We at More Riders emphasize the benefit of rider instruction a great deal, mainly as a means for combating intimidation or fear. But a very important part of rider instruction that can often be overlooked is not in how to pay a fare or make a transfer, but in how to be an effective contributor to transit management. Countless riders enjoy the convenience of transit without ever understanding and valuing the massive political infrastructure that keeps the trains and buses running. In turn, agencies are receiving either no feedback at all or simply gripes specific to each rider’s personal route. There is a fundamental breakdown in transit communications when the agency cannot gauge the needs of its constituents and its constituents cannot understand the wants of their agency.
Faced with a service change as unpopular as a proposed fare hike, therefore, how can agencies ensure that they get the vital public feedback they need in order to make decisions favoring their constituents? In other words, how can agencies filter out the noise one often hears at public meetings? One method is to provide a variety of communication forums to riders, enabling them to choose the most comfortable medium through which to respond and hopefully limiting the amount of time executives must endure unproductive chatter.
New York City’s MTA, staring down the prospect of a fare increase, has reached out to riders in more forward-thinking, accessible means in order to derive the best data. A recent story in the New York Post noted that, for the first time ever, the country’s largest transit agency was using the internet to help riders more easily communicate with them. For an hour and a half, concerned transit users were given the opportunity to submit questions to executives – without ever having to leave the comfort of their chair. What’s more, the MTA presented a short video and also responded to several pertinent questions – a feat never accomplished at true public meetings. Offering more ways for riders to share their input can be an effective method for diffusing doubt and anger over controversial policies. As the MTA’s executive director Elliot Sander noted, “While the debate over the MTA financial plan can be contentious at times, we have made every effort this year to expand the dialogue with broader outreach in new ways.”
Ironically, the Post story came out the same day as a scathing column in the New York Sun on the MTA’s misdirected effort at gathering feedback through comment cards passed out on 15 of the agency’s 22 subway lines. What this method lacks – which should be inherent in all agency public relations matters – is the immediacy (and cathartic nature, perhaps) of a real-time interaction with transit decision-makers. The reason only seven percent of the cards were returned is most likely due to the fact that riders assumed their thoughts would fall by the wayside.
The MTA is up against a politically unpopular decision, one in which riders must be given all possible opportunities to voice their opinions – and hopefully in the process learn a bit more about what exactly a fare increase will get them. In brainstorming how agencies can derive the most data while upholding high standards of customer service, we keep coming back to the idea of immediacy. Whether it means placing transit delegates outside of subway stations or contracting out to host additional information sessions, agencies must be sure to offer their constituents a fair chance to be part of the decision-making effort and to become familiar with the management process.
Trackbacks