Enter bus timetables: these leaflets, available either in buses, at key transfer points, or online, should theoretically help users solve this puzzle. They are the simplest form of information that the STM makes available to its customers. They have two basic tasks: show where the bus goes and when it goes there. This seems fairly simple, especially because it's done on a route-by-route basis. Yet STM's timetables fail at fulfilling either of these elemental necessities.
At the beginning of each timetable lies a cluttered, confusing diagram of the route's trajectory.
It's almost as if basic priorities were thrown out the window. The purpose of this diagram should be, at least in theory, to clearly illustrate where the route goes. Anything else may not be irrelevant, but is of a lower priority. Extra elements in the diagram above, including metro and bus transfers as well as nearby points of interest, are secondary pieces of information, but arguably have higher visual priority than the the geography of the route itself.
Sure, the diagram ends up delivering the necessary information, but the extraneous clutter and unnecessarily confusing legend make this experience so much more cumbersome than it should be. Why do F and C point to the same place; shouldn't that just be represented by one letter? Does a timetable really need to depict nearby points of interest? Given the space and color constraints of the format, it's hard to envision these being included in a way that doesn't add confusion.
For example, near the Laurier terminus, the diagram shows a connection to southbound Route 46X. Yet the only mention of a 46X route is in the 46 timetable itself; it's not even listed on the STM website. It's also redundant; the route ends at the same station as the 51. Some of the data is flat-out wrong, too, and that's another one of the risks of including so much extra information. The Route 119 branch at McEachran Street has an arrow pointing in the wrong direction. This puts a layer of misinformation on top of the already confounding display.
The timetables themselves unfortunately manage to be worse. While the diagrams at least display the necessary information, albeit in a roundabout and complicated fashion, readers of the timetables have no clear indication of when peak-hour buses will come, or how long a journey from point A to point B will take. This is best illustrated in the timetables for routes such as the 24.
In the goal of simplifying the timetable, the symbol "»" is used to indicate that the bus runs every 7 minutes or less during a certain period of time. Yet this ends up being more confusing than just putting the expected arrival times. For example, at 18h00 in the first column, the symbol occurs between 00 and 10. Does this mean one bus comes, or two? At what time?
One could argue that running buses at this frequency means that specific arrival times are unnecessary and unpredictable. These are valid arguments, but they are not necessarily conducive to a simple, understandable timetable. Without knowing when the bus should arrive, users ultimately don't know what to expect.
Another, slightly broader issue is the definition of an on-time bus. The STM's punctuality guidelines are between one minute before and three minutes after scheduled arrival, but the timetable makes no mention of this. The only place this guideline is mentioned is on page 34 of the 2013 Activity Report, and that could be outdated. Once again, this is a question of expectations: the clearer the understanding between user and agency, the better. This fosters trust and avoids ambiguity, which is crucial when problems arise.
The other glaring inadequacy here is the fact that the timetable gives no indication of how long it takes to get from point A to point B. The user is left to extrapolate this. It's a problem that can be solved simply, using a bit more space. King County Metro's timetables show the way:
King County Metro Route 10
In the example above, one row equals one trip on the route. The STM, however, uses rows for each hour in the day. The former is data-specific and suited to users' needs, the latter is arbitrary and confusing. Using a layout like the one above would also allow the STM to further simplify the legend by removing the confusing symbol denoting a route that ends its trajectory early. The cells for stops further down the route could just be left empty for the row specific to that trip.
Much has recently been said, both on this blog and elsewhere, about the STM's opaqueness and reluctance to share necessary or at least very useful data with the public. Although most users will use third-party services such as Google Maps or Transit App for route choice, it's the agency that needs to provide consistent data and expectations in the first place. Without clear information given to customers, or to third-parties that rebroadcast this information, the STM sets confusing, almost non-existent expectations.
The first step in improving service should be establishing clear, universal and consistent guidelines for the service itself. Without these, there's no benchmark by which the agency's performance can be measured, and the STM can then twist and manipulate data to meet any end necessary. Simpler, more understandable timetables would be a small but significant step forward in solving this issue.