The MT Position

By Mark Foss

Portland, Ore., is where I grew up.  For a while I lived in the northeast part of town. Later I lived in Gresham, just outside Portland on the southeast side. I rode Rose City Transit buses with my grandmother when I was a child and TriMet buses as a teenager and young adult. I joined the service and left the area in 1980 just as Portland’s light rail, the MAX, was being built. While I was away, I rode trains, streetcars and buses in Europe. When I returned in 1985, the first leg of the MAX was complete. The stations reminded me of the streetcar stations in Germany. I liked it immediately.

I didn’t live in Portland during the uncomfortable period of building the MAX. By the time I returned, it was established. It was popular and gaining in popularity. I live in Seattle now but visit Portland several times a year. It is my pleasure to ride the MAX and I’m amazed at the way it has connected the region. The next time I’m in Portland, I want to ride some of the lines I haven’t been on; the MAX is cool!

Recently I met with a friend who is a third-generation rail worker and very technically savvy. We were discussing how the MAX connects with buses. I noted that there are park-and-rides all along the rail lines, just outside the third zone. My friend pointed out another interesting fact. In addition to the Portland Streetcar line that connects with the MAX and bus service, there is a line called WES (Westside Express Service). The WES is a commuter rail line that utilizes a section of heavy rail track running from Beaverton to Wilsonville. My home town — home region — has really grown up.

What about the Puget Sound area where I now live? From where I stand the picture isn’t as clear. There are four major transit agencies serving the area. That means four somewhat coordinated agendas — with gaps in how the public is served. There is no single agency like TriMet to coordinate the work. Add to this the fact that rail is just getting started in this area. Thirty years have elapsed since I lived in Portland. The MAX, the Portland Streetcar, the WES and coordinated bus service have developed in that time. This all adds up to the fact that the Puget Sound area is behind the times in the Pacific Northwest. We have seen huge growth during the 25 years I have lived here. We have worse traffic problems than Portland — not considering the impact of the MAX. And traffic here is getting worse.

Sound Transit’s Sounder is a wonderful commuter rail service. Unfortunately due to track-use issues, its hours of operation are limited. LINK light rail is an interesting start but falls short in my judgment. For example, LINK doesn’t connect with the Seattle Streetcar like the Portland Streetcar connects with the MAX. Unlike Portland’s MAX or Atlanta’s MARTA , LINK service to the SeaTac Airport does not get very close to the terminal. It’s actually quite a walk — especially with baggage in the cold. And then there is the quibbling over parking. The city of Seattle and Sound Transit don’t want to encourage commuter parking along the light rail line — never mind the fact that the private sector is willing to provide it to the riding public. And the public is willing to pay for it.

Connectivity between rail, buses and the streetcar, coordinated fares, and strategically placed park-and-rides are absolutely necessary. Some of these elements already exist — in four agencies. But there are gaps. One of the biggest obstacles, currently, is the budget. Change takes money. Unfortunately, there isn’t much. On the other hand, when we had money, we didn’t go the direction Portland did. And now we are where we are. What is necessary? I think a unified vision and a focused political will across the region is the only thing that will make it happen. Eventually the budget will recover. Will we be ready with a unified transit plan? Some might argue that there is a plan; and we only experiencing growing pains. As for me, the jury is out.

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).

by Mark Foss

Like millions of U.S. citizens, I am making my personal trek through the tax filing season. One question my accountant asked me this year was whether I had purchased any “green” technology that qualified for credit on my return. With this question in the back of my mind, I had lunch with a friend in the transit business. He is a rail fan. He pointed out some customer-oriented improvements he would make to his local street car line. One of his desired improvements got me thinking.

My friend pointed to a small electronic sign on the transit shelter. He rightly mentioned that it could be improved at least by better placement — and perhaps by two signs facing different directions. He lobbied the agency to no effect.

Budgets are tight and expected to grow very slowly. However, the federal government is pushing clean technology. It was then that I began to wonder whether there might be a way to win both better signage and a budget gain for our local agency. Why not solar transit signage?

In September of 2009, 43 transit projects were chosen by the Obama Administration, to receive grants designed to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Nine of these projects were solar-related projects. The solar projects included lighting, lighted exit signs and power generation. Solar-powered lighting is already in use.

