Bus rapid transit identity meets universal design

This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]On: 17 November 2014, At: 20:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Disability & SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdso20

Bus rapid transit identity meetsuniversal designAlex Bitterman a & Daniel Baldwin Hess ba School of Design , Rochester Institute of Technology , Rochester,New York, USAb Department of Urban and Regional Planning , State University ofNew York , Buffalo, New York, USAPublished online: 29 Jul 2008.

To cite this article: Alex Bitterman & Daniel Baldwin Hess (2008) Bus rapid transit identity meetsuniversal design, Disability & Society, 23:5, 445-459, DOI: 10.1080/09687590802177015

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687590802177015

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdso20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09687590802177015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687590802177015

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Disability & SocietyVol. 23, No. 5, August 2008, 445–459

ISSN 0968-7599 print/ISSN 1360-0508 online© 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09687590802177015http://www.informaworld.com

Bus rapid transit identity meets universal design

Alex Bittermana,* and Daniel Baldwin Hessb

aSchool of Design, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York, USA; bDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USATaylor and FrancisCDSO_A_317867.sgm(Received 16 March 2007; final version received 1 October 2007)

10.1080/09687590802177015Disability & Society0968-7599 (print)/1360-0508 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis235000000August 2008Assistant Professor [email protected] As bus rapid transit (BRT) systems continue to become more popular and as capitalexpenditure for such projects continues to grow, careful consideration of BRT identitydesign becomes ever more necessary. Properly considered identity systems can ensureaccessibility to and usability of physical features and can also ensure that BRT systemsare accessible and practical to use. Based on the seven principles of universal design, thisarticle proposes a basic means to evaluate existing and planned BRT identity systems.The article concludes with recommendations for evaluators and guidelines for designersof BRT identity systems that will help to ensure the practical usability of BRT identitysystems by a broad audience of diverse users, regardless of physical, cognitive orsituational ability.

Keywords: bus rapid transit; transit identity programs; transit marketing; accessibility;environmental graphic design; universal design

Introduction

Bus rapid transit (BRT) systems are a significant improvement on traditional bus services,principally by reducing travel time to attract riders. Notable BRT systems in operationinclude Los Angeles, Orlando, Boston, Pittsburgh and North York, with a number ofprojects in the planning and development stages, including Albany, Cleveland, Las Vegasand Phoenix. The US Department of Transportation is actively encouraging cities andtransit systems to pursue BRT rather than expensive fixed rail systems (Hess, Taylor, andYoh 2005).

As BRT continues to grow, in terms of both number of systems and ridership, the needto ensure that new bus services remain usable by all escalates. Information design compo-nents and various graphic components and collateral products that together constitute thebasis of a BRT identity system must not only be barrier free but accessible to all usersregardless of age, physical ability or cognitive ability. Typically these elements are neitherfully accessible nor functionally usable by all segments of the population. Universaldesign is also referred to as ‘design for all’ or ‘inclusive design’. We use the term ‘univer-sal design’ to refer to a mode of design process and evaluation that considers the needsand abilities of a broad group of users and strives to include not exclude (Iwarsson andStahl 2003).

The Federal Transit Administration defines BRT as a mode of public transportation thatcombines the quality of rail transit with the flexibility of bus transit. A Transit CooperativeResearch Program (TCRP) report (TCRP 2003a, 1) defined BRTas:

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:18

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

446 A. Bitterman and D.B. Hess

BRT is a flexible, rubber-tired rapid-transit mode that combines stations, vehicles, services,running ways, and intelligent transportation system (ITS) elements into an integrated systemwith a strong positive identity that evokes a unique image. BRT applications … can be incre-mentally implemented in a variety of environments.

The inclusion of the phrase ‘strong positive image and identity’ underscores the significanceof and the need for a well-conceived, well-perceived and consistently deployed BRT identityprogram (Hess and Bitterman 2008). Similarly, some transit planning policies require allelements of BRT service to follow the principles of universal design. A Winnipeg BRT plan-ning document called for a ‘distinct, progressive identity’ but didn’t mention the degree towhich the identity should adhere to the principles of universal design (City of Winnipeg 2005).

