The MT Position

By Larry Mays

The New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) may no longer have the funding necessary to complete its original plans to install a state-of-the-art security system throughout its bus and subway systems.

According to a report from the state comptroller, the project — begun after 9/11 — has made improvements through the installation of thousands of surveillance cameras and motion detectors, but the anticipated final cost of the project is now nearly more than $200 million over original estimates. Part of the problem lies with disputes between the MTA and the prime contractor resulting in lawsuits being filed by both parties.

It’s not my job to sort through the complaints and affix blame, but I would hope this project would serve as a wakeup call for other jurisdictions looking to upgrade security for their transit systems. As with any project — large or small — there is a right way and a wrong way to achieve wanted results.

Too many jobs fail because of one or more of these common mistakes. Be careful to not let these foil your efforts to secure your transit system’s passengers and employees:

• The requirements of the project are poorly defined. No project should begin until both the end user (transit authority) and the contractor fully understand what will be expected of each of them.
• During the design phase, there is inadequate input from the end users (usually police agency). A contractor can’t be expected to design and install the perfect security system without significant input from the officials and employees who will be using it on a daily basis.
• Senior management has not taken ownership of the project. This applies to both the end user and the contractor. Someone from both parties has to take responsibility for the success of the project and provide the leadership to help make it work.
• Unrealistic implementation timeline. This is another area where good communication between the end users and the contractor can make a huge difference. As a transit operator, be realistic about how much time it takes to install security equipment that will meet your needs for the long haul. And as a contractor, don’t promise what you know you can’t deliver.
• Unproven technology has been selected. It’s nice to always stay on the cutting edge, but sometimes it is best to invest in equipment that has been shown to work in a transit environment similar to yours.
• There is no clear training and transition plan. No project should be considered complete until the employees charged with implementing the system are fully trained and competent in its use.

Transit system security is more important than ever and with tight budgets it is vital that you and your system integrator/contractor get it right the first time.

So here is a look at some of the steps that I believe will lead to a successful project:

• Select the integrator first. Don’t try to move forward without the expertise of a security systems integrator experienced in securing transit systems. That expertise can save you time and money throughout the project process.
• Make sure there is a discernable public safety issue for the project. Don’t install cameras and other equipment without a clearly defined reason.
• Develop solid requirements in collaboration with the project integrator. Get everyone on the same page to eliminate as many possible misunderstandings from the start.
• Make sure that everyone is clear on the procedures and practices before, during and after a project. It is wise to know well in advance if the job will require the temporary closure of a route or station.
• Define what will constitute a successful project. That will give both you and the integrators a clear idea of the ultimate goal.
• Clearly define scope. Scope creep is a big challenge. As the project progresses people’s ideas change and even grow into grander ideas. Have clear boundaries — what’s in and what’s out. While big ideas are great for the boardroom there is no place for them during a project.
• Have a realistic phased implementation plan. That will give you set milestones to check and see if the integrator is living up to its end of the bargain. But do allow for problems beyond anyone’s control, such as bad weather and other natural disasters.
• Insist that your integrators lab test the equipment to simulate the environment of a subway tunnel, bridge or parking lot. It may cost a little more upfront, but it can save a lot of money down the line by limiting likely problems during and after installation.
• Create a win/win situation where both you and your integrator share the risks. That encourages teamwork and helps get everyone more involved in making the project a success. No one likes to fail.
• Finally, ensure that the appropriate security and operations staff are properly trained on security procedures and systems management for any new or upgraded solutions.

By following these tips, I can’t guarantee your entire security project will go smoothly without problems. But don’t leave success to chance. Careful planning in conjunction with your integrator will greatly increase the likelihood of achieving your goals.

Larry Mays is group director for transportation and logistics for ADT Security Services.  He brings 31 years of transportation information management experience, helping to develop strategic network-based solutions for companies such as Unisys and Pan American World Airways.  Mays can be contacted at lmays@adt.com.

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor

This week Washington Metro officials had to face the heat as the National Transportation Safety Board held a three-day public hearing discussing last year’s fatal rail accident involving two Metro trains. Unfortunately for Metro, it looks like the heat may have just uncovered the tip of the iceberg.

Last year’s tragedy seems to be the impetus for change at Washington Metro, but unfortunately it may not be enough to satisfy local leaders. Already, two top officers at the agency have been removed and its general manager, John Catoe, has announced his resignation effective this April. However, a complete restructuring of Metro’s management may not be enough. Four U.S. senators have called for “substantial” reforms at the agency, which could even mean a federal takeover. Another group of senators have passed legislation to allow the feds to takeover safety regulation of the nation’s subways and light rail lines.

