The Google Transit team continuously works to improve the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) to accommodate the needs of our partners. Several extensions have been proposed for inclusion in the GTFS spec that in the meantime can be used by partners in their feed submitted to Transit in Google Maps. Below, you can find a comprehensive list of these features.
If you have your own proposals for extending the GTFS specification, see the official GTFS Change process.
Maximum transfer count for a particular fare
In order to support fare attributes in a feed with multiple agencies, the following extensions have been proposed:
||Optional||Google Transit accepts values from 0 to 5; the GTFS spec states that it can take values from 0 to 2. Use this field to set the maximum number of transfers (excluding block transfers) allowed with the fare.|
IC card prices (Japan)
An integrated circuit (IC) card is a rechargeable prepaid smartcard used only in Japan for train, subway, bus, and monorail fares. Most IC cards, such as Pasmo and Super Urban Intelligent Card (SUICA), often offer discounts to riders. The following Google-only extension supports fare modeling for IC cards.
||Optional||If a discount is offered to an IC card user, the value is the cost of the
discounted fare. If no discount is offered to an IC card user, make the value
Additional Route Types
GTFS currently defines a number of route types that can be used to describe the type of service
for a particular route (eg. bus vs rail vs ferry). To support a more rich set of types, an extension
to the routes.txt
route_type field has been proposed. For more details, see
Extended GTFS Route Types.
Station vehicle types
An extension has been proposed to allow specifying the type of vehicles serving a particular stop.
Use this field to describe the type of transportation used at the stop. It accepts an valid
It is useful to indicate trips that operate outside of regular schedule or are diverted from the usual route due to special events or planned disruptions (such as track work, etc). We propose an extension to trips.txt to indicate such exceptional services.
Set this field to 1 to indicate a service exception, such as services added due to special events or services diverted away from the usual route due to planned disruptions(trackwork). Set this field to 0 for regular services.
Route-to-route and trip-to-trip transfers
Right now, the GTFS specification allows an agency to define transfer semantics using the transfers.txt file, supporting features such as preferred transfers, timed transfers, and restricted transfers. Currently, those transfers only apply to stops. Google has received feedback from a number of agencies that they'd like to be able to specify more detailed transfer information at a route or even a trip level. Working with these agencies, we've come up for a proposal for modeling route-to-route and trip-to-trip transfers and we are looking for feedback from the GTFS community.
We want to be able to specify transfers between specific routes or even specific trips for a given stop pair, without having to specify the same transfer for all the trips of that stop pair.
If two trips arrive at the same platform and wait for each other, we want to specify a timed transfer between these two trips. But we do not want all the transfers at this train station to be timed transfers.
If a train is know to be often late by up to 30 minutes, we want to disallow the transfers from this train to any other train if there is less than 35 minutes between the scheduled arrival and the departure.
Add 4 optional fields to transfers.txt:
to_route_id fields can contain a route_id (as specified
routes.txt), reducing the scope to which the given transfer applies. If
is specified, the transfer will only apply to the arriving trip with the given route id, at the given
to_route_id is specified, the transfer will only apply to
the departing trip with given route id, at the given
to_trip_id fields can contain a
as specified by
from_trip_id is given,
is ignored, and if
to_trip_id is given,
to_route_id is ignored. If
from_trip_id is specified, the transfer will only apply to the arriving trip with the
given trip id, at the given
to_trip_id is specified, the
transfer will only apply to the departing trip with the given trip id, at the given
Specificity of a transfer
Some transfers are more specific than others. We want to define a simple ranking mechanism to determine when a transfer should be applied. We thus define the "specificity" of a transfer.
The specificity of the source of the transfer is 0 if only
from_stop_id is given, 1 if
from_route_id is specified, and 2 if
from_trip_id is specified. The same
applies for target: 0 if only
to_stop_id is given, 1 if
specified, and 2 if
to_trip_id is specified. The sum of these 2 values gives the specificity
of the transfer, between 0 and 4 inclusive. For a given ordered pair of arriving trip and departing
trip, the transfer with the greatest specificity that applies between these 2 trips is chosen. So
for any pair of trips, there should NOT be two transfers with equally maximal specificity that could
Example of an ambiguous rule:
from_stop_id,to_stop_id,from_route_id,to_route_id,transfer_type stopFrom,stopTo,routeFrom,,0 stopFrom,stopTo,,routeTo,1
These two transfers both have a specificity of 1. But for transfers between a trip with id route
routeFrom arriving at stop
stopFrom, to a trip with route id
routeTo arriving at stop
stopTo, either of these two rules can apply.