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.

39 CHAPTER SIX CASE EXAMPLES displayed on the signs. Figures 45 and 46 show original LED signs installed in a bus shelter. FIGURE 45 Dynamic message sign in TriMet bus shelter. FIGURE 46 Single-line LED DMS in TriMet bus shelter (Courtesy: TriMet). Several of the transit agencies and organizations that responded to the Synthesis survey were interviewed by telephone in order to obtain more detailed information on their deployment of electronic signage. This section presents results of the interviews as case examples. TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON (TRIMET) (PORTLAND, OREGON) TriMet’s commitment to electronic signage was described in TCRP Synthesis 48 (43). Tri-Met has a three-pronged approach to providing real time bus arrival information. First, they are beginning to provide real time bus arrival information on LED signs at bus stops. As of September 2002, 11 signs have been deployed at ten bus stops (and 28 signs at 11 light rail stops). The plan is for 50 LED signs to be deployed at an additional 50 sites by the end of fiscal year 2003 (June 30, 2003), dependent upon the availability of power at those sites. Ultimately, Tri-Met would like to outfit a total of 250 sites with LED signs displaying real time bus arrival information. The arrival sign system was developed by the AVL vendor. (43, pp. 37–38) TriMet’s plans changed considerably regarding the deploy- ment of LED signs. As discussed in TCRP Synthesis 91 (1, pp. 38–40), in 2005, TriMet conducted an on-street survey of riders and determined that 70% of riders had mobile phones. So, the focus of providing real-time information to customers shifted to placing real-time information on TriMet’s website and on an interactive voice response (IVR) system, and even- tually on mobile devices. So, TriMet has considerable experi- ence with electronic signage over the past 10 years. This case example covers their experiences and lessons learned. The first LED sign installation was in 2001, coinciding with the start of the Airport MAX Red Line (one of Port- land’s light rail lines). At the same time, TriMet worked with the bus CAD/AVL vendor (Orbital Sciences at that time) to provide real-time information on DMS. TriMet believed that placing signs at bus stops with high ridership would provide benefits. They started with one-line LED signs and built the cases for the signs themselves (no cases were needed for indoor LED signs). These bus stops signs used cellular digi- tal packet data (CDPD) modems to receive the information

40 TriMet executives were excited about the signs, and the deployment program went ahead as described in TCRP Syn- theses 48 and 91 (43, 1). However, in 2005, management decided that they would no longer pay monthly fees for the sign communications—it cost approximately $50 per month per sign for the CDPD communication—and at the same time, cellular providers were discontinuing the use of CDPD for better and faster technology [e.g., short message service (SMS), general packet radio services (GPRS) and 3-G tech- nologies]. Further, TriMet management was happy about the implementation of Transit Tracker (TriMet’s real-time information system) by phone, so TriMet removed the CDPD modems. If the electronic signs did not have free communica- tion (Wi-Fi), bus signs were removed. In the downtown area, there was a free Wi-Fi connection to offices downtown, but eventually that Wi-Fi connection no longer existed; therefore, the signs located within close proximity to this Wi-Fi connec- tion were removed. Figures 47 and 48 show newer LCD signs that have been installed in bus shelters. FIGURE 47 TriMet LCD DMS at bus stop near Lloyd Center (Courtesy: Carol Schweiger 2011). FIGURE 48 TriMet LCD DMS at bus stop near Lloyd Center (Courtesy: Carol Schweiger 2011). There were some issues with the original bus DMS deployed in 2001–2002—mostly related to anomalies when bus CAD/AVL system logins failed, bus breakdowns occurred, and there were missed pullouts, which meant that that particular vehicle was not reporting to the CAD/AVL system. As reported in TCRP Synthesis 48, Tri-Met does not use a prediction algorithm per se to calculate real time arrival information that is displayed on the LED signs. Information that is sent to each bus driver through a mobile data terminal (MDT) about their arrival time at the next stop is sent to the signs. Each sign has the schedule loaded in it, and the sign’s processor applies the information about arrival time to the schedule to determine the offset from the schedule. This is a distributed, decentralized system, since information that will be used to determine arrival times is sent to the sign for processing. (43, p. 38) Since then, this information processing has become centralized. Portland’s Transit Mall was rebuilt and reopened in 2009. When it reopened, older DMS signs were taken out (they only showed schedule times). These signs (shown in Figure 49) required quite a bit of maintenance, but 97% of people at the Transit Mall regularly or often consulted these signs, so new DMS were installed such as the sign (shown in Figure 50). These LCD signs include a pushbutton to provide the sign’s information in audio, as shown in Figure 51. The sign pushbuttons were added after the sign design was completed. FIGURE 49 Original DMS showing scheduled times on transit mall (Courtesy: TriMet). FIGURE 50 LCD DMS on transit mall (Courtesy: TriMet).

