The MT Position

by Mark Foss

March 18th of this year, TriMet announced the planned departure of General Manager Fred Hansen.  He is “considering several opportunities to promote greener technology in the transportation field.”  Judging by Mr. Hansen’s biography and his success at TriMet over his 11-plus years of service, they are losing a good general manager.  No doubt TriMet will find another talented executive, if they haven’t already. However, the departure of this high-profile executive reminds me of big changes on the horizon.

The transit industry has grown tremendously over the last two decades.  As gas prices climbed so did ridership.  Demand is still high.  However, many transit properties are implementing, or are proposing, service cuts due to the recession (See links on Mass Transit magazine’s MT Position blog).  Some layoffs have already happened.  Existing support positions remain unfilled.

Add to the current transit industry landscape the retirement of the baby-boom generation.  In 2008 18.1 percent of the workforce, 16 years old and older, were aged 55 years or older.  By 2018, 23.9 percent of the workforce is projected to be 55 years old or older. (Employment Projections Program, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).  Replacement of a general manager is one thing, but what about his management team, support staff and middle managers?

Agencies have been aware of the need for succession planning for a long time. It appears, however, that few transit agencies have created any succession planning programs.  Presently, even regular training budgets are under pressure.  High demand for transit services, the expected retirements of senior transit workers and service cuts due to the economy create the perfect storm.

At the 2006 Bus Paratransit Conference succession planning was discussed.  An abstract of the conference states:  “To have a process in place that identifies the highest performers at all levels then systematically grooms them, ensures that resources are spent toward building a viable leadership bench from which to draw should a key position become available. This is in contrast to the all too common approach to promoting individuals that often relies on “gut feel” and consists of either ad hoc training or “sink or swim” efforts to equip one to take over. One transit GM puts it like this…“succession planning becomes great words to talk about in the boardroom, but not actions. The result (is), someone leaves, retires ‘gets run over by a car’ and we panic in our haste to fill a critical vacancy. We may try to recruit someone from another agency, but in this business, transit professionals are a small and shrinking pool. So we default to promoting someone based on … their longevity with the company and our perception of their knowledge and skills.”

Of course, there are a few bright spots.  There are resources available, if transit agencies can make use of them.  Leadership APTA provides a professional development program for transit leaders.  APTA also maintains a resource library.   The National Transit Institute offers transit management courses.  There are many other non-transit related resources on leadership, peer reviews, mentoring etc.

There are young professionals working in the industry but we will need more.  Mass Transit Magazine recognizes 40 young transit-industry leaders annually.   See MT 2009 for a list Top 40 under 40 (nominations are open for the 2010 class).   In the course of my 24 years in transit, however, there has not been much systematic effort to promote professionalization or preparation positions of leadership.  Business as usual won’t work.   Succession planning has to be more than a plan in the boardroom.

The perfect storm is coming.

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.

By Doug Allen
Interim president and CEO, Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Beginning this week, commuters in Central Texas have another transportation option from which to choose: the Capital MetroRail Red Line, which began service on Monday, March 22, with a week of free service. First-day boardings exceeded our expectations by nearly 50 percent.

The Capital MetroRail Red Line is a 32-mile system with nine stations using existing trackbed. The commuter line travels between Leander, through northwest, central and east Austin into downtown. Built for less than $5 million per mile, it is one of the most economically built systems in the country for the state-of-the-art features it employs.

Six diesel multiple unit vehicles manufactured by Stadler Bussnang provide incredible safety features, such as state-of-the-art crash energy management systems and passenger amenities. Tray back tables, luggage racks, free Wi-Fi, plush high-back seats, and bike hooks make for a positive rider experience. The system also includes dynamic message boards at stations and onboard trains, and a new Centralized Traffic Control system. Railroad quiet zones have been established to reduce noise pollution through neighborhoods.

Because the system uses existing tracks that will still be used by freight trains — 32 miles of our 163-mile short line, the Llano to Giddings railroad — temporal separation is an important component of the system. As a commuter line, the three northernmost stations accommodate parking for 1,300 cars. At the southern end, two stations incorporate rail connector bus routes designed to be an extension of the train ride to deliver passengers to final destinations downtown and at the University of Texas. These quick bus routes meet the train at the station and drop off passengers at dense employment centers and the university within 10 minutes. Thus far, the rail connector routes are being well-used. More than two-thirds of riders deboarding at the MLK, Jr. Station are using one of two connectors that meet there.

