S9 Schedule

[LandoverDivision]

I know many of you probably saw this but here it is again:

http://www.wmata.com/bus/timetables/upcoming/DC/s9.pdf

[C40LF_2464]

Nice another schedule to add to my collection!!!

[Tristan]

I like the look -- better than today's WMATA scheds.  I think they should go with it.

In other news - I mentioned this with the 30s, but I wonder why WMATA didn't go with MetroExtra for the S9?  Are we going to have a new name and marketing campaign for every new limited-stop route?

REX
MetroExtra
30s - Metrobus on the Move
16th St Express

What next?  I didn't love the "MetroExtra" name but I'm all about consistency at some point.

[Tristan]

They moved it from the "upcoming" folder, I guess since it's not upcoming anymore.  I fully expect this URL to die soon as well because it doesn't make sense either:

http://www.wmata.com/Images/mrel/S9_Timetable.pdf

It's probably under the DC schedules as well, but whatever.

[Transport]

I like the look -- better than today's WMATA scheds.  I think they should go with it.

In other news - I mentioned this with the 30s, but I wonder why WMATA didn't go with MetroExtra for the S9?  Are we going to have a new name and marketing campaign for every new limited-stop route?

REX
MetroExtra
30s - Metrobus on the Move
16th St Express

What next?  I didn't love the "MetroExtra" name but I'm all about consistency at some point.

In addition, the REX, 79, and 30s limited have "LIMITED-STOP" displayed on the destination sign... not so on the few working S9 signs I saw today.

Off topic... but I think WMATA qualifies as having the most inconsistent and poorly thought out destination sign programs out in TA world.  I've seen several variations on the same routes - words bunched togehter on two lines; flips to show a destination (which I like b/c the letters are larger); random use of blank screens - sometimes with and sometimes without the route letter/number included...

[WMATAGMOAGH]

I like the look -- better than today's WMATA scheds.  I think they should go with it.

In other news - I mentioned this with the 30s, but I wonder why WMATA didn't go with MetroExtra for the S9?  Are we going to have a new name and marketing campaign for every new limited-stop route?

REX
MetroExtra
30s - Metrobus on the Move
16th St Express

What next?  I didn't love the "MetroExtra" name but I'm all about consistency at some point.

In addition, the REX, 79, and 30s limited have "LIMITED-STOP" displayed on the destination sign... not so on the few working S9 signs I saw today.

Off topic... but I think WMATA qualifies as having the most inconsistent and poorly thought out destination sign programs out in TA world.  I've seen several variations on the same routes - words bunched togehter on two lines; flips to show a destination (which I like b/c the letters are larger); random use of blank screens - sometimes with and sometimes without the route letter/number included...

I believe the "LIMITED-STOP" reading is a P/R reading that has to be programmed into the display separately from the route and destination codes.  Therefore, if a driver doesn't enter that code, it won't show up.  Additionally, if a driver doesn't cancel that code, and that bus is then sent off to another route or is changed to read "NOT IN SERVICE", it will continue to display the "LIMITED-STOP" reading.

WMATA has many different destination signs in use on its buses, and each one has different specifications.  I assume the inconsistencies you see are between signs of different types, and I think you would be complaining more if WMATA did the sign programming "TCAT style" where regardless of the sign's capabilities, it got the same program (and cut off and hard to read destination signs on the buses that can't handle what they are being asked to display). 

I believe those blank readings you describe are caused when a driver incorrectly puts in a P/R code. 

I'd nominate TCAT for the worst destination signage.  It has gotten progressively worse during the time I've been familiar with it, and has included all sorts of ambiguous signs, extremely long cycles, mispellings (http://www.orenstransitpage.com/otptcatpics/lfs22.jpg) and hard to understand abbreviations if one isn't familiar with Ithaca or the surrounding area. 

[NewFlyer9736BCT]

I see one of the stops is at Buchanan Street...if they're gonna do bus driver exchanges at that stop, they better make it quick...sometimes the driver is late, and that's not good especially for a limited-stop route.

[79MetroExtraMD]

I like the look -- better than today's WMATA scheds.  I think they should go with it.

In other news - I mentioned this with the 30s, but I wonder why WMATA didn't go with MetroExtra for the S9?  Are we going to have a new name and marketing campaign for every new limited-stop route?

REX
MetroExtra
30s - Metrobus on the Move
16th St Express

What next?  I didn't love the "MetroExtra" name but I'm all about consistency at some point.

In addition, the REX, 79, and 30s limited have "LIMITED-STOP" displayed on the destination sign... not so on the few working S9 signs I saw today.

Off topic... but I think WMATA qualifies as having the most inconsistent and poorly thought out destination sign programs out in TA world.  I've seen several variations on the same routes - words bunched togehter on two lines; flips to show a destination (which I like b/c the letters are larger); random use of blank screens - sometimes with and sometimes without the route letter/number included...

