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.

24 CHAPTER THREE ELEMENTS OF DEPLOYING ELECTRONIC SIGNAGE The Synthesis survey covered several key characteristics of the underlying technology required to generate the informa- tion that is displayed on electronic signs, the sign technol- ogy, and the displayed information. (Table 3 and Appendix B list of the 37 responding agencies.) Before examining these characteristics, the overall annual ridership and modes operated by each respondent were noted. Annual ridership ranged from 1 million (a respondent with fixed-route bus service) to 3.6 billion (TfL). Total annual ridership for each agency is shown in Appendix C. TABLE 3 RESPONDING AGENCIES Agency Name City State/Province/ Country Alameda–Contra Costa (AC) Transit Oakland CA Agence métropolitaine de transport (AMT) Montreal Quebec Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Oakland CA Blacksburg Transit Blacksburg VA Brampton Transit Brampton Ontario Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CMTA) Austin TX Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) Orlando FL Central New York Regional Transportation Authority Syracuse NY Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA) State College PA Charlotte Area Transit System Charlotte NC Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority (CARTA) Chattanooga TN Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Chicago IL City of San Luis Obispo Transit/SLO Transit San Luis Obispo CA City of Wichita, KS Wichita KS GO Transit Toronto Ontario Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) Tampa FL Ixxi —RATP Group Paris France Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) Kansas City MO King County Metro Seattle WA Madison Metro Transit Madison WI Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Boston MA Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), New York City Transit (NYCT) New York NY Mobility Lab Arlington VA Monterey–Salinas Transit (MST) Monterey CA Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. UK NJ Transit Newark NJ Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) St. Petersburg FL rabbittransit York PA Region of Waterloo (Grand River Transit) Waterloo Ontario Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (RTC) Reno NV Société de transport de Laval Laval Quebec South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive South Yorkshire UK Transport For London (TfL) London UK Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) Portland OR Urban Public Transport Organisation of Thessaloniki Athens Greece Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Salt Lake City UT Votran South Daytona FL

25 REQUIRED UNDERLYING TECHNOLOGY, AND SIGNAGE TECHNOLOGY AND CHARACTERISTICS Table 4 presents the survey results that indicate the types of underlying technology being used. These results sup- port the concept that CAD/AVL is the primary under- lying technology required to determine the real-time information displayed on electronic signage for bus systems. In terms of the communication technology used to send information to an electronic sign or send “health” information from the sign, the most prevalent technology reported by survey respondents is hard-wired (e.g., Ethernet), followed by cellular radio network. For the real-time prediction software, more than half of the respondents have software as part of their vehicle loca- tion system. TABLE 4 UNDERLYING TECHNOLOGY Underlying Technology Response Percent* Vehicle tracking: Computer-aided dispatch (CAD)/ auto- matic vehicle location (AVL) 83.3 Vehicle tracking: Global positioning system (GPS) 80.6 Vehicle tracking: Rail signal system 25.0 Sign communication: Hard-wired communication (e.g., Ethernet) 61.1 Sign communication: Cellular radio network 52.8 Sign communication: Wireless area network (e.g., wire- less Ethernet) 27.8 Sign communication: Agency radio network 25.0 Real-time prediction software: Purchased as part of a CAD/AVL or related system 52.8 Real-time prediction software: Developed in-house 27.8 Real-time prediction software: Licensed (software-as-a-service) 16.7 Real-time prediction software: Purchased independently 13.9 Real-time prediction software: Open source 8.3 *Not all survey respondents answered every survey question, so the response percent represents the number of respondents that answered this particular question out of all respondents that answered this question. The responding agencies use two primary types of sig- nage, as shown in Figure 21. LED signs are the most preva- lent, followed by LCD signs (also known as full-screen displays). Table 5 shows the number of LED and LCD signs that have been deployed by the responding agencies. As shown in Table 6, indoor LED signs are mostly located inside transit stations; outdoor