Friday, April 06, 2018

Atlanta's rail system

About a month ago I visited Atlanta. Atlanta's MARTA remained the only metro / heavy rail system in the U.S. that I did not explore in any detail or even see up until that point. So, I decided to use three days of our spring break to have a little rail vacation and rectify this very last omission.


Atlanta's MARTA is a modern metrorail system similar to those in Washington DC and San Francisco Bay Area (BART). It was established at about the same time and was built to the same modern standards: spacious stations, wide platforms and passageways, fast running trains (definitely above 100 km/h), larger distances between stations, large park-and-ride lots at outer stations, etc. Some observations:


 ‑ Trains are very fast. A very pleasant experience. Track is mostly in good condition, although I remember a couple of rough stretches.

 ‑ While some stations begin showing their age, overall, they are in good condition and well maintained.

 ‑ Stations have many entrances/exits and good pedestrian distribution systems at each exit, which are well designed. This is in stark contrast with systems like Los Angeles, where "a single whole in the ground" seems to be the norm.

 ‑ The system is clean (at least by relatively low American standards). In fact, I was shocked to see cleaning employees at many stations throughout the system, who were actually cleaning the system, for example, wiping escalators' handbelts with some sanitary solution. This is not a common sight in most U.S. systems. Cleanliness is definitely above average. No bad smells or physiological fluids, even in bad parts of town.

 ‑ Despite Atlanta's notorious crime reputation, the system felt safe in all of its parts.

 ‑ People (passengers) are better behaving that in some older systems, particularly, New York or Chicago. No one was playing music without headphones (a big problem in New York City), no one was eating on the trains, no one was yelling all the time. Pretty pleasant.


 ‑ The system features extremely low ridership. During the day, I would sometimes find myself to be the only passenger in a rail car or the only person in a rail station. I think a big part of the problem is that MARTA has completely decimated its bus system. There are very few feeder bus routes with any decent frequency. You can get only so much ridership from people walking to your stations or parking at your stations. Feeder bus network is extremely important, and Atlanta gets very low marks on such a feeder network. Bus terminals at many rail stations sit underused or even completely/partially closed. This is not a good feature of the transit system. They need to increase bus service frequency, this would help to build rail ridership and fill their running trains. The current bus "system" hurts the rail system's ridership.

 ‑ The rail system has an extraordinary number of unnecessary audio announcements on trains. Customers are constantly and continuously bombarded by audio pollution. And these are not just station announcements (which are also made too frequently, in my opinion), there are many totally useless announcements as well. For example: "Everyone would like to enjoy a pleasant ride. Please review MARTA's code of conduct at" Seriously? Does one really need to hear a meaningless announcement of this sort in two languages every 5 minutes? What is its informational content? And there are many others, equally senseless and meaningless announcements. This rail system gets nominated to be the worst in the U.S. in terms of the extreme number of announcements. In essence, the loudspeakers are talking almost continuously. Cut it down! They need to reduce the number and the frequency of announcements drastically. There is absolutely no justification for subjecting MARTA's passengers to such a horrendous amount of unnecessary noise.

 ‑ Blue line had delays on all three days. They seemed to be unable to keep the schedule on this line throughout my visit. On a couple of occasions, I had to wait for the train for almost half an hour! I have no idea if there was a good reason, but with a train every 12 minutes, there is little excuse for such poor schedule adherence.

 ‑ While the daytime frequency is quite adequate (6 minutes on the trunk lines and 12 minutes on branches, further reduced to 5 and 10 minutes respectively during rush hours), the night and weekend frequency is very poor: a train once in 20 minutes. Especially at night, when Red and Green lines are converted to shuttles and do not provide direct service to the main transfer point (Five Points) in Downtown Atlanta, it is virtually impossible to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. Around 9 pm service frequency on the busier north-south line drops from "every 6 minutes" down to "every 20 minutes". This is unacceptable. I witnessed a young couple entering a station and seeing sign "the next train is in 18 minutes" and asking each other: "Are they serious?" Indeed, MARTA cannot be serious with such frequencies. This is pathetic for an urban rail system.

 ‑ The busiest branch seems to be the northern end of the Red line. Ridership on this branch is healthiest and heaviest. This can be observed by a naked eye, but I am sure there is data to support this assertion. Yet, this is precisely the line that gets cut short during evening hours. Why? Why the heck do they run night shuttles on this line? Why not to cut short the less busy Gold line? Is anybody thinking? At night, Red and Gold service patterns need to be swapped.

