Finally, I arrive at work. My morning musings draw to an end. As I pull into the parking facility at work I think about the general process of change. Much of the transit industry seems to be driven by tradition and past practice. However, the pressure of new technology, financial adversity and public mood is forcing change. The impending retirement of the “baby-boomers” also suggests an undercurrent of succession issues – change with a potential loss of experienced leadership. Adaptability and the capacity to evolve – under constrained budgets – are extremely important for public transit to appeal to present and future riders.

The fun part for me will be helping the process move forward.

After about a month of head-down work — snow, ice, rain storms and overtime — I’ve finally found time to think about general transit news. Seattle’s snow-related challenges have been light compared with New York’s troubles. And New York’s troubles continue with another round of snow.  Criticism of New York’s performance during the snow reminded me of painful lessons learned during Seattle’s 2008 snowstorm: Transit doesn’t function in a vacuum. It is part of a system including police, fire departments, road crews and others. Without this team functioning, a city can grind to a halt.

Nowhere will this be more evident than in the coming budget battles. Transit funding could be headed for a ditch after 2011. Or at least, funding could be stuck in a traffic jam, competing with other programs for scarce funds. I’m concerned.

The funding issue, of course, has been brewing for some time. Washington State and other states are experiencing large budget shortfalls. Federal debt is sure to play a role in budget decisions.

General transportation (roads and bridges) funding is likely to be limited to what the “Highway Trust Fund collects.” The House Transportation Committee will likely seek around half the money proposed by the committee last year. Transit and rail funding may also be at risk.

Proposed funding cuts aren’t necessarily isolated to future projects. Even some current projects could take a hit. For example, current programs in King County Washington, affected by proposed cuts, include Link Light Rail projects and RapidRide(bus rapid transit) projects.

A recent blog by Joseph Taylor calls for an honest debate about public transportation. After reading the blog, I asked myself: Who are public transit’s customers? Who benefits from transit? How can we win new customers? How can transit present its case in the public arena?

Why do people choose to ride transit? The late Representative Thomas “Tip” O’Neill used to say, “All politics is local.” I think all transit riders choose to ride for personal reasons — not partisan. Decisions whether to ride transit are made based on economics and convenience (i.e. personal need). Riders come from all walks of life.

When I was a transit operator, I ran many commuter bus trips in morning. In the course of a week I took hundreds of people to work. These were regular workers who found it better to pay bus fare than to burn gas in traffic and pay for parking downtown. It was always interesting to observe people dropping off family members at park-and-ride lots. Our lots were usually full. Seattle has never had sufficient drop-off space for these passengers. These drivers would use the disabled parking — or a bus stop — for short duration parking. When I visited Atlanta a few years later I saw parking spaces marked “Kiss and Ride,” serving drivers dropping people off. Transit was serving not only the passenger but the commuter in the personal vehicle.

As public agencies, our customers comprise more than just those who ride transit — i.e. those who benefit directly. Our customers are also made up of those who benefit indirectly — businesses, freeway users, and working adults with aging parents, schools, and city centers clogged with congestion — anyone who breathes air. All voters (especially in urban areas) benefit to some degree from public transit. I know people who support transit who don’t ride it every day. Why? They support it because they see its benefits. Making the case for transit must address the needs of diverse groups — not riders alone.

Winning Customers and Supporters
Customers don’t buy a product (or service) unless it meets a need. Voters won’t support something they don’t feel the need for. Needs may be physical, financial, social or intellectual.  Transit customers are no different and secondary beneficiaries of transit services must see how they benefit.

One group of customers may need a time-efficient, cost-effective alternative to driving to work.  Rising gasoline prices, expected to rise to $4.00 per gallon in August and September 2011, drive some of this demand.

Another group of customers consists of those who don’t drive. Some may not own personal vehicles. Others need transportation because they don’t drive due to age or disability. Some supporters of transit see the environmental benefits from reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Yet, another group of customers — employers — may need transit for employees.

Making the Case
Each of these groups represent legitimate needs that transit can help fill. Winning over riders, or support for funding, requires a marketing approach that demonstrates how transit meets those needs.

Efforts to make transit management more transparent and to use resources more productively should make it easier to compete for funds (e.g. King County Regional Taskforce Recommendations, p. 2.

