Can you tell this bus stops at the Montlake Freeway Station?
Seattle’s famous geographical and topographical constraints are commonly cited for our high transit mode share here. For these very reasons, transit is often forced to consolidate and squeeze into major arterials just to avoid water and hills. The perk, of course, is frequent service along these arterials. The floating bridges are a great example of this– 520 service between Evergreen Point and Montlake is quite fantastic dayround because of the sheer number of cross-lake routes that are squeezed onto the bridge.
From an operations standpoint, combined service can be problematic, for two reasons. First, lots of service doesn’t always mean even service. Transit schedulers like to plan trips using time points and pulses at major hubs, so faster drivers don’t go off schedule and riders can transfer to connecting routes. Since schedules are primarily scheduled this way, buses can often bunch at the chokepoints where you do get combined service.
Second, the quality of combined service can be compromised if it’s not even branded as combined service. Often, you’ll see passengers pass one bus by only to take another a few minutes later heading to the same destination. More experienced riders are generally familiar enough with the system not to make such mistakes, but occasional and new riders tend to miss the mark.
One typical example I’m a daily witness to on my commute to the University is at Evergreen Point. A route like the 556 is headed to its final terminus at Northgate (which is what the headsign reads) but passes through the same common stops at the University as the 540 or the 542. Sometimes, I see UW-bound students and employees waive an earlier ride on the 556 simply because they think the bus is headed straight for Northgate.
One solution would be to program headsigns to reflect combined service along frequent corridors. In lieu of expensive bus wraps and livery schemes, informative headsign displays can be a cheap form of branding. Too many routes often fail to utilize the alternating function on headsigns, which should always flash back and forth between their final destinations and major intermediate destinations, if there are any.
In the case of 520, the 556 headsign should read: ‘NORTHGATE <–> via U-DISTRICT’ and Seattle-bound routes that only stop at the freeway station might say something like: ‘SEATTLE <–> via MONTLAKE.’ For the latter, you’d probably need additional information to convey the fact that a transfer at Montlake gets you to the University; something in the form of a combined schedule displaying all the ways to get to UW both direct and indirect, could be useful.
To be clear, the existing schedules already posted at stops are pretty good at telling you whether or not a bus is stopping at a major destination en route to its terminus. However, someone making a quick transfer might not have time to scan the schedule. If they can’t tell upfront whether or not they can get to where they’re going with the next bus that’s pulling up, then they’ll lose a high-quality transfer.
I’m a big proponent of making transit better with little operational fixes here and there without actually revising service. To my knowledge, headsigns require little to no cost to recode. A stronger standard for what gets displayed in front of each bus can go a long way in making transit better, especially as we think about reducing transfer penalty.
Speaking of headsigns, if you are a King County Metro rider and OneBusAway user, you’ve probably noticed the headsign data I get from the agency isn’t always super useful. With the most recent update especially, a lot of headsigns have taken the form “UNIVERSITY DISTRICT BALLARD”. The all-caps aside, there should actually be a “via” in there (UW via Ballard). Unfortunately, with it left out, you tend to read that the bus is going from UW to Ballard, when in fact it’s going in the opposite direction. I think this is pretty confusing for riders.
There are lots of other little headsign and route-name issues as well. I try to let KCM know about these issues, but it’d be great if they could hear it from other riders as well. I think they’d be more likely to fix issues like this if they were hearing from more people than just me.
Brian,
Does the headsign data come from Metro with any sort of implied break between the two alternating screens? Since that break implies the word “via” essentially 100% of the time, you could program OneBusAway to add in that implicit word.
Even if they don’t provide a usable break indicator, you could insert the word “via” between the 2nd-to-last and last words of headsign and it would be right about 99% of the time.
Again, thank you for the life-changing phenomenon that OneBusAway has been! I finally graduated from the phone interface to the iPhone app a few days ago!
There needs to be more of a standard when it comes to headsign programming. I’d even support using 3 diffrent displays to adiquatly inform the riders of where a bus is going, so long as proper supporting verbiage is used. The 594 has to be the worst. 594 SEATTLE / 594 TACOMA. Tells you nothing. at the very least it should say Via Tacoma. Ideally, it would be 594 Dtwn Seattle / 594 via Dtwn Tacoma /594 via T Dome Stn. or something of the like. Same with Soundbound, 594 Tacoma / 594 Lakewood. at the very least it should be “Via Tacoma”, even better it should be 594 Lakewood Stn / 594 Via Dtwn Tacoma / 594 via T Dome Stn. Of course rewording the signs probally still wouldent help the small number of riders who get on the 554 instead of a 594. Atleast metro is no longer using UNIV DIST anymore, and is using the more commonly referred to name of U District.