41 A 2006 study (36, p. 47) supported the idea that many TriMet customers used the electronic signs. “Passenger surveys indicate that 78% of riders at Transit Tracker Equipped bus stops use the information frequently or almost always, 11% on an infrequent basis and a further 11% rarely or almost never.” Further, “a number of conser- vative assumptions are considered to calculate a minimum estimated number of trips using Transit Tracker informa- tion, as shown in Table 23. It is conservatively estimated that Transit Tracker is likely used for at least 20 million bus and rail trips each year. Even if use at rail stations is excluded from the analysis, transit tracker information is likely used by an estimated 3.4 million trips per year.” The excitement about electronic signs actually started earlier with the opening of the Red line a few days after Sep- tember 11, 2001. At that time, LED signs were put in a few rail stations. Also, as part of the construction of the stations, DMS were installed at several park-and-ride lots above rail stations using Wi-Fi from the rail platform. Four-line DMS on the light rail platforms required a column that cost $5,000 per column, so the cost of the columns had to be included in FIGURE 51 Pushbutton to obtain audio version of LCD display (Courtesy: TriMet).

42 the budget for DMS on light rail platforms. Figure 52 shows one of these DMS. TABLE 23 ESTIMATED ANNUAL NUMBER OF TRIPS USING TRANSIT TRACKER INFORMATION Transit Tracker Infor- mation Source Maximum Number of Trips Assumed Usage Rate Assumption/ Justification Minimum Estimated Number of Trips Transit Tracker Equipped Bus Stops 2,491,866 50% Passenger survey result that 78% use always or frequently 1,245,933 Transit Tracker Equipped Rail Stops 181,760,400 10% Assumes 1 in 10 riders use information display 18,176,040 Web Page 792,000 50% Assumes 2 web hits per trip 396,000 Phone 2,678,694 67% Assumes 1.5 phone calls per trip 1,785,796 Total Trips using Transit Tracker 187,722,960 21,603,769 Total Trips Excluding Rail 5,962,560 3,427,729 (35, p. 47). TriMet’s plan is to provide electronic information at every Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) rail platform to provide service disruption information. TriMet received a FTA grant for $180,000 and added $50,000 to that from local funds. This grant will be used to retrofit light rail platforms that currently have no signage, which means that 16 signs are being added. Further, LCD signs will be deployed as part of the Milwaukie light rail project. From a multimodal perspective, TriMet installed DMS in shelters at the busiest transit location in Portland: the corner of Interstate and Lombard. Yellow line trains stop here, and there are multiple east-west bus routes. These DMS read whatever is on the sign using text-to-speech technology. One interesting aspect of TriMet’s experi- ence with DMS is that the signs were originally a pilot program—a series of experiments that were conducted internally for the most part. As of April 2012, TriMet has 13 bus and 105 rail outdoor LED signs, and 49 bus and 35 rail outdoor LCD signs. In summary, TriMet experienced various sign activities according to the timeline in Table 24. FIGURE 52 DMS on light rail platform (Courtesy: TriMet).