Transit is a little like storm drains, streets, snow plows and police. You don’t miss it until you need it. But it’s part of a larger system. My hope is that public transit will continue to invest for future generations as well as meet the needs of the current one.

Meanwhile, in the trenches, the practical work goes on …

What would you do, if you were faced with possibly having to cut 600,000 hours of transit service between 2012 and 2015? The urgent need to cut expenses, generate revenue and become more efficient prompted the formation of the King County Regional Transit Task Force (RTTF).

In November, before Seattle’s Thanksgiving-week snowstorm, an online Seattle Times article caught my eye. The article was co-written by two members of King County’s Regional Transit Task Force — one a Seattle city councilmember and the other mayor of Kent. The Seattle Times article focuses on six recommendations from the full report by the RTTF: 1) Service reductions or growth decisions should focus on productivity balanced by social equity; 2) Create clear guidelines for service allocation which are understandable by the public; 3) Integrate King County Metro service with light rail, commuter rail, van pools, park-and-ride lots, bicycle routes and private bus services; 4) Control agency expenses and create a sustainable cost structure; 5) Work with a coalition of community and business interests to create a long-term sustainable base of revenue; and 6) Adopt new performance measures and report more openly on King County Metro’s performance.

Wow! That’s a tall order! But I like it. After I read the article, I began reading the full report. I was impressed with the work. I have argued before that transit agencies should exercise transparency and open reporting of finances.  The RTTF recommends the same thing. I have also argued before that when inter-modal and inter-agency connections are made, the riding public benefits. The RTTF recommends greater integration with the regional transportation system.

I think the RTTF report sets a really positive direction — productivity, equitable coverage, transparent plans, transparent reporting, understandable goals, cost control and sustainable revenue. I like it — with a caveat, however. As I read the report, I kept thinking:  “OK — good — but the devil is in the details.” And then I ran across a press conference on the RTTF work I hadn’t seen before. During the conference, Suzette Cook, one of the co-authors of the article mentioned above, spoke those very same words: “The devil is in the details.”

By temperament and education, I like the big picture but I’m currently the “operations guy” by profession. I work daily for practical results — workable solutions in real time. What real impact will the RTTF report have? I will be watching for actual ground-level details of the RTTF in practice. The RTTF report stresses “productivity,” for example riders-per-platform miles and rider miles per platform hour (p. 19-21). Strong emphasis is given to measurable values and reaching targets. This is good. But I’ve seen no discussion of how to measure less the tangible — but very real — customer satisfaction issues. The number of service hours and number of connections promised are only part of the picture. Driver attitude, security, cleanliness of buses and transit centers all make an impact on public opinion — on voters’ opinions of transit.

Transit operators delivering the service are part of the team — not part of the bus. If reductions in running times, for example, sacrifice restroom breaks or increase operator stress, the perceived gains will be self-defeating. One of the most frustrating, stressful parts of a driver’s work is handling a schedule that isn’t workable. The public will feel the impact. Additionally, if public safety suffers as a result of budget issues, the quality of the service can break down. I would have liked to see the RTTF address metrics for quality of service as well as the more easily measured quantity.

The RTTF report calls for annual reporting, as a part of transparency. It also calls for making comparisons with peer agencies in the region. These are all good ideas. But the devil is in the details.

My perspective:

Transparency with respect to reporting suggests the need for a standardized format — in order to compare progress year on year. Comparison with peer agencies would be great — if they report on the same issues. I think that reported measures should be financial and performance in nature. The annual report should also address quality metrics. A standardized reporting format should be used including a Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section. This section should discuss key performance indicators, goals met (and not met) and plans for the future. On this basis, processes of continuous improvement can be built.

The Regional Transit Task Force worked hard to produce a document based on broad consensus. I like it as a foundation. I’ll be looking for the practical “details” that come out of it.

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.

Admiral Thad Allen, in an interview for Harvard Business Review’s November 2010 edition, responding to a question about the impact of social media on his work on the BP oil spill crisis, said: “John Holdren, who’s the science and technology adviser to the president, says that there are three ways to deal with climate change: Adapt, manage or suffer. … And the public participation will happen whether it’s managed or not.  We’ve chosen to try to manage.  Before the oil spill, I had already started blogging and tweeting.”