It sure didn’t help that Alstom testified that Metro’s “use of third-party components . . . presents, not only a customer quality issue, but also constitutes a serious and increasing risk to overall signaling system safety.”

Ouch.

Now everyone working in an agency where the maintenance guys have to use any brand of part they can get their hands on to keep their fleet running raise their hands. How about everyone in an agency where the maintenance guys have to manufacture their own parts because the ones they need aren’t made anymore?

This situation has two parts. The first part is Washington Metro itself. Being in the heart of the nation’s capital has its benefits and its costs. The biggest cost is that if you screw up everyone knows about it. There is a scrutiny at this agency that even the nation’s other largest agencies don’t have.

So the management deck gets swept cleaned (again) and the agency continues on. Hopefully, somebody with some sense won’t put the feds in charge — there’s too much red tape at agencies already.

The other part is this idea of mixing and matching parts increasing the risk of an accident. I’m sorry, but at the very least that’s just covering your behind in front of the government, and at the most that’s an indictment of our industry. Transit agencies are woefully underfunded for the amount of service they provide. Naysayers be damned, it’s true.  And to say that these agencies are all possibly creating a “serious and increasing risk” to system safety is ridiculous.

That’s like buying a new printer and charging $100 a cartridge for ink, but saying the $10 generic cartridge will blow it up in six months. Why would I buy that printer to begin with?

Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Friday. For those interested in instant updates, you can now get your latest Mass Transit fix via Twitter.

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com
Check out our LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter pages!

by Mark FossThe driver pulled into the bus stop at a busy intersection and got out of the seat to leave the bus.  He needed to use the only restroom — euphemistically called a “comfort station” by the company.  The hour-long trip was made longer by the number of people picked up. The schedule was impossible unless the bus was empty.  People were impatient. They considered it his fault. There was no time to explain. Stress was high.

The trip consisted of two interlined routes passing through the center of the city. Once the shoppers came out around 9:00 a.m., he was chronically late. Every Sunday was a 10-hour day filled mind numbing work. The schedule showed seven minutes recovery time on one end and ten minutes on the other end. Maybe the schedule would recover — he wouldn’t.

He checked his watch. There were four minutes left before he was scheduled to leave the next terminal. Schedules lie, he thought. The terminal was in a residential neighborhood six blocks from the contract-paid location offering a restroom. There was no time to walk back, no time to get coffee and no time to decompress.

Three people were still on the bus when he got ready to get off.  One of them swore at him, asking why he was leaving the bus. One more bit of stress.  A less patient driver would have told the rude passenger where to get off.  The driver simply shrugged and went into the restaurant to use the toilet.  This happened years before YouTube existed.

Recently Mass Transit magazine ran a blog discussing the impact on transit companies of videos and photos posted to the internet. One of the links caught my eye. It was about a Toronto driver taking a mid-route break — caught on video.  I have driven public transit buses. For many years now I have supervised drivers.  I have enforced the rules and written negative performance reports when drivers stopped where they shouldn’t. The trouble with judging a situation from a video is that it fails the test of consideration of context.

The sleeping worker in the booth (assuming he wasn’t sick) was clearly wrong, and in my judgment, he should be disciplined.  On the other hand, the driver stopping for coffee might have been within policy guidelines. It’s hard to judge without a context. The driver in my story above was following policy — and he was entitled at least to use the restroom, if not get a cup of coffee. The schedule delay was the company’s fault — i.e. bad schedule and poor placement of a terminal to begin with.

Across the country transit budgets are under enormous pressure. Cuts in the hours are being proposed. Changes to schedules to squeeze out more “revenue hours” are being made. King County, Washington, completed a performance audit of public transit not long ago. Among other things, the audit discusses “building more cost-efficient schedules”. The report goes on to say: “Currently, the time Transit’s buses are waiting at the end of routes is higher than at other transit agencies in some cases, the amount of time allotted exceeds what is needed for operations.” (Technical Report B Service Development, p.4)

My concern is that real customer service will suffer in the name of budget gains. It is easy to consider service in terms of the number of revenue hours, the number of trips run or the number of rides per year. But how do you define quality? Customer service consists not only in facilities, vehicles and schedules. It also consists in how clean the transit vehicles are, how safe the public feels and how the service is delivered. I have seen transit driver’s begin their career happy, motivated and healthy. Five years later they appear hard, bitter and drained. Stress in the transit business huge health hazard. I contend that it is also a customer service hazard as well. Service suffers when transit operators drive without breaks. I have yet to see an audit that assesses the effect of tighter schedules on the quality of service delivered — let alone the health costs to the company.

