Respondents divided about effect of bad press

Transit professionals vary widely in their opinions about the ridership impact of a newspaper column that focuses on the negative aspects of transit bus travel.

Nearly 30% of 45 respondents to a poll question in last week's Transit Intelligence said they believe that a negative column would have a "strong negative impact" on ridership. But 24% said just the opposite, that bad press about bus riding has "no signficant or lasting impact." An equal number of respondents, 18%, said a negative article would have either "small" or "moderate" negative impact on ridership.

The column, written by Renee Moilanen, was published in the Daily Breeze, a newspaper based in Torrance, Calif., on November 12. It sparked some interesting comments from Transit Intelligence readers. . .

Unfortunately, I have to agree with her feelings even though I ride bus and light rail daily. There are many people who should not be allowed to ride if they are offensively odiferous, loud of voice, arrogant or playing music too loud (with earphones on). I get severe headaches from some of the lotions that people sometimes put on themselves, even after they have exited the mode of transportation before I get on.

********************************

Often the journalist is riding for the very first time and conveys his or her difficult experience learning the system, but imagine flying by air for the very first time, the security hassle, learning airport layouts, missed connections, lost luggage, recirculated air, etc. Or imagine driving for the first time and all the hassles of passing a driving test, the lines at the DMV, haggling with car dealerships, complicated paperwork, etc. What she should also write about is how the poor, elderly, disabled, and youth would struggle to get around without transit (and its subsidization). It might not be tailor made for middle-class sensibilities, but I don't think that's the point of transit. She can write about the hassles of washing her clothes in a laundromat instead of at home, but when people can't afford their own personal washing machines, isn't she just missing the whole point?

*****************************************************

As a former light rail rider and a current transit agency employee, I totally agree with the reporter. The actual vehicles and the drivers are great; many (most) of the riders are the problem, and the reason why I opted back to my car.

*****************************************************

Of course bad publicity hurts, but not forever. Bus riders ride because they must and because they want to. One person's expose of their bad experience will not change a bus rider's choice in the long run. Nonetheless, sometimes we can look that these negative columns and try to figure out ways to make our services better.

*****************************************************

The article relates the actual condition of transit riders in South Bay, which is known. An article that relates the known obvious will not have an impact on ridership.

*****************************************************

I think the opinion of one freelance writer in the print media can do very little to impact ridership among people who are seriously considering taking transit. Those of us who actually ride the bus know the difference between reality and sarcastic hyperbole done for effect. I am employed, college-educated and own a car, and I choose to ride the bus because it's cheaper than driving and less stressful, and I do read while riding the bus instead of focusing on the shortcomings of my fellow passengers. One wonders what others were thinking about her. All this will serve to do is justify the thinking of those who don't take the bus and never will. I am more concerned about how these attitudes affect such things as politicians' views on transit funding and support, and the general public's view when it comes time to vote on referenda.

*****************************************************

Honest feedback is important to improving our business model and making transit a viable option. The old adage "a customer who complains does you a great favor" holds true.

*****************************************************

This article was spot on! I have been a transit user for more than 30 years and I've been a public transit agency administrator for more than 10 years. I often feel like a salmon swimming upstream against the current when I forcefully share with my colleagues my observation that by not providing safety and security on our systems, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

We should not be social service agencies and just because we are a public agency does not mean that we cannot require and enforce basic rules of decency and respect among drivers and patrons so that using public transportation is pleasant for everyone. I use both bus and rail transit and have had encountered all of the situations the author has many times over. It's time to take back public transit from the few low-lifes and ne'er-do-wells that ruin it for everyone else or cut public transportation service altogether and immobolize the trouble-makers among us.

I'll close by saying that in the years I've worked at my current, suburban bus operator, I've watched recent, urban immigrants turn a suburban, functional commuter-based service into what most employees here now call "the ghetto express." As far as I'm concerned, it's our own fault for not doing anything about it all this time. We could have, should have and didn't. We have no one but ourselves to blame.

*****************************************************

"Poison Pen" writes like I feel. I do very much believe public transit is the most important form of transportation in our future. But things have to become more dramatically appealing INSIDE the bus before I will get on again, unless I "have to." The last "have to" was Oklahoma to Des Moines on a freezing winter's night with no heat — because I couldn't afford anything else. Let's please not talk about the good people, including the driver, who suffered alongside me — we just felt lucky to have a ride at all. Needless to say, I'm saving my money to drive my "have to" trips myself.

*****************************************************

Her article does bring out moderate to strong negative points (odiferous people, verbal and some physical altercations, etc.) as to why middle class and higher may not want to take the bus/train. Sometimes just altering one's schedule can eliminate these pitfalls. But, this is no excuse to keep using gas guzzlers to go to work and back every day. Yes, public transit is not for everyone, especially when one has to transfer more than two times — that is illogical. But, for those who can, at least 2-3 days a week would help the air quality no matter where you live.

*****************************************************

Any press is good press. It gets people thinking about transit.