LED signs are at bus/BRT stops with shelters (most prevalent), outside transit stations and at transfer locations (next most prevalent) and at the end of a line/route terminal (next most prevalent); indoor LCD signs are mostly in transit stations; and outdoor LCD signs are outside transit stations (most prevalent) and at transfer points (next most prevalent). FIGURE 21 Number of responding agencies with LED and LCD signage. TABLE 5 NUMBER OF SIGNS DEPLOYED BY RESPONDING AGENCIES Indoor LED Signs Outdoor LED Signs Indoor LCD Signs Outdoor LCD Signs 3,160 5,219 512 829 There is a wide variation in the dimensions of each type of electronic sign. Figures 22 through 39 show this wide variation. TABLE 6 SIGN LOCATIONS BY PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDING AGENCIES Other Electronic Sign Locations Inside transit station (e.g., on subway plat- form, at faregates) Outside transit station Inside non- transit location Outside non- transit location At bus/BRT stops with shelter At bus/BRT stops without shelter At end of line/route terminal At transfer stop Indoor LED 27.8 2.8 8.3 0.0 5.6 0.0 8.3 5.6 Outdoor LED 16.7 36.1 0.0 8.3 58.3 19.4 33.3 36.1 Indoor LCD 36.1 2.8 19.4 2.8 2.8 0.0 8.3 8.3 Outdoor LCD 11.1 13.9 0.0 0.0 8.3 2.8 2.8 11.1 Indoor Other 11.1 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outdoor Other 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26 FIGURE 22 Monterey Salinas Transit DMS (Courtesy: Carol Schweiger 2009). FIGURE 23 WMATA DMS in Dupont Circle Metrorail Station (Courtesy: Carol Schweiger 2007). \ FIGURE 24 Mesa (Arizona) BRT station DMS (Courtesy: TranSystems 2011). FIGURE 25 KCATA MAX (BRT service) DMS (Courtesy: TranSystems 2005). FIGURE 26 Helsinki tram station DMS (Courtesy: Carol Schweiger 2009). FIGURE 27 DMS in Milan, Italy (Courtesy: Carol Schweiger 2008). [Insert Figures 22 through 39 here]

27 FIGURE 32 AMT LED sign (Courtesy: AMT 2012). FIGURE 33 AMT LED sign (Courtesy: AMT 2012). FIGURE 34 AMT rail display signs (Courtesy: AMT 2012). FIGURE 28 Electronic sign in Seoul subway station (Courtesy: Carol Schweiger 2010). FIGURE 29 Bus stop electronic sign in Brussels, Belgium (Courtesy: Carol Schweiger 2012). FIGURE 30 Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) sign at Market Street Station (Courtesy: Carol Schweiger 2012). FIGURE 31 Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) sign at Market Street Station (Courtesy: Carol Schweiger 2012).

28 FIGURE 35 LYNX electronic sign at Orlando International Airport (Courtesy: LYNX 2012). FIGURE 36 Electronic sign in Tampere, Finland (Courtesy: Carol Schweiger 2009). FIGURE 37 Electronic sign in Tampere, Finland (Courtesy: Carol Schweiger 2009). FIGURE 38 Electronic sign in Mantova, Italy (Courtesy: Carol Schweiger 2008).

29 Figure 40 shows the distribution of what can be displayed on each type of sign. FIGURE 40 Percentage of respondents with signs that can display text, graphics, and video. Figure 41 shows the percentage of respondents that have signs that support multiple languages. FIGURE 41 Percentage of respondents with signs that support multiple languages. Table 7 presents the type of communication technology used for each sign type. TABLE 7 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS USING COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY Sign Type RS-232 RS-422 Ethernet - wired Ethernet - fiber Radio Cellular Other Indoor LED 6.7 10.0 20.0 13.3 3.3 6.7 0.0 Outdoor LED 6.7 10.0 26.7 16.7 20.0 43.3 3.3 Indoor LCD 0.0 0.0 40.0 10.0 3.3 6.7 13.3 Outdoor LCD 0.0 0.0 20.0 3.3 3.3 10.0 6.7 Indoor Other 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 Outdoor Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FIGURE 39 Electronic sign in Verona, Italy (Courtesy: Carol Schweiger 2008). The number of lines of text available on each type of elec- tronic sign varies as well. Indoor LED signs deployed by the respondents have between 1 and 11 lines, outdoor LED signs have between 1 and 12 lines, and both indoor and out- door LCD signs have from eight to a configurable number of lines. The number of characters per line of text are available on each type of electronic sign varies. For indoor LED signs, the number of fixed characters per line varies from 20 to 80; outdoor LED signs from 14 to 150; and indoor and outdoor LCD signs from 10 to a configurable number. More charac- ters can be displayed if scrolling is enabled. The character height of the text displayed on each type of electronic sign ranges from 1.5 to 4 in. for indoor LED signs, from 1 to 4 in. for outdoor LED signs, and from 1 in. to a customizable height for indoor and outdoor LCD signs. The text colors used on each type of electronic sign are green, yellow, red, amber, white, and black for LED signs, and a full color palette for LCD signs.