When managers, planners and schedulers consider how to deliver more service for less, they should consider the quality of that service. The placement of terminals, location of restroom facilities and layover time at terminals has an impact on that quality. If the people delivering that service are unable legitimately to eat, drink, use a “comfort station” or decompress, they will do it anyway. The difference between the story above and now is that they may be on camera.

Mark Foss has more than 24 years experience working for King County Metro Transit. His experience includes work as a bus operator, special ridership coordinator in accessible services and 1st line transit supervisor. Currently, he works as a communications coordinator in the transit control center (TCC).

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit editor

One of the places I worked at before I came to Mass Transit was a trade magazine covering the hobby industry. Often I joke that coming from a magazine that covered model railroading to one that covers real railroads is similar, but sometimes it’s even more so.

Transit has many issues it has to deal with on any given day. Funding. Timeliness. Sustainability. Safety. Security. And along with those comes a host of stereotypes that transit has to overcome to just do what it does best — provide the public a reliable means of transportation. That’s why it doesn’t need to deal with the image of being unsafe.

I saw this article yesterday. It is the latest in a series of high-profile events relating to transit security in the Bay Area. And it’s starting to (if it hasn’t already) give transit there a black eye — no pun intended.

While covering retail hobby stores in my previous position, I had the chance to talk to a lot of store owners about how people shopped and what was right for their businesses. One store owner in Dallas told me that the secret to a successful store was getting the mom’s to shop there.

According to him, Mom controls the money and is the one to spend it when the kids want something. So for him, making his store someplace Mom would shop was key. And that meant making it feel safe. Making the store feel safe meant having wider aisles, lower shelving, brighter lighting, and spending the money to make the store feel safer meant a more successful store.

This is where transit is so similar. For transit to be successful in many cases it has to get the moms on board. That means moms going to work, taking their kids to and from school/daycare, moms shopping and everything else involved in that. And if Mom doesn’t think transit isn’t safe, she isn’t going to let her kids on board.

And don’t forget the power of word of mouth. Moms have a network — I’ve seen it in action with my wife, it’s amazing — and through that network they will determine what is safe and not safe in their communities.

Make sure transit is part of the Mom network.

Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Friday. For those interested in instant updates, you can now get your latest Mass Transit fix via Twitter.

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com
Check out our LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter pages!

In July 1990, I visited Washington, D.C. for the first time.  I took the bus from my parent’s townhouse in Alexandria to the Metro station.  Then I rode the Metro Yellow Line train into DC.  In order to ride the train, I purchased a magnetic strip card from a vending machine.  The machine printed the value of the card on it and the new value was printed each time I used it.  The system worked very well; I really liked it.  At the time, I was working as a bus driver collecting cash fares and issuing transfers cut for a specific time.  The idea of a machine that took the money and issued fare media was great!

According to the Smart Card Alliance (http://www.smartcardalliance.org/pages/smart-cards-applications-transportation#smart-cards-and-transit), transit agencies have used some form of magnetic automated payment system since the 1970s.  In the late 1990s use of contactless smart cards began.  Smart card payment systems are now installed, being installed, in transit systems all over the world – from Hong Kong to Seattle.  It may be that widespread use of smart cards in major transit operators will promote use of the same smart cards in retail and other industries (http://www.smartcardalliance.org/articles/2003/10/13/public-transit-smart-cards-may-be-catalyst-for-cross-industry-payment-opportunities-according-to-new-smart-card-alliance-white-paper).  There continues to be technological improvements.  Some transit agencies (http://www.rideuta.com/ridingUTA/amenities/contactlesscreditdebit.aspx ) take a number of different contactless cards for payment.

Is a smart card system good for both the agency and for customers?  My vote is yes – with a caveat.  Business practices matter.

I think that automatic fare collections systems, such as smart cards, are a very good idea.  How well they work, however, appears to depend largely on business practices – not just the technology.  Business practices determine what an agency gains from smart card use.  They also drive public acceptance of the technology.

The transit agency clearly benefits.  Smart cards reduce costs by reducing the amount of money and tickets an agency has to process.  Accounting becomes easier.  For example, if a transit agency offers subsidized rides, smart cards can make it easier to bill the human services agency (http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/REPTS_TE/14140_files/section_3.htm ).  The more people use smart cards instead of cash, the more the agency benefits.  However, I think, acceptance of smart cards by the riding public will only come when they see it as beneficial.  Unless the card is easily available and easily managed, some segments of the market will resist using it.

