This month I’m in Europe on business travel, and Britain is my first stop. One of the first things you notice once you’ve stopped off the plane is the omnipresent CCTV camera — many of them wireless — a sign of the government’s commitment to public safety and, some have claimed, another step in the formation of a Big Brother state.

The UK has more CCTV cameras per capita than any European country, yet concerns have been raised about their effectiveness in actually cutting crime. Boarding the Heathrow Express train for central London, CCTV is visible on the platforms and on the trains, and managed from the impressive Heathrow Express Control Room (HECR) built by infrastructure operator Firstco to provide round-the-clock monitoring for passenger safety and systems control. The Heathrow Express, operating between London’s Paddington Station and Heathrow terminals, was opened in 1998 and carries more than 5 million passengers a year.

In 2007 wireless broadband was added to the train by Nomad Digital and T-Mobile, with a Wi-Fi hotspot service available throughout the 15-minute journey, even underground in the six kilometer section of tunnel. The free Wi-Fi service provides passengers with a typical broadband speed of around 2Mbps, enabling travelers to check email and surf the Web before and after a flight. With international data roaming charges on your smartphone as high as they are, foreign visitors to the UK find the free Internet access a real bonus. Free Wi-Fi suddenly has great importance to me; I dare not use my AT&T iPhone or USB dongle in Europe, lest I spend my kids’ college fund on those roaming charges.

The Heathrow Express deployment was a major success for Newcastle-based Nomad Digital, one of the early pioneers of wireless Internet on trains, having installed Wi-Fi on the Brighton Express trains in 2005 using track-side WiMAX infrastructure. Nomad went on to deliver high-speed broadband on Virgin’s West Coast Main Line serving the South West of England; the Wi-Fi service is now used by over 90,000 passengers every month. Nomad has since expanded its presence into North America, with significant wins with the Amtrak Acela Express high speed service between Boston and Washington DC, and with Talgo in the Pacific Northwest. Nomad typically uses a combination of cellular and track-side infrastructure to deliver broadband to the trains.

Arriving at London’s Paddington Station, Wi-Fi is ubiquitous in the station thanks to nationwide hotspot initiatives from T-Mobile, BT OpenZone, and O2 (owned by Spain’s Telefonica) — the latter in conjunction with hotspot operator The Cloud. I had to travel across London on the Underground system (known as the Tube) and while mobile phone service is available in some stations, Wi-Fi is not. In May 2010, London’s Mayor Boris Johnson announced at a Google conference that London would get blanket Wi-Fi coverage in time for the Olympic Games in 2012. Since then, The Cloud has been in discussions with the major 3G network operators, including Vodafone, O2 and Virgin Mobile to evaluate how a network of this scale might be possible and what it would cost. Johnson stated that his vision included Wi-Fi coverage of the Underground, although his comments caused some alarm among his advisors who sought to downplay any actual commitment, as the costs were significant and required cooperation with many different London boroughs. So it’s possible that London may one day join the ranks of major cities that provide wireless Internet to commuters underground, following New York, Hong Kong and Tokyo, among others.

At London’s Victoria Station I was catching a train to Kent, but had I been wanting to go to Oxford, Cambridge, Southampton or Portsmouth instead, I would have benefited from free Wi-Fi on bus services originating at Victoria and provided by Stagecoach (Oxford Tube), Go-Ahead (Oxford Espress), FirstGroup (Greyhound UK) and National Express. All four intercity bus operators use a mobile broadband system originally developed by UK-based Moovera Networks and acquired by Sweden-based Icomera in 2008 (disclaimer: I was founder and CEO of Moovera). Wi-Fi on those buses is free-of-charge to the traveler, primarily deployed to improve passenger amenities and as an incentive for people to choose the bus over the train or car. However, the same Internet connection is used to provide real-time vehicle tracking and in some instances, remote access to on-board systems, including ticket machines and CCTV. So broadband connectivity is not just a marketing idea — it has tangible benefits for operations as well.

Britain certainly rode the wave of early adopters with Wi-Fi on train and buses, and lessons learned from those pioneering deployments have helped transport operators in ] North America understand the pitfalls, iron out technical issues, and define and refine the business models.

