Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, and many other cities in Iowa had excellent light-rail public transportation systems during the first half of the 20th century. Yet, seemingly ignoring history, transportation "experts" today tell us that such systems are impossible. Cities and towns in Iowa have miles to go before they offer their citizens transportation sytems as effective as Washington, D.C's Metro. But even Metro can be improved, as this interesting letter shows. Tom Mathews Chapter Transportation Chair ============================================================= Subj: DC Chapter letter to WMATA Date: 12/7/2004 10:12:04 AM Central Standard Time From: [log in to unmask] (Tom Metcalf) Sender: [log in to unmask] (Transportation Chairs Forum) Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A> (Transportation Chairs Forum) To: [log in to unmask] This morning, the DC Chapter of the Sierra Club sent the following open letter to Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA, or Metro) General Manager Richard White, to WMATA Board chairman Robert Smith, and to the rest of the WMATA board. We have also released it to the press. The letter was written by the chapter's transportation committee, and represents the first step in our campaign to improve Metro's accountability. --Tom Metcalf chair, DC Sierra Club transportation committee [log in to unmask] ****************** December 7, 2004 Richard White, CEO Robert Smith, Chairman Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 600 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Dear CEO White and Chairman Smith: The Sierra Club has long believed that a high quality public transportation system is essential to the environmental, social, and economic health of our region. Metro helps keep our air cleaner by removing hundreds of thousands of cars from our roads, and also helps encourage efficient use of our land by eliminating the need to park them. Recognizing this, the Sierra Club has worked to promote and improve Metro by hosting public forums on Metro issues, building public support for critical Metro Matters funding, and lobbying for improved bus information. We acknowledge that the most serious of Metro's problems that have come to light recently?particularly the equipment breakdowns and overcrowding?are the result of years of underfunding and consequentially deferred maintenance. However, we believe Metro would benefit from greater involvement with its riders. Opportunities for meaningful dialogue between Metro decision-makers and riders are scarce. Greater accountability would do much to build public confidence in Metro and solidify public support for dedicated funding. We propose 10 steps to build a better relationship with the riding public. Most have been implemented at other transit systems across the country, and all could be implemented quickly and at minimal cost. 10 steps to help Metro develop a more effective working relationship with Metro passengers and the broader public. 1.) Establish A Passengers Advisory Committee. Metro should provide on-going opportunities for the public to communicate with board members, staff, and senior managers. The recent "Town-Hall" meeting was a step in the right direction. Much more needs to be done, starting with the establishment of a Passengers Advisory Committee. Such a committee would give passengers a voice in the formulation and implementation of Metro policy and hold the Metro Board and management accountable to riders. To ensure an independent and effective committee: i) Committee members should be appointed by the jurisdictions that also appoint Metro Board members and should not be appointed by Metro staff or Directors; ii) All members should be required to be frequent riders of the system; iii) At least half of the members should be frequent riders of Metrobus; iv) The Chair of the Committee should have a seat as a non-voting member of the Metro Board; v) The Committee should receive reliable and sufficient resources, including full-time staff; and vi) The Committee should hold monthly meetings, open to the public. Many large transit agencies have established such committees (see Appendix 2). In particular, we urge Metro to examine the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Permanent Citizen Advisory Committee as a model. 2.) Provide Public Comment Periods at All Board Meeting. Metro should allow a public comment period at every Board meeting. Most major transit agencies in the country give passengers this basic opportunity to directly address directors and managers on a regular basis (See Appendix 3). 3.) Make Planning and Budget Documents Easily Available. Many Metro documents of interest to riders, such as budget reports, planning documents, and service reports, are available to the public at Metro's public board meetings. But short of attending every weekly Board meeting, there is no way for citizens to find out what information is available, let alone how to obtain a copy. Metro should post all of its public documents on its website, and make hard copies available by mail upon request. The website should be organized so that this information is easy to find from Metro's homepage. Metro should establish an email announcement list that lets its subscribers know when new documents of this type are available and when public meetings are scheduled. 4.) Solicit Public Comment on Planning Documents. When Metro proposes certain actions, such as raising fares or cutting bus service, a public comment period and public hearings are already required. But for virtually every other planning document, such as the recent plan to Improve Reliability and Customer Service, the public is given no opportunity to comment. Incorporating public comments into all of Metro's planning activities would strengthen these plans and give the public a greater stake in the system. Opening up Metro's decision-making to regular public scrutiny and outside suggestions will make for a better system. Therefore, Metro should provide a public comment period for all planning and budget documents. 5.) Provide Contact Information For WMATA Directors. Metro's Directors are the public's primary link with Metro management. As such, each Director should be accessible and available to riders and the general public. Currently the public has very limited opportunities to engage Metro Directors, particularly those who do not hold elected office. To remedy this situation, Metro should provide both email addresses and postal mailing addresses for all Directors, and publish these on the website and other Metro documents. Riders deserve to know who represents them at Metro, and to have a direct way to contact those representatives. 6.) Arrange for a Comprehensive Review of Metro Operations by an Independent, Outside Contractor. We believe that service problems, such as overcrowding on buses or timetables that bear little relation to reality, are more severe than Metro's directors and managers realize. Therefore, Metro needs to do a comprehensive service review, particularly of bus operations. Such a review should be conducted by an independent organization, carried out by discreet and anonymous reviewers, in a systematic manner so that it gathers a statistically significant snapshot of the operations. Our model for this suggestion is that of "secret shoppers" employed by retail firms to review the performance of their establishments. We have included in Appendix 1 a list of service points that should be included in the review of bus operations. The results of this review should be made widely available to the public, as described in step 3. 