*****************************************************

The impact will be largely on potential "choice riders" who are usually more fearful of the unknown and therefore more easily swayed by negative reports.

*****************************************************

Folks who are not dependent on using public transit will receive negative reinforcement from articles such as this. Thus, the goal of expanding the rider population through the purchase of new, environmentally friendly buses will not be achieved. One could argue that the writer and the staff of the paper are the real stinkers here.

*****************************************************

Fear of embarrassment and the unknown is a huge barrier for many. Every article about crime or other problems on transit creates the image that transit is not a safe and friendly place to be. Even the occasional surly bus driver or fare misunderstanding will be retold and remembered for a long time.

*****************************************************

One of the biggest hurdles in getting new riders on public transportation is the fear of the unknown. For many people the bus is their only means of getting around their city and they need to overcome any hesitations they may have to get to jobs, grocery shopping, school, childcare, etc. Ms. Moilanen's article and ones like it can set back the use of public transportation. She makes it sound like a horror show. It is PUBLIC transportation and there will be a wide variety of types of riders, but Ms. Moilanen, please don't scare people away from their only means of meeting their everyday needs. They don't have a choice of transportation.

*****************************************************

People in my city already complain about "undesirables" on the buses, so such a report just reinforces their already negative impressions.

*****************************************************

I don't think this nay-saying column will change minds. It won't make ridership grow, and it won't make ridership shrink. It makes Torrance Transit look bad, but I doubt Renee's fellow passengers, crazed and stinky as they are, will offer more than a crazed and stinky shrug.

People like and use transit, or they don't like it and only take it to sports events. When a column like this appears, the non-riders see it as minor proof that their choice is valid, and (in my experience) the riders are enraged that someone had the gall to say that there is something wrong with transit (which there is, everywhere), or the riders are smug in the fact that they can handle these conditions. (I'm in the latter camp. "Suck it up, buttercup" was my first thought.)

I think there will always be this split, until some larger, possibly world-wide, change occurs that forces people to reconsider their driving and transit needs.

However, as a regular rider since age four, a transit blogger, someone so immersed in transit that I married a planner, I think that a two-hour ride on transit is a horrible idea, no matter where you are. I wouldn't conceivably opt in to such an adventure. I have the financial and personal luxury to have created a personal travel perimeter for myself, which I know is an option that a lot of people — riders and drivers alike — do not have. I've switched dentists if it requires a bus transfer to a different agency, and I'll gladly pay double in rent to live within a quarter-mile of a train station. These aren't things that are possible for everyone. I wish it were, but I have no idea where to begin with that.

*****************************************************

Many people view the media, especially columns such as this, to be whiney, so not a lot of people put much stock in what is being said. I would agree that most people take the bus because they have to, not because they want to — thus, a negative article is going to have very little impact because most of these people have no other choice.

*****************************************************

What? She lives in one location but then has to take "three buses and a train just to get near the train that goes to your final destination"? She's not a bus rider, she's an idiot. She needs to move closer to her work, on the one hand, or find a job closer to her residence, on the other. She IS THE PROBLEM! I own no car and all my mobility is by transit or walking, because I made the "awful" decision to live near my work and support systems (stores, etc).

I, too, use the bus often, and have in locations around the U.S. My experience in L.A. was that there was one bus that had a strong smell of urine. One. All other buses were clean, people quiet and well-mannered and daydreaming out the window, even when vehicles were crowded.

The question she brings up is to what extent do the hardships she experienced happen to the sum total of bus riders in that system? A scientifically researched answer based on appropriate statistics would go far to giving us the answer. My hypothesis is that people like her would number in the low single-digit percentile.

If the author really wants to be the good environmentalist she claims she wants to be, she needs to develop her own type of "transit-oriented" responsibility and reside closer to her place of employment.

*****************************************************

Little to no negative impact on existing ridership; moderate negative impact on public perception, and support, for public transportation in general. Alas, as a longtime GM of a transit agency, I am keenly aware of the reality of her perspective on bus transportation.

*****************************************************

Cities vary but I do believe there could be a strong impact on ridership after reading this type of article. Actually working for a transit system, I too was skeptical of taking our buses to work. Fortunately, I have much more positive experiences than Ms. Moilanen and I take the bus every day.

*****************************************************

There are people who aren't critical thinkers and take everything they read in the newspapers as gospel. I think articles like this are harmful, because they reinforce what people already believe. I think that in general, most people have a negative impression of public transit ... and a particularly negative view of those that depend on it.

*****************************************************

If her supposition is true that most of our riders don't have a choice, then such articles will have little impact. I do believe it is an honest report and we should do what we can to improve the overall riding experience, starting with the driver's attitude and increased security measures on buses for driver and customers.

*****************************************************

Those who ride already put up with these. Those who do not ride already use these as excuses. Those who were just considering and got discouraged because of such article are a small percentage.

*****************************************************

Many thanks to all of you who responded to the survey. If you'd like to add your comments to this article, e-mail them to [email protected]

Daily News Briefing