The MT Position » On the Line

Filling the Gaps

Fred Jandt — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:16:00 +0000

By Mark Foss,

As usual, transit fares are a part of the news this week. Fixing fare woes will take more than finding money.

Last Tuesday (the 24th) a curious article appeared about the Metro-North Railroad. A proposed fare increase at the Port Chester, N.Y., station could actually make it cheaper for commuters at Port Chester to go across state lines to Greenwich, Conn., — further from New York — to buy a ticket. As a result, discussions are underway that could possibly have Connecticut pay New York for the difference in cost between the two stations. The goal, I suppose, would be to keep riders from driving further away to buy a cheaper ticket. Go figure!

In other news, Portland, Oregon’s TriMet is increasing bus fares by five cents to $2.05 for an adult two-zone ticket, $2.35 for an all-zone ticket. Five cents doesn’t sound like much but, reportedly, it is the 10th fare increase since 2000. Customers are complaining about the combination of hikes and cuts. The fare in 2000 was $1.20 for an adult two-zone ticket. By my quick calculation, the increase represents an average of a little more than 7 percent per year over 10 years. For a detailed look at Portland’s historical bus fares check out this article for a link to a spreadsheet. TriMet’s fare increase is also accompanied by service reductions designed to deal with a $27 million budget shortfall. Nevertheless, Portland’s fares seem like a good deal. Seattle’s off-peak fare is only $2.00. Peak-hour fare for the same trip is more than Portland’s fare at $2.75. Pierce Transit in Tacoma, just south of Seattle, is also discussing fare increases.

Meanwhile, Portland and Vancouver, Wash., are still trying to extend the MAX across the Columbia River. The project was rejected by voters back in 1995. The success of the project this time will again depend on Vancouver voters’ approval. Without local operating funds, the federal government won’t approve the capital investment. It might be a tough sell — given the economy.

Serving transit customers is increasingly regional in nature, yet operational funding is local. And operational policies are set by individual agencies — state or local. Local voters must approve funding for Vancouver’s C-Tran to run their part of a planned inter-state MAX light rail line. Multiple agencies work in the Puget Sound region — King County, Pierce County, Sound Transit and Snohomish County — yet fares and operating policies differ. For example, commuters paying cash fares in King County cannot use paper transfers on Sound Transit. Differences might be slight between agencies but are often significant to passengers.

Customers on the street want transit service. Some, however, are rightfully confused and frustrated with simultaneous service cuts and multiple fare hikes. Customers use several systems but are often frustrated by confusing policies — for example, use of transfers, number of fare zones or calculating the cost of a single trip using multiple agencies. I’ve been on the street when customers have complained about these things. The best I could do was to help them navigate the various systems. Policy setting is for others to agree on. Whether one talks about policy issues, fares or where transit service is to be built, customer service must be at the heart of it.

In order for transit funding to straighten out, it needs voter support. The customers must ultimately understand the benefit and be willing to buy it. It takes a coordinated regional approach to achieve this.

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). Contact him via LinkedIn.