For example, photovoltaic (PV) powered LED lighting is in use in bus shelters in San Jose, Calif. PV solar-powered signage is also used for highway signage.

Solar-powered transit signs exist but don’t appear widespread. Perhaps this is due to the habit of waiting for large grants. However, the current budget climate may work against this approach.

Incremental growth may be better than trying to implement a “mega-project” funded by a major grant.  Pilot projects may provide a learning lab before larger funding comes along. An Apri1 2004 article about an IT project at TriMet states: “TriMet put LED electronic display signs in several different environments during Phase 1. This allowed them to determine where the signs would perform the best, whether at bus shelters or rail platforms. If the signs performed better in one place over another, they would address the issue and act accordingly. Resolving this issue on a small system is much more cost effective than having to address it on the full expanded system”.

This approach makes sense to me. Over the years I have seen a lot of very large projects struggle – apparently because they were large and complicated involving new technology.

This brings me back to my discussion with my friend. He has lobbied his local streetcar line to make various improvements — among which was the electronic signage. But it is easier to say no — or nothing at all — than to think creatively. Personally, I would look for a grant for green solar technology — especially given the current federal emphasis. A small project might be easier to fund, and it would provide a learning lab for the next, hopefully larger, project.  In the meantime, the customers along a short streetcar line would gain better signs.

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).

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).

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.

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 Mark Foss

This year King County Metro plans to begin its new RapidRide service.  RapidRide is bus rapid transit (BRT) service intended to increase service frequency, speed and reliability along several dedicated surface street corridors.  The first of five planned RapidRide lines will begin service in 2010, the rest are to commence operation between 2011 and 2013.

I’m a fan of the BRT concept.  I like the idea of dedicated roadways, control of non-transit traffic and signal priority.  I like very much the idea of automated payment systems that speed up boarding.  A transit operator should have as little to do with fare collection as possible.   I like the idea of AVL (GPS) systems that work well.  But I also liked BRT’s predecessor — limited stop express service — which costs less.  Does BRT deliver better service for the investment?  I think it can.  But there are operational hurdles to meet.  Here are a few of my concerns:

RapidRide’s Line A will use a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane that isn’t completely separated from other traffic.  Traffic enforcement will be necessary to keep cheaters from clogging the bus lanes.  If the HOV lane isn’t kept moving, BRT won’t deliver on its promise.  King County’s RapidRide Line A will pass through more than one jurisdiction — each with its own traffic enforcement priorities.  Enforcement must be one of those priorities.

Relying on sophisticated technology to keep the busses moving on time could also be problematic.  For example, resolving Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) problems — either during initial implementation or on-going operations — could cause service to slow down.   Some BRT projects have had problems implementing TSP systems, in part due to the number of parties involved (BRT Institute’s evaluation of MBTA).   Multiple entities involved in resolving TSP problems won’t work very well.  RapidRide’s Control Center Communications Coordinator needs one number to call to resolve signal malfunctions quickly.

I like the look of some of the BRT busses in service.  However, busses that are purchased to look different from the rest of the fleet have a drawback.  The need for “branding” limits breadth of equipment use.  For example, it may be harder to swap out a bus that is broken down in a timely manner.  Non-BRT busses that are on the way back to the garage at the end of scheduled service can be diverted to replace busses that are broken down.  Perhaps the assumption is that BRT service frequency will limit the impact of this kind of event.  Experience suggests, however, that this can backfire — e.g. two busses that break down in succession causing overloads.  My experience also suggests that routes pulling out in the morning could experience problems, if a shortage of spare BRT busses occurs, since substitution is not an option.

The BRT concept promises to deliver benefits associated with rail.  I’ve used rail (light and/or heavy) in Washington D.C., Portland Oregon, Seattle Washington, Germany and Russia.  I don’t think rail is a good comparison.  However, my concern is less what BRT is compared with than whether it achieves its goal — increased service frequency, speed and reliability along a dedicated corridor.  If BRT in King County is to reap those benefits, it will stand or fall on whether the bus lane offers quick unobstructed passage; and whether problems can be worked out quickly.  Let the games begin!

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).