Apart from a distinct identity, the features that typically distinguish BRT systems fromtraditional bus services include: fewer stops, level or zero step passenger boarding that meetsor exceeds Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) recommendations, frequent all dayservices, pre-paid fares and cleaner, more comfortable vehicles, as well as the use of intelligenttransportation systems (ITS) (Carey 2002; McQueen and McQueen 1999). These service char-acteristics are usually highlighted in a variety of marketing materials, such as informationalbrochures and web sites using terminology that typically describe BRT systems as fast andconvenient services that are different from traditional fixed route transit systems. However,unmentioned in the literature are the identity-related components that distinguish BRTsystems from traditional bus services. These perception-making components are as integralto the future success of BRT systems as are the physical components (see Figure 1), yet perhapsbecause of their more ubiquitous nature, identity components remain critically unexamined.Figure 1. BRT Identity includes elements such as wayfinding and system signage, color palate and the aesthetic considerations made for vehicles and shelters. MetroRapid on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles (photo by authors).

Figure 1. BRT Identity includes elements such as wayfinding and system signage, color palate andthe aesthetic considerations made for vehicles and shelters. MetroRapid on Wilshire Boulevard in LosAngeles (photo by authors).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:18

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Disability & Society 447

Purpose

This study examines the notion of BRT identity systems. As noted, identity systems arecritical to the overall appeal of the service (Hess and Bitterman 2008), however, our obser-vations indicate that BRT identity systems are often neither accessible nor universallydesigned. Identity systems are somewhat less tangible than physical components (e.g.vehicles, stations, street furniture) and the ADA offers little clear-cut guidance in terms ofdesign, relative to physical counterparts. We define identity systems to include elementssuch as wayfinding and system signage, color palate and other aesthetic considerationsmade for vehicles, shelters and collateral materials. Often these important components ofBRT identity are considered by transit managers as superfluous or aesthetic and are typi-cally not well considered from an accessibility or design perspective. Instead, suchelements may be treated simply as dutiful dissemination of required information, such asschedules and stop locations. However, the consequences of a barrier-ridden BRT identitysystem is dire: isolation for those with disabilities, stigma or embarrassment for peoplewho have cognitive or situational impairments, misunderstanding of critical informationand the creation of a perception that public transit does not welcome everyone, regardlessof ability.

The design of identity programs for transit services is not a recent development,although the novelty of BRT provides designers with a unique opportunity to ensure thatidentity components are functionally usable by as many people as possible, including thosewith non-visible disabilities that have often been virtually overlooked in ADA consider-ations. Establishing BRT identity programs provides a unique opportunity for designers andplanners to shape the future perception of BRT systems – and public transit in general –through an accessible and usable identity system. That is, a strong consideration of universaldesign of BRT identity is an issue warranting attention now, as transit agencies are launch-ing new identity programs for BRT services and relaunching identity systems for other tran-sit services, including traditional bus services.

We note that designers of identity systems for BRT services should approach thedesign of identity components with as great care as they do physical components – door-ways, stairs, seats, etc. – so that all visual and graphic elements – names, logos, colors, etc.– are usable by all people. BRT identities transcend simple marketing and help to redefinepublic perceptions about surface transport and, more generally, about bus services. BRTidentities can create an emotional connection between riders and the BRT service offered,reinforcing a sense of safety, environmental responsibility, economy and luxury (seeFigure 2).Figure 2. BRT Identity prominently delineates BRT from other transit service. Viva Bus at Finch Station in North York, Ontario (photo by authors).

Bus rapid transit identity in practice

Typically BRT identity is communicated passively through a number of physical compo-nents (TRCP 2003b). In addition to these ‘captive audience’ media, other more ‘active’methods may be used, including brochures, system maps, telephone information systems,Internet web sites, newspapers, radio, television, billboards, direct mail and special events.This constant communication helps, over time, to change perceptions about public transit,encourages ridership and enhances overall perceptions of other (non-BRT) services offeredby a parent transit agency. Because BRT identity components are integral to the success andlong-term public acceptance of BRT services, the design of both the physical componentsand the identity components demand equal attention in terms of planning, developmentalbudget, maintenance and functional usability.