It’s a shame Metro/ST have split up so many bus groups going to the same destinations.
There is little logical reason to keep the 554 on the surface downtown. It can easily be moved into the tunnel, as it runs only half-hourly at peak, and four times an hour off-peak. This is due to the 212 carrying the bulk of peak trips. But why, oh why, split them up? Just kick one of the other routes upstairs, and there will be plenty of room for the 554. This would, of course, also solve the problem of 594 riders accidentally getting on the 554. ;
As for which route to kick upstairs, may I suggest the 255 (and the 256, which has only a few runs). Combine all the 520 routes on the surface, so north eastside commuters can go to bus stops that all the 520 routes serve, and get higher frequency of service eastward.
This will also help with branding, as the inbound 520 buses don’t have to differentiate between Downtown Seattle (surface) and Downtown Seattle (tunnel).
Sounds like Bay B would serve no purpose then.
Personally, the “bays” should be eliminated, with LINK stopping at one end of the platform, and the buses all lining up at the other end, so bus passengers who just want a free ride through downtwon dont have to scurry to end of the platform or another to catch a bus. Of course, that dosent address the issue of platform width in the tunnel. Also of note, As far back as 1996 the old roll sign equipped Orion Vs were showing “594X Seattle via Tacoma” etc.
I like Z’s idea. Have the busses line up in whatever order near the exit end, and move the post with the “Link” marker back so that two-car trains occupy the entrance end of the platform. Link passengers assemble at one end, bus passengers on the other. Why didn’t anyone think of this? Not that it matters in the long run.
I absolutely agree. Most of the time advantage of going through the tunnel comes from the direct ramps between the tunnel and adjacent freeways. The 554 would make great use of them. The 255 has no use for them whatsoever (at least until the 520 project gets finished).
Moving the 554 into the tunnel also makes off-peak trips to Mercer Island easier because you no longer have to pour through schedules or OneBusAway to figure out which stop to wait at.
Unfortunately, I suspect the real reason why the 255 is in the tunnel and the 554 is out is a Metro-ST turf war. KC metro owns the tunnel, ST doesn’t, therefore, KC metro prefers to use the tunnel for their own routes over routes they are only contracted to operate. This is one piece of bureaucratic bullshit that will need to be addressed…
It would make a ton of sense to put the 554 into the tunnel and the 255 onto Fourth Ave. Right now riders going to Montlake, Evergreen Pt or Yarrow Pt have to pick and choose between Fourth Ave (545) and the tunnel (255) – just like people going to Mercer Island & Eastgate have to pick between Second Ave & tunnel. Buses which have common destinations should leave from common stops.
I re-inventoried the Seattle I-90 routes and came up with only five that are not yet in the tunnel: 202, 210, 214, 215, and 554.
These routes collectively have 10 northbound trips per morning peak hour (7-9 am, terminal stop, for purposes of the back of my napkin) on 4th Ave, plus 1.5 southbound trips on 2nd Ave.
They could easily be swapped out for the 101, 102, 106, and 150, or some subset thereof, which collectively have 14.5 northbound trips per morning peak hour and 8.5 southbound trips.
Collecting all the I-90 routes into the tunnel and the 520 routes onto 4th Ave could be done easily, if Metro and ST were willing to put their riders ahead of turf struggles.
All the routes heading west on I-90 from downtown Seattle collectively form a de facto supertrunk line with many tails. The same goes for the SR 520 lines heading west from downtown. Hopefully, ST and Metro can put their heads together and consolidate the trunks.
The question was asked, “Can you tell this bus stops at the Montlake Freeway Station?” And I say the answer is yes, you can tell it stops at the Montlake Freeway Station, because the Montlake Freeway Station is a bus stop along its route, and if the bus is not an express, it will stop at all stops along its route.
The point was to help inexperienced or infrequent riders who may not know the bus’s route. The 555 doesn’t go via the U-District while the 556 does, and both are signed to Northgate.
