Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Managing Web-Based Feedback P a r t 1

15 C H A P T E R 1 This chapter provides background to define customer feedback, differentiate feedback from other forms of communication between transit agencies and their customers, and define the categories of agency feedback needs that will be used throughout the report. The benefits and challenges of customer feedback identified in the literature are also discussed. Defining Customer Feedback Feedback is defined as communication generated by transit users and other members of the public and directed at transit agencies. For a transit agency, the feedback process involves lis- tening to and, in some cases, reacting to input from customers and other stakeholders. While feedback can take the form of one-way communication from the customer to the agency, the process can be enhanced by creating a dialog between external and internal stakeholders that allows information to be shared in both directions. For the purposes of this research project, transit-related feedback is divided into two general categories: • Unsolicited feedback is defined as the comments, suggestions, and complaints that flow into the agency without being directly requested by agency staff. These comments come in through multiple communication channels, including call centers, email and online forms, written comments, social media, online communities or forums, and mobile applications designed to facilitate interaction with the public. • Solicited feedback is initiated by the agency to address specific needs or issues. The most common activity is public outreach—comments collected with regard to service and fare changes, customer satisfaction, or project planning, which can become part of the public record. Solicited feedback can also include questions posed on any topic using a variety of conventional and technology-driven tools, including web-based and panel surveys that do not have the rigor of true market research and the increasingly popular technique of crowdsourcing. While customer feedback can serve many purposes, it is not a replacement for other types of agency communication. The following types of communication are not covered in this report. • Customer information includes real-time information, service alerts, schedules, way-finding, and other one-way communications from a transit agency to their customers. Information dissemination techniques are used to broadcast messages from the agency to the public. These techniques, both web-based and otherwise, have been covered in depth in several previous TCRP studies (Schaller 2002; Schweiger 2006; Bregman 2012). The one-way aspect of customer information distinguishes this type of communication from customer feed- back, which is generally intended to be two-way communication between the agency and the customer. Understanding and Organizing Web-Based Feedback

16 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services • Customer service includes ticket sales, trip-planning services, safety monitoring, and other efforts to serve transit users. Customer feedback can enhance, but not replace such services. • Public relations uses publicity and other types of promotion to influence opinions, attitudes, and beliefs about an organization among customers or stakeholders. Similar to customer information, this is one-way communication from the agency to the public, rather than gath- ering input from the public. • Market research is the gathering and evaluation of data regarding consumers’ preferences for products and services. It can be quantitative, following strict statistical requirements to ensure representativeness, or qualitative, designed to explore and test concepts. Solicited customer feedback can use a survey format to facilitate collecting and analyzing feedback, but it is not necessarily designed around sampling methods to ensure results that are representative of the target population. A full discussion of market research tools is available through TCRP Synthesis 105 (Coffel 2013). • Marketing and promotions often include activities where customers are asked to respond to questions, share opinions, and otherwise engage with the agency. The primary purpose of these activities is to develop a strong, positive relationship with the customer that results in loyalty, higher ridership, word-of-mouth advertising, and support for the agency. This tool- kit will be relevant to the customer feedback portions of this activity, but will not specifically address web-based promotions and customer engagement. In practice, there is often significant overlap between these different categories and often the same employees are responsible for all aspects of an agency’s communication. Messages that are sent out as public information, such as a notice for a public hearing on a service change, are frequently repurposed into a social media posting to solicit customer feedback on the service changes. Thus, while the focus of the report is on web-based customer feedback to improve transit service, the concepts and tools presented are applicable to many other areas of communication. Agency Needs for Web-Based Feedback Tools The first step in the decision-making process for purchasing or implementing a web-based feedback tool is to articulate the need for the tool. Therefore, agency needs have been catego- rized into four overarching categories throughout the report: (1) to receive comments that the public and employees wish to share; (2) to proactively solicit comment on topics of interest to the agency; (3) to encourage civic engagement through facilitating topical discussions; and (4) to manage the feedback. The purpose for the feedback tool will have direct bearing on which department “owns” the information, work flow, and which tools are most appropriate. The following discussion describes the major categories of comments from the perspective of the public and the agency. Collect Unsolicited Comments—Information the Public Wants to Convey The most fundamental need for web-based feedback is to collect comments from the public. While most of the unsolicited feedback is from transit riders, anyone may have occasion to con- tact the agency to register a comment or complaint on agency activities. Transit customers and other stakeholders may choose to comment on a wide range of issues, including: Service quality issues. People care most about issues that affect them directly, and transit riders are no different. Comments about transit service quality detail anything related to the agency’s daily services, including late or early buses, crowding, temperature on the vehicle, or customer information needs. Feedback on these topics can help agencies address short-term

Understanding and Organizing Web-Based Feedback 17 problems, such as on-time performance issues and the need for additional capacity and cus- tomer amenities (e.g., schedule information, a shelter, and lighting). Some riders may make a point of highlighting good service, but it is not a large percentage of what agencies hear. People are more inclined to speak out if they are opposed to or upset by some aspect of service quality than if they are supportive or pleased. Having a mechanism available for them to easily share their views in either case is helpful. Apart from short-term operational issues, riders may seek the opportunity to provide feed- back on how routes could be optimized or how the system could be improved. Items like poorly located bus stops, potential scheduling changes, and moving the time of a bus by a few minutes to allow a connection are important parts of system design. Riders may also want to share their feedback on topics such as major service changes so that other stakeholders can see comments from other riders and agency responses. Allowing customers to provide web-based feedback in areas of service quality can help guide future decision making, especially with regard to service modifications. Comments about transit agency personnel. Operator behavior, as well as user interactions with and impressions of agency staff, are also tied into service quality. Complaints and commen- dations regarding employees can help agencies ensure that their employees are doing their jobs and meeting or exceeding customer expectations. This feedback can include reports of distracted bus drivers, lack of customer attention by station clerks, and other information regarding poor customer service. This feedback can also include positive feedback on extraordinary job perfor- mances. These comments can help the agency identify employees who are not providing good customer service, as well as reward employees who provide excellent service. It is widely believed that making commendations and complaints easier to report can encour- age more people to submit their comments. The effort required to provide comments after the fact via traditional means, such as email or telephone call, including the need to remember to give input after an incident rather than on the spot, can discourage customers from submitting feedback at all. Riders may offer more compliments if a forum is available for doing so in real time, especially if it has a social component. User feedback about transit agency staff perfor- mance could also help to inform periodic employee evaluations, such that those staff members who go above and beyond customer expectations may be recognized and rewarded. One idea is to let riders vote for bus driver of the year. On the other hand, repeated negative feedback about certain operators may help to identify problem behaviors and poorly performing employees, so that appropriate corrective or disciplinary actions may be taken. Safety and security issues cover safety of particular stops, stations, and bus or rail routes, as well as reports about lost and stolen property or suspicious people. Mobile applications have been developed to allow riders and employees to provide unsolicited feedback on safety and security issues, but this is an important area for agencies to solicit feedback as well. Agencies can use this information to know where to increase security patrols to reduce crime on their systems, provide more frequent cleaning and maintenance, and make physical improvements, such as cameras and security phones. Facilities and maintenance issues include problems with buses, rail cars, and station equip- ment. This feedback can allow agencies to fix broken heaters or air conditioners on vehicles, locate graffiti, and identify broken elevators, escalators, fare machines, or turnstiles. This feedback is useful for keeping vehicles and facilities clean and operational, while also identifying damaged agency property. Riders with disabilities may wish to report access issues as they encounter them. For example, in an interview conducted for this research, a rider who is blind said she would appreciate an easy way to let an agency know that the automated announcement system was not

18 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services working. Other riders might want to report problems with ramps or lift equipment. In warm summers, rail riders want an easy way to tag a “hot car” (one in which the air conditioning is not working); some agencies encourage riders to use Twitter to report such cars by sending a tweet or text message with the rail car number, line, and the tag #hotcar. Some agencies offer mobile applications for customers to report non-emergency issues, such as a burned-out streetlight, and make complaints. Some issues may straddle the safety and maintenance classification or the line between time-sensitive and ongoing, such as when a stairway is not well lit. Planning and policy. Riders also want to be able to comment about general policy issues, and may offer important insights and innovative solutions to some of the agency’s organiza- tional challenges. Policy changes include service standards that cover the levels of service to be provided, fare policies, rider rules (e.g., food and drinks on the vehicle), use of park-and-ride facilities, and vendor advertising. This feedback is typically not time-sensitive, but allows agen- cies to understand how their users feel about changes that are made to their commutes and how convenience can be added to help them on their journeys. Several agencies use sentiment analysis to review attitudes about their services (Bregman and Watkins 2013; Collins et al. 2013; Schweitzer 2012). There are two broad types of unsolicited feedback: comments that are time-sensitive and warrant immediate attention and comments that relate to ongoing concerns. Whether the issue qualifies as time-sensitive or an ongoing concern will depend on the details of the issue. Time-Sensitive Concerns Time-sensitive feedback includes issues of immediate concern that warrant real-time or same- day responses. Typical time-sensitive issues include safety and security concerns, crime, broken equipment, and dangerous driving. The nature of these concerns may require the agency to monitor and address issues during all hours of service. Ongoing Concerns Ongoing concerns and commendations do not call for immediate action and may require additional review or be folded into a planning or administrative process. Solicit Comments—What the Agency Wants to Know Transit agencies regularly solicit feedback as a part of their public outreach efforts and to better understand their customers’ needs and expectations. Web-based feedback can be used to supplement traditional outreach activities, as a means of “taking the pulse” of the public, or as a supplement to formal market research. There are two primary categories of solicited feedback: policy and planning activities and public opinion polling. Policy and Planning Activities Public outreach in support of policy and planning activities is the most common reason for soliciting comments from riders and the public, including requirements for public comment on budget, fare and service changes, or to gather ideas for future service improvements. Budgeting and short-range planning. Feedback on service and fare changes, and through the budget approval process can help agencies communicate fiscal realities, prioritize changes, and spur innovative thinking from customers and the public for new revenue sources and sav- ings opportunities. Feedback on short-term planning issues helps agencies identify areas for improvement in terms of frequency, geographic coverage, and service span. Some agencies have created interactive budget tools, designed to allow the public to propose alternative budgets for

Understanding and Organizing Web-Based Feedback 19 the agency. This not only generates options for the agency to consider with regard to its spending, but also helps to educate customers on the challenge of meeting service demands within budget constraints. At one of the case study agencies, a web-based budgeting tool completely changed the conversation on budget with their customers; it effectively engaged the public and helped to deepen agency understanding of the public’s priorities. Long-range and capital planning. This include strategic plans, conceptual service plans, and construction programs, such as new rail lines. Soliciting feedback as part of the review process helps agencies understand customer issues and builds community support and a strong long-term rider base. Web-based feedback tools are proving to be effective in reaching a wider constituent base and collecting more detailed information on a broader array of issues than tra- ditional methods of open houses and community meetings. For example, providing the oppor- tunity to comment online during the planning phase of a rail project in southern California resulted in learning early in the process about potential flood zones and conflicts with historic designations. Public Opinion Polling Readily available, off-the-shelf survey software provides an easy way to gather, categorize, analyze, and report feedback on specific topics of interest to the agency. It should be recognized that web-based feedback is not a substitute for market research, which relies on statistical sam- pling methodologies to obtain results that represent the target population. Nevertheless, these are invaluable tools for monitoring public opinion and “testing the water” on a variety of topics from service and policy changes to vehicle attributes and branding options. Customer profiles and travel characteristics. Transit is both a product and a service that benefits from the same level of customer attention as is given in the private sector. Feedback tools can be used to gather information on customer demographics, attitudes, expectations, and transit usage. In addition, web-based feedback tools are cost effective methods of gathering input on service quality and customer satisfaction metrics. Public opinion. Transit agencies have operational policies that impact all aspects of service, and govern the actions of employees and the public. Policies include service standards that out- line levels of service to be provided, fare policies, rider rules (e.g., food and drink on the vehicle), park-and-ride rules, and vendor advertising. Soliciting feedback on proposed policy changes or potential new policies allows agencies to understand how the policies may impact riders and expose potential unintended consequences of the policy changes. EXAMPLE: Before introducing a new electronic fare system, TriMet conducted an online survey that asked riders how they expected to use the e-fare system, to list the advantages of a new payment system, and to vote on names for the agency’s new smart card. Encourage Civic Engagement In addition to receiving comments on specific topics, both solicited and unsolicited, agencies are required by FTA to discuss major service changes and capital projects with the public. These conversations can deepen community support, inform agency decisions, and help educate the public.

20 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services Building Community Web-based feedback tools can help an agency build community by creating a dialog between the agency and the public. Blogs and other communication channels can be used to pose ques- tions to the public that foster a discussion around issues that help frame agency policies and goals. This accessibility of the agency to the public improves the image of transit, creates a stronger bond with the community, and can result in better service and higher ridership. Open Houses Agencies traditionally hold open houses and public meetings to support major planning activ- ities. Web-based tools are now available that allow the meetings to be held online, potentially reaching a larger audience, at a much lower cost of time and staff resources. Education Educating the public about transit activities is predominantly a customer information activ- ity. However, dialog with customers pertaining to major planning efforts helps to educate both the riders and the agency about the needs and desires of both parties. Certain web-based feed- back tools explain transit operations and planning constraints as part of the feedback process. By educating the public about how the transit system functions, the agency receives better informed comments that focus on what can be changed within agency constraints EXAMPLE: In developing its FY2013 budget, TriMet faced a $17 million gap and had to choose between cutting service and raising fares. TriMet wanted the pub- lic to see how difficult it is to make that decision, the trade-offs involved, and how little funding the “easy answers” contribute toward bridging the budget gap. To do this, they created an interactive online budget tool and invited the public to look at a series of budget options. Participants could use the online interactive tool to learn about the impacts of budget cut options and vote for their preferred alternatives. The tool presented seven revenue-generating and 11 cost-saving measures (including several service cuts options, elimination of the downtown fare-free zone, fare increases, and administrative changes) and described the financial and ridership impacts of each. Manage Feedback Most U.S. transit agencies have systems in place to manage feedback from customers submit- ted through traditional channels, such as telephone, mail, and in-person. Depending on the agency, existing feedback management systems can be as simple as logging comments into a spreadsheet or as complex as fully integrated backend systems that allow feedback to be managed with alerts, automated responses, and tracking, regardless of the source. Some agencies will have legacy systems that may have been built 20 years ago and that may not integrate well with today’s technology platforms. Others will have a variety of tracking applications, implemented over time to meet specific departmental needs. As the number of feedback channels increases, agencies face a growing need to manage these new sources of information and integrate all agency communications into a single repository. This allows the agency to reduce duplication of efforts while ensuring customers receive a response from the agency, provides more comprehensive analysis and reporting, and supports

Understanding and Organizing Web-Based Feedback 21 broader outreach efforts in the community. Three categories of feedback management needs are comment tracking, contact management, and reporting and analysis. Comment Tracking Comment tracking software is used to follow the feedback loop from initial intake to inter- nal actions to the response back to the customer. An entry into a comment tracking system is initiated with a customer comment, request, or complaint. In the most basic form, the system provides for data entry of the comment, assigns an internal tracking number, and records the response to the customer. More sophisticated programs can automatically load and direct com- ments from online forms; provide a tracking number to the customer so that the status can be tracked online by the commenter; facilitate internal discussion of the comment before a response is sent to the customer; and have sophisticated reporting and analysis functions. Contact Management Contact management software, also called customer relationship management (CRM) soft- ware, focuses on tracking the person or organization making a comment, rather than tracking the comment itself. In their simplest form, these systems enable agency staff to view their history of communication with their customers. These systems typically are used for outreach efforts to track and manage communication with stakeholders, opinion leaders, organizations, the media, and others with whom the agency may have regular contact. This type of software had its origins in sales, marketing, and communications, and as such has not traditionally been used to track feedback. This has been rapidly changing, however, with many agencies seeing the value of man- aging both comments and individuals in the same system. Reporting and Analysis Web-based feedback provides agencies with information about their services and their cus- tomers. To take full advantage of this growing source of information, agencies need tools that can enable them to consolidate feedback from multiple channels, analyze comments, and cre- ate standard and customized reports. Reporting and analysis functions have become standard elements of most software applications, and new applications have been developed for tracking online feedback, such as social media comments. EXAMPLE: Amtrak uses a social media dashboard to track online comments about the railroad and topics of particular interest. This enables the company to monitor online conversations, engage with riders, and track public opinion about rail transportation. Tracking social media also allows Amtrak to identify time-sensitive customer issues like a broken Wi-Fi connection in a particular train car and, when possible, fix the problem while the passenger is still enroute. Benefits of Web-Based Customer Feedback Tools It is well understood that transit agencies and their riders benefit from increased communica- tion and public participation (Texas Transportation Institute and Nustats International 1999; Schweiger 2006; Giering 2011). Transit agencies have been gathering feedback through a vari- ety of mechanisms since long before the invention of the Internet. Public meetings, on-board

22 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services surveys, customer comment cards, and feedback hotlines have all proven to be useful tools for gathering customer input, and transit agencies will continue to use these methods for many years to come. Web-based tools often build on the success of more conventional forms of feedback collection, while adding new features and functions to further enhance the public input process (Spitz et al. 2006). This section describes key benefits associated with web-based feedback tools from the perspectives of customers and transit agencies. Customer Perspective Real-Time Feedback Mobile applications and social media are especially well-suited for reporting time-sensitive situations in the moment, including safety and security concerns (Bregman and Watkins 2013). Allowing customers to comment in real-time as an issue is occurring can allow better com- munication of details and faster resolution. Some mobile applications track the location from which the report is made to allow customers to skip the step of entering their location. Although Internet or cellular access connections may be limited or nonexistent in subway stations, tun- nels, and other remote or underground areas, providing wireless Internet service in trains, buses, and transit stations can help to alleviate this issue. Safety and Security Safety and security are issues of concern for customers and transit agencies, as the percep- tion of safety can directly affect ridership and the agency’s public image. Riders are more likely to continue taking transit if they feel safe in doing so, and enabling real-time communication between transit users and police empowers riders to act when things go wrong. Transit riders can help police monitor the complex and often extensive transit environment by serving as additional eyes and ears on the system. Likewise, real-time feedback can allow police and tran- sit agencies to act quickly and appropriately to address the situation. Applications developed specifically for reporting crimes and other safety or security concerns have an advantage over general-purpose feedback and social media tools because reports are tracked separately from other issues, preventing them from being lost in a stream of posts that are not related to security. EXAMPLE: To help improve customer safety, one urban agency introduced a mo- bile tool to allow riders to report suspicious activities discreetly and directly by using their smartphones. The police chief believes that the tool empowers riders to report out-of-the-ordinary events. “Now we know they’re looking around and seeing things. They’re on their phones anyway,” he said in reference to the agency’s riders. “Nobody will even know what they’re doing while they use the app to send a message to the police that says ‘I’m on the train next to a guy and he’s got a gun.’” Increased Public Participation Web-based feedback tools can help increase participation among traditionally underrepre- sented populations. Public hearings typically require participants to show up at a specific time and place and to share their opinions in front of others. This can bias the process toward those who are able and willing to speak out in a public setting. Some citizens may be intimidated by the presence of agency employees, public interest groups, and other activists (Brabham 2009).

