I'll take the "malicious compliance". Does the additional information truly change the situation, I guess it won't. But information and transparency has value in-and-of itself...
Information is information. And prefer to know more rather than know less regardless how much I can act on it.
Ant, sure, transparency = good; information = good.
But leaving it at that is setting way too low of a bar for the T. The problem with "malicious compliance" is that it is tied to a "see, we checked that box. we're done with that, now moving to the next complaint" type of mentality. It allows Steve Poftak to "manage up" by saying things like "customers raised 20 issues, and we closed 20 issues" (I am not saying Steve is actually doing that here; this issue pre-dates him - but I am pointing to the risk of such thinking).
As others have chimed in: no, all information is not equally good/valuable.
What riders need is the best answer the T can provide to the question of "how is this situation going to impact me?" And, more specifically: "
should I or should I not continue to stand here waiting on this platform?"
These riders are real
people. Most of them are trying to get to their jobs and/or important appointments. They need to know whether to get off that platform asap and find an alternate mode, OR, to send that timely text/email/call to their boss about being late, OR, to arrange for the babysitter to stay late, etc. REAL. FREAKING. STUFF.
The design of a communication scheme needs to
specifically address the needs of its recipients. In this case: the T's best advice to stay on that platform, or not?...to make that call, or not?
For starters, I'd prefer a scheme that:
1) Does provide insight into cause of issue, but categorically: vehicle/mechanical, track/signal, medical issue, police action...probably that's enough; maybe 1 or 2 more. This lends transparency to the question of: was this T's poor performance or something outside their control.
2) They should provide status as to whether the corrective action path has been established or not. Why? Because it is understandable for them to not yet be able to provide a time estimate if the issue isn't done being diagnosed...yet we
should expect a best-guess time estimate if the issue has been diagnosed and corrective action identified.
3) Depending on the answer to #2, they should provide a time estimate that's accurate to within +/5min and they should continuously update the estimate.
The scheme would look something like this:
"We expect a 10 minute delay in service due to a mechanical issue with a train at Downtown Crossing. The issue has been identified and is in the process of being resolved."
OR,
"We are facing an unknown delay due to an unresolved issue tied to police action at Park Street. Updates to follow as soon as possible."
ETC.
This at least
gives the rider more agency to make the best possible plans for their personal/work lives.
I apologize that my snarky post about "malicious compliance" above was a bit hyperbolized, but in reality we still see things like:
On the green line: "train is stopped 5 stops away"...wtf does that mean? Is that OK? (e.g., it is normal for the train to be stopped now? If so, OK.
But the operative question is: should I or shouldn't I continue to wait here?).
On the orange and red: arrival: 20+ minutes (really?...well, if that's longer than the scheduled headway, would you mind telling us whats up? Because if it's really just 20-25 min, then at least I can make an informed decision about that. But if 20+ min means "who the eff knows" then that's a different story. I feel like they don't post "24 min" because that looks embarrassing/ridiculous, but REAL transparency puts customer's needs ahead of that - in fact, that's kind of the whole point of transparency).
I have such high standards not because I am defeatist/conspiracy theorist about the T, but because I truly care. I don't want them to bleed riders to Uber/Lyft. Or for people to face ramifications at their jobs because of this.
