Posts about Trip Planning

Simplifying directions like this helps riders internalize the route network, and encourages spontaneity. Instead of having the sense that every transit trip starts with a visit to Google Transit, riders gain the sense that they can travel whenever they want.

Jarrett Walker emphasized the value of grids, and of high-frequency transit services, during his talk last week. "Frequency is freedom," he says. A regular grid of frequent services makes it easier to get around without having to consult an online trip planner before every trip, though many riders still rely on Google Transit and local trip planners to figure out how to get around.

In fact, the worst thing a trip planner can do is recommend that a rider take an infrequent, irregular service just because it happens to be there when the rider is starting their trip. A great example of this is the Route 305 bus in Los Angeles; as Jarrett Walker explains, it's a low-frequency service which runs through a high-frequency grid:

That means that the 305 is the fastest path between two points on the line only if it happens to be coming soon. If you just miss one, there's another way to get there faster, via the much more frequent lines that flow north-south and east-west across this entire area.

Why should a trip planner ever recommend that a rider take a bus like the Route 305? Doesn't it make more sense to show them to how to use the high-frequency grid to their advantage?

Our hapless, misdirected rider will doggedly wait for that infrequent route to come along, because it's what their itinerary lists. But if they'd received an itinerary which used the high-frequency grid, they'd be on their way a lot sooner.

Of course, even in cities with the most comprehensive high-frequency grids, some trips require going outside the grid. Then, there may be no choice but to ask the prospective rider when they're travelling. But even in those cases, the trip planner's itinerary should still include information on the frequency of the services being used.

Simply put, out in the real world, things happen. A rider might get to the bus stop or train station 10 minutes or even 30 minutes after they'd intended, so doesn't it make sense to tell them up front how long they'll have to wait if they miss the planned trip?

Cross-posted at Raschke on Transport.

I chose the option to plan a trip arriving by 9:30 to account for trackwork scheduled for the Orange Line and also for the walk to the venue. As you can see, the trip planner told me to expect a travel time of 1 hour and 36 minutes. That's a long time. A lot longer than it should be, in fact.

The problem lies in the way Metro's trip planner deals with "arrive by" queries. When users try using the "arrive by" tool, the planner tool gives riders the trip arriving closest to (but not after) the time specified. That sounds good on the surface, but let's consider my trip.

If you look at the results closely, you'll see that the trip planner has me wait 40 minutes at New Carrollton station. If I transferred directly from the bus to the Orange Line, I would arrive at Foggy Bottom station at 8:55, which is 35 minutes too early. Instead of telling me this, the planner just makes it look like I have no option but to wait 40 minutes at New Carrollton.

That kind of information can turn riders off. Why take a trip that will take over an hour and half when you could probably drive it in a half hour?

What would be particularly helpful would be to show each possible permutation of a trip, especially when connections are involved. Metro's trip planner deals with this by returning each as a separate itinerary. For example:

• Board a bus at 9:10. Exit at the Metro stop at 9:25. Take a Green train at 9:30.
• Board a bus at 9:10. Exit at the Metro stop at 9:25. Take a Green train at 9:36.
• Board a bus at 9:10. Exit at the Metro stop at 9:25. Take a Green train at 9:42.

Those aren't different itineraries. They're just different waits at the Metro station.

I think a format like this would be more helpful. The trip Metro actually planned for me is outlined in red.

I've also included (in yellow highlighting) one arrival after the "arrive by" time. This allows for trips that arrive within a reasonable time. For example, if I want to arrive by 9:30, and there's a train that gets me there at 9:31, that's probably okay, and a trip I might want to know about.

Other itineraries should be substantially different from the first (since it's showing all options). In this example, there's really only one other feasible option, and that's to travel by way of the Green Line.

An itinerary like this would allow riders to better plan their trips. Perhaps arriving early isn't a good option. In that case, they know they have time to stop off for coffee, or perhaps that they could wait for a later bus and still arrive within a reasonable time.

WMATA's arrive by function used to return all sorts of gibberish to achieve "alternate" itineraries, including trips that went past where you wanted to go and then had you change vehicles and return. These days, Metro has modified their planner so it does better, though it still leaves a lit to be desired.

Metro's trip planner and other trip planning applications could be better by showing more options. I know my graphics leave a little to be desired, but it's the principle I'm trying to illustrate.

Do you have thoughts for ways to improve trip planning?