RIAS Underground Transit Study

Purpose of the Study
Transit stations present unique challenges to people who are print disabled; they must visit specific points along potentially crowded and complex paths of travel having no signs which are legible to them, in order to successfully navigate from street entrances to the proper train. Such a course involves the challenge of identifying the correct entrance, change and ticket machines, station agent kiosks, entry gates, escalators, steps and elevators onto the platform, a specific platform area and specific train or coach.

This project details a transit station installation in which we developed, tested, and determined acceptable performance levels for the Talking Signs^R wayfinding technology. In addition, we sought to determine the appropriate level of training for users of this wayfinding system.

Methods

Remote Signage Installation:
Ninety-three (93) transmitter "signs" were located throughout the three levels of the Powell Street transit station in San Francisco, which has BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) trains on its lower level and Muni (San Francisco Municipal Railway) light rail trains (streetcars) on the second level. The upper level has Talking Signs which label station agent booths, faregates, stairs, escalators and elevators, shop entrances, restrooms, change machines, telephones, and corridors to other parts of the station. On platforms, Talking Signs enabled users to locate: various stair and escalators; exits; elevators; station agent and public telephones; determine which trains stop on each side of the platform; and locate the main boarding areas are for each of these trains. All Signs were placed at an elevation of approximately ten feet, either on a wall or suspended from the ceiling, usually in the vicinity of printed signs. Transmitters were adjusted for a range of 10 feet (3.1 m) to 60 feet (18 m), depending on the function and location of each sign. The stand-alone transmitters employed for this project incorporate individual recording circuits and LED arrays, and are connected to remote, modular power supplies at locations convenient to the 110 volt mains.

Figure 2. Floor plan of tri-level transit station site of the demonstration project. Numbers on map designate the location of each Talking Signs transmitter.

Three groups of 12 blind subjects aged 18-62 years were balanced using intake survey data on vision impairment history, age, educational background, orientation and mobility (O&M) training, usual travel aid (cane vs. dog guide), knowledge and use of the local transit system, health status, prior Talking Signs experience, and spatial problem solving skills. None of the subjects had previously used the Talking Signs system. Group I received one to two hours of training, until they achieved successful independent travel on 6 practice routes in a quiet end of the station. Practice routes were 50 to 200 feet (15 to 61m) long and required the use of 2 to 4 Talking Signs messages. A typical task and instruction was: "Go to the turnstiles into BART. Tell me when you're there.” Group II received 15 to 30 minutes of training, or until two out of the six practice routes were completed with verbal assistance only. Group III received only prior text instructions on how to use Talking Signs, a receiver, and a practice transmitter which provided a beeping signal when the receiver was pointed toward it.
Testing and Data Recording:
Test routes were constructed to encompass three levels of complexity. For the "Easy" route (requiring use of two key signs) subjects were started from locations facing (and within range of) signs relevant to reaching the destination. Both signs were close together along the path of travel so that as soon as the subject passed one sign, another was within range of the receiver. For both the "Medium" routes (three key signs) and "Hard" routes (five to seven key signs), subjects were started from locations where relevant signs might not be immediately available, and the signs were much further apart. Figure 2 includes a sample "Hard" route; one which takes the transit patrons at Powell Station from the Muni inbound train (near Talking Sign #13, Muni level) to the BART Richmond-bound train.

Each subject was required to successfully complete two consecutive "Easy" routes without intervention in order to progress to "Medium" routes. To progress from "Medium" to "Hard," the subjects were required to independently complete any two routes within the medium level. If subjects "gave up" or failed to complete a route, their performance was classified as "Failed to Complete." The same set of routes was used for all participants, but not all subjects needed all routes to reach criteria for advancing from "Easy" to "Medium" and "Hard." Subjects attempted as many routes as possible within a one hour test period. The following data were recorded:

Successful route completion:
A route was considered to be completed successfully if the subject required no assistance in order to reach a destination other than that provided by Talking Signs messages.

