About a month ago I said I would come back to the topic of numbers on buses. Well, here we go.
IMPORTANT NOTE: In this post I may use ART and Metro as examples. That's because--being local--I know more about them. The points I am making are intended to apply to mass transit in general and are not intended as criticisms of these particular systems any more than transit systems anywhere else.
In Arlington (and many places) streets are numbered, which can be pretty useful: 10th St. is between 9th and 11th, which can be a huge help to those trying to find an address. In Arlington, the buses are also numbered: 41, 51, 52, 53 (A?), 61, 62, 67, 74, 75, 82. But what do these numbers mean? Like the streets, can I use the numbers to help me find the bus or figure out where it's going or derive any useful information at all? No. As a rider they are entirely meaningless. I asked around in Arlington County Commuter Services and virtually no one knew the "system" behind the numbers. Eventually I found one person who had a clue about the system but readily admitted that it was, in essence, arbitrarily contrived.
Metro is even worse. Not only are the numbers essentially arbitrary (I'm sure there's a system, but if it's
opaque to the rider then it is no better than no system). Take the #2 bus. It comes in 6 varieties (2A, 2B, 2C, 2G, 2W. . . and 2T on a separate timetable). The 2W and the 2T are so different from the other 2's, they need a separate map and timetables. Why even call them # 2's? 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.
Imagine the streets were numbered like this: 8th, 11th, 5th, 1st, 4th, 9th, 2nd, 7th, 6th, 10th, 3rd, 12th. The numbers are meaningless (actually there's a "system"--revealed at the end of this post). If you tell someone you live on 5th Street you still have to describe where it is: "I live on 5th, which is between 11th and 1st." The numbers have become meaningless. Actually, this "system" is even worse than that; it creates more confusion than purpose. Better that the streets were given names like colors or trees.
"But how do you tell the buses apart?" Yes, of course they need to be identified. Everything needs some sort of identification: streets, animals, our friends, schools, devices, food. They all have names, and those names evoke meaning. Imagine if all the food in the grocery were just numbers. 
"Be sure to pick up some 22, 135, 16 and--oh yes--311 on your way home, honey." I find it hard enough to remember bread, milk and artichoke hearts, and--oh yes--toilet paper! Eventually I would learn that 22 is milk, but it's so much harder. Our brains are not wired to apply numbers in an arbitrary way like that. We don't remember our friends by their phone numbers.
From early childhood we are taught that numbers are most usefully used as ordinal or cardinal identifiers--they help us put things in order or quantify them. But on buses they serve neither purpose (these are called "nominal" numbers), and so we have to deliberately undo a lifetime of learning and try to understand the number on the bus as nothing more than an abstraction that equates to a name. Better the bus be called the "phor" than 4; it would actually be easier. In fact, the metrorail lines being identified with colors is easier to remember than if they were numbered. And, although the colors are also essentially arbitrary, it is easier for the brain to bring meaning to them.
"But transit systems have been using numbers for generations, and it's been working." Thanks, Dilbert. Just because something has been done for decades doesn't make it good or leave no room for improvement. In fact, just the opposite: often it's the things that we assume ought to be a certain way are the things that should be questioned the hardest. Also, how do we know it's been working if we haven't tried something different to compare it with?
Boulder Colorado is one place I know of that has thrown out the number system (at least partially). 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. Personally I like the Jump (also called the Short Jump) and the Long Jump (which is the extension of the Jump--now there's a name that really works).
If the goal of transit is to help people get around better and more easily, that goal needs to consider everything: ease of use, cost, convenience, etc.. The names of the buses are a key piece of information critical to people using the system. Is what Boulder's done the best system? I don't know, but it's a lot better than everywhere else. In any event, the only system I can think of that would be worse than the arbitrary number system in common use is a system in which the buses have no identification at all.
=============================
Steve Offutt, Arlington
Great post Steve - I fully agree with you on the negative impact of this issue.
To me the heart of the problem is that most transit agencies see themselves in the rail/bus OPERATING business... As such, their focus is on running a complex network of rail/bus routes safely, on time, and as cost-efficiently as possible. For that, we should be thankful. These characteristics are essential. However, the mindset that produces solid transit operations in not always the same one that focuses on two other factors - whether there are people on the trains and buses, and the level of customer service provided.
To follow your example, those Boulder routes were not initiated by the Denver region's transit operator, the RTD... They were launched by the City of Boulder's transportation division (the initial HOP and SKIP routes). I don't intend to knock RTD (they do great work), but the background objectives of a City's transport division can be quite different than an operations-focused transit agency. You'll also note that the one route in DC that does not use a number was launched by a collection of business improvement districts, not Metro (Metro is the operator).
So, this is the challenge. How can we keep transit agencies focused on delivering quality service, while adding a more coherent set of customer-focused services on top of that base? The real issue is their ALLOWING this to happen.
Bus route numbers that make no sense is a starting point. Route specific marketing is the element that logically follows a route with a name, rather than a number, and is another area the majority of transit agencies will not support (they market the system as a whole typically, not an individual route).
Kevin Luten
UrbanTrans Australia New Zealand
lutenk@urbantrans-anz.com
Posted by: Kevin Luten | December 30, 2007 at 04:11 AM