The MT Position

By Jim Baker

By Kim Kaiser
As many of you know, at the end of the 2011 the alternative fuel tax credit was not renewed. While it came close to being passed this past December, the entire hullabaloo surrounding the pay role tax credit created a roadblock. However, it is a new year and time to refocus our energy. I had the pleasure of sitting in on a conference call late last week with the Transit Natural Gas Coalition and the APTA Finance and Tax Policy Subcommittee about the alternative fuel tax credit.
It’s not immediately clear when Congress will move on the tax credit. The call ended with a call to  be prepared to move quickly on getting this supported and passed by February. It could take all year and we need to be ready to fight all year to get this thing passed. What we can do in that fight is to educate our senators and representatives on the issue. It’s not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue; it’s an American issue. If this is going to be passed, we need support on all sides. I’m sure that’s no news to you, though.
It’s important to know that the alternative fuel tax credit is no longer being linked to a credit associated with ethanol. The alt-fuel tax credit now stands alone on its own merits and the political consensus seems to be that any help for ethanol is now a thing of the past, explains Shawna Russell,  AVP of Governmental Relations for the Fort Worth Transportation Authority The T).
A good point that Dick Ruddell, chair of the Transit Natural Gas Coalition and president/executive director for The T, made in his opening remarks is that the initial step an agency makes in the switch to CNG is the hardest part – getting a fleet to convert. “This tax credit can really be the incentive to get over that hurdle,” he said.

The tax credit is something that is handled in the Finance Committee, and that is where our efforts need to be focused. Jim Hooley of Clean Energy gave an overview of where the legislation was during the call. “We need as many arguments behind us as we can get; more than just, ‘We need operating money,’” he said.
Other points that were made on the call included how some agencies have been able to provide access to their fueling with regional partners who also want CNG. It is cheaper and has a lower carbon footprint.  One person even called domestic fuel like natural gas the new gold rush. These are messages that need to be brought to our Congressmen’s eyes and ears.
For more information on the issues or to get involved contact Brian Tynan of APTA’s Government Affairs Department at (202) 496-4897, or btynan@apta.com.

By Jeff Collard

Digital communication comprises many methods that can work in concert with each other to meet a variety of goals. Mass transit systems by definition congregate large numbers of people within definable demographics into common spaces. This represents both a challenge and an opportunity for communications. Defining the right combination of technologies and channels to meet communication requirements within a venue is a major challenge to the operator. Restrictions in physical space, operating budgets and legislation governing public spaces require a system-wide strategy for communication.

For the commuter, digital signage, the Internet and mobile applications are the three most common electronic media that they will engage. Therefore, a transit operator should define a common strategy for public communication that leverages all of these media. A common strategy does not necessarily mean a common platform, each of these technologies has their strengths but there should be interoperability and some common data elements between them. Best of breed for your mobile strategy may cause unnecessary compromise for your digital signage strategy; one should not be a slave to the other.

The digital signage platform must accomplish a myriad of tasks, generating revenue through advertising is a valid application and helps offset infrastructure costs but there are many other things the system must be able to achieve. Schedules and timetables, wayfinding, emergency notifications, security and general information such as news and weather are just some applications for the digital signage network. Scalability, interactivity and support for multiple languages are necessary as well. Whereas mobile and internet applications serve individual audience with a single device per user, digital signage might serve one or many individuals at a given time. Additionally physical space for mounting signage is limited and the device/installation cost is not borne by the consumer. That means that the model for digital signage is different than the complimentary media but so are the results.

Digital signage allows multiple assets to exist within a fixed space (repurposing a site) and also allows multiple assets to exist concurrently. Subsequently, the facility can optimize communications without cluttering the space. Additionally, digital signage can provide contextual joining or formatting of assets. A revenue based activity such as advertising hotels to arriving passengers can be targeted to the appropriate situation maximizing returns The value of information to the patron can be increased by displaying the language based on arrival origin and special instructions for those visitors.

The trick to effective digital signage is relating content to events. The more you know about the circumstances of the viewer, the more pertinent the information that you can provide them. Making information relevant requires data, a collection of facts, observations or measurements from which conclusions can be drawn. Data about train schedules and weather may determine travel decisions by a commuter. Data retrieved through interaction with a touch screen may determine the appropriate advertising offer to play and data from the security system may trigger content advising patrons to respond in an emergency. When the system can automatically respond to conditions it dramatically reduces the operating costs without sacrificing functionality.