43 TABLE 24 TRIMET SIGNAGE TIMELINE Activity Date First LED sign installed 2001, coinciding with the start of the Airport MAX Red Line 11 signs installed at bus stops and 28 signs installed at MAX stops September 2002 • Focus shifted away from deploying signs • No longer will pay monthly fees for sign communications 2005 Transit Tracker system evaluation 2006 Portland Transit Mall reopened 2009 13 bus and 105 rail outdoor LED signs, and 49 bus and 35 rail outdoor LCD signs installed As of April 2012 REAL TIME INFORMATION GROUP—UNITED KINGDOM The RTIG “was established in 2000 to provide a focus for all those involved in UK bus [real-time information] RTI. We now have a comprehensive remit to cover the effective and efficient use of technology in the interests of passenger transport users, operators and sponsors” (44). Since 2002, RTIG has conducted an annual survey that “assesses the implementation of public transport technology on buses, at stops and other locations and on other modes of transport. It focuses on the use of Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) and the dissemination of Real Time Information (RTI). It covers the major issues which arose during implementations which had a major impact on timeliness, cost or functional delivery” (6, p. 1) One significant element of the surveys is reporting on the use of “RTI physical displays” throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. According to the 2011 survey (6, p. 22), at end 2011, there were approximately 8,130 bus stops fitted with 3-line or multi line LED signs and a further 2,046 fitted with full screen (LCD or plasma displays). This is equivalent to 10,176 real time information- enabled physical displays in the United Kingdom. For [Great Britain] GB, there has been an increase in sign numbers since 2005 with a particularly sharp increase between 2007 and 2008. This increase was not the result of any single implementation, but of a number of implementations around the country coming on line. Since then, GB has experienced a largely flat picture, with a small dip in 2009 accounted for by a number of non-returns. This year continues that flat picture with a fall of 116 stops fitted with RTI signs, a small fall of 1%. (6, p. 22) Figure 53 that shows this trend. Both 3-line/multi-line LED displays and full screen displays show a very slight decline in 2011. Last year, there was growth in both types of display and the proportion of displays which were full screen rose to 20% from 18% the previous year. This year, the proportions are identical to last year. 3-line/multi-line LED remain about 80% of all RTI signs and LCDs have remained at 20% of all RTI signs. Projections last year for this year suggested that the shift from LEDs to LCDs would continue. Out of the total of 8,565 signs, it was predicted that 6,222 would be LED whereas 2343 would be LCD. This would have meant that that LCDs accounted for 27% of all RTI signs. However, this was not borne out in the actual data for this year. (6, p. 23) FIGURE 53 Number of signs in Great Britain. 2005–2013. Despite the proportion of LCD signs did not increase as expected, RTIG expects that there will be significant growth in the use of LCD or full-screen displays. Up until 5 years ago, three-line LED DMS constituted most of the U.K. sig- nage, but now full-screen LCD sign installations are more affordable. RTIG says that, generally, one-third of all instal- lations are full-screen displays with full color. The use of full-screen displays makes it easier to program the display (e.g., you can use a browser rather than a more complex pro- gram). Further, a full-screen display provides much more space than LED signs, so much more information can be provided to the public beyond just next vehicle arrival times. An agency could not be very creative with an LED sign (e.g., only able to display “Next bus in 13 minutes”). RTIG feels that there is an impact on transit as a whole as more displays become full-screen or LCD. Once agencies use a large display, it provides the opportunity to make more use of the real estate on the sign. For example, the full-range of county services or a map could be displayed in addition to real-time textual information. In the United Kingdom, there is a move toward provid- ing information on mobile devices. There are four primary factors in considering this approach: (1) the cost associated with the signage; (2) the fact that there has been vandalism to electronic signs; (3) the availability of open data; and (4) the comparative of providing mobile information rather than having to equip thousands of stops. However, “information equity” is recognized in the United Kingdom in that all cus- tomers do not necessarily have mobile devices; also, when mobile devices were introduced, they were hard to use, so placing transit information on mobile devices was not com-

