FHWA-NJ-2004-018
FINAL REPORT
December 2004
Submitted
By
New Jersey
Institute of Technology
Telephone:
973-596-5884
Fax:
973-596-5790
Email: rliu@adm.njit.edu

Research
Project Manager
New Jersey
Department of Transportation
Division of
Research and Technology
1035 Parkway
Avenue
In cooperation with
Department of Transportation
Division of Research and Technology
and
DISCLAIMER
STATEMENT
¡°The contents of this report
reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect
the official views or policies of the New Jersey Department of Transportation
or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a
standard, specification, or regulation. ¡°
|
|
TECHNICAL
REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE |
|||
|
1.
Report No. |
2.Government
Accession No. |
3.
Recipient¡¯s Catalog No. |
||
|
FHWA-NJ-2004-018 |
|
|
||
|
4. Title and Subtitle |
5. Report Date |
|||
|
Mobility
Information Needs of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Travelers in |
|
|||
|
6.
Performing Organization Code |
||||
|
|
||||
|
7. Author(s) |
8.
Performing Organization Report No. |
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
9. Performing Organization Name and
Address |
10.
Work Unit No. |
|||
|
New Jersey Institute of Technology |
|
|||
|
11. Contract or |
||||
|
|
||||
|
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address |
13. Type of Report and Period Covered |
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
14. Sponsoring Agency Code |
||||
|
|
||||
|
15. Supplementary Notes |
||||
|
|
||||
|
16. Abstract |
||||
|
The primary objectives of this research are to provide residents and travelers in New Jersey who have Limited English Proficiency (LEP) with the ability to gain essential access to New Jersey¡¯s transportation opportunities, such as bus, rail, road, water and air and to further New Jersey transportation agencies¡¯ compliance with Title VI regulations as they pertain to the avoidance of discrimination against people of different national origins or language proficiency. To find methods to convey mobility information to LEP persons, we have studied the practices of a variety of American and non-American agencies including transportation organizations, international airports, and other internationally oriented activity centers. Our
research leads to a recommendation for a comprehensive equal-access plan. At
the strategic level, agencies should take community demographics and feedback
for LEP community members into account developing a long-range transit plan.
Agencies should maximize human contact and personal assistance to the degree
this is economically feasible. This recommendation includes introduction of
cultural and linguistic sensitivity training for all employees with traveler
contact. To leverage resources, agencies should explore cooperation with
other organizations, e.g., social service organizations committed to work
with various immigrant communities. At the operational level, we recommend
such techniques as increased use of pictograms to present simple information
and creation of a multilingual website. We also recommend improvement in the
public announcement techniques. |
||||
|
17.
Key Words |
18.
Distribution Statement |
|||
|
Limited
English Proficiency, disadvantaged, multilingual or bilingual communication,
nonverbal |
|
|||
|
19.
Security Classif (of this report) |
20.
Security Classif. (of this page) |
21.
No of Pages |
22.
Price |
|
|
Unclassified |
Unclassified |
214 |
|
|
|
Form
DOT F 1700.7 (8-69) |
|
|
|
|
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and
cooperation provided by all the participant transit agencies, tourist and, and
service providers, airports around the world. In addition to
The team members have produced a large number of photographs, tables, and figures based on the information collected. The authors regret any errors or oversights in crediting copyrighted material. Of course, any other errors, omissions, and oversights are the responsibility of the authors.
3. PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION AND LEP TRAVELERS IN NEW JERSEY
3.1 Transit Networks in New Jersey
3.1.1
Multimodal Transportation Systems
3.1.2
Physical Coverage of Transportation Networks
3.1.3
Intermodal Connection and Coordination.
3.2 Distribution of Limited English
Proficiency Travelers
3.2.1 Subgroups
of LEP Populations
3.2.2
Locations of Various Language Groups
3.3 Public Transportation and LEP Travelers
in New Jersey
3.3.1
Social-Economic Status of LEP Travelers
3.3.2 Travel
Characteristics of LEP Group in New Jersey
3.4
Initial Analysis of LEP Communities
4. GENERATING
INPUT FROM LEP TRAVELERS IN NEW JERSEY.