Also it isn’t true that every non-express bus stops at all stops. For example, he 540 doesn’t stop at all the 255 stops between S. Kirkland P&R and downtown Kirkland. I happen to think this is stupid, and that on common segments they should serve common stops, and this is mostly 25 mph road anyway so I doubt it would impact 540 running time much if at all.
In addition to the nuisance of having the 540 on the surface downtown and the 255 in the tunnel, I have to ask: Is there any good reason this isn’t just one route?
Oh, never mind. I was thinking of a certain other 54X route, which doesn’t go to Kirkland TC. Doh!
Then how far do we take this? How many bus stops must a bus’s sign include? For example, an inexperienced rider, waiting for that 255, also wouldn’t from its signage that is stops at the Yarrow Bay Freeway Station. Must the signage include that stop?
At a certain point, it’s up to passengers to educate themselves where various buses go. Bus signs should be as simple as possible, otherwise it will just become confusing.
Also, in my opinion, most people most people only look at the bus route number, and not the following written final destination or via destinations.
Carl, please know that unless a bus is express, it DOES make all stops along it’s route. You give the example of the 540 not making all stops as the 255. That is correct. The 540 IS an express route, as are ALL ST routes. The distinction of “express” means that it skips stops. Otherwise, all stops are made, with the exception of skip stops in downtown Seattle.
Kerry, the express-ness of route 540 is a joke. It originates at the Kirkland Transit Center. From the Kirkland Transit Center to the west end of the 520 bridge it has a common routing with the 255. The only area where it skips any stops are between KTC & S. Kirkland P&R which is a low speed, one lane in each direction with no passing road. It’s hardly an express there. In the U-District it’s not an express either. If the stops are properly spaced it should have the same stops as other service on common route sections.
If that’s the case, my preferred solution would be to put a sign at the stop itself westbound at Evergreen and Yarrow Point: “All Downtown-bound buses stop at Montlake Freeway Station (transfer to U-District)”. If we were to use headsigns to solve this problem, I’d prefer “SEATTLE / via SR-520″, just because I don’t feel “MONTLAKE” is entirely accurate, or the most useful information the sign could have.
Then you’re gonna be getting riders used to the Montlake freeway station, just in time to have it taken away in the bridge rebuild.
This is another reason to hurry up and consolidate the 520 routes downtown onto 4th Ave. More of the riders going to the U-District will get on routes specifically going to the U-District instead of catching the first westbound bus and transferring at the Montlake stop (which will no longer exist). So, the passenger load on the downtown 520 buses will go down, and runs will get cut, decreasing the frequency of 520 buses headed west from downtown.
This is also a reason to consider re-routing the 72 more immediately to head down Pacific Ave and then north on Montlake Blvd, as riders using the 520 routes to get to Montlake and then head north to the southeast corner of UW will lose their connectivity without the Montlake stop.
This is a good post. However the headsign issues are but one of the areas in which our transit agencies could/should do a better job of creating value out of common sections of frequent routes.
Two other ways are (1) that the routings and stop locations on the common sections should be the same. For example, the route 255 and route 545 should either both run in the tunnel or both run on the surface. (2) Within King County the fares and transfer policies should be aligned so that riders can be truly indifferent between which route they board. In your example at Evergreen Point not only do the 540, 542 & 566 run to the U-District, but so does the 271. Depending on time of day the 271 charges either $2.25 or $3.00 and gives a paper transfer good only on Metro, while the others charge $2.50 and don’t give a transfer. The fare differences for youth are even more 75c vs. $1.75.
Oh, and if the headsigns are improved, don’t make them scroll like Link. The scrolling is almost impossible to read and I wish Link would switch to signs that are still or alternate.
The move to digital signage has made it harder to convey route information. The printed roller signs were much more legible and it was possible to convey much more route information.
566 should be 556
Well, there you go again… just blathering on about doing very practical things that make common sense. Have you no shame, Sir?
How can I tell which agency is giving me a ride without different equipment, different colors, different fares and structure, different stops, and on and on.
After roller signs you’ll be asking for 10 cent Rainier Ave tokens :)
+ 1 on the gratuitously fancy rolling signs. Make them stop! If they need to say “Look over here”, just make them flash every so often.
I agree, but I keep hearing things about how the headsigns are old technology, and therefore, can’t hold any additional information….is that still true?