I recently had the opportunity to distribute literature regarding an upcoming service change to some of our customers.  I worked on this project in the middle of the day.  Most of the commuters who might easily adopt a smart card were already at work.  The people I spoke with were lower income working people, job seekers and mid-day shoppers.  They managed their travel money a few days at a time at most.  They preferred cash fares.  Some of these customers were frustrated because paper transfers were not being issued by one of our region’s agencies due to the new smart card.  They didn’t see the new smart card as a personal gain.  People adopt a new product when it meets their needs.

The Puget Sound region will soon have commuter trains, light rail, regular transit bus service and bus rapid transit (BRT) all using the same smart card (http://www.orcacard.com).   Multiple agencies work together to provide regional service.  This is good.  It is also frustrating to customers:  Where can I get a smart card?  How is the card better than my transfer?  When should I pay?  Pay when I enter, when I leave or at the gate?  How much money will be taken from my card on my trip?  What do I do if there is a mistake on my account?

As I reflect on my 1990 Washington, D.C. trip, the magnetic strip card comes to mind.  The card was easy to obtain.  It was easy to use.  It showed me exactly how much money I had left to spend on the train.  And it was tangible proof that I had paid for my trip.  Smart card offers some of these advantages.  However, unlike a transfer that has a time cut, or a magnetic strip card with the remaining value printed on it, the smart card is a device that needs to be read to tell its value.  This is an inconvenience for the passenger – not a benefit.

If I put myself into the shoes of the transit customer, I would want to calculate my trip cost easily.  I would want to be able to determine the amount of money remaining on my card at any kiosk offering cards for sale.  I would want to be able to add funds to my smart card at multiple locations in the service area.  As new payment modes become available (e.g. NFC phones), I would want to be able to pay for transit services using the new device.

From my perspective, the issues driving customer acceptance are: convenience, transparent financial transactions, adjusting technology to meet customers’ demands, and clear communication on how the system works.  Adjusting business practices to address these issues will determine an agency’s level of success.

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit editor

The cardinal rule in transit likely should be “don’t piss off your riders” or something near to it if the firestorm of controversy the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) is currently enduring is any indication. Of course, TTC could be any system that fell victim to the perils of an increasingly mobile Internet.

I like the British TV show Top Gear, an irreverent take on automobile shows. One running gag on the show is the hosts’ inability to understand the Internet. Declaring that something was on “Facetube” that the youngsters find so interesting is funny, but could easily be an indictment of the transit industry. While the transit industry’s ranks are getting younger, it is still top heavy in terms of age.

Does this mean the transit industry isn’t “Net Savvy” or in-touch with modern technology? Far from it. Examples of transit being on the cutting edge of technology are too numerous to list here, but having the technology and being beaten by it are different matters.

It all started with a little nap; a TTC worker caught snoozing on the job when a rider snapped his photo and shot it off to friends online. And — as is the new term for something growing like wildfire on the Internet — it went viral.

Riders upset with TTC performance started looking for transit workers screwing up … and they found them. Riders even swamped a Facebook page for transit workers with complaints.

So now the TTC workers’ union head is calling for riders to “stop harassing” its members and now town hall meetings are being discussed.

This is probably going to get worse before it gets better. In a time when we ask riders to be more vigilant, to commend them for catching operators texting or otherwise using their cell phones, we’re asking them to only do it on some occasions? Frankly, that’s hypocritical.

Transit needs to come around to the fact that public transportation now includes the entire world via the Internet, not just its local ridership. It also needs to be ready to be accountable for slip-ups. No longer is reporting a poor operator a letter writing campaign or taking on city hall, riders can do it while still in the seat via places like MuniFail, which gives instant tweets to the San Francisco mayor about Muni, and Portland’s Citizen Reports app.

Riders are expecting a higher quality of service from transit than ever before. And they are willing to pay for it. But, they are also not going to stand for poor service either. And now with the technology at their fingertips, they can make their rage hit the Net before the transit system can even hear about the problem.

For those interested in instant updates, you can now get your latest Mass Transit fix via Twitter.

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com
Check out our LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter pages!

by Mark Foss

When I was a child in the mid-1960s, my neighborhood had a sidewalk stamped with the date 1915.  It gave me a sense that my street, lined with 50-year-old trees, was planned and permanent.  It was a special street.  It belonged to someone in 1915 and now it was my street.

Light rail is an investment in the future, much like sidewalks, storm drains and tree-lined streets.  It takes massive investment of money, time and planning.  Gaining a return on the public’s investment implies a long horizon.

Light rail also needs to serve the current generation of customers.  In my view, customers are not just transit riders but also businesses, residents and tax payers who support transit.  There is the rub.  How do you build something with a very long investment horizon and serve the present?