4.1.2 Design
Survey Questionnaire
4.1.3
Identify Survey Candidates
4.2 LEP Travel Need Survey and Focus Group
Discussion
4.3 Mobility Needs of LEP Travelers in New
Jersey
4.3.1 The
Importance of Transit Services to the LEP Communities
4.3.2
Mobility Information Needs
4.3.4 Desires
of LEP Community
5. SURVEY
TRANSIT AGENCIES IN SERVING LEP TRAVELERS
5.1.1
Designing the Questionnaire
5.1.2
Identifying Survey Candidates
5.3 Examples of Innovative Strategies
5.3.1 Washington D.C. Metro (WMATA)
5.3.2
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon
5.3.3 Central
Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority.
6.
EXPERIENCES OF INTERNATIONAL ENTITIES..
6.1 Selected Transit Providers in Other
Countries
6.4 Other International-Oriented Activity
Centers
6.5
Overview of International Experience
7.1
Multilingual Verbal Materials¡ªPublications and Signs
7.2
Multilingual Announcements
7.4
Pictograms and Other Visual Aids
7.6
Multilingual Personnel ¨C Human Contact
7.7
Cooperating with Other Organizations
7.8
Publicizing What Is Available
7.9.3
Practice of Non-verbal Communications.
8.
RECOMMENDATIONS to NJ TRANSIT
8.1
Strategic Policy Directions
8.1.1
Long-Range Transit Planning
8.1.2
Cultural Sensitivity Training
8.1.3 Human
Contact ¨C Multilingual Personnel
8.1.4
Cooperation with Other Organizations
8.1.5
Publicizing What Is Available
8.2.1
Pictograms and Other Visual Aids
8.2.2
Multilingual Verbal Materials ¨C Publications and Signs
8.2.3 Multilingual
Announcements
8.2.4
Multilingual Phone Lines
APPENDIX A.
EXISTING ACTIVITIES SERVING LEP POPULATIONS
APPENDIX B.
LANGUAGE RELATED RESEARCH IN TRANSPORTATION
APPENDIX C.
LEP TRAVEL NEED SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX D.
LEP TRAVEL NEED SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE IN RUSSIAN
APPENDIX E.
DISCUSSION GUIDELINE FOR FOCUS GROUPS..
APPENDIX F.
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
APPENDIX G.
THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TRANSIT AGENCIES..
APPENDIX H.
MSAS WITH MOST LEP POPULATION
APPENDIX J.
TRI-COUNTY ¡°HOW TO RIDE¡± GUIDE
APPENDIX K.
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT BROCHURE
APPENDIX L.
LAX TRAVELER¡¯S TIPS IN FIVE LANGUAGE
Table 1. Top LEP
municipalities in New Jersey, 2000
Table
2. Spanish speaking LEP population in New
Jersey, 2000
Table
3. Other (Non-Spanish) Indo-European language speaking
Table
4. Asian and pacific islander language speaking
Table
5. Other language speaking
Table
6. Top Non-English languages
Table
7. Correlation between social economic indicators and LEP population
Table
8. Correlation between travel indicators and LEP population
Table
9. Samples of community groups as survey candidates
Table
10. General information of the tourism centers
Table
11. The public transit service information
Table
12. Public transit information provided by Hong Kong Tourism Center
Table
13. Examples of traffic sign costs
Figure 1. LEP population in New Jersey
Figure 2. Commuter
rail network in New Jersey
Figure 3. Modal
distribution comparison in New Jersey.
