and any route that ran in a single jurisdiction was operated by that jurisdiction.
In other words, the Q2 would be a Ride-On bus, the F14 would be a PG bus, etc.
How vastly different would the system be, and would WMATA pare enough bus routes to be a bit more "user-friendly?" Would a new agency for routes between Alexandria and Arlington be suitable?
Thoughts...
Such an arrangement doesn't sound too far-fetched, but of course I'd have to defer to the professionals in the field. I wouldn't be too suprised if this happened one day. I guess a somewhat reversed version of this happens today in NYC. NYCTA buses (with a few exceptions) and trains do not go outside of NYC, but agencies from surrounding areas operate into NYC where they generally feed outlying subway terminals. Another difference is that the agencies coming into NYC generally operate "closed door" within NYC limits as not to compete with NYCTA buses. Again, there a few exceptions.
My first thought is that PG riders would be in a worse position than they are now unless PG, The Bus does a total transformation. The first, is providing service beyond Monday-Friday business hours.
Would passengers crossing into other jurisdictions on WMATA buses have to pay a surcharge?
I guess there would also be a need for numerous transit centers where neighboring systems to make connections or maybe they'd simply use existing Metrorail stations close to borders?
I think that scenario would destroy the "regional" nature of our transit system. That's the way the system ran before METRO and I rode the buses then and it is much better now especially with the advent of the SMARTRIP cards.
Before METRO there were four (4) separate bus systems where interline transfers were practically nonexistent and travelling from one system to another was expensive. I lived in a place that was served by WMA Transit and I went to school at Archbishop Carrol High School in NE DC. It took me 3-4 buses on two separate bus systems to get to and from school, plus, if you crossed state lines, you had to pay a supplemental fare. God help you if you needed to travel to Virginia: from my house that required three separate bus companies and 3-4 buses (WMA to DC Transit to either WV&M or AB&W) plus three separate fares! Occasionally depending on your destination you could take WMA to 11th and Pennsylvania or Lafayette Square and walk to WV&M or AB&W but you still had to pay two separate fares.
We need to increase regional cooperation and not isolate ourselves by geographic boundaries that have little meaning to persons who use transit.
Well in the mid 90s that nearly came to reality when metrobus was in such bad shape that it nearly dispanded. Richard White began the push to put more into the bus system and to make it somewhat compatable to metrorail.
But if a situation would occur, I would be on the first moving truck to Montgomery County and if needbe live in a box in the woods in order to ride a transit system that runs past 8pm and on weekends.
Another question would be if that happened and metrobus was disbanded, how would the equipment be split up. Would whatever is in each garage would stay there and be attained whatever county agency happpens to run it.
You know, I was thinking about this very topic the last time I was down there. Specifically, I was wondering why Ride-On didn't just take over the Z routes and weekday service on the L8, Z2, and T2.
Then I realized that I wouldn't think that Ride-On would have the capability or resources to handle such a monster, and I think that this would apply to other systems as well.
If I'm not mistaken, the remaining intra-jurisdiction WMATA routes are primarily high ridership lines, which require at least full sized buses operating at somewhat frequent headways.
Outside of Fairfax Connector and now Ride-On and I guess PG THE BUS (are the HDXs 40 ft long?), the municipalities don't really have full sized buses. Plus, PG only has that one central depot, doesn't it? It may be a headache to try to take on those heavy bus routes as a part of the system.
However, time will tell...I'm curious about what the professionals would have to say about this.
Interesting responses, all. I certainly am not one to like to see transit routes stop at borders as I see in many places. I just find it interesting that history has sort of crafted the system in place today, which, when observed without that historical insight, poses a number of questions as to "Why does the county agency run this route, but WMATA runs this route?"
Another thing I've noticed is that a number of WMATA cross-county routes such as the F and C seem to meander a good deal, leaving them with some very long travel times. It would seem that the smaller agencies would be ideally suited to serving many of these deviations that would feed the WMATA routes, that would be designed to get across the region as swiftly as possible.
The gained efficiency at WMATA by having more streamlined routes could then go into adding new multi-jurisdictional routes, while also increasing frequency and span of service on existing routes.
Yes, PG, would definitely need a significant makeover, including a new depot (or sharing a WMATA one), as PG service is woefully inadequate as it is. I wouldn't suggest any changes in the fare structure at all - that is one thing that is very convenient for riders as it is.