30 Table 8 shows the number of respondents that have sig- nage with internal diagnostics and is capable of sending information to a central location (e.g., sign “health”). TABLE 8 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WITH SPECIFIC SIGN CHARACTERISTICS Sign Type Internal Diagnostics Can Send Information Indoor LED 20 20 Outdoor LED 56 64 Indoor LCD 32 36 Outdoor LCD 20 24 Indoor Other 4 4 Outdoor Other 0 0 Table 9 shows the distribution of the type of power pro- vided for the signage. As expected, the majority of respon- dents use power directly from the power grid available at the sign location. TABLE 9 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WITH SIGNAGE POWER Sign Type Direct power from power grid at sign location Direct power from other source at sign location Solar power Indoor LED 35.5 6.5 0.0 Outdoor LED 77.4 25.8 3.2 Indoor LCD 35.5 16.1 0.0 Outdoor LCD 22.6 9.7 0.0 Indoor Other 6.5 3.2 0.0 Outdoor Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 INFORMATION CHARACTERISTICS The survey covered several characteristics of signs, includ- ing the types of information provided on signs; the con- tent, format, and accessibility of the displayed information; standards; and the reliability and accuracy of the informa- tion. First, Table 10 shows the survey results for the types of transit information provided on electronic signage. As expected, the most prevalent type of information is next vehicle arrival/departure prediction time, with identification of service disruptions and emergency information being the next most prevalent. Second, the frequency with which the information dis- played on electronic signage is updated is shown in Table 11. Third, the number of respondents that provide the infor- mation displayed on electronic signage also on other media is shown in Table 12. The other media that is used most often is the Internet, followed by the mobile web/Internet. One note- worthy result of this survey question is the number of respon- dents that provide their information through a data feed for independent developers (which is the third-most-used alter- nate dissemination media). This supports one of the major conclusions of TCRP Synthesis 91, which states that “the open data trend in public transit is significant” (1, p. 52). TABLE 10 TYPES OF TRANSIT INFORMATION PROVIDED ON ELECTRONIC SIGNAGE Transit Information Type Response Percent Response Count Next vehicle arrival/departure prediction time 96.8% 30 Identification of service disruptions 67.7% 21 Emergency information (e.g., evacuation due to fire) 45.2% 14 Schedule information during special events (e.g., 41.9% 13 Information on planned detours 38.7% 12 Real-time vehicle location 29.0% 9 Availability of information and dissemination media 25.8% 8 Public service announcements 25.8% 8 Advertising 19.4% 6 Real-time information on availability of elevators and 12.9% 4 Map of area around stop/station 9.7% 3 Vehicles/routes available for transfer 9.7% 3 Number of cars on the next train 6.5% 2 Parking availability 3.2% 1 Station map 3.2% 1 The survey asked respondents to provide the format of each type of message displayed on electronic signage (e.g., “Line/No. Cars/Destination/Minutes” or “Route/Destina- tion/Arrival Time”). The format of each type of message displayed on electronic signage is reported to be as follows: • For each vehicle, route, or line number, destination (or direction) and number of minutes until the vehicle arrives or departs or “due” • Problem description/comments in the case of a disruption • Bikeshare station/number of bikes/number of docks • Next bus stop • Number of train arriving • Information on special events. The text displayed on the signage as a vehicle arrives, boards, and departs is reported in the following ways: • Upon approach, the train info changes from green to yellow, and the arrival time flashes. Upon arrival, the flashing time goes steady. After 10 seconds, the info is removed from the sign.

