Should Public Transit Systems Open Up Their Data?
from the seems-like-a-good-idea dept
Should public transit data be opened up online for anyone to use? That's the question that's being discussed with regards to the Washington DC Metro's attempt to license its data to Google. Basically, Google has been asking the Metro to open its data up in an open format designed by Google, but which can be used by everyone, and which is quickly becoming the standard for transit info around the world. While the DC Metro has suggested a few objections, in the end it apparently has come down to money. The Metro wants Google to pay up for the data, noting that Google is a for-profit company and the DC Metro is a tax-payer and rider-funded public transportation system that could certainly use more revenue.However, as others have pointed out, this seems short-sighted. First off, it's hard to come up with a sensible argument for why this data shouldn't already be made as accessible as possible -- especially since it is publicly funded. But, more importantly, by making the data available and letting others do the hard work of making it more useful it should drive more people to ride the Metro, meaning more revenue. Yet, in haggling over a license fee for the data, the Metro hoards the data, makes it more difficult to make that data useful and actually decreases ridership -- and likely overall revenue.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: open data, public transit
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
TERRORISTS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TERRORISTS!
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, this means Google continues to grow financially, making them far too wealthy (or wealthier than they are already), and have them store and control far too much of our data. You certainly seem to treat them as some sort of volunteer service --- people who are doing this from the bottom of their hearts, rather than because of money and pleasing shareholders.
If Google is going to make money off something they did not create or collect, then I don't think it's unfair to ask Google to contribute financially to the public transportation system from which they make their profit. After all, the publicly funded transit system are the ones responsible for providing the service and collecting the data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is not an accurate reading of our position. Our position is that if the data is out there, then anyone (not just Google) can make that data MORE VALUABLE which helps whoever gave out the data. Yes, as an externality, it will also help whoever makes that data useful, but you are wrong to say that Google or whoever doesn't pay anything: they "pay" by creating something useful with the data, making it more valuable.
Of course, this means Google continues to grow financially, making them far too wealthy (or wealthier than they are already), and have them store and control far too much of our data. You certainly seem to treat them as some sort of volunteer service --- people who are doing this from the bottom of their hearts, rather than because of money and pleasing shareholders.
Not at all. I just had a post last week where I questioned Google's actions on such things.
But, you are confused again. This is NOT about just Google. We're asking for the data to be released to anyone. So I'm not sure why you seem to think Google is the only issue here. If Google is doing something bad with the data, then anyone else can do something better.
And, honestly, what's wrong with Google pleasing its shareholders if it also makes the world better for everyone else? Honestly, I simply don't understand the moral dilemma you have with Google making money if the end result is a better system for everyone else. A good economic transaction is one where everyone's better off. Why are you jealous that someone else is better off if you're well off too?
If Google is going to make money off something they did not create or collect, then I don't think it's unfair to ask Google to contribute financially to the public transportation system from which they make their profit. After all, the publicly funded transit system are the ones responsible for providing the service and collecting the data.
They ARE paying. By making the data useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I cannot agree more, if tax payers are paying for it, why not let a competent company like Google take the information and actually give to people they way they digest information, not through 15 year old methods and unusable sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disagree
If Google wants to increase utilization of a system my neighbors voted for, let them get the damn data. The sooner the whole damn thing is paid off, the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
google by default?
if google wants to make the data free by enabling the transit body to host and serve the data (google acting in a consulting capacity), then im all for that, but if google hosts data, tracks users, and serves ads (as faial mentions), its a much different issue.
google adding value to something just sitting there doesn't warrant them getting it for free. also, the administration costs of working with an organization like this would be prohibitive to the organization, even if they wanted to do it for free (cities are in trouble budget-wise these days anyway). this is another issue altogether, but valid in this discussion.
so, while the argument that it's public data is valid, and i agree that it would be really useful, google is a company and will pay for it if it's valuable. this is not an altruistic move. it may be my own bias, but it seems that google gets put in this "common good" light much more often than other companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: google by default?
I mean, you already paid them to make it with taxes, so why not pay for it again to have access to it in a usable format?
I think that next time I buy a ticket, I'm going to give them some extra for the seat. I know I already paid to ride the train, I should pay more for each seat too. They're providing those seats, and they should get paid for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hang on a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hang on a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
budgets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: budgets
What we really don't want is Google paying for the data, because then, they, by no convoluted stretch of the imagination, own the data. The same sort of thing is talked about here all the time. Some asshat company publishes the state laws and all of a sudden bloggers can't publish those same laws because of "copyright." Doesn't make sense, but it happens. I don't particularly fancy that happening to anyone's transit schedule. I like Google, but I don't want them to own any more data than they do already, especially if they're happy just to get access to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: budgets
This data exists the minute a transit route is created. It is available on the DC Metro website.
Suppose DC Metro objects to their localized taxpayers underwriting a project that all the world can profit from?
There is no "project". All Google is asking is that data be presented in their open format. I'm fairly certain that Google would be willing to cover the costs of the conversion.
But this isn't about costs. It's about DC Metro looking for free money from Google under the guise of loss of advertising revenue (which I understand is a paltry amount relative to the transit budget).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I get tired of paying for something multiple times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Transportation and Data Accessibility
It's worth noting that Bay Area Rapid Transit already offers this very data set, while New York's MTA recently unveiled a closed SMS/email alert service; the MTA's approach required building an expensive in-house email/sms infrastructure, and costs around $10k per month to operate. (Sorry, can't immediately find the link for MTA costs.) While offering APIs to serve this sort of data certainly isn't free, eliminating the costs associated with the messaging can be very significant.
Also note that after the BART service went live, Dave Winer (among others) dedicated his own time (and money in hosting costs) to make some of the BART information available via Twitter. Additional cost to BART? Nothing.
By making the data available--to everyone, not just to Google, of course--public transit systems make it possible for the many, many city-dwelling developers to scratch their own personal itches and build useful tools. That doesn't mean that they can't make "official" tools available, of course, just that they allow others to take on some of this work.
Shameless Plug: this sort of thing is exactly why John Geraci (with occasional assistance from yours truly) has started the DIY City project. Developing tools around public transportation is one of the topics that's generated the most immediate interest--it looks like there's a community that wants to work with this data, it's just a question of getting the data into their hands in an efficient and cost-effective way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let Them Keep Their Little Fiefdom
It is OK for the bus company to charge advertisers for space on the side or interior of the bus, but to charge for access to the location of the buses is simply stupid.
Google should let these idiots remain happy in their ignorance. People should simply drive to work and wait until the bus company needs another appropriation from the public trough, then REQUIRE them to make their data available to the public for FREE as a condition of receiving the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately, Google and their transit agency partners have not been good corporate citizens when it comes to making transit information public. Of the seventy transit agencies that have partnered with Google, less than twenty make their transit data independently available to all. You can see which transit agencies have done so at http://code.google.com/p/googletransitdatafeed/wiki/PublicFeeds.
Let's give the non-public transit information providers reasons to make their information public!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]