Quote from: btconet on January 04, 2009, 09:39:46 AM
Yes, PG, would definitely need a significant makeover, including a new depot (or sharing a WMATA one), as PG service is woefully inadequate as it is. I wouldn't suggest any changes in the fare structure at all - that is one thing that is very convenient for riders as it is.
They need more than just a new depot of course. As for sharing one with WMATA, we'll see how West Ox goes as far as sharing is concerned. PG needs to expand their services into places that desperately need it, including Laurel, Upper Marlboro, and Bowie. Laurel gets alot of ridership during peak and even midday now but at other times, you have to take Howie's Truck to get up to there.
PG's bus service is very depressing indeed. Landover should consider help other divisions. In my opinion the only Landover operated route that runs good is the F4, F6 line. All the other routes are 30 minutes +. Is this because Landover doesn't have enough buses to handle the routes? The three routes that makes me so angry is the 89/M, R12, and T18. The 89 needs a better frequency. Every 30 minutes would be perfect. The R12 speaks for itself. I don't need explain. And the T18. From my experience this route gets a standing load every time. This needs a better frequency and Bladensburg should help too. And speaking of helping I think Landover's problem is they don't get help from other divisions. Instead of the F4,6 being all Landover it should be either Bladensburg or Montgomery too. The F1, F2 shouldn't even be Landover's. F14 should be Annex too and should be increased from every 45 to 30 minutes. K11, 12, 13 and H11, 12, 13 shouldn't be Landover. They should be Annex too since it's much, much, closer.
If Landover would get help from other divisions all day, then routes that are only in the area of Landover, like the 89, R12, T16,V12, V14,15, C20's can run a lot better then they currently do.
Quote from: OrionFlyer on January 04, 2009, 07:23:58 PM
If Landover would get help from other divisions all day, then routes that are only in the area of Landover, like the 89, R12, T16,V12, V14,15, C20's can run a lot better then they currently do.
The issue is funding and subsidies, not Landover's capacity.
So Landover does have enough buses for an increase of service?
Quote from: OrionFlyer on January 04, 2009, 09:15:16 PM
So Landover does have enough buses for an increase of service?
Landover has enough buses to cover all scheduled service from that division. Should the service increase (more funding), then they'd adjust the number of buses assigned there to make pullout.
Quote from: btconet on January 04, 2009, 09:39:46 AM
Interesting responses, all. I certainly am not one to like to see transit routes stop at borders as I see in many places. I just find it interesting that history has sort of crafted the system in place today, which, when observed without that historical insight, poses a number of questions as to "Why does the county agency run this route, but WMATA runs this route?"
Another thing I've noticed is that a number of WMATA cross-county routes such as the F and C seem to meander a good deal, leaving them with some very long travel times. It would seem that the smaller agencies would be ideally suited to serving many of these deviations that would feed the WMATA routes, that would be designed to get across the region as swiftly as possible.
The gained efficiency at WMATA by having more streamlined routes could then go into adding new multi-jurisdictional routes, while also increasing frequency and span of service on existing routes.
Yes, PG, would definitely need a significant makeover, including a new depot (or sharing a WMATA one), as PG service is woefully inadequate as it is. I wouldn't suggest any changes in the fare structure at all - that is one thing that is very convenient for riders as it is.
Precisely. Many of these routes were inherited from DC Transit and WMA over 30 years ago and have changed little since then. We cannot forget the history but we don't have to repeat it. The slow travel times on all of the bus routes, particularly the long cross-counties connectors (F & C), could be significantly alleviated with no additional expenditures by eliminating half of all the bus stops. There are just way too many bus stops, so many that in some areas you can walk faster than the bus travels. We do not need a bus stop at every block.
I say get service where good service isn't currently at right now as WES said like Bowie, Laurel, Upper Marlboro, Lower Marlboro, Clinton, and Eagle Harbor. The DC Circulator Garage is in Landover isn't it? Maybe The Bus should set up another depot there.
I think before THE BUS replaces (yes I say replace) their current garage with a new central one, they should consider putting one in southern PG first, MAYBE if the Fairfax Connector/WMATA garage works at West Ox, then PG should do one with WMATA as WMATA NEEDS to replace the Southern Avenue Annex garage.
As for the replacement garage for central bus service, there doesn't seem to be that much room in that area to put another bus facility, unless one of the other tenants move out.