At the very least, I would make the Red line shuttle run all the way to Five Points in the evenings. This section between Five Points and Lindbergh Center is the busiest section on the entire system, and there are turnaround facilities just south of Five Points, so this seems to be a no-brainer. This would make the system infinitely more convenient for practical use in the evenings and at night. And it would not even cost that much: they would need just one extra Red line train, given their current 20-minute night-time intervals on all branches.


 ‑ The Peachtree Center station in the crown jewel of this rail system. The station was carved in bedrock and has bare walls, well, made of rock. It looks stunning. It also has a well developed system of exits to several points throughout Downtown. This is the only deep station on this rail system. A "must see".

 ‑ All platforms are 180 m long and can fit 8-car trains, but only 6-car trains are running on the three main lines (Red, Gold, and Blue). However, there is one exception: the platform at the Bankhead station is only long enough for two cars. This is the main reason why the Green line operates with two-car trains at all times. Longer trains would simply not fit at the Bankhead station's platform. This seems to be rather shortsighted. I have no idea why this station was built in such a substandard way, but they will need to rectify this shortcoming sooner or later.


Overall, MARTA is a good system. However, there is room for improvement. My top three recommendations:

1. Drastically reduce the number and the frequency of in-train announcements. This costs nothing, but makes a huge difference for passengers.

2. Extend the night shuttle on the Red line to the Five Points station and thus reduce service frequency on the busiest portion of the system between Five Points and Lindbergh Center from "once in 20 minutes" to "once in 10 minutes". This will cost very little, as they will need to run only one more train and have one more operator in service during evening/night hours.

In addition, swap night service patterns on the Red and Gold lines. Ideally, the Red line should run all the way south to the airport, and the Gold line should terminate at Five Points (not at Lindbergh Center).

3. Improve the bus feeder network. A bus once an hour is a ridiculous frequency for a populated and growing city like Atlanta. Run them every 15 minutes or less and be surprised with a sudden surge of ridership. Houston did this just a couple of years ago, follow their suite. This is higher cost, but still much cheaper than building new lines or stations.

Atlanta streetcar

I really don't want to offend anyone here. But my softest, nicest expression about this rail system is this: What a pathetic joke! The streetcar is very slow. It runs in street traffic and gets stuck in traffic. There are no published timetables. Streetcars run empty. No fare enforcement. No fare integration with MARTA. Only one-way connection to MARTA. The streetcar was not running one day I was in Atlanta, but no announcements, fare machines are operational and still sell 2-hour and 1-day tickets, even though there will be no streetcars until the next day (yes, I wasted a dollar). I found only one positive: nice vehicles and nice seats with low-back support. Everything else is pretty much mediocre. The grade is C.

There are also two airport people movers in the Atlanta airport (which is the largest in the U.S.), one in the secure zone and one outside, but they are really no different from other similar airport systems, so I will save my breath here.

Overall, my conclusion is that Atlanta is worth a two or three day visit for a railfan.

Sunday, April 10, 2016

Capacity and reliability improvements in South-East Michigan

Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) completed two important rail projects in the Metro Detroit area this winter. One is the so-called West Detroit Connection, and the other is the second main-line track between the Wayne Junction and the Dearborn station. Both projects will affect passenger rail service in the region.

The West Detroit Connection (WDC) is a single-track rail connector between the east-west Conrail main line (co-owned by Norfolk Southern and CSX) and the north-south Canadian National (CN) main line (map). The newly built overpass structure is owned by MDOT, while the connecting track is now owned by CN. As another part of this project, a mile (1.6 km) of the second track has been added to the CN main line north of the connector, as well as several crossovers.

The main purpose of this connection is to provide a shorter, more direct route for passenger trains that bypasses two busy control points and avoids interference with freight traffic on the Conrail line. Even though the reduction in travel distance is not very significant (less than a mile), the new route is expected to improve reliability and on-time performance by reducing both the number and the extent of potential delays, as it avoids two interlockings where freight congestion can hold up passenger trains. The connector is designed for the top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h) due to its curvature; however, the main time savings will be realized from the increased reliability due to the lack of conflicts rather than high speed. This logical improvement has been needed ever since the Detroit station was moved from the old Michigan Central location to its current spot in the New Center area in 1994, and it is finally open for service more than 20 years later. Amtrak trains have been using the new connection on daily basis since December.