Understanding and Organizing Web-Based Feedback 23 Others may not be able to attend a meeting because of the location or conflicts with work or child care schedules. Still others may have limited proficiency communicating in English. Online public comment tools can help to increase participation among those who are too busy or otherwise reluctant or unable to speak at public hearings. Web-based feedback tools can allow individuals to participate at times that are convenient for them, rather than requiring them to attend a meeting at a specific time and place. Some online services allow users to submit comments anony- mously; many transit agencies noticed that participation in planning meetings increased when indi- viduals could take part anonymously online (Evans-Cowley and Griffin 2012). In some cases, online tools include translation features. By reducing the barriers to participation, web-based feedback tools can make it easier to gather a larger and more diverse collection of opinions on a project. A larger body of feedback is likely to be more accurately representative of the views of those affected by a change, which can help the transit agency and other stakeholders make more informed decisions. EXAMPLE: One transit agency interviewed for this study observed an increased level of engagement after they began to host online meetings as part of the review process for a capital project. At the start of the process, the remote meet- ings generated comments and questions from participants who were clearly tran- sit advocates and quite familiar with the agency’s planning process. Over time, however, the remote meetings attracted a broader mix of participants, many of whom were new to the public process. The agency also found that the online meetings helped create more awareness and interest in the project, and atten- dance at in-person meetings increased in step with greater online participation. EXAMPLE: The Daily Pothole, a blog on the Tumblr platform run by the New York City Department of Transportation, allows drivers to report potholes to city offi- cials who then post a running tally of their progress in fixing the streets and share other agency updates. Individuals cannot report potholes directly on The Daily Pothole, but a link directs them to DOT’s website, where they can use a web form to file a report or check on the status of a repair. Shortly after starting the site, the city DOT found that the agency was viewed as more accountable (NYCDOT 2014). Reduced Call Center Wait Times When options are available for riders to provide comments and feedback through online forms and social media, more call-takers are available to help people who have an immediate question and those without access to technology. This helps call centers to be more efficient and effective, and improves public perception of the transit agency by providing shorter wait times and better responsiveness. Enhanced Agency Image A major benefit of web-based tools is their ability to enhance transit agencies’ reputations. Help- ful, timely interactions with users online can improve public perceptions of an agency’s trustworthi- ness (Rowe and Frewer 2000). This kind of engagement can help individuals feel that their feedback and ideas are important to the agency, which can encourage them to stay involved.

24 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services One major benefit of web-based customer feedback systems paired with effective comment and issue tracking is the impact that responses can have on the user. Rather than feeling that their issue is being ignored, those who receive a response to their concern are more likely to feel that the agency has heard them. A response can go a long way, even if it is as simple as, “We are sorry that happened.” Responsiveness gives customers a sense that someone who cares about their experience is listening and can take appropriate action, when possible. Irritated customers are often calmed by a sympathetic and genuine response, especially if they feel that their input may be used to help prevent such problems in the future. It is much easier for users to criticize and dislike agencies that they perceive as callous and uncaring than it is for them to criticize those that seem more human and compassionate. Responsiveness plays a major role in making this distinction in the public eye. One of the biggest struggles that public agencies have faced in the last several decades is that of public accountability and transparency. When the public pays for transit service through taxes and fares, many citizens believe that they deserve to know how their money is being spent and how decisions are being made. Using web-based tools can make it easier for transit agencies to share such information with the public and get immediate feedback. Agency Perspective Cost Effectiveness For many web-based tools, such as email, online surveys, and social media, signing up is free and little or no customization is required. This allows many agencies to engage customers at a relatively low cost (Bregman 2012). Relatively inexpensive dashboards and other tools can allow agency staff to skip the step of manually entering written or verbal comments to put them in a consistent electronic format, such as a spreadsheet or database, saving time and resources. It is also possible to analyze feedback quickly using analysis functions offered by many online survey platforms. Web-based tools can also reduce the need for employees to hold public meetings and hand out comment cards in-person, which also saves staff time (Evans-Cowley and Griffin 2012). Increased Outreach and Documentation of Agency Needs As mentioned previously, web-based outreach and feedback tools can help to increase public engagement online and in-person. Feedback management and data analysis tools can help to put diverse views into a larger context of the city or coverage area as a whole, which can ease the burden of prioritizing issues and dealing with conflicting public opinions. The more feedback that an agency receives, the more issues are typically documented and, with an effective feedback and issue management system in place, addressed. This increased documentation can help agencies prioritize what issues to address in a transparent and com- prehensive way. It is often beneficial to get a broader understanding of what is happening in a coverage area and its surroundings, to give context and justification to the decision-making process and its outcomes. Inclusive public input processes that are well-documented can not only help to maintain a record of feedback and issues raised in terms of service, policies, and coverage. These methods are also useful in generating lists of short-term issues to address, such as vehicle or station main- tenance issues, which can guide planning and budgeting of scarce resources. Lists of Interested Future Participants People who go out of their way to get in touch with a transit agency usually do so because they want to make the system better. The easier a transit agency makes it for their customers

Understanding and Organizing Web-Based Feedback 25 to provide feedback, and the more responsive they are to that feedback, the more feedback they will generally receive. This give-and-take relationship helps to foster stronger ties between transit users and service providers, often in ways that can be leveraged for strategic joint gains. For example, agencies can inform their followers and those who have previously provided input about an upcoming vote to mobilize them in support of better funding for the agency to improve service. Many agencies use a CRM database; typically they enter contact information for individuals who have previously commented on policy and planning issues or otherwise have contacted the agency. With their CRM database, they can send updates, invitations to hearings, requests for comments, frequently asked questions, and other information to keep their followers informed and engaged. Communicating regularly with customers can help bring those who have expressed concern over an issue together for further discussion, especially to inform an agency’s planning and budgeting processes. Interagency Communication and Coordination With the growing complexity of government bureaucracies and urban environments, interagency and interdepartmental coordination is becoming increasingly important. Tran- sit agencies often depend on effective coordination between their staff, police from one or more jurisdictions, planning bodies, municipal, county, and state governments, and more. Web-based tools are now available that can recognize these different entities and direct feed- back appropriately. Tools can now distinguish between local and state roads for reporting potholes, for example. Because transit vehicles often cross local jurisdictional boundaries, transit feedback tools are being developed with stops mapped and issues directed to respon- sible jurisdictions. As another example, police reports of speeding transit vehicles sent to the proper transit agency can be tied to the correct vehicle and driver using information about where and when the report occurred and the transit agency’s automatic vehicle location (AVL) system. Reporting A major advantage of web-based tools is their ability to generate summary reports and statistics. Some customer feedback tools use pre-defined categories for organizing feedback and comments (e.g., operations and maintenance, safety and security, employee complaints and commendations). In addition to the common categories of feedback, agencies can customize web-based tools to solicit feedback on any number of topics. As agencies define their specific needs, they can generate questions and topics for public feedback. For the purposes of reporting, feedback received through online tools is much easier to process, analyze, and convey than traditional in-person or written feedback. Survey software can be used to quickly pull together survey results in a concise and understandable way. This is extremely helpful for informing planning and decision-making processes, requiring minimal time, effort, and costs. Rider Retention Making it easy for riders to submit unsolicited feedback allows agencies to keep riders by listening to them, addressing their needs, and thereby improving service for everyone. Social media, in particular, provides an effective channel to let customers know the agency is listen- ing and using their feedback to improve service. Riders are arguably the most important and influential group of stakeholders when it comes to transit agency success. Effective two-way communication creates happy customers and more transit advocates.

26 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services Challenges of Web-Based Feedback Tools This section identifies challenges that agencies may face when initiating a web-based feedback program or when adopting new web-based feedback tools, from the perspectives of customers and transit agencies. Customer Perspective Equity/Accessibility Not everyone is able to access or use web-based tools. They may have mental or physical disabilities that make it difficult to use certain tools, language barriers, or they may not have convenient access or skills to use a smartphone or the Internet. Agencies can address accessibil- ity issues for some populations, such as by translating tools into different languages, but it is nearly impossible to serve everyone with any single platform. Offering a diversity of methods for submitting comments and reporting incidents or concerns will serve the greatest proportion of existing and potential customers, including older or low-income customers who may have limited online access. Online tools offer many benefits, but they cannot fully replace traditional approaches to gathering feedback from the public. Public Acceptance In addition to those who cannot access new technologies, some people simply choose not to use web-based tools. Not everyone wants to take the time to learn how to use new technologies. There is a learning curve associated with many web-based applications, and the seemingly end- less variety of mobile applications and other online tools can be overwhelming for some users. Choosing tools that are easy to use, have limited or no requirements to register, and that lever- age existing popular applications, such as email or the agency website, can help agencies engage more of their customers in using web-based feedback tools. Privacy Concerns Some tools require users to set-up an account before they can submit comments. The amount of required information varies from a simple username and password to fulI contact informa- tion. The latter is especially common among agencies using CRM software. Individuals may be uncomfortable sharing detailed personal information through an Internet connection, espe- cially if their comments will be public, and they may choose not to participate. Personal Contact Web-based feedback tools allow people to provide feedback at any time and in any place (if using a mobile application), eliminating the need to call during the agency’s business hours. However, the dialog experienced via telephone or in-person can relay more complete and accu- rate information that may be lost when communication is only online. In addition, the per- sonal connection of a phone call or in-person discussion can sometimes address concerns more quickly, whereas online communication may create frustration due to incomplete communica- tion and delays in agency responses. Agency Perspective Negative Feedback The convenience of web-based platforms allows individuals to connect with public agencies on a range of issues, but psychological distance and higher levels of anonymity make the Internet

Understanding and Organizing Web-Based Feedback 27 a more welcoming space for criticism. A challenge for agencies is deciding how to manage the often unsolicited feedback that comes through various channels, especially when the comments are critical of the agency. Researchers at Purdue University documented this experience when they analyzed a sample of Twitter posts (“tweets”) about the Chicago Transit Authority in order to assess rider attitudes. Using the technique of sentiment analysis, they concluded that “transit riders are more inclined to assert negative sentiments to a situation than a positive sentiment” (Collins et al. 2013). Electing not to create agency social media accounts and web-based feedback portals does not necessarily prevent people from offering negative feedback online. Those who are particularly passionate about certain issues may simply set-up their own unofficial accounts (often on Twit- ter) and use these forums to make their complaints public. These situations can be mitigated or prevented by offering a variety of official web-based feedback platforms combined with a staff that is responsive to the comments received. Internal Support of Web-Based Feedback Management. Getting top management to recognize the importance of web-based feedback to the agency brand can be a major challenge. Web-based feedback systems may mean increased public accountability, which some might see as leaving the agency vulnerable or exposed. Most upper management and board members have had the majority of their careers take place before the Internet became a common method for two-way communication. As such, they may not understand that communication strategies using the web and social media can be productive, affordable, and effective. Transit agencies tend to be very hierarchical, so approval for new initiatives is often needed from upper levels of management. Demonstrating the benefits of using web-based feedback tools, including a broad reach, diverse audience, and low cost, can help to make the case for increased use of these tools. Until the benefits of web-based feedback tools are realized by agency leadership, agencies will continue to be challenged to get the resources and support needed to ensure their success. Staff. Internal and external acceptance of new technologies and processes creates the need for a paradigm shift in how agencies operate and staff customer feedback functions. Agency staff may view the adoption of web-based feedback tools as adding more to their workload. In addi- tion to resolving an issue, they now have to take extra steps to communicate this progress to the public. Prioritization of which communication channels (e.g., telephone, email, web-based feed- back), which feedback applications (e.g., Twitter or Facebook), and which comments to respond to may also be an issue for them; they may or may not have adequate guidance and support from agency leadership to make those decisions. Working to develop an effective multi-level decision- making process and workflow for feedback responses will help prevent confusion and frustration as web-based tools are increasingly adopted. This also helps to set clear expectations for agency employees, which supports internal accountability and consistency. Finally, workflow processes should take into consideration the presence of the media on many of these feedback applications and properly train staff who are responding in customer and media relations. Internal Processes Loss of Direct, Personal Two-Way Communication. Engaging individuals in-person, or even through phone or video chat, allows for conveyance of visual cues, tone, and inflection that may be missing from email or social media communication. Furthermore, the anonymity of web-based feedback channels can make it easier for people to be rude or disrespectful than they would be in a face-to-face or telephone conversation.

28 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services It can also be harder for agency personnel to calm down angry people through online chan- nels, and sometimes even genuine attempts to do so can be misinterpreted. When possible, a phone call or in-person meeting may help to address such situations, but agencies often do not have the necessary information to contact distraught customers in this way. Even when contact information is available, many customers do not wish to speak over the phone or in-person. Collecting Enough Information to Act. Gathering information through web-based feed- back tools is a balancing act. On one side there is the need to collect enough information to take appropriate action, such as the transit route, time, location, and operator involved in an incident, as well as the contact information of the person reporting the incident for follow-up. Yet people are often reluctant to divulge their identity and contact information, or even details about their commute. Social media tools are especially difficult to use for extracting all needed information, as many social media users do not reveal their true identity or contact information. Without a form that specifically requests all the necessary information, many comments and inci- dent reports submitted online will be missing one or more critical pieces of information. Even the requirement to fill out such a form can be a deterrent if the form has too many questions. Contact information sufficient to follow-up with additional questions is very important in these cases, but is not always obtained. Even when this information is required for submission of a comment, some people will enter false contact information in order to submit the comment. Technological advances in geographic positioning systems and real-time feedback tools can help to reduce the amount of information that commenters are required to provide, but agencies should still consider the detailed information they need when designing systems for comment submission and incident reporting. Knowing When to Respond. Not all comments submitted to an agency require a response. Some commenters are simply trying to blow off steam and do not actually expect a response. In these cases, sending a response may aggravate the situation, rather than being a productive use of time. A good rule of thumb is to provide constructive responses to constructive criticism, express gratitude for praise, and not respond to comments that are overtly vague, unconstructive, or aggressive. Knowing when and how to react can be tricky and, with multiple staff members authorized to respond, there can be inconsistency from one staff person to the next. Developing policies and guidelines on this topic can help to set expectations and promote consistency within an agency for a more unified approach. Resources More Comments, More Responses. Responding to customer feedback can be time-consuming and drive up labor costs. Adding web-based feedback tools increases the ways people can contact the agency and can result in a significant increase in comments. Insufficient staffing for web- based customer feedback efforts can become an even bigger challenge when irate customers who did not get a timely response begin to bombard agency social media accounts with complaints about the lack of responsiveness. The agency’s public image and customer satisfaction may be negatively affected in these circumstances. This is especially true during service disruptions, when customer contacts skyrocket in all channels. Agencies may struggle with balancing staff time between channels, especially during peak demand situations. Increased feedback does not always equal useful feedback, and sorting through unsolicited comments to find useful tidbits can be a tedious process (Heipke 2010; Nash 2010; Doan et al. 2011). Managing Effectively. There is a cost associated with managing web-based feedback tools effectively. Building a professionally managed online presence may require employee training programs, contractors to manage the tools, and additional support from knowledgeable staff (Fine and Poe 2010).

Understanding and Organizing Web-Based Feedback 29 Public Expectations. Social media and other online platforms operate all day, every day. Most agencies do not support a 24-hour customer service center, creating potential conflict between the customer’s expectations and the agency’s ability to respond. This can be exacerbated by the number of comments collected during non-business hours that need a response when the service center opens. The backlog of feedback added to regular call center activities can result in further delays and greater frustration for employees and the public. Measuring Impact. A fundamental challenge that many agencies have in prioritizing social media and other web-based feedback tools is the lack of metrics and methods for measuring the impact of these tools. Web-based feedback tools are affordable and some, including social media, are free. While many platforms offer easy, free, and automatic ways to track metrics, such as number of people engaged, post views, and comments received, it is not always easy for agen- cies to link these measures to intangible benefits like brand loyalty or quantifiable impacts like increased ridership.

30 Managing Web-Based Feedback This chapter includes topics related to managing a web-based customer feedback program. The first topic is to understand the various audiences that may be engaged and how they access and interact with the Internet. Establishing a social contract with the public is discussed under “Promise to the Public,” where the agency explains how they will use and support web-based feedback. Legal concerns specific to the Internet are described, providing a basic understand- ing of issues that should be discussed in further detail with agency legal staff. Guidance is also provided about policies and procedures related to staffing, responding to web-based feedback, and monitoring social media. The chapter concludes by looking at the backend of managing web-based feedback, including data processing, analysis, and metrics. Audience Different audiences have different preferences for how they communicate with the transit agency. They can include tech-savvy students, riders who are integrating technology into their lives more, and busy members of the public who cannot make time for traditional feed- back mechanisms. They can also include technology-challenged older adults, lower-income riders with limited access to technology, and people with language or physical barriers to using web-based technology. Special populations identified by Title VI and the ADA, includ- ing persons with disabilities, the elderly, minorities, low-income, and persons with limited English proficiency, should be considered when developing web-based feedback tools. These tools can facilitate communication with these audiences as described in the subsections below. This mix of audiences encourages the increased use of web-based feedback tools, but will continue to necessitate multiple forms of communication so that everyone has the ability to provide feedback. It is also important for agencies to remember that feedback tools do not have to be limited to existing customers. Employees and the general public, including people who choose not to ride transit, can be valuable sources of input into planning and decision- making processes. The Changing Demographics of Internet Usage In 2014, a study showed that 87% of adults in the United States use the Internet (Pew Research 2014a). Even traditionally underrepresented minority groups use the Internet in large proportions. For example, 81% of the African-American population and 83% of the Hispanic population uses the Internet (Pew Research 2014a). This is in large part due to the proliferation of smartphones amongst these groups, with even greater numbers of ethnic minorities owning smartphones than Whites (53% White, 59% African-American, and 61% Hispanic) (Pew Research 2014b).This suggests that agencies can successfully reach many of their audiences through web-based tools. C H A P T E R 2

Managing Web-Based Feedback 31 Though the ability to tap a large racial and socioeconomic diversity is present, some groups are less likely to use or have access to the Internet. These groups include those with a high school diploma or less schooling (24% offline), those older than 65 (43% offline) and those with an annual household income of less than $30,000 (23% offline) (Pew Research 2014a). These numbers hold true for smartphone ownership as well, with only 19% of those 65+ owning smartphones, 44% of those with high school diplomas or less owning smartphones, and 47% of those making less than $30,000 per year owning smartphones. In addition, those in rural communities own smartphones in smaller numbers as well, with only 43% owning a smartphone, compared with 60% of suburbanites and 64% of those in urban areas (Pew Research 2014b). Other areas of concern are those with limited proficiency in English and individuals with disabilities who are unable to use web-based tools that have not been adapted to their needs (Giering 2011). Low Income While smartphones are becoming increasingly popular across nearly all socioeconomic groups, it is important to plan for those riders who have a basic mobile phone and may not have Internet service at home. Accessible options for individuals with limited financial resources are especially important, as most transit agencies find that their riders are more likely to be in the lower-income groups than the overall population in their service area. Texting is often a cost effective option that can help ensure the widest applicability; however, the simpler interface of text-based tools can limit their functionality and many older adults are not comfortable with texting. Persons with Disabilities The primary concern for persons with disabilities is accessibility of the tools, especially for individuals with impaired vision. Considerations include displays that are compatible with screen readers and audio tracks or descriptions for video, such as live broadcasts of web-based “town halls.” Social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are increasingly becoming more accessible to individuals with disabilities. Web-based feedback tools and mobile applications developed by the agency, or purchased from vendors, should be carefully reviewed to ensure that they have accessibility features built-in, rather than requiring an alternative method of input for the dis- ability community. Having a web-based feedback tool that is accessible from the start is typically more user-friendly and will be more widely adopted by persons with disabilities. Limited English Proficiency Web-based feedback tools need to take into account individuals with limited English pro- ficiency. By making use of web functionality, tools can be more easily translated into multiple languages, but agencies must take active steps to ensure that web-based tools include these features. Some agencies use online translation tools on their website to provide two-way trans- lation for all non-English languages. Others have found the online translations do not always provide an acceptable level of accuracy and use agency translated pages in commonly spoken languages. They may also use online translation tools for less commonly spoken languages in their community. Tech-Savvy The tech-savvy public can be both the easiest audience to engage and the most challenging. They are able to participate using a wide variety of web-based formats, but may have a list of