It will be interesting to see how the shared facility works, to see if that could be model for future arrangements.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the current system is necessarily broken, but I do see some room for improvements. Yes I agree there are too many stops, but from an outsiders eyes, I might also argue there's a little too much variation in spots that results in gobs of "routes" that only the most seasoned transit fans such as ourselves can begin to grasp, and are bewildering to prospective riders. Sure, they're quirky and often historical, but also quite confusing. Meanwhile, some hubs that seem like they should be directly connected (Greenbelt and Silver Spring for example) are not. Yes, there's METRO, but considering the fares, it does kind of put a sobering spin for the person who needs to catch a bus to a hub, then connect hubs, and then catch another bus.
Many places have duplicating services between WMATA and jurisdictional agencies, while other areas which could desperately use earlier/later/weekend/ANY service don't have it. It would be nice to get a feel for the purpose of every route in the region to see where resources might best be used to make a more comprehensive and connective network.
There are a lot of good things going on the in the area, and the inter-agency bus fare system is definitely one of them. It would just be nice to capitalize upon it
Personally, I would love the local systems to take over all the WMATA routes though only some jurisdictions would actually make the service better then what it is today. I agree with WMAveteran in a sense that it works fine today. But the whole reason why the local systems were created in the first place was WhyMATA had it's focus on rail (though they claim it is shifting there priorities) all these years and never really cared for the rubber wheeled side. I would love to see all the variety of buses/paint schemes and whatever other things that the local jurisdictions might bring to the table. I would suggest to make a regional route numbering system for the whole DC area if it was to ever come alive.
After riding various bus systems i do like the "regional" bus system approach. Sound Transit (ST) runs all the "regional" stuff and the the local jurisdictions run "local" service. Even in "local" service they cross county lines and the local jurisdictions also run differant ST routes. The ST rt.574 was actually run by Pierce Transit but used buses in ST paint (MCIs). The local jurisdictions making up ST also do the same so ST dosent actually have its own depot AFAIK. I know when the regional light rail opens up, ST will have its own facilities for once. I personally like the idea of a "regional" transit provider and wish Metro would give up routes to the jurisdictions as it is actually cheaper in the long run. Of course Metro would have to give up some facilities and buses (who would get what?) and we need to keep the already ineffect fare schedule. Also we NEED a Regional route numbering system that coordinates with MD MTA also. Imagine all Baltimore bus route numbers starting with a "B" and Ride on all starts with "M"(for Mongomery county),FFC with an "F" and so on and so forth. I am tired of Metro living in the PAST with the retarded route number scheme. We need to move foward from the past route numbers and WHO cares that its "historical" (IMO its "hysterical"). Metro is WAY to expensive to run as is and its the reason I think the local jurisdictions should run the "local" routes. Remember WMATA is run by the individual jurisdictions on what kind of services it runs(or in PGs case dosent run).
Quote from: djsiknik on January 16, 2009, 05:00:45 AM
After riding various bus systems i do like the "regional" bus system approach. Sound Transit (ST) runs all the "regional" stuff and the the local jurisdictions run "local" service. Even in "local" service they cross county lines and the local jurisdictions also run differant ST routes. The ST rt.574 was actually run by Pierce Transit but used buses in ST paint (MCIs). The local jurisdictions making up ST also do the same so ST dosent actually have its own depot AFAIK. I know when the regional light rail opens up, ST will have its own facilities for once. I personally like the idea of a "regional" transit provider and wish Metro would give up routes to the jurisdictions as it is actually cheaper in the long run. Of course Metro would have to give up some facilities and buses (who would get what?) and we need to keep the already ineffect fare schedule. Also we NEED a Regional route numbering system that coordinates with MD MTA also. Imagine all Baltimore bus route numbers starting with a "B" and Ride on all starts with "M"(for Mongomery county),FFC with an "F" and so on and so forth. I am tired of Metro living in the PAST with the retarded route number scheme. We need to move foward from the past route numbers and WHO cares that its "historical" (IMO its "hysterical"). Metro is WAY to expensive to run as is and its the reason I think the local jurisdictions should run the "local" routes. Remember WMATA is run by the individual jurisdictions on what kind of services it runs(or in PGs case dosent run).
You make a good point, however would all the municipalities want into such a scheme. I'm sure Maryland would love to hand off MTA to a regional scheme or that PG would want out of the transit business, but would Montgomery or Alexandria want to fork over Ride On or DASH?
And to respond to an earlier post, I'm sure that if Metrobus became a solely DC/interjurisdiction organization that they would force PG to run an equal level of service on the routes they'd be getting before handing them over. Would they?
