The MT Position

Post by Fred Jandt
Editor, Mass Transit

Okay, that headline sounds like a “The Sky is Falling!” type of cry for attention, but if you are a resident of Pennsylvania, it is far closer to the truth than you would like to admit.

I’ve said previously that the media has a way of latching onto a storyline and running anything close to it, causing a phantom proliferation in the number of events happening at any given time. And yes, this year’s big story seems to be transit budget crises (much like strikes were last year), this situation in Pennsylvania is the proverbial highway wreck you can’t help but rubberneck as you drive past.

Sure there are a lot of transit agencies near the break even point or below, but both of Pennsylvania’s largest transit agencies, serving its two largest population centers, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, are woefully short of operating funds.

And the most interesting part of the whole situation is the dodgeball being played by the myriad of officials who are trying to pass the buck on fixing the problem to somebody other than themselves while still looking good in the process.

The governor’s plan is to either a) raise taxes on oil companies, b) lease the Pennsylvania turnpike or c) both. Okay, so “Big Oil” has become the modern-day bogeyman who everyone is supposed to despise and shake their enraged fists at much like Enron and the like were a few years back before gas prices took off. Going after them is a no-brainer for a politician. Who’s not going to back that plan. But how the governor thinks he can legislate the oil companies from not passing on the tax increase to their customers (and further increasing the cost of gas) mystifies me. I’m sorry, but isn’t that the basis of the capitalist society we’re mired in here?

Leasing the turnpike isn’t a half bad idea … a decade ago. Between SEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County, they are looking at more than $200 million in budget deficit this year before making any service cuts. Turning the turnpike into a toll road will not come up with that kind of cash in the remaining nine months of 2007.

Allegheny County itself is looking to keep a share of taxes collected in the county to funnel into public transit. This would help alleviate the $25 million the county pays each year.

So the county is looking for relief from funding public transit. The governor is looking for relief from the state funding public transit. And oil companies are looking to dodge a tax increase to be used to fund public transit.

See where we are going with this?

As always, everybody loves public transit, everybody understands its important and yet, no one wants to help maintain it — let alone come up with funding to increase it.

I guess in Pennsylvania, everybody wants to get on board, but they want the free pass first.

Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Thursday.

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com

Posted by Fred Jandt
Editor, Mass Transit

A recent bill approved by the House Homeland Security Commission (HR 1401) and now introduced before Congress is the latest attempt to increase security for our nation’s public transportation systems.

This bill takes a step forward in authorizing $5.1 billion dollars to go towards transit security. This money is definitely needed for agencies to provide or upgrade their security.

The bill also looks at “high-risk” and “medium-risk” agencies and asks them to submit vulnerability assessments and security plans so that they may be “approved.”

Okay, here’s where I have issue with these bills. Since 9-11 those “high-risk” agencies have gotten more security than most Midwestern cities.

When I was doing the cover story on NJ Transit for our December issue I got a tour of their police force by Sergeant Bob Noble. Let me tell you, NJ Transit has it together. Their officers are not only fully-trained officers of the law, but also many have volunteer fire fighting experience, hazmat training and other specialized training.

Chief Douglas DeLeaver of the Maryland Transit Police force instituted Zone Enforced Unified Sweeps (ZEUS) to forestall terrorist activity within the boundaries of the Maryland Transit Administration and it has worked exceptionally well for them. And Zeus is only part of the policies that DeLeaver has instituted at the MTP.

Here are but two examples of “high-risk” agencies that have already made steps to prevent future attacks on their grounds.

As far as new funding for transit security goes, we need to be vigilant, but not foolish. Our “high-risk” agencies already know they are at risk and have been working to prevent future terrorist acts since 9-11 happened.

If we want to truly be secure, we need to shore up those agencies that may not feel they are a “high-risk” because nothing has ever happened to them before. You know the ones I am talking about — those agencies with a single security guard at its leading station who does the job because he’s semi-retired and it gets him out of the house.