(I’m a 110 rider, and all the sign says is “RENTON” – gee, thanks. It doesn’t bother to mention the most important stop on its route and its reason for being, Tukwila Sounder station. Which isn’t even in Renton. Sheesh.)
Is it that headsigns are considered old technology, or that the headsigns on your particular bus are an older model that can’t alternate between multiple messages? Fleet replacement happens, thankfully. Signs that can alternate messages are one of the things I hope Metro and ST have in their new-bus specs. It would be interesting to have a post going over all the specs we’d like to see on new buses, and talk through issues such as onboard bike harnesses, reverse-facing wheelchair nets, three doors, etc.
No, its how you program them. Electronic destination signs have been able to scroll multiple destinations for 30+ years now. With the older signs, TransDOT, Luminator LIDS/MAX you did have a character limit on the sign, but they can do several “screens” to convey the information. With modern signs a lot of it has to do with what font you use, if you stack the sign or not, and how you lay the sign out on the board.
The headsigns are not short on memory. They’re short on user-friendliness. Metro has several different brands and models of headsigns in service, and they all need to be programmed to display the exact same messages. It would be a Bad Thing to have two coaches on the same route with even slightly different headsigns, after all. So they’re programmed to the lowest common denominator.
And then, some of the headsigns they have (the Luminators, IIRC) are incredibly difficult to program with anything but plain block text. They can do everything the others do (and more), but only if you have a lot of time to sit down and code them. So in the interest of manpower costs, Metro sticks with short, simple messages that can be programmed in quickly.
I agree with your point about the lowest common denominator, but that’s a truly terrible way to operate. A little extra manpower could go a significantly long way in improving user-friendliness of the bus system as a whole.
(My buses are numbered in the 1100′s, and certainly well down the fleet totem pole, so I’m not expecting much.)
The signs need to be user-friendly to the driver as well, so Metro needs to avoid having two different sets of codes.
I think it’s true that older digital headsigns cannot hold as much information. In addition, I believe Title VI regulations would frown upon signs having two rows of characters. I also agree that scrolling signs are not good. Overall, I feel we have to be careful about having destination signs that take too long to read. Probably two different messages is the maximum. Why not design route numbers that can convey the desired information and then publish it in many areas? Any Sound Transit route that goes via the University could be numbered in the 70s like local Seattle Metro service – 570 to 579; or any route that goes via the U could have a U at the end like 556U, which is what Pittsburgh does.
I don’t know the legalities of this, but until 1 month ago, the route 99 in downtown Seattle had up to 5 lines of text! 1) Waterfront Streetcar Line, 2) Ride Free, 3) Seattle Waterfront, 4) Pioneer Square, 5) Chinatown/Int’l Dist.
He means two lines of text on the display at once. Old folks and people with poor eyesight may have trouble reading the small letters.
Oh gotcha, makes sense!
Hrm, I’ve heard this as well. Basically they’re at the point when everytime they have to add a new route or headsign, another one has to come out of the system. Basically the system behind the signs were designed for a smaller transit system that wouldn’t have as many different headsigns needed.
My biggest gripe about Metro is their seemingly random use of the word “Express” in various contexts. For example, every 41 I’ve been on had a green “EXPRESS” placard in the windshield, even though it doesn’t have “EXPRESS” on the stops or in the headsign and the bus is on I-5 between Convention Place and Northgate, so it’s not skipping any stops.
Route 66 does not have an X in the number, but it does say “vis Eastlake Exp” and OneBusAway refers to “66E.” Unlike the 7xX busses which do not stop between the U-District and Downtown, however, it stops several times on Eastlake, and unlike the 41, the stops are labeled “EXPRESS.” Some of the one-way on-peaks also use the term “Express” in the comments below the schedule.
I don’t ask for borg-like consistency in Metro’s route branding, but I feel like the “Express” label should be applied consistently only to those routes that are recognizable variants of local routes. Use in other situations just confuses casual users, as the label no longer carries any immediate meaning.
Finally, I think the green placards are useless — everyone looks at the headsign anyway, and they should be tossed.
+1 on use of “Express”, when there is no “Local” to which to compare it and provide useful meaning.
I’d like to suggest Link move away from branding trains (including in the voice announcements and on printed materials) as going to “Westlake Station”. Tourists just keep asking, “Is Westlake in downtown Seattle?”
