Accessible transit signage can work for everyone. Here’s how.

This article was first published on February 25, 2020. Addressing ways to make transit more accessible for everyone continues to be an important topic, so we wanted to share this article with you again. You can also read the author’s article about accessible social distancing signage here.

The consequences of inadequate signage in transit systems are all too real.

When it’s done right, accessible transit signage makes public transportation more usable for everyone, and allows people—especially those with disabilities—fuller access to the region’s transport system. When it’s done wrong, inaccessible transit signage and notices make transit harder to use for people with disabilities, and can effectively push them off transit.

I spent several years enforcing accessible communication laws in New York City government – the same laws that cover transit agencies across the country. (You can see me talk about some of these things on this video.) While there, I developed a strong knowledge of what works, and what is truly inaccessible in informational communications – and now, I apply that as I travel around Greater Washington.

Accessible transit signage for everyone is not an insurmountable task, and in many places, it’s done quite well. If transit agencies focus on improving six areas—adequacy, lighting and placement, text, colors, words and graphics, and modes—transit has a much better chance of being accessible to all.

Adequacy

First, there must be enough signs. Many of us have gotten lost in places with seemingly no signage. For people with cognitive disabilities, a lack of signage can make a place impossible to navigate. At the very least, there should be signs indicating all major components from all major points of access to the station: on train platforms, at bus stops, and in intermediate areas like hallways and waiting rooms. All key points should be indicated consistently on the signs. Too much signage is possible, but unlikely. Too little signage is the far more frequent issue.

One place that does quite well for signage is the rail section of Union Station. There are numerous directional markers, digital maps, and other wayfinding indicators to guide visitors to various points, to trains, and to the rest of Washington, DC.

Further up the rail line, New Carrollton Station is a different story. The confusing split of buses on two opposite, distant sides of the station is barely explained, and difficult for anyone not familiar with the bus routes to navigate.

The signs to various buses are also only off the Metro platform. The exits on the Amtrak and MARC platforms are not indicated from much of the platform, leaving some users confused as to where they descend.

Lighting and placement

Signage, in general, is often not lit well enough to be visible for many people, especially for people with vision or cognitive disabilities. Furthermore, many signs are often too high for someone using a wheelchair to read easily. In addition, badly lit, badly placed signs are more difficult for anyone to perceive from afar.

At the Takoma-Langley Transit Center, for example, signage indicating bud routes is too high for many people to read effectively. At the relatively new NoMa-Gallaudet Metro station, transit signage is placed far enough from the ground and ceiling to be visible by everyone, and the light is bright enough that one can see the signs from a distance.

Text

Text on signs should be in straight-line, sans-serif fonts. Sans-serif fonts are easier for people with many vision disabilities and dyslexia to read, and straight-line fonts are much more readable for people with vision disabilities and some cognitive disabilities.

Though some serif fonts, like Times New Roman, are easier for far-sighted people to read, they tend to be harder or impossible to read for many people, especially at a distance. Good fonts include Arial, Helvetica, Tahoma, Trebuchet MS, and Daytona. Many custom fonts for transit agencies, as used on the London Underground, are designed with these principles in mind.

The Metro signage, besides being iconic, is generally quite accessible on this front. The sans-serif, straight fonts are easy to read, and the text is adequately sized for reading. In addition, letters that are often confused for one another—for example, “a” and “o,” or “b” and “d”—are distinguished typographically on Metro signs and digital screens. Next time you are on Metro, look at the digital signs and note the shape of the “b,” “d,” and “o,” and the curlicue on top of the “a.”

Contrast that with signage for TheBus in Prince George’s County, which uses serif fonts that are harder for many people to read. The signs are often so small that they are easy to miss altogether.

Colors

Some colors for signage are not easily visible or readable. Signage should be distinct from the surrounding walls and backgrounds. The text and sign colors should contrast with a ratio of at least 4.5:1, meaning that the darker color should absorb four and a half times more light than the lighter color.

This standard is typical for text on websites and in print documents, too. The rule enables people with low vision or who are color-blind to more easily read signs. Speaking of which, colors alone are not enough to indicate or differentiate between lines, especially where the colors are green and red or blue and yellow. Words should be used as well to help people who are color-blind see the difference between the two indicators.

One way Metro avoids this problem is by indicating the line a train is on with the word “Red,” “Green,” and what have you, in bright lights on a dark background.

Amtrak’s standard signage—which you can see at Union Station and New Carrollton—is a good example. The dark backgrounds sharply contrast with the white text, making the signage easier to read and perceive.

Furthermore, this contrast lets people with blurry vision more easily distinguish letters. On the other end of the spectrum, many of MARTA’s signs in Atlanta use light text on a light background, resulting in a display that is impossible for some people to see.

Using a serif font for such a service can be considered a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which mandates equal access for services by agencies receiving federal funds. One such agency is MARTA.

Words and graphics

Many people with cognitive disabilities have trouble understanding the complex language used by many transit agencies. Wording on signage and documents should use plain language with direct speech, at no higher than a sixth-grade reading level. Graphics are often easier to understand for many people, and where possible, words should be accompanied by graphics to ease comprehension.

One example that I like in the area is on RideOn’s bus timetables. The chart that explains the travel time between major interchanges on the cover is very useful for people to understand how long a trip might take.

Another excellent example from afar is the door-closing warning on the Tokyo subway, with anthropomorphic animals that explain why your fingers should not be so close to the door. Meanwhile, the relative lack of graphic communication in the Metro system remains an issue—it’s one place where Metro could greatly improve accessibility for people with cognitive disabilities. Similarly, some of the announcements use wording that could, and should, be more simple.

The single-tracking announcements on Metro are difficult for many passengers to follow – and the information about reduced timetables is often hard to pick up.

Modes

Ideally, information about transit should be available in multiple modes. People perceive things in different ways according to their disabilities, meaning some might need to rely on visual signs while others might need Braille and audio recordings. Conversely, there shouldn’t only be spoken announcements, but also written materials. Tactile maps and clear, visible directional markers also help navigability of often complex station environments. These factors allow blind, low-vision, and Deaf travelers to access information.

Some transit agencies do this very well. On the Seoul subway system, most of the formulaic announcements about routes and upcoming stations are transcribed on video-screens, often in several languages. Virgin Trains, in the United Kingdom, has installed tactile maps in several of their train stations for travelers who are blind or low-vision. Our local transit agencies have some catching up to do. Many of Metro’s service change announcements are still only made by audio announcement, and the information on the next train to arrive at a Metro station is still only provided visually. Tactile maps, buttons to give audio information, and transcribed announcements would be particularly helpful.

Where to go from here?

So what can you do to make signage accessible? Start by contacting your transit agencies. Submit comments to their public relations departments. Focus on one issue in a message – say, that the font of a sign is unreadable, or that you need bus drivers to notify you of stops by audio.

State legislation could help greatly – especially for things not directly required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, like tactile maps.

And start by setting a good example. If you run an event or space, make your signs accessible. Use resources from the Access Board, GSA, and WebAIM to make sure your digital and print communications are usable. Provide information in multiple modes.

Talk about accessible transit options when you plan and host events, or for the spaces you manage. Most importantly, reach out to disability communities, and see how you could improve.