Digital signage devices need to be intelligent, connected and centrally managed in order to deliver timely information based on a situation and allow multi-purposing of this expensive asset. It is not necessary to define all of the possible data elements that might drive content, as long as you recognize that data is a central driver for content and provides flexibility to respond to requirements that may not be defined initially. Building these elements into your communication strategy will improve effectiveness and enhance returns in the long term.

Jeff Collard is president of Omnivex Corporation, which makes enterprise-wide software to manage all aspects of digital signage networks, including content management, real-time data acquisition and distribution, and remote device management. He can be reached at jcollard@omnivex.com.

Transit case studies can be found at http://www.omnivex.com/casestudies/index.asp?story=Lamar Transit Advertising Ltd and http://www.omnivex.com/casestudies/index.asp?story=UMBC

Collard will be presenting  “The Many Uses of Digital Signage in Transportation Facilities” at DSE 2012 on Thursday, March 8. To Learn more go to www.digitalsignageexpo.net.

Day 1 of the American Public Transportation Association’s Annual Meeting was spent full of committee meetings and exhibitors finalizing their booth setups as they gear up for tomorrow’s start of Expo.

There are about 17,000 attendees here for Expo with 66 countries represented. There are 2,800 booths in the exhibit hall, including 51 DBEs. With 1.1 million square feet of exhibit space in the New Orleans Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, there’s a lot of ground to cover. There was a whirlwind of activity on the exhibit floor as people were finishing their booth set up and prepping for tomorrow when the show floor opens.  While set up isn’t even complete, it’s evident there are some really amazing things to see with vendors representing every facet of public transportation, including two full-size rail cars, two mock rail cars and more than 50 buses  that were brought in.

And even though there is 140 days 23 hours and 58 minutes until Mardi Gras 2012, the “Welcome to New Orleans Reception” at Mardi Gras World provided the festive atmosphere.  (No, I didn’t really know how long until Mardi Gras, but the Mardi Gras World website happens to have a real-time countdown.) The reception, sponsored by Orion Transit Buses and Allison Transmission Inc., gave everyone the opportunity to walk among the spectacular floats, sculptures and props used for carnivals and parades. While enjoying some traditional local foods, a band provided an evening of entertainment.

It’s always great fun to see old friends and to meet new ones and to hear about what’s happening at the different agencies and companies. Like everyone else, we have a full schedule and are out and about trying to meet with as many people as possible. If we haven’t had the opportunity to meet you, be sure to stop by our booth 3412 to introduce yourself, pick up a copy of our September/October issue (featuring this year’s Top 40 Under 40) and a copy of today’s Show Daily.

Be sure to check out our Expo photo gallery at MassTransitMag.com to see the latest event photos!

By Charles Smart

Almost every transit system in North America is looking for ways to cut costs, raise its revenue, or both – all while maintaining high service levels.  One of the biggest sources of cost savings and cash generation is hiding in plain sight:  your inventory of service and spare parts.  Here’s why you should pay more attention to it.

Service and spare parts inventory ranks among the largest assets on the corporate balance sheet.  Our research indicates that eight of the largest transit systems in North America (ranked by ridership) have approximately $850 million in materials and supplies inventory, of which about $650 million is invested in service and spare parts sitting in their distribution centers, stocking locations, and repair facilities.  While much of this parts inventory is essential, some parts are over-stocked, some are under-stocked, and others are simply obsolete.  The extent of misalignment defines the opportunity for improvement, and this can be very substantial.

Understanding the levels of inventory that will be required to meet parts demand – and protect the organization from fluctuations in demand – requires an accurate demand forecast.  You need to know how many of which parts to have on hand.  Ideally, you want to have the right part, at the right place, at the right time and the minimum amount of inventory necessary to meet a desired service level over a replenishment lead time.  There are a number of generic forecasting systems on the market that use historical data to project future demand, but they generally run into trouble when forecasting service and spare parts.  Why is that?

The big problem with parts inventories is intermittent, “slow-moving” demand.  Every parts operation – large or small – experiences intermittent demand.  Here’s an easy way to explain the intermittent demand problem.  Your organization probably stocks many expensive parts like axles, wheels and gears in case you need one of these items to repair rolling stock, and some of  these parts may be many years old. In some cases, it may take 6 months or a year to re-order them.  As an example, you may need one axle this month and not need another for 4 months, and then you may need 3 axles.  The demand for this type of item is intermittent, in contrast with a headlamp which you need to replace on a regular, recurring basis.