A Beautiful Ride

swright — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:04:58 +0000

If you build it, will they come? I’m not sure. Follow me on my short adventure as I ponder this question. I grew up on the east side of Portland and in Gresham. Portland’s MAX (http://trimet.org/schedules/maxblueline.htm) blue line begins its westbound trip to Hillsboro in Gresham. On the way, it passes through downtown Portland and Beaverton Transit Center along the way. I have taken this trip. The MAX is, in my view, an outstanding part of Portland’s transportation system. The MAX system has been many years in the making. And there have been growing pains along the way. But it has certainly been a success. My latest trip on TriMet’s system began in an area I am less familiar with than Gresham – Wilsonville WES Station. Wilsonville Station is the southern terminal for TriMet’s Westside Express Service (WES) (http://trimet.org/wes/index.htm). The station also serves as a transit center for SMART (http://www.ridesmart.com/ ), Canby Area Transit (CAT) ( http://www.ci.canby.or.us/transportation/CAThomepage.htm ) and Salem-Keizer “Cherriots” ( http://cherriots.org/ ). The facility has 399 parking spaces and 48 bike lockers. When I arrived for the last morning commuter trip to Beaverton, parking was easy to find. The WES line is a commuter rail line traveling from Wilsonville Station to Beaverton Transit Center with three stops along the way – Tualatin, Tigard and Hall/Nimbus. In addition to the parking at Wilsonville Station, there are 129 parking spaces in Tualatin, 103 spaces in Tigard and 50 spaces at the Hall/Nimbus stop. There are surprisingly no parking facilities at the Beaverton Transit Center – a very busy hub that includes the MAX and a number of bus lines. The Wilsonville Station is very nice. It is well-designed, clean with nice artwork. I purchased a single-day ticket for $4.75. A discount applies, if a multiple day pass (14 days, one month, one year, etc.) is purchased (http://trimet.org/fares/index.htm#farechart ). The train was a single car with twin diesel engines. I boarded by one of two doors. There were bike racks on board for travelers taking their bikes to work. The interior was nicely designed with comfortable cloth seats. The ride was smooth and the scenery was beautiful. I opened my laptop to test the free Wi-Fi. I logged in without trouble. As we traveled along, the wireless connection worked flawlessly. I sent a brief email to Mass Transit magazine about my trip – just to check the connection. It worked great. The train car, like the Wilsonville Station, was not very full. I decided to talk with the conductor – after all he might know how ridership was going. Since the conductor, had not checked my ticket the entire trip, I approached him. He was cordial but non-committal about any information on the line. He did say that he was forbidden to give any information on ridership – a sensitive issue apparently. According to an online Oregonian article (http://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2010/03/when_will_wes_prove_itself_tri.html ), the WES line took 13 years of negotiation and planning, cost more than $160 million to build and costs 10 times the cost of the MAX per passenger to run. It suffered mechanical breakdowns early in its implementation (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/company_behind_trimet_wes_rail.html ), which might have damaged credibility early on. Additionally, the per-train-mile cost is about $50.47 compared with the MAX cost of $16.20. The article goes on to say that TriMet may have overstated its projected ridership in order to get federal funds. WES ridership (boardings) was reported up by 13.8 percent for June 2010 (http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/performance-statistics/June2010.pdf). The numbers are still below earlier projections by TriMet. For my part, I only visit Portland now. I have family there and like the area very much. But I’m otherwise an outside observer. From where I sit, I think the greater Portland area is fortunate to have a well-established and well-planned light rail system. Whether the WES will be economically viable is for the local residents to judge. I can say I enjoyed the ride. I think connecting smaller communities with the economic vitality of larger cities is good. If I were to move to the area with a job in Beaverton or Portland, I would look for my home somewhere along the WES line. The area is beautiful. And riding the train beats the stress of traffic.

Building Customer Loyalty

Fred Jandt — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:50:05 +0000

By Mark Foss,

How do you build customer goodwill? How are new customers won? How is loyalty built?

I’m still in vacation mode. My list of personal projects included completing a public speaking project for my Toastmasters International club. I recently delivered the first of five speeches from an advanced manual. My task was to prepare a speech, called “The Briefing,” with material from my work or place of business. I decided I wanted to speak on RapidRide, King County’s bus rapid transit service. After some inquiry, my employer supplied me with materials on RapidRide. The speech was short (eight to 10 minutes), followed by a five-minute question-and-answer session. I was then evaluated by my fellow Toastmasters based on various criteria specified in the manual. I delivered the speech twice — once to my home club and later to an advanced club. I received in-depth evaluations on the speech. My reason for doing the project was personal — to advance my speaking skills.

The audience was, of course, playing a role. Their questions were supposed to be on the content of the speech. However, when I opened the floor to questions, I was very surprised. Only some of the questions pertained directly to my speech. The room came alive with interest about both RapidRide and transit in general. Some people even approached me later to ask more questions. The response suggested genuine demand for transit service — or at least strong interest.

As I thought about this experience, I read an article, titled “Empowered,” in Harvard Business Review (July-August 2010). The article discusses the use of social media in business. Many different articles have discussed social media. See, for example, “Friending Transit” published by Mass Transit magazine in February 2010. The HBR article goes further. It focuses on how to empower and manage employees to provide customer support on social media. Best Buy, for example, has more than 2,500 employees signed up to see, and respond to, Best Buy-related problems sent out via Twitter. The speed and quality of responses to customers has increased — and gained Best Buy kudos. Some customers who had complaints handled successfully were quite influential — with thousands of Twitter followers. Delivering good service quickly created goodwill. Word of mouth (Twitter or blog) spreads it.