Sorry this week’s column is shorter than usual; I’m in a bit of a rush at a Starbucks in Canary Wharf finishing this article between meetings before I hop on the Dockland Light Railway (DLR) back to where I’m staying. The Wi-Fi is free here, but is not available on the elevated train itself. Instead I shall take the time to look out the window across London as evening comes on and the light fades, trying to remember what it was like before the iPhone, iPad, 4G, Facebook, Twitter and FourSquare, and our apparent need to be connected everywhere, all the time. Hey, I may even read (intake of breath) a ‘book’…

–
Jim Baker is managing partner at Xenventure, a market strategy and private equity firm based in San Francisco and London. A C-level wireless industry veteran, Baker has been involved in many deployments of wireless technologies on passenger transportation worldwide and is a recognized industry expert on Wi-Fi, 3G and 4G convergence. He is chairman of the Technology Committee at the Joint Council on Transit Wireless Communications, which is developing a strategic plan for implementation of wireless technologies in mass transit. Contact Baker via LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter.

There’s been a lot of media hype and political hoopla of late about the states receiving millions from the Feds for “high-speed rail.” While any money spent on rail is great, riders need a reality check.

That federal money (combined with millions from the state) is merely a small down payment on massive, multi-billion dollar projects to bring passenger rail service to long-neglected corridors and new ROWs.

In Connecticut, the first millions will be spent adding a second track on a 10-mile stretch of an existing Amtrak line between New Britain and Newington. That’s a good start, but the rest of the project is far from a sure thing. And it sure ain’t “high-speed rail.”

Media reports that we’ll soon have 110-mph rail service to our capital in Hartford are folly because they assume our cash-strapped state will continue funding the other 90+ percent of the project.

Sure, commuter rail service along the Interstate 91 corridor will be welcome. And it will undoubtedly have economic and development benefits. But will politicians please stop teasing us with images of bullet trains and a one-hour, one-seat ride from Hartford to New York (115 miles)?

In recent years, any number of would-be office-holders (federal and state), have called on me for briefings on how to fix our region’s transportation mess. I’ve gladly talked with them all, Republican and Democrat, and given them a frank assessment of our situation. But when they start asking … “Why can’t we build a Maglev down the middle of our interstates?” I start wondering if they’ve been smoking more than cigars.

We can’t adequately fund our existing Metro-North commuter rail service, and our pols have questions about Disney-style monorails? Let’s look at the facts:

In 2003 Maryland looked at building a mag-lev system 39 miles from Baltimore to Washington and figured it would cost $4.9 billion to build and $53 million a year to operate.  You can buy a heckuva lot of conventional rail equipment for that kind of money on such a short-distance run.

Maglev may make sense running across the desert from LA to Vegas, but in dense, built-up corridors like the Northeast, it’s a fantasy. We’re stuck with the tracks we have with maybe a little straightening and, if we’re really lucky, electrification.

What passes for “high-speed rail” in the U.S. is a joke by international standards. I love riding Amtrak’s Acela, but its purported 150 mph speed is achieved only on a few miles of track in NJ and RI. In Connecticut, Acela maxes out at 90 mph, no faster than Metro-North. And the tilting mechanism on the train (designed to enhance speed) is disabled in CT due to lack of clearance.  Over its entire Washington to Boston run, Acela’s average speed is just 72 mph, slower than most cars.

Compare that with Japan’s Shinkansen which runs 185 mph, France’s TGV or the London – Paris Eurostar which do 200 mph.  Now that’s high-speed rail!

Whatever is actually built in the way of “higher” speed passenger rail, I’ll be thrilled. But none of these projects will be cheap and I doubt they’ll happen in this economy.

All we riders want is some honesty from our pols and planners. Build us a reasonably fast passenger service, but don’t give us promises you can’t keep about bullet trains. OK?

Jim Cameron is chairman of the Connecticut Metro-North Commuter Council but the opinions expressed here are only his own. You can reach him at cameron06820@gmail.com or www.trainweb.org/ct.

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.

Transit is the hot topic in Wisconsin with the Amtrak Hiawatha extension becoming a major point in this fall’s gubernatorial campaign. I guess it’s time to fight fire with fire … men.

I’m usually not one for reading comments to stories online because usually it is just inane blather by people hiding behind anonymity. I have been keeping an eye on comments about our new rail line here in Wisconsin. I see the benefit it will bring to the state, but it’s hard to make people here understand how it will work when public transit is “for them big city folks” for the most part. I did read a good analogy today, though.