Many of our agencies (especially those with rail components) travel through rural areas. Sure, major urban centers have been and will be the major targets for attacks, but those rural areas are prime places for someone to plant something and let it be carried to those urban areas.

We need to look at security as a whole and not just pick out those “high-risk” targets because often it seems that a place doesn’t become high-risk until after something happens.

Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Thursday.

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com

Posted by Fred Jandt
Editor, Mass Transit

I admit I am an Internet junkie. I have alerts set up on my computer to let me know when new e-mails show up in my inbox. I have news alerts set up to let me know when any public transit news breaks. And I spend more time surfing the Net than I care to admit to myself. Heck, we’ve even started hosting videos on the Mass Transit Web site, but there is still no alternative to being somewhere in person.

As I write this I am getting back into the swing of things after spending a few days in Washington, D.C., at the APTA Legislative Conference. Every APTA event is a whirlwind, but the Legislative Conference is double that because of all the people you see there. I counted at least half of our previous year’s cover stories at the show (most of which I got to speak with again) and I spoke with the agency heads from several of our upcoming covers as well. And it was great!

Despite appearances to the contrary, this industry is more close knit than people imagine. It is also very inclusive. Being able to travel to agencies and see what they are doing firsthand is key. Sure, we could interview our cover stories over the phone, but then you get those question/answer type stories. I’ll admit that I often go into agencies with less knowledge about them than I should — but that is by intent. I love going to an agency and finding out all about them. That’s what drives our stories. Finding out those little nuances each agency has. Those little things they do that make them so successful. Every agency has them and that’s what makes this job so fun.

And traveling to those agencies has added benefits. We don’t just get the story, we make friends. Sure, that sounds corny, but it’s true. This industry is built on partnerships. It’s built on friendships. I don’t know how many times I’ve had agency directors tell me that they rely on the knowledge and wisdom of other agencies to help guide them.

How many agency directors reading this have mentors? From former agency heads to just long-term agency employees. I would hazard a guess that list is pretty long. And it should be. This industry has a wealth of experience and knowledge built up in its people and you would be a fool not to tap into that.

Attending APTA shows brings all of these resources into the same room, and it’s great to be able to see all of those friendly faces again. To be able to keep in touch with those friends you’ve drifted from because, frankly, we’re all working so hard it’s no surprise that we don’t keep in touch more often.

Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Thursday.

Fred

Posted by Fred Jandt
Editor, Mass Transit

A recent study by TransLink, Vancouver’s public transit agency, showed that 35 percent of the greenhouse gases in its region came from automobiles and that the agency would need to more than double their ridership by 2020 to meet government mandated clean air numbers by then.

This got me to thinking about the enormous effort it will take for them to get more than 200 million people to ride their system by then. The more I thought about it, the more I thought that a major key in this effort would have to be sustainability and transit-oriented development.

We’ve got a big focus on sustainability this year with Mass Transit, so I have a couple of news feeds set up to look for sustainability stories. Little did I know that seemingly everyone else is looking into this as well, and not in a good way. Sustainability has seemingly overnight become the new watchword for companies looking for good PR. Everyone is talking about sustainability this and sustainability that. It looks like almost every company has some plan for sustainability.

Don’t get me wrong. Sustainability isn’t a good thing, it’s a great thing. And with its increased popularity, the presence of sustainability in the media has increased exponentially — and therein lies the problem.

Sustainability has gotten too much press, too quickly. Sure, we can say it’s not getting enough play, but while it’s not reaching the average joe, the corporations they all work for are being bombarded with a steady stream of material advocating the benefits of sustainability.

See, the thing here is that most people given too much of a good thing too soon will just tune it out. Take political correctness from the 1990s. It’s a simple concept in principle: take other people’s feelings into consideration when you do things. But that concept got so mired down in the application that it became its own worst enemy. Being PC became a derogatory term, even to the point a satirical film (PCU) was created using the concept’s own worst ideas against it.

