This research collected many data, using various collection techniques, to measure
functional barriers to transit use, by those with a vision impairment, and to
determine if RIAS could mitigate those barriers. Four hypotheses were tested
in multiple ways and the results are briefly summarized here. The efficacy
of these additional environmental cues and their ability to provide increased
access to transit and the urban environment were both strongly supported by these
data.
Hypothesis 1: Experiment data will show that, for those with limited vision,
specific locations and tasks cause difficulty when using transit. The use
of auditory signage will mitigate much of the difficulty. This hypothesis
was tested in Chapter 3 in the following sections.
Section 3.1 : Caltrain Field Test Blind people had slower times and more
errors without RIAS.Limited cues at some locations caused
people to have to ask for help from others when using their regular methods.
Street crossings were much quicker and
made more safely when using RIAS. With the normal techniques, many subjects
started to make unsafe street crossings and a few would not even attempt the crossing.
Limited cues or inconsistent placement
at some locations caused higher travel time penalties than other locations.
Section 3.2 : User Rated Difficulty of Transit Tasks
Transit tasks were rated as having a high
degree of difficulty. After using RIAS, many tasks were rated
as having little or no difficulty.
Section 3.4 : Subject Observations on the Benefits of RIAS
Positive effects were reported when using
RIAS at street crossings, to navigate in terminals, or when making transfers.
Difficulties and negative effects were
implied, when using regular methods.
Section 3.5 : Modeling Impedance of Different Transit
Tasks
Specific tasks and locations such as unmarked
doors, busy streets, and inconsistent locations were associated with large time
penalties. Other tasks and locations such as those
with good cues, walking to a corner, or less busy streets had much smaller time
penalties.
Hypothesis 2: Difficulties of transit tasks will affect travel activity and
behavior, and reduce trips and accessibility. Subjects will estimate they
would make more trips and access more places if RIAS was installed.
This hypothesis was tested in Chapter 4 in the following sections.
Section 4.1 : Travel Confidence and Frequency of Visiting
New Environments
User ratings of their confidence in independent
travel, sense of direction, and in new environments were much higher in the post-test
condition.Users reported they would make more trips
to new places if RIAS was installed.
Section 4.2 : Perceived Travel Behavior while Making Transfers
Two questions were asked about making a 10-mile transit trip that included a transfer
in an unfamiliar area.For a one-time event, 40% using their
regular methods and 97% considering RIAS said they would make the trip independently.For a daily job, 53% using their regular
methods and 100% considering RIAS said they would make the trip independently.
Section 4.3 : Activity Participation, Trip Behavior, and
Travel Times
Actual activity and trip behavior showed
that many people made few trips to participate in outside activities. 73%
of subjects participated in only two or less outside activities per day.If RIAS was installed, 97% said they would
make more trips to more activities.Subjects reported making 12.1 trips per
week, if RIAS was available, they estimated they would make 25 trips per week.Work, education, and recreational trips
had a high hidden demand that they said could be met by RIAS.
Section 4.4: User Opinion of the Affect of RIAS on Travel
Behavior
They reported on the difference of their
travel behavior with RIAS and said that travel would be more efficient, they would
have better spatial orientation, make more trips, go to more places, with better
affective states, and more independence. Implied were the many difficulties and
limitations of travel using their regular methods.
Section 4.5: Reported and Perceived Transfer-Making Behavior
Blind travelers willingly spent time to
avoid difficulties in making transfers. 71% said they would spend 30 or
more minutes (on a 60 minute trip home) on a slower vehicle to avoid making a
transfer. With RIAS, only 16% thought they would waste that much time.
Blind respondents showed much higher resistance
to make transfers then the general public.Resistance was even higher in unfamiliar
areas.After using RIAS, the blind estimated
their resistance to transfer as being similar to those times reported by the sighted
public.
Section 4.6: Spatial Knowledge Acquisition and Cognitive
Maps
Subjects using their regular methods made
23% of possible shortcuts. Those using RIAS made 95% of possible shortcuts.Subjects using their regular methods answered
44% of the spatial knowledge questions correctly. Those using RIAS answered
88% correctly. Some types of spatial knowledge were very
hard to acquire using regular methods.
Hypothesis 3: Travel and access limitations negatively impact the quality of
life for those with vision loss. When using RIAS, subjects will report a
wide range of positive influences on their quality of life. This hypothesis
was tested in Chapter 5 in the following sections.
Section 5.1 : Summary of Previous Quality of Life Statements
Many difficulties and limitations were
reported and exhibited with regular blind travel. Subjects reported that
RIAS greatly reduced transit difficulties, and gave them more confidence, more
efficient travel, the ability to participate in more activities, and to feel independent.
Section 5.2: Subject’s Opinion and Evaluation of Talking Signs(R)
Users stressed how RIAS was a spatial
orientation aid that improved their mental state and led to more independence.
Section 5.3 : User Response to Talking Signs®
Users agreed that RIAS would help them
travel more often, make travel easier and safer, increase their use of unfamiliar
transit and transfers, and help them financially.
Section 5.5 : Lost Earnings and Additional Expenses Due
to Inaccessible Transit
Limited transit access to employment was
perceived to diminish their earning potential. Respondents thought they
could earn an additional $8,257 yearly if RIAS was installed. For those
in the job market, that amount was $12,385.Limited transit access required them to
pay for travel assistance. They reported they could save $1,267 yearly
if RIAS was installed.
Section 5.6: Monetary Benefit of Independent Travel
Respondents stated a benefit of $17 to
use RIAS to travel independently to a one-time event.They offered $10 as the benefit to use
RIAS to travel independently to a daily job.They offered a benefit of $5 per day to
use RIAS.
Hypothesis 4: The field test data and subject’s observations, ratings,
and opinions will demonstrate a wide variety of benefits that accrue to the user
of RIAS. This hypothesis was tested in Chapter 6 in the following sections.
Section 6.1 : Summary of Benefits from Field Tests and Questions
These benefits have been discussed earlier.
In addition to the monetary amount they placed on being able to use these additional
cues, they reported that this would give them much more access to transit and
urban opportunities.
Section 6.3 : Benefit Analysis
The monetary amounts offered for the use
of additional cues demonstrate a very large benefit when applied to an entire
metropolitan area. The amount of lost income and additional
travel expenses puts a large total burden on area blind residents. Currently, unemployment for blind people
is around 70%, and, in this experiment, half of those not working thought they
could find new employment. Increased employment would provide to
society benefits of lower welfare and assistance payments and new employment opportunities
might increase the tax base.
These results show that the addition of auditory information makes a great
difference in efficient performance, safety, and attitudes about independent
travel. With specific location identity labels and directional cues, legally
blind subjects can greatly increase their ability to travel without assistance
and to have access to more urban opportunities, including better access to job
search and employment possibilities. The tests summarized here, as well
as others from this paper, all showed positive changes in perceived or actual
behavior when people with lgal blindness had access to additional auditory cues.
The use of so many different tests to measure the same condition effect
enhances convergent or methodological validity (Campbell &
Fiske, 1959) .