How will rail advocacy be shaped by the COVID-19 pandemic?

[DesertDude]

It goes without saying we live in uncertain times, with constant discussion and debate over reopening and a "new normal" as we work through the COVID-19 crisis. That said, what does this mean for the rail advocacy work we've done, and how might that work change in the future?

Here are some issues I see on the horizon which we need to be discussing:

1. Severe economic conditions may make it difficult to pay for new or improved rail services given other priorities.

2. As Hurricane Katrina was the impetus behind suspending the gulf coast segment of the Sunset Limited, this event may be used to justify cutting routes or route segments in the LD network.

3. Public perception may exist that mass transit exacerbated the spread of COVID-19 in cities like NYC, and therefore transit initiatives will garner less support.

4. Given the mass shift to telecommuting and the resulting ease of traffic congestion during shutdown, the public may question if it's necessary to invest in commuter rail.

What are your thoughts? What are some challenges going forward, and what should we focus on? Or is it too early to tell?

 

[Thirdrail7]

1 )I agree with you. With state and federal revenues down, not only will it be difficult or improved rail services, it may be difficult to support the existing service. This is particularly true with state-supported services.

2) I don't really agree with this point. This is the time they could have shut down part of the network. Yet, Congress gave Amtrak money specifically for the LD network. As long as there aren't any infrastructure issues, I see the national network continuing. *

3) There may be truth to that but there are plenty of people that still will need to use public transportation.

4) I agree telecommuting may reshape the reality landscape. Cities were rebounding but this may cause people to spread out to the suburbs.....knowing they can telecommute. I'm also interested in seeing what happens to the business traveler. I wonder if they will return or spend more time attending teleconferences. I expect the new high-speed trains (and their associated prices) to lose their luster.

That being said, I think advocating for rail should remain a priority.

 

[Woodcut60]

I completely agree with Thirdrail7.

 

[MARC Rider]

4) I agree telecommuting may reshape the reality landscape. Cities were rebounding but this may cause people to spread out to the suburbs.....knowing they can telecommute. I'm also interested in seeing what happens to the business traveler. I wonder if they will return or spend more time attending teleconferences. I expect the new high-speed trains (and their associated prices) to lose their luster.

Having spent some of my working life telecommuting, I have to say that it's both underrated and overrated at the same time. Underrated in that there are times when you can get more stuff done at home or in a remote work location than you can at the office, with bosses and co-workers constantly bothering you. But it's overrated in that many times you can't get stuff done without those bosses and coworkers immediately available to you. Also, there are a lot of distractions at home. What telecommuting is really good for is to be able to attend worthless meetings without having to spend to effort to get to the physical location. I allows you to zone out at those meeting without having any negative social or job impact from your co-workers or boss. (Ever start snoring during at staff meeting? I have. ) Seriously, remote meeting were good when I was managing a contractor located in San Antonio, as using teleconferencing, we were able to have weekly meetings without my having to fly down every week. I didn't zone out at those meetings, as I was running them.

Actually, a lot of my work career involved working remotely from my office, as I did a lot of field work, for which you can't telecommute. Also, with that contractor in San Antonio, I would try to go down a couple of times a year and supervise their testing, making sure they were giving us what we were asking for. (And so that I could understand how the tests were done and whether their excuses about why things weren't on schedule were for real.) That sort of stuff can't be done remotely.

Since this stay-at-home stuff, our synagogue has also been doing religious ritual via Zoom. While it's better than nothing, I do have to say I'm not impressed that this technology is any long-term substitute for face-to-face contact.

In sort, what I'm saying, is that I am a bit skeptical that telecommuting will really shape the "reality landscape," except around the edges.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Real Telecommuting came after my Government Career, but like MARC Rider, I did lots of Off Site Work and BusinessTraveling during my time with Uncle Sam.

The tools I used to Communicate with Washington ( and Regional Offices) were the Telephone ,( Remember Watts Lines and Phone Cards?),Scantrons,Telex/FAXand Snail Mail.