To play a bit of devil's advocate. How do you prevent the "separation/isolation" of services from eventually happening again? Even with the best of intentions, these agencies are managed by humans who have different opinions, attitudes, egos and so on. My thinking is for this to work out for passengers, especially those crossing into other jurisdictions, there needs to be a significant amount cooperation among the various agencies. With a growing area like this, there will be those times when agencies need to work together and if one disagrees with the other, something/somebody is likely to suffer.
i was trying to conceive a universal numbering system in DC myself for the smaller agencies. Since most of these routes feed Metro anyway, I was sort of thinking a Color/Number combination. For example, the Ride-On #70 would become the "Red 70." since it feeds the Red Line.
However, this is problematic as how does one designate DASH buses that feed both the Green and Yellow lines in ALX. Also, you'd have overlapping agencies under the same numbering scheme. ART would operate the "Orange 41" while FFX would operate the "Orange 427"
I'll admit it's far from easy to categorize hundreds of bus routes in a single area operated by over a half a dozen agencies in a way that is logical and easy for people to comprehend.
Quote from: btconet on January 16, 2009, 12:20:04 PM
i was trying to conceive a universal numbering system in DC myself for the smaller agencies. Since most of these routes feed Metro anyway, I was sort of thinking a Color/Number combination. For example, the Ride-On #70 would become the "Red 70." since it feeds the Red Line.
However, this is problematic as how does one designate DASH buses that feed both the Green and Yellow lines in ALX. Also, you'd have overlapping agencies under the same numbering scheme. ART would operate the "Orange 41" while FFX would operate the "Orange 427"
I'll admit it's far from easy to categorize hundreds of bus routes in a single area operated by over a half a dozen agencies in a way that is logical and easy for people to comprehend.
Numbering schemes wouldn't work here. Just to farfetched. Techinically, WMATA's lettered routes can be translated to numbers (scheduling and operations wise). As for doing some kind of scheme (forgive me Tristan), it could be possible with Google Transit data to make a feed for the various agencies in the region.
In regards to route numbering, how about something along the lines of NJTransit and LACMTA style. I think one thing that makes for confusion is that WMATA has tons of route numbers. I always thought it was odd that a branches of a particular line gets it's own route number. To someone not from the area, if they looked a bus stop sign along Columbia Pike, they could reasonably conclude that a nearly endless supply of buses should be passing since there's so many 16 line routes.
That's one of those odd things I've never liked about WMATA, and they don't seem consistent in the usage.
Why a J7 AND a J9 for such a minor deviation, but the 5A is the same whether it serves Herndon Monroe or Tysons Westpark or both.
And letter-number combos don't have any general purpose in real life. Whereas someone remembers that the 12 bus is the one they want cause that's the date of their birthday, it's easy to interchange a K2 and F4 into any combination of the two in memory.
Quote from: btconet on January 16, 2009, 04:13:11 PM
That's one of those odd things I've never liked about WMATA, and they don't seem consistent in the usage.
Why a J7 AND a J9 for such a minor deviation, but the 5A is the same whether it serves Herndon Monroe or Tysons Westpark or both.
And letter-number combos don't have any general purpose in real life. Whereas someone remembers that the 12 bus is the one they want cause that's the date of their birthday, it's easy to interchange a K2 and F4 into any combination of the two in memory.
The j7 and J9 used to be J8 and J9 a few years back. The thing about the J7 and J9 is that the J7 is reverse flow and J9 is peak flow. Some of the VA routes are the same way in that sense (28F, 7H, 8S).
Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on January 16, 2009, 06:28:08 PM
Quote from: btconet on January 16, 2009, 04:13:11 PM
That's one of those odd things I've never liked about WMATA, and they don't seem consistent in the usage.
Why a J7 AND a J9 for such a minor deviation, but the 5A is the same whether it serves Herndon Monroe or Tysons Westpark or both.
And letter-number combos don't have any general purpose in real life. Whereas someone remembers that the 12 bus is the one they want cause that's the date of their birthday, it's easy to interchange a K2 and F4 into any combination of the two in memory.
The j7 and J9 used to be J8 and J9 a few years back. The thing about the J7 and J9 is that the J7 is reverse flow and J9 is peak flow. Some of the VA routes are the same way in that sense (28F, 7H, 8S).
What he's getting at is that routes like this and even the Z11 and Z13 makes little sense to be identified as two separate routes. In any other system routes like the J7 and J9 or Z11 and Z13 would be one route. I can't think of any reason a route number should change based on the flow of peak traffic.
