Use of Electronic Passenger Information Signage in Transit (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

50 CHAPTER SEVEN FINDINGS, LESSONS LEARNED, AND CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY OF PROJECT SCOPE The primary purpose of this Synthesis was to determine the transit experience with electronic passenger information sig- nage, and how agencies are using this dissemination chan- nel to serve the needs of their customers. Thus, the project examined and documented the state of the practice in the use of electronic signage using the following five elements: 1. The underlying technology that is required to gener- ate the information that will be disseminated on the signage. This element covers the required underlying software, hardware and communications. 2. The signage technology, including type of display (e.g., LED, LCD) and other characteristics such as what can be displayed using specific display types (e.g., characters only, characters and pictures). 3. The characteristics of the information displayed on the signage, including message types, content, for- mat, and accessibility; the use of standards; and the reliability and accuracy of the displayed information. 4. The resources required to successfully deploy and manage electronic signage, including capital and operations and maintenance costs, and agency staff requirements. 5. The decision process that is used to (1) determine if signage will be deployed; (2) where the signage will be located; and (3) what will be displayed on the sig- nage, as well as the contribution of electronic signage at stops and stations to an overall agency commu- nications strategy, including “information equity.” Here, information equity is defined as providing real- time information through at least two dissemination media, and in both audio and visual formats. The project was conducted in the following four major steps: • Literature review, • Survey to collect information on a variety of factors, • Analysis of survey results, and • Interviews conducted with key personnel at agencies that have experience with deploying electronic signage. This section of the report contains the project’s findings, lessons learned, and conclusions. PROJECT FINDINGS Before summarizing the results of the Synthesis, two key statistics from the study are as follows: • The number of signs reported by the respondents are shown in Table 27; and • Almost 90% of respondents said that they plan to deploy additional electronic signs in the future, as shown in Figure 61. TABLE 27 NUMBER OF ELECTRONIC SIGNS REPORTED BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS Sign Type Number of Signs Reported Outdoor LED Signs 5,619 Indoor LED Signs 3,160 Outdoor LCD Signs 829 Indoor LCD Signs 512 Indoor Other 55 Outdoor Other 10 FIGURE 61 Percentage of respondents that plan to deploy more electronic signs in the future. Key Findings Based on the literature review, the responses to the ques- tionnaire, and the case examples, this Synthesis project has

51 four key findings. First, electronic signage is a viable and important dissemination media. Electronic signage meets goals that cannot necessarily be met by other dissemina- tion media, such as mobile devices. For example, real-time information can be displayed on a sign when a mobile com- munication network is not available (e.g., in a subway envi- ronment, where full cellular coverage may not be available). As shown in the survey results, almost all of the respon- dents deployed signage to increase customer satisfaction. Although many of these agencies are providing the same information through other channels [e.g., Internet, mobile devices, open data, interactive voice response (IVR), short message service (SMS) and subscription alerts], signage is still thought to have advantages over other media. These benefits include the following: • Providing information that is easy to access once a trip has started; • Providing information to those customers (and poten- tial customers) who do not have mobile devices or alternate means to obtain the information; • Reducing the perception of wait time; • Improving the perception of the transit service being provided; and • Increasing the feeling of safety and security. Also, well over half of the respondents view electronic signage as a way to “keep up with technology” and show that they are progressive agencies. Further, just less than half of the respondents see signage as a way to increase ridership. Second, there are several approaches to presenting transit information on electronic signage. Beyond the basic real- time information, which typically consists of displaying the route number, destination and the number of minutes until the vehicle arrives at the station/stop, disruption information can be displayed in a variety of different ways. The content and format of disruption messages are dependent upon the type and size of the sign, and the type of disruption. For example, Network Rail (United Kingdom) provides guid- ance on the content of messages depending on whether the disruption is infrastructure-related; a major and external incident; or related to train crew resources, train failures, or industrial action. Further, guiding principles related to mes- saging and the impacts on the customer are covered in Net- work Rail’s Operational Information System Process Guide. The results of the Synthesis show that there is not a singular approach to determining message content, but rather a num- ber of factors that must be considered. Third, the results of the literature review and survey indi- cates that the capital cost of signage is fairly high, but the cost of newer, customizable electronic signs is lower. The survey results in Table 28 show that the capital cost of signs vary widely. TABLE 28 CAPITAL COSTS Sign Type Number of Respondents Cost Range (per sign) Indoor LED 5 $200 to $12,500 Outdoor LED 18 $1,500 to $17,000 Indoor LCD 6 $500 to $5,000 Outdoor LCD 4 $1,500 to $10,000 A result of the Mobility Lab case example was that their indoor LCD, customizable signs (using open data) run around $500 or less per unit, making it affordable for many businesses. Also, given the ease with which they can be modified and maintained, these types of signs have a lot of potential for deployment over the more traditional LED signage. The cost of the underlying technology has to be taken into consideration, but