44 mon. Thus, signage remains an important dissemination media in the United Kingdom. onetheless, there has been a generational evolution regarding the deployment of electronic signs in the United Kingdom. First, there is more access to mobile devices and individuals feel more comfortable using them. Second, funding for electronic signage is much more limited than it once was. The expense was justified in the past in that sig- nage was considered worthwhile to the community. Third, there are some issues regarding information quality (e.g., resulting from vehicles not being logged in), necessitating an examination of the impact of “bad” information dis- played on signage. Fourth, in the U.K. market, private sector operators control public transport services—the agencies that they support have no say in issues related to the use of the underlying technology that generates information that is displayed on signage. These operators may resist making changes that could affect the quality of displayed informa- tion. To address this issue, TfL has a significant quality man- agement process in place that monitors the performance of the private operators, including their use of the underlying technology. Finally, it is thought that people expect to have detailed information at their fingertips about their travel. If this information is not provided, perceptions of the public transit service are tarnished. In the United Kingdom, electronic signage is considered an important approach to influencing modal shift and main- taining ridership. The overall approach is to provide infor- mation that gives people travel choices, requiring methods that will attract people to public transit and influence the competition between public transit and private automobiles. With the shift to full-screen displays in the United King- dom, information on all travel choices can be provided. These displays will still need to be placed at carefully-chosen locations that provide the maximum impact on travel choice. Several considerations for placement include the ridership at a stop, but it is thought that high-capacity stops do not need signage because vehicles make frequent stops. However, the high-capacity stops often have the highest profiles from a political perspective. There is more need for signage at low- volume stops, but at these locations, the value of the signage per person is high, but the overall value is low. So there is still quite a bit of discussion about where electronic signs should be placed. Full-screen displays can provide much more information on disruptions, which is relatively new to the United Kingdom. The value of providing disruption information is considered high, and was surveyed for the first time in the 2011 survey as discussed in chapter two (6, p. 50). As shown in Table 25, the survey respondents used several protocols with the electronic signage when there is a disruption. Further, “LAs were also asked to identify the channel(s) used at present to disseminate disruption information.” Table 26 shows the breakdown of the media used. Electronic signs are the most prevalent media, followed by third-party websites and local authority websites. TABLE 26 TYPES OF CHANNELS USED BY U.K. LAS TO DISSEMINATE DISRUPTION INFORMATION Type of Channel No. of LAs* On Street Signs 43 3rd Party Websites 36 LA Websites 35 Twitter 17 Telephone Hotline 16 Facebook 8 Mobile Applications 7 SMS/WAP 7 Transport Direct Portal 5 (6, p. 51). * A total of 54 LAs CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY—CHICAGO, ILLINOIS CTA has a communications strategy, and electronic signage is a significant part of this strategy. As of April 2012, CTA had 192 indoor LED signs, 768 outdoor LED signs and 120 outdoor LCD signs. CTA views their signage program in three parts: TABLE 25 PROTOCOLS FOLLOWED BY U.K. LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LAS) DURING DISRUPTION* Country Turn On-Street Signs Off Put on a Standard Holding Message on On-Street Signs Give Out Real-Time Information About the Disruption on On-Street Signs No. of Respondents England 7 17 15 39 Wales 1 2 0 3 Scotland 0 6 4 10 UK Total 8 25 20 53 * “For true comparison, the Scottish transport partnerships were counted according to the number of LAs they explicitly mentioned representing on the survey; HiTrans represents 3 LAs, NESTrans represent 1 LA, SPT represent 3 LAs, SWESTrans represent 1 LA. SESTrans was counted as 1 LA as they responded to the survey without specifying any towns/cities.” (6, p. 50).

45 1. Accessibility/upgrades—providing audio for the DMS in the 146 rail stations through integration with the public address (PA) system. Eventually, there will be 1,500 LED DMS in the rail stations. The existing (and future) signs display next train predictions and emergency messages. The existing signs in rail sta- tions are being upgraded, as some are up to 20 years old as of April 2012. Partially owing to the signage upgrade, each station has new design criteria. And as of April 2012, one-third of stations have no signage. “CTA is also in the preliminary testing phase of dis- playing Train Tracker arrival times at 13 rail stations on existing LED displays” (45). As expected, signage installation in a rail environ- ment is more expensive than that in a bus environ- ment, but CTA has the benefit of a fiber network for communicating the information to the signs. Further, some of the display screens are not compatible with station ceilings/canopies because of aging infrastruc- ture. New signs being obtained by CTA will be more lightweight and power-efficient. 2. Information signage at bus shelters is being imple- mented to display bus predictions (from CTA’s Bus TrackerSM). As of April 2012, 152 LED DMS have been deployed as part of Phase 1. Figure 54 shows a bus stop LED DMS in a bus shelter outside 222 South Riverside Plaza. “Each sign is equipped with a push button and speaker to announce the estimated arrival times for our riders with visual impairments. The push button is located on one of the inner poles, closest to the street. Push the button once and a speaker inside the shelter will announce upcoming arrivals” (46). Figure 55 shows the pushbutton used for the CTA bus shelter DMS (mounted on shelter support pole), and Figure 56 shows the speaker located behind the electronic sign. All bus shelters with LED signs have pushbuttons to activate an audio version of the message/arrival times. Phase 2 will install an additional 250 LED DMS in bus shelters. This deployment is expected to begin in Summer 2012. The bus shelter DMS program is funded with $3.8 million, consisting of $1.4 million of CTA funds, a $1.8 million Regional Transportation Authority grant, and a $640,000 FTA grant. As of April 2012, a significant improvement is being made to the backend architecture to accommo- date 400 signs. Currently, the limit is 152 signs, but CTA was not aware that this was the limit when it began the Phase 1 installation. “Those 400 shelters represent 20 percent of the bus shelters throughout Chicago, but accommodate 80 percent of the sys- tem’s bus ridership, CTA President Forrest Claypool said” (47). FIGURE 54 LED DMS in CTA bus shelter outside 222 South Riverside Plaza (Courtesy: David Phillips 2012). FIGURE 55 Pushbutton to activate audio for CTA bus LED DMS (Courtesy: David Phillips 2012). FIGURE 56 Speaker that provides audio for CTA bus LED DMS plaza (Courtesy: David Phillips 2012). One complexity associated with the deployment of signage in bus shelters is that the street furniture contract is with the city of Chicago, not CTA. Three primary issues had to be addressed because of this complexity. First, some of the shelters are quite narrow, making it difficult to add the signs. Second, the operat-