Figure 4. Bus
transit network in New Jersey
Figure 5. Rail
ridership In New Jersey
Figure 6. Bus
ridership in New Jersey
Figure 7. Concentric
belts of rail networks
Figure 8. Multimodel
transportation network and intermodal transit hubs
Figure 9. LEP
population by municipality, 2000
Figure 10. Distribution of LEP
population
Figure 11. Distribution of
Spanish speakers in New Jersey
Figure 12. Distribution of Italian
speakers in New Jersey
Figure 13. Distribution of Chinese
speakers in New Jersey
Figure 14. Distribution of Polish
speakers in New Jersey
Figure 15. Distribution of Portuguese
speakers in New Jersey
Figure 16. Tagalog speakers by
municipality, 2000, Northeast New Jersey
Figure 17. Korean speakers by
municipality, 2000, Northeast New Jersey
Figure 18. Gujarathi speakers by
municipality, 2000, Northeast New Jersey
Figure 19. French speakers by
municipality, 2000, Northeast New Jersey
Figure 20. Arabic speakers by municipality,
2000, Northeast New Jersey
Figure 21. German speakers by
municipality, 2000, Northeast New Jersey
Figure 22. Russian speakers by
municipality, 2000, Northeast New Jersey
Figure 23. Rail network and LEP
population in the Urban Core
Figure 24. LEP population along transit
lines
Figure 25. LEP population around
transit stations
Figure 26. LEP travel survey sites
Figure 27. Demographic characteristics
of LEP communities
Figure 28. Economic status of surveyed
LEP population
Figure 29. Language backgrounds of
surveyed LEP population
Figure 30. Travel choices of surveyed
LEP population
Figure 31. Understanding and usefulness
of mobility information provided
Figure 33. The distribution of the LEP
population in the U.S.
Figure 34. Type of transit services
Figure 35. Top languages other than
English
Figure 36. Transit information provided
for LEP travelers
Figure 37. Estimated costs to help LEP
people use public transit
Figure 38. The relevance of this survey
to the services of the transit agencies
Figure 39. Transit directory of Tri-Met
Figure 42. Multilingual Guide for
ticket vending machine in Germany
Figure 43. Language choices shown in
Brussels airport homepage
Figure 44. Pictograms and bi-lingual
signs used in Narita (Tokyo) airport
Figure 45. Bi-lingual directions and
pictograms in Frankfurt airport
Figure 46. Signs used in Newark Liberty
International Airport
Figure 47. Major transportation network
in Hong Kong
Figure 49. Instruction on how to use
Octopus Card in Hong Kong
Figure 50. Instructions used in the
Singapore Tourism Center website
Figure 51. Integrated long-distance
rail network and airports in Germany
Figure 52. Swiss transport museum
Figure 53. Transport museum narration
in four different languages
Figure 54. Audio information by four
different languages
Figure 55. A production sample of
pictograms
CDE
DOT Department of Transportation
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESL English-as-a-Second-Language
EO Executive Order
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
GIS Geographic Information System
HBLR Hudson-Bergen Light Rail
JFK
KCR Kowloon-Canton Railway
LEP Limited English Proficient
LIRR
LRT Light Rail Transit
MDHS Minnesota Department of Human Services
MPO Metropolitan Planning
Organizations
MRT Mass Rapid Transit
MSAs Metropolitan Statistical Areas
MTR Mass Transit Railway
NJDOT New Jersey Department of Transportation
NJ TRANSIT
NJTPA
NYMTA
NZ
PATCO Port Authority Transit Corporation
PCMS Portable Changeable Message Signs
PRC People¡¯s
Republic of
RFP Request for Proposal
RPSIP Research Project Selection and Implementation Panel
SAS Statistics Analysis System
SEPTA
Tri-Met Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District
TRIS Transportation Research Information Systems
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USRRB
UN United Nations
VSRs Visitor Service Representatives
WMATA
This research examined the demographics and strategies
of the
The first task was to obtain the LEP community input on mobility-information issues. We distributed a questionnaire on transit communications to over 500 students in various English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) courses. We also conducted survey with small groups of LEP residents. The surveys showed that a majority of respondents understand most transit communications although large minorities had problems getting some information such as that conveyed in announcements. The focus groups corroborated this information, but some members also indicated perceptions of discriminatory treatment by individual transit employees and a lack of appropriate transit routes.
The second task was to survey the best practices of
peer transit agencies in American metropolitan areas with bi- or multilingual
populations. Through this survey, we found several agencies, WMATA in
The third task was to survey selected transportation
providers outside the
At the strategic level, agencies should prepare a long-range Transit Plan. The plan would take into account community demographics in long-range transit planning, including a voice for LEP community members in planning routes. Agencies should maximize human contact and personal assistance to the degree that this is economically feasible. This recommendation includes introduction of cultural and linguistic sensitivity training for all employees with traveler contacts. To leverage resources, agencies should explore cooperation with other organizations, e.g., social services organizations committed to work with various immigrant communities.