As a result of construction of the connector and the second track on the CN main line, two rail junctions have been modified at each end of the new double-track segment: CP West Detroit and CP Vinewood. My track schematics of the new layouts at both locations can be found here (page 1 is CP West Detroit, and page 2 is CP Vinewood). Although the connector itself is single-track, Amtrak trains can now access both main tracks at both ends of the connector, thanks to the new crossovers installed on both CN and Conrail lines at CP West Detroit. The schematics also illustrate the elimination of conflicts between Amtrak trains and NS/CSX freight trains. The former move from Dearborn to Detroit (or in the opposite direction) via the newly built connector, while the latter move from the Livernois Yard or Toledo to Canada or Detroit (or in the opposite direction) via CP Scotten on the Conrail territory, and there is no single point of conflict between these movements any more.

The second rail project completed by MDOT this winter is a 9-mile (14-km) segment of the second main track between the Wayne Junction and the new Dearborn station on the former Michigan Central line (a part of the Wolverine Corridor currently owned by MDOT). All track work was finished before the end of last year, but the new track is not in service yet. According to MDOT, it is waiting for the Positive Train Control signal work to be completed before it can be placed in service. The new track has been constructed to the north of the existing track. Several crossovers have been added, and all grade crossings have been rebuilt as a part of this project.

The segments west of the Wayne Junction and east of the Dearborn station have been double-track for many years. Completion of the new second track between them creates a continuous double-track line from CP Ypsilanti to the West Detroit Connector, a distance of 25 miles (40 km). Moreover, since the single-track WDC is very short (about a quarter of a mile, or 400 m), and since a mile of second track has been added on the CN main line north of the WDC, almost all 28 miles (45 km) between CP Ypsilanti and the Detroit New Center station are now double-track, with the only exception of the connector. This expanded capacity paves the way for the future Ann Arbor - Detroit commuter rail, another overdue project for South-East Michigan. Double-tracking the segment between the Wayne Junction and Dearborn was also one of the stipulations of the sale of the former Michigan Central line to MDOT by Norfolk Southern, which retains freight trackage rights on this line.

In other news, both platforms are currently in use at the new Dearborn Amtrak station. The northern platform has been in service since December 2014, while the southern platform was not used until recently. During meets at this station, westbound trains typically stop at the northern platform, and eastbound trains now stop at the southern platform.

However, the gate between the southern platform and the Henry Ford Museum remains permanently closed, preventing easy pedestrian access to this major attraction and defying the concept of an “intermodal” station, more than a year after the station’s opening. Amtrak passengers are currently advised to take a more-than-a-mile-long roundabout taxi trip instead of a short direct walk between the platform and the museum. It is hoped that this deficiency will be rectified soon and the gate will eventually be opened and begin serving Amtrak passengers, as originally intended.

Other infrastructure improvements along the Wolverine Corridor will continue this year and next. All projects are scheduled to be completed by the end of 2017, and higher-speed passenger service is expected to be initiated on this line shortly thereafter.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Three new rail stations opening this spring

Three new major intercity rail stations are opening in the U.S. this spring. The three stations are in Denver, CO, St. Paul, MN, and Miami, FL.

Denver Union station (map) reopened for rail service on February 28, when Amtrak began using the new station. Amtrak was using a temporary platform for several years while construction of the modern multi-track facility proceeded. The new station features 8 tracks: 2 tracks with low-level platforms for Amtrak and tourist/special trains and 6 tracks with high-level platforms for future regional/commuter trains, which will begin serving four lines radiating from Union station in 2016. The track layout of the new station is as follows (the dead-ends are on the left):

(PLATFORM) Track 8 (Regional Rail - High Level)
Track 7 (Regional Rail - High Level)
(PLATFORM) Track 6 (Regional Rail - High Level)
Track 5 (Amtrak - Low Level)
Track 4 (Amtrak - Low Level)
(PLATFORM) Track 3 (Regional Rail - High Level)
Track 2 (Regional Rail - High Level)
Track 1 (Regional Rail - High Level)

There is also an underground bus transfer facility with 22 bus bays, which will be used by various RTD bus routes and will replace the existing Market Street transfer center a few blocks away. The bus portion of the station is opening on May 9, and the renovated station building is opening on July 11. Thus, by the middle of this year Denver Union station will be in full service - except there will be no trains (apart from two Amtrak trains a day) until 2016, when three of the four regional rail lines (including the line to the airport) are expected to open. Denver is implementing one of the most ambitious transit expansion programs in the nation, and so far they seem to be on track and on schedule.