November 2010, King County, Washington

I woke up at 3:15 a.m. on the Monday morning before Thanksgiving. There was snow on my yard – fairly deep snow, considering I live in the Pacific Northwest. Our region is usually known for rain – not snow! It was very cold. I live on a hill. As I descended toward my freeway entrance, the roads improved marginally. Freeway conditions were moderately good. But the promise of more snow hung in the air. Soon I would learn that King County Metro was chaining the buses; the Adverse Weather plan had been put to work.

Two years ago, in 2008, our region took a beating with the worst snow storm in a decade. All public services were pushed beyond reasonable capacity – including all the local transit agencies. High transit demand, un-sanded streets, stuck buses, sluggish delivery of transportation information and an attempt to do too much, combined with the weather to create the perfect storm. Public expectations were high. Delivery on those expectations missed the mark. Public criticism was shrill – especially over the lack of information.

In the intervening two years, King County Transit has totally re-worked its approach to adverse weather operations. Cross-functional teams from nearly every transit workgroup helped revise Metro’s approach to snow. King County’s adverse weather operations manual was re-written, internal and external communications channels were refined, equipment was prepared for adverse weather. The plan includes five stages of weather response, ranging from a weather watch to an Emergency Service Network – serving only essential routes. Close coordination was developed Seattle Department of Transportation and other jurisdictions to maintain passable roads on major transit lines.

Tuesday morning made me wish for Monday. When I left work Monday, the road conditions were poor but passable. Conditions worsened Monday afternoon and overnight. By morning, northbound SR-167 and I-5 were littered with abandoned cars. Traffic was very sluggish. It took me nearly an hour to make a 28-mile trip.

As I approached Seattle, a car slid slowly across four lanes of I-5 – missing all other vehicles coming to a hard stop at a retaining wall. Near my exit, long lines of semis were wisely parked for the night. It was far too slick for tractor-trailer rigs to continue. The long-expected La Niña effect sent a shiver down my spine as I walked from the parking garage to King County’s Transit Control Center (TCC).

As I entered my work site on Tuesday, things were not as quiet as Monday morning. The front office was brightly lit. Many of my co-workers had been on duty since 1:00 a.m. Some had spent the night. Many buses were stuck in the snow during the afternoon. Most had been cleared for duty by morning but the work was on-going. The TCC conference room filled up with workers from other departments – maintenance, base operations, service quality, customer service and others. All had been trained to work in the TCC Division Operations Center (DOC). As I soon observed, the DOC played a key role in the effectiveness of our mission during this brief snow event.

I have worked in the Transit Control Center for about a decade. Although I missed the 2008 snow event, I have experienced several snow storms since I first began working in the department. Transitionally, coordinators and TCC management have been responsible for managing all information flow, including calling for sanding, towing, operator transportation, driver shift relief (road relief) problems, and information given to customer service. Sometimes we had help with phones or other tasks but it always appeared ad hoc and not well-organized.

There comes a point in any process where demand can overwhelm capacity. In recent years, this point has been reached more frequently during snow storms. Under normal circumstances each coordinator may be responsible for as many as 300 buses or more. That responsibility means handling all radio calls, phone calls, information requests and coordinator initiated calls for help – such as equipment or personnel changes. Under snowy conditions this becomes impossible to do efficiently.

This time the DOC picked up a lot of slack. Working in a conference room next to our operations center, they were nearly out of sight. My first clue to their success was the lack of the constant phone calls of the past. Yes, there were calls to the TCC, but the volume was diminished tremendously. Coordinators were still inundated with radio calls. Behind the scenes, however, sanding, towing, operator shift changes and stuck-bus retrievals were worked on – freeing coordinators to answer the radio. Customer information with regular updates about the status of specific routes went out to the public. Email, text and the Web were used to keep customers up to date.

The storm was indeed tough to operate in. There were some complaints about bus tracking turned off when buses were on snow routes. Others are discussing the tough challenges transit faces with snow operations in Seattle. Generally, I’ve seen positive reviews of Metro’s work during the snow.

King County Metro is still doing a self-evaluation (“debriefing”) of how transit operations went – focusing on the adverse weather plan. I don’t know the gist of these discussions. No doubt there will be tweaks to the plan. However, I personally consider the effort to have been a general success.