Now take a look at this definition of sustainability I took from its listing on Wikipedia:

“Sustainability is an attempt to provide the best outcomes for the human and natural environments both now and into the indefinite future. It relates to the continuity of economic, social, institutional and environmental aspects of human society, as well as the non-human environment. It is intended to be a means of configuring civilization and human activity so that society, its members and its economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present, while preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals in a very long term. Sustainability affects every level of organization, from the local neighborhood to the entire planet.”

Yeah, that really speaks to most people. Now about half way down in the listing I found this definition:

“Sustainability - The ability to meet present needs without compromising those of future generations.”

That’s a much better definition. This I can get behind. It comes down to something a friend once told me and I try to teach my kids, think in terms of what you need, not what you want (unfortunately, they’re kids and this is a tough sell to them).

Here is where sustainability becomes a tough sell. In this culture of instant gratification we find ourselves in, teaching the public to think in terms of need instead of want is like speaking in a dead language to them.

To steal a movie reference, sustainability is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it. You can’t just do lip service to it. Doing that will just push sustainability down the road of good intentions that political correctness traveled a decade ago. And you know what they say about the road paved with good intentions….

Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Thursday.

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com

Posted by Fred Jandt
Editor, Mass Transit

I scan a lot of news stories on a daily basis in an attempt to keep up on what’s going on around the country in the transit industry. Usually I’m inundated by a ton of stories discussing similar topics: funding, strikes, budget shortages. You know the usual stuff.

Every once in a while, though, something pops up on the radar that sticks out more than the rest. About a week ago, a story came out that an advocacy group made a bid for Denver RTD to remove advertisements for Mature-rated games from its system.

In an RTD board meeting, Parents Television Council Denver chapter director, George Robinson, addressed the board, saying, “Our public transportation network serves more than half the residents of Colorado and is doing them a disservice with its tacit approval for the dangerous content in the Mature-rated video games that are advertised throughout the system. I’m here today to remind Chairman Chris Martinez and the board that they have a responsibility to act in the best interest of those who voted you into these important positions. You can take a step towards being a better steward of the public good today by no longer accepting advertising from violent video games that can have long-term harmful effects on the youth in our community.”

Let’s take a look at this a little bit. First of all, these are mature-rated games. There is a rating system in place for video games these days in case you haven’t purchased one in a while. The rating system is pretty good and helps parents decide what and what not to let their kids play. The system pretty much mirrors the television rating system for programs. As a parent, there is a strict rule in my house that my kids aren’t allowed to play certain games at all, certain games without supervision and other games they can play by themselves. This is all based on the rating system.

Here’s the thing. If one of my boys were to ask about Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories (the advertised game at the crux of this debate), I would say no, that’s a rated M game and you can’t play it. Even the advertising says the rating right on it.

And who made RTD the “steward of the public good”? They are a transportation company whose number one job is to transport people from Point A to Point B and all points between, and their number two job is to make sure they have enough money to do job number one.

Another example of these “public do-gooders” enforcing their will upon a transit agency was the story that broke late last year about the Got Milk? campaign that included cookie-scented strips on the back of the cardboard ads. These ads were placed in bus shelters and removed within a day of being put up because of complaints.

Now, the idea that you need to freshen up the scent of a bus stop is absurd. I’ve been in enough stops and stations across the country to tell you that the smelly bus stop is an anachronism. Most stops and stations smell either clean or have little to no identifiable smell at all. Sure, those in large cities will tell you that there are those smells in some stations, but considering all of the stations in the system, that’s far from the norm.

That said, the complaints leading to the smelly ads being pulled were just ridiculous. They included worries of allergic reactions (to a scent?!) and that they could be offensive to the homeless who can’t afford to buy cookies.

Huh?! I would like to see how much advertising was pulled to quell the ridiculous complaints of these “Good Samaritans” and how much money was lost in the process.

Sure, it’s just an ad here or an ad there, but maybe if these good-hearted folks looked for new ways to fund transit, or just supported it more themselves, there wouldn’t be a need for advertising on the system at all.

Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Thursday.

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com