At the operational level, we recommend such techniques as increased use of pictograms to present simple information and creation of a multilingual website. We also recommend improvement in public announcement techniques.
The mobility information needs of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) people are of strong policy interest because these individuals constitute a growing and changing share of the total travel market. The expected travel growth of this particular population group is much faster than overall travel. According to the United States Department of Transportation Guidance (U.S. DOT, 2001), LEP persons are those individuals with a primary or home language other than English who must, due to limited fluency in English, communicate in that primary or home language if they are to have an equal opportunity to participate in, or benefit from, any aids or services provided by the transportation agency.
Dampened access to the mobility information by the LEP
population simply creates a fertile soil for growing complaints, which is
exactly what New Jersey Transit (NJ TRANSIT) and New Jersey Department of
Transportation (NJDOT) strive to reduce or eliminate. As part of the overall
effort to improve transit services and comply with Title VI non-discrimination
mandates, NJDOT and NJ TRANSIT propose this research on best practices to
satisfy mobility information needs of LEP people in
As one of the most diversified states in terms of
culture, language, and ethnicity,
The high correlation between transit usage and LEP
population distribution is more than a coincidence. Previous studies (Polzin,
Language barriers prohibit people who are LEP from obtaining services and information relating to transportation services and programs (U.S. DOT, 2001). Because LEP people are not able to read instructions or correspondence written in English, and may not understand verbal information, they often are not aware of regulatory requirements and legal implications of the services they seek. Therefore, they may not be able to take advantage of the transit systems, which could affect their economic and social opportunities.
To find methods to convey mobility information to LEP persons, we need to study the practices of a variety of American and non-American agencies, including transportation organizations, international airports, and other internationally- oriented activity centers. Variety is a key in our approach to learning which tactics constitute best practices. We need to examine agencies that serve different types of LEP populations. Our list of agencies includes some organizations using verbal strategies and others using pictorial or auditory strategies. To access a wide array of nonverbal strategies, we look at innovations originally designed for travelers with disabilities or special cognitive styles, as well as approaches originated for LEP populations.
As outlined in the United States Department of Transportation Guidance (U.S. DOT, 2001), Title VI regulations require recipients of Federal funding to take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons receive the language assistance necessary to offer them meaningful access to appropriate programs and activities. This research will strive to accomplish the following objectives:
1. Provide
residents and travelers in
2. Further
3. Provide
NJ TRANSIT and NJDOT with a manual to be used in recommending ways of improving
their service to the LEP travelers in
The research team will pay particular attention to the
cost and cost-effectiveness of information regarding individual practices
gathered in the survey. The research team will present an evaluation of each
technique in terms of the cost and the time frame of implementation so that NJ
TRANSIT will be able to select the most cost-effective methods in a timely
manner to serve the LEP travelers in
The Request for Proposal (RFP) of this project calls for three parallel surveys across diversified organizational structures and geographical areas. It is critical for us to develop a well thought out and dynamic research plan so that we will be able to complete the project on time and within budget. The result of this research will offer much needed guidelines for NJ TRANSIT to provide mobility information for LEP people.
Task 1. Review Literature
Task
2. Identify Sources of Information on Location, Nature, and Size of LEP Groups
in
Task
3. Identify and Classify the
Task 4. Generate Input from LEP Populations
Task
5. Survey Peer Transportation and Transit Agencies in the
Task 6. Survey Internationally Oriented Activity Centers
Task 7. Survey Selected Transit and Transportation Providers in Other Countries
Task 8. Develop a Nonverbal Communication Approach
Task 9. Synthesize Verbal and Nonverbal Communication Recommendations
Task 10. Synthesize with LEP Market Research for Development of the Final Report
Task 11. Prepare Quarterly Progress and Final Report
This research project has been completed within 24 month. The first task was accomplished in the first three-month period. Tasks 2 through 4 were accomplished within six months. Task 5, 6 and 7 were completed by the end of the first year. The last three months of the project were used to compile the final project report and present the final results and findings to the Research Project Selection and Implementation Panel (RPSIP).