What interests me most is whether Metro’s cross-functional adverse weather teamwork will play into other endeavors. Adversity has pushed King County Metro into a new mode of working. Adversity may come again in another form – budget perhaps. Will the collaborative experience gained through creating and implementing this plan create a paradigm transferrable to other work? I hope so.

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.

The elections are done. Among those I work with there has been a bit of nervous talk about the impact on transit. I find myself too busy to think about it much anymore. This week, I would like to open for you a window into my work. Have a peek at what your transit dollars are doing. Transit plays an important role in the daily life of most large communities. People take transit to work. Kids take transit to school. Passengers go shopping. Tourists navigate the city — spending money as they go. Under some circumstances, however, public transit becomes a vital resource — one not often considered.

When a major incident — a disaster — happens, who responds? How do they respond? How do they coordinate efforts? Here is a glimpse of my Monday and Tuesday last week — with a little commentary, of course.

Monday in Training:

I attended a class reviewing the incident command system (ICS), part of the National Incident Management System (NIMS). NIMS is a system to organize “all levels of government, non-governmental organizations and the private sector to prevent, respond to, recover from and mitigate the effects of incidents.”

We focused on small local incidents. Incidents like major fires, floods and snow as well as security incidents require a coordinated effort (e.g. snow plows, road crews, police, fire and transit). Police, fire departments and transit agencies all learn incident command concepts.

My class consisted of a quick review of ICS concepts and classroom-based role-playing exercises to practice the concepts. Our role-play was locally focused, not national. However, local or national, one fact about incidents is true: a unified command structure and coordinated cooperation are absolutely necessary. It focuses resources better. Organized, well-equipped transportation assets are an essential element.

The kinds of organizational practices taught in the incident command system made a good backdrop for thinking about topics related to my Tuesday class.

Tuesday in Training (and reading the press):

Adverse weather training: I attended a class on King County’s adverse weather plan.

Since the winter of 2008, King County Metro (KCM) has overhauled and refined its approach to service under adverse weather conditions. A lot of work has gone into preparing for the potential impact of “La Niña” in the Pacific Northwest. If predictions hold true, Seattle could have significant snow. Extended periods of heavy snowfall present serious challenges to KCM’s service. A wide variance in road conditions cause one part of a route to become impassable while another part of the same route may have dry pavement — then, quite quickly, the areas change conditions. King County Metro has worked hard to create a system to handle rapidly changing weather conditions.

Articulated buses make up a large part of Metro’s fleet. Articulated buses, as well as Trolley buses, do not operate well in the snow. A King 5 television piece reports (with a “tisk-tisk” tone) that two-thirds of the buses will be pulled off the road in a big snow storm. “Just when we need them the most, they’re going to cut service (Linda Brill, King 5).” The logic implied that a bus should navigate icy streets impassible to other vehicles, escapes me. No one with a choice would drive a car with a trailer hitch in the heavy snow or ice. Articulated buses fair no better. The King 5 news piece (referenced above) also jumps to the worst case scenario without reporting the plan — or how customers can find out about snow-related service changes.

The adverse weather plan is designed to manage levels of service according to the given conditions. As conditions change, the plan provides for lines of communication from the field to the Metro and the public. Passengers will be informed as service levels are cut in various regions. Passengers can subscribe to information alerts and during an event, an online snow map will be available showing service levels. The entire service area will be divided up into regions; each region will be color-coded to indicate the level of service being run in that area. Level 4 is the most severe reduction of service. Coordination with snow plows and sanding crews across various jurisdictions is also included in the plan. The goal is to keep major bus routes cleared.

Many dedicated people have put in long hours on this plan. Will it be perfect? I doubt it. Will everyone be happy? Probably not. Over the past 25 years I have worked during snow storms as a driver, a service supervisor and a communications coordinator. I think this plan is a good one. But weather is unpredictable. On the other hand, I know the team I work with — professionals all. We will be on 12-hour shifts as soon as a snow emergency is declared …

To those of you in warmer climates I have a request: If you could send a few days of sunshine to Seattle, I’d appreciate it.

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.

Saturday, October 16, I worked a special assignment. I was communications coordinator for our Husky Football service. The University of Washington Huskies played against Oregon State University. Fans attending Husky games are well advised to avoid the congestion around the stadium by taking public transit. In addition to regular service, we provide express shuttles. The shuttles transport fans from various park-and-rides to the game and back.