46 ing costs associated with signs on remote shelters can be significant; for example, communication charges for LED signs can run $50 per month per sign. Finally, when there is a problem with a sign, CTA has to iden- tify whether it is a problem with the shelter (requiring contacting the shelter vendor) itself or a problem with the sign. 3. In 2009, CTA began to implement digital advertis- ing signs (not related to item 1 on p. 123). In rail stations, these signs can display next train arrival information (for 5 train arrivals). Because adver- tising on the signs takes precedence over any other information displayed on the signs, other messages, such as next train arrival can be delayed. The other messages have to fit into the signage within a cer- tain period. CTA feels that, in a general sense, advertising and information do not mix. Further, the placement of the digital advertising may not be where customer information should be placed. The advertising company decides where the signage will be located and then has to obtain CTA approval. Finally, these signs are being installed to generate revenue, which is a different motive than providing customer information. The plan is for more than 1,500 digital advertising signs to be installed on 100 buses and at all 144 rail stations. No real-time information will be displayed on these signs. There is no upfront cost to the CTA (48). With the upgrades being made to rail stations, more communication lines are being included to accommodate more advertising signs. CTA’s philosophy toward deploying DMS is multifac- eted. First, CTA wants to encourage ridership and sees DMS as one way to accomplish that goal. It places a high priority on getting information into travelers’ hands, empowering customers to make a decision and reducing their anxiety while traveling. Second, CTA recognizes that signage is not a “one-size fits all”—it is dependent on where the sign is located and the surrounding environment. For example, the signs that have a 16:9 aspect ratio (referring to the ratio of picture length to picture width), which is the common aspect ratio for high-definition television, have not worked as well as half-height LCD displays, which have a 16:4 aspect ratio, because of visibility. Also, CTA’s approach to sign place- ment has evolved based on the experience of the employees in the field in terms of sign visibility, availability of neces- sary infrastructure (e.g., power), and the like. Third, signage is considered an “equalizer” in that CTA does not want to force customers to use a specific media (e.g., only providing information on mobile devices). Finally, CTA deploys tech- nology deliberately and carefully. For example, Bus Track- erSM was deployed before service cuts were introduced to help people understand the new bus routes and schedules. CTA has a do-it-yourself Transit Info Display program in beta testing. “The Do-It-Yourself Transit Info Display (beta) from CTA makes it easy for anyone with some computer savvy to show estimated bus arrival times on a display in a build- ing lobby, a storefront window, inside a shop... Anywhere you like!” (49). Figures 57 and 58 show sample displays. MOBILITY LAB—ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA At the beginning of 2012, Mobility Lab (http://mobilitylab. org/) in Arlington, Virginia, announced the deployment of electronic signs that display real-time transportation infor- mation in two local establishments (a coffee shop and a bar). Mobility Lab, “an initiative of Arlington County Commuter Services, focuses on the professional discipline of Mobility FIGURE 57 Sample DIY Train TrackerSM display (49).