The result of this project is a practical manual for NJ TRANSIT staff to identify best practices from national and international resources. In addition, a series of Technical Memoranda and this Final Report--describing surveys, addressing various aspects of the surveyed transportation organizations and international entities--provide references and useful information for other surveys planned by NJDOT.
Additional products from this research include conference and journal papers describing the research performed. To date, a number of papers have been presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting and the Public Administration Association Annual Meeting. One paper has been accepted for publish by the Journal of Public Administration Review. More papers will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals in the fields, such as Journal of Communications, Transportation Research Record and Journal of Human Behavior and Technology.
The audience for this research includes the customer, the management of NJDOT, administrators of other state and local transportation agencies, and scholars in LEP communications. This research provides a comprehensive review of existing and emerging techniques in providing and improving service to LEP and related special needs populations.
An implementation strategy was developed, in conjunction with the LEP market/demographic analysis, to ensure that the findings and results of this research are implemented cost-effectively. The implementation strategy was also developed from a priority list corresponding with the most common problems or complaints. The implementation strategy helps identify the most effective approaches for particular LEP populations. For example, it is believed that computer capability has an extremely bi-polar distribution within the LEP population. Some subcategories of the LEP population are much more computer savvy than average citizens, while other categories of LEP population are much less. The implementation plan also identifies potential obstacles for the NJ TRANSIT to implement certain strategies.
To assess the
current status of LEP-related issues, the research team has conducted a
literature search using New Jersey Institute of Technology¡¯s Van Houten
Library, the Transportation Research Board¡¯s Transportation Research
Information Systems (TRIS), and the Internet. It presents the results in the
following sections: policy and guidelines, activities to serve LEP people
outside of transportation agencies, language-related research in the
transportation field, understanding information¡¯s nonverbal factors, and
responding to diversified communities.
The key
guideline for this project is the United States Department of Transportation¡¯s
(USDOT, 2001) Guidance to Recipients on Special Language Services to Limited
English Proficiency Beneficiaries. For a detailed discussion of this directive
see Kanada and Yeo (2002).
The federal
DOT has defined LEP persons as individuals with a primary or home language other
than English who must, due to limited fluency in English, communicate in that
primary or home language if they are to have an equal opportunity to
participate in or benefit from any aids or services provided by the
transportation agency. To assist state agencies in complying with their Title
VI responsibilities, the DOT guidance outlined the key elements that the USDOT
encourages its recipients to consider to ensure meaningful access to programs
and activities by all people regardless of race or national origin. Adhering to
these guidelines not only helps state agencies fulfill their legal obligations,
it also helps prevent complaints and creates a more productive economic climate
by supporting tourists and establishing that localities are appropriate sites
for global trade and investment.
The federal
guidance identified specific variables state agencies should take into account
when formulating meaningful access for LEP populations. These variables
include:
To help recipients comply with the requirements of Executive Order 13166
(Clinton, 2000), the guidance also outlined basic frameworks for language
assistance, which may include needs assessment, written language assistance
plans, staff training, provision of special language assistance, and
monitoring. The report also presented typical ways of providing language
service such as oral interpretation, translation of written materials, and use
of alternative communication methods and devices. To demonstrate how to apply
the executive order, the DOT Guidance listed a number of promising/best
practices around the country. Looking at some of these best practices will
serve as our first stop in the process of surveying how organizations in many
fields serve the LEP population.
The research
focus also included some general activities and language-related research in
transportation that serves LEP populations, which are included in Appendix A
and B.