My job was to assist service supervisors and transit operators serving customers attending the game and returning home. I worked hard — handling breakdowns, passenger counts and requests from field supervisors. My job wasn’t without its benefits. In order to facilitate post-game service, I needed to know when the game would end. I had to keep an ear on the game as I worked. I’m not an avid sports fan, but I am a graduate of the UW. The results of this game that day made me proud. The game went into overtime twice. It was a cliff-hanger at times. Finally the Huskies won by one point (35-34). The hard-won victory was on my mind as I read transit news.

The news this month reported many transit-related surveys and study results. This is not surprising — it’s election time. Elections generate demand for polls. Polls generate counter polls. And so it is with the analyses of polls.

Transportation, especially mass transit, is a big topic this season. Money is tight. Polls ask what people are willing to pay for. The surveys and reports in the news vary widely in depth and complexity. The surveys come from different perspectives and from varying groups. And they aren’t isolated to the USA.

The Winnipeg Free Press reported a poll of Winnipeggers on transit issues with election-season comments. Transit advocacy groups also publish surveys. For example, Mobilizing the Region, official blog of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, publishes surveys and opinions of candidates on transit issues in the New York, New Jersey and Connecticut region. The Tampa Bay Business Journal got in on the act with a “Business Pulse Survey,” asking only one question: “How would you vote now on the penny tax for transit and roads?” HNTB’s America THINKS 2010 transit survey asks both how public transit is doing and what would motivate people to use transit instead of driving. And the polls go on.

Along with opinion polls, arguments and analyses from all corners of political arena are also in the news. Not always are the analyses of transit issues what one might expect. On one hand, a study sponsored by the Kitty and Michael Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy argues that transit-oriented development may cause undesirable neighborhood change (gentrification) and even reduce ridership. Transit development, as the study talks about is “fixed-guideway” (rail) transit. On the other hand, a conservative argues for public transit (rail, not bus) based on national security. Meanwhile another article discusses the federal subsidy to mass transit riders amounting to about $2,300 per year per rider. With a 250-day work year, that is about $9.20 per day. No matter which way you turn, transit is a hot topic this season.

After a while I get weary of all the back and forth. I’m kind of practical. I like to see things run well in a city — in a region. Of course, public dollars should be spent responsibly and with transparent books. However, there are some things worth subsidizing to build a mutually beneficial community — schools, water works, sewers, power distribution networks, roads, bridges and public transit. Transit takes people to work who couldn’t get there any other way. A rational level of public and private mutual effort must be hashed out by local voters — but civilization isn’t free, it takes effort and money.

The football game I mentioned above, combined with current transit news, reminded me of a now-famous quote by Vince Lombardi (1913-1970), former coach of the Green Bay Packers. In an effort to focus the team on the basics, he began by saying: “Gentlemen, this is a football.” In my view, basic civics teaches us to build a community — not just for short-term gain but for the next generation. Many of us drive on roads, ride on rail lines, or ride bus lines created before our grandparents were born. We should do no less for those who come after us. Cross-spectrum agreement on money issues is hard to find but it must be found. After the surveys, after the analysis and the political arguments, it is time to roll up our sleeves and work — even if it goes slowly.

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.

This week I thought I’d take time to highlight some good news. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that the federal government set aside $776 million for local and regional transit agencies for maintenance facilities and buses. Naturally, the bulk of the funds will go to larger urban agencies. However, some funds will also go to rural areas.

The way smaller rural communities cope with transit challenges interest me — small groups of local citizens working together on solutions. In that light, the following news items caught my attention.

I-Way, an initiative of the Community Transportation Association of Idaho (CTAI) to improve affordable, accessible transportation announced its "Joint Meeting of the Interagency Working Group and the Public Transportation Advisory Council." Since I really like interagency cooperation, the simple meeting announcement caused me to look further. I found the group’s web page. It states: "I-way is a growing statewide system that connects people through an exciting mix of transportation options. It connects rural and urban communities … allowing for more efficient travel throughout the state."

The CTAI, in partnership with other organizations, also supports Idaho transportation in other ways — for example, "Vehicle Maintenance Management and Inspection Training.

