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.

37 CHAPTER FIVE DECISION PROCESS FOR ELECTRONIC SIGNAGE DEPLOYMENT • Assessed customer demand. • Conducted research with other agencies; conducted market analysis. • Conducted an ITS investment study. TABLE 21 REASONS FOR DEPLOYING ELECTRONIC SIGNAGE Motivation for Deploying Electronic Signage Response Percent Increase customer satisfaction 97.3 Improve perception of transit system 70.3 To supplement other methods of disseminating information 70.3 Because we are a progressive agency 59.5 We want to keep up with current technology 51.4 Increase ridership 48.6 Received funding to deploy signage 32.4 Customers requested the signs 18.9 Part of a subway, light rail/streetcar, or BRT project 16.2 Influenced by other agencies' deployment of signage 5.4 Other: • Part of an overall ITS communication strategy. • To take advantage of real-time open data across several transit modes. • We wanted to change the customer’s perception of the waiting time. • Part of larger ITS procurement. Finally, the criteria used to locate the signage are shown in Table 22. As expected, boarding counts at stops/stations is most used as a criterion to determine where to place electronic sig- nage. Next most prevalent criteria are the availability of power, followed by the number of lines/routes at stop/station. COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY Sixty-seven percent of the survey respondents have a com- munications strategy. Of those, 82% consider electronic signage to be part of that strategy. Further, 70% of the respondents consider providing transit information on elec- tronic signage as a way to attract “choice” riders. INFORMATION EQUITY The survey explored “information equity,” which is defined as providing real-time transit information by One hypothesis considered as part of this Synthesis was that the implementation of electronic signage contributes to an agency’s overall communications strategy. This section describes the contribution of electronic signage in several ways. First, it covers several decision criteria associated with determining if electronic signage is to be deployed. Second, it mentions whether or respondents have a communications strategy, along with whether deploying electronic signage is part of that strategy. Third, it presents responses on “informa- tion equity.” Fourth, it discusses whether the deployment of electronic signage resulted in an increase in ridership. Fifth, it describes the use of marketing to inform customers about sig- nage and customers’ reactions to signage. Finally, it discusses considerations of including advertising on electronic signage. DECISION CRITERIA The survey covered the reasons for implementing electronic signage, as well as whether or not a study was conducted before deploying the signage and the criteria used to determine where to place electronic signage. First, as shown in Table 21, the survey results indicated that nearly all respondents decided to deploy electronic signage to increase customer satisfac- tion. Just over 70% of the respondents reported that signage was deployed both to improve the perception of the transit sys- tem and supplement other methods of disseminating informa- tion. The next two most prevalent reasons are “because we are a progressive agency” and “we want to keep up with current technology.” One response of note is that not quite half of the respondents deploy electronic signage to increase ridership. Second, in terms of conducting a study to determine if signage should be deployed, just over half of the respondents did not conduct a study. For those that did conduct a study, the most prevalent type of study was a business case analy- sis. Also, the following types of studies were reported: • Conducted research into best practices. • Used a pilot project to determine the technical feasibil- ity for outdoor LCD signs. • Visited other transit agencies where similar systems were implemented. • Conducted rider surveys. • Conducted an IT deployment study to determine what technology to use (more general than a specific sign study).

38 means of at least two dissemination media, and in both audio and visual formats. Given that this study is focus- ing on a primarily visual dissemination media, it was important to determine if consideration was given to pro- viding information displayed on a sign in audio format. The results of the survey showed that the overwhelming majority of respondents (almost 90%) consider providing real-time transit information by means of at least two dis- semination media. Further, more than 65% of the respon- dents consider providing real-time information in both audio and visual formats. TABLE 22 LOCATION CRITERIA Location Criteria Response Percent Boarding counts at stops/stations 67.9 Availability of power 57.1 Number of lines/routes at stop/station 53.6 Availability of communication 42.9 Number of transfers at stop/station 39.3 Signs at all BRT/light rail/subway/commuter rail stations 35.7 Physical obstructions/visibility 32.1 Mounting infrastructure 32.1 Safety considerations 25.0 Security considerations 21.4 Outdoor versus indoor mounting needs 14.3 Environmental considerations 10.7 Existence of alternate media to provide transit information 7.1 Other: Reasonable coverage per platform for passenger visibility of signs: • Political (ward) considerations. • Locations throughout the community. Beta sites are in offices and retail stores. • Title VI. • At major BRT stations based on boardings. • Standard Rail Station feature. INCREASE IN RIDERSHIP The survey included a question that is typically asked in a discussion about the effects of providing real-time informa- tion: “Did the deployment of electronic signage to display transit information result in an increase in ridership?” As reported in prior real-time information studies, 66.7% of respondents do not know if there was an increase in rider- ship as a result of deploying electronic signage. MARKETING AND CUSTOMER REACTIONS The survey then explored the use of marketing to inform and promote the use of electronic signage. Only 33.3% of respondents reported that they had developed a marketing campaign specifically about electronic signage to provide transit information. Agencies were asked about how they gauge the custom- ers’ reactions to the electronic signage. As shown in Fig- ure 44, more than 90% of respondents reported that they determine customer reactions to the signage by receiving compliments or complaints. And as expected based on the discussion of ridership earlier, a small percentage of respon- dents actually measure changes to ridership after electronic signs are deployed. One agency noted that positive customer comments were made as the agency was finalizing installa- tion and performing testing in stations. FIGURE 44 Determination of customer reactions to signage. ADVERTISING There were several questions regarding the use of advertising on electronic signs. Only one respondent reported that they include advertising on the same electronic signage that provides passenger information. (The next chapter contains a discussion about CTA, including real-time information with advertising on electronic signs.) The reasons that were provided for not including advertising on electronic signage are as follows: • Advertising conflicts with displaying real-time information. • Advertising takes away the essence and visibility of the critical information. The primary function of the signs is to disseminate train arrival information. • Signs in use are not advertising-friendly. • Difficulty of administering with minimal perceived value. • There has not been a demand. • Legal or code constraints. • Advertising is prohibited by the jurisdiction where signs located. • Based on research that says that information needs to be kept separate from advertising. Anecdotal experi- ence shows that where advertising “pays” for signs, it is not a sustainable model. Another advertising-related question was “does your agency offer location-specific advertising on electronic signs (i.e., buy ads on a particular sign for a nearby business)?” All respondents answered “no.”