Famous for its ¡°melting pot¡± of
cultures, languages, and religions, the
Among those
who speak a language other than English at home, Hispanics are the largest
minority group in the
Other language
groups are also growing rapidly. For example, the largest increase from
1990-2000 in terms of percentage of LEP residents comes among speakers of
Chinese, 53 percent. Along with the opening of People¡¯s Republic of
After the
dismantling of the
This section
documents the language backgrounds, geographic and jurisdictional location, and
distribution in relation to transit networks of various LEP communities. The
objective is to understand the magnitude and whereabouts of LEP travelers in
As the
achievements of this task, the detailed maps provide visual tools to locate the
distribution of LEP population and language backgrounds of each subgroup of LEP
populations; the detailed statistical analyses based on Census data provide the
general social-economic status and travel characteristics of LEP groups. This
work is a backdrop for the important task of interacting with LEP populations
via in-person interviews, surveys, and focus groups, and getting input from
them. This information forms the heart of the next section, Generating Input
from LEP Travelers in
As the gateway
to the highly prosperous economic centers in the Northeast,
As pointed
out by a former Governor, ¡°Public transportation is a vital public service that
touches the lives of all who live, work and visit our great state of
As shown in
Figure 2, the 466 route miles of NJ TRANSIT¡¯s railroad system serve 112 out of
the state¡¯s 566 municipalities. Covering different areas of the state, the
Both the
NJ TRANSIT
also contracts to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (NYMTA) to
run rail service to and from points in
Light rail
transit, especially the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail (HBLR), has attracted a record
number of riders since its opening in 2001. As depicted in Figure 3, the
average daily passenger trips carried by the HBLR is about 1.5 percent of the
total route miles even though its network comprises only about 0.5 percent of
rail lines¡¯ miles in New Jersey. Even more impressive is the ridership growth,
48 percent, during the first two years operation, from 2.1 million in fiscal
year 2001 to 3.1 million riders in fiscal year 2002. Of course, part of the
ridership increase was a direct result of the tragic events of
Bus
service is the largest transit operation for NJ TRANSIT in terms of routes,
route miles, vehicle fleet, and passenger trips. As delineated in Figure 4, the
bus network reaches every county in
With
the concentration of rail service in northern
One of the
criteria used to measure the transit network coverage is the density of transit
route miles within an area. The rail transit network is clearly concentrated in
the northern part of state, with 36.7 route miles/1000 square miles while the
density of transit network becomes fairly low in the southern part of state
where there is 8.1 route miles/1000 square miles of land area.
The transit
network, especially commuter rail, has dense spacing and development in
northern
Although NJ
TRANSIT¡¯s network is quite extensive, it is still not able to accomplish its
mobility and accessibility mission without connecting to other transportation
networks. NJ TRANSIT has made great efforts to facilitate intermodal connection
and coordination.
Transfers to
the state's bus system are possible at many rail stations. At Penn Station
Another
important coordination is between the transit system and the roadway network
around the state. As shown in Figure 8, various rail stations and bus lines are
conveniently located near the access points to major thoroughfares of the state
and critical roadways. Seamless transactions among various transportation
systems in
Throughout
this analysis Limited English Proficiency has been defined as those over age
five whose first language is not English and who characterize their ability to
speak English as ¡°not well¡± or ¡°not at all.¡± Data from the 2000 Census show
that over 426,000 people or 5.4 percent of
LEP residents
in
Table 1 lists
the municipalities with the highest LEP populations and the highest percentage
of LEP among the municipalities. Looking at LEP residents as a percentage of
the population, five of the state¡¯s top 10 municipalities are in
According to
the 2000 Census, the total LEP group may be further stratified into speakers of
the following languages:
Due to privacy
issues, the Census Bureau does not release LEP information for specific
languages except Spanish. As demonstrated in Figure 10, Spanish LEP populations
are concentrated in the larger cities of
Major enclaves
of other Indo-European language LEP populations can be found in the larger
cities of
Figure 10
shows heavy concentrations of Asian and Pacific Island LEP populations in the
riverfront area of
The other
language LEP residents do not constitute a significant population in any
municipality except
It is possible
to gain some understanding of the specific LEP population living in an area by
exploring the Census data on Language Spoken at Home. This information, which
is available for each significant language, provides the total number of
persons whose first language is not English regardless of their ability to
speak English. This data helps to identify survey candidates.
As listed in
Table 6, the top 12 non-English languages spoken at home in New Jersey range
from 12 percent of total population for Spanish to 0.5 percent for Russian. To
identify the locations of particular language group, the research team has
produced a series of GIS maps to demonstrate the distribution of those language
groups. The visual map becomes a useful tool in locating survey candidates
carried out under the scope of this project.