I like the concept that Wayne had of just doing it NJT or LACMTA style. Just start at 1 and go to the end whether it's 300 or 900. You can then even classify express routes as a category, say no matter where it ran from it be numbered in the 700's, anything that you could classify as a circulator or feeder could be another series, etc.
From there, you could add a letter suffix if you had to, X, A, Z, whatever if it was really needed.
Quote from: WayneNYC on January 16, 2009, 10:50:45 PM
Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on January 16, 2009, 06:28:08 PM
Quote from: btconet on January 16, 2009, 04:13:11 PM
That's one of those odd things I've never liked about WMATA, and they don't seem consistent in the usage.
Why a J7 AND a J9 for such a minor deviation, but the 5A is the same whether it serves Herndon Monroe or Tysons Westpark or both.
And letter-number combos don't have any general purpose in real life. Whereas someone remembers that the 12 bus is the one they want cause that's the date of their birthday, it's easy to interchange a K2 and F4 into any combination of the two in memory.
The j7 and J9 used to be J8 and J9 a few years back. The thing about the J7 and J9 is that the J7 is reverse flow and J9 is peak flow. Some of the VA routes are the same way in that sense (28F, 7H, 8S).
What he's getting at is that routes like this and even the Z11 and Z13 makes little sense to be identified as two separate routes. In any other system routes like the J7 and J9 or Z11 and Z13 would be one route. I can't think of any reason a route number should change based on the flow of peak traffic.
That's just my thought. Several examples come to mind - the W2/W3, the Y's, etc. If I didn't know better, I'd swear WMATA was artificially inventing unique travel patterns and demands just to bulk up the "breadth" of their system, so that they can pride themselves on running "so many routes."
I may be off base about this, but I'd gather that most DC bus riders don't get very adventurous on the WMATA system. They learn the few lines they truly need to get where they're going near home or work and stick to that since anything else is too intimidating. Few who live in Laurel or Oxon Hill would dare to venture out to Montgomery Mall or Tysons Corner for pleasure even if they had nothing but time. True that much of this would likely be due to geographic isolation, but I'm sure those wanting to make the journey would be more likely to be deterred by the prospect of getting hopelessly lost.
That's certainly what makes the Las Vegas system easy to get around: 100's are north/south and 200's are east/west, 300's are Strip, 500's are BRT, 600's are routes we run for additional service, 700's are SilverStar. Once you figure that out, you're in good shape. The 402 is an express route, but once we get other express routes, I wouldn't be suprised if we either change that numbering scheme completely or just add on to the 400's since the other ones in that series have gone by the wayside.
Yeah - It's very odd. Perry, I think you all have a logical route numbering system. I also agree with Btco.net about WMATA's number of routes which is indeed misleading.
I think WMATA actually has more routes than NYCT. To compare the two, WMATA has about 1400 buses assigned to 9 divisions. To anyone not familiar with NYC's bus operations. NYCT has about 4600 buses assigned to 18 depots. That's an average of 255 buses per depot, yet the TA has just 245 routes (local and express). This does not include MTAB.
Quote from: WayneNYC on January 18, 2009, 01:08:40 AM
Yeah - It's very odd. Perry, I think you all have a logical route numbering system. I also agree with Btco.net about WMATA's number of routes which is indeed misleading.
I think WMATA actually has more routes than NYCT. To compare the two, WMATA has about 1400 buses assigned to 9 divisions. To anyone not familiar with NYC's bus operations. NYCT has about 4600 buses assigned to 18 depots. That's an average of 255 buses per depot, yet the TA has just 245 routes (local and express). This does not include MTAB.
Doesn't include MTAB yet until everything eventually becomes MTAB. I think the last time I heard Metro had about 300 routes per se.
Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on January 18, 2009, 09:07:12 AM
Quote from: WayneNYC on January 18, 2009, 01:08:40 AM
Yeah - It's very odd. Perry, I think you all have a logical route numbering system. I also agree with Btco.net about WMATA's number of routes which is indeed misleading.
I think WMATA actually has more routes than NYCT. To compare the two, WMATA has about 1400 buses assigned to 9 divisions. To anyone not familiar with NYC's bus operations. NYCT has about 4600 buses assigned to 18 depots. That's an average of 255 buses per depot, yet the TA has just 245 routes (local and express). This does not include MTAB.
Doesn't include MTAB yet until everything eventually becomes MTAB. I think the last time I heard Metro had about 300 routes per se.