Intermittent demand is very difficult to forecast, and in many parts operations, it can be found in up to 70% of all items.  There’s no way that your enterprise resource planning (ERP) system can accurately forecast the demand for that axle, wheel or gear.  It wasn’t designed to do that.  Since intermittent demand is so hard to forecast, organizations often don’t forecast items that have it!  They just forecast the items with “normal”, higher volume demand, and “eyeball” the 70% that remain.  The result is unbalanced, often over-stocked inventories. And it’s in those unbalanced inventories where a lot of cash can be found hiding.

Here’s the second big problem transit systems face in realizing cost savings: resistance to change.  Transit systems have tremendous commitments to existing technologies like ERP systems.  Some of those existing technologies work very well for their intended purpose.  But, no system does everything well.  The right technology can provide better inputs to your ERP system that can help you achieve the cost savings you’re looking for.  This is especially true when it comes to planning your service and spare parts needs.

So, how can you overcome resistance to change and find the cost savings hidden in your distribution centers and parts warehouses?
•    For starters, we’ve found that successful efforts that achieve real cost savings always start at the top.  Executive management needs to be committed and involved, and middle managers need to be accountable.
•    Commitment needs to be clearly communicated to managers at the operational level to get buy-in across the organization and prevent units from working at cross-purposes.
•    Look for a solution that can solve your problem.  Specifically you want a solution that can not only accurately forecast intermittent demand but also tell you how much inventory and safety stock you need to cover demand over replenishment lead times.  While most ERP systems, even those specializing in service operations, claim they can do the job, most cannot.
•    How do you know? Make every vendor prove that they can solve your specific problem.  For example, Metro North Railroad (MNR) recently purchased a solution after exhaustively evaluating a number of vendors, and asked finalists to forecast MNR’s service/spare parts consumption, using actual MNR data.  The best solution’s forecast accuracy outperformed its nearest competitor by 50%.  That kind of performance can be worth millions of dollars – not only in inventory cost savings, but also in increased ROI and reduced payback time.
•    Normally, your IT department will become involved in the selection process.  Most of the time, their inclination will be to use a solution that’s easiest for them or that they already know.  Remember, the needs of the IT department and your department – even the organization as a whole – may differ.  However, the less disruptive the solution you choose to existing systems, the less resistance you’ll get from others in your organization.
•    Look at the total cost-of-ownership (TCO) of any solution you’re considering – initial purchase cost, ongoing maintenance costs, installation and training costs, time-to-results, projected payback and ROI.  Having this kind of information can be very useful when trying to justify a purchase.

It’s not unusual for the right intermittent demand planning tools to achieve a 20% reduction or more in inventory levels, while maintaining or improving fill rates and service levels.  If we take another look at that $650 million dollars worth of parts we referred to above, there’s probably at least $130 million of savings that can be found there and put to more productive uses.  You’re in business to service the public.  If given a choice of saving millions by reducing customer service or by fixing an out-of-balance inventory situation, which would you choose?  Maybe it’s time to take a look at your parts inventories, and find out what savings you’ve got hidden.

Charles N. Smart is president and CEO of Smart Software Inc., Belmont , Mass. , provider of the SmartForecasts demand forecasting, planning and inventory optimization system for transit agencies and other organizations in the transportation industry. He can be reached at charless@smartcorp.com or 1-800-762-7899.