Consider this typical and hypothetical BRT system design brief:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:18

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Vehicles will be compliant with the ADA or DDA. This ensures BRT system vehicles are phys-ically accessible by those using wheeled mobility devices, as well as those with other physicalimpairments. Modern vehicles will feature wide doors, folding seats, and designated wheel-chair securing points, wheelchair lifts, and/or incorporate hydraulic ‘kneeling’ technology.Permanent stations and stops will be ADA/DDA compliant. Vehicles will meet future fuel effi-ciency and emissions guidelines. Information will be conveyed by ITS which will be installedon vehicles and at stations and will also be provided via the Internet, and printed schedules.The new vehicles and stations will be modern and feature bright shades of fuchsia and teal.

Closer inspection of this description of transit service reveals a number of shortcomings notimmediately apparent. First, the ADA accessibility guidelines (ADAAG) are a metricthough which minimum accessibility can be ensured. ADA compliance ensures that thevehicles are accessible but not necessarily usable by those with physical impairments andaccessible (but not necessarily safe for use) by those who use wheeled mobility devices(such as power scooters). Similarly, components that support the BRT identity may beaccessible for some but not usable by others. For designers, planners and evaluators of thehypothetical BRT system the ADAAG may serve as an objective checklist for componentsof a BRT and a BRT identity system, and while the ADA mandates are a step in the rightdirection toward inclusive usability, designers, planners and evaluators must recognizethese as minimum thresholds which result in a minimal degree of accessibility and whichdo not necessarily accommodate an ability-diverse public.

Moreover, unlike physical and environmental components, graphic and informationdesign products that constitute an identity system (see Figure 3) are not clearly covered bythe ADA, and in cases where the ADA does include guidelines the interpretation of suchregulations can be confusing or arbitrary, resulting in a broad variance of compliance. The

Figure 2. BRT Identity prominently delineates BRT from other transit service. Viva Bus at FinchStation in North York, Ontario (photo by authors).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:18

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


ADAAG address some constituent elements of an identity system, such as type size andspacing used for interior signage, although guidelines for exterior signage remain ambigu-ous. Therefore, many designers of BRT identity components are unsure of how the ADAAGapply to non-standard elements or to emerging technologies such as ITS.

Figure 3. Distinctive graphics and signage for Metro Rapid in Los Angeles (photo by authors).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:18

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Figure 3. Distinctive graphics and signage for Metro Rapid in Los Angeles (photo by authors).A recent study by the Southwest Region University Transportation Center (Koppa,Davies, and Rodriguez 1998) identified a number of barriers in public transportationsystems for people with disabilities. Lacking clearer guidelines or legislation, the reportidentified the ADAAG as the de facto and definitive authority. Similarly, an internal reportcirculated between the US Department of Justice and the US Access Board included adebate about whether or not the type of ephemeral elements that compose transit identity(including BRT identity) are covered under the ADA (U.S. Access Board 1999, 15):

in the absence of a specific Federal standard, public entities may also satisfy their obligationby complying with any applicable State or local law that establishes accessibility requirementsfor public rights-of-way that are equivalent to the level of access that would be achieved bycomplying with ADA. (Emphasis added)

The outcome of this uncertainty is that design guidelines address neither the needs of aphysically diverse public nor those of an aging population. This, coupled with the absenceof comprehensive and wide-reaching research on the practical usability of BRT identitysystems, suggests an opportunity for important research. Demand for access to public transitwill continue to grow as the baby boom generation – the largest age cohort in the USA –reaches older age (Rosenbloom 2003; TCRP 2002a, 2002b).

Uncertainty regarding application of the ADAAG should be remedied sooner rather thanlater, to ensure both that identity system components are in fact actually usable and thatsparse transit agency funds are being used for maximum benefit. Unlike the ADAAG,universal design advocates that all modes of design, including graphic, information, indus-trial and systems design, along with architecture, environmental, interior and vehicle design,ensure that the end output – product, place, space or system – can be used regardless of abil-ity and despite physical, emotional, psychological, cognitive, situational or cultural impair-ments (Story 1998). In this regard, and through the guidelines we detail later, we hope toencourage a dialogue and greater awareness.