32 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services favorite tools that are beyond the ability of the agency to adopt. Some prefer to use social media, but they want to know there is a live person monitoring their comments who will follow-up quickly. Others have jumped on the latest free application developed by a local transit enthusiast. The challenge to transit agencies is attracting tech-savvy people to transit and retaining them by meeting their need to interact through technology even though these tools are constantly evolving. One approach for agencies is to not get engaged with a new technology unless they have the resources to do it well. While they may lag a bit with the latest technology, they feel the trade-off is worth it to avoid a half-way effort that falls short of audience expectations. Another approach is to adopt a specific technology if there is a staff person who is personally interested in it and will therefore put in the time and effort to make it work. A third approach is to monitor what the public is asking for through other web-based feedback channels and, when it appears that there is a critical mass, move forward with that technology. Employees Viewing staff as the agency’s eyes and ears on the ground can serve to elevate issues that may otherwise go unreported. Employees may see issues to report in the course of their work and experience problems that the general public may not recognize or bother to report. Involving staff in agency efforts to continually improve builds a greater sense of ownership, pride, and purpose among agency employees. This can also create higher employee engagement and can serve as a learning tool to educate employees on transit agency operations, policy, and planning activities. While operators are prohibited from using mobile applications while driving, they can easily provide almost instant feedback during layovers or via the web through an agency intranet site. Other systems (such as web-based forms) that are available to the general public can be made available to all employees on the agency website or intranet. Promise to the Public By implementing web-based feedback programs, including engaging in social media, the agency is creating a promise to the public that they welcome comments and will take feedback seriously. What the public expects, however, and what the agency is capable of delivering are not always the same. The agency can help bridge the gap by establishing user guidelines, disclaimers, a statement regarding how the feedback is monitored, and what the public can expect in terms of a response from the agency. User Guidelines—Community Standards User guidelines or comment policies are typically brief statements intended to provide direct guidance to users about acceptable and unacceptable behavior, often including a definition of inappropriate comments that are subject to removal. For social media sites (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter), transit agencies can rely on the community standards established by these providers; topics include violence, threats, bullying, hate speech, graphic content, identity, and privacy. But some agencies choose to post their own user guidelines. For example, here is the comment policy for the MTA New York City Transit Facebook page (2014): Please respect your fellow readers and exercise appropriate restraint in drafting and submitting a post. In that regard, MTA New York City Transit reserves the right to delete any post that contains language or imagery which: is off-topic, is defamatory, compromises public safety or operations, disparages a group or individual on the basis of ethnicity, race, gender, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation, is commercial, contravenes law, contains spam, invades personal privacy, has sexual content, is obscene, includes any link to another site, or infringes on a copyright or other proprietary right.

Managing Web-Based Feedback 33 Disclaimers—Ability to Respond It is important for agencies to set an expectation of what will happen when a customer pro- vides web-based feedback. This is especially important for platforms where users might expect a real-time response, such as Twitter or mobile security applications. For example, an agency might post the following disclaimer on its Twitter account: “This site is monitored during regular business hours, Monday—Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. For emergency situations, please dial 9-1-1.” For other types of tools, the agency should provide an immediate response that lets the person know the comment has been received. The auto-response can also be used to provide guidance on what type of response to expect. Many web-based feedback tools have the capability to provide an auto-response with this information, which can also provide a comment tracking number for future reference. Information on when to expect a specific response to the comment can also serve to reduce follow-up comments, which can be time-consuming to process. While the time to provide a response to a specific complaint varies, typically agencies cite a response time of one to two weeks to address and “close” a complaint. How the Agency Will Use the Feedback Riders should not have to understand how an agency works in order to submit feedback. They care little about who they talk to initially, as long as they have some assurance that their message will be directed to the right person for follow-up. To ensure transparency, agencies should tell riders how major decisions are made and how the public can provide feedback. When people do offer comments, they need to know that providing feedback is worthwhile and that their message is being heard. A key distinction that should be clearly stated is whether the primary function of the web-based feedback site is: • To share information and answer questions; • To gather information and input; or • To engage in dialog. Another important aspect of the promise to the public is communicating how information discussed on social media will be addressed in the decision-making process. Many agencies have created Facebook pages or Twitter accounts for long-range planning projects to keep the public informed and to encourage discussion. To date, the federal government has not allowed agencies to include comments received via social media in the formal environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In the spirit of transparency and inclusiveness, some believe that social media comments should be part of the public record even if they are not considered formal public testimony. Regardless of whether social media posts are included in the project file, staff should be prepared to demonstrate how online interactive discussions EXAMPLE: Riders have certain reasonable privacy expectations that agencies must safeguard, such as keeping personal information off of websites. In the case of Citizens Connect in Boston, an automated system was including personal information such as phone number and email address on the public-facing website (Morrison 2015). The city quickly responded by removing the information, but agencies should make sure systems are set to keep key fields private.

34 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services contributed to the project review process. Just as a key part of holding effective public meetings is following up with attendees about how their input was used, the virtual community engaged in social media also wants to know how their input is being used. Legal Issues As government agencies, transit providers can be held to a higher standard than private industry, especially related to transparency, accountability, and protecting personal rights and freedoms. Many federal, state, and local laws and regulations are in place to ensure these levels of protection. This section is not intended to provide an exhaustive discussion of those requirements and how they relate to web-based feedback. Instead, this is intended to provide an overview of some of the key issues agencies should consider when developing a web-based feedback program, and encourage a discussion with legal counsel for advice in their specific circumstances. Free Speech Removing public comments from social media and agency Internet accounts can be challenged as interfering with the right to freedom of speech. For social media sites, agencies can rely on filters established by the social media websites for offensive and inappropriate language, setting the filter to “strong.” For the agency websites, the agency may limit where comments can be posted, such as allowing comments only in response to agency posts on their blog. Another approach is to speed up postings so that the inappropriate comment sinks down the list and is less visible to the public. A policy that provides justification for removing comments may be established and posted on web-based feedback sites. Typically such a policy would allow most comments, only restricting comments that have inappropriate language or content, such as those using profanity or providing content of a personal nature (e.g., providing an employee’s home address). Parody and Imposter Accounts Imposter accounts attempt to look like the transit agency, and may solicit comments and respond as if they are the agency. Parody accounts typically provide information designed to make fun of, or detract from the image of the agency. These types of accounts can harm the image and credibility of the agency. TriMet monitors the Internet and social media for account names such as “TriMess” to ensure that they do not look like an official TriMet site, such as by using the TriMet logo or responding as if they are TriMet. TriMet has not shut anyone down, but they have actively informed the sites that they must make it clear they are not TriMet or acting on TriMet’s behalf, and have asked that the accounts not use any trademarked identity elements without permission. Records Management Laws Public records requirements, or “sunshine” laws, were created in 1966 with the enactment of the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the purpose of ensuring that the public has access to the activities of the government. All states have laws requiring public access to government documents, although the scope of those laws differs by state in relation to disclosing or withholding information, and for maintaining records. Guidance for local transit agencies concerning record retention and record destruction requirements is provided by the secretary of state, or another designated entity (Waite 2010).

Managing Web-Based Feedback 35 Social media sites now provide the ability to download past comments, making it unnecessary to have a separate effort for retention of customer comments. However, the agency is ultimately responsible for providing this information. Therefore, many agencies do their own records retention through readily available social media monitoring software applications. Privacy and Security Online and mobile feedback applications have the potential to collect personal information, often without the knowledge of the user. Options that provide privacy and security include storing redacted versions of documents, with full names and personal information removed; or, systems that retain the full information required by the agency in its own administrative records, but limit published information to last name, first initial, and city of residence or company. Web-based feedback systems can also create conflicts with privacy and public records laws, most notably when comments are made anonymously (or using an alias), are received as part of a public hearing process, or are submitted through a security-related application. Anonymous Comments Anonymous commenting or using an alias is becoming more common on social media as people seek to retain some measure of privacy in this public space. This can conflict with local laws that may require individuals to identify themselves in comments. For example, in Florida, the sunshine laws require personal identification when filing a complaint in order for the agency to formally log the comment. The agency’s “Promise to the Public” disclaimer should be used to provide guidance to the public regarding comments submitted using a “handle” (alias) or submitted anonymously. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s (MBTA) mobile security application gives users the option to submit reports anonymously or to include their contact information. Currently, about half of the users of the system choose to remain anonymous, while the others voluntarily provide personal identification information. Public Hearings Projects that fall under the NEPA process have strict guidelines for soliciting and responding to comments, which includes having a name and contact information for all formal comments. Typically these comments must be received in writing or in a public forum where the person has provided their name and contact information. Web-based feedback forms with name and contact information fields can also be used for providing formal comments. The challenge with most web-based feedback, and especially social media, is that it is typically anonymous. As such, it does not fall into the legal reporting requirements for NEPA. Agencies have begun to actively EXAMPLE: In the state of Washington, the Transit Records Retention Schedule (2012) states that Customer Comments Files must be retained by the agency for six years. At TriMet in Portland, OR, the legal department has advised that customer feedback should be retained for two years, to comply with records retention laws. The agency retains comments for a longer period of time, however, for business purposes, such as to track comments during previous large construction projects or winter storm events.

36 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services solicit comments via social media and online surveys, which are summarized and included separately from the formal comments under NEPA guidelines. Incorporating these comments into the formal NEPA process is currently being explored (Barron et al. 2013) Security Applications The MBTA Transit Police were one of the first police departments to use a safety and security application. The MBTA protects user privacy by offering the option to file an anonymous report. If users choose to provide contact information, their reports are treated the same way as police reports received through any other channel. If the transit police receive a formal request under the FOIA for an incident report filed through the See Say application, they follow standard police procedures for such requests and release or retain information according to police protocol. Staffing One key to an effective web-based feedback program is developing a staffing plan. This section addresses three common organizational structures, factors related to level of staffing, roles and responsibilities, and training needs. Organizational Structure The organizational structure, roles, and responsibilities for web-based feedback have evolved at transit agencies as they have gained experience with web-based feedback channels. In the early stages, responsibility for web-based feedback was assumed by those staff members who had an interest in pursuing the new technologies. As agency websites, social media, and mobile applications have become more commonplace, and agencies are adapting to the new channels of communication, roles and responsibilities are becoming more defined and integrated with other agency functions. From the industry survey and case studies, three basic organizational structures emerged for handling web-based feedback: (1) centralized responsibility; (2) coordinated responsibility; and (3) dispersed responsibility. Centralized Responsibility Denton County Transit Authority (DCTA) provides an example of having one department responsible for all activities related to web-based customer feedback. DCTA is a small agency that contracts out operations, maintenance, and customer service activities. The DCTA marketing staff handles all aspects of web-based feedback, including managing the web-based comment forms, monitoring and responding to social media posts, conducting online customer satisfaction surveys, and hosting online community meetings for feedback regarding service changes and budgeting. With centralization, they are able to manage the agency’s image and have developed a close relationship with the community. Coordinated Responsibility In this structure, the marketing and communications department manages the agency image, tone of communications, and all outward communication, including soliciting feedback from the public. The customer service department manages all incoming feedback, solicited and unsolicited, except online surveys. Online surveys are managed by market research staff. Obtaining solicited feedback for operations, finance, and capital projects is guided by marketing and communications, to manage the agency image, but customer service may take responsibility

Managing Web-Based Feedback 37 for web-based feedback programs. The Information Technology (IT) department has primary responsibility for backend systems to ensure information and data streams can be shared throughout the agency. IT also ensures that data management systems are in place (backup and recovery, document retention, etc.). Dispersed Responsibility Agencies may allow each department to create and manage the web-based feedback programs based on their needs. Large construction projects may have dedicated public outreach staff that use a website, social media, and online town halls to share information and gather feedback. CRM software may be employed to track stakeholders. In these cases, there may be little need to coordinate with other agency feedback activities. The web-based feedback plan may be used to outline general guidelines for departments, such as preferred software, and how information should be shared between departments. Regardless of the overall organizational structure, topic experts should be assigned to respond to specific customer issues. Those monitoring feedback from any web-based feedback tool should have the ability to forward specific issues to the responsible department and either gather information to respond to the customer, or have the expert respond directly. Having designated staff throughout the agency to respond to technical questions helps control the message and maintain the agency’s customer service image. The preferred organizational structure will reflect the operating environment of the agency and local preferences for web-based feedback tools. Operational influences include: overall agency size; whether customer communications is handled by management or union employees, or is a contracted service; and existing customer feedback systems and protocols. It should be recognized that, as with any plan, periodic review is needed to refine the organizational structure as staff adapt to new technologies, and as new tools for feedback become available. Union Work Rule Considerations Customer service functions, such as collecting and responding to customer complaints, are often represented activities, governed by bargaining agreements and subject to negotiations with a union. Typical issues that come up are that union work rules are rigid and may not be able to keep pace with the changes in technology that require new ways of operating; union employees EXAMPLE: At TriMet, the agency focuses on the content of the communication, not the channel in which the communication is delivered when determining who has responsibility for web-based customer feedback. Customer service representatives (CSRs), represented by a union, have responsibility for handling customer service questions, complaints, and other non-solicited customer feedback. Non-represented positions are not allowed to do this work, per the collective bargaining agreement. When email became a standard method for submitting comments and complaints, this function was added to the duties of the CSRs. It is anticipated that customer feedback from social media will be transitioned to the CSRs and become part of their duties under the collective bargaining agreement. The agency is currently developing a protocol for how this interaction would work. Solicited feedback, such as outreach for public comment on a service change, remains a management function.

38 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services may not be allowed to handle web-based customer feedback, per the union work rules; if response to web-based customer feedback becomes an activity covered by the bargaining agreement, management employees may not be allowed to respond; and other work rules may impact how data can be collected and used. Level of Staffing The level of staffing needed to support web-based customer feedback depends on two main factors: management and technology. Management factors include the size of the agency and region in which it operates, organizational structure, and hours of service when staff will monitor and respond to comments and posts. Technology factors include the number of web-based feedback tools used by the agency, the agency’s ability to take advantage of efficiencies afforded through technology, and the penetration of web-based activities in the community. Management factors. The appropriate level of staff is a balance between distributing responsibilities among existing staff with similar job responsibilities and hiring dedicated staff. While smaller agencies may not have resources to dedicate staff time to web-based customer feedback, interviews with medium and large agencies indicated that dedicated staff is important for creating a strong and community oriented web-based feedback program. Advice from agencies with significant experience in web-based feedback programs stresses the importance of recognizing that once the agency ventures into accepting web-based feedback, there is no going back. Setting expectations through policy and procedures, which is then communicated to the public through a terms of use statement, is important internally as well as for the public. Technology factors. The level of web-based feedback activity is an important factor in determining the number of staff persons needed to support the activities. Controlling the number of tools adopted can be challenging. New tools are rolled out and gain popularity, only to disappear within a year or two. It can be tempting for agencies to adopt every new tool that enters the marketplace, but many experienced agencies have chosen to focus on just a few tools so that staff can concentrate on doing a few things well rather than on doing a little of everything. To avoid creating an expectation with the public that cannot be sustained, a conservative approach is to introduce new feedback tools slowly, ensuring that there is staff and training to support the new communication channel. Another approach is to adopt the tools used most often by their constituents and use that community support to garner additional resources for the web-based feedback program. In addition to the number of tools used at the agency, the features of the web-based feedback tools can greatly influence the level of staffing required. Many web-based tools, especially the comment management applications, can create work efficiencies and reduce duplicative manual activities, such as re-entering comments from an online form into a legacy comment database. Web-based feedback tools that work across multiple platforms (e.g., social media, online surveys, email forms) provide consolidated reporting and tracking, increasing the efficiencies in reporting and analysis. See Chapter 3, Web-Based Feedback Tools for a discussion of tool features. Roles and Responsibilities To build an effective web-based feedback program, it is important to define the roles and responsibilities at each step of the process. Critical questions that should be addressed as they pertain to web-based feedback include which departments or personnel are authorized to: • Procure and implement web-based feedback tools; • Post requests for solicited feedback;

Managing Web-Based Feedback 39 • Monitor web-based feedback channels; • Respond to comments and post responses in the public forums; • Respond to comments and complaints from individual riders; • Provide analysis and reporting; • Manage internal processes, including records management; and • Maintain the platform or application on a daily basis. Responsibilities may fall to different departments and staff members depending on the type of feedback, the specifics of a larger project communication plan, or the type of application being used (e.g., social media versus an online survey). Agencies can benefit from mapping out how services flow (developing a process flow map for each typical issue). The industry survey and case studies demonstrated that how these activities are addressed is not as important as ensuring that clear policies and procedures are in place to ensure that responsibility has been assigned. Training A recurring theme in the transit agency interviews and case studies was the importance of staff training. Training is needed on a variety of levels, including technical aspects of web-based feedback tools, agency policies and procedures for handling web-based feedback, and response content and tone. Technical Training The most obvious need is training on the technical aspects of an agency’s web-based feedback tools, whether they are social media, survey software, or specific applications developed for the agency. Without training, staff will be unable to maximize the use of the tools, take advantage of built-in features that increase efficiency, or develop a robust feedback program through the technology. Policies and Procedures Existing policies and procedures for handling public comments have typically been developed around pre-Internet communications channels. These operating procedures may use CSRs for in-person and telephone comments, and management staff for surveys and open houses or public meetings. Web-based feedback tools are quickly becoming a communication channel of choice for the public, creating a need for organizational change within the agency. It is important to identify who handles comments from which communication channels, and even which specific web-based feedback tools. This is needed to: (1) avoid having comments “fall through the cracks” with no response to the customer; (2) ensure a common database for tracking and analysis of agency-wide issues; (3) ensure that appropriate staff members are trained on the software and agency customer service protocols; and (4) if available, have the feedback tool automatically forward the comments to the correct department for a response. Message and Tone Most web-based feedback tools are easy to use, but this does not mean that everyone should use them. While good customer service is everybody’s responsibility, not everyone is good at it and it is not everybody’s job. Without agency level training on how to provide appropriate responses to customer comments, it is too easy for a poorly worded response to cause trouble, especially in a public forum, such as social media. Agency-wide training is needed to ensure that staff members in all departments provide a consistent message in a tone that reinforces the agency’s desired image. This customer relations training should also include media relations techniques, as many feedback applications have a substantial media presence.