31 TABLE 11 FREQUENCY OF INFORMATION UPDATES USED BY PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS Transit Information Type Update on an on- going basis (as infor- mation changes) Update per defined threshold (e.g., every two minutes) Update manually Update when underlying infor- mation is not available to dis- play (e.g., arrival time predic- tion not available) Next vehicle arrival/departure prediction time 63.3 40.0 0.0 10.0 Real-time vehicle location 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Availability of information and dissemination media 10.0 0.0 20.0 3.3 Identification of service disruptions 20.0 10.0 43.3 3.3 Information on planned detours 16.7 10.0 23.3 0.0 Schedule information during special events (e.g., Boston Marathon) 13.3 3.3 23.3 0.0 Emergency information (e.g., evacuation due to fire) 6.7 3.3 30.0 0.0 Vehicles/routes available for transfer 0.0 6.7 3.3 0.0 Real-time information on availability of elevators and escalators 3.3 3.3 3.3 0.0 Number of cars on the next train 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 Wi-Fi access points and real-time information on availability 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking availability 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 Station map 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Map of area around stop/station 3.3 3.3 3.3 0.0 Public service announcements 6.7 6.7 10.0 0.0 Advertising 3.3 3.3 16.7 0.0 TABLE 12 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS USING OTHER DISSEMINATION MEDIA Trnsit Information Type Internet accessed by personal computer Mobile web/ internet Data feed for independent developers Interactive voice response (IVR) Smartphone applications Two-way text messaging (SMS) Subscription alerts Next vehicle arrival/departure prediction time 77.8 85.2 44.4 33.3 55.6 55.6 29.6 Real-time vehicle location 40.7 44.4 22.2 3.7 33.3 7.4 0.0 Availability of information and dissemi- nation media 29.6 25.9 7.4 0.0 3.7 0.0 7.4 Identification of service disruptions 59.3 44.4 29.6 11.1 14.8 11.1 25.9 Information on planned detours 48.1 29.6 14.8 7.4 148 0.0 18.5 Schedule information during special events (e.g., Boston Marathon) 51.9 33.3 18.5 11.1 7.4 3.7 14.8 Emergency information (e.g., evacuation due to fire) 18.5 18.5 7.4 3.7 7.4 3.7 3.7 Vehicles/routes available for transfer 22.2 11.1 7.4 7.4 7.4 3.7 3.7 Real-time information on availability of elevators and escalators 7.4 7.4 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Number of cars on the next train 3.7 3.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wi-Fi access points and real-time infor- mation on availability 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking availability 3.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 3.7 0.0 Station map 11.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 Map of area around stop/station 25.9 11.1 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 Public service announcements 14.8 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 Advertising 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0

32 • For Bus: Due, and For Train: Due (when arrival is under approximately 90 seconds), Dprt (when a train should be departing or has likely departed between data refresh). • Arrivée: 5 min (Arrival), Train en gare (in station). • A bus icon is displayed. • On arrival the destination and train length are shown, possibly alternating with transfer advice. As train departs, estimated times of arrival (ETAs) for follow- ing trains are shown. • At start of route: Departing, at midpoints: Approaching, Arriving. • DUE when bus is less than 90 seconds away from stop, clears down when departed. • Arrival time if available in countdown format; sched- uled time if real-time is not available • Bus Approaching. • Route/line, destination, platform (if rail vehicle) and arrival or departure time. Words such as “Due” or “Arriving” are used when the vehicle arrival is immi- nent. “Departed” or next vehicle arrival/departure shown when vehicle has departed the stop/station. The messages displayed on the signage in the event of ser- vice disruptions, and how the message is generated (e.g., auto- matic, manual dispatch) is reported in various ways as follows: • Depends on the emergency or reroute. The dedicated Announcers group launches ad hoc messages using preapproved verbiage. • Manually generated (by dispatch in some cases), and available through Website alerts system. Typically, the message is specific to the incident, and often includes location, direction, deviation, cause, and likely length of delay. • Retardé (delayed) Retardé à 00:00 (delayed until ...) Annulé (canceled) Emb. Quai 2 (Boarding on platform 2) Board. Platf. 