Most of my work involved being on site ( there were 100+ Job Corps Centers),but I did some work with Teams,which required Meetings which are the Bane of most Jobs!(picture a Meeting on a Friday afternoon in August @ DOL,instant Snoozville!

I doubt if Work @ Home will ever become the MO of the Majority of Jobs, but in certain Sectors it can be beneficial to the Orgsnization and the Employees.

I wouldn't care for it myself, but I'm not much of a Stay @ Home type, but YMMV.

 

[Thirdrail7]

There may be plenty of time in the field but there is still a difference in commuting into a central location on a daily basis versus commuting into a central location a few times a week. If that becomes an option (which it is for some and may be an option for more people in the future), it may make the difference in deciding where you live. You may be willing to live further away from a central location knowing you may not have to commute every day.

Therefore, my hopes is for continued advocacy. People probably thought rail was dead years ago and it came back around. it needs to continue forward and be there for future needs.

 

[MARC Rider]

Real Telecommuting came after my Government Career, but like MARC Rider, I did lots of Off Site Work and BusinessTraveling during my time with Uncle Sam.

The tools I used to Communicate with Washington ( and Regional Offices) were the Telephone ,( Remember Watts Lines and Phone Cards?),Scantrons,Telex/FAXand Snail Mail.

Back in the days when I was doing field work for the USGS, we had no cell phones, so it was pretty much, "see you Friday, boss," and I was incommunicado until I got back, which is the way I liked it. I had a couple of times when my field vehicles broke down, and I had to use a pay phone (remember them?) to call the office to arrange the paperwork needed to get the repairs done.

During my EPA days in travel, I had cellphones and a laptop, but I used them mainly to check my email, not to do remote collaborations.

It makes you think of back in the days of the sailing ships, when communications to and from home took months that at captain had an incredible amount of freedom and authority. It must have been hell for them when they invented radio, and the captains started getting micromanaged by the Navy brass.

 

[JRR]

Having spent some of my working life telecommuting, I have to say that it's both underrated and overrated at the same time. Underrated in that there are times when you can get more stuff done at home or in a remote work location than you can at the office, with bosses and co-workers constantly bothering you. But it's overrated in that many times you can't get stuff done without those bosses and coworkers immediately available to you. Also, there are a lot of distractions at home. What telecommuting is really good for is to be able to attend worthless meetings without having to spend to effort to get to the physical location. I allows you to zone out at those meeting without having any negative social or job impact from your co-workers or boss. (Ever start snoring during at staff meeting? I have. ) Seriously, remote meeting were good when I was managing a contractor located in San Antonio, as using teleconferencing, we were able to have weekly meetings without my having to fly down every week. I didn't zone out at those meetings, as I was running them.

Actually, a lot of my work career involved working remotely from my office, as I did a lot of field work, for which you can't telecommute. Also, with that contractor in San Antonio, I would try to go down a couple of times a year and supervise their testing, making sure they were giving us what we were asking for. (And so that I could understand how the tests were done and whether their excuses about why things weren't on schedule were for real.) That sort of stuff can't be done remotely.

Since this stay-at-home stuff, our synagogue has also been doing religious ritual via Zoom. While it's better than nothing, I do have to say I'm not impressed that this technology is any long-term substitute for face-to-face contact.

In sort, what I'm saying, is that I am a bit skeptical that telecommuting will really shape the "reality landscape," except around the edges.

I telecommuted first over 10 years. The good part is no commute!

it takes a lot of discipline to maintain a work environment and professional attitude. It is absolutely necessary that any others in the house respect the sanctity of one’s workspace.

The negatives are lack of personal contact and the fact that no matter how busy you may be working at an office, eventually, you go home even if very late. Working from home, it’s always there and when swamped, one cannot escape it.

Two good rules are:
1. Arrange for periodic lunches with colleagues or other professionals, and

2. Maintain a group to talk, Skype, zoom etc. so that you can get input to consider tough issues.

 

[MARC Rider]

I telecommuted first over 10 years. The good part is no commute!

it takes a lot of discipline to maintain a work environment and professional attitude. It is absolutely necessary that any others in the house respect the sanctity of one’s workspace.