7.) Make Service Reports Public and Easily Available. The public needs an accurate understanding of the system's performance level, its problems, and the way these change over time. Toward this end, Metro should publish its reports on the system's performance. Metro should also conduct regular Passenger Satisfaction surveys. These reports should be released to the public as described in step 3. 8.) Treat Customer Service As a Dialogue with Riders. Metro's Customer Service seems to be designed to insulate Metro instead of responding to the public. Suggestions and complaints sent to Customer Service often appear to be ineffective. Many replies sent by Customer Service just don't make sense, or they dodge the question being asked. Follow-up is cumbersome because there is no way to direct additional questions or information to the specific Metro employee who provided an initial response. Customer Service representatives should be trained and instructed to write in Plain English. Responses from Customer Service should contain the name, phone number, and email address of the specific representative who is handling the inquiry. When a substantial suggestion or complaint needs a response from someone in one of Metro's other divisions, Metro should encourage and facilitate direct communication, via email or telephone, between such an employee and the passenger. The practice of protecting the anonymity of Customer Service representatives and other staff outside this division must end. 9.) Conduct, and Make Public, Quarterly Customer Service Reports. Metro's Customer Service appears to treat complaints as isolated incidents, without any effort to compile statistics on problem areas or to search for root causes of complaints. Metro should quantify and categorize the complaints and suggestions it receives and produce quarterly reports that summarize the complaints made, the routes, stations, and departments involved, and the actions taken. These reports should be released to the public as described in step 3. 10. Foster a culture of ridership at Metro. We believe that statistics and reports do not capture the experience one has as a passenger on the system. Regular use of the system by its employees is a hallmark of any good transit system. By way of example, Muni in San Francisco requires that all of its Directors ride at least weekly and that a majority be regular riders. Everyone responsible for Metro should follow the lead set by Metro GM Richard White, and Metro Director Charles Deegan, to rely on and to explore the system from a passenger's viewpoint. Metro employees should be encouraged to reach outside their own departments with suggestions and observations gleaned from their experiences as passengers. Conclusion We propose these steps to strengthen our transit system and to build the public confidence in Metro to help obtain a dedicated source of funding. Most of these ideas are already established and at work at other transit systems throughout the country. As you consider the FY06 budget, we urge you to include these steps to make Metro accountable to the public. We look forward to hearing your response, and we would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you in person to further discuss these ideas. Sincerely, Tom Metcalf Chair, Transportation Committee Appendix 1. Items to be recorded in bus service review. Reviewers would ride buses, and observe bus stops as several buses went by. They would record: For a stop: *Did bus stop have the most up-to-date schedule posted? *Did bus stop information include route map? *Do riders' waits exceed scheduled headways? *Are the buses evenly spaced or bunched together? *Do buses skip the stop because of overcrowding? *Do buses skip the stop because of bunching? *Were the routes serving that stop listed on the bus stop sign? *Was bus stop shelter clean, were its walls intact, was it in any way defaced? *Did shelter have a bus system route map? For a particular bus: *Minutes the bus was early or late according to the (posted) schedule *Did the bus have system maps and route schedules available for riders to take? *Were the route and destination signs outside the bus functional and accurate? *Did wait exceed posted headway? *Was the bus free of litter and foul odors? *Were the bike racks, wheelchair lifts, and SmarTrip readers in working order? *Was bus overcrowded? Was it so overcrowded at any point that it could not pick up more riders? *Did this bus leapfrog, or was it leapfrogged, by another bus of the same route number? *If the bus has live stop information and announcements inside, were they functional and accurate? *If the bus did not have live info, or if it wasn't working, did the driver make verbal stop announcements? *Did boarding riders have to wait to get on while exiting passengers got off in the front? *Was the driver generally courteous and helpful? *Did driver engage in extended conversations with passengers or talk on a cell phone? Appendix 2. Large Transit Agencies with Passenger Advisory Committees NEW YORK STATE?S METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY * Name: Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee * Established by the New York State Legislature in 1981. * Members: appointed by the Governor?s office, NYC Mayor, Public Advocate, and Borough Presidents. * Purpose: ?To give users of MTA subway, bus, and commuter rail services a say in the formulation and implementation of MTA policy and to hold the MTA Board and management accountable to riders.? * Website: http://pcac.org LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY * Name: Citizens Advisory Council. * Established in: 1992. * Purpose: ?The CAC shall consult, obtain and collect public input on matters of interest and concern to the Community and will communicate the CAC?s recommendations with respect to such issues to the MTA. Issues may also be assigned to the CAC by the MTA for its review, comment and recommendation.? * Website: http://www.mta.net/board/committees/cac_members.htm SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY * Name: Citizens? Advisory Council * Purpose: ?provides recommendations to the Agency with respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Agency.? * Website: http://www.sfmuni.com/cms/brd/cac/cacindx.htm MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY * Name: Rider Oversight Committee * Established in: 2003. * For more information: See press release on-line: http://www.mbta.com/insidethet/press_releases_details.asp?ID=958. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY * Name: Citizen Advisory Board * For more information: Regional Transportation Authority, 1998 Regional Data Fact Book, Section II, page II-3, available at: http://rtachicago.com/infocenter/publicdoc.asp. SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY * Name: Citizens Advisory Committee * Purpose: ?The CAC advises the Board on issues of interest to the committee's members and the communities they represent?? * Website: http://www.vta.org/inside/boards/governing_board.html#cac Appendix 3. Large Transit Agencies With Public Comment Periods at Board Meetings (Partial Listing) Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) New Jersey Transit Chicago Transit Authority Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Dallas Area Rapid Transit Regional Transportation District (Denver) Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, TX (Houston) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (CA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask]