We asked, would you like to use a bus to commute?
Transportation is the leading contributor to climate and air pollution in Seattle, making it a key area where individuals can drive meaningful change. The city’s public transportation system has a transit score of approximately 59.6, providing connectivity primarily through Sound Transit and King County Metro services. However, users frequently express concerns, highlighting the need for improvements. To promote greater sustainability through public transit...
Role
UX Research
UX Design
Interface
iOS and Android
Team
Rich Camposano
Anthea Qinyi Zhao
James Tran
Timeline
10 weeks
Tools
Figma
Miro
Figjam
Pen and Paper
Context & Scope
We began with : "How might we improve the transit experience for Seattle-area commuters?"
Initially, it felt broad, but through early conversations and informal interviews, we discovered something striking—commuters weren’t just complaining about delays or costs. They were frustrated by uncertainty, lack of safety at night, and an absence of community in the journey itself. These weren’t just logistical issues. They were deeply emotional and behavioral pain points.
Informal user
interviews
at bus stops
Literature reviews and desk research
Data Analysis
with PM and
UXR experts
What we found out
Informal user
interviews
at bus stops
Literature reviews and desk research
Data Analysis
with PM and
UXR experts
Product aim!
We aimed to design a mobile app that would:
-
Help users plan and navigate trips with ease
-
Enhance real-time communication about routes, delays, and safety
-
Foster emotional engagement through rewards, recognition, and community features
Question: How might we create a transit experience that is not only reliable and safe, but also emotionally fulfilling and community-driven?
🔍 Quantitative Research: Laying the Foundation
We began with a survey that captured responses from 18 Seattle-area residents across different neighborhoods. The survey focused on understanding daily usage patterns, stress points in commuting, perceptions around safety and emotional response to transit.
🎤 Qualitative Research: Going Deeper
Survey insights weren’t just stats—they became directional inputs for the next research phase. For example, the high rate of missed transfers directly shaped our contextual inquiry focus on wayfinding and signage, while the emotional safety data led us to ask more probing questions about nighttime travel experiences during interviews. We designed our field observations and follow-up scripts specifically to validate and expand on the gaps highlighted in the survey.
Informal Interviews
Conducted informal interviews with 12 transit users at stations and stops across the city and asked questions like: "What’s one moment that made you avoid public transit again?" or "How do you feel after you get off a ride?"
Contextual Enquiry
Participated in full-day public transit experiments, recording issues with trip planning, delays, misinformation, emotional safety, and accessibility
Theme coding
Reviewed transcripts and co-coded themes with our UX researcher. We supported each answer with data gathered from photos on site
Data Sythesis and Affinity mapping
We facilitated a synthesis workshop with our full team (2 designers, 1 PM, 1 UX researcher), combining sticky-note clustering, system mapping, and JTBD refinement. We transcribed all our notes and created an affinity map, grouping quotes, survey results, and diary study observations into emergent themes. These included:
The Causal loop!
We also built a causal loop diagram as a systems-thinking tool to understand the interdependencies between the problems we uncovered. Instead of viewing convenience, safety, and emotional value as isolated pain points, the diagram helped us recognize how improvements in one area could produce cascading effects in others—creating a positive feedback loop for user experience and service adoption.
Jobs to Be Done Framework (JTBD)
These JTBD statements emerged directly from pain points found in both survey data and interviews, and shaped our ideation directions for co-design. We worked these jobs collaboratively with our research and product lead to ensure alignment across vision, strategy, and user needs.
Co-Design Session: Transitopoly
We invited 5 riders from our interview pool to a co-design session using Transitopoly—a Monopoly-inspired ideation game. The board and cards reflected:
-
Common pain points (“Missed your transfer again!”)
-
Situational prompts (“A friend visits Seattle—how would you guide them on transit?”)
-
Ideation moments (“Sketch what your ideal alert system looks like”)
What we learnt
-
Safety was not just physical—emotional reassurance mattered just as much
-
People wanted subtle control: share trip with a friend, know last-cleaned time, or have an “I’m okay” check-in
-
Everyone wanted more say in how transit decisions were made (e.g., community polls)
Context and Scope
"How might we improve the transit experience for Seattle area commuters?"
This project began with an open-ended question:
Initially, it felt broad, but through early conversations and informal interviews, we discovered something striking—commuters weren’t just complaining about delays or costs. They were frustrated by uncertainty, lack of safety at night, and an absence of community in the journey itself. These weren’t just logistical issues. They were deeply emotional and behavioral pain points.
Week 06 - 07 - Ideation
A game called "Transitopoly" - Co design!
We played a game with the users to find out what they really faced the challenge in, The game worked similar to monopoly, where each user were asked to throw their dice and play the Instrcutions. As we kept playing the game the users warmed upt ot start sharing insights and ideas for our designs and what they felt were really "cool" things they could have in a service
"Transito-poly! - We designed a game similar to monopoly
where each participant would play their change and each spot has a spot with a question, that they start expressing with the other players"
Preliminary research
I approached the preliminary research not only to understand the issues, but to rather understand how problems are interconnected. Having worked at Sound Transit, I realized from my experience that each problem ahas a connecting loop of “cause” in a service. Based in that I put together affinity mapping and causal loop to identify the areas of issues and concerns.
I took this method of research analysis to build some WHAT IF questions, and scenario that would guide our design further.
Preliminary research
We the I took this method of research analysis to build some WHAT IF questions, and scenario that would guide our design further.
Service Blue Print
To define how the total operation work along with the plan we designed a service blue print, it focuses specifically on our proposed rewards program, which aims to encourage public transit use. We are also targeting tools such as trip/route sharing to family and friends, easy to reach customer support agent, frequent services, expanded routes, and additional stops to make commuting feel safer and more convenient. These enhancements will be communicated through various marketing campaigns, including social media, printed advertisements, and more, ensuring that the public is well-informed about the benefits and updates to the service.
Research
We conducted intial survey and informal interviews
We got 30+ response and
We used a mixed-methods approach that included informal interviews, contextual ride-alongs, digital app testing, and ecosystem mapping. I personally joined riders during their daily commutes, observing their interactions with Google Maps and Bellhop, and paying attention to moments of uncertainty, frustration, or delight.
Our design ideas and principals and causal loop showing the direction
5 out of 7 participants expressed concern regarding traveling on bus and and train as safety concern and did not wish to send their loved ones on the bus
30% users said they did not like rural service
Users did not know where and when to change buses
Decentralized urban planning makes schedules and routes hard to align with rural riders’ needs
30% users said they did not like rural service
5 out of 7 participants expressed concern regarding traveling on bus and and train as safety concern and did not wish to send their loved ones on the bus
What is our strategy and within our control...
Categorized the design approach into Convenience, Safety and Community
We wanted to understand where in the process riders were dropping off and why, pinpoint where the they were finding dissatisfaction and strategize ways to leverage our design principle and strategy
Our design ideas and principals and causal loop showing the direction
Defining our service design focus
5 out of 7 participants expressed concern regarding traveling on bus and and train as safety concern and did not wish to send their loved ones on the bus
30% users said they did not like rural service
Users did not know where and when to change buses
Decentralized urban planning makes schedules and routes hard to align with rural riders’ needs
30% users said they did not like rural service
5 out of 7 participants expressed concern regarding traveling on bus and and train as safety concern and did not wish to send their loved ones on the bus
Co-Design (Transito-poly)
Although we understood what the problem were, we wanted to get some ideas from the users
We designed a game called transitopoly, where
Our design ideas and principals and causal loop showing the direction
30% users said they did not like rural service
5 out of 7 participants expressed concern regarding traveling on bus and and train as safety concern and did not wish to send their loved ones on the bus
Users did not know where and when to change buses
Decentralized urban planning makes schedules and routes hard to align with rural riders’ needs
30% users said they did not like rural service
5 out of 7 participants expressed concern regarding traveling on bus and and train as safety concern and did not wish to send their loved ones on the bus