Identity systems defined

Identity – a concept often associated with branding – is defined as the articulation of a‘distinctiveness’ reinforced by intangible components which help consumers to recall aspecific organization or service (Hess and Bitterman 2008; Baker and Balmer 1997; Melewar2003). Much as a reputation individualizes the traits and characteristics of one particularhuman, an identity program helps to create a distinct system of recognition for an organiza-tion or concept. Increasingly the public subscribes to identities and the lifestyle or ideals theyrepresent (Bierut, Drenttel, and Heller 2002). Fully realized identity programs provide aservice that can influence behavior. ‘Mind the Gap’, ‘Smokey the Bear’ and ‘Just Say NO!’are well-known examples. However, these programs rely largely on graphic communication,which exempts a large segment of the population, chiefly those with visual impairments.

Components of a typical BRT identity system

BRT identity programs comprise both visual and perceptual components. Physical elementssuch as maps, timetables, vehicle aesthetics and web sites convey an ‘image’ and are anintegral constituent of any identity system. Perceptual characteristics can be difficult toisolate, quantify and communicate individually, but are reinforced through physical identitycomponents. In this study we consider: system name, typography and text, color, graphics,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:18

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


images and illustrations, logos, and sounds and/or chimes as identity components whichwork in conjunction with physical components (such as vehicles, shelters and stations) asthe elements which communicate a unified identity to transit users.

Carefully designed BRT identity programs ensure consistent use of identity componentsby defining: specific rules for the use of a color palette, for the use of type, photographicimages and management of the logo. The components of a BRT identity program aredeployed across a broad array of media, and the scale of these media ranges from the verysmall (timetables, web sites and television spots) to the very large (shelters, furniture andkiosks) to large-scale environmental graphic installations (shelter signage and wayfindingindicators). Figure 4 presents identity components and physical features arranged accordingto a continuum of physicality; elements are represented as physical, i.e. having a degree ofpermanence. The opposite end of the spectrum includes perceptual elements, or those witha lesser degree of permanence that change frequently, as routes change or as seasonalchanges occur. The delineation underscores that users are typically more aware of changesto physical elements than to perceptual elements.Figure 4. Continuum of identity and physical elements.Table 1 presents various identity components and notes the relative functional usabilityof each type of component for several population groups of various physical and cognitiveabilities. As indicated, complicated graphics or abstract line art, for example, are typicallychallenging for those with cognitive impairments. Similarly, text that is small or set in a hardto read typeface can present problems for those with even the slightest visual impairment.

Towards universal design of BRT identity systems

The manner by which BRT identity is typically communicated falls short of including allusers. The components of identity systems are in large part communicated through visualmaterials, multimedia-based materials and ITS. As noted, all are systems that are are not

Figure 4. Continuum of identity and physical elements.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:18

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Tabl

e 1.

Fun

ctio

nal

usab

ilit

y of

BR

T i

dent

ity

com

pone

nts.

Phy

sica

l im

pair

men

tsH

eari

ng

impa

irm

ents

Eld

erly

Cog

niti

ve

impa

irm

ents

Tem

pora

ry o

r en

viro

nmen

tal

impa

irm

ents

a

Cul

tura

l un

fam

ilia

rity

/la

ngua

ge b

arri

erV

isua

l im

pair

men

ts

Typ

ogra

phy

and

text

55

32

42

1C

olor

55

21

32

1G

raph

ics,

im

ages

and

ill

ustr

atio

ns5

52

13

21

Log

os5

52

13

21

Sou

ndm

arks

, chi

mes

and

ann

ounc

emen

ts5

12

14

35

Leg

end

1, p

oten

tial

ly v

ery

diffi

cult

2,

pot

enti

ally

dif

ficu

lt3,

pot

enti

ally

som

ewha

t di

fficu

lt

4, p

oten

tial

ly s

ligh

tly d

iffi

cult

5,

not

pot

enti

ally

dif

ficu

lta Fo

r ex

ampl

e w

eath

er-r

elat

ed c

ondi

tion

s, i

njur

y, p

regn

ancy

.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:18

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


wholly accessible to all users. ITS, for example, may improve overall system efficiency, andmay be convenient for users and help to improve the timeliness of public transit, however,it is of little use to those with visual, cultural or situational impairments. For those who eithercannot clearly see, read or understand the language in which ITS data is presented, or thosewho are simply not close enough to read information displays, ITS proves to be neither effi-cient nor convenient and can instead prove to be confusing and frustrating (Walter et al. 2004)(see Figure 5). Similarly, information disseminated via web sites may not be functionally

