Buses, Trains and the Media

Is it a human mirror, or merely twins, on the subway?

As an identical twin, I felt compelled to include this video in my blog. I don't know if my twin brother, Doug, ever reads my postings here, but maybe he'll comment if he does.

When I used the phrase "merely twins" in the headline, I wasn't trying to be thoughtful or incisive. But, come to think of it, I don't consider myself special because I'm a twin. In fact, when I was growing up in San Jose, being an identical twin removed some of your specialness. For example, our neighbors often called my brother and I "twin" rather than Steve or Doug (I also have an older brother, Frank). That was because they couldn't tell us apart, of course, but it was one subtle suggestion that we were not unique. We were merely twins.

Anyway, I don't want to get too deep here. I enjoyed watching this video, despite my apparent ambivalence about being a twin. I hope you enjoy it too.

Until next time.

Steve

Tulsa Transit adds 10 bicycles to its bus fleet

One of the reasons many people don't use public transit is "the last mile" -- the distance between the starting point and the bus stop/rail station or between the bus stop/rail station and the destination. Of course, it could be more or less than a mile, but it's generally understood that it's a distance that most people would prefer not to walk.

But if you could ride a bicycle over this "last mile," then the route would not have to be as direct. Many people, in fact, do ride their bikes to the bus stop and use the bus' bike rack as well. These hardy souls are the exception, however.

To encourage more people to ride bikes to and from the bus stop, Tulsa Transit has implemented a pilot program called "Rack-N-Roll" that allows riders at a particular downtown bus station to borrow bikes for 24 hours. Currently, there are 10 bikes that can be checked out.

Tulsa Transit General Manager Bill Cartwright (pictured) said the 10 bikes, which cost a total of $3,000, are a "low-cost way to expand our routes." To read the full story, click here. What he'd really like to see is an expansion of the bus system. But with the economy the way it is and fuel prices the way they are, the bikes (seven men's models and three women's) are better than nothing.

Until next time.

Steve

 

Is there real danger on the bus from unruly teens?

Anyone who has taken the bus more than a few times has probably encountered obscenity-spewing, rough-housing teens who are either unaware that they're annoying others or don't care that they are. In some cases, they seem to enjoy the discomfort of fellow passengers.

Generally, they are ignored. Or, more accurately, put up with. Few people riding the bus want to take the risk of confronting them. Although the odds that a rebuke will lead to a physical conflict are relatively small, the reward is not great enough to justify the risk. Or is it?

Are these unruly teens actually dangerous? Or have we been brainwashed into believing that they are? I suspect that they're less dangerous than they appear, but do you want to be proven wrong in close quarters with fellow passengers who likely will not back you up?

Two men recently wrote about disturbing experiences on the bus involving teenagers. One of them described his nemesis as "the public rapper." The other described his three foes as "no older than 15, hissing, snarling... a general hindrance for everyone going about their everyday life."

The two men responded differently. The first, who had his 2-year-old daughter with him, asked the rapper to "watch your language, please." The other sat silently as the teens "menacingly taunted the poor bus driver."

You can't judge either of them for their actions, can you? The situations were quite different. Again, I suspect that we exaggerate the danger of unruly teenagers. But you only have to be wrong once to regret your decision for a long time.

Until next time.

Steve

Serphing the Internet can be disconcerting

I just learned about a website called Serph.com that allows you to "track buzz in real time." For example, you can type your name into the search box and get a list of pertinent blog postings, YouTube videos, websites, etc. that are percolating on the Internet.

It sounds better than it performs, though. I typed in "Steve Hirano" and got the following:

There were actually a few more listings, but none worth including in the image.

The first listing, My Favorite Car, is a blog that lists blog postings about cars. I happened to write a blog posting called "Travel decisions - car, plane or motorcoach? - are getting more complex" that was included in My Favorite Car on May 31.

The next two listings refer to YouTube videos that have nothing to do with me, beyond the fact that the lead guitarist is named Steve (Chang) and one of the tags is Hirano.

Finally, the last result apparently refers to a blog posting that I wrote called "Do looks really matter that much?" on April 9. It discusses the importance of a person's appearance in their career success. Strangely, the blurb on the Serph page touts the posting as a "great read"; however, the link goes to a directory of plastic surgeons, with no mention of my blog. I'm guessing that the website, celebsurgeon.com, has found a way to market itself by linking to as many sources that mention "plastic surgery" as it can. I'm discomforted by the fact that my blog posting is being used this way, but there's not much I can do.

So, how important is it to use sites like Serph to "track buzz" about you or your organization? I would say that it can't hurt to occasionally feed your name into the Search box, but I wouldn't spend too much on it because the results can be relatively useless and, sometimes, disconcerting.

Until next time.