Table 1 illustrates that more Group I subjects (most highly trained) than others succeeded in traveling medium and hard routes. For example, 8 Group I, 5 Group II and only 4 Group III subjects successfully completed two hard routes. Thus, although Chi-square test fails to demonstrate a statistically significant effect, the amount of training appears to be related to the level of route difficulty subjects were able to accomplish in a given period of time. Furthermore, while more subjects who received the most training succeeded at traveling more difficult routes than subjects who received lesser amounts of training, even subjects with no individual training were able to benefit from the additional information provided by the Talking Signs system.

	Easy		Medium		Hard
Group	Attempted¹	Succeeded²	Attempted¹	Succeeded²	Attempted¹	Succeeded²
I	12	12	11	9	10	8
II	12	12	10	7	6	5
III	12	11	9	7	8	4
Total	36	35	30	23	24	17

Table 1. Participants who completed two or more routes at each level of route difficulty within the one hour test period.

¹Attempted - All subjects attempted easy routes. Subjects who successfully completed two consecutive easy routes progressed to medium routes. Subjects who successfully completed any two medium routes progressed to hard routes.

²Succeeded - Subjects succeeded in independently traveling at least two routes.

Participants reached their destination on 81% of easy routes they attempted, 88% of medium routes, and 92% of hard routes. This should not be construed to indicate that the technology works best for more difficult routes, but rather that subjects who attempted each higher level were those who were most likely to succeed. Overall, 86% (169/196) of attempted routes were successfully completed. On the 169 routes successfully completed, subjects had to pick up, understand, and correctly use the information provided by Talking Signs transmitters on a total of 500 occasions (2.96 transmitters per route). On each of these occasions, if information was not picked up, understood, and correctly used, the subject would not have completed a route successfully. Had Talking Signs transmitters been unavailable, subjects would have had to get some form of information or assistance, or to make their travel decisions on less definitive information 500 times.

Reasons for difficulty or failure to complete routes:

There were eight identifiable reasons that participants had difficulty completing routes independently. Poor use of the Talking Signs receiver, namely failing to scan fully with the receiver held level, and failing to monitor progress toward transmitters at all, account for approximately half (49 of 99) of the difficulties tallied. For these items there is a clear effect of training, with a majority of members of Group III showing difficulties in one or both of these areas. Participants who scanned ineffectively typically either failed to scan at all or did not scan a full 180 degrees about the body. Participants who failed to monitor their progress typically found signs and turned toward them, but then attempted to locate relevant landmarks without further systematic use of their receivers. Three other problems appear to be associated with lack of training: understanding the concept of pointing; misinterpreting messages; and a poor way of holding the receiver.

Individual Differences:

Of six dog guide users, four completed all routes -- a higher percentage than for the entire subject pool -- indicating no incompatibility between Talking Signs and use of a dog guide. Results from the six persons with hearing loss and the ten participants who reported at least enough sight to tell what direction light is coming in from conformed closely to the pattern observed for all participants.

Focus Group:

In order to supplement the objective data with subjective information and gain more of an insight into improving instructional procedures and in enhancing the design and implementation of the technology, a focus group was convened four months after the initiation of the study. The focus group was composed of two groups of five participants (8 from Group I and 2 from Group II). The number of times these participants had actually used their receivers in Powell Station, varied from 1 time to 47 times during the four months. To guide the structured focus group discussions, twelve questions were developed to elicit information on the effect of Talking Signs on travel, ways to use the receiver, and recommendations on training. Responses are summarized below.

Talking Signs Vs No Talking Signs:

Participants were enthusiastically unanimous in finding that travel in a station with TS was easier and more enjoyable than travel in a station without TS. Many benefits were mentioned, e.g.

Three participants who previously avoided Powell Station because of its size and complexity now prefer using it as a transfer station instead of other options they used to prefer.

One participant summed up his feelings about using the Talking Signs system in Powell Station in this way: "In this station I am truly equal!"

Most important thing to emphasize in training:

Participants stressed that TS must be understood as providing additional information for decision-making, not for safety. Users must rely on traditional mobility techniques and aids, as well as on good spatial reasoning when using TS.

Recommended amount of training:

Participants were in agreement that individual instruction was very helpful but that amount of training needed would vary with the general travel proficiency and spatial ability of users. No participant thought that there should be any minimum amount of training required before an individual could obtain and use a TS receiver independently. All participants felt that they became more proficient in use of TS as they continued to use the technology in normal travel situations.