Another article about a rural transportation coalition was in the news. The Bremer County Accessible Transportation Coalition in Waverly, Iowa, was formed to work on improving affordable accessible transportation. The coalition consists of citizens who use transit services, elected officials and organizations representing the elderly and the disabled. The Northland Regional Transit Commission, a demand-response transit provider, is also on the commission. The group’s focus will be on marketing existing services, identifying demand for new services and funding sources.

There are local agency-level, regional and state-level transit initiatives doing good work all over the country. The goals and focus of the groups are different. Some focus on accessible service. Some (like I-Way) try to support many modes of transportation. But the work and passion seem the same. It is hard to tell, however, from a distance how various projects are working out.

One good example of effective cross-agency cooperation in my area is Everett Station. Not long ago I visited Everett Station, which serves Amtrak, Greyhound, Northwest Trailways, Skagit Transit, Island Transit, Sound Transit and Community Transit — all of which provide transportation services to the riding public. Everett Station, in addition to serving Everett (2008 pop. 278,938), serves as a transit nexus for other rural transit agencies carrying passengers headed to Seattle.

The recent federal money set aside for maintenance facilities and new equipment is a start. Equipment reliability directly influences service reliability. It seems to me that better service also results from close inter-agency operational ties. Large urban agencies should develop closer ties with small rural transit agencies adjacent to their service areas. Intercity connections serve a region well. Interagency connections, where possible, can extend all agencies’ effective service area. Cooperation can leverage scarce funds.

Recently I passed the 25-year mark in the transit industry. During the 12 years I was a driver I experienced various road and weather conditions. I also experienced a wide spectrum of passenger behavior. Each day had a character of its own. Some days were quiet. Some days were very busy but straightforward. Some days consisted of a collection of the worst possible conditions — sloppy weather, molasses-thick traffic and packed sweaty buses with angry, frustrated passengers.  It was a gritty experience at times. The key, under those conditions, was to find motivation to get through the day in a good frame of mind — despite my circumstances.

The news over the past week consisted of the gritty fallout of the transit industry’s various financial crises. In addition to operational budget shortfalls causing service cuts in various places (e.g. AC Transit, some major capital projects are running into trouble. New Jersey’s ARC project, which called for a 9-mile commuter rail line between North Jersey and Manhattan, is in financial trouble due to cost overruns. A federal audit shows that the project lacked safeguards to “combat fraud waste and abuse.” Others dispute the federal audit. Whatever the source of the problems, Governor Christie stopped new spending on the project due to expected cost overruns of about $1 billion. And New Jersey’s project isn’t the only one in trouble.

The Los Angeles Times reported that LA transit’s Expo Line will fall short of its goal due to cost over-runs. It is expected to cost $900 million instead of the originally expected $640 million — prompting a call for independent inspector general and an ethics officer.

Some transit agencies, like Capital Metro, Austin, Texas, publish budgets and financial status reports online. Capital Metro also publishes how it plans to use federal stimulus money and executive salaries. The Puget Sound area’s Sound Transit, which is facing a $3.9 billion decline in revenue, recently published a proposed 2011 budget with revised goals.

Reduced or cancelled plans, projects and service cuts are part of our current “gritty” financial landscape. For those of us on the front line, it is important to know and understand that funds are spent responsibly. Understanding what is happening can’t come from news organizations alone. It must come from the agencies we work for.

Transparency is always important. Any lack of transparency is felt acutely in tight economic times. Some transit agencies manage well and others, apparently, not so well. Publicly traded corporations must file regular financial reports, and submit to audits. Transit agencies should too. Motivation and trust of the workforce depends transparency — as does the agency’s customer service.

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.

If they take away my bus, I’ll take the train. Will you?

On Sunday, September 26, Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter train will make trips designed to serve Seahawk fans. Trips will travel to Seattle from Tacoma (in the south) and Everett (in the north). Return trips will depart at 10, 20 and 40 minutes after the game ends. The fans love it.