Given a skeptical community and in the wake of an unsuccessful light rail referendum in 2000, the MetroRail project was, by design, limited in scope. Using an existing rail line with only modest upgrades, limiting the number and length of sidings (or double track sections), constraining station size and budget, and buying a starter fleet of only six trainsets all contributed to the highly cost-effective nature of the project. These characteristics allowed for low cost and relatively quick startup, and may be a winning combination for similarly situated cities nationwide. Of course, these benefits are not without consequences, and it should be acknowledged that the level and quantity of service are constrained at the outset by the modest investment levels in the system. Fortunately the system was designed with expansion in mind and plans for doing so are in the works.

MetroRail’s successful launch was the result of the collaborative efforts of Capital Metro, the Federal Railroad Administration and our rail operations and maintenance partner, Herzog Transit Services, Inc., and their subcrontractors.

The development of MetroRail did experience challenges, however. We delayed the system for nearly a full year to address system components that were not functioning as they were intended. A commitment to cost and schedule very early in the process, before all engineering and planning had been completed, created problems for us early on. The design was enhanced with a Centralized Traffic Control system, but integrating that system with the other signal technologies being employed on the line was more complex than had been anticipated and staffed for. We brought in new expertise and better oversight to the project, and signed on a new MetroRail provider, Herzog Transit Services, Inc. With only a few months until our opening date, Herzog spread across our line like army ants, conducting an intensive analysis of the entire line, and systematically attacking and correcting the remaining problems.

The year-long delay was not without benefit. The Centralized Traffic Control System had been designed to operate in two modes, one for our freight operations, the other for MetroRail operations. Sensing that shifting between modes could be a weakness to the operation, the FRA asked that we consider redesigning the system to eliminate the possibility of human error initiating a shift between modes incorrectly, potentially creating dangerous results. We agreed, and subsequently took the time and effort to redesign and reprogram our entire signal network to put a safer system in place — one that we are more confident of and one that will reduce the potential of problems as we begin operating both freight and passenger service on the same track.

With the design modifications complete and the right team assembled, the FRA gave us final clearance to begin passenger service. Of course, Capital MetroRail is just the beginning. With full trains and demands for all-day and weekend service even prior to the first day of service, we will continue planning for expansion even before the trains lose their new car luster.

Capital Metro employees and volunteers are staffing all nine stations for the first two weeks to assist new riders and ensure they have a good first experience. Beginning March 29, valid fares will be required, and a one-way fare from end to end is $3. Capital Metro will celebrate its successful launch of commuter rail on March 27 with a commemorative “Safety Train” ride of community officials and area students who have participated in our rail safety education program and a dedication ceremony at the Downtown Station.

We are savoring this historic moment for our transit agency and our community of bringing the first modern passenger rail system to this area. Our startup is going smoothly and now we are looking ahead to expansion of the service to meet the needs of our growing region.

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit editor

I’ve decided it’s high time for the federal government to bail out the public transit industry. We’ve had bail outs of car manufacturers and banks because we “couldn’t let them fail,” so why are transit agencies any different? We need to do something before you start seeing transit executives on street corners peddling for change instead of on Mass Transit covers.

Take a look around. Despite this being an era of “change we can believe in,” the transit industry is reeling. With New York MTA dropping the guillotine on its service in a series of doomsday cuts this week we can add it to the growing list of transit agencies struggling to just keep up.

You know the list that includes Chicago, Portland, Cleveland, San Diego, Washington, Atlanta, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Francisco, Phoenix and New Jersey just to name a few.

For most agencies the economy is to blame. Lowered tax revenues have dried up their operating budgets forcing them to cut service. Interestingly, ridership has dropped as a result of the economy, too. Remember when ridership was booming and transit agencies couldn’t keep up because they didn’t have proper operational funding?

So I’ve decided it’s time for a transit bail out. And why not. If the federal government thinks that we can’t afford to have the car manufacturers and banks close, think for a minute about what would happen if that were the case with public transit.

What sort of an effect would it have on our economy if every transit agency in the country shut down for a couple days. Just shutting down MTA for three days in 2005 cost New York City upwards of $1 billion. Now think of that in all the cities on the list above.

Transit needs a bail out. And really, it’s a simple solution. Stop screwing around with extensions and give us a real transportation funding bill. The latest report I heard had SAFETEA:LU being strung along until at least this time next year.

Great. Fiddling while transit burns. Meanwhile our Representatives and Senators are too busy acting like school kids on Capitol Hill pointing fingers and yelling at each other.

What is it called, death by a thousand cuts? Something needs to be done to stem the bleeding and quickly or all the ground that transit has made up in recent years will be lost.

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!

By Mark Foss

Do public agencies have value chains? I think so. In simple terms, a value chain, in business, is a chain of activities undertaken to produce a product or service. The activities at each step add more value to the end product or service. If a business is operationally efficient, it can exploit every step of the process to make a profit. A transit agency’s “profit” could be seen as increased ridership — better service to the public.

