People Accessing Community
Transportation (PACT)
Prepared by
The Kennedy Center, Inc.
184 Garden Street
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06605
(203) 332-4535 or (203) 339-3034 (Voice/TDD)
Prepared for
Project ACTION
700 Thirteenth Street, NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 347-3066 or 1-800-659-6428 Voice/TTY
project_action@nessdc.org
www.projectaction.org
Assistance derived from the Federal Transit Act, as amended, through a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and Project ACTION of the National Easter Seal Society.
Doc No: 95-0082
Table of Contents
Statement of Need
Pervasive and institutionalized barriers preventing accessibility for people with disabilities must be addressed by transit providers, consumer groups and rehabilitation facilities. The "transit world" must begin to break down their jurisdictions, as well as affiliations in order to bring about innovative outcomes and consumer empowerment. Families of people with disabilities, transit drivers and staff who work with and influence the lives of consumers must acknowledge their own prejudices towards transit use and people with disabilities. Transit users ultimately need to be included in all systemic change in order to bring about choice and independence.
PACT's primary goal was to research, develop, implement and test strategies which would "break down" the psychological, technological and systematic barriers to fixed route transportation for people with disabilities.
Description of Cooperating Organizations
GBTD serves the city of Bridgeport and towns of Fairfield, Stratford and Trumbull; a total population of 280,925. The system has 52 buses, 37 are lift-equipped. There are 16 routes that report 1,650 riders each weekday. GBTD's Director of the Elderly and Disabled Services serves on PACT's Steering Committee and has been PACT's primary liaison.
The Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1336-(AFL-CIO-CLC) is made up of 120 members. The president has been a member of PACT's Steering Committee for 2 years.
Human Services Transportation Consortium (HSTC) is a sub-contractor of GBTD providing paratransit services. HSTC employs 37 people and operates 26 lift-equipped vans. They provide services to individuals and social services agencies in the district area, as well as limited services to 2 adjacent towns not serviced by fixed route. HSTC's director has been a member of the PACT Steering Committee for 2 years.
MTD is a small transit district whose fixed route links with the GBTD at one transfer point. They provide fixed route and paratransit services for the City of Milford's population of 52,000. MTD's executive director is a new member of the PACT Steering Committee.
Bridgeport Health Care Center (BHCC) is Bridgeport's largest extended health care facility with 500 "patients". While located on a bus route, few patients use public buses. BHCC's marketing director is on PACT's Steering Committee.
Metro North provides rail service from New York to New Haven with 47 stations on 4 lines. AU rail stations in the towns served by GBTD and MTD have the potential to connect with bus service. The assistant director for Rail Planning serves on PACT's Steering Committee.
Twin Towers is a 252 unit HLTD subsidized housing facility located on a GBTD fixed route for people who are elderly and people with disabilities. The property manager of Twin Towers serves on PACT's Steering Committee.
Other groups that PACT has worked closely with include: Special Needs Center (SNC); Housatonic Area Regional Transit (HART); Fairfield University, Department of Mental Retardation (DMR); Bureau of Rehabilitation Services (BRS); Society to Advance the Retarded and Handicapped (STAR); Music and Arts Center For the Handicapped; Connecticut Association For Community Transportation (CACT); Center For Independent Living of Southwestern Connecticut (C.I.L.); Citizens For Accessible Transportation (C.A.T) and Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency (G.B.R.P.A.).
Description of Transportation System and Level of Accessibility
The GBTD operates a medium-sized urban/suburban fixed route system. Thirty-seven new, fully accessible buses were introduced in October 1992. Four routes are 100% lift-equipped, the others alternate between lift-equipped and non lift-equipped buses. Prior to PACT's training program, ridership of people in wheelchairs averaged less than 5 per day. When the new buses were introduced, PACT was under the impression that the number of lift-accessible buses would increase. The fact, however, is that the buses just replaced other, older lift-equipped buses during non-peak hours. During peak hours there are 7 more lift-equipped buses running. PACT and the Elderly and Disabled (E&D) Committee of the GBTD have been advocating for more lift-equipped buses at all times and issuance of new bus schedules to reflect when lift-equipped buses were available. According to GBTD's ADA plan, the system will not be 100% accessible until September, 1996.
The GBTD connects with MTD and the Westport Transit District. Neither system is fully accessible. Service hours are from 5:10 a.m. to 11:33 p.m. depending on the route. The GBTD has no pulse point, however, 12 of the 17 routes pass through the downtown bus terminal. The other 5 routes pass close by. The GBTD employs 80 bus drivers, 30 yard workers and mechanics, and 20 office personnel.
HSTC operates paratransit services for the GBTD. They have 26 vans, all lift-equipped. Service hours are from 5:30 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. An average of 450 people ride a day with a total of 2700 subscribers.
The MTD operates a small system with 4 fixed route buses, which are not lift-equipped and 4 fully-accessible paratransit vehicles. They anticipate the arrival of new fully accessible buses in February, 1994. They provide 1800 rides a month on paratransit and 1600 a month on fixed route. Service hours are from 6:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. week days; 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. weekends.
Metro North Railroad's only accessible station in the area is Bridgeport. They operate from 4:53 a.m. to 1:29 a.m., seven days a week.
Statement of the Problem
History of the Problem
The issues of transportation accessibility are neither singular nor simple. They include and transcend technological issues. Often, they involve society's response to people with disabilities. They also involve perceptions of consumers themselves.
In spite of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), people with disabilities still face undeniable issues of inaccessibility, misperceptions and blatant biases. The root of inaccessibility is no less than a maze of problematic barriers including fear, perceived limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, inaccessible informational aids, lack of communication and knowledge, alienation and irrational and misguided assumptions.
Two and a half years ago the Kennedy Center surveyed numerous transit and consumer groups, as well as over 35 individuals with disabilities. The results of the survey were ominous and surprising. In spite of a major increase in funding for transportation services in the greater Bridgeport area, accessibility for people with disabilities was riddled with barriers. What did we hear?
In meetings with transit and paratransit providers, issues surrounding fear for one's personal safety, overuse of the paratransit system, curbside problems with rear lifts, inter-town barriers and poor driver training were cited as the most critical problems facing Bridgeport transit systems.