2 (message displayed in English) Info message Le train ne s’arrêtera pas à la gare xyz (Train will not stop at station xyz) Le service de train est annulé pour une durée indétermi- née. S.v.p. utilisez les services alternatifs d’autobus ou du métro ... (Train service is canceled for an undetermined time. Please use alternate bus or métro services) L’AMT s’excuses des inconvénients (AMT apologies for the inconvenience) Serv. alternatif (Alternate service) Service local (Local service) Le service de train est annulé. La gare doit être évacuée..., Train service is canceled. The station must be evacuated (this message displayed in English)—messages generated manually through Dispatch. • The information is removed from the display when there is a disruption. • Scrolling text is displayed after the predictions are displayed. The sequences are in the following loop. (prediction-messages-time-Web site url). • *** Refer to Schedule ***, generated automatically after 3 min of no updates. • “Accident on Red line please expect delays” (other cus- tom messages can be sent). • Passengers are advised that Routes #4 &#5 are being delayed because of ongoing construction on South Street. When real-time information is not available, the major- ity of respondents reported that they display schedule-based information. Some of these respondents indicate that it is scheduled time and others (6 of the 28 agencies that responded to this survey question) do not provide any indication that it is not real-time. Other displays include the following: • Date and time only. • Explanation that this is the case on bus shelters; at rail stations information simply will not appear. • Safety/passenger info animations. • The information is simply removed from the display. • The message “Real-time predictions are not available” is displayed. • During a prolonged outage, frequency information may be displayed on some of the signs. • Use the icon of a clock that represents that the display is scheduled time and not predictive time. • Thank You for riding [Transit Agency Name]. Table 13 shows the number of respondents that provide the information displayed on the signage in audio format. Respondents report that audio is provided mostly with LED signage. TABLE 13 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS PROVIDING INFORMATION IN AUDIO FORMAT Sign Type Percent of Respondents Indoor LED 25.8 Outdoor LED 48.4 Indoor LCD 3.2 Outdoor LCD 6.5

33 As shown in Figure 42, when audio is provided with the signage, the most-used method is a pushbutton that allows the customer to hear what is displayed on the sign on-demand. FIGURE 42 Percentage of respondents using specific methods to provide audio information. The frequency with which the information displayed on the signage is announced (when audio is provided) varies among the respondents as follows: • Varies on location/train activity-approaching trains are announced, configurable from 3 to 4 min • On cue from specific events. • Higher priority messages are shown more frequently. • Sign is used to show text of announcements [approach- ing/arriving and public service announcements (PSAs)]. When there is text displayed, there is an announcement made and vice versa. • As the sign updates, approximately every minute. • Once every 2 min. • As information is scrolling, audio is activated. • On train movement but at least once every 3 min.. Figure 43 shows U.S. respondents’ awareness of the Ameri- cans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) regarding signage (e.g., requirements for mounting height based on horizontal viewing distance and character height). FIGURE 43 Percentage of respondents aware of ADAAG regarding signage. Table 14 shows the ADAAG requirements used to deter- mine the mounting and display characteristics of the elec- tronic signs. TABLE 14 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS USING ADAAG TO DETERMINE MOUNTING AND DISPLAY CHARACTERISTICS* Answer Options Response Percent Response Count** Mounting Location and Height 95.5 21 Character Height 90.9 20 Character Proportion 63.6 14 Finish and Contrast 63.6 14 Illumination Levels 59.1 13 *Canadian and U.K. respondents do not use the ADAAG. **Twenty-two agencies responded to this survey question. The reference to the ADAAG is for guidelines on how character height is to be determined. Table 15 shows the ADAAG guidelines regarding minimum character height based on DMS mounting height and horizontal viewing distance. TABLE 15 ADAAG GUIDELINES* FOR MOUNTING SIGNS TO ENSURE LEGIBILITY OF CHARACTERS Height to Finish Floor or Ground From Baseline of Character Horizontal Viewing Distance Minimum Character Height 40 in. (1,015 mm) to less than or equal to 70 in. (1780 mm) less than 72 in. (1830 mm) 5/8 in. (16 mm) 72 in. (1830 mm) and greater 5/8 in. (16 mm), plus 1/8 in. (3.2 mm) per foot (305 mm) of viewing distance above 72 in. (1830 mm) Greater than 70 in. (1,780 mm) to less than or equal to 120 in. (3,050 mm) less than 180 in. (4570 mm) 2 in. (51 mm) 180 in. (4570 mm) and greater 2 in. (51 mm), plus 1/8 in/ (3.2 mm) per foot (305 mm) of viewing distance above 180 in. (4570 mm) Greater than 120 in. (3,050 mm) less than 21 ft. (6400 mm) 3 in.