I believe the "LIMITED-STOP" reading is a P/R reading that has to be programmed into the display separately from the route and destination codes.  Therefore, if a driver doesn't enter that code, it won't show up.  Additionally, if a driver doesn't cancel that code, and that bus is then sent off to another route or is changed to read "NOT IN SERVICE", it will continue to display the "LIMITED-STOP" reading.

WMATA has many different destination signs in use on its buses, and each one has different specifications.  I assume the inconsistencies you see are between signs of different types, and I think you would be complaining more if WMATA did the sign programming "TCAT style" where regardless of the sign's capabilities, it got the same program (and cut off and hard to read destination signs on the buses that can't handle what they are being asked to display). 

I believe those blank readings you describe are caused when a driver incorrectly puts in a P/R code. 

I'd nominate TCAT for the worst destination signage.  It has gotten progressively worse during the time I've been familiar with it, and has included all sorts of ambiguous signs, extremely long cycles, mispellings (http://www.orenstransitpage.com/otptcatpics/lfs22.jpg) and hard to understand abbreviations if one isn't familiar with Ithaca or the surrounding area. 

The LIMITED-STOP P/R reading is programmed into some Clever Devices systems for the J4 and 79, but sometimes doesn't come up. I think for the 79, the LIMITED-STOP and Metro Extra signs are combined into the same P/R only for those buses. The destination sign programming is pretty much easy. All of the destinations are in alphabetical order from I think 20 on up to 300+.

[Tristan]

I like the look -- better than today's WMATA scheds.  I think they should go with it.

In other news - I mentioned this with the 30s, but I wonder why WMATA didn't go with MetroExtra for the S9?  Are we going to have a new name and marketing campaign for every new limited-stop route?

REX
MetroExtra
30s - Metrobus on the Move
16th St Express

What next?  I didn't love the "MetroExtra" name but I'm all about consistency at some point.

In addition, the REX, 79, and 30s limited have "LIMITED-STOP" displayed on the destination sign... not so on the few working S9 signs I saw today.

Off topic... but I think WMATA qualifies as having the most inconsistent and poorly thought out destination sign programs out in TA world.  I've seen several variations on the same routes - words bunched togehter on two lines; flips to show a destination (which I like b/c the letters are larger); random use of blank screens - sometimes with and sometimes without the route letter/number included...

I believe the "LIMITED-STOP" reading is a P/R reading that has to be programmed into the display separately from the route and destination codes.  Therefore, if a driver doesn't enter that code, it won't show up.  Additionally, if a driver doesn't cancel that code, and that bus is then sent off to another route or is changed to read "NOT IN SERVICE", it will continue to display the "LIMITED-STOP" reading.

WMATA has many different destination signs in use on its buses, and each one has different specifications.  I assume the inconsistencies you see are between signs of different types, and I think you would be complaining more if WMATA did the sign programming "TCAT style" where regardless of the sign's capabilities, it got the same program (and cut off and hard to read destination signs on the buses that can't handle what they are being asked to display). 

I believe those blank readings you describe are caused when a driver incorrectly puts in a P/R code. 

I'd nominate TCAT for the worst destination signage.  It has gotten progressively worse during the time I've been familiar with it, and has included all sorts of ambiguous signs, extremely long cycles, mispellings (http://www.orenstransitpage.com/otptcatpics/lfs22.jpg) and hard to understand abbreviations if one isn't familiar with Ithaca or the surrounding area. 

Actually, once the Metro-Bs get out of service and if you ignore the 3700s, Metro will have a full fleet of Luminator LED destination signs, all of which are about the same size.  Programming would be much easier, basically color signs vs. orange signs, and Metro isn't making use of the color MetroExtra signs they have now anyway.

--Technical Stuff--
I'm not sure if it was inattentiveness or a programming error, but I know that the instances of blanks with route numbers are readings that used to be two screens reduced to one.  What I think happens is that you have to add a "page" (imagine a Word document) for each screen, and for the last update, when the multiple screens ("pages") were consolidated, the page itself wasn't removed; full blanks, which are now seen much less often than months ago when this big changeover started to take place, have been explained in Baltimore to be the result of PR codes that don't exist any longer but that drivers are still punching in (things like "Good Afternoon" and "Happy Holidays" that most T/As have removed to keep riders focused on the important info: route & destination). 

Even buses with Clever devices still have separate sign controllers (generally hidden behind the front bulkhead) and the Clever unit communicates with that controller -- basically, when the Clever is programmed, its data associates with the actual sign controller's programming and the Clever passes the correct data to the sign controller.  Therefore, to change signs, only the sign controller itself (and not the Clever) necessarily needs programming, if the change is not in the actual text -- so PR codes remained in the Clevers that were being passed to the sign controllers even after they were deleted from the controllers themselves...and Luminators aren't smart enough to kick back an error, they just flash an empty screen.

[OrionFlyer]

What I don't get is why S9 starts and ends at Franklin Square instead of McPherson Square. The same with the S2, and S4. The true destination is Franklin Square but the signs and schedules read McPherson Square instead. I don't get it.