In speaking with individuals with a disability who utilize specifically the paratransit service, the lack of sensitivity on the part of transit drivers and administration, issues around delayed pick-ups, the need to call in every time a ride is needed, and the lack of week night and extensive weekend service were named as primary concerns and frustrations.
Finally, human service providers who specifically work as mobility trainers with people with cognitive disabilities indicated a gap in adaptations and inadequate sensitivity and awareness on the part of the transit system provider. Though many of their consumers held jobs in the community, the transit system was often not a viable choice. Issues around lack of night and weekend service, bus schedules too complicated to understand, and poor access to outlying areas were also major issues or concerns.
Have strides been made in increasing accessibility for people with disabilities, eliminating perceived barriers and reducing stigmatism? Hopefully transit users and people with disabilities would answer in the affirmative. Yet as PACT approached the last days of a 21/2 year project, certain barriers remained evident - in some cases more subtle, but no less disturbing than those identified and addressed.
Problems included:
Activities Undertaken and Completed
Goal 1: Identification of family members who had resisted travel training for their relative with a disability was the first activity undertaken. This was accomplished by checking PACT's Phase I records for family/guardian resistance. Others were recruited based on recommendations of Kennedy Center staff. Twenty-six families of consumers who PACT thought capable of riding a bus were put on the initial list.
A subcommittee was formed to develop strategies and plans to approach and educate these family members. The subcommittee consisted of: 2 parents of Kennedy Center consumers who had been trained by PACT, (1 parent was also the chairperson of the Kennedy Center Board of Directors), a family advocate from DMR and PACT staff. Discussion centered on the difficulty of "letting go" and the considerable fears that parents have for their children, especially in a city viewed as dangerous and crime-ridden as Bridgeport. The committee decided to hold a family meeting in February on travel training and bring in a consulting psychologist. This person would serve as a resource and as a safeguard against emotions "getting out of hand." Personal letters were written to invite each family to the meeting. Follow-up phone calls were made. Transportation was offered to each family. Ten of the 26 families committed to attending. Six parents/family members actually attended the meeting.
The meeting's agenda was carefully planned. Questionnaires were designed to examine attitudes and ways to allow travel training to take place (see Appendix A). At the meeting itself, staff described the project's importance, history and procedures for travel training and street safety procedures. The parents who were subcommittee members shared their personal experiences of having an adult child travel trained.
The format of the meeting succeeded. Staff presentations went well and the parent testimonials were moving and eloquent. The parents were frank and forthright. Each, for different reasons, had grave doubts about their child's ability to travel independently. One parent felt the risks were too great and independent travel, no matter the benefits, made her child too vulnerable. PACT staff asked the parents to meet, again, individually with us and take a ride on the bus their child would take to work and home. At the meeting, all agreed to try.
The subcommittee decided to hold another family meeting in April to draw more people. The attendance pattern was similar. Eleven families responded affirmatively but only five came. The format of the meeting was the same as the first. As was the case in the first meeting, family members were impressed by the PACT program, especially in terms of its individualized program, the natural helping network and its concern for personal safety. The brother of one consumer said, "I was not expecting to support this program at all, but after tonight, I am convinced that my sister could be travel trained.
One parent who had not been on bus for 50 years rode the bus with PACT. PACT's coordinator took him on the exact route, at the exact time his son would travel, pointing out other consumers who were very capable travelers and could be natural helpers to his son. He was very impressed by the bus interior, the courteousness of the driver but he remained too concerned about his son's safety to let him travel independently.
Goal 2: Designing the training module was the first step for this goal. Design parameters included: a two-hour time frame, a classroom and a bus riding component, an overview of PACT's methodology for travel training and an inter-active format with built-in time for questions. Prior to presentation at other facilities, the model was "tested out" at the Kennedy Center in a total of 4 training sessions for 16 staff. Curriculum modifications were made based on staff input.
Training sessions were held at 4 other facilities: BHCC, Twin Towers, STAR and BRS with a total of 34 staff participating. After the sessions, referrals for the program were received from all facilities.
Goal 3: As of August 1, 1993, PACT has received 27 referrals for travel training from people who use wheelchairs and has accepted 22 into the program. Seventeen people have completed training. Most of the referrals were a result of PACT's training sessions. This spring, however, PACT sought referrals from the Bridgeport Board of Education in order to attract a more diverse training sample. Two referrals were received and both training sessions were completed. In June, PACT hired a peer trainer who spoke Spanish to help with the volume of people awaiting training and people who did not speak English.
At BHCC, PACT arranged for GBTD to bring a lift-equipped bus to the facility so potential trainees could experience the lifts, securements and ride around the complex. Having a bus brought to the site made people less reluctant to try it out. They also had a more positive response when they saw others doing it. This trial test also showed that many people had potential barriers to success based on physical stamina and/or difficulty in maneuvering the wheelchair backwards.
During the year, PACT recorded information on wheelchair securements, bus stop accessibility, drivers' attitudes and knowledge of lift usage and securement devices. Additionally, PACT began to monitor stop announcements because they were seldom, if ever, being made. When any problems occurred in these areas, PACT notified GBTD.
PACT found that a major problem was that the shoulder/lap seat belts on the new buses were too short to be fastened around many of the available wheelchairs used by riders. This, of course, put the consumer and even potentially the other passengers in danger. PACT informed the transit district of this problem, called the manufacturer of the securement device and after extensive lobbying got them to agree to retrofit the seat belts at no cost to the transit district. When they arrived, they found that the belts only needed readjusting.
PACT took a pro-active role in getting stop announcements made. Every time staff rode a bus where the operator failed to announce stops, PACT reported that infraction to the GBTD and testified publicly about it 3 times. Eventually, a strict disciplinary policy was instituted and improvement has been noted.
Goal 4: Two driver/rider forums were held on June 28, 1993 at Fairfield University. One forum dealt with the issues of fixed routefixed route transportation, the other paratransit. Eight panelists evenly divided between passengers and drivers, from 5 different transit districts, discussed current problems and training and sensitivity needs on fixed routefixed route buses. The range of disability for the passengers included: visual impairments, psychiatric problems, mental retardation and mobility limitations necessitating the use of a wheelchair. The paratransit group had 7 panelists, representing 3 transit districts. The paratransit users had visual impairments and mobility problems.