One person posted a comment referring to the usual argument of no one using the rail line by comparing transit funding to funding for fire departments. I like this analogy. I may get lambasted for this, but what we have here (strictly from a usage perspective) is a service that people want to use versus one they hope they never use.

Think of this the next time someone says they don’t want to put a new transit line in their area because they will never use it. Ask them, “So would you reduce funding to the fire departments?” I am sure you will get the apples and oranges argument, but think about it for a minute. We are funding fire departments to make sure they have all the tools they need with the hope that they will never have to use them. The world would probably be a better place if all fire fighters were able to spend their time in the fire station just waiting for the bell to ring.

On the other hand we have transit, the quintessential “I won’t pay for this because nobody will use it.” But what if they do? Just like fire departments, we need to make sure that transit is available for people when they need it or — in the best of cases — they choose to use it.

The other side of this argument is making sure that transit is there when you need it. Think if your house was on fire and you called 911 and the fire department couldn’t help you out — maybe because of budget cuts. Sure, another apples to oranges comparison, but then ask the people using transit on the East and West Coasts. Thousands of people couldn’t get to work this week because our transit infrastructure failed.

Was there a national public outcry? Has Congress stepped up to the mic demanding answers? Thankfully neither situation resulted in any deaths or injuries (that I am aware of), but how is this infrastructure failing any more of a signal to us then the I-35 bridge collapse?

Transit continues to be put off in the corner by our politicians as they lobby to the public, making transit seem less and less important. They would never do this to fire departments, but then again, while we expect the trains to run on time, we hope fire fighters don’t have to worry about it.

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

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com
Connect to me via LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter!

In a report published this August, public Wi-Fi operator JiWire announced that free wireless hotspots had overtaken pay-per-use in popularity, with 55.1 percent of public Wi-Fi locations available at no charge. The growth of free Wi-Fi is a global trend, noted JiWire — one in four commercial Wi-Fi networks is now free, with an increasing number of retail establishments using no-charge wireless as a means to attract customers. At the same time, more mass transit agencies are considering deployment of Internet access on buses and trains, and in stations and waiting areas, as an incentive for passengers to use public transport and be more productive during their journey. With the days of paid Wi-Fi clearly numbered, what business models are there for transit agencies and wireless service provider partners to consider? In the first part of several installments, this week we’ll look at Transit Wireless LLC, which is rolling out wireless networks in New York’s extensive subway system.

In 2007, the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) awarded a 10-year communication infrastructure contract to Transit Wireless LLC — a conglomerate of construction and wireless companies — that would bring mobile phone and Wi-Fi service to the 277 stations within the city’s subway system. NYCTA’s parent, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, approved the contract in September 2007 but did not give the official notice to proceed until July this year. The project stalled due to lack of sufficient funding, but was restarted after financing was provided by Broadcast Australia, a Sydney-based multinational that also installed wireless in Hong Kong’s subway. Broadcast Australia, in turn, is controlled by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board in a convoluted chain of ownership. Under the terms of the original 2007 deal, the NYCTA would earn in excess of $45 million from an estate lease over the 10-year term; Transit Wireless will cover all network construction costs and generate revenue from mobile carriers such as AT&T, Sprint and Verizon, who would provide cellular service over the Transit Wireless network.

The whole roll-out is expected to cost around $250 million including the payments to the NYCTA; work will commence on the first six stations in Manhattan by September, with live service expected in all six within two years. The remaining 271 stations will be completed within the next six years, although a spokesman for Transit Wireless stated that up to 15 stations a month could be outfitted during the rolling program. Phone and Wi-Fi coverage will be available only in the stations, on platforms and part-way into adjacent tunnels; the contract does not stipulate contiguous coverage throughout the subway system. In addition to consumer services, the Transit Wireless solution will serve public safety organizations by providing the source of a cell phone’s signal within a station, improving incident response times.