One of the major design flaws of the new station is in the inconvenience of future transfers between regional rail and light rail. The light rail station has been moved two city blocks (200 m) away from the regional rail/Amtrak station. Being a terminal dead-end station, it would have been very simple to build the light rail stop near the end of the stub tracks, so that transferring passengers would have only a short walk to get to the connecting train. Yet the light rail station was moved to the furthest corner of the development, thus maximizing the inconvenience of rail-to-rail transfers.

Another new rail station opening soon in the U.S. is the renovated St. Paul Union Depot (map). The present "Midway" Amtrak station will be taken out of passenger service, and all Amtrak operations will be moved to Union Depot. Overall, it is a good idea, because public transit connections at Union Depot are so much better, while at the current location they are simply non-existent. The stop at Union Depot will be more convenient not only for St. Paul, but also for Minneapolis, because there will be a direct light rail line from Union Depot to Downtown Minneapolis beginning this June. And it will also be possible to get to the soon-to-be-closed Midway station by taking the same light rail line to the rough vicinity of the current station. I see no loss in abandoning the old station.

The new St. Paul station will not be as large as the one in Denver. There will be only two tracks and one low-level island platform between them. Passengers will not have to cross any tracks though - there is vertical access from the new platform to the Depot building above, which is already a great improvement over many other station designs on the Amtrak system.

The Union Depot project is delayed by more than a year now, and it is currently estimated that Amtrak will be moving to the new station in early May - and hopefully before the light-rail Green line begins serving Union Depot in June.

Finally, yet another major rail station opening soon is the Miami Central Station next to the current terminus of the Metrorail Orange line in Miami International Airport (map). The new dead-end station is expected to open for the Tri-Rail regional rail service in June. It will be connected to the airport terminal by the MIA People Mover. The track layout includes four tracks and two low-level island platforms, which will be arranged as follows:


Just like in Denver, this is going to be a pretty major station by the U.S. standards, as very few rail stations have more than only one or two tracks with boarding platforms.

Amtrak will not move to the new Miami Central Station until 2015 though. Station design did not take into account the length of the locomotive and the "slack" distance needed to trip the grade crossing signals. As a result, if a long Amtrak train is stopped at the new station, it will be blocking a street at the north end of the station. Florida DOT will now have to spend $25 million to build a "bypass" road, so that automobiles could use the next grade crossing a few blocks north while an Amtrak train is blocking the grade crossing next to the station. Intelligent, isn't it?

Update 1: St. Paul Union Depot reopened for train service and the Amtrak station moved to Union Depot on May 7, 2014.

Update 2: After long delays, Miami Central Station opened for the Tri-Rail regional rail service on April 5, 2015. Amtrak service to this station is now expected to begin in 2016.

Sunday, August 05, 2012

System maps

A system map is a complete map of a transit system, which contains all rail and bus routes within the service area of a transit agency as well as information on service hours and service frequency for all services.  A system map is perhaps the most important informational product a public transit agency produces.  It contains the most complete information about services provided by the agency on a single piece of paper, allowing users to have this complete information at their fingertips at any time before and during a trip by public transit.  A system map is an indispensible travel tool to navigate a transit system unsurpassed by any other informational products offered by transit agencies.

In North America (and I mean the U.S. and Canada here) the situation with system maps has been very favorable over the last decades:  Most large agencies produce system maps of rather high quality, and folded versions of these maps are freely available to riders at transit stations and in customer service centers.  Typically, one can also request a system map from a transit agency by email or phone, and they gladly mail a copy upon such a request in most cases.

Lately, however, an alarming trend has developed among some transit agencies:  they simply discontinued production of paper versions of their systems maps.  They still produce their maps and update them, they still spend their money on the most difficult job - to keep the map current, - it is just they do not print them anymore, referring customers to online versions.  There are several large agencies that have adopted such a policy; to name a few, King Country Metro (Seattle, WA), TransLink (Vancouver, BC), Port Authority of Allegheny County (Pittsburgh, PA), and RIPTA (Providence, RI) are on this list.

Some agencies went even further and stopped production of system maps altogether.  The most notorious example here is perhaps New Jersey Transit, which did not produce a map of their bus system in more than a decade, not even an electronic version.  Other agencies limit distribution of their printed maps; for example, Denver RTD will not mail their system maps outside the state of Colorado.