In business school, I learned that the marketing concept is to provide goods (services) which meet the needs of customer groups (A Preface to Marketing Management, p.2). Los Angeles Metro began a campaign to remake its image and market its services in 2003. The agency set out to make riding the bus “cool again.” The goal was to attract new riders. By December 2009 great things were happening. After Metro re-branded its system, the percentage of discretionary riders rose from 22 to 36 percent. The concept of branding is often mentioned in connection with bus rapid transit — and sometimes other modes of public transit. But Los Angeles Metro re-branded the entire system — crafted its image. This is impressive. The agency views everything it does as having an impact on ridership — service on the street and public perceptions.

Public transit is going through a time of massive change. On one hand, agencies are struggling with slim operating budgets and service cuts. On the other hand, new service is being built or is on the drawing board — light rail, high-speed rail, street cars and bus rapid transit. These service changes offer new choices to customers. And those choices need to be marketed. Attracting new customers requires managing both perception and delivery.

People need to perceive the personal benefit in using the service, and it has to live up to the perceptions. When the system doesn’t meet customer needs — or fails somehow — empowered employees should be part of the solution. Goodwill and customer loyalty are built one customer at a time.

At the Speed of a Tweet

Fred Jandt — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:43:43 +0000

Posted by Mark Foss

Transit communication coordinators often observe the effects of new technology on transit operations. For example, quite frequently, we receive routine information about freeway conditions from bus drivers. In turn, we pass on that information to the state patrol - only to find out that citizens have already called to report the problem by cell phone. Cell phones have also increased the speed of customer complaints. Sometimes customer complaints come in while the person is still riding the bus. And, of course, the national reaction to cell-phone-related accidents by transit operators (and the general public) is well known by now. The tide of technology surges forward. Can public transit keep up?

Last Friday a 70-person brawl broke out on a Washington, D.C., Metro train, spilling out onto a platform. Reportedly, police response was speedy — but not speedy enough according to some passengers. What is interesting to me is how news of a transit-related incident was responded to. Passengers commented on the incident in an online chat on Monday. On Monday and Tuesday, Washington Post reporters filed reports, blogs and tweets on the story from coffee shops in the area. Police examined video footage in order to make arrests.

On Monday, August 9, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro) staff members met with third-party software application developers to discuss making transit data available. This is in keeping with other transit properties that are doing the same. MBTA has begun expanding its release of real-time bus location data. Real-time bus information helps riders, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. It doesn’t tell why there is a delay. King County Metro (KCM) has customer service personnel who send email transit alerts and update Web-based information on commute-related events. KCM provides online “Rider Tools” to assist. Web and email-based information distribution are some of the tools. Rush-hour updates provide good, timely information as well. The online service is very good.

New technology helps improve customers’ commutes and enhance safety and security. Another example is the use of video cameras. New York Police Department asked New York City Transit to pull videos 2,000 times last year to solve various crimes. Washington, D.C., Metro transit is using video cameras on buses for more than solving crime. They also use video recordings on buses as a training tool for new drivers, for reviews of drivers going from part-time to full-time status and to verify complaints. Use of cameras for driver discipline isn’t universally accepted. Many drivers consider it an invasion of privacy. But drivers will be caught on camera, nevertheless. Connecticut Transit recently settled a lawsuit involving the death of a pedestrian in which on-board cameras proved the driver was looking away when the bus struck the pedestrian. The agency paid out nearly $4 million. Without the camera evidence, the plaintiff would most likely have lost the suit.

I’m fascinated by the confrontation between new technology and old ways of doing business. Information distribution is now expected at the speed of a tweet, but expectations should be managed a bit. Agencies trying to be responsive should be clear about service limitations. Transparency is here to stay. For the most part, this is good.

Speed of reporting, however, doesn’t always mean accuracy — or clarity. If I were a passenger receiving a transit-related “tweet,” how much should I change my plans based on the information? Commuter information, no matter how up-to-the-minute, is still “old news” when circumstances are fluid. Weather can change a road in minutes. Solutions for getting around a road blockage can fail just as quickly. The last email, tweet or blog can be out of date as soon as I read it. Information moves quickly — solutions may not.

