Here here, David. Good Luck, I hope it goes well.

by Matt Glazewski on Dec 18, 2008 11:17 am • link • report

I interpreted WMATA's refusal a little differently.

I thought that they were saying that providing the data would be providing Google something of clear value to them for free. Google will receive increased traffic from having the Metro data and this is worth something to them.

Instead, I thought, they think that Google should pay them for this privelage. There are two sides to this transaction, the potential lost revenue of WMATA and the potental for increased revenue for Google. Web ad revenue is obviously not a huge part of Metro's income, but it is most of Google's.

There is nothing unreasonable about expecting a company to pay for something of value to them. However, given that the other transit agencies that have provided data have not charged for it it seems unlikely that Google would agree to set a precedent that they would pay in the future.

WMATA has an obligation to its customers who would undoubtedly find google transit useful to make this deal happen one way or another.

by Ross on Dec 18, 2008 11:29 am • link • report

The thing is that I just tested NYC's google transit page and there are no ads.

But that's beside the point. Why is WMATA viewing basic ridership information as a revenue source? That's completely backwards and antithetical to their mission as a transit provider.

by Alex B. on Dec 18, 2008 12:02 pm • link • report

Well written indeed, David. Good luck.

On the subject of giving away things that have value: indeed, Google Transit is something that has value; it helps people get where they're going more easily. (Google Transit does not have advertising at the moment, but it certainly could make money by adding it.) And it certainly won't work here without the data from wmata. But the argument that wmata shouldn't give away something with value, because someone else might then make money from it seems to be missing something, especially when you consider this:

In order to make money using the wmata data, Google has to provide the public a useful way of accessing that data.

That would seem like a pretty good thing for the public, and directly applicable to wmata's mission. That is, we are getting paid--we have to get something good in order for the data to be valuable. Services from Google are a pretty good payment, I think.

The great thing about making the data open and available is that it allows other people to create valuable and useful services for it, for whatever reward compels them (personal pride, monetary gain, or philanthropic goals). In the end, we win by having this data available.

by Thomas on Dec 18, 2008 12:48 pm • link • report

David you're my hero!

by Lou DC on Dec 18, 2008 1:12 pm • link • report

Google transit is a huge benefit to the transit operators. In case it wasn't common knowledge, public transit routes (from google transit) are now available in the iPhone Maps application.

I can simply enter my destination, and it will display a route, using the transit operators, showing the prices, and times of the services. It even counts down the time as it goes.

I was in a city that I do not often visit a few weeks ago, and was able to effortlessly move around using a bus operator I'd never used before because of the information from Google transit. It would be nice if that were possible to do in DC, but sadly this means it isn't.

Does WMATA seriously think they're going to provide an alternative to this? Google is offering to advertise them to potential riders at the exact moment they are needed, for free.

Perhaps someone else is pitching to them. That's the most rational explanation I can think of.

by Robin Barooah on Dec 18, 2008 2:27 pm • link • report

Obviously Google Transit provides a benefit to people, that is why they use it.

But it would be silly for WMATA to give away something that they could be compensated for. If they could be compensated they should be compensated.

It seems to me unrealistic that they would be, but perhaps they have determined that it is possible.

Google will provide some "compensation" via the services they provide to the public (this makes sense if you consider the metro as an extension of the people, which it at least should be), but if they could provide more why wouldn't we want it?

I'm all for WMATA trying to get the best deal possible. As long as they end up with a deal. However, It does seem like there might just be some obstructionism going on.