It's already in the works internally, but one thing I'd bet the mortgage on is that everything will not become MTAB. MTAB (and LIB) will likely be absorbed in NYCTA and the rumored name MTA Regional Bus or something along those lines will likely be the new name.
Quote from: WayneNYC on January 18, 2009, 01:08:40 AM
Yeah - It's very odd. Perry, I think you all have a logical route numbering system. I also agree with Btco.net about WMATA's number of routes which is indeed misleading.
I think WMATA actually has more routes than NYCT. To compare the two, WMATA has about 1400 buses assigned to 9 divisions. To anyone not familiar with NYC's bus operations. NYCT has about 4600 buses assigned to 18 depots. That's an average of 255 buses per depot, yet the TA has just 245 routes (local and express). This does not include MTAB.
WMATA's official response to this type of idea is that the current system is less confusing than implementing a new one, and I would be inclined to agree.
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on January 18, 2009, 08:32:15 PM
Quote from: WayneNYC on January 18, 2009, 01:08:40 AM
Yeah - It's very odd. Perry, I think you all have a logical route numbering system. I also agree with Btco.net about WMATA's number of routes which is indeed misleading.
I think WMATA actually has more routes than NYCT. To compare the two, WMATA has about 1400 buses assigned to 9 divisions. To anyone not familiar with NYC's bus operations. NYCT has about 4600 buses assigned to 18 depots. That's an average of 255 buses per depot, yet the TA has just 245 routes (local and express). This does not include MTAB.
WMATA's official response to this type of idea is that the current system is less confusing than implementing a new one, and I would be inclined to agree.
Yes, we've had this topic in the past, probably on BTCO. I would also agree with WMATA too, but of course the downside is that they continue on with a strange route numbering system.
At one time WMATA was thinking of changing route numbers so they corresponded with street names, particularly the numbered ones, 14th, 16th, etc., but they said it would be too confusing. However if they did it logically, it wouldn't take long for people to figure out where they were going particularly if the route numbers were intuitive. If a bus was numbered 16 and it operated on 16th Street and they went up or down from that point based on the streets they ran on, it wouldn't be that hard.
It doesn't help that WMATA doesn't operate in a grid, they have so many routes that meander. NYC is able to have their routings follow some sort of reasoning based on the fact that they have that grid system.
Pierre L'Enfant (raises fist as this is being said!!!)......
And what would they do with the buses running on named or lettered streets in that scenario? Or it would it have just been a partial renumbering?
I can understand the anxieties with doing a large scale route numbering project, but I think in WMATA's case it's one of those things that needs to be done. In WMATA land division is interchangeable with depot in NYCTA/MTAB talk, but perhaps WMATA should approach a route renumbering project in terms NYCTA land divisions. They could do all of NoVa routes, let it all settle in. Then do MD routes and make adjustments based on their experiences with the NoVa project and finally the DC routes.
I like the route designation by street of operation. It works well for NYCT in Manhattan (on crosstown routes) because nearly all Manhattan streets are numbered and most main east-west streets have just one crosstown route. That said, it pretty much works from 116th Street and south because crosstown service on streets north of 116th is served by Bronx routes. Also in the case 125th Street, crosstown service is handled by several routes (Bx15, M60, M100, M101) none of which are true crosstown routes.
Implementing routes numbered after streets in DC may be a challenge though since there are so many streets that are not numbered.
I guess the concept is that as long as WMATA continues with the current numbering scheme, they're only staving off the inevitable.
NY is one of the few places the letter-number combos really work, as the letters truly mean something, and thus are intuitive. In WMATA land, numbers that might mean something are readily outnumbered by those that don't. 24P means Pentagon and R2 might mean "Riggs" but Q doesn't readily suggest Veirs Mill, and 1A doesn't readily suggest Vienna as an outer terminus.
Taking a page from the New York book, could a strict letter prefix, number suffix system work here in a global way. It MIGHT not be as complicated as one might think.
D = DC
P = PG
M = MoCo
A = Arlington
X = Alexandria
F = Fairfax
L = Loundon
W = Prince William
Then either a C for cross jurisdiction (except DC-n County lines that would retain the outer destination as its designator) routes or a double letter combo to list the two outer jurisdictions linked. Smaller Operators would simply use 100 numbers over their existing routes.
On the few examples where numbered streets exist, they'd use those, but otherwise, use the existing designations as a base in order to put the routes in a sequential order for numbering. At first, existing numbers would not be reused to avoid confusion unless they remain on the same line (i.e. the D8 could remain).