Can transit agencies keep up? They must. Changes in the way we communicate require it. The challenge is really in how to manage it.

Swift Connections

Fred Jandt — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:55:43 +0000

Posted by Mark Foss

What do you get when you combine bus rapid transit, Amtrak, Sound Transit commuter rail, five public transit agencies, Greyhound, taxis and a park-and-ride in one place? Let me tell you what I discovered.

It’s vacation time. I’m staying home this year — sort of. When I’m not working on home projects, I’m doing a little “transit watching.” Bus rapid transit (BRT) is of particular interest to me right now because King County Metro will begin its Rapid Ride service on the “A Line” on October 2.

This week I drove the 41 miles from my home to the Aurora Village Transit Center (AVTC) on the north end of King County’s transit service area. AVTC is also the southern terminal for Community Transit’s new “Swift” BRT service. The terminal station is attractively designed, clean, with fare vending machines and smart card swipe pads. Passengers pay prior to boarding and enter one of three doors that are opened at each of 14 stations. Two speed boarding bike racks are located inside the coach near the third door — in the back.

During the week, Swift operates every 10 minutes along a 17-mile corridor, with an advertised 10 miles of transit signal priority. Apparently, there are some technical difficulties with the signal priority at present. It wasn’t in use when I rode the service. I rode during the middle of the day without rush hour traffic or heavy passenger loads. The traffic signals appeared to be timed well. Swift stations are spaced one to two miles apart. Consequently, my trip ran quickly and was very close to its estimated travel time.

Fares are collected at the stations and proof of payment is required. I did not meet a fare checker on my northbound trip. However, I was approached by one on my southbound trip. He made his way through the coach greeting people with a smile and an easy manner. His role was part fare checker and part customer service representative, both which he performed well. He instructed people on how the system worked and answered service questions. After he checked the entire bus we had a chat about the service, and he described his role when handling first time non-payment and chronic non-payment situations. I decided that I really like Swift’s method. It reduces driver stress and also provides customers with assistance.

The north terminal for Swift is at Everett Station. Like all Swift stations the terminal is color coded to match the Swift “brand.” The trip was pleasant and the service lived up to its name — “Swift.” What I found at Everett Station, however, made my trip even more worthwhile.

Everett Station is an astounding example of interagency, intermodal connectivity, which includes both public and private passenger carriers. Everett Station serves Amtrak and Sound Transit’s Sounder, commuter rail. But it doesn’t stop there. Everett also has what could be described as a campus that includes a transit center serving five public transit agencies: Community Transit, Everett Transit, Island Transit, Skagit Transit and Sound Transit (Express Buses). It also serves Greyhound, taxi services and other small vehicle transportation services. The grounds also include a pedestrian overpass leading to a park-and-ride on the side of the tracks opposite the rail platform.

In many of my other blogs I’ve made it clear that I think serving transit riders is “job one.” Part of that service is connectivity, and part is convenience. There are many places in the King County System which allow customers to connect to other transportation services. Everett Station, however, is a cut above. Customers do not have to walk long distances to switch from one transit system — or one mode — to another. A single campus serves as a transit nexus for the region. It serves urban and rural transit riders. It connects local circulator services with bus rapid transit and commuter rail. It connects public and private carriers. There is a safe, dry place to wait with restrooms and a coffee shop.

What do you get when you combine bus rapid transit, Amtrak, Sound Transit commuter rail, five public transit agencies, Greyhound, taxis and a park-and-ride in one place? You get an amplification of the service dollars invested. A small rural agency suddenly is able to provide its customers with options not available before. You get convenience. Customers don’t have to lug packages or baggage very far to make transfers. What do you get? You get better customer service. You get Everett Station.

Well done Swift! Well done Everett Station!

Customer Perceptions and Transit Reality

Fred Jandt — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:05:42 +0000

Posted by Mark Foss

Two weeks ago I wrote about customer service. Transit customers again are in the news. A recent article highlighted a gap between transit agency announcements and customer perceptions.

The New York Times reported Monday that passengers did not believe the on-time performance claims by New York City’s commuter railroads. Official claims were that better than 95 percent of the trains ran on time in 2009. The claims of on-time performance were used as a marketing tool. Many commuters disputed those claims.