The issue of parking around light rail lines offers an opportunity to reflect on this question.  Light rail lines generate parking issues.  Debates swirl around on-street parking for businesses and residents, privately owned off-street parking and park and rides.

Some cities want light rail to be fed only by pedestrians and bike riders – thus restricting parking.  Some cities provide maximum parking while preserving quality of life around the rail line.  The specific solutions vary from city to city and line to line.  The way cities and transit agencies respond to such issues reveals either good customer service or a lack of it.

A Tale of Two Light Rail Lines

The Central Corridor light rail is a line planned to connect St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minn.  According to Chris Haven, reporter for the Star Tribune, parking became a hot community issue.  Faced with an 85 percent loss of on-street parking and no public park-and-ride facilities, the outcry from businesses and residents was shrill.  The city of St. Paul proposed a plan to give financial incentives to businesses and property owners to improve private off-street parking and to clean up and pave alleys behind businesses on the rail line.  As of the writing of Haven’s article in August 2009, the proposal still needed approval by the council.  The response, however, appears to be customer oriented.  The city deserves kudos for this kind of response.

Sound Transit’s Link light rail began service on 14 miles of track in July 2009.  It runs from Tukwila to Seattle.  The only park-and-ride on the line has 600 spaces and is located outside the city of Seattle in Tukwila.  In the city of Seattle, there are restricted parking zones around five stations.  Special permits are issued to local residents and businesses.  The city of Seattle states that the restrictions are to protect the neighborhoods.  Bryan Stevens, spokesman for the city of Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development, stated: “We’re trying to cater to the pedestrian and not the vehicle, and we’re trying to encourage folks to walk or bike or even take the bus to the light rail station.”

Some businesses tried to offer parking to commuters using existing parking lots but were stopped by the city of Seattle.  The city indicated that it may change its policy but to date it hasn’t.  And Sound Transit appears to be standing firm — no additional parking facilities.  I offer no kudos to Seattle or Sound Transit for leadership on this issue.

Now back to my original question:  How do you build something with a very long investment horizon and still serve the present?

I don’t have a pat answer.  I can say that my tale of two rail lines suggests a direction.  Be pragmatic.  I have handled complaints from very angry transit customers face to face.  It takes a problem solving mentality.  Listen to the customer.  Be receptive.  Cities need to adapt creatively to market demand for transit services.  A hard attitude only invites a backlash against transit.

In my view, anything that invites people to park their cars and ride to work is worth investigating.  If the private market is trying to serve that need with existing parking lots, without public money — encourage, guide, regulate aesthetics for the neighborhood — but don’t punish.  Parking may not always be needed.  However, it may be needed now.

Take the long view.  Balance long-term plans by present-day pragmatism.  Light rail is a legacy.  When we are all gone, it should still serve the customers well.  But it also has to serve customers now.

Mark Foss has more than 24 years experience working for King County Metro Transit. His experience includes work as a bus operator, special ridership coordinator in accessible services and 1st line transit supervisor. Currently, he works as a communications coordinator in the transit control center (TCC).

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit editor

Matthew Broderick once famously said as Ferris Bueller, “Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” The same goes for transit. If you don’t stop and take a look around at the transit landscape once in a while, you could miss it — which is what happened with several states in the recent round of federal railroad funding.

It was inevitable when President Obama unveiled the $8 billion in federal stimulus funds for high-speed railroads that somebody would get left out. The administration hit 31 states with funding, but that still left 19 without. Surprisingly one of the biggest states — Texas — received very little funding, which led to much grumbling from the Lone Star residents.

Not having any of that, the Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, replied with the equivalent to a verbal smack in the chops, “If Texas had had its act together, it would have gotten some high-speed rail money.”

In this era of political correctness, pointing fingers across the aisle and apologizing for just about everything, it’s refreshing to have something so plainly stated. LaHood didn’t dance around the issue and talk about infrastructure or political will or any other nonsense. He made his feelings clear — get your act together or you won’t get funding.

I love it.

Wisconsin got a little more than $800 million in the rail stimulus sweepstakes. Of course, its governor put the state’s money where its mouth is last year by spending nearly $50 million to purchase trains for the local Amtrak Hiawatha Line, which he hoped would be extended via the stimulus. And look what happened, his plan paid off.

Now Wisconsin not only sits with the money to put in the Hiawatha extension, but the trains to run on those tracks — built in Milwaukee no less — and an option to add more trains if they need them.

The secretary is correct. States need to get their act together. Not just for federal funds, but to make transit work for them, both locally and regionally. Otherwise the train is going to pass them by — literally.

Just ask Georgia.

Thanks for reading the MT Position updated every Friday,

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com
Check out our LinkedIn page!