Part of the value chain consists of marketing and sales activities. Better use of this part of the chain will be my focus. A transit agency gathers data, plans new service, creates routes, trains drivers, prints materials and then publicizes and promotes the new service. Along the chain, a transit agency may even partner with private entities to market its service — for example, an employer subsidizes commuter passes. The final product can offer more value than the sum of the individual activities. I think value chains involved in creating transit services are only partially exploited. Some of the value is not used. Activities transit agencies already engage in could be exploited to increase ridership and, maybe, even lower a few expenses. Here are some examples:

First, let me start with schedules and brochures. Most transit agencies use some form of paper schedules and brochures. Printing costs are high. Some of those costs are held down through online publication of schedules, fares and other transit news. But paper schedules are still printed. Of course, some would like to do away with using paper. In point of fact, however, many people don’t have access to a computer. Paper schedules will continue in some form. How could the cost of paper schedules be reduced?

One way to accomplish this is to offset expenses by selling a small amount of advertisement space on schedules and brochures. I know there is resistance to this. After all this is a “public service.” But, then again, buses already are supported by external and internal advertisement. Why not schedules? If schedules and brochures are designed tastefully, and the quality of the agency’s image is maintained, no one will really mind.

Where is the use of the existing value chain? Agencies already gather data to know how many schedules to print. And they know the demographics of riders. Advertisers need this information when purchasing ad space. Agencies already distribute the schedules and brochures. All that is needed is quality control and contract management.

Second, this pattern could be replicated when printing transfers. Grocery stores have been handing out receipts with coupons on the back for years. Small coupons or advertisements could be printed on the backs of transfers. The distribution of transfers is wider than schedules. Transit agencies already know how many are handed out in a day. If this sounds over the top, think again. People who want store coupons are happy to have them. People who don’t want the coupons throw them away – just like they throw away transfers. At least there would be a dual use for the paper.

Finally, let me return to my suggestion from last week — market transit services to tourists and visitors. Tourists and visitors use a variety of transportation modes, including public transit. Visitors need information about the area; they are interested in hotels, concerts, events and sights. Transit agencies already gather, analyze and use similar information in a variety of activities. Planning routes, creating maps and maintaining information for call centers are all activities that could be leveraged to create transit-related services for visitors.

Making the case for serving the tourist market may be a stretch but it is worth considering. Transit agencies could promote their services better (add value) by working with outside entities — visitors’ centers, hotels, convention centers, concert halls and museums etc. Some of these organizations might offset the cost of printing special schedules and system maps, if it meant also promoting their own products and services. The idea is not necessarily to spend large amounts of money on new routes, or to compete in a commercial sense. It is to capture a potentially underserved market segment — visitors — using existing services; and, possibly, also reduce an agency’s marketing overhead expenses.

What value chain can use more efficiently? Logistics? Operations? Maintenance?

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).

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor

This week was APTA’s Legislative Conference, and I spent the better part of four days in and around Washington, D.C., attending the conference sessions and meeting with people to talk about transit issues. After thinking back on the previous week I’ve come to the conclusion that the overriding issue with transit is about money changing hands. Not on Capitol Hill, though — on vehicles.

I’ve traveled to quite a few transit agencies and had agency staff show me with some pride their new vehicles, be it a new addition to the bust fleet or a new rail line. And almost universally they all pass by the farebox. Oh, that’s just the farebox. That’s standard on all our vehicles. Or that’s the ticket vending machine. There’s one just like it in all our stations. And every transit system accepts that the fareboxes must accept cash.

Why?

I’ve seen buses with hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid engines, all-electric power. I’ve seen trains that can travel upwards of 250 miles an hour. These technological advancements drive transit to new levels and yet we can’t figure out a better way to get riders on board besides the dollar bill?

Yes, I know, there are advancements being made in fare collection every day. Smart cards, computer chips in cell phones, and even just accepting credit and debit cards are significant improvements in fare technology. But for every one of these advancements there is still the proverbial albatross of cash hanging around fare collection’s neck.

That’s like creating a new bus that is fully powered by electricity and yet insisting that it has a diesel motor in it just in case.

We talk about boarding times and maintaining headways and yet, someone fumbling with some cash and a few quarters and everything grinds to a halt like those Visa debit card commercials.

It may take a concerted effort between transit agencies, the DOT, the FTA and a fair amount of political will, but it could be done.

Thanks for reading,

Fred

By Mark Foss

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).

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor

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!

 By Larry Mays

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.

By Mark Foss

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Foss has more than 24 years experience working for King County Metro Transit. His experience includes work as a bus operator, special ridership coordinator in accessible services and 1st line transit supervisor. Currently, he works as a communications coordinator in the transit control center (TCC).

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor

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!