On-time results varied between New York’s three major commuter railroads and by time of day. The New York Times investigation revealed that on-time performance problems happened mostly during rush hour. The majority of riders travel during rush hour. Rush hour travel times also have a high impact on business and personal agendas. Thus, late trips are also noticed most during time of day.

Rush hour trips account for about a third of the trips run. However, calculation of on-time performance was made based on all the trips made during the day. Consequently, the railroad agencies could claim 95 percent on-time performance. Apparently, the average on-time performance didn’t reflect the average customer experience.

Another recent article reports that Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) faces mounting rider frustration and mistrust. A combination of service cuts and rate hikes have given rise to a “Rider’s Rebellion.” “We will be asking riders to sign a riders’ bill of rights. This bill of rights outlines exactly what the state should be doing for the region’s eight million subway and bus riders — affordable fares, clean, safe, accessible stations. These are the types of things that riders should be getting for their fare money and they’re not”, said Paul Steely White of Transportation Alternatives.

Equipment failure also influences customer perceptions. A June 2010 FTA study states that a national backlog of $77.7 billion exists to bring all public transit assets up to date — including urban and rural transit operators — rail, bus, paratransit and vanpool (p. 1). About 900 passengers were stranded in MARC train cars when the locomotive broke down in June. The Maryland Department of Transportation spent $100 million to replace aging MARC system locomotives.

Amid budgets in crisis and aging equipment, demand for transit is still strong. Customers need reliable information. And transit agencies need to publicize success to promote ridership. A clear message is crucial. Customer dissatisfaction can arise from either a poorly crafted messages or from poor service. Service delivery must match the message. Promotion campaigns can backfire.

High-Speed Rail: Destination the Future

Fred Jandt — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:48:38 +0000

Posted by Mark Foss

Two unrelated news articles stirred my thinking about investment in high-speed rail.

First, high-speed rail money has been reported to be on a slow track toward distribution. Apparently, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) doesn’t have all the mechanisms in place to administer the program. Although rail has been around for a long time, investment in modernizing it hasn’t. The FRA has historically focused on safety issues. States, likewise, appear not to have mechanisms in place to administer the program. According to Warren Flatau, spokesman for the FRA, “States have not allocated resources to staff or institutionalize robust or mature rail divisions, since the focus of federal transportation investment has been overwhelmingly focused on highway development.” In addition to creating new processes for approving, distributing and administering the money, there are still disagreements regarding guidelines issued by the FRA. Meanwhile, according to the article, Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo want the money distributed by September 30.

Second, another recent article celebrated the on-going restoration of Seattle’s King Street Station. The station serves Amtrak and Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter rail service. The building, built in 1906, was “modernized” in 1963. The modernization essentially covered most of its historic charm. And many would say it made the building ugly inside. The city of Seattle purchased the building from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway two years ago for $10. The restoration is an excellent opportunity to put rail transportation in a good light. Restoring the station also suggests a sense of long-term investment — a sense of commitment.

In January 1981, my family and I arrived by train at the Augsburg Hauptbahnhof from Frankfurt, Germany. Augsburg’s central train station, which was built between 1843 and 1846, is a fairly new building in a city that traces its roots to Roman times. Before I departed through the same train station in 1985, many older buildings in the city underwent a restoration to prepare for the 2000-year anniversary of the city’s founding. Currently, the train station reportedly is undergoing “modernization” to add an underground tram station. If I know the city, the change will be in keeping with the city’s roots.

When I think about the initiative in the United States to modernize passenger rail with high-speed trains, I wonder how the long-term investment will be made. Will it celebrate the past while reaching for the future? Or will the money be spent like the first modernization of the King Street Station — an artificial drop-tile ceiling installed to cover a previous investment?

Change is necessary, of course. We certainly need to install access for the disabled in older stations. We certainly need to provide access for connecting modes of transportation. There has to be an eye for growth while containing costs. Exactly how development happens is important. If high-speed rail is to reach its destination, a collective long-term investment is needed. Inter-agency cooperation, like Seattle’s purchase of King Street Station and CDTA’s ownership of rail stations, are examples of this kind of investment. Public-Private partnerships of various sorts are needed.