By Ralph Malec

Rail maintenance departments are discovering a new strategy to reduce operating costs. Transit systems have learned that shock absorbers, long considered throw-away items, can now be reused indefinitely. Twenty-five years ago rail car shock absorbers were primarily larger versions of those used on automobiles. They were simple, hydraulic devices and very inexpensive.  New rail car designs that began to appear in the 1980s and 1990s featured trucks with advanced suspension systems. Most of these trucks utilized European-designed shock absorbers that had more sophisticated damping technology and were often rebuildable. These shock absorbers were also much more expensive than the units U.S. rail systems had previously used. Many were priced at least four to five times higher than the older style shock absorbers. Unfortunately, many properties continued to discard their shock absorbers based on age or mileage, regardless of condition.
About 10 years ago the Chicago Transit Authority Rail Car Engineering Department did an investigation into the various types of replacement shock absorbers that were available. The department had reason to believe that OEM shock absorbers were far superior in performance to some of the shock absorbers available on the aftermarket. After thorough research, the CTA decided to change its specification for replacement shock absorbers to reflect the new European design. Realizing that the new style shock absorbers had a useful life of 20 to 30 years, the CTA engineers then began to pursue a method to evaluate the condition of shock absorbers removed from trucks during planned overhauls.
CTA found the answer in professional auto racing. Professional racers had discovered the advantages of the European shock absorbers years earlier and switched to them because they offered almost infinite damping adjustability. Racers needed a tool to measure the damping force for each configuration they built. They used dynamometer testing machines to set these parameters. The CTA staff researched manufacturers of racing shock absorber dynamometers to see if they could find a machine to accommodate their rail car shock absorbers. They ended up connecting with a small racing equipment manufacturer in Ventura, California called Maxwell Industries Inc.
Maxwell  adapted one of its racing shock dynos to test the larger rail car shocks and then tested a half dozen used shock absorbers and compared damping rates to several new shock absorbers supplied by the CTA. The test data revealed that all six used shocks were still within the damping specs for the new shocks. The CTA marked the six shocks and placed them back into service. The re-certified shocks worked flawlessly during several years of service. Reusing those six shock absorbers saved the CTA almost $2,000. The CTA was normally replacing 500 to 600 shock absorbers a year at a cost of nearly $150,000. That was enough to convince the CTA to purchase their own shock dyno and begin to test and re-cycle their shock absorbers and the CTA has experienced a 90 percent reuse rate on shock absorbers since purchasing the shock dyno.

Ralph Malec is a sales consultant with Maxwell Industries Inc.

By Kevin Connor

There is an old saying; “There is a sucker at every poker table; if you can’t spot them, it’s likely you.” This, at its core, describes the nature of the bias blind spots that everyone shares.

The question isn’t, “Are we biased?”  We are.  The better question may be, “How do our environment and the system of positive and negative reinforcements within it shaping our perspective?” These influences define our preferences and thus the way we think, feel and respond to information. It is difficult to gain objectivity regarding these influences on ourselves, and so bias becomes a term used for the distortion in how “others” process information.

When individual decision-makers within an organization or governing body come together to make choices, the interplay of biases can create factions and alliances that stalemate progress or hijack agendas. To break logjams or neutralize groupthink, the process can become increasingly autocratic.  Those in agreement with the leader grow in confidence and satisfaction, while those opposed feel disempowered and grow passive aggressive. No one wins.

Three common cognitive biases can have a significant impact on capital allocation decisions: Framing Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Planning Fallacy. Here’s how to spot them, and how to minimize their effect.

Framing Effect: The way a question is framed can have a major impact on our choices. Implied certainty and positive or negative language can sway opinion. For example, “Would you prefer option A that has a one million dollar Net Present Value? Or option B that has a 33 percent chance of a three million dollar NPV and a 66 percent chance of a zero NPV?” While both projects have the same expected value, project B appears more risky. To counteract the Framing Effect, challenge assumptions and reframe options to explore the proposition and break through the anchoring that the frame imposes.

Confirmation Bias: Selectively choosing information that supports existing assumptions and beliefs is common; our minds seek patterns and similarities.  In experiments, a group given a list of numbers “2, 4, 6” almost all converge on the underlying rule of increasing by two, when in fact the rule being tested is simply successive larger values.

Consider comments like, “Didn’t we get a positive result from that test on option A?” and, “We tried a similar approach to option B before and it was a disaster!” The parties to the decision have begun trying to substantiate the framing of the decision.  To combat this effect, assign a devil’s advocate within the group to express counterpoints. Introduce outsiders who are not vested in the outcome, or use a structured approach to introduce different opinions and contrary positions.

Planning Fallacy: The planning fallacy is known to anyone who has ever read an article or heard complaints of projects being years behind schedule and millions (or even billions) of dollars over budget.  The famous Sydney Opera House was expected to take five years from the start in 1959 and $7 million to finish. When the project was completed in 1973 (14 years), it was at a price tag of $107 million (15 times budget).

Even the most conservative estimates are often optimistic.  To manage the planning fallacy, make estimates of project costs and timing – best, expected and worst case.  Then make the worst case the best case and see if it would change the decision.  If performing an NPV or schedule simulation, run it with a range of values for cost and time variables.  Then run it again for comparison, with ranges approximately twice as wide as you initially believed them to be.