Figure 5. Although helpful to some users, ITS displays are not usable by those with some cognitiveor visual impairments, those who cannot read the language used or simply on very bright days. BRTinformation kiosk on Washington Street in Boston for Silverline (photo by authors).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:18

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


usable by those with cognitive or visual impairments, those without access to a computer orthose with limited computer skills.Figure 5. Although helpful to some users, ITS displays are not usable by those with some cognitive or visual impairments, those who cannot read the language used or simply on very bright days. BRT information kiosk on Washington Street in Boston for Silverline (photo by authors).Such difficulties are not limited to technology-based systems. Schedules often containdetailed information printed in small type, which proves difficult for those with visualimpairments, older persons or those in a hurry. Signage often features route numbers orother essential information in text sizes which are difficult to read at a distance, provingdifficult not only for those with disabilities, but for all users.

In terms of usability, the design of physical and identity components share an equallyimportant value. Identity components outnumber physical components, although, likelybecause of clearer ADA guidelines and capital costs, physical components often commandmore discussion and attention during the planning, design and evaluation stages. However,identity components can extend past the physical boundaries of the BRT systems to enticenew riders, particularly those with disabilities, and could have a positive impact on theperceptions of unintentionally disenfranchised riders.

How then can designers and evaluators of BRT identity systems ensure that all identitysystem components are functional for all users? Unfortunately, there is no single set ofguidelines for every eventuality and no comprehensive means by which to evaluate everypossible aspect of a planned or existing BRT identity system. While the ADAAG offer someguidance, many practitioners responsible for the development of identity find the guidelinesto be vague, confusing, contradictory and, in some cases, incomplete. Many practitionersrefer to the Manual on uniform traffic control devices (MUTCD) for help with wayfindingand outdoor signage, although because of the limited scope and highly specific targetaudience – motor vehicle operators – the MUTCD is inadequate for use in planning BRTidentity programs for audiences that include those with disabilities (Federal HighwayAdministration 1988).

While it is reasonable to suggest that the design of any system can never be perfect,simple design considerations can ensure that identity components – even in the absence ofstandardized government guidelines – are usable by everyone, regardless of physical, situ-ational or cognitive ability or cultural familiarity. In the USA the accessibility communityhas paid close attention to the launch of new BRT services as a way to improve physicalaccess to public transit for all people (Easter Seals Project ACTION 2005), and manydisability rights advocates are optimistic that BRT provides a fresh opportunity for greaterinclusion.

Seven principles of universal design guide BRT identity system design

Universal design is often confused with accessible design, or adaptive design, both of whichcreate products and environments principally for people with disabilities. The scope ofuniversal design includes those with disabilities, but also encompasses a broad audience ofall types of people, including left-handed people, the elderly and persons of large stature(Danford and Tauke 2001). Additionally, universal design aims to create systems, environ-ments and products that are usable not only by people with a variety of physical abilities,but cognitive, psychological, perceptual, cultural and situational abilities as well.

It is important to note that in some countries accessible design is legally mandated, asis the case with the ADA in the USA, the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) in the UK(Doyle 1997, 1999; Newell 2003), Japan (Sogawa et al. 2002) and, with similar laws,Australia and the European Union (American National Standards Institute 2003), while inother countries accessibility is not legislated for, but is an ideal standard. These variancescreate uncertainty, the result of which is that environments, products and systems may be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:18

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


accessible in one jurisdiction but not another or may meet such a low standard that the envi-ronment, product or system falls short of being practical or usable by a broad population ofdiverse users. Unlike accessible design, universal design aims to exceed the minimum ofaccessibility, mitigate common barriers and advocate for a broader movement towardsintuitive and easy to use functional products, environments and systems.