The negatives are lack of personal contact and the fact that no matter how busy you may be working at an office, eventually, you go home even if very late. Working from home, it’s always there and when swamped, one cannot escape it.

Two good rules are:
1. Arrange for periodic lunches with colleagues or other professionals, and

2. Maintain a group to talk, Skype, zoom etc. so that you can get input to consider tough issues.

It's not just my imagination, but video conferencing is more stressful (and maybe less effective) than face-to-face meeting.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/why-is-video-conferencing-so-exhausting/ar-BB13hmWShttps://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200421-why-zoom-video-chats-are-so-exhausting
Some of it's related to the technology. There's time delays on the video signal that make the images move in a jerky fashion and make it really hard to read facial cures, body language, etc. in real time. The audio is often (usually) not synced with the video, which further screws up the facial cues, etc. There's also feedback yowls unless everybody except one person mutes themselves, which kind of makes it hard for people to join in a conversation. This is in addition to the psychological stress of being on camera, which, for some reason, seems to be more of a hassle than just being there in person. The advice they're giving seems to be (1) turn off the camera, and (2) use plain old telephone conference calls, both of which seem to make video conferencing software superfluous.

There's another advantage of face-to-face, and that's when you have to discuss sensitive matters that you would prefer not be recorded. Many people who should know better don't realize the wide net cast by legal discovery, and aren't as careful as they should be when using technology capable of being easily recorded.

 

[IndyLions]

I think one of the biggest impacts you’re going to see moving forward is on business travel budgets. For maybe the first time ever - companies are forced to have their sales staffs attempt to become effective through virtual sales calls without travel to customer sites.

It all comes down to how company managers view the effectiveness of this new virtual sales call approach. While I don’t think it will replace business travel completely, I can definitely see it replacing 25-50% of business travel. Keep in mind that business travel is a large line item on a lot of corporation budgets. If corporations feel like they can get a better bang for their buck through a combination of technology and lesser travel – then that’s the way they’ll go.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

I'm finding that I really dislike Zoom and I've only been using it socially. I don't mind working from home, at least some of the time, but it's nice to have people to ask questions of and discuss things with face to face on short notice.

I wouldn't be surprised that we get a big infrastructure package in the near future which make benefit rail in some ways. There might be additional/new interest in PRT (name's escaping me, the system in West Virginia - that's it, Morgantown or the old Braniff monorail type thing - there is something in function at Heathrow right now that's essentially PRT) to limit infection and spread of infectious diseases. But I suspect that it's very expensive and might be seen as elitist. I heard a report that we may be living with this for longer than expected (a vaccine will be difficult due to development time and production in sufficient numbers to get doses for everybody - production capacity needing to be ramped up) so I think a lot of people are going to shift to cars - not biking like the Streetsblog people keep insisting.

But if I could predict that, the future and what will happen, I'd be very rich or at least a consultant...

 

[Old MM]

Telecommuting is good for people, companies, and the environment. Reduction of fuel consumption should be actively encouraged by any employer. I find most in person meetings involve a high degree of self promotion from certain people, and in general, wasted time. Forcing people to commute to work in cubicles is really an exercise in control by employers that yields little if any positive result. By "control" I mean the illusion of control over other humans that no one really has. If you're a manager of direct reports then your job is to determine what you would like them to accomplish... by when... and provide them with sufficient support and leadership such that they can meet these goals and even surpass them. Allow them to contribute their strengths, which often have nothing to do with who can score the most "face time" with higher-ups.
Also, enough with forcing sick people to work to spread germs. Hire enough people that sick people can stay home. Difficult to administer? Maybe don't reward your execs with bonus pay until they figure out how to do that. I have some ideas if they can't figure it out.
If we've learned nothing else in the past few months, anyone who has a virus/illness and can work remotely should be encouraged to do so and not punished.

 

[Barb Stout]

The advice they're giving seems to be (1) turn off the camera, and (2) use plain old telephone conference calls, both of which seem to make video conferencing software superfluous.