if open data are used to provide the information displayed on the sign, the cost may be lower (down to the cost of “cleaning” the open data and the com- munication technology to send the information to the sign). Another factor relating to lower costs for these types of signs is that if they are located inside an establishment, they do not have to be “hardened,” which they would need to be if placed outside or in a transit station environment. Further, exist- ing network connections within the establishment where the sign is located may contribute to the lower cost. Finally, newer sign technology, such as LCD signs, is capable of greatly expanding the volume and depth of the information being provided. First, electronic signs can be interactive as shown in the examples from New York MTA/ New York City Transit and Brussels, Belgium. Second, more disruption information, including alternatives, can be provided since there is much more real estate on the sign to display this information. In the case of the NY MTA/ NYCT On the Go! Travel Stations, the 47-inch touchscreens provide subway alerts/notifications, trip planning, subway map, service status, elevator status, information about key destinations, and planned construction, with advertising at the bottom of the screen. As stated in the U.K. case example, the ability to provide more information on these kinds of displays is revolutionizing the impact on customers. Findings Based on Five Elements Specific findings based on the aforementioned elements are as follows. First, as expected, the top two underlying tech- nologies are computer-aided dispatch (CAD)/automatic vehicle location (AVL) and real-time prediction software that are purchased as part of a CAD/AVL or related system. Among the respondents, 87% of the signs are LED. This is because until recently, LED signs were the most applicable in the outside environment. The top type of information pro- vided on electronic signs is next vehicle arrival/departure prediction time. In terms of sign location, most are located either in a transit station, or at a bus or bus rapid transit stop.

52 The characteristics of the signs (e.g., dimensions, number of characters displayed, number lines on the display, colors used) vary greatly depending on the sign type. Second, the overwhelming reason for deploying elec- tronic signage is to increase customer satisfaction, followed by to supplement other methods of disseminating informa- tion. Forty percent of the respondents performed a study to determine whether or not to deploy electronic signage, and of those, the majority conducted a business case analysis. The most prevalent criteria for locating signage was board counts at stops/stations, followed by the availability of power and the number of lines or routes at a station or stop. Third, the format of the information displayed on a sign varied depending on the type of information and the sign’s characteristics (e.g., type, number of characters available). More than 95% of respondents used the Americans with Dis- abilities Act Accessibility Guidelines’ mounting location and height, and just over the 90% used the character height guid- ance to determine the mounting and display characteristics of the electronic signs. 89% of respondents provide information displayed on a sign in audio format. A variety of standards are being used including the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS), Transit Communications Interface Profiles (TCIP), Service Interface for Real Time Information (SIRI) and Next- Bus Public Extensible Markup Language (XML) Feed. In terms of accuracy and reliability, respondents used various methods to monitor these two characteristics. Fourth, resource requirements for deploying electronic signage varied widely, and there was limited information regarding the actual labor required from specific staff in the organization. In terms of sign costs, the capital costs varied signifi- cantly. Further, little information was reported on operations and maintenance costs. They varied from $0 to $1,000 on an annual basis per sign type. Finally, in more than 80% of the respondents that have a communication strategy, electronic signage contributes to that strategy. Seventy percent of the respondents consider providing transit information on electronic signage as a way to attract “choice” riders. Just over 65% of the respondents consider information equity. Only one agency has electronic signs that display advertising—in this case, advertising takes precedence over what is displayed on the sign, so real- time information is displayed only when there is an available “slot” in between advertising. LESSONS LEARNED The four categories of lessons learned from the study are as follows: • Ability to minimize capital and ongoing costs associ- ated with the signage; • Issues associated with ensuring the accuracy and validity of the underlying data, and monitoring what is displayed on the signs; • Issues associated with the number of signs deployed and the placement of the signs; and • Overall lessons learned that would benefit transit agen- cies that are considering deploying electronic signage. The issues reported by the survey respondents related to minimizing the capital and ongoing costs are as follows: • Use only one size sign. • Invest in generic signs that you can interface to real- time information systems, rather than proprietary signs that can lock you in. • Infrastructure costs such as getting electrical power to signs can often be far more significant than anticipated. • Several respondents mentioned the expense associated with sign procurement, installation, and maintenance. One respondent said, “concentrate on electronic per- sonal devices, not widespread physical display rollout.” In terms of ensuring the accuracy and validity of the underlying data, and monitoring what is displayed on the signs, many respondents discussed the importance of ensuring the accuracy of the underlying data (primarily predicted arrival times). One respondent said “bad infor- mation is worse than NO information.” Another respondent mentioned that “customers started to use the signs imme- diately as they were installed, even before the installation crews put their tools away. They seemed to accept imme- diately that the information was valuable and correct.” The timeliness of the displayed information was mentioned by one respondent. Another respondent mentioned the chal- lenges associated with accurately predicting the time that a route will start as a result of driver changeovers and opera- tional characteristics. Another critical issue in monitoring the accuracy of what is displayed on the signage is having the capability to assess the “health” of the sign by collecting diagnostics in real- time, and being able to view what is being displayed on the sign at any given point in time. Several agencies mentioned that there is a need for two-way communication with signs so that displays can be monitored and corrective informa- tion can be sent to sign. Further, one respondent mentioned the importance of ensuring network connectivity. Finally, another respondent mentioned that any changes or upgrades to underlying systems could alter or affect the data feed to the sign, so this must be monitored as well. Issues associated with the number of signs deployed and the placement of the signs cover several different lessons, as follows:

53 • Getting full buy-in from locations where signage will be located, especially if the signage is on private property. • Cooperating with local authorities to find out which is the “best” place to locate signage. • Determining the constant demand for more signs, especially if not all stations are equipped. There are not enough locations from the public’s perception. • Handling local zoning restrictions, and dealing with different city codes and permitting agencies. The overall lessons learned that would benefit transit agencies that are considering deploying electronic signage are reported by the survey respondents as follows. These les- sons, however, can be in conflict with each other because they were directly reported by survey respondents. • Ensure proper operation after installation (i.e., testing). • LED technology is reported to be much more reliable in hot, humid climates such as Florida. • Make your screens as multimodal as possible. • Keep the messages displayed on the signs simple. • Do not try to serve multiple purposes (e.g., advertising, wayfinding) with the signage. • Have the message satisfy everyone’s needs. • Branding has been a big issue because of the priva- tized nature of public transport industry in the United Kingdom. • Coordinate audio and sign information. • Sign mounting location takes into account all angles of the platform or bus shelter. • Infrastructure requirements for power and communi- cations are the biggest challenge. • There are a low number of practical solar-powered options. • Integrate new systems. • Civil works affects the signage location. CONCLUSIONS Several conclusions can be drawn from the Synthesis. First, the deployment of electronic signage is to be considered as one of several methods to disseminate passenger informa- tion, rather the only method. The decision to deploy should be based on the expected impact of the signage on custom- ers in terms of the benefits mentioned earlier in the report (e.g., reduced anxiety, more flexibility in making travel deci- sions), as well as the agency’s interest in improving customer convenience. Providing signage at stops/stations can be much more convenient to customers than having to consult a mobile device, which may require input and keystrokes. Second, there are opportunities to capitalize on agencies’ open data and low-cost, customizable displays—perhaps creating a market for third-party providers to provide sig- nage for a transit agency or a region with multiple transit agencies. This approach is analogous to the development of third-party applications on mobile devices to display real- time transit information. Further, being able to provide mul- timodal information in certain venues has the potential to provide more convenient and better information regarding all the travel options (and could eventually increase tran- sit ridership). As reported in “Logan Circle Leads Way to Car-free Future,” given that automobile ownership is down, particularly with young age groups (under 30), providing information on all travel options could have a significant impact on modal choice. Third, there is potential to expand the typical information provided on passenger information displays by utilizing full- screen or large touchscreen displays such as those deployed at NY MTA/NYCT and in Belgium. However, these displays are interactive, meaning that the information provided on these displays will not necessarily be available to customers near the display. If someone is interacting with the display, others may not be able to see the display; also, even if they can view what is displayed, it may not be the information they are interested in. Further, this type of display is different from electronic signs that provide real-time arrival and disruption information, so the impact of this type of display will be dif- ferent since customers will be interacting with it differently than they would with a more typical noninteractive display. Fourth, while information displayed on electronic signage cannot be personalized, the content of messages is extremely important to convey specific types of events. For example, the study conducted to evaluate TfL’s Countdown system (Countdown sign evaluation 08210) analyzed the informa- tion requirements and provision for three distinct service experiences: normal service/daily basis, minor delays, and severely disrupted service, and for service frequency from high-frequency to low-frequency service. Key findings of the evaluation were in two major categories: the decision-making process and information requirements. The summary of the findings regarding decision-making are as follows: • “Decision-making process is very different across the spectrum of scenarios from simplistic (normal service) through to sophisticated (severely disrupted)” • “Therefore information requirements differ across the spectrum” • “And scenario type also alters expectations of how information is provided (e.g., the higher frequency, daily routine information provision feels very different to the infrequent, severely disrupted scenario)” • “Simplicity of information provision is key. Taking the bus is considered a simple process and information provision needs to reflect and enhance that simplicity” (Countdown sign evaluation 08210, p. 14). The evaluation included a detailed assessment of informa- tion requirements for each service experience and frequency.

54 Information was defined as being absolutely necessary through “nice to have” to answer three questions: • What questions need answering? • Current information provision? • New information provision—what would they like? The framework used for this evaluation could be applied to almost any agency in order to determine the content of messages displayed on electronic signage. Finally, respondents mentioned that a plan for measuring and monitoring the accuracy, reliability and timeliness is an important element of deploying electronic signage. Of all the lessons learned reported by survey respondents, comments regarding monitoring were more plentiful than any other type of comment. A few agencies reported that they use only customer complaints to monitor the quality of the information displayed on the signage. As one respondent stated, “bad information is worse than NO information”—the quality of the information is critical to the success of signage being used and trusted by customers. Although the literature does not include any studies that assess the impact of “bad information” on signage, agen- cies should not be relying on customer complaints alone to determine the quality of the information being displayed. The development and implementation of a proactive pro- gram that incorporates both automated and manual moni- toring processes was considered to be the best approach. However, additional technologies may be required for most agencies to implement automated processes, because sev- eral CAD/AVL systems do not record the exact time that a vehicle arrives at a stop (unless it is a timepoint). Some advances may need to be made in order to automate a quality monitoring program. Some CAD/AVL systems that include prediction software determine the accuracy of the predictions by comparing pre- dicted times and actual times, so this part of the information quality monitoring could be more easily put in place. In one case, the prediction of minutes to arrival is compared with actual arrival time, which can be available from the AVL system. In this case, reports regarding prediction accuracy are available from both live and historic databases. Because signs usually are controlled centrally, these reports assess the accuracy of information on the signs (with a small lag time resulting from network latency). However, the system does not create “alarms” when prediction errors are higher than a certain threshold. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY Based on the survey results and literature review, the following six areas are suggested for future study to help agencies deter- mine whether and how they should deploy electronic signage. First, one element that is not well understood in deploying electronic signage is the amount of staff time that is required for successful implementation and ongoing operations and maintenance. This will vary by the type of signage and its environment, but a study that examines just how much time is required by various departments and staff is important. Further, a discussion of the costs associated with operations and maintenance for each type of sign and specific environ- ment (e.g., subway station platform) will be helpful. Second, agencies would benefit from a “model” to deter- mine the “business case” for deploying electronic signage would be helpful. Such a model would help an agency select the most appropriate sign technology and location, taking into account the types of information displayed on the signage and the resources required for sign type and location, in addition to factors such as the overall goals of the agency in improv- ing customer convenience, attracting new riders and/or main- taining existing ridership, and other factors. From a customer information strategy perspective, this model should incorpo- rate other dissemination media into the assessment. For exam- ple, if real-time information is being provided through mobile devices, an agency may want to deploy a lower number of signs than if information was not provided on mobile devices. Third, more guidance is needed for providing an audio version of an electronic sign display. To date, agencies have used a variety of methods, including providing a button that can be pressed to “read” what is displayed on the sign and having an announcement of what is displayed on the sign at a specific frequency (e.g., every 3 min). Fourth, more in-depth information regarding how to determine the content of messages displayed on electronic signage could be made available to agencies. This could be in the form of a guidance document similar to the one pro- duced by Network Rail (Operational Information System (OIS): Process Guide) that provides information on how various types of messages should be conveyed and examples of how specific messages are constructed. Fifth, more guidance is needed to address accessibility issues such as best practices in providing information dis- played on signage in audio format. Transit agencies have employed several approaches, as described in the survey results, but more information is needed to ensure compli- ance with regulations. Finally, more information is needed to explore other ways of providing power to electronic signs, such as solar power. Several vendors offer solar, pole-mounted electronic signs, but they have not been widely discussed in the literature or deployed by the survey respondents. Key data, such as oper- ations and maintenance costs, will assist agencies in deter- mining whether or not this sign technology is applicable to their situation.