Interestingly, although the press have made much of the inclusion of Wi-Fi access in the New York subway deal, Transit Wireless LLC themselves have not been specific about the technology, merely talking about ‘wireless data connectivity’ which could refer to 3G or 4G cellular data. But using Wi-Fi to offload bandwidth-intensive traffic from cellular networks makes sense. With data traffic expected to reach epic proportions over the next few years, carriers have been desperately seeking ways to divert that traffic — generated by smart devices like the iPhone, iPad and Droid — away from over-stressed cellular networks designed for voice. AT&T, which has faced a 5,000 percent increase in data traffic over the last three years, has invested in Wi-Fi networks in Times Square, New York; Charlotte, N.C.; and Wrigleyville, Chicago. While next generation mobile networks from Clear (WiMAX) and Verizon (LTE) will increase cellular data throughput, Wi-Fi still has a major role to play in data offload in the foreseeable future.

The business model that Transit Wireless LCC is pursuing is one that is unlikely to impact the fare-paying passenger. The mobile coverage will be provided as an extension of his or her regular cell phone contract; if Transit Wireless signs up all four major carriers (Verizon, Sprint, AT&T and T-Mobile) for their network, then everybody wins. With the trend toward free Wi-Fi gaining pace, any hotspot service offered on the subway is also likely to be provided at no charge to the passenger. Not only does Transit Wireless stand to generate revenue from the mobile carriers, but also from advertisers wanting to reach the commuting demographic via advertisements within the Wi-Fi hotspot service. These ads can be delivered at login on the splash pages and potentially during the Web browsing experience itself as banners, all at cost to the advertiser. It could be assumed that fiber will be installed within the stations for backhaul, and this in turn could be leveraged easily by the NYCTA for public safety applications, such as CCTV and passenger information systems (PIS).

The wireless endgame is a happier passenger who can now make a call and check Twitter or Facebook on the platform; a happier transit authority who has generated income from a site lease; and a happy wireless operator who is generating recurring revenue from mobile carriers needing to extend their reach underground and advertisers willing to pay to sell insurance, pizza and home loans. Isn’t wireless wonderful? We’ll follow up with Transit Wireless LLC in a few months and see …

–
Jim Baker is managing partner at Xenventure, a market strategy and private equity firm based in San Francisco and London. A C-level wireless industry veteran, Baker has been involved in many deployments of wireless technologies on passenger transportation worldwide and is a recognized industry expert on Wi-Fi, 3G and 4G convergence. He is chairman of the Technology Committee at the Joint Council on Transit Wireless Communications, which is developing a strategic plan for implementation of wireless technologies in mass transit. Contact Baker via LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter.

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. ]]> http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2010/08/24/a-beautiful-ride/feed/ http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2010/08/20/peace-and-quiet/ http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2010/08/20/peace-and-quiet/#comments Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:54:37 +0000 Fred Jandt http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2010/08/20/peace-and-quiet/ Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor

Despite significant improvements in technology, transit isn’t quiet. Sure, electrically powered vehicles don’t have the metallic rumble of engines past, but they are still far from quiet. And that’s just on the outside. What’s worse is the noise inside.

At the dinner table at night my wife and I have begun asking for a moment of silence before we eat. This isn’t necessarily out of respect for anyone in particular, but to get our kids to appreciate how nice quiet can be. Anyone who travels as much as I do can commiserate with this.

Frankly, traveling is noisy. The bustle of people and the large machines that move them creates a din that you usually don’t realize is there until it’s gone. No wonder so many people ride transit with headphones in — at least the noise is of my own choosing.

This week I read an article about a fight coming to a head in Congress over cell phone use on airplanes. It’s a battle between travelers’ rights groups who want the United States to follow Europe’s lead in allowing cell phone usage on flights and the FAA who sees them as a potential hazard to use in the air.

As any Mythbuster’s fan can tell you, they already tested the veracity of the FAA’s concern and:

“The ban on cell phones on aircraft is designed to force passengers to use the expensive in-flight phones.

Busted.

It was found that cell phone signals, specifically those in the 800-900 MHz range, did interfere with unshielded cockpit instrumentation. Because older aircraft with unshielded wiring can be affected, and because of the possible problems that may arise by having many airborne cell phones “seeing” multiple cell phone towers, the FCC (via enforcement through the FAA) still deems it best to err on the safe side and prohibit the use of cell phones while airborne.” (http://mythbustersresults.com/episode49)

So the FAA has a point. But really, that shouldn’t matter. The fact is that people on cell phones can be loud, rude and give freely with information no one around them wants to hear.