I have been taking a foreign language class recently (and also periodically from 2017 onward) using telephone conference calls and they have some of the same issues with distorted sound when not everyone except the instructor is muted. However, there doesn't appear to be delays in the sound. If someone ever tried to use Skype to make the phone call (without the video), that would mess things up also. In spite of the mature technology with teleconferencing, from time to time there would be glitches, but not all that often.

 

[Barb Stout]

Telecommuting is good for people, companies, and the environment. Reduction of fuel consumption should be actively encouraged by any employer. I find most in person meetings involve a high degree of self promotion from certain people, and in general, wasted time. Forcing people to commute to work in cubicles is really an exercise in control by employers that yields little if any positive result. By "control" I mean the illusion of control over other humans that no one really has. If you're a manager of direct reports then your job is to determine what you would like them to accomplish... by when... and provide them with sufficient support and leadership such that they can meet these goals and even surpass them. Allow them to contribute their strengths, which often have nothing to do with who can score the most "face time" with higher-ups.
Also, enough with forcing sick people to work to spread germs. Hire enough people that sick people can stay home. Difficult to administer? Maybe don't reward your execs with bonus pay until they figure out how to do that. I have some ideas if they can't figure it out.
If we've learned nothing else in the past few months, anyone who has a virus/illness and can work remotely should be encouraged to do so and not punished.

Except that there are plenty of people whose conditions at home are noisy between pets (dogs, parrots), children, other people living there who might need to do things that create sound, or other distractions.

Also, with telecommuters, there might be pressure, subtle or overt, to work when sick which will slow the healing process down and increase the probability of making mistakes. This would need to be taken into account.

 

[Old MM]

Except that there are plenty of people whose conditions at home are noisy between pets (dogs, parrots), children, other people living there who might need to do things that create sound, or other distractions.
Also, with telecommuters, there might be pressure, subtle or overt, to work when sick which will slow the healing process down and increase the probability of making mistakes. This would need to be taken into account.

It is definitely easier when kids are older, and there are definitely distractions, that is something that has to be worked out. Having had young kids, who got older, I can say it's different at each stage. Older kids don't take naps but they can compromise with you in a more responsible fashion for quiet time and bandwidth.
As far as working when sick, telecommuting wins hands down IMHO. Presumably sick time would still be available for people who are incapacitated. But if I've got a cold or flu bug, I can be much more productive at home without people having to listen to my stuffy noise and sneezing, and more importantly, not spreading my germs to others. I've written some bang-up reports for my boss while being at home sick, and trust me, no one there would have wanted what I had.
The paradigm for service workers has to be shifted much more. Managements view them as dispensable so they are forever micromanaging them, and companies quite simply have the resources to do better for the workers and for that matter, customers. I don't want a sick person slicing meat at the deli, stocking shelves, or serving food on a train or plane. Instead of trying to squeeze out every dime of profit, again, hire enough so that you have extras if someone gets sick. Let people use sick time and stay home when appropriate. Will this result in some level of incremental sick time abuse, yes probably. I submit that is a minuscule problem to focus on and the big picture is far more compelling.

 

[IndyLions]

Instead of trying to squeeze out every dime of profit, again, hire enough so that you have extras if someone gets sick....

This is just as much a consumer issue as it is a company issue. Will we as consumers be willing to pay more for goods and services then we currently do to support this sort of policy?

A lot of people shop based on price, price, price - which is the very thing that pushed out a lot of mom-and-pop businesses in favor of the big box stores and Amazon. That continued consumer behavior would also prevent this cost raising policy from being adopted by most companies.

 

[Old MM]

This is just as much a consumer issue as it is a company issue. Will we as consumers be willing to pay more for goods and services then we currently do to support this sort of policy?

A lot of people shop based on price, price, price - which is the very thing that pushed out a lot of mom-and-pop businesses in favor of the big box stores and Amazon. That continued consumer behavior would also prevent this cost raising policy from being adopted by most companies.

