Headway

Steve Offut over at CommuterPageBlog posted about how transit systems could benefit from more memorable route names:

I’ll bet you there isn’t a single rider who can explain why those buses are called #2, why there are 6 different ones, why those particular letters of the alphabet are used, and why the 2W and 2T are somehow paired with the other 2’s. The numbering is worthless to the rider (who is, after all, the customer). So here’s a system that not only provides zero useful information but actually provides the disservice of confusing customers.

He points to Boulder’s named bus routes as one alternative:

Many of the buses have names: Hop, Skip, Stampede, Bolt, Dash, etc. The more complete names are things like “Skip Along Broadway” and “Dash down South Boulder Road.” Now that’s useful info to a customer.

It’s true that virtually no one knows the arcane numbering system for their city. On the other hand, the picture at the top of Steve’s post demonstrates the wayfinding advantage of numbers: they’re short, so they can be shown in huge type on stops and vehicle headsigns. There’s no reason you couldn’t use similarly short route names using letters, though.

For example, the RER commuter trains in Paris have four-letter names like PUMA and MONA that indicate the stops that a train is serving:

(photo courtesy Barbara Smith)

To be confident that they’re on the right vehicle on an unfamiliar route, a rider generally needs to check two things: the short name (by looking at the headsign) and the direction (from the headsign or by asking the driver “are you going to X?”). Given this, the short name has to be different from the names of places that the route serves, to avoid confusion between multiple routes operating in the same area. (The Boulder and Paris systems both have this property.)

Given sufficient care in picking the names, I think this has great potential. Cheers to Steve for questioning something that we’ve taken for granted for so long!