This tectonic shift in policy on system maps seems to be caused by several factors.  The first (and perhaps most important) factor seems to be the lack of understanding by transit managers of the importance of system maps as the principal informational product of their agencies.  Since most transit managers do not use public transit in everyday life, few of them seem to understand how important a good system map is as an actual planning tool for their riders, both existing and new ones.  Some have even suggested that there is no significant value in system maps outside of an academic interest in the breadth and coverage density of transit networks.  As a life-long transit user, I navigated my way by transit with system maps through many cities in North America and in Europe, and availability of a good system map is often what makes a difference between a good transit system and a mediocre one.  In essence, a system map provides all the information one needs about public transit in a geographic area, and if this information is not available, one’s usage of the transit system is severely impeded.

The second reason for discontinuing paper maps is often provided along the financial lines: “Due to funding shortage...” or “Due to dwindling resources…” etc.  What I do not understand, however, is why the agencies cannot simply SELL these paper maps for a small fee, instead of distributing them for free, like some agencies have been doing for quite a while.  For example, Philadelphia's SEPTA produces ones of the best transit maps I have ever seen; it is not just a distorted network of bus lines, but a full city map with all the streets and all the transit information, yet they don't distribute those maps for free - they sell them for a few dollars apiece.  Similarly, Sacramento RTD sells its system maps at 25 cents each.  Many European agencies also sell their maps, for example, Berlin’s BVG.  Such an approach makes paper maps available for those who need them, while covering the costs of printing and storage.  It also deters waste, because people are more reluctant to dispose of something they paid money for (even if it is only a couple of bucks).  The agencies listed above should adopt a policy of selling the maps instead of discontinuing them altogether.

The third factor influencing the system maps policy is related to a persistent perception that an online version somehow replaces a paper map, and hence publication of paper maps is not such a priority or even necessity.  I certainly understand the general trend towards everything digital, and this trend has brought us mostly good things so far.  For example, availability of transit schedules in digital format online offers a great example of how the new technology simplifies transit usage.  Online schedules can be accessed using smartphones and other mobile devices in real time or printed in advance, as long as they are in a printable (PDF) format rather than on some hard-to-print flash-enabled webpages.  The main problem with digital content is specific to maps, especially online system maps.  It is really the map that needs to be on paper.  A user can print letter-sized PDF schedules of the needed bus routes, but one typically does not have the means to print a meter-by-meter system map.

A typical misconception goes along these lines:  “There is a dearth of smartphones and mobile devices available nowadays, and plenty of applications allow a customer to pan and zoom through either a digitized map or a data layer to get the specific detail, as well as to locate stops and to generate trip plans with directions.”  To begin with, the problem with online maps is precisely that: they are online, not in one’s pocket or backpack.  There are still plenty of spots in any city where neither Internet nor cell-phone connection is available, most notably in major parts of their rail transit systems - in the underground tunnels where many urban rail lines run.  Not everyone owns an Internet-enabled smartphone yet, so it is also an issue of equity.  These are rather obvious initial arguments against discontinuance of paper maps and over-reliance on online maps.

But more fundamental arguments run much deeper.  To address the above misconception, we need to distinguish two different scenarios of mobile-device usage for transit planning purposes:  (A) looking at an online map to plan one’s transit trips by oneself, and (B) letting an application or a “trip planner” to plan a trip for a user.  These are not the same, and I will consider these scenarios separately.

(A)  When it comes to planning one’s trip by oneself by just looking at a map, what most people do not seem to realize is that most mobile devices are simply too small to show a large system map in any meaningful way.  Simply nothing beats a meter-by-meter paper map when it comes to finding one’s way in a big city.  Viewing a large map on a 5-inch screen is similar to a torture.   There is no digital device on the market yet, which would have a meter-by-meter display, which could be folded and stored in a pocket, which would weigh less than an ounce, and which would be capable of accessing online maps even on a train deep underground.  And BEFORE such a device is created, any discussion of online maps as a replacement of paper maps is completely meaningless, simply because it is NOT an equivalent replacement.  No amount of “zooming and panning” will even compare to a good paper map, just because one DOES NOT NEED to zoom and pan when planning one’s trip on a paper map - all the information is in one’s sight without the limitations of the tiny screen of one’s favorite electronic gadget.

(B)  Letting an app or a “trip planner” do the planning is a completely different story.  Of course, if these apps were done perfectly, that would be a magical solution: let the computer do its thing for you!  However, there are severe limitations here as well.