The same psychologist who had worked with PACT on the family meetings facilitated the sessions. He is on the Fairfield University Special Education and Rehabilitation faculty and graciously donated his time and expertise. PACT also arranged for donated space and personnel at the cable television studio at Fairfield University. This allowed PACT to exceed initial goal expectations by producing a training/sensitivity video along with the listings of topics for further training sessions.
Goal 5: PACT worked in tandem with the GBTD to develop a promotional campaign to increase public awareness of the accessibility of fixed route buses for people with disabilities, including people using wheelchairs. Prior to this campaign, the only publicity about GBTD's receipt of new lift-equipped buses was a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the bus terminal when they first arrived in September.
Numerous meetings were held between GBTD and PACT to reach agreements on the campaign. May was selected as "Transit is for Everyone" month. A sign was produced with a group of bus travelers waiting at the bus terminal. Two of the waiting passengers were former PACT trainees; one uses a wheelchair, the other a cane. This sign was hung on the curb side of the buses. The sign for the inside of the buses featured 2 people with disabilities. The picture showed the gentleman in the wheelchair using a lift and the woman with the visual impairment seated on the bus. The slogan used was "Transit Opens Doors to New Beginnings. " These signs were displayed extensively throughout the system. Additionally, PACT sought and secured donated billboard space in a prominent downtown Bridgeport location for the same sign that appeared on the outside of the buses.
To complement the promotional campaign, publicity was arranged and the chief officials in each town served by the GBTD were contacted to issue proclamations stating that May was "Transit Accessibility" month.
Goal 6: An Inter-town Linkage Subcommittee was formed consisting of representatives from PACT, MTD, GBTD and HSTC. The first meeting was held in November where the following ideas were discussed: schedule alterations allowing for timely bus connections between GBTD and MTD; setting up a radio channel to allow for communication between the connecting Milford and Bridgeport buses; and paratransit pick-ups at the connecting fixed route stop as a "feeder" system so that riders using wheelchairs can be accommodated and people can travel to destinations off the fixed route. Also reviewed was a better paratransit link between the two districts.
At subsequent meetings some of the initial ideas were revised. The committee's first choice was to develop inter-town paratransit service between the GBTD's service area and the MTD's service area. For a fee of $2.20, instead of the regular fee of $.50, paratransit users would be able to cross town lines for the first time. This service would correspond to the promotion campaign and be tested for the month of May.
The other initiative agreed to was an outgrowth of PACT's Phase I "feeder" trial. Last year PACT offered paratransit users in the town of Trumbull a free Saturday "feeder" connection from paratransit to fixed route. This project conceptually was successful but didn't catch on in terms of ridership. This year, the project was expanded by offering free bus coupons to all paratransit users, in all towns served by the GBTD, on any day of the week, at any time. Additionally, PACT's travel training services were available to any person requesting it. GBTD issued a special newsletter in April, 1993 to inform paratransit riders of this program. It was initially intended to run only in May but since it was just "catching on," it was extended through June. The program was going so well with a decrease in paratransit riders that the Board of the GBTD voted to extend the free pass policy indefinitely (See Appendix B).
Goal 7: The "springboard" for discussion of modifying HART's system-wide map was PACT's "Modification's Menu" designed during Phase I of Project ACTION. Based on these discussions, HART drew up a list of constants and desired outcomes for their map design. These criteria served as a guide in the map decision-making process.
In order to conduct the focus group on the professional level that both HART and PACT desired, PACT undertook a search for a skilled professional to direct the research and lead the consumer focus groups. A marketing professor from Fairfield University was hired. Four meetings were held to design instruments for screening perspective focus group members and designing the format of the group and producing a discussion guide. PACT also undertook the logistical arrangements, such as, securing a room with a one-way mirror and taping capacity, refreshments, transportation, etc. Space was donated by Western Connecticut State University.
Screening potential focus group members was extremely time consuming with a total of 40 people being screened from 3 senior centers and 2 rehabilitation centers in HART's service area. Focus group referrals were also received from HART's E&D Committee members. A total of 16 people were selected to participate.
The new map was issued on August 1, 1993. Only a small printing was done so that it could be re-tested by HART passengers for any needed changes before going into a larger run (see Appendix C).
Replicable Program Models/Techniques
The family meeting model to educate family members of people with disabilities about travel training is one that is universally applicable. While designed initially for people who are resisting travel training for their relative, it can also be used for general informational and educational purposes. 'The format PACT used includedstaff presentation on the benefits of travel training, the methodology for travel training, and street safety as well as parent testimonials. PACT's booklet, A Family Guide to Travel Training, is a good generic supplement to informational meetings, written in user friendly and universal terms.
Taking family members on the bus route that their relative would travel is a time-consuming but generally positive technique. Introductions to other people who have had relatives go through travel training, as well as people who have been travel trained and now ride the bus independently is another good technique for family members reluctant about the process. Some family members are most reassured when they know their relative will have a support system while traveling. Open communication with a trainee's family is a vital component and a necessary corollary to travel training.
Negative attitudes and misperceptions on the part of people who work with people with disabilities is not an isolated phenomenon. It crosses agency lines as well as geographic boundaries. PACT's curriculum can be used to instruct workers on the methodology by which travel training is taught and the requisite skills that need to be mastered. First-hand experience on the bus is an important part of this curriculum. Some adaptations may be necessary based on the workers' familiarity and experience with public transit and the transit system itself.
PACT's Travel Training Guide was produced with replication in mind. The new edition contains enlarged sections on training people who use wheelchairs, establishing feeders, rail travel and street safety.
The model for bringing together transit and paratransit drivers and passengers with disabilities to understand each other's concerns and perceptions and establish priorities can be viewed both as a training mechanism and a planning tool for future training. It is one that is easily replicable and lends itself to the partnership of the transit and disability communities. Transit districts may choose to use the video produced as a "springboard" for their own training discussions or they may select to use the training suggestions that came out of the driver/rider forum for their own training sessions.
The elements of the month long "Transit is for Everyone" campaign can be replicated with appropriate adaptations by any transit district. The multi-pronged attack included a general promotion campaign on transit accessibility, as well as specific enticements for paratransit riders to try-out the fixed route. These easily replicated enticements to paratransit users included free travel training and free passes on regular buses.
Lastly, the format adopted to develop a "user friendly" system-wide map can be replicated for any size or type of transit system interested in developing user-sensitive transit information tools. This was done through the formation and input of consumer groups to define elements which would enhance the readability and navigational accuracy of the system-wide map.