Biases can distort our perceptions and cultivate wishful thinking.  The cascading effect of a problematic frame, talking ourselves into the wishful benefits and optimistic planning can render poor results.  Being on the watch for these common effects and being aware of their potential pitfalls can allow decision makers to implement countermeasures to help make sure they are pursuing the best course of action.

Kevin Connor is Vice President of Decision Lens’ Solutions Group. He can be reached at kconnor@decisionlens.com

By NeTia Richards

Mass transit has become an appealing target for terrorists across the globe, from frequently occurring bus bombings in the Middle East to chemical attacks on subway systems and major bombings of commuter rail systems; mass transit of all forms remain a seemingly perpetual soft target. It’s not hard to figure out why this is the case. Major transit systems like light rails, subways, trains, etc. tend to be densely populated in significantly confined spaces, which makes for great numbers of mass casualties. Furthermore, there is less security, unlike the stringent, multi-layered levels of security at airports, which makes it easier and more convenient for terrorists to access. Lastly, it directly affects several communities as well as our overall economy.

Yes, there was a time when suicide bombers targeted airports and jetliners to carry out their missions, but with each attack and each new threat, security enhances making these targets harder to conquer. Of course, this has not stopped terrorists from supplementing their goals with more attainable resources, i.e. surface transportation and mass transit networks, which makes this monograph a significant one.

The most important issue is funding. Air transportation security receives $50 to every $1 that surface transportation security receives, although ground transportation has millions of more passengers on an annual basis. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created after the attacks on 9/11 and since have taken over funding priorities on the federal level. So, what is the government waiting for? In the past, America had a tendency to be reactive rather than proactive, which some believed 9/11 had changed. However, in more recent months it has become apparent that our nation has fallen back into its ‘old habits, waiting and then responding.

Even after the death of Osama bin Laden and the discovery of the planning of an anniversary attack on our nation, via railways, it is evident that our economic status and the funding priorities that our Congress has given to mass transit has been set aside. The facts are that there are 22,000 miles of Amtrak railways with more than 500 stations and thousands of daily passengers that could be affected by this perpetual threat. Yet, U.S. mass transit systems remain under-funded and still at risk. What do we do? Look to the private sector to provide advancing technology for the U.S. rail security market, and rely on a triple-threat initiative that is combining technology, operational training and public awareness.

It is imperative for the billions of annual mass transit passengers and our economy that there is a public and private sector collaboration to support and improve on current mass transit initiatives to existing systems and work to attain a future nationwide network of high-speed railways. Partnerships will be vital in providing a balance of security from terrorist attacks as well as passenger safety and structural integrity from hub to hub, in metro areas and surrounding suburbs.

Even though threats will continue to emerge from abroad and within our homeland I am convinced that our government and private-sector companies will remain vigilant in staying one step ahead in developing policy and products to maintain a safe U.S. railway and mass transit network.

The Homeland Security & Defense Business Council, which was created after DHS was established, started a one-year long project to assess subsequent events and established measures throughout the decade, post- 9/11.With more than 90 percent of our nation’s infrastructure being provided by the private sector it is imperative to evaluate homeland security solutions and how the providers collaborate with government entities to provide the best and most up-to-date technologies available for intelligence-gathering and preventative measures for terrorist attacks.

In an effort to stay “ahead of the game,” so-to-speak, “The 9/10/11 Project: Are We Ready for the Day Before Tomorrow?”  began in the fall of 2010 and will run until September of 2011. The council releases a monograph on the 10th of each month and covers a myriad of topics; some explore the historical context where others assess future threats and other homeland security concerns. What’s more is the inclusion of an interactive timeline of events and responses that correlate with the current month’s topic.

Read more on transportation security issues at UGPTI’s Transportation Security Blog, posting daily on the topics that really matter.

By Jeff Colton

As electrification of transportation becomes more important, designers and manufacturers are looking for energy storage solutions to increase fleet efficiency. Already, many are using ultracapacitors to replace or enhance batteries in transportation markets such as hybrid buses and trains. Ultracapacitors store a large amount of power in a small package and have a large capacitance with a low RC time constant, making them ideal for hybrid bus, rail and electric vehicle applications. Ultracapacitors work best in conjunction with a battery, as they make a battery-powered system run more efficiently.