(75 mm) 21 ft. (6400 mm) and greater 3 in.(75 mm), plus 1/8 in. (3.2 mm) per foot (305 mm) of viewing distance above 21 ft. (6400 mm) * Refer to character height information in Section 703.55: http://www.ada. gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm#pgfId-1010471 [accessed April 2011]. Table 16 shows the data exchange standards being used by the respondents to provide transit information on elec- tronic signage.

34 TABLE 16 USE OF DATA EXCHANGE STANDARDS Data Exchange Standards Response Percent General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) 39.1 Transit Communications Interface Profiles (TCIP) 34.8 Service Interface for Real Time Information (SIRI) 26.1 NextBus Public XML Feed 21.7 Clever Devices API 17.4 GTFS-real time 13.0 Standard Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 13.0 Representational State Transfer (REST) 13.0 Java Script Object Notation (JSON) 4.3 Other standards reported by respondents include the following: • In-house program developed by Siemens. • Custom built internal sign API; custom train arrivals API (both REST). • XML from different industry sources. • Vendor provided interfaces (INIT). • Capital Bikeshare data feed. • Web services developed by our web provider, but not sure which technology is used. • XML (Non-NextBus). • Internal Developed Transmission Control Protocol/ Internet Protocol. • RTIG Server to Server, TransXChange. • XML for custom interfaces. • Proprietary interface. • Unsure—from ACS CAD/AVL OrbCAD system. The survey asked how the accuracy and reliability of the information provided through electronic signs is ensured. Answers included the following: • Automated means: – Based on an automatic train system (ATS) system that tracks trains in real time. The system is con- stantly monitored from the central center as well as personnel in the field. Customer comments sent to the website are also evaluated. – We have a monitoring interface that acquires pre- dictions every minute for two stops of every bus line. We compile the stats on various aspects so we are able to [review] an overview of the system’s performance. – Automated notice of any interruption in service. • Manual means: – Spot checking, user feedback is thoroughly investigated – Rely on people checking either within a control cen- ter or at a station that all information is consistent – Manual checks/visual inspection and customer feedback – Field observations – Occasional surveys. • Other: – Virtual Private Network access, screen shot through software, periodical site visits – Rely on the various transit agencies for the accuracy of data they provide – Remotely logging in and cross-referencing the arrival times with the CAD/AVL display – Data quality checks. Table 17 shows the percentage of respondents that mea- sure the amount of time the system is available, accurate, and reliable. TABLE 17 SYSTEM AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, AND RELIABILITY Measure Reported Time that real-time information system is operational as a percent of total transit operating time Reported as 92% to 100% operational Accuracy (e.g., ±1 min within 5 min to arrival, ±2 min within 5–10 min to arrival, ±5 min beyond 20 min to arrival) • Variety of responses: • The first threshold is ±30 s for 5 min; the second threshold is ±120 s for 5–10 min; the third threshold is ±200 s for 10–20 min; and the fourth threshold is ±300 s for 20–30 min • ±1 min within 5 min to arrival • ± 2 min within 5 min to arrival Reliability—system is operating within the above accuracy stan- dards a certain percent of the time From 90% to 100% of the time