Products
Analysis of Achievement of Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: As expected, reaching parents, family members and guardians and "opening their minds" to travel training is a complex and difficult task. There is no one approach and certainly no magic formula. Working with these families also requires time, patience and a great deal of perseverance.
The format PACT has developed for group meetings works well. The combination of staff presentations, parent testimonials and open discussion has been effective. PACT also displays pictures of past trainees at these meetings. This enables the families to see the range of people who have been part of the program and sends the message that "if that consumer can use the bus, maybe my own family member can, too."
People left the meeting feeling and publicly stating that PACT provides an excellent program. The "catch" has been that participants feel that it is good for other people, but they have a whole range of reasons why it would not be appropriate for their child or family member. The biggest deterrent for families is safety and the perceived dangers of travel in Bridgeport. The second biggest reason for not allowing travel is that they feel the trainee would be too vulnerable and easily taken advantage of or misled. Surprisingly, the consumer's desire to be travel trained does not seem to impact greatly on the family's decision to permit travel training. Families will acknowledge the desire to both PACT and to the consumer but then come up with reasons why bus travel would be unrealistic.
PACT has selected a very "hard core" group of family members who have resisted the notion of travel training for many years. They as well tend to be parents who have actively sought to maintain a workshop and segregated environment for their children. Many of these families approach the concept of independence with feelings of excessive risk-taking and rejection.
Thus far, PACT has been unsuccessful in convincing even one family member to allow travel training for his/her relative to occur. However, PACT still feels the methodology developed for reaching reluctant family members is valuable and replicable. PACT still feels that it will have a good chance of working with parents and family members who might not be quite so rigid. Also, the Family Guide to Travel Training will be able to address the major concerns and issues that families harbor about travel training. As well, major emphasis in the rehabilitation field especially with persons with cognitive and psychiatric disabilities towards total inclusion into the community work force will reframe acceptable patterns of service delivery systems and societal norms.
Goal 2: During Project ACTION's Phase I, PACT found that direct care workers frequently did not support or may even have undermined travel training. PACT's hypothesis was that if the workers understood the "ins and outs" of travel training, they would be more apt to provide referrals and support trainees. To accomplish this goal, PACT designed a curriculum and presented it to staff at different sites where people with disabilities live or congregate. Wherever possible, management staff members were also included so that they, too, could give their endorsement. As expected, most staff had little personal exposure to bus travel and harbored misconceptions about its difficulty and safety. PACT showed these staff members how careful, thorough and individualized the training is and also took them for an actual bus ride to demonstrate teaching techniques. It was riding the bus that really won staff over. They enjoyed the experience and found it to be much more pleasurable and safer than expected.
The investment of time spent training staff who work with potential travel trainees has had substantial dividends. PACT has received many more referrals from staff who now understand PACT's program. Also, these same people who previously may have had negative feelings about travel training, now have become valuable "natural helpers" for people learning to access fixed route service.
Goal 3: Training for people using wheelchairs was slower than expected. This is partially due to the more frail and medically involved population referred to PACT. The majority of these consumers wanted to learn to travel independently to meet social and recreational needs. Training was frequently not done on a daily basis, as it had been for people trained for vocational reasons and the whole process became extended and slower. Many more people in wheelchairs than other potential travel trainees were not able to pass PACT's assessment. The primary reasons for this were lack of stamina and the need for personal assistance.
Very few paratransit subscribers using wheelchairs were enticed by the offer of travel training and free fixed route bus coupons. PACT can speculate that this group felt door-to-door paratransit service was easier, safer and more comfortable and saw few benefits in switching. The State of Connecticut also provides on a one-time basis a lift-equipped vehicle to people requiring them. To these people, using public transportation is not a big need. PACT offered, at early childhood networks and forums, to help travel train families where there was a child with disabilities. While it was always acknowledged that "transportation was a big problem", no one followed up on the offer.
PACT's monitoring of the use of lifts, adherence to the ADA and systematic problems was very successful. Over the course of the year's training, drivers became much more well versed in lift operation and there were fewer technical problems.(This probably was a result of no longer putting buses with malfunctioning lifts on the road.) Reporting drivers who did not announce stops seemed to reduce than practice, although there is still more work to do. The success in advocating to have the seat belts changed was gratifying in terms of increasing the safety and comfort of a person using the securements. Lastly, PACT was able to make some new changes to last year's Travel Training Guide, which will be useful to other travel training programs.
Goal 4: This goal exceeded expectations both in terms of the participation and the end product. The decision to enlarge the group to include representation from 5 transit districts was advantageous. It gave drivers and riders from different areas a chance to meet each other and exchange ideas. Regional representation also made discussion issues more global and varied.
While PACT's original intent was not to make a training tape, securing donated services (estimated at approximately $2400) of the media center at Fairfield University to film the dialogue was an added bonus. All the transit districts who participated in the forum, plan to use the tape for training purposes.
PACT and all participants felt that the process leading up to the dialogue as well as the actual event was a positive and enlightening experience. Important issues were raised. So much of the dialogue "boiled down" to the need to bridge the communication gap between these groups. Another major theme that emerged was that accessibility for people with disabilities was a societal issue - it involved government and other institutions at all levels and all people.
Goal 5: Initially the promotion campaign was to focus on driver/rider partnerships in promoting positive accessible ridership on fixed route bus service. PACT's rationale for this promotional theme was in tandem with the natural helping network concept since bus drivers are one of the best natural supports for travelers with a disability. However, in the planning stages of the campaign, the GBTD felt uncomfortable singling out drivers and preferred a different approach. Both PACT and the GBTD felt that the message communicated with the "Transit is for Everyone" was a good way to promote usage and show wheelchair accessibility. Developing simultaneous outside bus signs, inside bus signs and billboard signs ensured widespread community notice. Running the promotion campaign to coincide with the initiatives of inter-town paratransit travel, free fixed route coupons and travel training worked well. It became a highly visible and coordinated package.
Goal 6: The original focus of this goal was on inter-town travel between the MTD and the GBTD. This was a need repeatedly documented by consumer groups in both communities. Furthermore, it fit into each transit district's ADA paratransit plan. The initial ideas to strengthen the fixed route transfer link were put "on hold" by the transit districts in favor of working on a coordinated inter-town paratransit service. The other initiative that emerged was offering GBTD paratransit subscribers free fixed route travel passes for a month's trial.