40 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services Responding to Web-Based Feedback This section focuses on topics specific to web-based feedback tools: timeframe for response, tracking comments, and closing the loop with customers. Timeframe for Response A key benefit of many web-based feedback tools is the feature that provides an immediate, automated response to the customer letting them know that their comment has been successfully submitted. The auto-response can also be used to confirm the topic of the comment, inform the customer of the agency’s policy for providing a more detailed response, and provide a tracking number. Filters can be used to add other topic specific information, such as adding the language “If this is a life threatening situation, please call 9-1-1” to safety or security-related comment auto-responses. Another beneficial feature of some tools is the ability to expedite the response process by filtering comments based on topic or word recognition and forwarding the comment directly to the appropriate staff person. Comments posted to social media and other public sites typically will not get an auto-response, but must be read and responded to by agency staff. The agency’s policy for monitoring posts should be clearly stated on the website to mitigate concerns that can stem from unmet expectations that the site is monitored and that a response will be forthcoming. Comment Tracking Persons submitting feedback, whether solicited or unsolicited, want to see how their comment is being processed. Web-based applications are available that assign an issue tracking or ticket number allowing the commenter to track their issue online, including dates when it was reported, when it was forwarded to a certain department or responsible party, and who is overseeing response efforts. Applications that allow the public to search for comments similar to their own may provide an added benefit by helping individuals find a resolution to their issue without contacting the agency. This type of tracking system provides a higher level of customer service by allowing the cus- tomer to see the status of their comment at any time, rather than being constrained by agency business hours. The system benefits the agency by reducing the number of people calling regard- ing the status of their comment or submitting a duplicate comment, and can reduce pressure to provide extended customer service hours. This type of tracking is used successfully in the private sector by companies such as FedEx, where customers can track the delivery status of their packages online, 24 hours a day. Closing the Loop The final step of the customer feedback process is to follow-up with the customer and advise them of how their feedback is being used. The most effective customer feedback systems route and track comments for internal collaboration on the response, assign a timeline for response based on the urgency and nature of a comment or report, and flag comments that have a “late” response. In closing the loop, consideration should be given for all stakeholders in the feedback process, including the customer (whether a member of the general public or an employee), the project team (if applicable), and the affected department and staff persons.

Managing Web-Based Feedback 41 Monitoring and Responding on Public Forums A unique aspect of public forums, such as social media and idea management software, is the layering of conversations over time and the ability for users to talk to each other by com- menting on each other’s posts. These platforms have the potential to be multi-voice forums for interactive discussion. Inevitably constructive comments will be mixed with criticism of the agency and their policies, operational concerns, off-topic conversations, and posts that do not make sense. Social media pages, in particular, are likened to gatherings of people with common interests, similar to a group of regulars who gather at the local coffee shop. How the agency handles monitoring and responding to posts can impact staffing levels and public perceptions of responsiveness and transparency. Monitoring Strategies Monitoring feedback on public forums can be a time intensive job that requires dedicated staff time to stay on top of the comments. In addition to comments by local residents, automated “spambots” are working around the clock to post irrelevant comments on websites, forums, and through social media, reinforcing the need to check submitted comments regularly and delete any spam to maintain the image and usefulness of online tools. There are several approaches that assist agencies in finding a balance between the desire to be responsive to the public and the reality of limited resources. Strategy 1: Set Expectations. A key to keeping the peace on public forums is to develop brief “comment guidelines.” This is standard practice for many agency capital planning, project- specific social media sites. The comment guidelines are typically vetted through legal counsel and similarly applied in other public involvement efforts. Strategy 2: Control Ability to Post Comments. While some agencies allow the public to post comments on any of their public forums, it is becoming more common for agencies to restrict where public comments are allowed. For example, an agency may allow comments to specific agency posts on their Facebook page but not allow anyone to post comments to their “wall.” Strategy 3: Let the Conversation Run. Agencies that allow posts cite the value of having an open discussion that fosters communication and provides transparency with the public. They do not need, or attempt, to respond to every comment. Posts by members of the public become a conversation, which encourages others to jump in, resulting in a true online dis- cussion. Often, the public will handle difficult situations and “self-moderate” by responding to negative comments. That keeps the agency from having to intervene and appear defensive or heavy-handed. Strategy 4: Speed Up Posts. When comments and posts appear to be getting out of hand, the agency can speed up their own posts, thereby moving other conversations down the list and possibly out of view. This has been particularly effective on Twitter: short tweets can create a fast-paced conversation where new topics quickly eclipse older discussions. With a high number of followers, often the comments will move quickly on their own so the agency does not need to take any action. Strategy 5: Establish an Online Collaborative Site. For high visibility projects with a high degree of public interest, an online collaborative site can be set-up, with its own log-in and user profiles. This allows the project team to have more control over the design and functionality of the site and creates a more controlled space for detailed and purposeful discussions. However,

42 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services the requirement to register and log-in to the site to engage in discussions can present a barrier to getting wide participation. Monitoring Other Sites There are many opportunities on the web for the public to discuss and comment on agency activities, such as transit industry blogs (both supportive and critical). Monitoring these con- versations can provide additional feedback to an agency that offers a different perspective from the feedback collected through agency-sponsored sites. The benefit of this additional perspective needs to be balanced with the staff time used to monitor the conversations, and the value added from these conversations. Backend software applications that monitor web and social media comments are becoming more common and can be useful for tracking comments and customer sentiment in the commu- nity. This can be especially useful for monitoring opposition to agency initiatives, such as capital projects, which is likely to develop outside of the agency-controlled sites. Monitoring online discussions can help to identify issues early in the process so they can be addressed quickly. In monitoring sites external to the agency, a policy should be in place that addresses if and when it is appropriate for staff to join discussions on third-party websites. If misinformation is shared on a site not hosted by the project team, the agency social media page can be used to introduce correct information and invite people to participate in the agency’s process. In other cases, it may be best to simply note the comment internally and adjust external communications accordingly. Deciding what approach to take depends on a variety of contextual factors includ- ing stakeholder influence and reach, whether the misinformation is perceived as an oversight or intentional, and other factors, such as recent media coverage. When to Respond Public forums, such as social media, create a new dynamic that requires a different approach to communication. Comments will run the gamut of opinions, questions, complaints, commenda- tions, and information requests. Comments can be related to the topic at hand, or can be com- pletely off-topic, not even related to public transit. As a result, not every comment necessarily needs, or warrants, a response. The case studies identified concerns with the public nature of social media and approaches for responding to posts in this public setting. This section discusses two common concerns—negative comments and misinformation—and outlines a response plan. Negative Comments Negative comments should be a valued part of the agency’s relationship with the public. They offer the agency an opportunity to better understand their constituents and identify hot-button EXAMPLE: Monitoring social media comments can allow an agency to spot issues and respond quickly, greatly improving the customer’s transit experience. One example is signage issues during construction at a major light rail station area. A tweet was sent to one transit agency during the morning commute with photos of how confusing the signage was from the passengers’ perspective. The comment was forwarded to the appropriate person, who was able to improve the signage in time for the evening commute that day.

Managing Web-Based Feedback 43 issues. The real-time nature of social media, in particular, means that negative comments can spread quickly. This immediacy can also work to the advantage of agency staff members who can quickly acknowledge the issue and respond with information about how the concern is being addressed. A negative post can turn into a positive conversation based on when and how staff responds; a disgruntled member of the public can change his or her attitude when he or she feels acknowledged and heard. The conversation about transit will occur online with or without agency staff participation. Although staff members often discuss the risks of having a social media presence, they should also consider the risks of not participating in public forums and social media sites. Misinformation Misinformation posted by the public can proliferate across the Internet quickly via social networks, potentially damaging an agency’s reputation. A first step to addressing misinformation is to evaluate whether a post with incorrect information has negative consequences to the agency’s activities or a project planning process. A slight oversight or exaggeration to make a point may not have any consequence and can be safely ignored, as it will soon disappear in the flow of public forum feed. If a post clearly has misinformation that has consequence to the public perception of the project, there are several approaches to consider. One is to watch the post for a while to see if other users correct the misinformation. Regular users familiar with the project are often quick to correct mis- information. A second approach is to directly engage known regular participants in sharing their thoughts and reactions to the post. This can be done in a comment on the post tagging or naming regular participants, inviting them to comment on the post. In some cases, the agency may want to directly correct the information by sharing a link or fact, doing so with tact and respect. EXAMPLE: A case where misinformation was generated in a Twitter feed by a large daily newspaper in a metropolitan area can serve as a good example of how to quickly correct a potential social media backlash. In this example, the social media manager saw through normal keyword monitoring an important project fact incorrectly stated by a newspaper on Twitter. The social media manager alerted the project manager and together they drafted a 400-word “notes” post created in Facebook. Within three hours the note was posted on the project’s Twitter and Facebook pages, an “@ reply” sent to the newspaper with the link to the note, and more “@ replies” sent to individuals who retweeted the original incorrect newspaper tweet. Significantly, the newspaper retweeted the correction, sharing it with all their followers. Acting quickly prevented the newspaper from posting the incorrect information on their Facebook page, so in a strategic decision, the project decided not to directly post to the newspaper site. The result was that no further dissemination of the incorrect information occurred. Response Flow Chart An important decision that each agency needs to address is when staff should respond to online comments. Should they take an active role or let the public discussion flow? A social media response flow chart spells out what to respond to, who will handle it, and what the response should entail.

44 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services Each agency will have specific actions depending on the culture and overall communication goals and practices. The first step is to determine if the comment is positive or negative. Positive comments may be assessed to determine if it is something that the agency wishes to share or add to “what the customer is saying” messages that enhance the agency’s image. In addition, a deci- sion is made whether to respond or not. For negative comments, the process evaluates the content to determine if it is a specific cus- tomer complaint, follows a process for evaluating facets of the posts, and determines whether to respond and the tenor of the response. Figure 1, TriMet Social Media Response, is an example flow chart created for internal guidance within the agency. This is one comprehensive example for a larger agency seeking to be internally consistent, but many other agencies have less detailed guidance that is effective for their use. The idea is to provide the required guidance specific to the agency’s needs. Data Processing, Analysis, and Metrics Increased feedback does not always equal useful feedback. The volume of information collected through web-based feedback tools can easily overwhelm transit agencies. Without one or more systems in place to categorize, analyze, and prioritize large data sets, the full value and usefulness of the feedback cannot be fully exploited. This presents a serious challenge for agencies when deciding how many web-based tools they can manage, as the more tools they provide, the more Figure 1. TriMet social media response flow chart.

Managing Web-Based Feedback 45 information they will receive through different channels that needs to be integrated into the feedback systems. Categorizing Comments Defining a process for handling and integrating data is crucial. It takes time, resources, and commitment to the customer feedback planning process. Comment Categories Whether the comments are collected through solicited feedback tools or are unsolicited feed- back received directly from the public, the comments need to be categorized by topic in a con- sistent manner that facilitates analysis and supports decision making. Following are issues that should be considered when developing feedback categories: • Flagging time-sensitive comments for immediate action. • Categorization by the public, which will likely be at a basic level, versus categorization by staff, which can be more detailed. • Ensuring that solicited comments and feedback forms use the same structure outline as call- takers and internal staff. • Relationship of categories to agency organizational and decision-making structure to ensure that reporting and analysis can be conducted at the department level; identifying key internal staff for receiving comments by topic area. • Identifying the supporting information needed for each category of comments to make the feedback actionable (e.g., service complaints would need route, day of week, time of day). • Comments from employees in the field, which will be operational in nature. The most appropriate categories of comments will vary based on agency size, service charac- teristics, operating environment, and whether the codes are for internal use or used in a public comment forum. However, there is an argument to be made that agencies would benefit from more standardized categories of comments throughout the industry as more tools are developed by external developers rather than in-house. Appendix A provides examples of comment categories and subcategories for internal use and for web-based feedback forms. EXAMPLE: One agency has created YouTube videos in response to the types of comments and complaints they receive. For example, they are rolling out five videos that cover rider safety and etiquette: eating, talking too loud on cell phones, using exact change, having fares ready, and safeguarding electronic devices. Internal Efficiency Using Comment Categories To ensure the success of their web-based feedback, agencies can develop systems and pro- cesses to facilitate their internal response to issues raised by customers. With effective structures in place to direct and track communications, web-based feedback can be more efficient and streamlined than traditional feedback. Web-based feedback that can be seamlessly, automatically transferred into the internal track- ing and response system is ideal. This can be accomplished most easily when comments are col- lected through online forms and mobile applications. In these cases, a series of drop-down menus can be used by customers to categorize their own comments. The system then automatically

46 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services forwards the comment to the appropriate department for a response. In some instances, this could also generate a work order, such as for cleaning or maintenance issues. Such systems save time, allowing staff to focus more of their energy on customizing personal responses to each issue and request, or taking direct action to respond to the issue. Data Collection Systems Most agencies have a system for tracking, analyzing, and reporting on complaints received by their CSRs through traditional methods. These traditional customer feedback systems, however, may not easily integrate input from new communication channels, such as social media and online feedback applications. In order to analyze feedback from all sources, agencies may end up manually re-entering feedback records from their native application into a separate system. There are two common approaches to addressing data collection and backend systems to avoid the costly manual integration of data sources. One option has been to purchase web-based feed- back applications that will export customer feedback records in a format that can be imported into the agency-wide database. A second option is to purchase a new, integrated customer feedback or CRM system that has been designed for the current, web-based environment. These software applications integrate most standard web-based feedback tools, creating a centralized repository of customer feedback. However, they can be costly to procure and implement, and agencies will have to weigh the trade-offs involved. Systems that help to aggregate, analyze, and track feedback from multiple communication channels can reduce the effort needed to incorporate new sources of feedback into the larger feedback tracking and response system. Given the benefits of coordinating customer feedback across all channels, many agencies are moving toward applications that support integration across applications. More information on backend processing applications is provided in Chapter 3, Web-Based Feedback Tools. Analysis Public feedback typically has two levels of action: immediate response and systematic analysis. The immediate response is from the “customer care” perspective, where the customer’s issue is acknowledged, a response is provided, and the issue is dealt with immediately, if needed, such as with broken equipment, and safety concerns. Systematic analysis of customer feedback ana- lyzes comments to identify “hot spots” with recurring problems, short- and long-term planning concerns, and customer needs and preferences. This includes service and capital planning issues, operational improvements, and policy changes. EXAMPLE: Online feedback panels can help agencies assess trends in customer attitudes. The NJ Transit ePanel on customer satisfaction tracked rail riders’ sentiments over a period of time. After analyzing the results, NJ Transit conducted additional outreach to find out why certain rail lines had scored so poorly and understand how to improve them (Spitz et al. 2004). Metrics Regular reporting of customer feedback metrics is important for supporting a customer-centric operating environment. Traditional metrics have included the number of customer contacts,

Managing Web-Based Feedback 47 comments, or complaints. Web-based feedback tools have created a new set of metrics, focused on web-based activity, such as the number of “likes” on Facebook posts or Twitter mentions. Some tools try to measure levels of engagement, such as the number of times a Twitter post was retweeted or a Facebook update was shared. The best web-based feedback reporting systems have analytics to measure quantitative issues on the site and can gauge an improvement in public service by monitoring agency response times. Metrics that evaluate whether current web-based feedback tools are meeting users’ needs are not yet common and agencies are frequently using anecdotal evidence for this purpose. EXAMPLE: At TriMet, operator comments reported through the Operations Field Report are tracked in the same database as customer feedback, providing a more complete picture of system issues. Each quarter the scheduling department summarizes comments related to scheduling issues and identifies a route with a high number of complaints. The schedulers meet and work with operators using a team approach to determine the sources of problems and identify ways to improve schedules to address complaints.

48 Web-Based Feedback Tools This section describes considerations for procuring web-based feedback tools; categories of web-based feedback tools; tool features; and procurement options, including how transit agencies can better work with software developers. Considerations for Implementing Web-Based Feedback Tools Implementing web-based feedback tools can be challenging. When making a decision about which tools to implement, agencies should consider several factors, including the needs of the target market, integration with existing systems, and agency resources and support required to maintain the tool. Public Expectations Many riders want to provide feedback about service quality in the moment, while they are sitting on a train or waiting at a bus stop, and agencies can adapt to the way customers want to interact to provide better customer experience. This may mean developing native smartphone applications, creating a mobile-optimized website, or having an active social media presence. Whatever web-based tools an agency chooses, ease of use is an important feature. Some agencies are moving toward an outward-facing, customer-oriented brand that focuses on the customer experience in an effort to overcome their “government” image. As part of this transition, they should make sure that their web-based tools create a strong customer experience. For example, agencies should avoid using impersonal form letters and ensure that all online communication channels are mobile-friendly. Otherwise, riders will likely feel inconvenienced or think that their feedback is not valued. Some individuals may decide not to submit their comment at all after having trouble with a tool. Keep it Simple When developing new software solutions, it can be tempting to adopt all the latest fads and most popular features. However, to create tools that are user-friendly enough to be widely adopted, simplicity is key. Issue intake forms and surveys should be brief and well thought out to produce the most usable results. Users should be able to send simple messages via a mobile device by pushing a button. Adding new features gradually over time may be preferable to making major changes or adding several tools at once, although the effects that this may have on the cost of developing such tools should also be taken into account. Beta testing of new tools and features among members of the public is also recommended to ensure that tools are easily used C H A P T E R 3

Web-Based Feedback Tools 49 and understood by people with various levels of skills and experience. If appropriate, agencies should also test applications on different platforms and operating systems. When developing issue reporting tools, agencies should make sure that the tools provide sufficient guidance to users on categorizing and summarizing issues. Tools should rely as little as possible on citizens to guide proper routing of their issues; it should be easy for a user to report something and have confidence that the comment was directed to the right person. Too many options on an issue intake form may produce diminished results if users change their mind about reporting the issue due to a burdensome or confusing process. Agencies should strive to achieve a balance between defining enough categories to route a comment correctly and keeping reporting forms simple and logical. See Appendix A for examples of comment categories. Constantly Changing Technology With the seemingly endless supply of mobile applications, social media outlets, and web-based customer feedback tools, it is easy to forget that most of these technologies did not even exist just a decade ago. The software market is rapidly diversifying, which presents a challenge for transit agencies trying to keep up with the latest and greatest technologies. Software and online tools are frequently updated or replaced, which requires learning and re-learning different web-based platforms. Knowing when to upgrade or adopt a new technology is not always easy. Addressing this concern early in the planning process will assist with selecting the correct tool and guiding the procurement decision. Reliance On and Interdependence with Other Technologies Applications and online tools need some kind of network connection for riders to transmit feedback, such as wireless Internet or cellular data service. Sometimes these connections are inter- mittent or unavailable, especially in subway tunnels and remote service areas, which can cause problems for individuals using mobile devices to share feedback. Further complicating reliance on wireless services, some applications depend on the availability and accuracy of third-party systems like mobile mapping platforms and global positioning systems (GPS). When these systems are not functioning optimally, the usability of tools that depend on them is also affected. Money Isn’t Everything In this environment of constrained transit resources, funding will always be an issue. However, the cheapest solution may not be the best. At the same time, the most expensive one may not meet the agency’s needs. Ultimately, it is important for the agency to make sure they are getting the best value from their investment. Categories of Web-Based Customer Feedback This section provides an overview of the broad categories of tools. Within each category, specific types of tools are discussed. See Chapter 8 for a more detailed discussion. Issue Reporting Issue reporting applications allow the public to provide comments directly related to issues with service on the street, planning activities, operator (or customer) behavior, and maintenance. These applications are designed to facilitate collection of unsolicited comments from the public and can also be used to solicit comments on topics of interest to the agency. As email is used and