35 CHAPTER FOUR RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS number of factors—the number of lines and characters available, the colors used, and the like. A limited number of respondents reported the per-unit annual operating and maintenance cost of each type of sign. Two respondents reported that the annual operations and maintenance cost of an indoor LED sign is from $40 to $1,000. Eleven respondents reported a range from $0 to $1,000 for an outdoor LED sign. Three respondents reported a range of $30 to $300 for an indoor LCD sign, and two respondents reported $50 and $300 for an outdoor LCD sign. Please note that international agency responses were in line with those from the United States. Similarly, a limited number of respondents provided the per-unit monthly communication costs. For indoor LED signs, three respondents reported a range of $10 to $46. Thirteen respondents reported a range of $0 to $192 per month for outdoor LED signs. For indoor LCD signs, five respondents reported $0 and one reported $10 per month. For outdoor LCD signs, four respondents reported from $0 to $10 per month. One respondent mentioned a challenge using wireless communication (including radio) and solu- tions unless the sign is displaying only text. An even lower number of agencies reported information on the per-unit monthly cost for powering the signs. Two respondents reported that indoor LED sign power costs $0 Responses to the questionnaire regarding the resources and costs associated with implementing electronic signage yielded limited information. To determine the labor required to sup- port implementing electronic signage, the survey explored the transit agency departments involved in various stages of implementation: planning, developing requirements/ specifications, procurement, installation, operations, placing messages on the signage, maintenance, and responding to customers. The information technology (IT) department was most often the department responsible for the implementa- tion of electronic signage, with operations and planning as the next departments responsible for implementation. Table 18 shows how the capital cost of each type of sign widely varied among the respondents. TABLE 18 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 For signs, four respondents reported costs ranging from per sign. These wide variations in cost are the result of a TABLE 19 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITIES AMONG STAFF (PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS) Signage Activities Information technology Operations Training Marketing/ Communications Human resources Planning Maintenance Procure- ment/Legal Customer Service Planning for the signage 51.9 37.0 0.0 33.3 3.7 51.9 7.4 0.0 11.1 Developing requirements/ specifications of the signage 63.0 33.3 0.0 29.6 0.0 33.3 7.4 3.7 7.4 Procuring the signage 37.0 22.2 0.0 7.4 0.0 22.2 3.7 48.1 3.7 Installing the signage 37.0 18.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 40.7 14.8 0.0 Operating the signage 40.7 59.3 0.0 11.1 0.0 22.2 14.8 0.0 11.1 Placing messages on the signage 22.2 70.4 3.7 37.0 0.0 18.5 0.0 0.0 25.9 Maintaining the signage 40.7 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 55.6 0.0 0.0 Responding to customer com- plaints about accuracy of information 51.9 37.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 18.5 11.1 0.0 33.3 Other 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.7

36 and $2 per month. For outdoor LED signs, the power cost reported by five respondents varied from $2 to $50 per month. For indoor LCD signs, the power cost was reported by three respondents as from $0 to $5 per month. Three respondents reported a monthly power cost of $0 to $20 for outdoor LCD signs. In terms of resources, Table 19 shows the distribution of responsibilities among agency staff for various activities associated with planning and deploying electronic signage. When asked about the labor hours spent by each depart- ment/staff that are involved in the deployment of electronic signage, only 15 respondents offered estimates, as shown in Table 20. For IT staff, 10 respondents reported that the number of labor hours per month ranged from 2 to 80. For Operations staff, nine respondents report a range of 2 to 40 labor hours per month. Marketing Communications staff labor range from 1 to 20 labor hours per month, as reported by five respondents. Planning staff hours range from 1 to 80 hours, as reported by six respondents. Maintenance staff spends between 1 and 60 hours per month, as reported by six respondents. One respondent reports that Legal/Procure- ment staff spends 3 hours a month, and three respondents report that Customer Service staff spends from 1 to 20 hours per month. TABLE 20 MEDIAN NUMBER OF LABOR HOURS PER MONTH FOR STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR SIGN OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Responsible Department Median Labor Hours per Month Maintenance 15.0 Customer service 10.0 Information technology 8.5 Operations 6.0 Planning 4.5 Procurement/legal 3.0 Marketing/communications 2.0