Calgary Transit shouldn’t limit customer feedback—it should embrace it

I welcomed the announcement that Calgary Transit and the Mayor’s Office were launching a Calgary Transit Customer Advisory Group in the wake of what Mayor Nenshi described as a  “rough summer” for transit.  According to Fred Wong, the Director of Calgary Transit, there were 56 service disruptions of over 30 minutes this year.

The main purpose of this Advisory Group is to provide Calgary Transit with ongoing input on how to improve the customer experience. 

 I was disappointed to learn that the Advisory Group’s terms of reference precludes discussion of major transit issues. This makes me worry that the Advisory Group is more about improving public relations than it is about improving transit.

Here are the topics that the Advisory Group cannot discuss from its terms of reference:

• Scheduling or other operational issues related to specific bus or train routes
• Issues pertaining to the supply of service, such as frequency, directness etc.
• Route or network planning

 After a year of working with TransitCamp, a citizen-led transit advocacy group in Calgary, I believe that the Advisory Group, or another customer group, should have a broad mandate to discuss operational issues, route planning and delays. Calgary Transit shouldn’t limit the advice it receives from its customers; it should embrace it. 

 Why do terms of reference matter?

Terms of reference matter because they confine the mandate of citizen advisory groups. I’m on the City of Calgary’s Public Art Board and we constantly review our Terms of Reference to determine whether we have a role in a specific issue. Here is a possible result of the Advisory Group’s restrictive terms of reference:

 Advisory Group member: Why is implementation of the Real Time Transit Information system is several months late on the north-east LRT.

Calgary Transit: I’m sorry we can’t discuss issues related to specific bus or train routes.

Advisory Group member: Why was there a major delay on the north-east LRT yesterday?

Calgary Transit: I’m sorry we can’t discuss issues related to the supply of service.

Advisory Group member: To mitigate future problems, will the proposed north-central LRT connect to north-east LRT?

Calgary Transit: I’m sorry we can’t discuss route or network planning.

I’m being a bit facetious here, as it is unlikely that the terms of reference would be applied so rigidly. However, it is unnecessary and counter-productive to place the volunteer Advisory Group on such a short leash.

The terms of reference should direct the Advisory Group to focus on strategic issues. If a group member complains that a specific bus is late, the conversation should not end; it should turn to minimize the impact of delays on customers system wide.

The main response that I have received from Mayor’s office staff is that Calgary Transit can engage customers in several different ways such as on Twitter and through open houses. While this may be true, this does not address the problems with the transit Advisory Group’s terms. There is no benefit to muzzling this group.

I offer three recommendations to improve how Calgary Transit receives feedback from its customers.

1.             Create a formal customer advisory group to address route planning 

There is no formal way for Calgary Transit to engage customers on many planning and operational issues. There were great public consultations held for the North-Central LRT. However, these consultations were ad hoc and largely in response to a disastrous process that led to the current LRT Network Plan (which calls for building the north-central LRT along Deerfoot Trail). 

Ask anyone who is involved with TransitCamp, we need a permanent group to address route-planning issues and follow up on consultations.

2.             Focus on a major reason the group was formed—to address delays

The Mayor did promise to better engage customers in Calgary Transit during the last election campaign. However, this issue was not tackled for nearly a year and after the weekly delays of more than 30 minutes this year. The Director of Calgary Transit announced this group immediately after talking about the many service disruptions that customers experienced this year. Like it or not, the genesis of the Advisory Group inextricably links it to addressing transit delays.

Some delays are inevitable for maintenance or security issues. But commuters should have a reasonable expectation of getting to work on time. The terms of the Advisory Group seek to limit discussion related to the supply of service or specific routes. I’ve been assured that delays will be generally discussed. Addressing delays should be a clear mandate of the Advisory Group, and its members should not be discouraged from discussing this key issue.

3.             Amend the terms to meaningfully engage customers in Calgary Transit

Calgary Transit can use the Advisory Group’s restrictive terms to exclude almost any issue. This would defeat the very purpose of the group, using customers to improve the customer experience. For example, the rollout of Calgary Transit’s Real Time Information system has been delayed for months without a clear explanation (I’m told that this system is complex). Based on a plain reading of the Advisory Group’s terms, discussion of this system is outside of its mandate since it relates to frequency of service.

The terms of the Advisory Group should be amended to include a broader ranger of issues. This group, or another customer group, should be created to provide feedback on route planning. The Advisory Group should clearly be authorized to address delays.

Transit customers deserve a stronger voice in strategic level transit decisions. The Advisory Group is good start to achieving this; however I fear that its terribly restrictive terms could make it impotent.