My point is that while the government is fighting to keep this ban in place, they should be fighting to extend it to all forms of transit. If I don’t want to listen to the guy next to me on a plane talk on his cell phone, why would I on the bus or train? Sure, there are quiet cars on most rail lines, but the quiet ones shouldn’t be herded into a special car, it should be the loud ones.

If this does happen, let’s hope at least they will free up other portable electronics so I can turn up my iPod when the guy next to me is talking to his doctor about his latest check-up.

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

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

On August 18 the U.S. Department of Transportation issued an update to a strategic research plan through its Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS-JPO). The plan “is aimed at leveraging the power of wireless communications to transform transportation systems to make them safer, greener and more efficient,” according to Peter Appel of the DoT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration.

The DoT’s efforts are centered around IntelliDrive, an ambitious initiative that plans to create a wireless network to connect vehicles, municipal infrastructure and consumer hand-held devices for applications, including real-time weather,  traffic advisories and travel warnings. The same network is also intended to help transit agencies monitor and manage transportation systems and crews, facilitate publishing of real-time transit schedules, and improve overall operational efficiency.

A key objective of the IntelliDrive program is to establish interoperability between all types of vehicles, including bus and train fleets, which will require close cooperation with transit agencies and vehicle manufacturers. The DoT faces the challenge of engaging with these bodies, and establishing IntelliDrive as a viable standard for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication. To this end, the DoT is sponsoring a series of workshops across the country starting in late August to obtain technical input from stakeholders, including transit operators that will help define the core IntelliDrive system. Concurrently, the DoT has issued a request for information (RFI) that seeks responses and ideas from the mass transit and academic communities with the aim of launching one or more pilot programs to demonstrate the capabilities of IntelliDrive in productivity, transit and freight management, and environmental economy.

The five-year IntelliDrive program was launched in the summer of 2009, with the initial aim of putting wireless in every new car and anonymously transmitting data such as speed, location and direction. This information would be used to create a map of traffic conditions, identifying problem areas of congestion, for example. Additional sensor data would relay whether windshield wipers were on, indicating rain or snowfall and potential hazard conditions.

The DoT believes that sharing this data should help reduce traffic incidents and improve overall road safety. According to the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2009 Urban Mobility Report, traffic congestion costs the U.S. economy more than $87 billion every year, wasting almost 3 billion gallons of fuel; IntelliDrive aims to reduce these costs, making surface transportation safer and greener in the process.

Such a wide-reaching program not only needs significant infrastructure in vehicles and on the street, but requires suitable spectrum for data communication. While mobile carriers would advocate use of traditional mobile spectrum and 3G High Speed Packet Access (HSPA) and Long Term Evolution (LTE) networks, the DoT is committed to using dedicated short-range communications (DSRC). DSRC was allocated 75MHz of spectrum in the 5.9GHz band by the FCC in October 1999 for use by intelligent transportation systems (ITS), with potential applications including intersection collision avoidance, transit vehicle signal priority and adaptive cruise control.

DSRC uses a variant of the 802.11 standard called 802.11p, with the long-term hope is that this will ensure equipment compatibility between United States, European and Japanese DSCR transmitters and receivers. The 802.11p Task Group finalized and submitted the 802.11p standard to the IEEE in July 2010; the key differences between standard 802.11 and 802.11p wireless access in vehicular environments (WAVE) are enhancements to improve performance in moving vehicles where hand-off has to be very fast.

A number of public sector organizations around the United States have started pilot programs to explore IntelliDrive for specific applications. The Oakland-based Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) issued an RFP in July 2010 to create a demonstration of how IntelliDrive could improve toll operations. Similarly, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has completed the planning and scoping stages of a demonstration project for miles-based user fees and in-vehicle signing, using custom software applications running on a Tom Tom 630 GPS unit.

Despite it being more than 10 years since the FCC allocated spectrum for DSCR, it is still early days in the implementation of IntelliDrive as a real-world technology for mass transit. Its success requires a consolidated approach from regional authorities, transit operators, vehicle manufacturers and equipment vendors. Once the 802.11p standard is available to hardware manufacturers, interoperable in-vehicle access points and road-side infrastructure can be developed. But the challenge remains to engage all the stakeholders and convince them that there is a real demand or business case for IntelliDrive. Without evidence that there are tangible benefits — or more dramatically, legislation that requires all vehicles to have IntelliDrive devices installed — it may prove an uphill struggle for a nationwide commitment.

