How Google Is Remapping Public Transportation 187
waderoush writes "Google wants to 'organize the world's information,' but there isn't a marketplace or a category of knowledge it can organize without remaking it in the process. A case in point: public transportation. Largely outside the media spotlight, Google has wrought a quiet revolution over the last five years in the way commuters get schedule information for local buses and trains, and the way public transit agencies communicate with their riders. GTFS and GTFS-realtime, which Google invented, have become the de facto world standards for sharing transit data, and have opened up space for a whole ecosystem of third-party transit app developers. This in-depth article looks at the history of GTFS and Google's efforts to give people information (largely via their smartphones) that can help them plan their commutes on public transportation — and, not incidentally, drive a lot less."
Re:Would be great... if it worked (Score:5, Insightful)
If Google Maps used realtime data, that would be amazing. They're at the point where they can aggregate multiple data sources to plan your trip. For example, traveling cross town in Los Angeles could theoretically mean:
Starting on LADOT downtown-only bus circuit (DASH)
Transferring to LADOT regular bus
Transferring to Culver CIty bus
Transferring to Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, or back to the LADOT bus.
That's 4 different bus systems just to get from downtown to the beach, and doesn't take into account the light rail/subway system, commuter heavy rail (2 different systems) or Amtrak. Each municipality and transit provider publishes schedules and routes independently. They all have independently run trip-planning tools and mobile apps. Google really is at the best point in the mix to offer a truly integrated solution that spans providers, making public transportation a NETWORK instead of scattering of independent systems.
Re:Would be great... if it worked (Score:5, Insightful)
After missing three or four timed-transfer connections, I've given up on Google Maps for transit.
In Perth, Australia Google Maps is more reliable then Transperths own website, not to mention the fact that Google Maps works on my phone. If you want schedule data, just select the bus stop or train station you want that data on.
Re:Would be great... if it worked (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be better if every agency made their GTFS feed public, that's for sure. I never figured out why more don't do that, since it really doesn't require any additional work on the part of the outfit to post the zip file on their website somewhere.
I would encourage anyone who lives in a city who is on Google Transit but doesn't put the GTFS feed on their website to call, send email, come to transit board meetings, etc and encourage them to post the data publicly . If you live in a city where the data is already posted, create works that extend the data (or help others do so) to help make the format more useful for everyone. Even if Google stops supporting Transit in the future, the GTFS data is still invaluable for anyone who creates software that helps other transit riders get around easier.
GTFS? (Score:4, Insightful)
GTFS? Get The Fucking Subway?
Re:We don't WANT to be like you... (Score:3, Insightful)
California doesn't want to change in order to be like Switzerland. What makes him think that we would? We don't see Southern California as a problem that needs to be fixed. We see it as an improvement over compacted cities.
The issue is that the United States was founded on the principal of expanding outward and populating as much territory as possible. This philosophy has proven to result in some huge drawbacks with outward expansion still financially incentivized as opposed to a focus on maintaining and supporting infrastructure. This has caused an extreme disparity in land use per person in relation to most european cities. As a result we see begin to see the core of many cities become dilapidated and unmaintained as well as a huge influx of systems to support the personal transit means of each individual that has become all but a necessity. Disregarding the impact of that many more vehicles on the roads, it becomes a lot easier for social segregations to be reinforced with no foreseeable future of remedying the gap.
I for one would like to see this discouraged as much as possible and would more than welcome alternatives to everyone securing their own means of personal transportation. I know I've digressed a bit from the topic of the article but I would say that google's attempts to make public transit more transparent and viable to someone who may have overlooked the option is a step in the right direction; even if they haven't hit the nail on the head.
Re:We don't WANT to be like you... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sprawl is not an improvement. It contributes to obesity, poverty, lost productivity, the disenfranchisement of the young and elderly, the high cost of health care, a less vibrant economy, accidents and deaths, drug and alcohol violence, and higher stress.
You don't have to be like Zurich, but it's a good idea for you not to be like SoCal/the rest of the sprawling American cities that are bringing the country down.
Re:Would be great... if it worked (Score:4, Insightful)
The calculations holds true so long as you are going to the beach by yourself, but take 1 extra person with you the public transport costs double but the car costs will remain essentially the same.
Based on that between 1 and 2 extra people would make the car cheaper and fill a car with 4 people and the car will always come out cheaper.... which I think is a great shame, I always said that if they want to encourage public transport they need to find a way to make it cheap for groups.
Re:i call (Score:5, Insightful)
I've tried Google's public transport option a few times, but it's given bad plans. I don't know if they don't have good enough data, or if their algorithms aren't tuned to working in a city with so many frequent services as London, but the official route planner [tfl.gov.uk] is much better -- and covers everything in London, which is enough for most people in London. Google's is very keen to switch from the Underground to buses -- it forgets that it takes much longer to get from the deep-underground platforms of the London Underground, crammed with people, out onto the street (which exit?), to the bus stop (which side of the road? which stop?) than to walk to a different platform for a different line. It's also optimistic with journey times during rush hour -- buses are often slowed by traffic/people, trains aren't much affected.
Also, when service frequency varies, it's most useful to know "take bus 23, buses are every 10 minutes" than "take bus 23 at 08:23". I've been approached by tourists concerned that there was no London Underground train at 20:42. Well, no, but there was one at 20:40, and another at 20:43.
Many European cities, and many elsewhere, have a single website with a routeplanner for that city. I expect many, many people still use these websites rather than Google.