There are several reasons why hybridizing public transportation is the best way to decrease wasted energy. First, ultracapacitors operate at a 95 to 98 percent efficiency range, which is far beyond that of batteries. Second, ultracapacitors function well in wide-ranging temperature conditions, from +70 degrees Celsius to -40 degrees Celsius. With the added benefits of a long lifespan and little required maintenance, ultracapacitors are enticing to manufacturers. Finally, ultracapacitors are more cost effective for high power, high cycle applications. Ultracapacitor prices have declined by 99 percent in the past decade compared to a less than 40 percent cost decrease in batteries. All of these factors put ultracapacitors way ahead of batteries, yet many public transportation sectors are still wary of adopting the technology. New technology advances in the development of ultracapacitors are set to change this and make ultracapacitors an industry standard in mass transit markets.

ESR, or equivalent series resistance, is the measure of resistance within the capacitor. A lower ESR results in higher efficiency, which ultimately is the desired end result.  By increasing that efficiency, even if by only 10 percent, the power capabilities of the ultracapacitor will increase by a parallel amount. The boost of power translates into higher performance, which is attractive to mass transit manufacturers and operators.

Energy storage technology has advanced significantly in the past decade and will continue to improve rapidly in the future. As such, ultracapacitor volumes are forecasted to see more than 50 percent compounded annual growth during the next 10 years. As a result of the innovation and research occurring in the energy storage industry, it is likely that we will see the availability of ultracapacitors with decreased ESR of at least 10 percent on the market in the near future.

A lower ESR will increase energy performance in a number of mass transit applications. These include the following:

Light rail: Light rail applications require a significant number of ultracapacitors to provide the power and energy required to propel a train up to speed and across distances as long as 500 meters. The number of cycles can be up to 350,000 per year. These systems require cooling due to the heat generated from the system and cell resistance. By lowering the cell resistance by 10 percent, mass transit manufacturers can also reduce their cooling requirements by 10 percent, making the systems smaller, lighter and more efficient.

Hybrid buses: Similar to the train application described above, ESR plays a large role in the efficiency and cooling requirements used in hybrid bus applications. The lower the ESR, the more efficiently the bus can recapture energy during braking or use the energy captured during acceleration with fewer cooling requirements.

Mass transit markets are eager for cells that reduce the excessive cooling requirements and suppress the cycle life. Technology capable of meeting that demand is on the horizon. In the near-term, ultracapacitors with lower ESR will fill the needs of manufacturers in the rail and hybrid bus markets, leading to lower fleet maintenance costs and increased efficiencies.

Jeff Colton is vice president of sales with Ioxus, Inc. Colton has 20 years of success leading technical sales and marketing teams at several companies, including General Electric Corp., Sanyo Electric Corp., Saft Battery Corp. and Pentadyne Power Corp.

I’m back home from the American Public Transportation Association’s (APTA) Sustainability and Public Transportation Workshop, which was held in Los Angeles earlier this week.

There were many great sessions to pick from, a variety of exhibitors and of course a lot of people to network with to hear firsthand what’s happening in the industry.

A focus was on what the value of sustainability really is and how it can be measured. It was also great to see that there was a balance of this information coming from the private side, as well as the public side. Seeing it from the private side, the data they shared in how sustainability helps their bottom line, really helps to shift the value beyond tree-hugging planet-helping to being sustainable as in keeping these businesses in business.

Other common feedback I heard was that it’s great to see this is all becoming more relevant to the day-to-day operations of businesses/companies/agencies and it’s not so focused on simply building a “green” building or running alternative fuel. Now when we talk about sustainability, it implies we’re referring to how transportation impacts the sustainability of the community, as well.

During one session that looked at how communities can build partnerships to work together to create regional plans, a thought-proving comment was made by Robin Blair, director citywide planning and development, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, that he doesn’t think transit-oriented development exists; it’s just a building next to a transit system. The phrase he used was that they’re looking for develop-oriented transit. You can read more about the session moderated by Cliff Henke, a senior analyst with Parsons Brinckerhoff, HERE.

The closing roundtable discussion focused on a number of ways in how we can reframe our thinking to quantify the value of sustainability. Kevin Desmond, general manager of King County Metro Transit and chair of the APTA Sustainability committee, led a group of panelists that included the public and private perspectives. Read more on the variety of ways in which we can look at measuring sustainability HERE.

As usual at any conference or workshop, I heard from a lot of people that one of the best opportunities is the opportunity to catch up with other attendees to exchange all of the great ideas that are out there, the different challenges we face, and finding the common challenges others have already worked through. And, also like every other meeting, there’s never enough time and at the Sustainability Committee’s meeting at the close of the Workshop, people were excited to look to what to expect for Sustainability and Public Transportation 2012.