If they wished to retain odd numbers for peak only services (though probably grouping all together instead of every variation with its own number), they probably could, as well as 9 suffixes to note Limiteds.
Possible Examples:
16th Street Line = D16
A2=D22
J2 = M22
J1 and J3 = M23
C2 = MP12
J5 = MP25
Ride On 1 = M101
Dash 7 = X107
Art 41 = A141
PG 14 = P114
PG15X = P159
1A = AF2
Fairfax Conn. Routes = F+existing number
Probably lots I didn't think about here, but it's a start...
I like your thinking Adam. You could even simplify that more and just have M=MD, D=DC and V-VA and then have a series equal an area. M100's could be PG, M200's could be Montgomery, etc.
Oren, I'm not sure how it would be handled for crosstown routes with names as that would add another layer and probably why the whole renumbering thing was scrapped.
I don't think the letter suffixes would necessarily work NYC style. What do you do with a route like the E6, or even though it doesn't exist anymore, the B11?
If such a change had to occur, I'd opt for something along the lines of what the Las Vegas system is based on how Perry has described it. The system would be all numerical and without letter prefixes or suffixes, and it would include all the regional bus providers.
1-10: DC Circulator and Georgetown Metro Connection
11-99: DC WMATA Routes
100-199: Montgomery County WMATA Routes
200-299: Ride On routes (all RO routes, except for the 100, could just have their numbers changed by adding 200 to the existing number, so the 1 would be the 201, the 15 would be the 215, the 55 would be the 255, and so on).
300-399: PG County WMATA Routes
400-499: TheBus, Connect-a-Ride, and other systems in Maryland
500-550: DASH
550-599: ART
600-699: WMATA Virginia Routes (Alexandria/Arlington routes would be at the lower end of this range, Fairfax and further flung routes would be higher)
700-799: Fairfax Connector
800-899: CUE, PRTC, Loudon Transit, and other VA providers
900-999: Maryland MTA Routes (I realize they don't fit into the scheme, which effectively goes clockwise around the region starting with Montgomery County, but it does mean that the routes get to keep their existing numbers)
Within this system, I think it would be good if the route numbers increased in a clockwise manner, similar to the entire scheme. Therefore, the lowest numbered DC routes would be in NW, and the highest would be in SE/SW. The T2, which is effectively the western most WMATA route in Montgomery County, would get a number closer to 100 than to 199 (although I could make a compelling case for the T2 being the 150 or 190), although the Z routes would get numbers closer to 199 than to 100. The 15K would get a higher number than the 9A or REX because that route is closer to the American Legion Bridge than the Wilson Bridge, and further along in the clockwise rotation around the region.
What ever happened to if it aint broke don't fix it. Besides, all that renumbering would be a pain in the ass for scheduling, signing, routing, etc. The costs to have to replace everything to these "schemes" probably would be through the roof. From what I see, it seems as though there should be a single agency combining the major TAs.
QuoteFrom what I see, it seems as though there should be a single agency combining the major TAs.
And how would that be any different in terms of costs with "scheduling, signing, routing," as you put it?
Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on January 19, 2009, 06:32:13 PM
What ever happened to if it aint broke don't fix it. Besides, all that renumbering would be a pain in the ass for scheduling, signing, routing, etc. The costs to have to replace everything to these "schemes" probably would be through the roof. From what I see, it seems as though there should be a single agency combining the major TAs.
Yes, it would be a lot of work and associated expenses to renumber the routes. However, the current is indeed broken as it's confusing and inconsistent. Remember, it should make sense for Joe and Jane Rider who are not mass transit fans and/or employees.
I remember when I first moved to the area and learned of the C2, C4 only to learn that more C routes existed in PG county. Also again, I have to mention the Z11/Z13. Also - What about the current situation with the Y5, Y7, Y8 & Y9. In my opinion these's nothing normal about this arrangement, and I'd bet many a passenger has been confused with the line.
I tend to agree that it's broke. I'm a transit buff and there's LOTS I have no clue about when it comes to DC Bus Routes.
Consider a new transit rider who just moved to the area, Let's say they're near Greenbelt and need to get to Silver Spring. All they know is they live in PG County and need to get into Moco.
A look at WMATA's website only spells out routes three ways - DC, MD, and VA. Click on the MD page, and you get a slew of routes, nearly all letter-number combos and with only a vague descriptor of the line name.