How about, “This is the train to Rainier Valley, Beacon Hill, the stadiums, and Downtown Seattle,” and append it to the message “The next train northbound arrives in 2 minutes.”
Have the front sign say “Rainier Valley/Beacon Hill … Stadiums/Downtown Seattle”.
The trains themselves already say “Downtown Seattle/Westlake Station” on the outside and inside. The signage and map says “Westlake/Seattle”. Maybe change the latter to the former?
Your message is too verbose. And you think tourists don’t know how to read the line map in stations and on trains? If they’re going to a hotel in downtown they should already know which station to get off.
And please don’t make the signs scroll anymore than they have to. I’m sick of it.
The automated stop announcements just say “Next stop, Westlake Station” and at Sea-Tac, “This is the train to Westlake Station”. At the least, it should say something about Seattle.
Personally I’d be happy with LESS destination information on the signs and MORE route information. I’d love to see runs that continue as other runs list both route numbers (ie, have a route number of “18/56″ on the board. As a frequent rider who gets on the 15/18 on queen anne to get to west seattle (as the 56) it’s a real pain figuring out what turns into what. Likewise, any infrequent riders past queen anne expecting to take a 15/18 further downtown must be rather confused when it’s a 21 or 56 and they never see a 15/18…
You could brand by corridor, like “via SR 520/[last 520 stop]” but it is difficult when some routes skip stops like on I-90.
I think it would be incredibly useful to have a large simple map on the outside of the bus right next to the door. Make it magnetic and you could swap out the map when a route changes.
Your headsign idea is a good one because it’s simple and does some good. But nothing beats a map to convey a large amount of information at a glance.
I’d like to see all of the major transit centers – and perhaps even transfer points – carry destination signage. Lynnwood Transit Center sort of has this, although they need to add directions to those unfamiliar with local cities. It’s my understanding that Sound Transit staff had to be convinced to put in this type of signage…evidently, the decision-makers don’t ride the bus? That would explain that this nuance in signage is rarely seen about town.
What do you mean with “destination signage” in this sense?
Brent,
how about this interline: C Line (54X) and 255 via the tunnel. West Seattle would have good transfer connection with southbound Link, U District service in the tunnel, and with Overlake service at Evergreen Point.
The C Line will be coupled with the D Line.
I’m actually no longer a supporter of coupling any bus lines in the tunnel, because that will slow the buses down. And as you may know, I don’t support having the 255 come downtown at all after Husky Stadium Station opens.
Plus, you’re recommending interlining a RapidRide bus with a regular bus. So either the 255 would have the fancy RapidRide wrap without being a RapidRide route, C would be a RapidRide route without the fancy wrap, or you’re backing making the 255 a RapidRide route.
Yet another example of bad headsigns is the westbound 542. Even though the route continues to Green Lake, the headsign just says “U-district”.
If more people knew that the 542 didn’t end at the U-district, I would expect to see lots of people getting on at the U-district, using it as a shuttle to Green Lake that is much faster than the slow and crowded 48. The reality is that almost no one gets own the 542 there even though the 48 is packed. While many of the 48 passengers are getting off at other stops no where near I-5/65th St., there’s enough homes nearby (not to mention people who might drive and use the park-and-ride as a satellite lot) that I would expect far more people to use the 542 for this segment than actually do.
For people on the Eastside, “U-District” is FAR more useful than “I-5/65th” (my preferred version of your proposed change). You’d probably want to change the headsign somewhere on the 520 Bridge, and as mentioned above, I don’t know how possible that is.\
This is a case where notation at the stop itself may actually be more useful, on the timetables. That’s if the 542′s westbound U-District stops HAVE any timetables…
Regarding signage–since the 71-73 Expresses vary in routing depending on the time of day, wouldn’t it be more effective to say “Via Eastlake Express,” “Via I-5/42nd Express” or “Via I-5/45th Express” instead of having them all say “Univ Express”?
They should say “Univ Express” , and if people don’t realize the 556 goes through the U-district it should also say “Univ Express”. There’s an assumption around here that if it just says “Express”, it’s a downtown route.
If it says “Eastlake Express” you’d start getting questions like, “So this bus goes to Eastlake?”
The thing is, the fact that the 66 has been my preferred route (with its “Eastlake Exp” headsign) means that when I see “Univ Express” I almost expect it to skip a lot of stops in the U-District.