{"id":692,"date":"2010-05-20T22:20:57","date_gmt":"2010-05-20T22:20:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/transportsdufutur.ademe.fr\/?p=692"},"modified":"2010-05-20T22:20:57","modified_gmt":"2010-05-20T22:20:57","slug":"traffic-20-reinventer-larret-de-bus-pour-faire-mieux-avec-ce-que-lon-a","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/transportsdufutur.ademe.fr\/2010\/05\/traffic-20-reinventer-larret-de-bus-pour-faire-mieux-avec-ce-que-lon-a.html","title":{"rendered":"Traffic 2.0, r\u00e9-inventer l'arr\u00eat de bus pour faire mieux avec ce que l'on a"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introducing Traffic 2.0 (from<\/strong> Fastcompany<\/a>)<\/strong>
Traffic 2.0 is an attempt by our firm,
Teague<\/a><\/strong>, to reconcile these moving parts. At the outset our team, spearheaded by Brian Conner and Brian Monzingo, wanted to create a bus stop that, by virtue of its design, could help attract new ridership to urban transportation. After considering a range of preliminary solutions–each of which took on a different dimension of the problem such as construction costs, material selection, power, and general maintenance–it became obvious that no matter the intelligence, elegance, or general "wow" of its design, a bus stop is simply not a place any of us want to be at any longer than necessary. It also became especially evident that elevating the bus stop into a destination represented an abdication to the central problem of urban transit: the need to wait. <\/p>\n

Proceeding from this series of realizations, the team embarked on an investigation that would ultimately culminate in a service solution we call Traffic 2.0. Built upon common frustrations identified through interviews with riders in the Seattle area, Traffic 2.0 is composed of three parts that answer these three most common questions:<\/p>\n