The King Street Station is more than one hundred years old. I hope today’s investment in high-speed rail will still be paying dividends one hundred years from now. And I hope it will convey a sense of beauty and permanence.

Customer Service and Customer Satisfaction

Fred Jandt — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:24:07 +0000

Posted by Mark Foss

Have you ever ridden public transit and been disappointed by the experience? Did you miss a connection? Did you get lost? Was the driver grumpy? Did the bus start out too fast? Did the driver not know any connecting routes? Was the service late? Was your bus or train car dirty? How does customer service influence ridership?

Many years ago, when I was a field supervisor, I was called to meet a bus. The driver was having trouble with two non-paying customers. They verbally abused the driver when asked for the fare. By the time I was able to meet the coach, the driver was at his relief point. He indicated that he would do a report and left.

As the relief driver was getting on the bus, a group of six customers stepped off the bus to complain about the previous driver. Apparently, he had angrily parked his bus for several minutes due to the verbal abuse. Of course, the abusive passengers were gone. The passengers who approached me were angry that the bus had been delayed due to what they considered a very minor incident. They stated that they had paid the fare and were entitled to a ride.

Faced with customers’ anger, I offered a genuine apology on behalf of the agency. I assured them that I would follow up. Then I made sure the relief driver assisted the delayed passengers properly. I could see the satisfaction in the faces of the passengers. The apology was good public relations.

A dedicated rider of Chicago’s CTA recently complained about a service problem. The passenger sent an email via CTA’s website. She complained about buses not showing up and poor on-time performance. CTA responded with an email requesting more information within an hour. Then two company representatives met the customer at her bus stop to discuss the issue and monitor the service. The CTA made use of technology to immediately acknowledge the customer. Then it followed up with human contact. This is an example of great customer service.

King County (Seattle) Metro’s field supervisors regularly monitor service problems and make contact with customers. Summertime is filled with service challenges.

“Special events,” such as street fairs and parades, disrupt service. In addition to special events, other challenges include huge road construction projects and service changes. In large transit systems there is always something that can potentially disrupt service and thus damage customer loyalty. In preparation for service changes, transit workers go out in special street teams to meet customers to distribute literature. This is great customer service.

How can we judge customer satisfaction? And how is it influenced?

“The universal rule in business is that customers go where they can expect consistency – both in the products they buy and in the level of service they receive (How to Nurture a Culture of Excellence. Mark Wardell. The Canadian Manager; Summer, 2010; 35, 2; Discovery p. 22).”

The European Committee for Standardization created criteria for judging urban public transportation: “availability, accessibility, information, time, customer care, comfort, security and environment” (The Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, vol. 46, no. 1, Spring 2007, p.65). Transit agencies spend their time working on just these aspects of customer satisfaction – from establishing new routes to on-time performance to security. Much of this work is behind the scenes; it is data-driven. The human element is in evidence in the CTA article mentioned above and in King County’s efforts in the field. However, most transit news is about technology – CAD/AVL, automated passenger counts, websites, email, blogs, Twitter and BusTime on mobile phones, etc.

A survey of Canadian consumers indicated that wait times were a very important factor in consumer satisfaction. Sixty-eight percent of Canadians left when public transit wait times were too long. Data-driven solutions help greatly here. Compassionate human contact and timely communication also have an influence on customer satisfaction: “82 per cent of those polled would increase their wait time if they felt compassion or apologies were offered for the wait and 67 per cent would wait longer if they were updated on their status.”

In addition to the wave of new technology (CAD/AVL, Twitter, Blogs) and the new kinds of service (e.g. light rail, streetcars, bus rapid transit) designed to serve customers better, I have another suggestion. Invest in the human element. Train drivers and supervisors regularly in customer service. Make the frontline workers, who deliver the service, experts on how to deliver the best message possible. Whether it is offering directions to travelers, or apologizing to angry customers, the human element is very important. And it is all too often forgotten.

Where Does the Money Go?

Fred Jandt — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:09:34 +0000

Posted by Mark Foss

Tell me, where does the money go?

This week Los Angeles commuter rail service, Metrolink, will increase fares an average of 6 percent. At the same time, Metrolink will cut four daily commuter train runs, however, voters did approve enough funding to keep student, disabled and senior fares from rising for the next three years. Meanwhile, New York City’s MTA cut service this week on subway and bus service to help make up for its $800 million budget shortfall. The cuts actually only make up for about $100 million in the budget gap.

