I have lived in Northeastern Pennsylvania my whole life, so it should not be that surprising when I say that I'm a novice when it comes to public transportation. In fact, Scranton is a large city compared to my hometown; the city's population is just shy of the population of my county. The nearest gas station/convenience store is a twenty-minute walk from my house on a winding road. If I want to go to the supermarket, the closest one is more than three miles away. A car is an absolute necessity if I want to go anywhere or do anything because a bus won't be passing by my house anytime soon—or ever.
On a recent trip to Baltimore, my girlfriend and I decided to take a trip to Inner Harbor using the Maryland Transit Authority's bus system. We were in for quite the treat. Being the smart college kids that we are, we decided to look up the MTA's website for transportation schedules for the busses and the light rail. Finding an easy way to get to Inner Harbor from where we were was a bit more complicated then we expected. On the MTA site, there is a little Trip Planner utility that claims to give you the route you need to take from your intended start to your destination. Don't listen to it... it's a crude and stupid liar.
The trip that we wanted to take is literally in a straight line; Charles Street, a major artery in Baltimore, runs the entire length of the city, straight down to the Harbor. You would think that the Trip Planner would notice that fact and give us a bus route that reflects the straightforward nature of our journey. Not so, my friend. Instead of showing that the bus stop across the street from our starting address followed a direct route to within two blocks of the Harbor, the unwise Planner gave us a route with two different bus transfers by telling us that we should get on a bus going in the wrong direction and ride it until it loops around to the other direction. Brilliant. You know there's something wrong when a trip that covers only one tenth of a mile supposedly takes twenty-five minutes. Just brilliant.
After wandering around for an hour and a half in single-digit temperatures looking for a more appropriate bus stop, we decided to ask a nearby security guard if he knew of a better route. He suggested the bus stop across the street from our starting point; a bus shelter that happened to be unmarked, making it completely useless to anyone who didn't know which bus stopped there. It's a bit sad that a security guard knows the local bus routes better than the Transit Authority's database.
A much better solution than giving a specific route may be to suggest bus stops around your starting and ending points for your planned trip. This type of solution would query a database to generate choices, rather than allowing a program to decide the best option for you. Artificial intelligence still can't touch the simplicity of common sense. This is the case with almost every trip planner available to the general population; anyone who has used MapQuest can testify to its many shortcomings.
With the MTA's utter failure to use its technology for good on its website, you'd think that they wouldn't be able to utilize technology for anything else. Again, I was surprised. When we finally found the unmarked bus stop and boarded Bus 11, we found that the bus was equipped with a digital display that showed each intersection's name as we approached while an automated voice announced it. We also found rubber strips on the bus' walls that allowed you to request a stop at the next intersection just by pressing it. We knew exactly where we were at all times, the bus driver knew when she needed to stop, and everyone was happy.
The continual advances in technology that we experience everyday are welcomed with open arms by most people. But there is a fine line that separates what is best to automate with technology and what is best to leave to the average human. The fact that I was willing to accept a stranger's suggested bus route over the official site of the MTA is concrete proof of the suspicion that comes with shaky technology. Until scientists, inventors, engineers, and programmers grasp the idea that technology must be user friendly in order to be embraced by the general population, we will continue to be presented with technological "advances" that don't improve on their low-tech predecessors.