Conceptually the paratransit inter-town service was well designed. Besides the increased fare, there were no other operational changes for the passenger. It also gave the two transit districts an opportunity to work together to coordinate their systems. The publicity for the service covered all the necessary bases. Letters about the new service went to all paratransit subscribers and signs were posted on all paratransit vehicles. However, in May when the service went into effect, only 5 individuals used it. We can only speculate that the need to cross town lines was not as great as previously expressed. However, people liked to know the service existed even if they were not going to use it. The other hypothesis is that the fare was too prohibitive.
The free fixed route coupons for paratransit subscribers and the offer of PACT's travel training services was extremely successful. Passengers were slow to use the service in May. On PACT's urging the GBTD agreed to extend the initiative for another month. In June it "caught on" with 880 coupon passes requested and 10 requests for travel training (unfortunately, not one of whom used a wheelchair). Additionally, HSTC service requests went down for the first time in 10 months. The idea to extend this service indefinitely was brought to GBTD's board of directors' June meeting and it passed. The cost savings for this service will be even more significant when HSTC's fares are increased to $1.00.
Goal 7: This goal gave PACT a good opportunity to apply Phase I's "Modifications Menu" and to test its assumptions and guidelines. It also allowed PACT to assemble and analyze the effectiveness of a consumer focus group on a transit information tool. Both outcomes were positive.
Lessons Learned
Successful activities, techniques, products
The Family Guide to Travel Training is a unique product, with wide-spread applicability for all families considering travel training for their relatives. It is informative, easy to read, contains helpful suggestions and answers many questions about travel trainers and travel training.
The "pay off" in terms of referrals and support of educating and gaining the confidence of staff who work with people with disabilities about travel training programs is well worth all travel training programs' investment of time and energy. At least in areas where staff do not commonly use public transportation, taking staff on an actual bus ride is a very convincing part of the program.
Creating dialogues with transit drivers (and other personnel as well) and passengers with disabilities through such activities as PACT's driver/rider forum is an excellent vehicle to help bridge the communication gap. More opportunities need to take place for this type of activity to occur.
Providing the incentive to get people off paratransit service through the provision of free fixed route bus coupons was a highly successful technique. Offering free travel training was a nice component of this incentive. However, travel training alone would never have gotten such a positive response. As ADA paratransit eligibility requirements become more rigorously enforced, helping "wean" people from paratransit and introducing fixed route services takes on increasing importance.
The technique of using consumer focus groups to provide input to transit information tools is worthwhile for transit districts. All users, including people with disabilities, can supply new perspectives and valuable insights into designing materials with a high degree of "user friendliness." This technique also establishes another line of communication and partnership between the transit community and people with disabilities.
Unsuccessful activities, techniques, products
PACT was not at all successful in convincing the "hard core" group of family members to let their relatives be travel trained. The fears in this group were too entrenched and the dependency model too solidified for PACT to have made any real impact. For purposes of the demonstration project, the group did contribute to the ideas for the format and content of the Family Guide to Travel Training. Also, the individual techniques, such as riding the bus route the consumer would use, talking to family members who have had an adult child travel trained, etc. are valid. These techniques have been used with other parents quite successfully.
The MTD and GBTD paratransit connection in terms of ridership did not succeed. The low response leads one to believe that either the service, although requested, is not needed or that the price is too prohibitive to encourage usage. (Neither GBTD nor MTD received any complaints about the cost.) More attention needs to be paid to improving the ease and accessibility of fixed route transfers between the two districts.
While the promotion campaign was not an unsuccessful activity in terms of widespread community exposure, certain elements in the planning stages of the campaign were difficult. PACT was highly motivated to launch this campaign but the same level of commitment didn't exist with certain staff at the GBTD. Since PACT had no budget line for this goal, it had to defer to GBTD for many of the design decisions based on financial implications. Lastly, the standards of excellence differed between these GBTD staff and PACT staff. The campaign ultimately benefited the GBTD but GBTD staff did not always see it that way.
Recommendations
The "watchdog" monitoring component of travel training programs should continue to be an integral aspect of travel training. Travel training programs are in a unique position for this task and can ensure that transit systems meet both the "spirit" and the "letter" of the ADA. This does not have to be an adversarial role but one that can be accomplished in cooperation with the transit district and other consumer groups.
More facilitated travel arrangements need to be put in place for fixed route travelers with disabilities. Many of the people using wheelchairs that PACT could not accept into the travel training program, could have succeeded if they could have traveled with someone to provide supports. A system similar to having a free personal care attendant on paratransit could be instituted on fixed route with cost savings being substantial.
Increasing awareness and education on independent travel for people with disabilities for family members is an extremely important activity. However, it should start in a child's early years both in terms of education of the parents and preparation of the child and family. Most parents can begin to think that their child will grow up to be an independent traveler. In terms of education on travel training for family members of adult children, information can be presented by travel training programs in general forums, not ones only designed for family members who have reservations about travel training.
Promotion and marketing a transit system's accessibility for people with disabilities needs an on-going plan and commitment. One-time campaigns can be sponsored but long term impact will be realized through continuous efforts. External stimuli, such as, free bus passes, fare hikes and ineligibility for paratransit, greatly increase travel training referrals and fixed route usage. Both transit districts and travel training programs need to continually examine ways to create incentives for people who are able to learn how to use fixed route buses.
Evaluation
Formal Evaluation Techniques
The development of the Family Guide to Travel Training and the Curriculum to Introduce Travel Training to Staff who work with People with Disabilities were based on the assessments of individuals participating in the program and the review of the pertinent subcommittees of PACT's Steering Committee. As previously incorporated into the Travel Training Guide, the on-going daily input of consumers, natural helpers, the mobility trainer and peer consultants were the basis for evaluating training methodology. Pre and post testing measured the knowledge base and attitudinal changes of family members who participated in the family meetings and staff who participated in the travel training workshops. With the family group post questionnaire, responses were very positive regarding the information gained. Almost unanimously parents responded to being ready to explore next steps. However, the responses given immediately after these sessions did not correlate with family members' future actions and resistance to travel training persisted.