50 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services understood by nearly every transit agency in the United States, it is not included in this report. However, as it is the most widely used form of online communication (Zickuhr and Smith 2012), it is important that all transit agencies continue to use this basic tool for encouraging feedback. Customer Information Mobile Applications As mentioned earlier, using web-based applications to provide customer information, including real-time information, service alerts, and other one-way communication, is not the focus of this report. However, some agencies have incorporated a feedback component into their existing customer information mobile applications so that they can easily gather customer opinions. Although the feedback feature is not the primary purpose of these applications, enhancements or careful initial design of such tools should consider their use as a component of unsolicited feedback collection. Security-Related Mobile Application Security-related mobile applications are intended to report safety- and security-related issues (e.g., abandoned bags, suspicious behavior) directly to transit police via mobile devices. They often include the ability to send a text message or speak to an operator, in addition to filing a report. Non-emergency items such as graffiti, burnt-out lights, or elevator outages on the system may be reported as well. Community Issues Community issue reporting tools are websites and mobile applications that allow reporting of non-emergency issues in the community. These tools could be transit agency-specific, but often they include comments intended for multiple government agencies so that the user does not have to distinguish between agencies to provide unsolicited feedback. Transit agencies should coordinate with cities, counties, departments of transportation, and other agencies as such tools are pursued. Web-Based Forms The most common web-based tools used by transit agencies are email and web-based forms, which are typically posted on agency websites for users to submit questions, comments, com- mendations, and concerns. Though this is an easy way to collect information, agencies are advised to provide an easy way for riders and others to categorize their feedback so that it can easily be routed correctly within the organization. Social Media As one of the most popular web-based tools in use today, social media has enabled people around the world to connect with other people, businesses, and organizations almost instantly through their computers and smartphones. Of Americans using the Internet, 65% use social networking websites (Zickuhr and Smith 2012). Social media can facilitate the collection of solicited and unsolicited feedback by enabling transit users and agencies to communicate directly, back and forth. Such online dialogs may be prompted by a topic of interest from the transit agency perspective or an issue that the customer encountered while using or attempting to use transit services. This feedback can then be sent to responsible entities within a transit agency, as needed, allowing for a faster response than expected for conventional written feedback. Online Public Comment Forums These tools are used to create structured feedback on topics generated by the agency. Most of the tools in this category are used to supplement or sometimes replace public meetings, allowing

Web-Based Feedback Tools 51 riders and members of the community to comment online about proposed changes to service, fares, or other topics. Some tools are more open-ended to allow for unsolicited feedback, although most of them are used at specific points in time to generate ideas and gather input on specific initiatives within the agency. Idea Management Idea management tools allow the public to submit suggestions, comment on current and past ideas, and vote ideas up or down. The tools can be used to set-up open forums where anyone can participate or private communities where select individuals or communities are invited to participate. Idea management is one way that agencies can use crowdsourcing for web-based feedback. Crowdsourcing enables organizations to obtain ideas or content by soliciting contributions from an online community. Crowdsourcing is an increasingly popular way for agencies to tap into their riders’ knowledge and experience to help identify and solve problems and inform decision-making processes. One widely known crowdsourcing application is Wikipedia, a web platform where users populate and edit information on a myriad of subjects, together building the largest online encyclopedia in the world. Crowdsourcing applications focus less on the agency input, and more on the user’s ability to brainstorm ideas that can help the agency, requiring little employee input once the site has been created, except for periodic analysis, synthesis, and follow-up. Online Public Meetings Over time, agencies have begun to move their traditional public meetings into online forums. Creating online public meetings greatly increases the reach and participation in public outreach activities. Transportation to and from public meetings is no longer an issue because people can participate from their home, work, or other convenient location. In addition, participation can occur without stopping other life activities, such as taking care of small children. Online public meetings often include live streaming of the meeting and the ability for participants to post questions to the presenters through a chat-box or other real-time, interactive tool. Map-Based Forums Two additional ways that crowdsourcing is used to generate project planning ideas are map-based forums and system-building games (discussed in the next paragraph). Map-based forums include a substantial geographic component for agencies to encourage ideas specific to new locations of service or stops. Existing service and stops can also be assessed via the tools and locations that are identified are often voted up or down by additional users. System-Building Games System-building games facilitate public feedback on planning projects through virtual trade-off exercises to help educate riders and gain their feedback simultaneously (Nash 2010). These are similar to idea management applications and map-based forums, except that they include a game component with some sort of benchmark, such as a maximum amount of money that a user can spend. Customer Research Although formal market research is not the focus of this report, web-based customer research applications are included as valuable tools for collecting structured feedback on topics of interest to the agency.

52 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services Surveys Online surveys are used to solicit feedback in a structured format. The surveys can be developed in-house or through the use of third-party survey software. A link to the survey is often posted on the agency website, emailed to a target audience, and broadcast through other media outlets. Upon receiving feedback, agency staff can typically use web-based tools built into the survey application to analyze results immediately. This streamlines and accelerates the process of compil- ing, analyzing and reporting on customer feedback, which, in turn, saves staff time and resources. A full discussion of online surveys as a market research tool is available through TCRP Synthesis 105 (Coffel 2013). Live Polling Another form of surveys includes live polling of customers any time or at specific events, online, through text-messaging, or through an application. For example, live polling can be used to solicit feedback during an online meeting or “Twitter town hall.” Feedback Panels Organizations use feedback panels to solicit feedback on their products and services from customers and other members of the public. Feedback panels were traditionally conducted via telephone or postal mail. With the emergence of Web 2.0, which allows two-way Internet com- munication, agencies now have the ability to move panels online to generate greater involvement and faster turnaround times at a lower cost (Coffel 2013). Feedback panels are efficient at getting input from the public, especially if agencies are able to recruit a large, diverse group of people to participate in each panel. Feedback Management The web-based feedback tools discussed thus far are customer-facing applications—they are designed to collect feedback from the public. Agencies also need backend tools to manage the feedback received, including tools that integrate feedback from multiple sources. Backend tools manage all aspects of the feedback system: taking in the comment, internal review, responding to the customer, analyzing results and trends, reporting, and developing performance metrics. Social Media Dashboards The increasing usage of social media has resulted in numerous tools available to manage social media accounts simultaneously. Social media dashboards are used to aggregate and track activity from multiple social media accounts to allow agencies to post to multiple accounts on different platforms at the same time and track posts and comments. Many of the dashboards also allow scheduled and saved messages with the intent of simplifying repeated messaging. Internal Tracking Internal tracking software is used by agencies to log, track, and respond to unsolicited customer complaints and comments, analyze, and report trends. Although these types of systems are often used for ticket management in IT and other industries, they are now being applied to web-based feedback in the transit industry. Customer Relationship Management CRM software to manage information about individuals has existed in other formats for decades, but has more recently moved to include feedback tracking components as well. These

Web-Based Feedback Tools 53 systems have traditionally allowed agencies to track user contact information and characteristics, but components to track activity and comments are now being included. Tool Features In selecting and procuring web-based feedback tools, agencies should review the features of the tool to ensure the right fit for the agency’s needs. Some features are associated with the type of tool and some are dependent on the particular brand or provider of the application being purchased. The features of tool types and application specific features are described here. Features of Tool Types Certain features can be used to define categories of web-based feedback tools, such as sup- porting real-time communication or providing geography-based feedback. These features have been used to create the tool type categories used in the Tool Selection Guide to facilitate tools comparisons and selection. Additional information about these features is provided in Part 2, Tool Selection Guide. User identification refers to whether individuals making comments must register or identify themselves, or can withhold their personal information. Some security-related applications allow users to remain anonymous as a safety measure. Visibility of comments refers to whether comments to the agency are visible to the public and whether the agency’s response is public or private. Some applications allow users to choose whether their comments are visible or private; others do not offer a choice. Visibility of comments may have an impact on whether customers choose to provide personal contact information. Dialog refers to whether the communication tool is typically used to engage in an ongoing dialog between the commenter and the agency. Some tools are designed to facilitate dialog while other tools are more appropriate for one-directional communication. A discussion of agency web-based communication policies is in Chapter 2. Immediacy refers to the ability for agencies to communicate with commenters in real time. Some feedback channels, especially social media, facilitate an immediate response while others, such as online forms and surveys, typically require time to process or do not support any response. Geography-based refers to tools that have a mapping or geographic component to them. This allows easier identification of location-specific issues, such as a missing bus stop sign or a suspicious package. It also allows more specific long-range planning input related to locations for routes or stops. Support needed refers to the level of technical expertise or IT staff support that is generally needed to implement the tool. It is recognized that some tools can be purchased through a vendor or created through custom programming. The classification looks at how each type of tool is typically implemented. Cost refers to the cost to the transit agency to use the application. Almost all feedback tools are free for individuals to use, but the cost to the agency can vary substantially and change rapidly in response to market factors. Pricing can be structured as one-time-only charges for the software with additional charges to purchase updates or as a license purchased by the month or year. Application Specific Features Many features are available across all categories of web-based feedback tools, such as report- ing functionality or ability to customize the “look and feel” of the tool. These features can be

54 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services specified when procuring or designing an application to meet the agency’s technical needs for that application. Customization. Often an agency desires the ability to modify an application to meet specific agency needs. This can include branding elements, categories of comments, reporting and analysis capabilities, privacy settings, question prompts, and other customer features. Customized tools do not always require a developer to make modifications to the features and functions of an application. Many platforms have customizable layouts and functionality that can be modified by agency staff through the use of templates. Certain tool features can be enabled or disabled, while others can be made visible to or hidden from the public and even certain agency staff. Effectively managing permissions and visibility for data and features can help to protect against misuse and keep employees focused on reported issues that are relevant to them. Tools therefore range from full customization (when tools are developed in-house or contracted) to partial customization (branding, reporting, and questions) to “off-the-shelf” (no customization, only use of the tool). Often the paid versions of an application offer greater customization. Penetration. The level of market penetration of web-based feedback tools can be measured in terms of customer usage as well as the number of agencies or other businesses using the tool. Greater market penetration means that agency customers will have a better chance of being familiar with the tool. Control of Data. The organization that hosts the site has control over the data. Applications developed by the agency have full control over the data. Third-party developers can control all aspects of the data hosting, share the control with the transit agency, or turn over all control. One aspect of data control is versioning, the ability to upgrade the tool to keep it functioning well and current with mobile device platforms or other underlying systems. With third-party applications that operate based on licenses, the agency must sometimes pay for upgrades either through ongoing license fees or through purchasing the upgrades. Some web-based tools, such as social media, are continuously updated and maintained by third-party vendors, with no action needed by those who use the tool. Training and Support. Training and support is typically available for agency staff imple- menting the software or using new features. Offering a user-friendly guide or help service can support customers in learning to properly use and navigate a new tool. Accessibility. Accessibility refers to the ability of a tool to be used by persons with disabili- ties. Most third-party tools have been developed to meet basic accessibility requirements and are Section 508 compliant in support of the ADA. This includes functionality such as screen reader compatibility, closed captioning, verbal prompts, vibration, or adjustable font sizes. Agencies should be cognizant of the need for accessibility by all of the customers, and the requirements under the ADA when developing, procuring, or implementing web-based feedback programs. Computer kiosks in senior and community centers can help expand services to older populations and those without Internet access. Some feedback tools allow items such as surveys to be printed for distribu- tion in-person or via U.S. mail. Mobile applications and text-messaging services can also make feedback tools easily accessible for a wide variety of stakeholders, including those who may not have access to computers or smartphones. Agencies should recognize that map-based programs and games may not be easily accessible for individuals with visual impairments. Translation Services. To assist customers with limited or no English proficiency, free online translators can be embedded on transit agency websites or used by customer service professionals to help overcome language barriers. Agencies may also benefit from translating their website and online feedback tools into languages that are common in their service area.

Web-Based Feedback Tools 55 Mobile Photograph. Some applications allow users to submit photos of issues they are reporting as an especially efficient means of conveying information. The photos may communicate more than the customer could in words, while also providing agencies with visual evidence of issues or misconduct that can be used for follow-up purposes. Reporting Functionality. Web-based feedback tools may be designed to support and stream- line internal and external reporting processes, which can help agencies to track service, comments, complaints and commendations by categories, time or geography as well as the performance of their tools. Issue response time, on-time performance, common complaints, and even ideas for improving service can all be tracked and included in reports with minimal effort. Tracking online activity over time can also reveal important trends and anomalies, such as increases in feedback generated after certain weather events. Many tools offer statistical analysis of resulting data as well. Understanding these patterns and their causes can help guide planning and staffing efforts. Ranking and Prioritization. Feedback tools that rank issues based on popularity can also be useful as transit agencies work to prioritize all the comments that they receive. If users can vote for the issues that they see as most important, such as through “likes” and “dislikes” or comment rating systems, then agencies can easily distinguish those issues that have widespread support from the rants of some customers on issues that others do not view as critical. A single point of information can be supported by thousands of people, making it much easier for an agency to justify a change based on that comment. Data Processing. Many software applications allow for data to be sorted, filtered, categorized, and searched; this can help staff organize and process incoming and previously reported issues. These capabilities reduce staff time needed to go through and identify issues that are relevant to each department or individual. Often a tool will have a dashboard to manage reports, includ- ing basic summaries, and detailed views. Tools can also be programmed to route comments to the correct department, or the correct agency or jurisdiction for multi-agency tools. Thresholds can be set to trigger notification if a certain number of complaints are received based on type or topic. Custom Automated and Personalized Responses. Some web-based feedback platforms allow agencies to create both automated and personalized responses, customized based on the comment received. Ideally, automated responses sent when an issue is first reported include agency branding, a summary of the report submitted, an issue tracking number, information about follow-up, and alternative methods for submitting feedback. Follow-up responses, including issue resolution noti- fications, would be customized to the individual who submitted the claim and their specific issue. It may also be beneficial to allow issue reporters to thank the person or people responsible for addressing their concerns by clicking a button or link included in the resolution response. Procurement Considerations When considering new tools for web-based feedback, agencies can take several approaches based on their goals and budget. This section examines integration of feedback tools with existing applications, customized versus off-the shelf tools, and working effectively with software devel- opers. It should be noted that some applications, such as social media, are available freely on the Internet, do not require licenses or installation of an application, and therefore are not “procured.” Integration of Feedback Tools One primary consideration in the procurement of a web-based tool is the possible integration with existing or desired applications. The levels of integration are: stand-alone software, with no

56 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services ability to integrate into agency systems; integration with standard office software packages, such as Microsoft Outlook or Google Maps; the ability to customize the application to integrate with in-house software; and application suites that provide all-inclusive management of customer communication and feedback, including internal communications, analysis, and reporting. Integration with Existing Tools and Systems Most agencies are looking for a feedback tool that can directly feed into their pre-existing systems, such as an internal complaint/compliment management system. Without such integration, agencies often have to manually enter input information from the mobile/web tools into their intranet-based system. A primary goal in developing new online platforms is to make them easy for citizens and agencies to use, but it is important to note that integration with existing systems may require some level of customization and coordination on the part of the developers and the client, which may dictate the design or increase costs. Some web-based tools allow mashups or integration with other existing systems. Most appli- cations have an open data model, meaning that data generated or collected by the application can be used for other purposes by the agency. Therefore, integration of applications mostly involves a mechanism to transfer data from one application to the other. Integration with Passenger Information Applications Existing applications that already provide users with real-time or trip-planning information can be adapted to also include a channel for feedback. For example, if a real-time feedback application is telling bus riders that their bus is arriving, but they can clearly see that the bus is not there, then they should be able to easily communicate that to the agency. Many customer service questions can be addressed by providing accurate information to customers about on-time status, crowding status, service alerts, fare payment, and other information. Allowing cus- tomers to comment in the same regularly used information channels can provide a seamless experience. Integration with Social Media The effectiveness of using social media for outreach and soliciting feedback can be amplified by integrating it with other feedback tools. Repurposing project messaging, graphics, photos, and charts creates project efficiency, helps with consistency, and allows stakeholders to engage with project information at their convenience. Information presented at a public meeting can be shared online for ongoing discussion and to reach additional stakeholders. Questions posed at a workshop can be posted to the social media page for additional discussion and reactions from followers in real time, if desired. Survey links, draft documents, and comment forms can be posted on social media pages to increase awareness of public involvement opportunities. Likewise, project social media sites can be promoted at public meetings, workshops, and within other outreach tools, so that stakeholders are aware of participation opportunities online. Vari- ous social media tools can also work together to better accomplish public involvement goals. For instance, photos shared in an Instagram account can be posted to Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest. YouTube and other videos can be shared via these media, embedded on a website, or posted on a password protected collaboration site. Pulling Feedback from Websites, Blogs, and Online Communities In addition to stand-alone web-based tools, many opportunities for gathering feedback exist in the current tools used by an agency. These include the agency’s primary website, blogs, project websites, and online communities.

Web-Based Feedback Tools 57 Integrating web-based forms, email to customer service departments, and other customer feedback functionality into the primary agency website is now common amongst transit agen- cies. Many agencies also maintain blogs on their website to inform customers about the latest news and events; these can encourage comments as a way to engage customers. Even though much of their design is concentrated on sending information out to the public, project websites can also encourage commenting from riders and non-riders. As comments are gathered, it is important to pass on more general comments beyond the project team to ensure they are addressed. Online communities are sites where groups of people with similar goals or interests hold conversations by posting messages on a discussion site. Agencies can establish their own online community in order to solicit feedback on specific topics and engage the public directly, while having more control over the conversation. Sites established by the public allow people to come together and discuss information pertaining to problems or ideas they have for ways to improve certain features, which can be proposed later to transit agencies. Tracking and including these discussions can provide additional insight and depth to agency planning activities. Custom Development Versus Off-the-Shelf Tools Custom Development Agencies will seek to develop customized tools to allow integration with other existing tools or to allow specialized functionality. This can be developed in-house or through consultants and contracted employees. Many agencies have organized “hack-a-thon” or similar crowdsourcing software coding events to develop new custom tools for free, or much less than it would cost to pay a developer. Although these techniques can generate and solidify ideas for tools that agencies would like, such events may not necessarily produce usable, quality results or opportunities for long-range support and upgrades. Another source for web-based feedback applications can be other transit agencies. Many agencies have developed their own applications, own the source code, and may be willing to share the source code with other agencies. Creating a web-based tool is one thing, but maintaining it can be an unexpected challenge. The agency may launch an application, only to have inadequate resources to maintain it. Frequent updates to common operating platforms, such as social media and mobile phone operating systems, may compound this problem. Agencies should factor in the need to maintain and upgrade a tool over time when they choose a solution. Off-the-Shelf Tools In many cases, an existing off-the-shelf application will meet all of the agency needs and be more cost effective than developing a custom application. Off-the-shelf products come with increased visibility, a higher likelihood that users will be familiar with the tool, greater assurance that the product will work, and better support in cases where the tool does not work. Cloud-based tools, built and maintained by outside entities and not hosted on transit agency computers, may also be updated more frequently to provide long-term solutions that are not as likely to become obsolete as customized applications. The features, functionality, and configuration of off-the-shelf tools can be customized to some extent as explained above. Software overlays can also be used to brand the tool for a spe- cific agency, giving it the look of a custom application. Many off-the-shelf applications have already been developed for specific purposes, incorporating features desired by specific types of organizations, such as transit agencies. Custom tools may have higher long-term costs as well: agencies may require ongoing support to make sure the tools are upgraded for multiple, and ever evolving software platforms.