Guidelines such as the ADAAG are concerned primarily with accessibility, while univer-sal design promotes a careful design methodology that ensures accessibility and usabilityfor everyone. This growing need for greater inclusiveness and accommodation promptedleaders at the Center for Universal Design in Raleigh, North Carolina, to convene a groupof design experts, advocates and practitioners to identify the underlying performancerequirements for universal design. The resulting principles of universal design (Connell et al.1997) have since become the internationally referenced defining points of universal design(see Figure 6). These seven principles are not without critics. Some consider the principlesto be too vague or applicable to only certain design conditions. However, the principles, asshown by their growing international acknowledgment, continue to grow in popularity andare recognized as a defining statement of equality through design for everyone (Danford andTauke 2001).Figure 6. The seven principles of universal design.While these principles are not wholly applicable to every element of BRT identity, theprinciples can provide a basic guide for designers and evaluators of BRT identity systems.Much in the same manner that the principles have been refined for use in the evaluation ofconsumer product or building design, we envision these principles as a basis for evaluationof BRT identity – and, more broadly, transit identity – systems. It is important to note thatwe have not changed the language of the principles in any way, but instead have reconsid-ered the concepts of each principle in the specific context of BRT identity and amplified the

Figure 6. The seven principles of universal design.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:18

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


discussion of each to clearly communicate the situations and elements to which each prin-ciple could be applied.

Principle 1. Equitable use

The design of any identity element should make it equally usable by everyone withoutspecial accommodation or stigma. Ideally the means by which people experience compo-nents of a BRT identity system should be the same (e.g. a centrally located map that istactile as well as visual and audible and presented with information in a variety oflanguages). If identity components cannot be identical, the means provided must be equiv-alent in terms of privacy, security, safety and convenience. Because color can only beperceived through sight, other kinesthetic or textual means may be used to convey percep-tual information that may otherwise be conveyed using color (e.g. vehicles painted redimply speed to the sighted public. These vehicles could be referred to in collateral materialsas ‘Red Rider Busses’, a name that would imply speed equally to the non-sighted public).

Principle 2. Flexibility in use

The design of BRT identity components should allow people to use design features in morethan one prescribed way (e.g. providing a system map that is usable from either a seated orstanding position). Identity system components should accommodate both right- and left-handed use and be adaptable to the individual user’s pace and cognitive abilities. The designof identity system components, such as wayfinding or directional signage, should remainusable even when employed in an unconventional manner.

Principle 3. Simple and intuitive

When necessary, a BRT identity system should make it easy for everyone to understand thepurpose of each physical design feature and how to use it and be intuitively obvious (e.g. asystem logo should be describable in words – ‘a circle with a line under it’) so that it maybe communicated in a variety of formats (including tactile) and understood without specialtools or training.

Principle 4. Perceptible information

A BRT identity system should provide all essential information in a variety of modes (i.e.written, symbolic, tactile, verbal and multilingual) to ensure effective communication withall users regardless of ability. The information provided should be presented with sufficientcontrast to surrounding conditions as to be distinguishable from its context and decipherableacross various modes of presentation – graphic, textual, tactile or otherwise.

Principle 5. Tolerance of error

Ideally the design of a BRT identity system should eliminate, isolate or shield any designfeatures that could prove hazardous or inconvenient to any user (e.g. brightly painted vehi-cles may reflect sunlight, creating a potential hazard for some riders, whereas a vehiclepainted a darker color would minimize reflectance). When potentially dangerous conditionsare unavoidable users should receive copious warnings. The design of an identity system

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:18

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


should anticipate accidental or unintended actions to minimize inconvenience and/or protectusers from possible harm.

Principle 6. Low physical effort

Design of a BRT identity system should employ design features that require little or nophysical exertion to use them (e.g. placing schedules, timetables and other rider informationin easily accessible, easy to reach locations). If a low level of physical force is required, anyuser should be able to engage the feature without assuming an awkward or hazardous bodyposition (e.g. logos and identifying marks such as horizontal stripes placed slightly lowerthan eye level for a person in a standing position and slightly higher than eye level for aperson in a seated position are easily accessible to both).

