Scheduling Conundrum: An Easy Flip Switch Does Not Exist for Complicated Challenges

At this point, you may be wondering how much more can be written about transit scheduling. I wonder after every article if the content is relevant and interesting enough to make a difference. Will there ever be enough concern at the upper management and government level to make the necessary changes that need to happen? I also know that change does not occur overnight and that while many of you might disagree with the following comment, it has always seemed that our industry designs things that look great without much thought of how to maintain them in the long term. Scheduling software and downstream software experience the same dilemmas. These companies are in the software business and are thrust into the role of scheduling trainers when that is not their primary goal or job.

A salesperson’s job relies on selling their products, and scheduling software is no exception. As an industry, we are always trying to find ways to do more with less and make things work, even with the odds seemingly stacked against us. The lure of a cure for one of our most pressing needs is seductive. How easy a decision it was for the railroads to transition from steam to diesel operation. Instead of all the work and knowledge required to make one of those behemoths move, a simple flip of the switch started the engine.

Similarly, the software sales teams have convinced transit management personnel that a schedule can be made with a simple flip of the switch. The computer has simplified some tasks, from the days of pencil and paper. However, it has not been the cure that many imagined.

Naively and from my limited perspective, I thought the problem facing schedulers was unique to North America. That was until I started receiving input from schedulers, software companies and consultants in Australia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, the United Kingdom, Poland, Canada and, most recently, Singapore. I now have a better understanding that this is a global problem and much broader than anything I imagined.

Terance Ng, a transit consultant and former agency employee in Singapore, recently contacted me. Much to my surprise, he said that their schedulers are still working after reaching their mandatory retirement age because there is no one to replace them. During our conversation, he asked if I envisioned an agency that would oversee, support and educate schedulers. This type of agency would not reduce but enhance the consultant's role if they were certified and offered options that are not currently available in the industry.

There are plenty of planning consultant groups out there with plenty of work available. Planners receive AICP Certification (Get Certified! (planning.org)) and are recertified regularly. The testing is not free and requires some commitment on the part of the individual. Should schedulers have a similar requirement?

Another group offering certifications is the accountants. Each credential has specific educational and experience requirements and focuses on the applicant's specific skills. At the end of the day, the question is—especially since this problem is worldwide—how do we move the needle and start making the necessary changes that improve our agencies, cities, infrastructure, management and government?