47 Management, also called Transportation Demand Manage- ment or TDM. TDM is about making individuals aware of their transportation options, including: route, time of travel and mode. In the broadest sense, TDM is defined as provid- ing travelers with effective choices to improve travel effi- ciency and reliability” (50). The Java Shack coffee shop near Court House in Arling- ton, Virginia, and the Red Palace bar on H Street in Wash- ington, D.C., have “digital screens showing real-time transit arrivals and Capital Bikeshare availability. At Java Shack, customers can see the next [Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)] Metrobus, [Arlington Transit] ART, or [WMATA] Orange Line arrivals, and bike availabil- ity at the Capital Bikeshare [CaBi] station across the street. The Red Palace screen faces outward onto the sidewalk on H Street, letting passersby see their bus and CaBi options” (51). Mobility Lab developed these screens to display local rail, bus, and bikeshare information. The overall goal for developing these screens was to help the individual make a trip from point A to point B in the Washington, D.C., area by providing real-time information presented in a readable manner. These are the first two screens deployed by Mobility Lab. As of April 2012, the screens have been operational for 3 months. Figures 59 and 60 show these screens. Every 20 seconds, our web server queries each transit agency for the arrival predictions for the stops near both test sites, then relays the data to the screens. The actual unit inside the shops is just a low-cost, barebones Linux system connected to a standard computer monitor and the business’s own Wi-Fi and power. We’ve configured the box to automatically load up the screen when it starts, so there’s no need to log in or launch an app after the unit is plugged in. (50) Mobility Lab reported that after installing the signs, cus- tomers of these establishments have provided positive feed- back. The signs are still relatively new as of the writing of this report, so no formal survey results are available. Rather than customers having to look at their smartphones, custom- ers can simply look at the signs to find out their options for public transportation in the area. Open data provided by the participating agencies has prompted the development of these signs. Each set of open data is in the GTFS-real-time format, so any person or entity that can develop an application based on open transportation data can install signs and provide real-time information anywhere real-time open data are available. For example, Mobility Lab worked closely with Capital Bikeshare, which is the only open data bikeshare system in the United States. (London provided open bikeshare data before Capital Bikeshare.) Each screen’s layout is customized. A designer helped make the displays visually-appealing and readable. For example, ART’s real-time information is in green, WMATA buses are in blue, and the DC Circulator is in red. Display modification is easy and can be done from a central location. Further, a sign can run indefinitely until there is a significant FIGURE 58 Sample DIY Bus TrackerSM display (49).

48 change in the information being displayed (e.g., adding a new agency or station). Another key point to the success of these displays is that a display is affordable. Each screen is under $500, making it appealing to establishments such as the coffee shop and bar. Mobility Lab feels that more locations will want to purchase them because of the low price. Typical DMS pricing can range from $5,000 to $20,000 per unit (depending on a variety of factors), so under $500 is much more affordable than what many transit agencies pay to deploy DMS. Also, because of the low price, Mobility Lab has been approached by apart- ment buildings, colleges, and businesses. All of these estab- lishments have enough motivation to pay to cover the costs because the displays could attract people to their businesses. From a technical perspective, the communication tech- nology used to provide information to the sign can be either wireless (as in the coffee shop) or a telephone line. The qual- ity of the information is based upon the speed with which the information can be updated. Some agencies that provide open data limit the number of times you can access the data (e.g., every 20 seconds). Beside the positive feedback from establishments and their customers, Mobility Lab is aware that the agencies par- ticipating by providing their data are realizing some benefits. For example, Capital Bikeshare has indicated that having this real-time information being displayed is serving its internal needs better. Application developers outside the agency are helping Capital Bikeshare realign its internal programs. Although no formal surveys have been conducted to date to measure the success of these first two displays, they have been publicized heavily and the anecdotal feedback has been positive. Further, there is definitely a demand for such an affordable DMS. Mobility Lab wants to keep the displays useful and affordable. By maintaining its role as an integra- tor, it believes that it can accomplish these goals. Further, because it believes that introducing advertising on the dis- plays might degrade the utility and increase the price, Mobil- ity Lab is not considering adding advertising to the displays. FIGURE 59 Multi-agency display located at Java Shack (52). FIGURE 60 Mobility lab screen located at Red Palace Bar (52).

49 Finally, it believes that it can meet the goal to get people out of their cars by providing real-time transit and bikeshare options in an easy-to-read format. Given that many younger people are less interested in buying automobiles, the displays may be appealing to those who seek alternative transportation options. For example, as of April 2012, Logan Circle in Washington, D.C. (which is close to Mobility Labs) has the lowest automobile ownership in the D.C. area. Logan Circle residents own more bikes than they do cars. The young, single and hip neighborhood is leading the way to a car-free future, according to a new survey done by the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board. Residents of Logan Circle, where 60 percent of the population is between the ages of 20 and 40 and 57 percent of households don’t have land-line telephones, choose to walk for 56 percent of the trips they make in a day, much higher than the regional average of 9 percent. And with 6 percent of trips made by bike, the neighborhood had 10 times the number of bike trips than the regional average. (52)