

by Thayer-D on Jun 20, 2014 10:25 am • linkreport

I live off the Red Line and don't drive in DC.
People managing transit badly or planning badly (like many BRT designs)- sure they do affect my "personal convenience" as well as that of thousands more. They're destroyers who abuse the public trust and waste billions in our taxes during an economic downturn.
It's not just on how I'd no longer be able to use the bus that I complain.

by asffa on Jun 20, 2014 10:30 am • linkreport

Joe in SS - Isn't there an express bus already for some of your route?
There is, but people take whatever bus comes first, because they all get stuck in the same traffic. (That's why we need a dedicated BRT lane :) ) With the exception of the Z2 (to Olney via NH Ave) and the Z29 (Laurel/Burtonsville), all of the buses generally travel similar routes. Put yourself in the place of an every day bus rider that doesn't have ten smartphone apps with real time arrivals, etc. They see the first bus going their way, and they take it.

That's one of the other less discussed benefits of BRT - simplification. Tourists and irregular bus riders can and do ride BRT lines (think of "The Deuce" in Vegas) when they are easy to understand, and the schedule is not a hindrance.

by Joe in SS on Jun 20, 2014 10:33 am • linkreport

"An interesting note from the article for those who would prefer to concentrate all density in one small area (ie: downtown DC) and keep the suburbs the bucolic efficient communities we have today, here's a sample quote..."

I wonder who that could be? Not me for sure. I support growing density on Columbia Pike in Arlington, I support the transformation of Tysons, etc. I just don't support making downtown DC less dense in ORDER to encourage that.

"It's also important to note that some of the most walkable cities in the report are significantly more expensive than the locations that took the lower spots. New York City is a dramatic example of a metropolis where too many walkable urban places have been concentrated over a tiny landmass, creating an unsustainable housing situation."

NYC is a metro area of about 20 million, depending how you define it. Its gonna be expensive. Limiting height in Manhattan would not have made it a cheaper place to live - unless of course that had resulted in Wall Street decamping to someplace cheaper.

"In a phone interview, Leinberger advised spreading out walkable urban development across cities and suburbs to avoid what he called a “supply-side problem.""

Well if you make it harder to build density in places like Tysons or Arlington, you make the supply problem worse. It doesnt follow from that that you should make it harder to add density downtown. I do seem to recall Mr Leinberger supporting the height limit. I do not recall him making a convincing argument for that though. Sometimes he seems to treat transforming suburbs as an end in itself, rather than as a means to an end. We have had some interesting articles this last week. On the one hand a couple who had trouble finding housing they could afford that met their needs in DC. On the other hand - people dying in India from a heat wave, the hottest global May on record, another record hot day in DC. I want suburban densification because it will add to non auto mode share and thus counter global warming, and because it will give people seeking a WUP lifestyl more housing choices. But thats true only if more suburban density is a substitute for more sprawl. If more suburban density is only a substitute for density downtown, it does not accomplish that.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 20, 2014 10:40 am • linkreport

"They're destroyers who abuse the public trust and waste billions in our taxes during an economic downturn."

I agree there needs to be better management of transit, but it's not helpful to confuse the managers with the solution. Even roads can be fouled up with out proper management, but the idea that we can continue to grow sustainably, economically, and environmentally without mass transit is false.

by Thayer-D on Jun 20, 2014 10:41 am • linkreport

Joe in SS- Most of the traffic on that route is coming from Howard County.
That traffic won't "disappear" nor will they use the bus instead - unless it starts up near them.
Without coordination or plans with Howard County involved, building a BRT is short-sighted. When cutting fabric or building roads, you measure twice - cut or pour once.
If they coordinating building a bus line along the median up to 4 Corners, all that might be clever.

Tourists are unlikely riders of a Rt. 29 BRT - admit it. hehee

by asffa on Jun 20, 2014 10:45 am • linkreport

Yes, good idea to stick discussing the post. I was at the new Bethesda CBD Sector Plan EcoDistrict presentation/charette Wednesday night and when Planning staff mentioned Purple Line, there were hisses and raised voices from one table.

Here is another classic example of slow-growth and no-growth folks at work. If we cannot put more density in Bethesda, where else?