58 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services Working with Software Developers Agencies that wish to develop customized software can benefit from understanding how to work effectively with software developers and vendors. This mutual understanding of needs and constraints can smooth the process, reducing misunderstandings and the potential for cost overruns. Knowledge of the Industry Developers may be talented programmers, but they are often unfamiliar with the industries for which they create software. Transit agencies and other clients can help software developers to better understand critical information about data sources, the use of data in the industry, and the needs of the industry overall. As industry experts, agencies may need to educate developers and software companies regarding transit processes that are regularly used, just as they might educate the general public about transit to obtain better feedback on planning issues. Procurement Options Purchasing software and development services is guided by agency policies and FTA pro- curement requirements. Typically the type of procurement will depend on dollar thresholds established by agency policy. There are many web-based feedback tools that are free, very low cost, or have limited-feature “trial” versions that provide an opportunity for staff to become familiar with the type of tool and desired features before engaging in a full procurement process. One case study agency used a grant from the Department of Homeland Security to purchase a product and was able to achieve significant efficiencies by selecting a vendor from the General Services Administration approved list. Clear Goals and Project Specifications Clear goals of what the agency wants to achieve with web-based feedback software will help minimize the amount of effort and time required for development. Defining application specifi- cations as required features, optional but desirable features, and features for future enhancement is one approach to defining the scope of work to allow for a more constructive response from product developers. For tools that have some level of customization for the agency, milestones should be set-up in implementation. Development Process Some software developers have specific processes that they are able to explain to their clients, with regard to the level of involvement and type of data needed at each stage of product devel- opment. A schedule of this type helps to set expectations and enable planning on both sides for who and what should be involved in each step of the development process. Project Coordination Project coordination is greatly facilitated by having a point person for the software developer and for the agency. These two individuals are responsible for communicating with and involving others in their organization as appropriate. This arrangement offers the benefit of having one person from the developer team and one person from the client organization who is in the loop on the project at all times. This can help reduce excessive back-and-forth with the developer and “scope-creep,” which can result in overly customized answers for generic problems, potentially adding time and cost to the development process.

Web-Based Feedback Tools 59 Application Support From the beginning of the project, and as a part of any formal procurement, a plan is needed for providing ongoing maintenance of support of the application. The support and maintenance plan could include: support for staff who experience difficulties using the platform; ongoing maintenance for software glitches; upgrades required due to changing operating platforms (e.g., changes in social media platforms); enhancements to application to add new features; the costs for these activities; and the level of support provided. Agencies may need to adjust their operating procedures and expectations to recognize that upgrades are a common and necessary activity with any application.

60 Case Study Summaries This chapter summarizes the best practices and recommendations from the case studies and interviews conducted for this study. On-site case studies were conducted with four public trans- portation agencies. To gain the perspective of a service provider outside the mass transit industry, researchers met with representatives from Amtrak. Two case studies were also conducted jointly with public agencies and the software developer that provided them with a product. In addition to these on-site case studies, the research team convened three non-traditional case studies. Work- shops were conducted with software developers at several conferences, a visioning exercise was conducted with marketing and communications executives representing several transit organiza- tions, and an online forum was conducted with transit advocacy organizations and their members to collect feedback on the customer perspective. Case Studies The research team conducted on-site case studies with the following four transit operators: • Charlotte Area Transit System (Charlotte, North Carolina) • DCTA (Lewisville, Texas) • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Los Angeles, California) • Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (Portland, Oregon) Best practices and lessons learned are summarized here. Charlotte Area Transit System Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) provides bus, light rail, vanpool, and paratransit ser- vices in the Charlotte, North Carolina, metropolitan area. CATS is managed by the Public Trans- portation Department within the City of Charlotte government. In FY2012 CATS averaged 92,100 weekday unlinked trips, across all modes. Saturdays averaged 53,800 unlinked trips, and Sunday averaged 33,800 unlinked trips. CATS uses multiple web-based tools to collect rider feedback: an agency-developed mobile application, social media (Facebook and Twitter), and online surveys. Web-Based Tools Can Complement More Rigorous Research Approaches One common criticism of web-based feedback tools is that they do not reach all riders equally. Respondents are usually self-selected and tend to consist of tech-savvy riders who have strong opinions about a particular topic. While acknowledging this concern, CATS believes that elec- tronic feedback is a cost effective way for agencies to collect feedback when a statistically valid C H A P T E R 4

Case Study Summaries 61 survey is not possible or necessary. Web-based tools can provide insights into what key stake- holders think about a project; online polls or social media conversations can offer a window into the opinions of people who are actively involved and who care about a project. As long as organizations recognize that electronic feedback may not be representative of the entire rider population, these tools can be an affordable option for agencies. Online Surveys Can Extend an Agency’s Reach Online surveys (CATS uses SurveyMonkey) can complement public meetings and provide more detailed electronic feedback than social media. While social media comments tend to be anecdotal and difficult to summarize, online surveys can collect more detailed responses that organizations can more easily classify and analyze. While recognizing the limitations of online surveys, especially the challenges of a self-selected respondent base, CATS likes to extend its reach and follow-up public meetings with an online questionnaire. Some 60 to 100 people may attend a public meeting, but the agency can invite 1,000 people to participate in a survey via email. Remember the Taxpayers While riders may be an agency’s key constituency, they are not the agency’s only stakeholders. It is important to remember that members of the general public vote on funding referenda and pay the taxes that support transit, whether or not they ride the system. Any feedback strategy should include all stakeholders in the community, not just transit passengers. Consolidate Feedback CATS implemented a process to capture customer feedback from all sources—including tele- phone, email, and social media—and consolidate those comments in a single database. This ensures that no feedback channel receives priority and helps employees understand key cus- tomer concerns. To further even the playing field, a single set of guidelines covers the agency’s process for responding to all comments regardless of source. Manage Your Applications CATS offers its riders several mobile applications that provide route and schedule informa- tion and allow users to send complaints, compliments, and questions directly to customer service. CATS chose to contract with a software development company to create the initial mobile appli- cation in order to better define and manage the application’s features and functions. While many agencies prefer to let the developer marketplace create mobile applications, especially to offer real- time service updates, CATS believed that overseeing the development process directly enabled the agency to provide better customer service. Directly managing the mobile application also created better accountability. The agency did not have to rely on a third-party to collect rider comments and forward them to customer service; by managing the application in-house, CATS could main- tain control over rider communications. Work Within the System but Get Creative As a city department, CATS cannot establish independent policies for managing systems processes like social media archiving, website development, or software procurement. The city has developed policies to oversee these activities and CATS is required to comply with these guidelines. To address specific department level concerns, however, CATS has developed some independent alternatives that comply with city rules. For example, because the city’s computer network cannot provide sufficient storage for transit-related files, CATS maintains a separate server for datasets that are too cumbersome for the city server. These include General Transit

62 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services Feed Specification (GTFS) feeds, saved data, and the employee newsletter. The server costs CATS $1,200 a year and managers believe that it saves a lot of headaches. Denton County Transportation Authority The DCTA operates bus, commuter rail, and paratransit services in Denton County, Texas, north of Dallas. The DCTA management staff contracts operations, maintenance, and customer service activities. In FY2012 DCTA averaged approximately 11,400 weekday and 1,400 Saturday unlinked trips. There is no Sunday service. DCTA operates in an Internet-savvy community, with a large college student population. Other local governments also have a strong online presence. DCTA’s staff has found solutions to maximize their interaction with the public using minimal staff resources, including social media, online comment forms, and a mobile application called GORequest that allows riders to obtain travel information and share feedback while riding the system. Web-Based Feedback Extends Agency Resources Encouraging riders to use DCTA’s web-based feedback options, specifically the agency’s online forms and GORequest mobile application, frees up call-takers to help customers who have an immediate question and those without technology options. Each Social Media Platform Has a Different Audience and Use The agency policy is to engage with a social media channel only if they have the resources to do it well. Facebook and Twitter are the most active, so that is where they put most of their effort. Facebook is a major communications tool for the agency, used primarily to connect with baby-boomers. People can post comments directly to the page and, like many transit agencies, DCTA initially was concerned about the potential for posts to become counter-productive. So far, however, there have not been many problems. On the occasions when comments start get- ting out of hand, regular users of the site tend to jump in and moderate the discussion on behalf of the agency. The agency has an active group of Twitter followers, many of which are college students. DCTA has hired an intern to help monitor and respond to comments, when appropriate. Supplementing Town Hall Meetings with Twitter Can Reach a Larger Audience When DCTA held a series of community meetings about proposed service and fare changes, they found it was often difficult to get a large number of people to attend evening meetings or open houses. So the agency used Twitter to extend its reach. By promoting a specific hashtag to use to flag comments on Twitter, posting a few questions to seed the conversation, and assign- ing staff to respond to Twitter comments in real time during the community meetings, DCTA was able to increase the number of public comments collected on service changes. The agency included feedback collected through Twitter in the formal public comments. Planning is Essential Creating a social media plan is essential. A plan provides the rationale for agency actions, focuses the efforts, and keeps the social media activities streamlined. A plan can also help the agency establish the voice for posts and responses that reflect the agency brand. Plans may include a recommended schedule for posting updates, but staffers emphasized the importance of knowing when to use their own judgment to adjust the schedule. For example, they may have

Case Study Summaries 63 to postpone routine posts in light of a significant news event or natural disaster; otherwise the agency could appear uncaring or out-of-touch with the community. Web-Based Feedback Can Improve Transit Service DCTA provides service on a commuter rail route called the A-Train. Service ran during peak commute hours and into the evening so people could attend evening events in Dallas. Mid-day service on the route was provided by a shuttle bus. Shuttle buses were always full, and riders used social media to request mid-day train service. As part of their annual service changes, DCTA proposed eliminating the lightly used evening service and reallocating the hours to serve the mid-day. Supporters of the evening A-Train service put out the call on social media for people to ride the evening train and to let DCTA know that they wanted to retain evening service. Few comments were posted in support of evening over mid-day service. As a result, DCTA was able to reallocate the evening/night service hours on the A-Train to the mid-day and eliminate the mid-day bus shuttle. Implementing a Centralized System Has Streamlined the Feedback Process DCTA procured GORequest, an off-the-shelf web-based feedback management system designed for government agencies in the Internet age. Unlike many transit agencies, DCTA did not have a centralized customer comment tracking system in place, and did not face the common challenge of integrating web-based feedback with a traditional call management center. GORequest lets individuals submit questions or requests via online form or mobile application. The system provides comment tracking, allows internal discussion, and emails the final response to the customer through Microsoft Outlook. The system also generates an Outlook email to the staff persons involved, which includes a link to the original comment. All comments use the same form and populate the same database, whether received directly from the public on a web-based or mobile form, from the CSRs, or from employees. This integration of feedback facilitates analysis and reporting of comments and helps staff pin- point areas of concern. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, known locally as Metro, plans, designs, builds, and operates public transportation services in Los Angeles County in Southern California. Metro operates 170 bus routes, bus rapid transit, light rail, heavy rail, and paratransit service. In FY2012 average weekday unlinked trips across all modes exceeded 1.4 million. Average Saturday trips were approximately 945,200; Sunday averaged approxi- mately 705,100 unlinked trips. Metro makes extensive use of web-based tools to stay in touch with riders and constituents, including social media, comment forms on project websites, email, and interactive planning tools. The agency also has a traditional call center where agents respond to telephone calls and walk-in requests. Develop a Social Media Policy When Metro first joined Facebook in 2011, the agency did not have a social media or com- ment policy in place, and expectations for online users and the agency were not defined. Unfor- tunately, the agency quickly discovered that some people were posting derogatory comments on the Facebook page. In the absence of formal guidance, the marketing department simply deleted the negative posts which resulted in members of the online community accusing Metro of silencing their voices.

64 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services In response, Metro developed a social media comment policy that defined acceptable behav- ior for users and identified the conditions under which Metro would take action. Treating Face- book as a digital community meeting, Metro based its guidance on what would be allowed in face-to-face meetings: no attacking other users, no offensive language, and no offensive material. In a nutshell, stakeholders can say whatever they want about Metro, but they cannot attack each other. The policy allows stakeholders to have a safe place to comment on Metro projects and programs without fear of an attack from others. Social Media Supports Government Transparency and Accountability As a public agency, Metro believes that it has a responsibility to address comments from its constituents, who are paying for service either directly through fares or indirectly through local taxes. Because 1.5 cents of the county sales tax supports Metro, one staffer said, “When you’re taxing people like that, you owe them an explanation of what you’re doing.” For years, the primary channel for contacting the agency was by phone, which could be inconvenient and time-consuming, often requiring people to make multiple phone calls or to wait on hold for long periods of time. Social media now makes it easier for many of these individuals to contact the agency directly—often in real time—whether they are lodging a complaint or asking a question. One Tool Does Not Fit All Project Planning Needs Metro uses a wide variety of web-based feedback tools to support planning activities and typically creates dedicated website and social media accounts for major projects. To allocate resources effectively, Metro’s community relations group typically conducts a cost-benefit analy- sis to determine which outreach tools to use for each project. For example, outreach for Metro’s High Desert Corridor project—a proposed multi-modal link between State Route (SR)-14 in Los Angeles County and SR-18 in San Bernardino County—incorporated interactive project maps and real-time webcasts to reach residents in this extensive and low-density corridor who might not easily be able to attend public meetings in-person. Listen to the Conversation to Identify “Hot Topics” Although Metro typically sets up social media accounts for each of its projects, not all users post their comments to these official accounts. Monitoring the broader social media conversation—reviewing comments that are not necessarily posted on official websites— can help the agency identify potentially controversial projects and “hot spots” that might need additional staff attention. Analytical Tools Facilitate Analysis of Comments on Social Media Like many agencies, Metro found that analyzing social media comments on social media accounts was resource intensive, and it was especially challenging to boil down the volume of comments into a set of actionable recommendations. When Metro first started using social media to gather rider feedback, staff would manually cut and paste social media comments into summary reports. Free and paid analytics tools are now widely available to help track and evalu- ate social media posts, and Metro procured a tool to help employees in different parts of the organization follow and analyze the online conversations of relevance to their projects. Find the Right Voice for Social Media Finding the right voice in the social space is not easy, and there is a fine line between sounding too casual and sounding like a robot. Metro’s social media staff stressed the importance of mak- ing sure that an agency’s followers know that a real person is responding to their message while

Case Study Summaries 65 also maintaining a level of professionalism. Recognizing that people sometimes turn to social media when they are angry or frustrated about an issue, Metro makes sure to treat these riders with dignity and to let them know that Metro understands their concerns. TriMet The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) serves the greater Portland, Oregon, area with bus, light rail, commuter rail, and paratransit services. In FY2012 TriMet averaged 328,400 unlinked trips on weekdays, 205,200 unlinked trips on Saturday, and 146,400 unlinked trips on Sunday, across all modes. TriMet uses several web-based feedback tools to build community support and to inform plan- ning decisions; these include social media, online surveys, and planning exercises. The agency is transitioning to web-based customer feedback systems, but currently uses a legacy system for tracking customer comments that is over 20 years old. Planning Will Focus Social Media Activities When TriMet decided to make a commitment to social media, staff quickly realized they were in over their head. Without flotation devices, TriMet had to quickly figure out how to swim because backtracking was no longer an option. Developing a social media plan helped TriMet remain customer-focused and to provide clear and easy communication channels that are con- venient for the customers. No matter how customers choose to contact the agency—even if they hit “reply” to emails sent out by the “alerts” subscription service—TriMet’s goal is to stay flex- ible and accommodating and to respond to customers with whatever tool or channel they select. Having a social media plan in place ensures that everyone is working toward the same goal. Customer-Oriented Web-Based Feedback Is Essential for the Agency’s Image TriMet’s desired image is that of an outward-facing, customer-oriented brand that focuses on the customer experience. They do not want to convey a stereotyped “government” image that is often seen as slow, non-responsive, and out-of-touch with its constituents. TriMet is striving to create a strong customer experience and, in some cases, is still working out the details. For example, riders sending comments to TriMet via Twitter are currently directed to fill out a web form to formally submit their comment. Because TriMet’s online form is not optimized for mobile devices, the process detracts from the desire to create an innovative, customer-oriented agency image. All elements of the customer interaction need to be coordinated to ensure that the effort creates and supports the agency’s image. Web-Based Feedback Tools Can Change the Conversation Feedback can be used to improve the decision-making process for transit service, not just to improve transit service directly. At the start of its FY2013 budget process, TriMet created an interactive online budget tool and invited the public to look at a series of options for bridging a $17 million shortfall. Participants could use the online interactive tool to learn about the impacts of budget cut options and vote for their preferred alternatives. The key to success was providing the right options at the right price points so that it made sense to the public; the tool needed to present a real choice set and not theoretical alternatives. Using check boxes the participant could select options to close the budget gap. As an example, if the customer selected an option to reduce headways, the tool would present the impacts in terms of longer wait times, reduced ridership and fare revenue, and cost savings for the agency. The tool allowed cus- tomers to dig into the finances of the agency and understand more about the choices being faced.

66 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services The public became very engaged; they could not just say “I don’t like what you are doing.” By empowering riders to participate in the decisions, TriMet changed the dynamic of the budgeting process. Because people were asked to help solve the problem by prioritizing, not complaining, the tool completely changed the conversation. By using the budget-building tool, TriMet was also able to achieve public support for its actions at a potentially contentious time. Staff was able to close the budget gap by adopting a budget package made from elements preferred by the public with minimal public opposition. Employees Welcome Web-Based Feedback Tools for Reporting Operational Issues Web-based tools are not just for soliciting feedback from external audiences. When manage- ment decided to create an operator reporting system for safety concerns, they decided to make it an online form to facilitate tracking and reporting. Operators can access the online form through the agency intranet, which is available through any computer, including those in the operator reporting area. When the report is submitted, the operator gets an immediate confirmation. The report is entered directly into the agency’s Service Improvement Program (SIP) customer feed- back database. This format of collecting employee comments was so successful with operators that TriMet is moving the paper-based Field Reports into an online format and integrating them with the same SIP database so that all comments are in one databank. Working with Software Developers To better understand the dynamic between public agencies and software developers, two case studies were conducted with public organizations that worked closely with a developer to create a product for their organization. The research team met with the following: • City of New Haven, Connecticut Transit, and SeeClickFix • MBTA Transit Police and ELERTS Findings and best practices are summarized below. City of New Haven New Haven is the second largest city in Connecticut, with more than 130,000 residents in 2012. The city uses several web-based communication channels, including SeeClickFix, Mind- Mixer, and social media. SeeClickFix is a web-based tool that allows individuals to report non- emergency neighborhood issues to local government via website or mobile device. This city has also subscribed to SeeClickFix’s integrated CRM software. The city’s goal is to incorporate SeeClickFix into its systems as much as possible without slowing the work flow or creating more items for maintenance and public works to handle. Feedback Tools Can Create Engagement City officials believe that civic engagement tools, such as SeeClickFix, can turn residents into community leaders, and the city supports tools that help create a participatory and robust civic space. Unlike social media, where users often vent their feelings about a particular issue, civic engagement tools can turn complaining into a constructive activity. This level of participation helps governments better understand what services people want and what changes are needed. Many residents will initially test the system by reporting one issue of particular importance to them. As they see results, they transition from reporting a single issue to multiple issues and become more involved in improving their city. Yale University is conducting a customer survey to measure how many people make this kind of transition.