by Ross on Dec 18, 2008 4:54 pm • link • report

In most of the comments, there seems to be an assumption that somehow more people will use WMATA if Google provided public transportation directions in addition to driving directions. I find this assumption to be somewhat far-fetched to say the least. It seems that many people would have already determined whether a trip is a public transportation trip or a private vehicle trip before checking directions, and if Google offers both, will choose driving directions if they are going someplace where they had planned on driving, perhaps knowing that they will be making several stops and making many purchases or the whole family will be travelling. If they plan on taking public transportation, they can use WMATA's superior interface, or if Google were to offer this service, use Google's more limited, less customizable, service. It seems unlikely that someone driving to shopping errands or taking the family to a relative's distant home is going to check the driving directions, and then decide on a whim to check public transportation. After clicking on public transportation, they determine that they can get there with a train and two or three buses and in only 3 times the amount of time that driving would take and at a higher cost, and so why not give public transportation a try for this trip. For the trips that don't involve a large number of people and likely would only involve one or two trains/buses, the person might have considered public transportation and simply checked it on the WMATA web-site. The underlying assumption that a large number people will go to Google and suddenly decide to give public transporation a try just isn't consistent with the way a lot of people make decisions.

At any rate, unless you are willing to believe that most people who live in or visit DC are just like you (people who think that anything offered by Google must be better than anything offered by a public agency), it is difficult to see how WMATA and the residents who support WMATA through fares and taxes benefit by giving Google the data, in the format demanded by Google, at no cost. While other cities have been listed as having this information available, we do not know that they provided it to Google at no cost. Are those contracts are publicly available? So I see no good reason why a former Google employee should be launching a campaign for our public transportation system to be providing this already publicly available data to Google in the Google format unless Google is willing to pay WMATA at least for the expense of compiling it in Google's format, and perhaps more based on the additional traffic that Google might obtain.

by Andy on Dec 18, 2008 5:27 pm • link • report

If giving away schedule data for free is such a bad idea, why doesn't WMATA charge for printed bus and subway schedules? Why doesn't Metro charge people to reproduce the rail map?

And why doesn't Google charge Metro for using Google Maps?

There are lots of revenue opportunities WMATA is ignoring. Escalators and elevators are a convenience. Why not put SmarTrip cards on them and charge 5 cents a ride?

Is it because a private business will benefit from the subsidy Metro provides? If so, why don't we charge people more for riding Metro if they are doing so for a business purpose? Failing to do so is giving a private company something they can use to reduce costs.

by Stanton Park on Dec 18, 2008 5:57 pm • link • report

WMATA used to sell the metrobus maps for $1.50, a price that probably resulted in a profit, but I'm not sure. It took a sustained campaign by the Sierra Club and the Riders Advisory Council's first chair, Dennis Jaffe to get them to give them away for free like rail maps.

http://www.sierraclub.org/DC/Sprawl/metro/metrobus.html

by Michael Perkins on Dec 18, 2008 6:42 pm • link • report

David,

Having just read all the posts in GGW on this topic, a detail that is consistently given little attention is the fact that WMATA would have to get this data into the Google format. I doubt this is as simple as someone at WMATA pushing a button and getting a dump of this schedule information in an Excel spreadsheet or an XML file. How much manpower would be required for WMATA to get its data into the Google format?

Maybe I am wrong and getting this information is a dead-simple exercise. But if I am right and getting this information into the Google format is something that takes significant manpower, then I think it is perfectly reasonable for WMATA to demand some sort of payment for this. I understand that all these other transit agencies saw fit to do this. That doesn't mean WMATA is being unreasonable. Maybe the other agencies are being stupid. WMATA has invested time and money into creating its own website, one that is controlled by the agency.

I can understand the reluctance of the agency to invest significant manpower for the sake of handing data over to Google. Despite how neat many of Google's applications are, remember that they exist solely to benefit one entity: Google. Google, unlike WMATA, does not answer to the taxpayers and it has no regard for the interests of the Washington metropolitan area. It will do what it pleases with this data, and it will use this data to make money.

Perhaps the other transit agencies decided that, instead of investing significant sums of money to build good trip planners like the one WMATA has, they would rather just have Google do this "for free." This comes at the cost of 1) formatting the data, and more importantly 2) the service is then controlled by Google. Google can pull the plug on it, make it hard to use due to ads, or do whatever else it wants with the service.