Perhaps most importantly, all of these apps and trip planners produce an itinerary, which is only good for a specific day and time.  They might give one an itinerary for Friday, 4:30 pm, which will not work on Sunday or at night, simply because a bus route it suggested runs only during rush hours.  Thus, one has to plan his or her trip EACH TIME when using these trip planners.  None of them can possibly produce an advice like this: “On weekdays before 9 pm take bus A, but at nights and on weekends take bus B and then transfer to bus C”.  While looking at the map, I can get such a general idea very easily, all I need to know is my route options and service hours, both of which are typically available on the single system map without any typing, zooming, or panning.

Yet another disadvantage of various automated trip planners is that they do not have any idea about such notions as “frequency” and “reliability”.  Most (if not all) of them plan a trip based on theoretical transit schedules.  But what if you missed your connection, because the first bus was late?  If the second line runs every 5 minutes, it is not such a big deal, but if it runs once an hour, it is a serious problem, which can delay you enormously.  None of the trip planners will make a determination that it is possibly safer to take a frequent reliable line rather than a non-frequent unreliable one.

Connection times are frequently estimated based on some very crude assumptions, and in my experience most trip planners produce an exaggerated walking time, based on the speed of a very slow walker, such as an elderly or disabled person.  It is not uncommon to see a 10-minute prediction for a transfer where the actual walking time by a healthy person is only 2 minutes.  This overestimation discourages walking and transfers between different lines and favors direct rides, even if they are actually slower.

The apps are made by people, and people set their priorities in their programs.  Of course, some of the more intelligent “trip planners” allow one to choose “fastest trip”, “shortest walk”, “least transfers”, or “shortest wait”.  But the problem is: this is still a machine, and if one tells it “walk no more than 500 m”, it will cut all the options that include more walk - even if it is only 510 m, and one would not even mind such a slightly longer walk.  So, the main point, computers have no common sense, and an option that might be acceptable to you (and might even be the best) would not be shown.  And vice versa: computers may be selecting some non-sense options, just because they have no intelligence.

Many of these apps are severely flawed.  I will provide two examples.  I will never forget standing on the inbound platform of the Woodside LIRR station (in Queens) last year, when I was approached by a teenage girl with a smartphone in her hand.  The girl asked me if trains to Penn station depart from this platform (the answer was “yes”) and when the next train is coming (“in 3 minutes”).  Then I asked “But where are you going to?”  She said: “Great Neck station”.  I asked “What Great Neck station?”, and she showed me her smartphone: it was the Great Neck LIRR station on the Port Washington line.  For those, who are not familiar with the LIRR system, the Port Washington line also stops at the Woodside station (where we were standing), but in order to get to the Great Neck station, the girl would have to take a train in the opposite direction from the outbound platform.  In essence, the app advised the girl to travel to Penn station and then transfer there to a Port Washington train instead of taking a Port Washington train directly from the Woodside station without going to Penn station and back.  I do not know what company programmed that app and what options the girl selected (the longest trip? the highest fare?), but she certainly got a silly itinerary that a simple look at the system map would have never produced.

As another example, I have just tried to plan a trip by the New York MTA Trip Planner for a midday weekday trip from JFK to a station on the B line in Brooklyn that I made three weeks ago.  Even with all the best options I could possibly set and select, it gave me three itineraries, none of which included the route I actually took, and every one of which had a travel time that was longer than the trip I actually made.

Additionally, Google Transit is known to have outdated schedules, as was the case recently, when I tried to plan a trip in the Boston area on a Saturday, and it offered me to ride a bus route that no longer runs on weekends.  I knew it was discontinued on July 1, 2012 because I follow transit issues in that area, but there would be no way of knowing this for someone relying on Google entirely.

In general, I am very skeptical about these “ready solutions” in the form of the apps that plan a trip for you.  In most cases, I can do a much better job by myself, and so can other people.  These applications may indeed be a perfect solution for people who cannot read a map; however, there is no need to dumb the rest of us down to their level and make us use these "ready solutions" by discontinuing paper maps.

At the same time, I do not oppose transit agencies spending taxpayer money for developing such electronic applications.  What I oppose is taking away a good product - the printed system maps - and replacing it with a mediocre one.  These electronic gadgets are still nowhere near printed map in terms of their utility and convenience yet.

Paper maps should stay, and every transit agency should continue publishing them at regular intervals.