Many years ago, while I was still working as a transit operator, I drove a bus route that passed through SeaTac International Airport. It picked up commuters, shoppers and visitors to Seattle. The visitors usually came with huge bags and a thousand questions — about hotels, museums, landmarks and bus routes. Some questions I could answer easily. Some questions I couldn’t answer or didn’t have time to sort out the answer — after all, I was driving a 60-foot bus with 50 to 60 other passengers.

Who are a transit system’s customers? This might seem like a simple question. Customers are the ones using the system — right? Some customers are easy to identify. They live and work in our communities. Transit systems are usually good at identifying these customers — commuters, the disabled, seniors, shoppers and students to name a few. These customers are generally local people who know something about the city, their neighborhoods and streets. Visitors don’t know the geography or the transit system. Often they don’t even know the language.

What difference do visitors make to a transit agency that serves local people? Let me approach it this way. Visitors to Washington State spent $14 Billion in 2009. Visitors to California spent $97.6 Billion in 2008. In Georgia, U.S. travelers alone spent $19 billion. In the state of Virginia, domestic travel expenditures in 2008 totaled $19.2 billion, of which $2.76 billion were for public transportation (The Impact of Domestic Travel Expenditures on Virginia Counties 2008, p.13.

As I have surveyed the various Web sites of transit agencies, I have noticed only scant attention to the visitors and tourists. There is some attention. Minneapolis-St. Paul’s Metro Transit lists Twin Cities’ attractions on its Web site. However, these Web links go to the Web pages of the various attractions without telling what transit service might serve that location. New York’s MTA has an advertisement for getaways on the Long Island Rail Road. But even this seems to be an exception. Mostly visitors are helped passively.

Let me make an observation that I hope will stir conversation. Most of what passes for marketing in transit agencies is only a subset of marketing — it is mostly publicity and sales. Of course, the local transit market is segmented. Agencies create many different kinds of fare media and target various market segments with advertisement — especially commuters. Sales channels are developed for these customers. But there doesn’t seem to be much creative definition of new market segments. I suspect this is organizational myopia. With budgets under pressure, I also suspect that marketing may take a back seat to other issues. Cutting marketing without careful consideration would be a mistake.

The marketing concept is that an organization should try to profit by serving the needs of customer groups (Peter, P., Donnelly, J., A Preface to Marketing Management, McGraw-Hill, 2006). Although a public transit agency doesn’t seek to “profit,” it does seek to “increase ridership.” A focus on customer needs is crucial. It isn’t the products offered or the means to attract customers that should drive this focus. It is the customers’ needs. If it doesn’t meet customers’ needs, they won’t use it. This is true when trying to keep current customers and true when trying to attract new ones.

Incremental gains from the farebox are increasingly important in light of budget problems. Every paying customer represents a little more revenue. New market segments are very important. However, publicity alone isn’t enough. Marketing of transit services should be systematic, targeted and evolving. Tourists and visitors comprise a good segment to target.

Think outside the box.

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).

There was a time when “multimodal” meant you had buses and trains in your system, not just one or the other. As the public transit industry advances and continues to expand that is no longer the case. Now multimodal incorporates so much more than it once did — and companies such as Google are taking notice.

Our March issue mails this week and you’ll notice its multimodal cover includes not just a bus and a train, but front and center a bike. Bikes in transit aren’t something new. There is hardly a transit agency out there that doesn’t have bike racks on its buses or accommodations for bikes on its trains. In cities like San Francisco where the biking community is strong, its leaders are brought in to offer their opinions on transit matters just like any other group.

That’s why when I saw this article this week, it caught my attention. If you haven’t used Google’s maps in a while, you can get directions for your trip (in most locations) via car, public transit, walking and now bicycle.

Having used the map features for all of the former above, I am very interested in seeing the biking directions appear on Google Maps, especially if cities like Philadelphia adopt bike sharing programs.

I’m not a devout bicyclist myself, but my publisher is and he has professed to me on more than one occasion how passionate, loyal and large the bicycle community is. Now if we could only convert some (more) of them to transit, think about how ridership would increase!

As transit looks to the future we need to get past outdated ideas of “adding” something new to a system be it a new BRT route, rail line or even bike racks. Instead we should try “incorporating” all of these modes into something that truly offers ridership opportunities to everyone.

I think that multimodal and intermodal are quickly becoming outdated terms that don’t incorporate all of the aspects transit offers. How about “omnimodal” or just “we have everything you need, get out of your darn car already.”

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!

Surveillance cameras have been on buses for years. The video, recorded by a bus-mounted DVR or VCR, provides law enforcement officials with an opportunity to review criminal events. Transit operators can also look at the video to check on the driver’s performance.