I don't know that people would have to pay more necessarily. The continued reallocation of wealth into the hands of a tiny percentage, makes me wonder what would happen if these few billionaires had to pony up their fair share. Make no mistake, they can afford to hire more people, they can afford to make their workplaces safe, they can afford to be environmentally responsible, and they can afford to provide basics such as health care and PPE to their workers. Sure it might cut into their profits a little. So what?

The concept that they will retaliate by raising prices, is the threat that we have all been living under and so we just knuckle under. The fact of the matter is the rich have rigged the rules in their favor. We don't have to knuckle under. We can, and should, demand appropriate legislation from the people who are supposed to represent us, and we have to not reward them with our votes when they don't represent our interests. We also have to understand that the billionaires do not share our same interests.

Billionaires will never be deterred from travel. That's what multiple homes, vacation homes, private jets and yachts get them.
Billionaires also don't have to worry about the basics of life, such as food, purified water, and health care. Regardless of what happens to our systems, the wealthy will be able to purchase the best of everything including private physicians, medical equipment, and everything else. They value these basics and they are not about to do without them.
They just don't care if anyone else can get them.
So please do not be discouraged by arguments related to price increases. No one needs to be making more billions from the pandemic.

 

[Bob Dylan]

I don't know that people would have to pay more necessarily. The continued reallocation of wealth into the hands of a tiny percentage, makes me wonder what would happen if these few billionaires had to pony up their fair share. Make no mistake, they can afford to hire more people, they can afford to make their workplaces safe, they can afford to be environmentally responsible, and they can afford to provide basics such as health care and PPE to their workers. Sure it might cut into their profits a little. So what?

The concept that they will retaliate by raising prices, is the threat that we have all been living under and so we just knuckle under. The fact of the matter is the rich have rigged the rules in their favor. We don't have to knuckle under. We can, and should, demand appropriate legislation from the people who are supposed to represent us, and we have to not reward them with our votes when they don't represent our interests. We also have to understand that the billionaires do not share our same interests.

Billionaires will never be deterred from travel. That's what multiple homes, vacation homes, private jets and yachts get them.
Billionaires also don't have to worry about the basics of life, such as food, purified water, and health care. Regardless of what happens to our systems, the wealthy will be able to purchase the best of everything including private physicians, medical equipment, and everything else. They value these basics and they are not about to do without them.
They just don't care if anyone else can get them.
So please do not be discouraged by arguments related to price increases. No one needs to be making more billions from the pandemic.

Right on! as we said in the 60s!
Should be read by every Citizen in the US and then the 60bMillion that didnt Vote in 2016 need to Vote their own Interest, not for the Greedy 1% !!!

Cue Sam Cooke singing " A Change is Gonna Come!"

 

[jebr]

Except that there are plenty of people whose conditions at home are noisy between pets (dogs, parrots), children, other people living there who might need to do things that create sound, or other distractions.

Not to mention, I honestly prefer going into an office and having that physical separation from work and home life, and I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment. Within my department, most of us want to get back into the office once it's safe to do so. Some want to have the option to work from home a day or two a week, but many are fine with simply going back to the office. I also simply don't have space in my apartment to set aside an area that can rest undisturbed after-hours, and I'm guessing there's a lot of people in that same situation.

As for what this means for rail advocacy, I think it means that we'll still need at least some peak-level rail transit (above and beyond a baseline level of service) for commuters. Some people simply prefer having face-to-face interactions, and I don't see that going away completely, even in a new normal. Some people also want the separation of space that work provides, or their work requires a lot more space than what a corner in a bedroom can provide.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I think the main difference today is that many companies and managers who remained unswayed by telecommuting have now been shown it can work well enough to be viable. Workers who lack sufficient space or meaningful boundaries at home may find telecommuting difficult, but others will wish to remain at home with an obvious motivation. More accountants will be instructed to consider telecommuting when planning future office needs and institutional stockholders may push for reductions in office space to improve returns. This increasing acceptance is likely to have a knock-on effect that could be difficult to reverse. Public schools with budget shortfalls may be forced to convert some classes to online learning in order to make ends meet. Over a long enough timeline telecommuting may eventually swap roles and become the future standard while office commuting becomes the exception for many positions.

