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 …