Steve

Dying to be surveyed by a mortuary -- or a transit system?

People may be dying to get in, but funeral homes apparently want to poll them before they arrive.

I received two surveys today in the mail -- one from White & Day, Rice, McCormick & McMillan Mortuaries; the other from Fukui Mortuary (careful with the pronunciation!). Each one-page survey offered the same set of six questions regarding funeral planning. They obviously were created by the same marketing firm.

I normally don't open junk mail from funeral homes, but the fact that two letters arrived from different mortuaries on the same day made me curious. Was there something they knew that I didn't? I was relieved to discover that they were merely trying to gauge my desire to, among other things, "reduce the stress of last-minute decisions" and "confirm [my] wishes regarding public or private family viewing."

They also offered to provide a free estimate on funeral planning and to send a free copy of "Life's Passages Portfolio" for filling out and returning the questionnaire. Like most people, I don't enjoy confronting my mortality and will not be responding. But, honestly, I think the survey is a great idea. It's short, non-threatening (except for the fact that it's about death) and could entice some people into preparing for the Great Beyond (not a bad idea, really).

Transit systems should take note. Isn't this the perfect time to ask residents of your service area about their public transportation intentions? Wouldn't it be nice to know at what gasoline price point ($4, $5, $6, $7, $8, $9, $10) they will start using your system, if they're not already? And for what purpose . . . commuting only, off-peak day/night/weekend travel, etc.? If they don't plan to use your service, it might be nice to know why not. Also, since fare hikes seem to be in vogue, it might be good to ask their opinion about your fare structure. As gas prices go higher and higher, your fares become more and more reasonable to people who are ditching their cars and taking the bus or train.

This type of data could help transit systems "reduce the stress of last-minute decisions." Dying and running a public transportation system aren't so different, are they?

Until next time.

Steve

Automobile status just isn't what it used to be

It was ironic, to be attending a public transportation meeting and listening to an attendee talk about his recent purchase of a Cadillac Escalade. The luxury SUV cost him $70,000, which, as the salesman apparently pointed out, means that he probably isn't too concerned about the rising price of fuel.

My first thought was that people are free to purchase any vehicle they desire, no matter the consequences.

Then I thought, but this guy works in an industry that promotes public transportation and all of the attendant benefits to the environment, economy and general welfare of the citizens.

Is it hypocritical for him to run out and buy a gas-guzzling SUV (12 mpg in the city) when he earns his living through the public transportation industry? Or is it just a case of bad timing? Had he done this eight years ago, no one would have noticed or cared. Now, however, you are being judged by the car you drive, but not in terms of its cost or status, but by its fuel mileage and impact on the environment.

Steve Lopez, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, has been hectoring Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's transportation deputy, Jaime de la Vega, for several months because he drives a Hummer. In his latest jab Lopez has some fun exploring the difficulty de la Vega will have if he decides to sell the giant SUV.

Which made me think about the Escalade and its low fuel economy and rapidly deteriorating value. Everything has its price, doesn't it?

Until next time.

Steve

Are your websites ready for prime time?

Every day I read fresh articles from around the U.S. and other parts of the world about the migration of car-driving commuters to buses and trains because of high fuel prices. And then I wonder how many people wanted to make the conversion to buses and trains but didn't because they didn't know how to get from Point A to Point B using the local transit system or because they were intimidated about riding the bus or train.

Which brings me to the point: Transit systems need to make sure that their websites are easy to use, properly updated and useful. If they don't have automated trip planners, they should at least supply timetables and maps that would allow a novice to chart a course from home to the office. Or wherever. And they should also supply instructions on using the system, e.g., which door to use to enter and exit the vehicle, how to pay your fare, rules about eating or drinking on the bus/train, how to signal a bus operator that you want to get off, etc.

I suspect that many transit system websites are getting more traffic than ever before, with most of the action from new customers. If you don't have a section on your website called "First-Time Riders," "How to Ride," "Getting Started" or something to that effect, you probably should create one. And it should include a Frequently Asked Questions section addressing common concerns that first-time riders have.

If you have the wherewithal, and funding, to create an online video that illustrates how to use the system, that's even better. People are much more likely to watch a video than, say, read a downloadable brochure. Take advantage of the Internet's ability to deliver images, sound and graphics. Although the video should be professionally produced, it doesn't have to be award-winning caliber. It just needs to address the questions that first-time riders have in a straight-forward, informational manner.

I know budgets are tight, but record-high fuel prices have created a fantastic opportunity to win new riders to your systems. You don't want to miss this chance. An investment in your website now could pay significant dividends down the line.

Until next time.

Steve

I left my car in San Jose

I'm happy to report that my trip to San Francisco to attend the APTA Rail Conference was successful, not so much from a marketing standpoint (I was there to promote TransitTalent.com), but from a transportation standpoint.