Despite operating budget problems, transit building projects continue. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) broke ground for an extension of its light rail Gold Line. MTA capital projects also continue in New York.

King County Metro (Seattle) continues to move forward plans for Rapid Ride. Rapid Ride will offer 10-minute headway service during peak hour and 15-minute headway service during off peak. Metro is installing fiber optic cable along the routes to provide signal control and real-time bus information signs at stops. A new CAD/AVL system using GPS tracking will enhance Metro’s capability to manage headway along the line. The first line (Line A) is projected to begin service in October 2010.

Anyone who drives in rush-hour traffic should understand the benefit of transit. Air quality also benefits from transit. However, the nationwide climate of “cut service” and “charge more” seems to run counter to spending on major projects.

Rail projects are more expensive to construct than bus rapid transit projects, like Metro’s Rapid Ride. But all transit capital projects implicitly carry long-term operational cash flow assumptions. Although Rapid Ride is on track, declining revenue has caused Metro to reconsider previous plans for other transit service additions.

When looking at various agencies, it is hard to tell where revenue comes from and where it is spent. The National Transit Database offers a glimpse into the finances of major transit agencies. However, the information is not always up to date and it isn’t presented as clearly as it could be. As a taxpayer I would like to understand better how the agencies are run. As a supporter of transit in its various forms, I think transparency would help agencies make the case for more support. Presently, I’m concerned that in a year or two, when stimulus funding dwindles, current transit investments won’t be funded well enough.

Serving Customers - Intermodal Choices

Fred Jandt — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:41:32 +0000

Posted by Mark Foss

Whenever high-speed rail is discussed, sooner or later, intermodal connections are mentioned. The “Vision for High-Speed Rail in America” presents the U.S. government’s goals for high-speed rail. One of these goals is to support “interconnected livable communities” — smart growth. An example of an intermodal connection already supporting this goal is Amtrak’s Acela. This line slows down to connect with public transit in downtown Boston then reaches speeds between 130 and 150 mph outside the city (p. 3).

Of course connecting different modes of transportation isn’t new. Capital District Transportation Authority, Albany, N.Y., owns and operates two rail stations where its buses serve customers transferring to and from the trains. King County Metro and Sound Transit operate a Downtown Transit Tunnel serving both hybrid buses and light rail vehicles. The transit tunnel’s International District Station is a short walk from King Street Station, serving Sound Transit’s Sounder Commuter Rail. The Sounder Commuter Rail corridor is about 74 miles long north to south. Along the way, the Sounder connects with transit bus lines at various stations.

In April, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure published a summary of a hearing on “Intermodal High-Speed Rail Connections.” The summary discusses the “2025 Florida Transportation Plan.” South Florida has a 72-mile-long commuter rail corridor and central Florida is expected to begin construction on a 61-mile-long system by the end of this year. However, Florida’s Plan states that there is “inadequate intermodal connectivity” in the state’s transportation system; and that “weakest links are often connections between modes, including rail corridors, airports and seaports.” (p. 9).

When high-speed rail comes to the Pacific Northwest, will it have adequate intermodal connectivity? What other modes of transportation should feed the rail lines? As the Pacific Northwest, and other regions, travel toward developing high-speed rail, it might be interesting to ponder what other countries are doing. Let me offer an interesting example of how a rail company offers connections to different modes of transportation.

Consider Deutsche Bahn (German Rail) and its subsidiary DB Rent GmbH. Of course various modes of public transit connect (e.g. Berlin) with the trains. Deutsche Bahn also offers parking (Park-and-rail and Park-and-ride) for rail travelers. DB Rent offers a carsharing service. DB Rent also offers an interesting service — Call a Bike. Call a bike is a short-term bike rental service that allows a rider to rent a bike by calling a number on the lock where ever the bike is left. If the bike is available, the caller enters its number and a credit card. After using the bike, it is locked to a post on a corner for the next person to use. Deutsche Bahn makes the service available in Munich, Berlin, Cologne and Frankfurt.

From car to intercity heavy rail to bus to streetcar to underground rapid transit (U-Bahn) to bicycle — now that’s what I call intermodal!