With staff members, it was a different scenario. Their post questionnaire responses in regard to referring people to travel training corresponded with their future actions. BHCC referred 18 people, Twin Towers referred 4 out of the 9 people in their residence who use wheelchairs, STAR referred 1 person for inter-modal training and also asked PACT to address Connecticut's Down Syndrome Congress in October and BRS allotted funds in order to use the services of PACT for travel training consumers that they serve.
The quantitative measure of travel training 25 people who use wheelchairs was not reached. Instead 17 trainees completed the process. Numbers fell somewhat short because PACT worked with a more frail and medically involved population who did not choose to train on a regular basis and lacked desire to train during several winter months. Also, several people who used wheelchairs who were referred to PACT were not able to go through the process mostly for reasons of physical stamina. PACT found that it generally took longer to train someone who used a wheelchair.
The advocacy techniques utilized with drivers making stop announcements and having wheelchair seat belts modified can be evaluated by their successful outcomes.
We arrived at two different outcomes for the paratransit inter-town linkage and the free-fixed route coupon program for paratransit users. The direct paratransit connecting trip was only used 5 times in one month and did not generate much interest. On the other hand, the high and ever-growing numbers of paratransit subscribers using free fixed route coupons testifies to the program's success. Furthermore, the reduction in the number of HSTC trip requests for the first time in 10 months illustrates the effect of the free pass program.
Consumer evaluation through focus groups provided the basis for changing significant features of HART's map. With the first edition of the new map complete, questionnaires will be forthcoming to see how functional and understandable it is when used by people with disabilities and other passengers.
Evaluation of project success was also incorporated into the Kennedy Center's program evaluation system. This system, designed to meet Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) accreditation standards, provides a monthly review of program outcomes.
Informal Feedback
Feedback from drivers and riders who participated in the dialogues measured their satisfaction with the process and their increased understanding and sensitivity to the issues of each group. They came away feeling that there was more "mutuality" than previously expected. The transit drivers especially stated that they needed opportunities to "get to know" each other and talk "face to face. " Many transit providers who watched the dialogue being filmed felt that the dialogue was highly constructive for training purposes and the tape would be an excellent training tool. Even the Fairfield University cameramen commented how they, the general public, had never thought about the accessibility and sensitivity issues discussed in the tape and that they had their consciousness raised.
The impact of the promotion campaign is hard to measure in isolation. Given the financial restraints, the final product was satisfactory. The community's widespread exposure to the signs and the billboard certainly drew attention to the fact that people with disabilities can use public transit like everyone else.
Year one for PACT allowed us to establish ourselves in the greater Bridgeport community as a coalition builder, a program innovator and an outspoken advocate for accessible transportation. During year two, progress, innovation and collaborative success continued on a wider scale, albeit with more difficult issues. PACT dealt with and tried to tackle more entrenched societal barriers toward independence and accessibility. Through a multi-pronged and multi-layered approach, PACT worked to dispel the negative attitudes, the dangerous stereotypes, the faulty assumptions and the "narrow mindedness" of people who influence and impact the potential for independent travel of people with disabilities. These people include family members, staff who work with people with disabilities, transit workers and other personnel as well as the general community. It also involves consumers taking the responsibility to become more empowered and acknowledging themselves as agents of systematic change.
As it did in year one, a strong and involved Steering Committee guided the project. This broadly representative group provided both supports and challenges to each other and PACT throughout year two. While our project year may be "up", the Steering Committee certainly doesn't see its work as finished. PACT feels that this group will continue to come together to "put" new agenda items on the table and to continue to seek solutions for innovative and creative change.
In many ways, PACT sees advocacy as being the hallmark of the program. PACT has used its unique position as a travel training program to act as a "watchdog" and monitor the implementation of the regulations of the ADA. While we have had the satisfaction of some immediate changes, PACT also knows that change doesn't occur overnight and sometimes compromise is the best temporary, if not permanent solution. On some issues PACT has been aligned with the transit district and on others in an adversarial role. With contacts now state-wide, PACT sees itself expanding its advocacy role.
Lastly, PACT sees taking the simple slogan "Transit is for Everyone" into the hearts and minds of society as a whole. More and more public education and consciousness building needs to be done so that this slogan becomes a truism.
The Role of Market Research in
Developing System Map Design
Housatonic Area Regional Transit
Introduction
The One Rule of map design planning: The map is designed to make a passenger's task of finding his way around via the transit system as effortless as possible.
But when we looked at our system map from a customer's perspective, it became very obvious we were not providing our passengers and potential passengers the type of information they needed in a format that they could easily understand and interpret. When we took on the perspective of a person with a cognitive, physical or visual disability, we were troubled by the confusing information that we were providing. Later, our research would confirm this theory.
HART has prided itself on being a forerunner in marketing communications, but had let itself slip in the presentation of its most important communication piece - the System Map. Today at HART and at transit districts across the country, more attention is being paid to the presentation of transit materials so that the communication aids can benefit EVERY person who may have a need to use our transportation services. In the research and preparation stages of the development of our new system map, we placed emphasis on benefiting people with disabilities, but the real focus was to develop an information piece that would be attractive and easy to use for each and every member of the community without regard to their abilities.
Before we could develop a system map that would serve the needs off all people who might have a need to use it, we first had to learn exactly what it was that our customers wanted. What information do they need? What should be left out? What makes a system map easy to understand? Pretending to be a customer analyzing every detail of the system map would just not be good enough. We needed solid research and data.
In a cooperative effort with the Kennedy Center we developed a plan for conducting empirical research and gathering secondary data to define the criteria that the customer/passenger needs in a system map. The critical design elements were then conceptualized into the graphic and textual elements of a new system map.
I. Research
Empirical Research
We used two methods of empirical research: we derived data directly from experimental observation and also developed ideas guided by practical experience in the transit industry and with working with people with various types of disabilities.
A. Research derived from observation
By using the focus group technique of gathering direct consumer opinions, attitudes and preferences, we were able to determine first-hand information from several market groups. Senior citizens and people with various types of disabilities were the two market segments we studied most closely.
Two separate focus group sessions were set up, one for each market segment described above. Detailed focus group modules were developed with a professional market researcher specializing in focus group methods. After a brief introduction the researcher led focus group members at each session through a discussion of physical characteristics of the current (old) HART system map and discussion of the characteristics of several prototype or concept system maps.
The focus group leader conducted each session in a clinical observation room behind a one-way mirror that allowed members of the Kennedy Center and HART staffs to discretely analyze the responses of group members.