The major problem with these reviews is they cannot be performed until the recorder has been retrieved — often long after an event has taken place.

The Maryland Transit Administration has plans to change that. The agency recently announced it will outfit its entire 700-bus fleet with video surveillance cameras and related equipment capable of downloading video at one of several depots. Upon arriving at the depot, the buses will electronically authenticate themselves then use a Wi-Fi hotspot to “dump” all video or just that tagged by alarm buttons.

The video will then be sent wirelessly to a central dispatch center. This way video can be available almost instantly, giving law enforcement officials a jump on indentifying suspects, witnesses and crimes. As anyone in law enforcement knows, time is critical in a criminal investigation.

The MTA, which plans to complete the project by early next year, has already placed the equipment on 130 of its new and existing buses.

Another goal for the new system will be the transmission of the downloaded video to MTA police squad cars in the field. That will still take an expanded wireless network and the placement of receiving technology in the cars.

We are not that far away from being able to transmit live, real-time streaming video from buses anywhere in a city. That would be possible by taking advantage of the latest security technology and the 3G networks or the wireless mesh networks that many cities across the country already have in place.

These networks provide a path for video to be transmitted from a surveillance camera to a central monitoring station operated by a school or transit authority, private provider or security monitoring company. Each camera on the bus is equipped with either a radio transmitter or 3G card. As the bus travels across town, the video is transmitted to the nearest wireless node and routed to the monitoring station.

By adding a GPS unit to each vehicle, a bus’ position could be pinpointed within a few meters. Then when an event takes place, a trained professional monitoring the cameras can see what is happening and knows where the bus is located. With existing technology, these coordinates are integrated in a way so the monitoring center knows the exact 9-1-1 dispatch number to call. Information can be shared with local law enforcement to provide a faster and more appropriate response.

Bus passengers and drivers get an extra feeling of safety with the cameras on board. Law enforcement will love the MTA system as the cameras act as a force multiplier for their officers on the streets. The video equipment also helps to harden the transit system against terrorists.

And the MTA officials aren’t stopping with video surveillance on buses. They already have hundreds of wireless cameras throughout Baltimore that cover metro and light rail stations. The video is transmitted to a central command center for monitoring. And they would like to add other detection systems, such as chemical and radiological devices, to further enhance the safety of transit passengers and other citizens.

”When trying to solve crimes, the first few hours are extremely important and this video capability allows us — literally at a moment’s notice — to respond to crime,” said Col. John Gavrillis, chief of police for the Maryland Transit Authority. “The MTA has really taken the lead among the transit agencies in utilizing video capabilities to secure their facilities.”

Indeed they have. They should be commended for taking new and existing technologies and combining them into a complete solution. Moving forward, we need to see this type of video surveillance expanded to other transit agencies across the country.

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.

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).

If you jump on the news this morning and type ‘transit security’ one of the first stories you are likely to come up with is this one (or ones like it) about the shooter who attacked two Pentagon police officers yesterday within steps of a Washington Metro station. And you may be like me and go, oh no, not on the Metro again!

Thankfully, the only person who died in the shootout last night was the perpetrator — a man from California dressed in a business suit who calmly walked up to the two officers and, instead of pulling out a security pass, pulled a pair of guns and began shooting. The two officers involved both have been released from the hospital, one shot in the leg and the other in the shoulder — both superficial wounds.

The gunmen could just have easily started shooting on Metro, but this time the transit authority was spared from another such attack. Of course, that isn’t going to stop a large number of people to question Metro’s (and transit’s) security … again.

I was in Cleveland this week visiting the RTA. I had an early morning flight yesterday and factoring in the prerequisite time I was supposed to arrive at the airport before my flight, the time it would take to get to the airport and the time it would take to get to the train station to get me there, it was a very early morning.

So it was no surprise to me as I walked down Euclid Ave. to Tower City station that I was the only person on the street. A middle-age editor lugging a suitcase down an empty (though well-lit) street in the wee hours of the morning says nothing if not “potential target” for the ne’er-do-wells out there. You can then imagine my happiness as an RTA transit police car rolled past me toward my destination.

I had done what most other people would have in my position — rushed to judgment. It was early. It was dark. I was alone and carrying a heavy suitcase. Every dark alleyway likely teemed with bad guys waiting to jump out and accost me.

The same could be said for those reading this story about Washington Metro this morning. The system isn’t teeming with criminals or psychos or whatever you want to call them perpetrating all sorts of crimes.

It’s teeming with transit and local police looking out for passengers’ safety.

It’s good to see that this time my fears and my rush to judgment were unfounded.

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!

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).

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.

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!

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).

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!