I'm not saying the other agencies were wrong to agree to this sort of compromise. I just think that, given the ready availability of this information to the public on the WMATA website--a site controlled by WMATA and operated in its interest, rather than a website operated by a private company that answers to no one--it is perfectly reasonable for WMATA to say that it's not going to do work for Google in exchange for nothing.

by Omari on Dec 19, 2008 8:04 am • link • report

In most of the comments, there seems to be an assumption that somehow more people will use WMATA if Google provided public transportation directions in addition to driving directions.

Well, of course. Google Transit hasn't been available for long, and I've already taken transit rides that I wouldn't have taken otherwise, just because it was that much easier to plan. The idea that people will use transit more often if it's easier for them to figure out how to do it and how well it will work for their own particular trip is so obvious that I don't understand why it needs to be defended.

by David desJardins on Dec 19, 2008 10:23 am • link • report

Having just read all the posts in GGW on this topic, a detail that is consistently given little attention is the fact that WMATA would have to get this data into the Google format.

Just to be clear, GTFS is an open format that anyone can use for any purpose. It's not as if Google is demanding the data in a format that only they can use. If Metro were to publish their data in some other open format, and insist that Google do the conversion if they want to use the data, I think that would be perfectly reasonable. But, at the moment, GTFS seems to be the only real alternative.

by David desJardins on Dec 19, 2008 10:28 am • link • report

In fact, I'm sure others would happily do the conversion. Heck, I'd spend the couple hours necessary to write a script to translate any other format into the Google format. That's the easy part. It's just that only WMATA can output the data.

Omari: To your question, yes, Metro officials have already said that they have the ability to easily output the data, at least in some format.

by David Alpert on Dec 19, 2008 10:31 am • link • report

"Heck, I'd spend the couple hours necessary to write a script to translate any other format into the Google format. That's the easy part. It's just that only WMATA can output the data."

I'd be stunned if it took a couple of hours to get data into this format and ensure its accuracy.

http://code.google.com/transit/spec/transit_feed_specification.html

That said, I do agree with both Davids in the sense that, if this data really is of "push a button and out it comes" quality, WMATA should make it available. I don't think WMATA should be responsible for any data massaging if such manipulation doesn't further the agency's interests. At the same time, I don't think WMATA should look at this as a revenue source.

This agency does have a history of withholding simple information or charging money for what could be free (see, for instance, the bus maps, which used to cost money.) I wouldn't be stunned if they can push a button but are refusing to do so. On the other hand, though, I don't think WMATA should be raked over the coals for refusing to do heavy lifting for Google free of charge.

by Omari on Dec 19, 2008 11:58 am • link • report

"How much manpower would be required for WMATA to get its data into the Google format?"

I used to do PHP scripting before I went back to school for planning. This is a week job tops, no matter what database WMATA is currently storing their data in.

by Chris Loo on Dec 19, 2008 1:09 pm • link • report

To clarify, I'm talking about 1 person...40 manhours tops.

by Chris Loos on Dec 19, 2008 1:10 pm • link • report

Legally, because WMATA is a public entity, its schedule and much other information is in the public domain. Withholding information is a violation of the public trust. (An important exception is payroll data: those are generally confidential to protect employees.)

I looked at Google Transit's webpage and saw that a lot of providers have their own licenses. Surely, WMATA can create a license if it does not like Google's. As for their worries about liability, these licenses have wording about providing the data "as is" and not making any representations regarding their quality.

GT has some work to do. It does not support interline transfers, which are very important in this area. That's in addition to its lack of support of time-of-day pricing.

GT requires that the provider itself make a link to its website and create at least one Google Mail account. I assume that's for security, so that others cannot spoof any agencies content. Thus, WMATA would have to provide a zip file on its own website, not exactly a difficult task.

As for programming, WMATA may not want to pay a programmer 40 hours to create files for GT. Here, the public can help. An unemployed programmer can make an agreement to develop reusable code to adapt WMATA's schedules to GT's format. I don't think getting someone to do this for free will be particularly difficult. We have at least one volunteer on GGW.

If WMATA remains recalcitrant, we should petition our lawmakers who appoint the BOD.

by Chuck Coleman on Dec 19, 2008 8:38 pm • link • report