New customer survey: what do you want in a bus headway sign?

13-1306_web_headsign_survey_rev_600x200.eng

Metro manages a fleet with 2,228 buses that averages more than one million weekday boardings. Our buses traveled over 70 million miles in 2012!

It is a big job to make sure everyone knows where all of these buses are headed. We could use your help ensuring that we communicate our bus destinations as clearly as possible.

Just click on the link below to take a short survey about bus headsigns. You could be one of five winners of a monthly TAP card! (You will have to fill out contact information to be eligible for the contest.)

Survey Link

Photo: Metro.

Photo: Metro.

11 thoughts on “New customer survey: what do you want in a bus headway sign?

  1. The basic design of Metro’s headsign readings go back to the of the days of SCRTD and even the old LAMTA. Before the electronic signs when we had rollsigns, the route number and the destination were separate signs therefore more than one route number used the same destination. When the first dot signs came around 1980, they were limited to 15 characters. Because of the 3-digit route numbers, Sherman Oaks became SHERMN OAKS. The pic used in this article is the main problem with Metro’s headsigns. They try to use the largest font possible and therefore have to put destinations like Sherman Oaks on two separate lines. It is possible to put two lines of text on these sign readings. Signs can be more descriptive. Metro also needs to eliminate the independence of the route number and destination codes and have one code that is used for both the route number and desitnation. This is how virtually every other transit agency in America does it. This will give Metro the justification for being more flexible on readings. Since “Sherman Oaks” could be a valid destination for the 156, 158, 234, etc. At least now, we can see other information added e.g.
    156 – SHERMAN OAKS / VIA BURBANK BLVD
    158 – SHERMAN OAKS / WOODMAN-VENTURA
    234 – SHERMAN OAKS / SEPULVEDA-VENTURA
    etc.
    Myself, I miss the rollsigns. I think they were more readable than the dot signs.
    Also, the issue of “Not in Service” came back up. I am not sure if Metro buses still do this, but back in the rollsign days since the route number and destinations were no different rollers, a Not in Service sign would have a route number associated with it e.g.
    35 Not in Service
    When the dot-signs first came out, they used the same logic. Therefore with the 15-character limit, we say signs like:
    424 NOT IN
    424 SERVICE
    I have heard that Metro’s electronic signs still do something like this on some buses. Other than for the needs of bus fans like me, I don’t see any modern need for why the route number needs to be on the sign for a deadheading bus. It just needs to be NOT IN SERVICE on one line.
    But yes, let’s make some improvements to the Metro dot signs. On one look at the sign, a customer must be able to distinguish the route and destination of the bus whenever possible.

Comments are closed.