Principle 7. Size and space for approach and use

The design features of a BRT identity system should provide an adequate amount of spacethat is appropriately arranged to enable anyone to use it (e.g. ensuring that timetables andmaps are large enough to be seen from a distance and large enough to accommodate morethan one user at a time). In addition, navigable spaces should be arranged to provide a clearpath of travel to and from important design features for all users.

Synthesis

The seven principles provide a framework for evaluation, however, full compliance for aBRT identity system remains a challenge. The various modes of representation for a BRTidentity system (visual, aural, tactile and perceptual) are experienced differently by peoplewith various abilities. A person with a severe visual impairment, for example, will beunlikely to experience color, regardless of how carefully it is chosen or deployed. The over-all objective of universal design in terms of BRT identity is not to critique or to homogenizedesign to the point of dissolution. Instead, the objective is two-fold: to guide designers andevaluators of BRT identity systems to consider all users when creating, updating or deploy-ing BRT identity systems and to ensure that BRT identity systems are functionally andequally usable by everyone.

Conclusion

The principles of universal design call upon designers to create good designs that considerthe abilities of all people. Simply put, universal design shifts the responsibility of functionalusability from users to designers and, in the case of BRT identity, to a public transitprovider. As accessibility legislation is updated to better accommodate the changing needsof an aging baby-boom generation, so too will the requirements of transit agencies changeto ensure increasingly greater levels of accessibility, inclusion and accommodation. Ratherthan repeatedly redesigning BRT identity systems, it makes greater practical and economicsense to exceed the minimum levels of accessibility set by current legislation. To fulfill thisimportant and momentous charge universal designers, researchers and transit officials mustquickly act to meet an ambitious agenda. We propose a four tiered approach:

Develop a protocol to evaluate existing and proposed BRT identity systems. Thisevaluation protocol would be an easy to use tool for designers and evaluators to assess the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:18

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


functional usability of BRT identity systems. A comprehensive and well-designed auditinstrument could be completed by those with minimal training, and it could help to prioritizeareas of most significant impact and benefit. An audit instrument could easily be derivedfrom existing post-occupancy evaluation audit instruments and expanded to include univer-sal design both in principle and practice. Such an evaluation mechanism could be used onan ongoing basis to ensure the maximum usability of BRT identity, as the systems will inev-itably change with time and ridership demands.

Identify best practices and design ideals based on current user experiences. Usersare the ultimate arbiters of a designed environment, product or system. Involving users inthe development, testing and evaluation of a BRT identity system will ensure a user-friendlyoutcome and will make a positive contribution to the overall public perception of BRT and,more generally, public transit. Similarly, transit managers and evaluators of BRT identitysystems can identify procedural best practices to ensure that behind the scenes managementof BRT identity systems is handled efficiently and with maximum impact on riders andpotential riders. For example, designers and transit agencies could be encouraged to shareresearch findings and reference designs. Working cooperatively will maximize the benefitfor all and ensure that resources are used most effectively.

A careful examination of user experiences and procedural best practices will helpresearchers to develop guidelines for the successful development of BRT identity systemsthat are sensible, user-friendly, efficient to design and economically sustainable over thelong term. This type of guideline could be used as the basis for a new international standardof future accessibility for universal design legislation.

Research investigating the associations between transit identity systems (and espe-cially changes to and interventions in identity systems) and ridership and revenue outcomeswill help transit managers understand the relationship between expenditures on identitysystems and operations.

AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to thank Marianne Buehler and Sherlea Dony. An earlier version of this researchwas presented at the Second International Conference for Universal Design in October 2006 inKyoto, Japan.

ReferencesAmerican National Standards Institute (ANSI). 2003. Standards on accessible and usable buildings

and facilities, ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003. Washington, DC: ANSI.Baker, M.J., and J.M.T. Balmer. 1997. Visual identity: Trappings or substance? European Journal

of Marketing 31, no. 5/6: 16.Bierut, M., W. Drenttel, and S. Heller. 2002. Looking closer 4: Critical writings on graphic design,

61–3. New York: Allworth Press.Carey, G.N. 2002. Applicability of bus rapid transit to corridors with intermediate levels of transit

demand. Journal of Public Transportation 5, no. 2: 97–114.City of Winnipeg. 2005. Made in Winnipeg: Rapid transit solution final report. Winnipeg, MN: City

of Winnipeg.Connell, B.R., M. Jones, R. Mace, J. Mueller, A. Mullick, E. Ostroff, J. Sanford, E. Steinfeld, M.