Jim Baker is managing partner at Xenventure, a market strategy and private equity firm based in San Francisco and London. A C-level wireless industry veteran, Baker has been involved in many deployments of wireless technologies on passenger transportation worldwide and is a recognized industry expert on Wi-Fi, 3G and 4G convergence. He is chairman of the Technology Committee at the Joint Council on Transit Wireless Communications, which is developing a strategic plan for implementation of wireless technologies in mass transit. Contact Baker via LinkedIn  or follow him on Twitter.

As chairman of the Connecticut Metro-North Rail Commuter Council (a group appointed by the legislature and celebrating its 25th anniversary), I get almost daily e-mails from my fellow commuters riding from the Nutmeg State to Grand Central. With 115,000 daily trips, that’s a lot of eyes and ears expecting the best for some of the highest commuter fares in North America.

What’s are the biggest complaints? After a lack of seats on rush hour trains and the smelly bathrooms, tops on the list is uncollected tickets. Passengers on the train get really miffed when they’ve paid for their ticket, but they see others getting a free ride.

Here’s the typical scenario: you’re on a train from Grand Central heading home to Connecticut in the evening. The train stops at Stamford (or Greenwich or New Rochelle, N.Y.) to discharge passengers while other intermediate commuters come on board, filling the previously occupied seats.

As the train proceeds, the conductor walks through the train asking for “Stamford tickets!” and a few honest souls proffer their passes or tickets. Most people avoid eye contact or bury their heads in their papers. But because I have seen the new passengers who got on and where they sat, I realize the conductor didn’t collect all the newcomers’ fares. Why?

Because the conductor, working several cars on a 10-car train carrying almost a thousand passengers, isn’t sure whose ticket he collected leaving New York City and whose ticket needs to be collected having boarded at Stamford. That is, unless he issued seat checks.

Those stubby, colorful seat checks are punched by the conductor when tickets are collected, indicating the number of passengers in that row of seats and their final destination. At least they’re supposed to be punched. Sometimes, perhaps because a conductor is rushed or lazy, no seat checks are punched and then dozens of new passengers get a free ride. Free for them, but hardly free for the rest of us who’ve paid for our tickets. Metro-North tells the Commuter Council it knows this happens, but it’s willing to lose a few fares rather than over-staff a train.

Before the introduction of Metro-North’s ticket vending machines in 2002, most fares were collected onboard trains by conductors to the tune of $50 million a year, in cash. There was a huge “money room” at Grand Central that looked like something out of a casino. Now, the cash collections are minimal, thanks in part to an on-board “service charge” (penalty) of up to $5.50 for boarding without a ticket. (And that’s on top of the cost of the ticket … a mistake riders don’t make twice.)

Conductors on Metro-North make good money. And they do a very important job: opening doors, answering questions and directing passengers in an emergency. For the most part, they get high marks from commuters for their work. But being human, sometimes they cut corners, don’t do seat checks and lose the railroad a ton of money that we who do buy tickets end up paying.

Being the “face” of the railroad, conductors take their share of abuse. But with proper training, they should deal with the customers and do their jobs.

As I see it, people who get a “free ride” on Metro-North are the transit equivalent of shoplifters. If you saw someone stealing from a store, wouldn’t you say something?

So when I see a conductor miss a ticket, either because the conductor didn’t notice the new passenger or, more likely, the deadbeat passenger didn’t offer a ticket, I’ll say something to the conductor like, “I think you missed this gentleman’s ticket …” and then smile at the conductor and the chagrined thief.

The Commuter Council gives Metro-North detailed reports when we hear of uncollected fares … names, dates, times, train numbers. After one recent complaint, undercover inspectors were dispatched within days to ride the train and observe the conductors. When appropriate, disciplinary action is taken against the staffer. Or so we are told, though the complaints continue.

Connecticut and New York are now spending more than a billion dollars on new rail M8 cars. Metro-North has been going through several rounds of fare hikes and service cuts. All of that money comes from us, as taxpayers and commuters. If we’re paying our fare share, shouldn’t the railroad make sure others do as well?

Jim Cameron is chairman of the Connecticut Metro-North Commuter Council but the opinions expressed here are only his own. You can reach him at cameron06820@gmail.com or www.trainweb.org/ct

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.

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.