 

[sttom]

I would say it really depends on what type of rail we are talking about. Commuter rail might face some opposition after this probably due to the depressed economy rather than people all of a sudden working from home. A lot of managers still think they need to micromanage the people they supervise. Office workers could have started working from home 12 years ago, but we haven't largely due to our inability to change with technology. Even Japan which in theory has better internet than we do is behind the curve completely due to their work culture. I can imagine that we would shift to a work pattern of work from home 2 or 3 days per week if you can, but not a work pattern where we only go in once a week.

I also have to agree working from home is both under and overrated. I had a difficult time transitioning to work from home for the few weeks that I was. Its really difficult to go from having your team always be there to being completely on your own. Calling someone on Teams isn't remotely the same as being able to walk over and talk to someone. And that right there is going to be the real kicker for a lot of work. Yes I can replace a bunch of time filling meetings on Teams, but its harder to ask my coworkers about something or explain a problem to them in text vs just talking to them.

As for intercity rail, I think it will rebound once things settle. How quickly will be based on the rest of the economy comes back. I would say expansions might get put on hold, but what have we really gotten as far as expansions go since 2008? We are still waiting on the equipment we were planning on ordering before the Recession and now we are getting equipment we don't want because of a long series of shenanigans.

 

[Old MM]

By the way I've been in contact with several college students, high school students, graduate students, workers with families, and workers with extended family obligations. Only two of this large group are related to me.
All have found ways, even in one bedroom apartments, to accomplish their academic and workplace goals.
I'm not saying that everyone can do the same things, I'm just saying it's possible.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Unfortunately, a lot of people, even in urban areas, do not have either computers or internet connections beyond phones at home. One of my friends has been finding a lot of her staff cannot work from home due to this - and these are professional jobs requiring a college education with middle class incomes. And a lot more jobs cannot be done from home because there is a component of needing to access a physical object or other item, even when part of their professional job can be done from home. Other people cannot work entirely from home because of our poor internet infrastructure - for instance one of my friends requires access to a huge database that cannot be accessed other than from the office where there is a direct connection to the servers that contain the data (though, he is luckily a valued employee with some health issues and they have made accomodations for him to work from home and are attempting to make the data available).

My concern is this is going to create an even more divided society with "front line" second class workers who have to be in the office vs those who can work in glorious isolation from home. I'm wondering what is going to happen to restaurants and retail - what happens if we have an industrial/manufacturing boom and a fuel spike increase - will Amazon delivery still be cheap (or if the post office goes away - a worry not just for this but for people w/o internet service - how will they pay bills?). I think Uber and Lyft may die completely in the near future though.

**Rant over**

 

[jis]

By the way I've been in contact with several college students, high school students, graduate students, workers with families, and workers with extended family obligations. Only two of this large group are related to me.
All have found ways, even in one bedroom apartments, to accomplish their academic and workplace goals.
I'm not saying that everyone can do the same things, I'm just saying it's possible.

For what it is worth I have worked mostly from home for the last 15 or so years. I found that work environment to present fewer distractions than the multi-person work pods and low separator cubes that have become the norm in offices. But the more sociable ones may find the cube setups more amenable to their taste. I prefer to have as few distractions as possible when I am trying to work on software, architecture, system modeling or design. Interactions via electronic means of various sorts gives me the freedom to manage distractions better.

Suffice it to say it depends a lot on the nature of ones profession.

Incidentally, there already is a huge implicit class distinction that exists in terms of the nature of work that one does. The pandemic enforced additional restrictions may possibly enhance some of those while reducing others.

 

[Bob Dylan]

If we've learned Nothing else from this Crisis:

Many More " Essential Workers" with Liveable Wages and Decent Health Care, Stop Bashing Immigrants,and Move Essential stuff like Pharm and Medical Equipment/PPE Manufactuting back to the US.

Of course it'll cost more, but even the dumbest moron should have realized by now this is what is needed to make us the Society we Claim to be!!