Each focus group yielded many significant ideas regarding bus service and public transportation. We gathered fewer comments on the characteristics of the system map than expected.
Highlights of Focus Group Session
B. Navigational
Allow passengers to accurately interpret transit routes, hours of service, and other basic information about the transit system.
II Target Audiences
Primary New riders
Secondary Current riders
New residents to the area
Students (10 - 18 years)
Social service agency councilors
Working commuters
Occasional riders
III Design Criteria
The HART system map should include the following information:
Complete service area
Route connections
Narrative describing each route's highlights
Landmarks/points of interest
How to use the bus
Where to get more HART information
Other information sources
International wheelchair-accessible symbol
Legend
Mileage scale System map "conversion" alternatives for visually impaired people
Policies
Effective date/Revision date
Ample white space/note-taking space
General Street/Highway reference
Downtown area inset:
Production
Durable paper stock with Matte or light gloss finish
Final weight no more than 1 ounce
Preferred size: 17.5 x 24 " or 12 x 18"
Four color process
San Serif type (12 point if possible)
C. Special Design Considerations
(the color of each route on the system map will correspond to the color used for each route on complimentary customer information aids, specifically individual timetables and route maps of each routes' timetable)
D. Distribution
offices
hospitals
libraries
Secondary Research
Through diligent research and from various sources, we have compiled issues and analysis of preparing a system map so that it would make our transportation system attractive and easy to use by any person without regard to physical, cognitive, or other disabilities, familiarity with the geographical area, or experience using public transportation.
The following highlights of our research illustrates many of the concepts used in the system map design.
V. Design Criteria and How Research Aided in its Development
Since our focus group research strengthened our "criteria" without adding too much to breadth of issues, we decided to use our original criteria as the main guide for designing and planning the system map.
While more extensive research would most likely have reaped data with greater accuracy and scope - we did not have the resources to allow us that "luxury."
In summary the design criteria we used in the planning of our new system map is based on a combination of our practical experience and secondary research - although we would have much preferred using more primary research in the system map planning and design process.
FORM SWe are preparing a research project on transportation service in this area. Would you mind answering a few questions for our research? This will take only a few minutes.
|
yes |
no |
|
If yes, which age range fits you:
60 - 65 66 - 70 71 - 75 76 - 80 81 - 85
86 and over |
||
|
|
yes |
no |
|
If yes, when was the last time?
This week Last Week Last Month Last 6 months Last Year More than one year ago |
||
|
|
Yes |
No |
If yes, when was the last time? This week Last Week Last Month Last 6 months
Last Year More than one year ago
|
||
|
4. Would you be willing to spend a few hours with us on Monday, March 29, to discuss topics concerning transportation? (Transportation and lunch will be provided.)
|
||
|
||
|
||
stop here. Thank you very much
|
||
|
5. What is your highest level of education:
|
||
Grade 1-8 Grade 9-12 Some college
College graduate
|
||
|
6. Do you live on a HART bus route? Don't Know
|
Yes |
No |
|
||
|
Work Shopping Social Recreation
Medical Other Business
|
||
|
|
Yes
|
No |
9. When did you start using HART?
|
||
Less than a year ago 1 - 3 years ago 3 - 5 years ago More than 5 years ago Never used HART
|
||
10. How many times will you use HART in a typical week
|
||
None 1 - 2 trips 3 - 5 trips 6 - 10 trips More than 10 trips |
||
11. How many times do you ride the HART bus each month? |
||
12. Have you ever used a HART map to plan your travel?
|
Yes |
No |
13. How important is a map for using the bus system?
|
||
Very important Somewhat important Not important |
||
understanding and using the bus system? |
Yes |
No |
|
|
||
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
|
||
16. How would you rate the SweetHART bus system?
|
||
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
|
||
17. Tell us about yourself.
Name _________________________________________
Address _________________________________________
Town _________________________________________
Phone _________________________________________
|
We will be in touch with you no later than Wednesday, March 24, 1993 to confirm your participation and arrange transportation for you. If you have any questions please call Christina Divigard or Lew May at 744-4070.
FORM D
We are preparing a research project on transportation service in this area. Would you mind answering a few questions for our research? This will take only a few minutes.
|
Yes |
No |
|
If yes, which age range fits you...
18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59
|
||
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
If yes, what is the nature of your disability? Please check the most appropriate choice.
|
||
|
Physical. Please specify type of physical disability:
|
||
|
Neurological. Please specify type of neurological disability:
|
||
|
Visual. Please specify type of visual disability:
|
||
|
Other. Please specify type of disability:
|
||
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
If yes, when was the last time? This Week Last Week Last 6 Months
Last Year Last Month More Than One Year Ago
|
||
|
|
Yes |
No |
If yes, when was the last time?
This Week Last Week Last 6 Months
Last Year Last Month More Than One Year Ago |
||
|
5. Would you be willing to spend a few hours with us on Monday, March 29, in the morning, to discuss topics concerning transportation? (Transportation and refreshments will be provided.)
|
||
|
Yes Please continue
|
||
|
Maybe Please continue
|
||
|
No If you cannot be available on March 29, please stop here. Thank you very much.
|
||
|
6. Please circle your highest level of education:
|
||
|
Grade 1-8 Grade 9-12 Some College
College Grad.
|
||
|
7. Do you live on a HART bus route? Don't Know
|
Yes |
No |
8. To which of the following destinations do you ever have a need to travel by bus?
|
||
|
Work Shopping Social/Recreation
Medical Other
|
||
9. Have you ever used public transportation in another city or town?
|
Yes |
No |
10. When did you start using HART?
|
||
less than a year ago 1-3 years ago 3-5 years ago More than 5 years ago Never used HART
|
||
|
||
|
None 1-2 trips 3-5 trips 6-10 trips
More than 10 trips
|
||
12. How many times do you ride the HART bus each month?
|
||
|
13. Have you ever used a HART map to plan your travel?
|
Yes |
No |
14. How important is a map for using the bus system? Very important Somewhat important Not important
|
||
|
15. Is HART's system map helpful for Not Sure understanding and using the bus system?
|
Yes |
No |
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
|
||
17. How would you rate the SweetHART bus system?
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
|
||
18. Tell us about yourself:
Name
Address
Town
Telephone
|
||
Focus Group Sessions
Module I "Ice Breaking" Exploratory Session. (Experience and feelings.)