In my previous blog posting, I discussed my rationale for driving to the Bay Area rather than flying or taking an intercity bus. It's normally cheaper to drive than fly, but sky-high gasoline prices are cutting into the margin. I chose to drive to San Jose, where I stayed at my parents' house and used public transportation to get to and from San Francisco.

I took Caltrain (commuter rail) in both directions and supplemented it with a short ride on the Muni train. It was a simple, stress-less way to travel. When it works efficiently, public transportation is a fantastic, feel-good alternative to a car, as many thousands of people around the country are discovering each day.

The 350-mile drive to and from San Jose wasn't bad either. I went to the library before my trip and checked out a couple of books on CD (Ian McEwan's "On Chesil Beach" and "The Cell" by Stephen King). That made the 5-hour drive more bearable and helped to keep my speed down (I wasn't in as much of a hurry to get to my destination!). The books also helped to keep me awake, which is always a good thing when you're driving 70 mph down a long, straight, boring stretch of highway.

Until next time.

Steve

Travel decisions - car, plane or motorcoach? - are getting more complex

I'll be attending the APTA Rail Conference this coming week and decided to drive up to San Francisco rather than fly. Normally, driving from Los Angeles to the Bay Area is a much cheaper option than going by air. But with the price of gasoline topping $4 a gallon, it's a pretty close call.

Figure that the round-trip will be about 800 miles on the ground and that my car gets 30 miles per gallon on the highway. That means that I'll burn approximately 26 gallons of gasoline. At $4.10 per gallon, that's about $107 in gasoline. Of course, you really should factor in some wear and tear on the car. This is probably conservative, but I'm going to add another $50 to the total, making it $157.

With two weeks' notice, I could have booked a $150 round-trip flight to and from San Francisco. That means that the car trip could actually be more expensive than a plane trip. Plus, you also lose time when you drive, several hours in each direction, even factoring in the wait at the airport, etc.

One option that I considered, briefly, was booking a trip on Megabus, which recently announced that it will be discontinuing its runs from L.A. to the Bay Area. With two weeks' notice, I could have booked a round-trip for as little as $56! It's not that simple, though, because I would still have to get to Union Station in downtown L.A., which adds some car mileage and, possibly, parking fees.

Also, if I flew or traveled by motorcoach, I would be without a car when I arrived in San Francisco. Which in some ways is good. Parking your car at a hotel can be expensive. In point of fact, I've fudged a little on this scenario because I'll be staying with my parents in San Jose and taking Caltrain into San Francisco. I admit that I'm being a bit lazy and simplifying things by using L.A. to S.F. instead of L.A. to San Jose, but I think you get the picture.

The point is that with fuel prices climbing into uncharted territory, the economies that we used to enjoy by driving instead of flying have gone away. It still makes sense to drive, however, when you have passengers, especially when it's a family of four, like mine. With four people, the costs are nearly the same for the car but are quadrupled for air travel.

Although I've never seriously considered traveling by motorcoach (vs. driving or flying), I'm going to start looking at that option more closely, especially if discount carriers like Megabus can build a strong following. The travel game is changing, and we need to be more flexible in our decision-making.

Until next time.

Steve

I work from home but don't telecommute

I've been "telecommuting" since Sept. 30, 2007, when I left my job as an editor at Bobit Business Media. That's not exactly accurate because I started my own business and work from a home office. Even if I wanted to -- and I don't -- I can't commute since I have nowhere to go.

With the price of gas eclipsing $4 a gallon here in Los Angeles, I'm surprised that interest in telecommuting hasn't cropped up again. Was it 10 years ago that telecommuting became fashionable? I seem to recall that people were renting workstations close to their homes so they could telecommute with all the niceties of an office -- computer, fax, phone, etc. Do they still do that?

I never gave a thought to telecommuting because I've always lived pretty close to my office. Well, almost always. For about eight years I had a 90-mile daily commute. It wasn't bad, though, because my start time was 6:30 a.m. and I left the building by 3 p.m. Had it been an 8:30 to 5 shift, I don't think I could have held out for very long.

These days, with all of the conveniences provided by the Internet (high-speed connections, e-mail, video conferencing, file sharing, web-based applications, etc.), it should be much more convenient to work from home. Employers, understandably, will always be leery of allowing their employees to work without face-to-face supervision, but the rising cost of commuting may soon override their reservations.

Speaking from experience, working from home isn't a perfect solution. Even if I could have telecommuted while I was still working at Bobit, I would have only done it two or three times a week, not because I feel a need to look over people's shoulders, but because it gets lonely. Work from home for a few months and you'll see what I mean.

Until next time.

Steve