I was at McPherson Square yesterday looking for the S9 stop and I asked a supervisor where the stop was and he told me to walk a block down, which is Franklin Square. Doesn't make sense.

[WMATAGMOAGH]

What I don't get is why S9 starts and ends at Franklin Square instead of McPherson Square. The same with the S2, and S4. The true destination is Franklin Square but the signs and schedules read McPherson Square instead. I don't get it.

I was at McPherson Square yesterday looking for the S9 stop and I asked a supervisor where the stop was and he told me to walk a block down, which is Franklin Square. Doesn't make sense.

McPherson Square is far more widely known than Franklin Square, and there is a Metro stop there.  More importantly however, there are two stops at McPherson Square, and most people don't care where the bus actually lays over.  Think of the fact there is a stop on 14th Street as a bonus, but I think McPherson Square is a better description of where the bus terminates.

Conversely, signing the 31 as going to Foggy Bottom Station is silly, since the bus continues quite a few blocks further and while it is still in Foggy Bottom, that terminal has always been referred to as Potomac Park.

I like the look -- better than today's WMATA scheds.  I think they should go with it.

In other news - I mentioned this with the 30s, but I wonder why WMATA didn't go with MetroExtra for the S9?  Are we going to have a new name and marketing campaign for every new limited-stop route?

REX
MetroExtra
30s - Metrobus on the Move
16th St Express

What next?  I didn't love the "MetroExtra" name but I'm all about consistency at some point.

In addition, the REX, 79, and 30s limited have "LIMITED-STOP" displayed on the destination sign... not so on the few working S9 signs I saw today.

Off topic... but I think WMATA qualifies as having the most inconsistent and poorly thought out destination sign programs out in TA world.  I've seen several variations on the same routes - words bunched togehter on two lines; flips to show a destination (which I like b/c the letters are larger); random use of blank screens - sometimes with and sometimes without the route letter/number included...

I believe the "LIMITED-STOP" reading is a P/R reading that has to be programmed into the display separately from the route and destination codes.  Therefore, if a driver doesn't enter that code, it won't show up.  Additionally, if a driver doesn't cancel that code, and that bus is then sent off to another route or is changed to read "NOT IN SERVICE", it will continue to display the "LIMITED-STOP" reading.

WMATA has many different destination signs in use on its buses, and each one has different specifications.  I assume the inconsistencies you see are between signs of different types, and I think you would be complaining more if WMATA did the sign programming "TCAT style" where regardless of the sign's capabilities, it got the same program (and cut off and hard to read destination signs on the buses that can't handle what they are being asked to display). 

I believe those blank readings you describe are caused when a driver incorrectly puts in a P/R code. 

I'd nominate TCAT for the worst destination signage.  It has gotten progressively worse during the time I've been familiar with it, and has included all sorts of ambiguous signs, extremely long cycles, mispellings (http://www.orenstransitpage.com/otptcatpics/lfs22.jpg) and hard to understand abbreviations if one isn't familiar with Ithaca or the surrounding area. 

The LIMITED-STOP P/R reading is programmed into some Clever Devices systems for the J4 and 79, but sometimes doesn't come up. I think for the 79, the LIMITED-STOP and Metro Extra signs are combined into the same P/R only for those buses. The destination sign programming is pretty much easy. All of the destinations are in alphabetical order from I think 20 on up to 300+.

The destinations on the roll signs also had numbers, also assigned alphabetically.  The system dates back to those days.

[79MetroExtraMD]

I can understand why Metro did the Foggy Bottom designation for the 31 to tell riders that it serves that station, although they could have done POTOMAC PARK VIA FOGGY BOTTOM STATION to be a bit more formal to identify both the Metro station and the terminus.

[WMATAGMOAGH]

No other bus that goes by Foggy Bottom en route to Potomac Park does that.  The 31 doesn't need it either, especially since if you board the bus prior to when it reaches Foggy Bottom and have any knowledge of DC, you will know the only way to get from wherever you are to Potomac Park is to stop at or very near to Foggy Bottom Metro. 

31 POTOMAC PARK
31 VIA GEORGETOWN

would be a far better "via" reading for the 31.

Does anyone know if the 32/ and 36/ buses up from Southeast to Potomac Park are also now sighing Foggy Bottom?  WMATA did refer to Foggy Bottom as the terminal for all these routes when they were in the proposal process.

[OrionFlyer]

Actually they were NEVER mentioned. I was surprised when I saw the routing from Washington Circle to Potomac Park.

[WayneNYC]

I like the look -- better than today's WMATA scheds.  I think they should go with it.

In other news - I mentioned this with the 30s, but I wonder why WMATA didn't go with MetroExtra for the S9?  Are we going to have a new name and marketing campaign for every new limited-stop route?

REX
MetroExtra
30s - Metrobus on the Move
16th St Express

What next?  I didn't love the "MetroExtra" name but I'm all about consistency at some point.

Agreed.  Don't forget the J4 - International Express.