Case Study Summaries 67 Civic Reporting Can Create Efficiencies When citizens have an easy way to report issues, the city can get a comprehensive picture of conditions and set priorities. When the city can document the range of citizen concerns, it is easier to schedule repairs and maintenance programs and to allocate scarce resources. New Haven previously paid staff to locate and inventory potholes; now residents can report them with web-based tools, reducing the need for staff to identify potholes themselves. Help Software Developers Learn the Ropes Software developers and vendors may not understand the different responsibilities and roles in a complex government organization or recognize the specific challenges of the transit indus- try. In these cases, the client can help the developer understand the organizational structure and identify widely used information sources (such as census data). Procurement Pitfalls Government procurement is a complex and time-consuming process. Agencies should be clear about their goals, and realistic about what is a requirement versus what is nice to have versus what would be a future enhancement. Having a lot of back-and-forth with the developer can create customized solutions but can result in higher costs. Sometimes a generic product is sufficient to meet an organization’s needs at a more affordable price point. CTTransit Connecticut Transit, known as CTTransit, is bus service provided throughout the state of Connecticut. Some services are provided directly by the Connecticut Department of Transpor- tation; others are operated under private contract. CTTransit uses web forms and social media to stay in touch with riders and community, and is considering using additional third-party software applications for feedback. Look at the Big Picture CTTransit managers know that creating a tool is fairly straightforward, while maintaining that tool is a much bigger challenge for agencies. As they consider investing in feedback tools, managers want to make sure that they implement a tool they can maintain over time. Consider the Agency Culture Using web-based feedback tools may require a major change in the agency’s culture. Because asking the public for more comments requires a certain level of accountability, such tools may require involvement beyond the marketing and communications department. If a supervisor does not close the loop with the customer or a busy workload keeps a manager from responding in a timely way, then the process could backfire, tarnishing the agency’s image. To address these concerns, managers should have policies and procedures in place that define thresholds for scale and urgency so front-line workers have guidance on when and how to respond. Match the Tools to the Community Different tools work in different communities, and agencies have to understand the needs of the public in each part of their service area. New Haven is different from other communities where CTTransit provides service, for example. The New Haven community is more civically engaged than other parts of the state and civic engagement tools are likely to be successful in obtaining public feedback.

68 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services MBTA Transit Police The MBTA serves 175 cities and towns in the Boston metropolitan area. The MBTA pro- vides all modes of transit service: bus [including bus rapid transit (BRT)], trolleybus, light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, ferryboat, and paratransit. In FY2012, the agency averaged over 1.3 million weekday unlinked trips across all modes. Saturdays averaged 657,000 unlinked trips; Sundays averaged 428,500 unlinked trips. The MBTA Transit Police is an agency- managed police force dedicated to protecting the riding public on the MBTA system and MBTA facilities and property. Now retired, MBTA Police Chief Paul MacMillan initially came up with the idea for a mobile security application. The MBTA worked with ELERTS, a Massachusetts-based soft- ware company, to develop what became known as the See Say mobile application, capital- izing on the federal “See Something, Say Something” security campaign. The application allows users to report crimes, safety concerns, and security issues to the MBTA Transit Police in real time. Since the MBTA See Say application was developed, several other U.S. transit authorities have procured and launched the application, which ELERTS customized to their systems. Clear Goals Created Successful Agency/Developer Collaboration Developing the See Say application was a collaborative effort between the MBTA Transit Police and ELERTS. From the start, the MBTA police knew that they wanted a tool that was easy to use and insisted that the interface have only two buttons: one to file a report and one to call the transit police directly. The MBTA was able to communicate that goal effectively to the development team and, just as important, the developers were able to listen to the MBTA and translate that vision into an effective tool. As part of the collaborative process between client and software developer, ELERTS recom- mended an additional feature to protect rider safety. The application allows users to take a photograph of a suspicious situation and forward the image to transit police. ELERTS made the suggestion to disable the flash on the smartphone’s camera to allow users to take photos safely and discreetly, and the MBTA was quick to adopt this additional feature. Maintain Flexibility in the Procurement Process Because the MBTA used a grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to purchase the product, the agency was able to select a vendor from the General Services Administration (GSA) list for federal procurement. While this made the procurement process easier for the MBTA, ELERTS had to become familiar with the federal procurement process in order to take advantage of the system. The Value of Photos See Say changed the way the MBTA talked to its passengers. For years the MBTA banned people from taking pictures on the system. Now the MBTA encourages people to take pictures as long as it does not interfere with transportation or put them in harm’s way. The photo feature of See Say works in two ways. Not only can users send a photograph to the MBTA police, but the MBTA can also use the application to share photos with officers and the public. MBTA have used this feature to push out pictures of missing children and be-on-the- lookout (BOLO) photos of individuals suspected of everything from fare evasion to murder. In some cases, people have identified suspects and recovered lost children within minutes. The photo feature of the application also lets the MBTA respond quickly to security-related matters reported

Case Study Summaries 69 by customers. When riders forward a photo of a suspicious package in the system, dispatchers can forward that photo to officers on the scene so they can more easily identify the object. Try Before You Buy It is critical for agencies to define their goals and to make sure that the preferred tool is the best match for their needs. Because of the complexity of technology solutions, it is important for an agency to make sure that they are getting the best product for the available resources. Asking one or more vendors to set-up a demonstration for the project will allow agency staff to learn how the application will work in a live environment and how staff will use it. For some organizations, especially those that are not comfortable with technology, a demonstration can help lessen the fear of technology. Non-Transit Organization: Amtrak In addition to conducting case studies with transit professionals, a case study was conducted with Amtrak to obtain the perspective of a service provider outside of the transit industry. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, known as Amtrak, provides intercity passen- ger train service in the United States. In FY2013, Amtrak served nearly 31.6 million passen- gers. Amtrak serves more than 500 destinations in 46 states; the Northeast Corridor (NEC), which extends from Washington, D.C., to Boston, Massachusetts, is the railroad’s busiest corridor. While most Amtrak customers still provide feedback to the agency by telephone, Amtrak has expanded its social media presence to encourage comments from a broader audience and to extend brand loyalty. Social Media Reaches Existing and New Riders Amtrak believes that social media enabled the railroad both to reach new users and also to provide new communication channels for existing users. Amtrak believes that some of its rid- ers prefer to contact the company by electronic means, including social media, and that these individuals may not have previously communicated with Amtrak. At the same time, Amtrak’s use of social media has provided another channel for “super-users,” those who offer frequent comments, to contact the company. Quantifying the Benefits of Social Media Tools to measure the impact of social media are still evolving, and the challenge for many organizations like Amtrak is that social media is not tied to traditional return-on-investment (ROI) indicators like sales. As a starting point, Amtrak acquired a social media dashboard and analytics tool to help monitor social media conversations about the railroad. Amtrak’s social media program was still fairly new as of this writing, and the railroad initially focused on devel- oping a month-to-month baseline in order to establish specific measurable goals for subsequent years (e.g., decrease response time for social media comments). Integrate Social Media with Other Channels Some savvy social media users use channels like Twitter to jump to the head of the customer service queue, in hopes of getting a response in real time, rather than writing a letter after the

70 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services trip or waiting on hold for a call center agent. This is the case in many industries and Amtrak is aware of this potential inequity. Accordingly, the company is working to provide customer service equally throughout all of its channels and not to allow one platform to become more important than the others. Managers have explored two approaches. One approach is to direct Twitter users to contact traditional customer service channels if they have a complaint. Another approach would be to make sure that all comment systems funnel into the same database regard- less of source—whether it is the conductor on the train, a station agent, a social media follower, an email correspondent, or an agent fielding a phone call. Both options will require additional staffing and Amtrak is still weighing its options. Transit Customers and Advocates The research team used IdeaScale, a software package that encourages participants to submit ideas and suggestions related to a particular topic, to reach out to transit customers and transit advocates. The online campaign solicited ideas and comments about how customers wanted to communicate with transit agencies, organizing the conversation into three broad areas: topics, tools, and touch. Participants were asked the following: Topics: What types of comments would you like to send transit agencies (e.g., bus was early/ late, operator behavior, public safety issues, cleanliness of the vehicle or bus stop, commenda- tions for operators and staff)? What types of issues should agencies be encouraging feedback on (e.g., service quality, maintenance issues, public safety concerns, route and schedule planning, long-range planning, fare policy)? Tools: What type of technology is most useful for communicating with transit agencies (e.g., web-based, such as a form on the website; mobile applications; text-messaging)? What types of social media are most effective for agencies (Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest)? What types of tools would you like to see transit agencies use to get formal comments from transit riders (e.g., sur- veys, panels, discussion forums)? Touch: How should agencies handle feedback that is received from riders about day-to- day operations (how quickly do you expect a response, what type of response, do you want interactivity with the agency)? How should agencies handle feedback that is received via social media (response time, type of response, interactivity with rider)? How should agencies engage with riders about feedback for general and long-term planning feedback (frequency of surveys, interactivity with panels, etc.)? Following are most popular ideas, based on number of votes and comments. Acknowledge Receipt of a Complaint Participants wanted agencies to respond within 24 hours to individuals who file a complaint so they know that the agency has heard their comments and is doing something about it. This was the highest ranked idea submitted and was consistent with comments heard frequently throughout the study. Related comments, which received fewer votes, suggested that agencies should assign a case number to each comment so that individuals can track the status of their comments and that agencies should close the feedback loop by letting individuals know how and when their complaints were resolved. Make It Easy to Identify Good Drivers Riders want to have an easy way to identify bus operators who are particularly helpful and who demonstrate good customer service behavior. This high-ranking response underscores the fact that individuals want to share positive feedback but need convenient ways to do so.

Case Study Summaries 71 Communicate Beyond Current Ridership Riders urged agencies to engage with businesses, nonprofits, and cultural organizations to encourage ridership. Much of the lively discussion about this idea was not directly related to the topic of web-based feedback and focused on ways that transit operators could promote their services through publicity and free or subsidized transit tickets to sporting and cultural events. But some commenters suggested developing crowd-sourced directions for pedestrian and tran- sit access to these events, which could be shared in printed and online listings. Show All Vehicles on Google Maps in Real Time Participants strongly supported the goal of using Google Maps as a common platform to display real-time locations for every vehicle from every transit system in the U.S. Riders want to be able to access Google Maps on a smartphone in any city to see their transit options at a glance. Commenters pointed out that this feature is already available in many mobile applications and that many agencies already share their route, schedule, and location information. Although real-time information was not the focus of this study, the popularity of this comment reinforces the notion that providing good information to riders about real-time vehicle location will give them fewer reasons to complain about late buses, which is a type of feedback that is frequently received but generally difficult to address. Enable Riders to Provide Route-Specific Feedback Riders want to be able to suggest changes to specific services based on their own experience. This could include items like new or relocated bus stops, potential scheduling changes, and mov- ing the time of an arrival/departure by a few minutes to allow a connection. Post Points of Contact Although this idea was less popular than the ideas highlighted above, some respondents encouraged agencies to make it easier for riders to contact them by posting online contact infor- mation for key transit agency staff. Emerging Tools Much of the research for this study focused on existing best practices for using web-based feedback. To help envision the tools on the horizon and identify opportunities for additional research, the team convened visioning workshops with software developers and transit market- ing and communications professionals. Software Developers The research team met with software developers at several TransportationCamp events held in Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Georgia, and Cambridge, Massachusetts. TransportationCamp is an informal conference that brings together transportation professionals, software develop- ers, and others interested in the intersection of urban transportation and technology. Because participants suggest the session topics and lead the sessions themselves, organizers call this an “unconference.” This section summarizes the feedback collected during these meetings. Types of Feedback Feedback may come in many forms, so customer feedback tools should be flexible enough to allow for complaints, compliments, service requests, and ideas for improving service. Because feedback may come from multiple sources, tools should be designed to allow anyone, from agency employees to customers to non-riders, to submit their feedback.

72 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services Mapping can be useful for providing trip information as well, such as geographically pin- pointing an issue or recommendation. This functionality can also enable users to get involved with transit planning efforts by encouraging riders to draw or re-draw a route as a suggestion for expanded or enhanced service. Tools that create online public forums where people can share and discuss their ideas for new routes or service modifications serve multiple purposes. Such tools are effective at crowdsourc- ing information about potential improvements to the transit system, while also vetting proposed changes with other members of the public. In this way, transit agencies can see which issues have broad-based support and can be addressed with minimal opposition and which issues are more contentious before formal public comment periods take place. Respect Privacy Not all feedback should be made public. Some commenters may want to keep their commu- nication private, looking for a meaningful response from the agency rather than a public airing of their grievance, and agencies may prefer not to have complaints made available for all to see. Addressing issues within the agency by properly routing complaints for appropriate follow-up, does not necessarily have to be completed in the public eye and personnel issues, in particular, require discretion. However, agencies can support goals of transparency and also boost their public image by taking advantage of the visibility of some comments when they have been able to fully address an issue. Making Lemonade Agencies can benefit from knowing what their critics have to say. People who take the ini- tiative to provide feedback are often willing to share additional details, especially if the agency actively solicits their opinions. Engaging them in deeper conversations can provide useful details about trouble spots in the system and sometimes defuse criticism and negative feedback. Agen- cies can also use the feedback process to reach out to advocacy groups and grassroots organiza- tions. These groups can be highly critical at times, but many have significant influence that an agency can use to its favor. For example, engaging in an active dialog with these groups can help turn them into powerful allies when additional transit funding is at stake. Simplicity Web-based feedback tools should be simple in format and easy to use. Surveys should be brief and well designed, with at least a few rounds of pre-testing to verify that questions are clear and producing useful results. Issue reporting should not rely on long categorization trees or take more than a few steps to complete. User experience professionals can help agencies and software developers design tools that extract the most useful and relevant information from the public. Agencies can save a lot of time and effort in prioritizing issues by establishing open and inter- active feedback systems that allow users to vote on which comments are most important. Idea management platforms, which generally include this feature, can help transit providers quickly gauge the popularity of ideas and frequency of issues. It is easier to review a few comments with a thousand votes each than to sort through and summarize thousands of comments that are similar but not identical. Tools that aggregate comments in this way make it easier for an agency to identify issues that have sufficient support to justify a change. Modify Existing Applications to Obtain Customer Feedback Agencies may have existing mobile applications and online platforms that can be adapted to incorporate feedback features. Modifying these programs to allow public input can result in

Case Study Summaries 73 significant savings of time and resources, compared to the effort required to create a dedicated customer feedback tool from scratch. Data Standards Developers recommended establishing a standard for feedback data used throughout the transit industry, similar to the GTFS that is used for scheduling. This would make it easy for independent developers to build feedback functionality into their tools, even if the applications cover multiple regions or transit operators. A standardized format would also make it easier for agencies that want to create an application programming interface (API) to output information for applications and to process feedback. Aggregating Data Agencies may use data mining techniques to discover patterns in large data sets, such as the records collected through multiple customer feedback channels. By revealing the size and impact of different topics, this process can help to prioritize incoming issues, identify trends, and con- solidate reporting across multiple platforms. Good Design for All Users Multiple platforms help to serve a diversity of riders. Text-messaging tools may be more accessible than native smartphone applications for riders with feature phones and those travel- ing internationally. Web forms and tools should be optimized to read on a mobile phone or tablet. To accommodate riders with sight impairments, feedback tools should be compatible with screen readers. When appropriate, it may be desirable to provide translation options so that riders with limited English proficiency can access them. Transit Marketing and Communications Professionals The research team met with a group of transit professionals at the mid-year meeting of the American Public Transportation Association Marketing and Communications Committee. Par- ticipants identified trends in gathering customer feedback and issues to be aware of when imple- menting web-based feedback tools. Communication is Evolving The number of ways that individuals can communicate is expanding rapidly, and agencies are faced with decisions of which options to adopt with their limited resources. At the same time, agencies have to maintain traditional systems (such as telephone and in-person communica- tion) for customers who choose to use those options. New riders, especially young adults, tend to make extensive use of technology and expect transit agencies to do the same. In addition, there is a growing expectation from the public for increased transparency and broader outreach from transit agencies. These are challenges to the transit industry, and web-based feedback tools can help operators respond to these changing expectations. Access for All All individuals must have the ability to provide feedback to the transit agency, regardless of their age, disability, language, or other barriers. Web-based feedback tools can provide more options for providing comments, but they should complement traditional methods, such as a telephone call center, and not replace them. A text-based system should be available for cell phones with limited features. It should be recognized that some rural areas may not have Inter- net service or the infrastructure to support smartphone applications.

74 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services External Barriers Agencies may develop new and useful feedback tools, but the public must be brought along to embrace and use the tools. Marketing and advertising should be used to make the public aware of newly available tools. Exogenous barriers, such as lack of Internet availability or cell phone coverage provide further external barriers to implementing web-based feedback systems. Internal Barriers to Implementing Web-Based Feedback Tools Multiple internal barriers make it difficult for some agencies to embrace web-based feedback tools. Challenges may include limited management support, scarce resources (staff and operat- ing budgets), employee resistance to new technologies, the need to provide training for new systems, and the absence of policies and procedures related to web-based customer feedback. Creating an implementation plan can help agencies overcome some of these barriers by using the planning process to develop support for web-based feedback goals, help staff understand the benefits and challenges, and to outline policies and procedures that guide staff decisions regard- ing web-based feedback.