Bus service is another story. King County Metro (KCM) has been providing event shuttle service for years with great success. The full cost of the shuttles are met — with "no tax dollars involved". The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) created policy in 2008 prohibiting federally funded transit agencies from providing shuttle service for large public events, if private carriers were willing to bid on the business. Then late in 2009 it was reported that Senator Murray (WA) helped put through a provision (in the 2010 Senate Transportation Bill), designed to reverse the 2008 policy. KCM event shuttle service to Safeco Field started up again April 13, 2010. However, the game on September 12, King County Metro advertised Seahawk shuttles — with a caveat. " A lawsuit in federal courts could affect whether Metro can provide special shuttle service for the entire football season. The hearing on that challenge is expected to resume in late September."  Shuttles for Seahawks and Huskies are still on Metro’s website. And the saga continues.

My conclusion?
Public transit and private carriers occupy overlapping, but different, market spaces. Some point out that public transit is subsidized — and therefore doesn’t compete fairly. Perhaps. On the other hand, roads, bridges, many utilities, schools and even sports stadiums are subsidized too. We all benefit.

Public transit plays a wider role than private carriers. It provides on-going service to passengers not attending public events. Public transit also offsets traffic congestion and parking problems during public events. Parking problems and congestion affect people not attending the events.

Post-event passenger loads on shuttles can be heavier than pre-event loads. After events, KCM shuttles often accommodate passengers that arrived at the event by other means — car or regular bus service. A large event also presents potential costs to a public agency — even if it isn’t providing shuttle service. For example, regular service may be lost due to congestion or overloads. Likewise event-related traffic issues can cause unscheduled overtime for regular-service drivers. I seriously doubt private carriers are prepared, let alone willing, to make up service gaps for the general public — gaps created by the event they serve.

In general, I see the requirement to give private carriers preference as negative. The public loses the level of service. The elasticity of private carriers to respond to higher volumes is lower than a public agency.

On the other hand, the Sounder rail service to the game is a plus. I would take the Sounder to the game. I think the loss of public transit shuttles to games is a shame. Some fans don’t live near the Sounder line. The federal government missed the bus on this one.

Many years ago, I drove a bus route that traveled into Seattle from south to north; then continued out of town northbound as another route. The schedules for both legs of the trip were too tight, to say the least. By the time I arrived downtown on the first leg of the trip, I was already 10 to 15 minutes late. The schedule on the second leg of the trip was also not kind.  Passengers on the north end of my trek were very displeased. However, by the end of the line, I would arrive with enough time for my schedule to “recover”.  I would leave southbound on time. Passengers were constantly irritated. Try as I might there was no cure for too little time. Stress was high. And satisfaction was low for everyone.

Pierce Transit (Tacoma, Wash.) has just cut six manager jobs. The positions eliminated consisted of five currently filled managers’ positions and one vacant position. Other recent budget cuts included cost-of-living increases and wage step increases for non-union workers. The projected budget savings total about $1.2 million. The transit union was asked to re-negotiate its contract but refused. The contract is up, however, next year. Negotiations are expected to begin in the spring. I suspect that negotiations won’t be easy given the current financial climate.

Pierce Transit is proposing an increase of the transit sales tax. From my perspective the increase is very small. Currently, the change would be from 6/10th of one percent to 9/10th of one percent or a total of 90 cents on a purchase of $100. Surveys of the public suggest public support for transit but that a vote might do better in February 2011 (than November 2010) (See: Pierce Transit board meeting, August 9, 2010, pp 2-3). Pierce Transit is also considering raising its fares between 14 and 33 percent. Revenue is not projected to increase much before 2015. Pierce Transit is a good agency providing good service. The agency also has a good image. However, will voters approve an increase in taxes slight as it might be? Will they accept a substantial fare increase? It’s hard to say.

The “Nightly Business Report“, on September 6, reported bleak economic news especially with regard to employment. Employers are holding off hiring for a host of reasons. The problems are projected to continue into 2011 to 2012 possibly longer. People are feeling the pinch. This suggests that voters won’t like anything that increases expenses e.g. higher transit taxes or higher fares.

One of the transit management people I know recently commented:  ”They seem to want more with less and less.” My perspective is that transit’s current woes aren’t the kind reminiscent of past calls to “do more with less”. Public transit financial issues in the news remind me a bit of schedule woes of the past. The public riding the bus expected my schedule to be more realistic than it was. So service delivery was found wanting. There is only so much ‘slack’ that can be cut out of a schedule before it becomes fiction. There is only so much slack that can be cut out of a budget before service has to be cut.

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.