This week I was also at the White Oak Sector Plan presentation by the Planning Dept to the County Council and Marc Elrich was I guess the lone voice trying to shoot down what White Oak could be.

Folks need to realize that the none of County transportation tests in urbanizing Downcounty areas will work and we need to put our trust in more mixed use TOD activity centers as a way to address traffic issues. New growth (like it or not, it is coming and is not a fiction as ME and others would argue) in TOD areas that is multi-modal could only help us grow in a way that is fiscally prudent.

As noted by Thayer-D, I do not think one can be a transit advocate and be an opponent to everything that will pay for that vision from ever happening. ME, BD, and now it seems the County Executive (with the ongoing Thompson Road connection project near Spencerville and the M-83 project) are speaking from both sides of their mouths to just advance their own agenda, which is to make a living off County residents.

by Truth about M-83 on Jun 20, 2014 10:47 am • linkreport

Thayer-D I want a better bus system, I want the one *we have* to work and almost all "flag pole" stops be replaced with shelters with a bike rack, and that design be one of the past. I want "night owl" service, that goes on awhile after the Metro runs, (preferably all the way to Wheaton, where several major routes collide)
I think Rush Hour Bus lanes would be brilliant for both 14th and 16th street. Maybe other areas, eventually/potentially. BRTs through medians including on 29 have potential, really, if planned well.
How far could 150 million go to doing bus improvements? A long way. But only a tiny way for BRT, since that's how much one dedicated BRT line is expected to cost that'd raise bus speed (optimistically) a whopping 11% or 2 minutes while expected to slow other vehicles between twice and triple that - on a hospital and emergency route. BRT plans are so frequently a giant boondoggle.
Lots of wonderful, smaller projects that aren't done because of money concerns that run for a few million while the Council approves 2.4+ billion dollar ones with dubious direct benefits for most customers living nearby. Many times harm done those living nearby. And I want more approx N-S roads to be built in Montgomery County because the County is growing and NEEDS THEM or they'll have a larger mess in the future, and it's better to prepare.

by asffa on Jun 20, 2014 11:08 am • linkreport

Thayer-D BTW, as for the idea of any bus only lane not being placed in 29's median and 'repurposing' the road instead -
County residents, at already a very large expense, have Rt. 29 be designed as the "fast track' for cars - meant to move people to BWI, to the ICC, interchanges designed and built for enormous expense to reduce the need for people to stop for as many lights, just to make it run faster for mixed use.
That's only part of the reason it's at cross-purposes and wasteful to take lanes away from Rt. 29.
It's almost like they never thought of bus lanes until now - so now it's just going to be badly designed and not integrative.
As for ACT - they have a chance to support integrative pedestrian/bike/car design on Muncaster Mill Road and 355, but they're against it, just to make the BRT, they want dead other projects.

by asffa on Jun 20, 2014 12:25 pm • linkreport

Joe - Assuming you are going to Red Line. Have you tried the Ride On No. 8? It's less than 10 min to Forest Glen then to SS.

by Bill on Jun 20, 2014 2:36 pm • linkreport

Bill - thanks. I work in Silver Spring and live in Four Corners. The 9 is the most direct route, but RideOn has cut its service, and changed the route it becomes/comes from before its run, making it a lot less reliable in the last few months. Also, RideOn RealTime reporting has been down more often than not. I've found the fastest way *too* work is to counterintuitively take the bus (C2/C4/9) to Wheaton and Red Line back to SS, and then coming home, as I said, I grab the first bus that comes on Colesville, and either take a bus or walk along University to get home. Buses get bunched a lot on University - 3 buses at once, then none for 20-30 minutes.
The 8 & the 19 are alternates for me, but they both frequently leave ahead of schedule, so I just grab them if I see them.

by Joe in SS on Jun 20, 2014 2:51 pm • linkreport

Joe in SS it'd be nice if RideOn and Metrobus got fixed. Full support for that.

Fleet tracking is done _successfully by businesses with a lot less funding and similar scale in numbers as RideOn - I'm not sure how much the typical fleet track system costs, but there's systems with apps all ready for availability to customers for bus fleets.

by asffa on Jun 21, 2014 12:18 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

You can use some HTML, like <blockquote>quoting another comment</blockquote>, <i>italics</i>, and <a href="http://url_here">hyperlinks</a>. More here.

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.


Support Us