Module II Discussion on physical characteristics of the current HART map. Use Modifications Menu and HART Criteria for Communication Aids as guidelines.
Module III Introduce prototype or concept maps to receive feedback on particular characteristics.
Navigational exercises
HART map
Lansing map
Concept Discussion - using Bob's "features" guide and HARTs Design Criteria
Module I Topics for Discussion
Introduction:
HART is Greater Danbury's transportation system some people call the HART system "the city bus". HART buses follow regular routes and are not to be confused with SweetHART, the "dial-a-ride" service.
Do you use HART buses regularly?
Have you ever used the HART bus? Why/Why not?
Have you ever used public transportation in any other area? What was it like?
What are reasons someone would not use HART ...
Routes? Where should HART add or remove bus routes?
Lack of Information? What is the best way to get HART information?
Fares?
What would be the best way to get information about the transit system to you?
Why would someone use HART?Should children feel comfortable using the bus?
Do you think HART provides enough information to children and their families so they can feel comfortable using the bus on their own?
Do YOU feel comfortable using the bus?
How would you find out more information about the HART bus system?
What do you know about HART?
Is HART a business that cheats its customers?
Who "owns" HART? The city? The State? Private individual?
What is the fare on HART?
Do you think the fare is too high? Too low?
Where do HART buses go?
What do you think of HART? What do you think of the services they provide?
How easy or difficult is it to understand how the HART system works?
Who rides the bus?
Why do you use HART to get to work?
Why don't you use HART to get to work?
Module II
MAP SIZE
[] Does the map fold in and out easily?[] When folded, does the map fit into a pocket or pocketbook?
[] When the map is fully open, can a person comfortably hold it?
PRINT TYPE
[] Is it large enough to read?[] Is the type resolution sharp enough?[] Is the color of the print easy to see?[] Is key information distinguished in larger, bolder or different color print?
[] Does the print (size, type and color) remain consistent for the information it relates?
COLOR
[] Is the overall effect of the colors pleasing to look at?
[] How are colors divided?
[] Individual routes?
[] Express routes?
[] Commuter routes?
[] Local routes?
[] Intercity routes, crosstown routes?
[] Other?
[] Do the colors contrast well (e.g., green and red)?
[] Can the variations in color be easily distinguished (eg., purple and red)?
[] Do intersecting crisscrossing colors stay clear?
[] Does color choice correspond to natural habitat (e.g, bodies of water blue; parks/golf courses green)?
[] If shading and gradations are used, are they clear and consistent?
[] Can the map be written on?
SYMBOLS
[] Do symbols represent the key landmarks for the people the maps are targeted to?
[] Is choice of symbols fairly universal?
[] Are symbols labeled on the map?
[] If 3D representations are used, do they look like the building from eye level?
MAP KEY
[] How are bus routes labeled?
[] Do colors on the map key correspond to those on the map?[] Do symbols on the map key correspond to those on the map?
[] How much material is contained in the key?
[] If numbers or letters are used in the key, can they be read easily and located easily on the map?
INSETS
[] Does the inset provide a link with other routes on the map?
[] Is the inset positioned so that it can be easily read in relation to the system?
[] Is the inset on the same side as the map, or do you need to flip it?
[] Does the shape and orientation of the inset correspond to the designation of the inset on the map?
DIRECTIONS
[] Is there a compass rose (North Arrow) on the map?
[] Do routes show direction of travel?
[] Are significant landmarks outside the transit service area shown to help in orientation (e.g, a harbor, a mountain range, or a major monument)?
LANGUAGE
[] Is descriptive information clear and simple?
[] Is a second language being used? If so, is it used consistently throughout the map?
[] Are people with disabilities correctly referred to?
STREETS / NEIGHBORHOODS
[] Do the streets on the map represent the terrain (twists, turns, etc.) of the street?
[] What streets are indicated on the map?
[] Are streets labeled by name?
[] Are sections of the map labeled by neighborhood or area?
TRANSFER POINTS
[] Are transfer points with appropriate buses indicated on the map?
[] Are terminals (with through bus lines) shown on the map?
[] Are routes of trolleys, trains, or other bus companies indicated on the map?
[] Are transfer points with appropriate subway, train or trolley indicators on the map?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION[] Listing of points of interest and buses that go to them.
[] Instructions on how to catch and ride the bus.
[] Fares and fare regulations.
[] Customer service telephone numbers for complaints or questions.
[] Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) phone number.
[] Mileage scale and walking distances.
[] Service hours.
[] Bus rules (on board courtesy).
[] Services for Elderly and Disabled (E&D).
[] Lost and found.
[] Transfers.
[] Facts about the transit system.
[] How to use kneeling features and wheelchair lifts.
[] Dealing with emergencies.[] Time and frequency schedules.[] Designation of park and Tide lots.[] Effective date of map.[] Advertising.
Module III
Introduce concept maps.
Discuss particular characteristics and features
.
III. Design Criteria
A. Content
The Hart system map should include the following information:
Complete service area
Route Connections
Narrative describing each route's highlights
Landmarks/points of interest
How to use the bus
General information about the HART system
Where to get more HART information
International wheelchair-accessible symbol
Legend
Mileage scaleSystem made "conversion" alternatives for visually impaired peoplePolicies
Effective date/Revision date
Ample white space/Note-taking space
General street/Highway reference
Downtown area inset:
B. Production
Durable paper stock with Matte or light gloss finish
Final weight no more than 1 ounce
Preferred size: 17.5 x 24" or 12 x 18"
Four color process
San Serif type (12 point if possible)
Self-mailing
Ability to combine system map and timetable(s) for unified distribution
Easy fold/unfold pattern
Unfolds right-side up
Folded to approximately 4 x 9" to fit in existing display rack
Quantity: 15, 000
Update and reprint: Annually (or as supply/demand balance requires)
C. Special Design Considerations
Should blend with current mix of consumer information aids
'Upscale" appearance to appeal to middle income families, professionals and working commuters
Dynamic and attractive cover design
Easily identified in display rack
Effective use of multiple colors showing each route
(The color of each route on the system may will correspond to the color used for each route on complimentary customer information aids, specially individual timetables and route maps -- of each routes' timetables)
Versatile design for use with other applications: advertisements, posters, presentation slides, reproduction in phone book -- Yellow pages.