Only through either digging up the (dated) PDF system map or clicking on every single bus schedule does one begin to try to figure out their routing (and even then it takes a good while and some second guessing).
While I find the oft cryptic designation system novel and enigmatic as a transit fan, I find it bewildering as a customer. I've had numerous instances of letting buses pass me by because I had no clue if it would get me where I was going only to later find out it would have been a perfect option. And I'm damn sure I'm not the only one (even on this board) to make these errors.
Perhaps if I get time, I'll see if I'm game for tweaking and refining the criteria to address the challenge of a full areawide renumbering.
That much said, I don't disagree about the pain of renumbering thousands of bus stops - but as mentioned earlier, there are too many anyways!
I looked at the topic again and reading the responses I have thought of doing this. Wayne, Perry, Adam and Chris had great ideas and combining them with a few of my own, this might work if it is done this way.
1)Decentralize WMATA send the scheduling out to the local governments. This should improve schedule coordination. If Montgomery County had total control over what they route plan what would be the chances that buses from 3 routes wouldn't bunch up from Randolph Road to Wheaton Station. Also have those same local governments control the garages. Metrobus would be metrobus, and RIDE ON would be RIDE ON, but every route that is planned or adjusted would be done only by Montgomery County, no 6th Street interference. Sharing facilities would be a union issue, purchasing buses might mean an all Flyer outfit but eh.
2)Once that is done get rid of the sitting WMATA board and replace it with the heads of the local transit agencies. The current Metro board doesn't really know anything about transit for the most part, and heck, most of them don't even ride transit.
3)As previously mentioned, slowly renumber the routes. I like the D for DC, P for PG, etc. Have, as much as possible, the same string of routes operating from each subway station or the subway line, for example route P110s to 120s operating from New Carrollton and the M100s to M140s operating out of Silver Spring. If operating from one or more subway stations, use the number of the station where the first morning trip begins out of or the garage closest to the station where the route originates. Locals, expresses, limiteds and county lines could be seperated by groups. Example would the the current seventy being renamed the D70. The 79 would be renamed for example the D170 or the D270, where the route is the same but a change in the number denotes the difference in service offerings. WMATA run buses would be in the begining of the route designation and the county run routes would be further back. For example (again), the P00s to P100s would be WMATA run local buses, the P200-249 would be WMATA run express buses, the P250-P299 would be any The Bus express routes, the P300-P349 would be any WMATA run limited lines, P350-P399 would be The Bus limited lines and finally the P400-P600s would be The Bus local lines. As all of this is finalized, test them in a small area, like Alexandria, or Arlington and then make changes where needbe. If there is a minor route deviation, have a route A,B noted in the schedule as well as the run box, having the longer run boxes might be necessary.
If this sounds confusing, I tried, but having a C12 running in southern PG, having a C28 running in Central PG and having a C2 running in Montgomery can sometimes confuse someone moving here to ride transit.
Let me know what you think.
DC and LA are unique in the number of TA's that operate within each others territories to the extent that they do. LA has at least 14 TA's/municipal bus lines (MBL'S) in operation while DC has at least 15. Add to that mix the commuter rail operations of MARC and VRE for DC and Metrolink for LA.
Mix in different unions and union contracts; private operators; local government, state government, multi-jurisdictional or independent agency ownership and governance; multiple funding sources; plus conflicting community and political "priorities"and,..... well, you get the picture. It's a wonder it works as well as it does day in, day out.
WMATA's initial priority, to the detriment of the bus system, was laying tracks. In part, this led Montgomery to go off the reservation with Ride On in the late '70's because it was felt that WMATA was ignoring their need for more extensive bus service not only to feed the Red Line but for local services within the county. Fairfax eventually followed suit with the Connector, concerned that it was paying too much for WMATA's bus service and that Fairfax could do more for less.
The closest thing I can find for anything approaching the possibility of full integration of multiple TA's is the Toronto region which rivals DC and LA for the number of operations. A few years ago a "super-regional" agency called Metrolinx was created to oversee all transit operations from Hamilton, near the US border to Clarington, about 40 miles east of Toronto. Twenty five jurisdictions in all. Earlier this year in May GO Transit was merged into Metrolinx whose mission is to conduct planning, provide funding, manage major capital projects and to coordinate the services of the Toronto-Hamilton region TA's, while the TA's maintain their autonomy for local operations.
Can this happen in the DC/BAL region? I doubt it. But it could happen.