75 Lessons Learned and Future Research This chapter summarizes the key recommendations and lessons learned from the case studies and interviews conducted for this research. In an early phase of the research, interviews were conducted with transit operators, organizations outside the transit industry, and software devel- opers. The purpose of the interviews was to develop an overview of web-based feedback and to identify candidates for more detailed case studies. As summarized in Chapter 4, the case studies included site visits with U.S. transit agencies and a passenger railroad, joint meetings with public agencies and developers, structured meetings with software developers, a visioning workshop with representatives from transit agencies, and an online discussion with transit advocates and riders. This chapter presents overall lessons learned and proposed topics for future research. Lessons Learned This section summarizes the best practices and advice offered by organizations participating in the interviews and case studies. One Size Does Not Fit All While many transit operators have enthusiastically adopted web-based tools, practitioners emphasized that not every tool is right for every agency or for accomplishing every goal. Web-based tools have a place in the mix, but transit agencies are well advised to customize their feedback tools to their audience and resources. Some larger agencies, for example, choose to have a large social media presence with dedicated staff, plus specialized tracking and analytics tools. Both Amtrak and Los Angeles Metro use social media extensively to broadcast information about their services and learn from their riders. Metro, in particular, believes that the agency has a responsibility to stay in touch with its constituents since these are the same individuals who support the agency through a countywide sales tax. Smaller transit properties may find it beneficial to have a presence on social media as well—and many are already active in the space—but these organizations typically have fewer resources and will probably devote less time to social media than their larger counterparts. As another example, the MBTA considered various options for developing a tool for reporting safety and security issues including smartphone applications and text-based solutions. After working with a software developer, the team decided that a mobile application would be the best fit for the agency’s needs. While texting would have been accessible to riders without smartphones, the agency thought it would be too cumbersome for people who were already in a stressful— and possibly emergency—situation to remember and type in a 10-digit number for sending a text message about a safety concern. Believing that rail ridership included a high proportion of C H A P T E R 5

76 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services tech-savvy riders with smartphones, the team developed a native application designed to minimize the necessary steps to report a security issue. People Want to Be Acknowledged One frequently cited concern about electronic feedback was that comments would end up in a figurative black hole. Agencies can offset this concern by acknowledging that a comment was received—ideally within 24 hours—and then following up directly with the individual in a timely way. An automated response may be appropriate for the initial contact, but stakeholders are looking for a more personalized response after that. Agencies are also well advised to close the feedback loop with constituents and to let people know how their comment was addressed. For some straightforward comments—missing bus stop sign or overflowing trash barrel—agencies can simply tell commenters that the problem was resolved. In some cases, an issue cannot easily be addressed; these may include long-range planning suggestions or problems that fall outside the transit agency’s jurisdiction. For personnel related matters, agencies may be legally required to keep details private. But commenters would still appreciate an acknowledgment and explanation, even if the transit agency cannot resolve the issue to the stakeholder’s satisfaction. Above all, transit riders and advocates did not want to receive canned responses from an agency. For social media conversations, in particular, agencies recommend using the personal touch when communicating with riders and other stakeholders. It helps to sound like a human being in these online conversations and not like a robot or a faceless bureaucracy. Followers should know that a real person is responding to their comments, and the agency’s social media staff should make sure that they treat all online commenters with respect. Accentuate the Positive Web-based feedback tools often attract criticism and negative comments. This is especially true of social media, where the combination of real-time communication and user anonymity can encourage transit riders to vent their frustrations in the moment. To help offset the negative, transit operators can make it easy for riders and stakeholders to share positive stories. Riders want to have an easy way to compliment bus drivers who make their morning a little brighter or employees who provided exceptional customer service. Individuals want to share positive feedback, but they need convenient ways to do so. Manage Expectations The real-time nature of social media can also create challenges for agencies in terms of response time. While agencies are encouraged to respond to social comments—and commenters have come to expect rapid responses—they should be realistic about the level of responsiveness they can provide when comments are arriving 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Many agencies address this challenge by responding to social media comments during normal transit operating hours only and posting those hours on their accounts. Regardless of the agency’s policy, providing clear information about when customers can expect a quick response to their social media posts and when these channels are not being monitored can help to guide customer expectations. Look Before You Leap It is easy to get started with some web-based feedback tools. Many social media platforms have especially low barriers to entry, and sometimes agencies get started without thinking through all

Lessons Learned and Future Research 77 the ramifications. Once an agency starts down a path, it can be very difficult to turn back. Agencies emphasized the importance of planning an approach for implementing a web-based feedback program and, as required, setting ground rules for comments and other forms of feedback. When Los Angeles Metro joined Facebook in 2011, derogatory comments began to appear on the agency’s page. This was not an unusual occurrence for government-sponsored social media accounts, especially for early adopters. After a few false steps, Metro created guidelines intended to create a safe space for constituents to comment on agency projects. The comment policy, which is posted on Metro’s Facebook page, encourages feedback that is on topic and brief. Commenters may take issue with a post as long as they direct their criticism to the content and not the author. Metro reserves the right to delete comments under certain circumstances, including when posts are “harassing, threatening or vulgar.” When TriMet first started using social media, the agency tried to respond personally to all comments, at all hours, on all social media sites. The agency was quickly overwhelmed but was able to right itself by developing a social media plan. The plan helped TriMet to remain customer-focused and provide clear and easy communication channels that are convenient for their customers. No matter how customers choose to contact the agency, TriMet’s goal is to stay flexible and respond to customers whatever tool or channel they select. The Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) also advises agencies to have a plan for implementing web-based feedback. The plan should be developed in coordination with departments throughout the agency, so that everyone is on board with the vision. Use the Customer Feedback Process to Educate Agencies can use the web-based feedback process to educate customers and their own employees. Providing information on the front end, such as service alerts, frequently asked questions, policies, plans, and budgets, can help to guide feedback from the public, especially with regard to long-term planning issues. More informed customers often produce more usable and realistic feedback. Information provided to users, either preemptively or in response to their comments, can easily spread beyond those who directly engage with customer feedback systems. This creates a win-win situation for the customer and the agency. Within the agency, providing regular training for employees helps to ensure that customer service personnel are well-informed about the agency’s policies and procedures, as well as internal structures. Further, those who are in a role, which is not customer-facing but is responsible for addressing issues internally, tend to be more responsive to customer service personnel if they understand the customer feedback systems and expectations set for feedback response. Reports on how an issue raised by a customer was addressed, with reference to the impact this has on the agency’s brand and ridership, can help demonstrate the importance of timely responses. A strong, responsive agency means better job security for all staff. Measure Your Success Evaluating the performance of web-based feedback programs has two key benefits. First, understanding what worked (and what did not) will enable the agency to build on its success and to shore up its weak spots. Second, documenting success can give staff the ammunition they need to approach managers for additional personnel, budget, or software support. Numerous metrics and evaluation systems are available to help agencies measure the impact of their web-based feedback tools. Readily available measures like the number of social media followers or mobile downloads can help track the use of web-based feedback tools. Other tools

78 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services can provide a more sophisticated look at the impact of web-based tools—especially social media—by tracking the number of users who shared or forwarded a particular post. Many of these tools are free and are already built into web-based tools; others are available for purchase. Despite the availability of measurement tools, the challenge for many agencies is that web- based feedback strategies do not fit neatly into traditional performance measures or ROI calculations. Transit operators are used to collecting and analyzing concrete performance measures, such as unlinked passenger trips or cost per revenue mile. Often the benefits of web-based feedback are intangible, and traditional customer service metrics may not fully capture the value of making customers feel special because their transit agency interacted with them on Twitter. Build Stakeholder Support Traditional methods for building rider support usually involve one-way communication. Agencies would distribute press releases, create advertisements, and post notices on the agency website and social media accounts. While these approaches kept customers informed about agency activities, they did not actively engage customers in a dialog with the agency. By encour- aging two-way conversations, web-based feedback has the potential to engage riders and other stakeholders in meaningful interactions with the agency. Consider the Costs Agencies were in agreement that web-based feedback could expand the reach of public meetings and, in some cases, free up call centers to focus on complex questions and serve constituents without access to technology. However, transportation providers that made extensive use of web-based feedback, like Metro in Los Angeles and Amtrak, acknowledged that monitoring social media in real time and creating interactive feedback tools were resource-intensive activities. Even with automated social media monitoring tools, tracking the social media conversation requires “a lot of eyeballs on screens,” as one agency put it. Furthermore, automated tools still require human judgment to determine which conversations require immediate attention and which comments can help inform business decisions. Project-specific tools like streaming webcasts and interactive maps can provide valuable feed- back to agencies, especially for projects located in areas where it may be difficult for constituents to attend face-to-face meetings. But because these resources can be expensive to implement, agencies recommended conducting a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the tools will help the agency achieve its goals. Integrate New and Old Systems Many transit agencies are struggling to integrate web-based feedback tools with existing, or legacy, systems. For years, customers called a transit agency when they had a comment or a question, and many agencies have invested in sophisticated telephone call centers to handle such customer feedback. Now the challenge is to integrate these systems with new web-based feedback technologies, including email, online forms, and social media. In a perfect world, transit agencies would like to see all customer communications in a central database to facilitate responses and make it easier to track those responses. But the transition has proven complicated, and some of the organizations interviewed for this report had separate systems to handle and analyze communications from different sources. They encountered multiple challenges as they added new technologies to their feedback efforts. For example, legacy

Lessons Learned and Future Research 79 software systems may not be adaptable, customer service agents may need training in the new technologies, and union agreements may dictate which job classes are authorized to handle dif- ferent types of communication. Web-based feedback tools, social media in particular, have some characteristics that may not fit neatly into an existing customer feedback program. First, social media posts tend to be short, and some issues cannot be easily condensed into the length constraints of a platform like Twitter. While a telephone operator can easily probe for additional details, this kind of conversation can be difficult to conduct on social media platforms. Second, conversations in the social space are public. Customers and agencies may not want to air detailed complaints in a forum for everyone to see. The same goes for contact information. Customer call center agents are trained to capture personal contact information, and many agencies require callers to provide this information. While they may be willing to share this information with a trained operator in the course of a phone call, customers may consider these details too personal to share in a public space. Working with Vendors Some agencies have the in-house resources and expertise to develop customized web-based solutions, but many will choose to work with outside vendors. In some cases, the agency will want to purchase an off-the-shelf product that can be customized for a better fit. At other times, the agency will want to create a unique product from the ground up. For software companies, especially those that develop mobile applications, working with transit agencies may be a new experience. These companies are often start-ups or small shops and they may not be familiar with government procurement processes. Complicating the sometimes mysterious world of government procurement is the fact that rules differ among agencies. Some use the request for proposals process and others can enter into a sole-source agreement. Some agencies can sign multi-year contracts and others have to go year-by-year. Vendors that want to work with transit agencies have to remain flexible and patient; sometimes the public procurement process can take longer than anticipated. At times agencies will use temporary software programmers to develop mobile applications. Denver RTD is an example of one agency that has used this approach. In cases like these, agencies should ensure that in-house staff can maintain the applications after the temporary workers leave. Maintain a Level Playing Field Technology-based feedback strategies have the potential to divide customers into those with access to these tools and those without. This, in turn, creates concerns that customers using web- based tools will receive faster or better service than those who use traditional methods. Within transit organizations, for example, it is not uncommon for different departments to handle different customer feedback channels. For example, a call center might respond to com- ments submitted via telephone and email, but the marketing department manages social media activity, and the planning group interacts with customers on project-specific crowdsourcing platforms. Agencies have observed that some tech-savvy customers try to shop around when it comes to web-based feedback. If they did not receive satisfaction via telephone, they might try sending an email. If that does not work, a post on Twitter might be the next step. Unless an agency coordinates all its customer feedback channels, it is possible for individuals to receive a different resolution from different departments.

80 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services Agencies have also expressed concern that customers with access to technology will receive faster responses than those using traditional communications channels like telephone and letters. There is a perceived urgency to comments received from the field in real time—whether it is an Amtrak passenger whose Wi-Fi is not working or a bus rider wondering when the next vehicle will arrive—and it can be difficult to separate the message from the medium to determine whether or not an immediate response is required. Some real-time communications require immediate response, particularly those related to safety and security. Occasionally an easy fix is possible even for problems that are not time- sensitive. Other times, riders are just letting off steam using the technology at hand. Agencies should consider developing a protocol to ensure that customer comments do not jump to the top of the queue just because they arrived electronically. The Ideal Tool As part of the case study process, the research team spoke with agencies about their ideal web- based feedback application. In all, the agencies stressed the need for the integration of multiple existing applications, so that transit riders could access all their needs in one place. In a workshop held by the project team, one group of transit agencies described the “super app.” As shown in Figure 2, they envisioned a mobile application that includes real-time information about vehicle location and fullness, with the ability to purchase tickets and access social media using the same application. The application would also include a link to the call center in case a customer needs to speak with an agent. The group emphasized that the application would have to be very easy to use, keep user information safe, and translate information into the format that the customer prefers. The application would have: live video chat; voice activation and recognition; text and picture- based information for persons with cognitive disabilities; the ability to print information for those without mobile devices; translations for all languages; compatibility with all media tools, including phones, tablets, and computers; and availability on-board and at stations. From the agency perspective, the application would also meet all federal and state regulations, especially related to accessibility, and be cost effective. Super app Passenger counters Real me (vehicle locaon) Mobile ckengCall Center Social Media Figure 2. Schematic of the ideal tool as envisioned by transit agencies.

Lessons Learned and Future Research 81 Characteristics of the Ideal Tool Characteristics of tools that agencies found to be critical within any web-based feedback application were revealed through the case studies. These included: Automated. Tools should send comments to the correct department and person to ensure they are handled properly. Actions taken should be tracked within the system to ensure comments are being addressed in a timely manner. Web-based feedback systems should minimize the time and effort required by government employees to respond to issues, bearing as much of the burden of routing, addressing, and following up on issues that are reported as possible. Systems that are overly reliant on humans tend to be slower and more prone to errors. Mobile. Transit riders need to be able to comment while en route to preserve information (such as location) that helps to address the issue and also to make good use of waiting time, which is otherwise a fairly unproductive and loathed part of the transit experience. Easy Response. Transit agency staff should be able to acknowledge the value of the input they receive by easily responding to the customer. Categorized. Feedback should be categorized for easier response, forwarding, and querying. Queries should be possible based on routes, time of day, and location. Reporting Capabilities. Systems should catalog comments into user-friendly databases for reporting purposes, ideally with helpful analysis tools, dashboards, graphic operations, and trend tracking features. Multiple Means of Access. Agencies benefit from having the ability to collect feedback regardless of the format or tool of the end user. Various forms of media that customers use for comments (phone, Internet, social media, etc.), should be integrated so that feedback can be compiled and responded to through one system. Open Across Personnel. Systems should be open to allow all customer-facing personnel, including directors and managers, to view reports filed. Customer service agents should be empowered to handle queries. Relevant Details. A good system should prompt the user to indicate the specific details of a complaint or commendation, such as the route, time, location, and direction. This should be done via interactive and drop-down menus so the concerns can be as specific as possible. Due Dates in System. Every comment should be assigned a due date for initial investigation based on the type of concern to ensure that feedback is responded to. Use Technology. New technologies such as quick-response (QR) codes should be used to make it easy for riders to take surveys or provide other types of feedback. Feedback tools should also have simple URLs that customers can readily recall and type. Positive. Systems should encourage positive feedback in addition to providing typical complaint categories. This can help morale at all levels of the agency if customers have an easy way to provide their commendations. Personal Profiles. If personal profiles are kept, a survey could be sent to a passenger to ask them about their experience on a specific bus route or on a particular type of service (like paratransit). Insights from recruited customers on their experiences with transit service can provide valuable feedback from riders who understand the system. The agency can provide

82 Use of Web-Based Rider Feedback to Improve Public Transit Services incentives to get feedback more frequently, but should make sure that they gather the information needed for follow-up. Real-Time. Applications should be real-time to allow direct interaction with customer service staff from wherever the customer is in the system (on board or at a facility). Location-Aware. Mobile device applications should automatically share the time, date, bus number, route number and location of the passenger. This allows for easy mapping of complaints. Easy to Understand, Yet Functionality for Tech-Savvy. Applications should work for tech- savvy people to allow high level interaction, but should be easy to understand for people who are not comfortable using computers, texting, etc. Ease of use may help to increase participation from riders who do not generally voice their opinions. Interesting. A system should ideally be interactive and dynamic to actively engage customers and maintain their interest. Voting Up and Down. For comments that are not time-sensitive, the system should allow people to see each other’s comments, where possible, to limit redundant feedback and encourage people to respond to each other. This makes it possible for a proposal to be voted upon. Planning issues are more likely to benefit from this openness. Suggested Future Research Topics Throughout the study, several areas were identified for future research, including metrics to measure the impact of web-based feedback, standardized feedback categories, and rider access to technology. Identifying Metrics Despite the demonstrated benefits of web-based feedback, it is sometimes difficult to wholly measure the impact that web-based tools have on agencies that use them. Many of the challenges identified, including staffing and training, require buy-in at all levels of an agency to ensure adequate resources. Furthermore, shifting from a traditional feedback process, using public meetings to solicit face-to-face comments and a call center to handle unsolicited feedback, to making use of the web-based feedback tools discussed in this report can be a major change for an agency. Without metrics to understand the ROI or to improve the web-based feedback program over time, agencies may struggle with decisions on which tools to implement or modify. Many social media and other third-party developer platforms offer easy, free, and automatic ways to track metrics like number of people engaged, post views, comments received, and so forth. The best web-based feedback reporting systems have analytics to measure quantitative issues and can gauge an improvement in public service by monitoring the time it takes for an agency to acknowledge a comment and resolve the issue. However, metrics that evaluate whether current web-based feedback tools are meeting users’ needs are not yet common, and agencies frequently use anecdotal evidence for this purpose instead. In addition, many feedback strategies discussed in this report do not fit neatly into traditional performance measures or ROI calculations. Further research is needed to understand how to quantify the benefits of individual web-based feedback tools. Measures of customer satisfaction and cost of feedback initiatives should be

Lessons Learned and Future Research 83 developed and shared amongst agencies if web-based feedback tools are to be further adopted in the industry. Standardized Feedback Categories From the perspective of creating more powerful, integrated web-based feedback tools, one barrier is the lack of a standardized process for collecting and processing feedback data. Over the past decade, many transit data streams have been standardized, such as schedule data in the form of the GTFS and real-time arrival data in the form of GTFS-Real Time or SIRI. A standard for feedback data used throughout the industry would make it easier for independent developers to build feedback into pre-existing applications, even if the applications cover multiple transit systems or regions. Further research is needed into the feedback categories that such a standard should include. Internal agency structure can differ from one transit agency to another, so that the marketing department handles web-based customer feedback in one agency while the customer service department leads this effort in another. Despite these differences, the nature of customer comments tend to be similar from one location to another and, with research into appropriate categories and groupings of categories, a standardized format for feedback could be created to enable further tool integration and development. Understanding Rider Access to Technology As discussed in this report, individuals in all demographic groups have more access to technology than ever before, and transit riders are participating in this trend as well. However, for many transit agencies, knowledge about the technological literacy of their ridership base is still limited. Among the agencies surveyed for this study, one out of four could not estimate how many of their riders had access to the Internet or to a smartphone. Most based their estimates on general knowledge of their customers or the community, which is a valid approach. But only a quarter of the agencies that provided an estimate of access to technology could base that response on the results of a rider survey. Further research is needed both on an agency-by-agency basis and across the industry in larger studies, to understand the reach of the Internet and smartphones among transit customers. Some existing work in urban areas should be followed by studies in rural, suburban, and small urban locations, as the reach of such tools may differ based on rider population. Standard survey questions about technology usage should be developed and adopted across the industry as rider surveys are developed. Understanding how passengers use technology can help transit agencies tailor their communication strategies to ensure that all riders have access to information and can easily provide feedback.