Story, and G. Vanderheiden. 1997. The principles of universal design: Version 2.0. Raleigh, NC:The Center for Universal Design.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:18

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Danford, G.S., and B. Tauke (Eds.). 2001. Universal design New York. Buffalo, NY: Center forInclusive Design and Environmental Access.

Doyle, B. 1997. Enabling legislation or dissembling law? The disability discrimination act of 1995.Modern Law Review 60, no. 1: 64–78.

———. 1999. From welfare to rights? Disability and legal change in the United Kingdom in the late1990s. In Disability, diversability and legal change, ed. M. Jones and L.A.B. Marks. TheHague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Easter Seals Project ACTION. 2005. Community members with disabilities participate in designingnew lane transit district vehicles. Easter Seals Project ACTION Update 16, no. 3: 1.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1988. Manual on uniform traffic control devices.Washington, DC: FHWA.

Hess, D., and A. Bitterman. 2008. Bus rapid transit identity: An overview of current “branding”practice. Journal of Public Transportation 11, no. 2: 19–42.

Hess, D.B., B.D. Taylor, and A.C. Yoh. 2005. Light rail lite or cost-effective improvements to busservice? Evaluating the costs of implementing bus rapid transit. Transportation ResearchRecord 1927: 22–30.

Iwarsson, S., and A. Stahl. 2003. Accessibility, usability and universal design—positioning and defi-nition of concepts describing person–environment relationships. Disability and Rehabilitation25, no. 2: 57–66.

Koppa, R., B. Davies, and K. Rodriguez. 1998. Barriers to use of transportation alternatives bypeople with disabilities. College Station, TX: Texas Transportation Institute.

McQueen, B., and J. McQueen. 1999. Intelligent transportation systems architectures. Boston, MA:Artech House.

Melewar, T.C. 2003. Determinants of the corporate identity construct: A review of the literature.Journal of Marketing Communications 9, no. 4: 195–220.

Newell, A.F. 2003. Inclusive design or assistive technology. In Inclusive design—design for thewhole population, ed. J. Clackson, R. Coleman, S. Keates, and C. Lebbon. New York: Springer.

Rosenbloom, S. 2003. The mobility needs of older Americans: Implications for transportation reau-thorization. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Sogawa, D., S. Nitanai, K. Shiokawa, K. Horiguchi, M. Moriyama, Y. Nakada, Y. Ichikawa, K.Adachi, T. Ochiai, and H. Hagino. 2002. Universal design and the workplace: Guidelines onhow universal design contributes to asset value and facility function. Paper presented at theInternational Conference for Universal Design, November 30–December 4, 2002, in Yokohama,Japan.

Story, M.F. 1998. Maximizing usability: The principles of universal design. Assistive Technology10, no. 1: 4–12.

Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). 2002a. Improving public transit options for olderpersons, TCRP report no. 82, vol. 1. Washington, DC: TCRP.

———. 2002b. Improving public transit options for older persons, TCRP report no. 82, vol. 2.Washington, DC: TCRP.

———. 2003a. Bus rapid transit. Vol. 1, Case studies in bus rapid transit, TCRP report no. 90.Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

———. 2003b. Traveler response to transportation system changes. In Transit information andpromotion, TCRP report no. 95, ch. 11. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

U.S. Access Board. 1999. Accessible rights-of-way: Sidewalks, street crossings, other pedestrianfacilities: A design guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Architectural and Transportation BarriersCompliance Board.

Walter, C., R. Althouse, H. Humble, M.J. Leys, and V. Odom. 2004. West Virginia survey of visualhealth: Low vision and barriers to access. Visual Impairment Research 6, no. 1: 53–71.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:18

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Bus rapid transit identity meets universal design