A comparison
of the distribution of all Spanish language speakers and Spanish language LEP
population shows that there is a high level of correlation between the location
of the entire community and the location of LEP residents. As with Spanish LEP,
Spanish speakers of all English abilities are found primarily in the larger
cities of
As Figure 12
shows the Italian language speakers are not highly concentrated in one area of
In general,
Chinese speakers are found in the greatest numbers in the suburban band of
northern
Polish
speakers are heavily concentrated in the cities along the
The Ironbound
section of
Speakers of
Tagalog, which is the language of the
Korean
language speakers live overwhelmingly in
Gujarathi, the
language of western
French
speakers in
There are two
primary clusters of Arabic speakers in New Jersey; one in the Jersey City /
Bayonne / North Bergen area and the other in the Paterson / Clifton area,
highlighted in Figure 20. Over 6,000 Arabic speakers live in
While there
are 41,000 persons in
The primary Russian
speaking community in
As emphasized
in the NJ TRANSIT
As mentioned
earlier, the Census Bureau does not provide detailed social and economic
characteristics of LEP population due to privacy issues. The basic units of
census data are all based on geographical or jurisdictional measures, such as
state, county, and municipality, rather than on individual data. The unique
characteristics of LEP travelers may be derived from statistical analysis. Such
analysis may not prove a causal connection between the social and economic
status of LEP populations and their travel characteristics. But it may be used
as a major tool to assist the research team in targeting the appropriate survey
candidates and designing survey questions for our attempt to learn from LEP
populations their perception of their individual situation.
In order to
explore the correlation between the LEP population and various social and
economic indicators of the population in general, we have conducted correlation
analysis using Statistics Analysis System (SAS) software. The basic measures
are composed of total LEP population and the four sub-groups of LEP population
in each municipality in
Correlation
analysis is a toolbox to quantitatively and qualitatively compare two sets of
modeling or analysis data. In this case, it is the total LEP population and
subgroups of LEP population in each municipality in
Correlation
analysis provides solutions for spatial model correlation, frequency response
functions correlation, and shape correlation. In this analysis, we have
primarily used the first, spatial correlation, which is the relationship between
the number of LEP population and one of the variables, say income, in a
particular geographical area. The correlation results, ranging from ¡°¨C1¡± to
¡°1¡±, measures either negative or positive correlation between the two
variables. A value of ¡°1¡± represents perfect correlation and ¡°-1¡± perfect
negative correlation. The smaller the value, the less of the correlation
result. In the analysis, most of the insignificant values are smaller than
0.001, which indicates excellent correlation results.
As anticipated,
most people with Limited English Proficiency were born in a foreign country and
migrated to
Examining the
education background, we discovered a relatively higher correlation between
total LEP population and people who are over 25 with less than 9th
grade education, 0.96. However, a close examination among various LEP groups
presented a more variegated landscape. The Spanish and Indo-European language
speaking LEP demonstrated a high correlation with limited education. The Asian
LEP group, on the other hand, does not exhibit limited education levels. For
this group the correlation value is only 0.34 as documented in Table 7.
As a general indicator
of economic health, employment status is important in measuring the
socio-economic status of a particular group. Table 7 shows that the
unemployment rate has a high correlation with LEP membership, that is 0.86 for
the total population and 0.78 and 0.84 for Spanish and Indo-European speaking
LEP subgroups, respectively. Consistent with or perhaps caused by its different
education characteristics, the Asian LEP subgroup in
Another
important assessment of the social-economic well being of a particular family
may be the sources of their income since public assistance is usually
disseminated to the lowest income groups. As indicated in Table 7, the LEP
group exhibited a very high correlation with number of individuals whose income
is below the poverty level, 0.88 for the total LEP population. Similarly, the
correlation between the number of households that received public assistance
and number of LEP population is very high, 0.83 for the overall LEP group and
even higher at 0.85 for the Indo-European LEP group.
Hampered by
relatively low education levels, limited job skills, and language difficulties,
LEP populations tend to exhibit certain travel characteristics which are often
associated with lower income people and membership in minority groups. Language
difficulties magnify the disadvantages of this group in carrying out daily
tasks, access to employment opportunities, and other social or culture
activities.
Consistent
with our general speculation, the LEP group has a high correlation with the
number of households that do not own any vehicles. As depicted in Table 8, the
correlation between the number of occupied households without vehicle and total
LEP population in a municipality is 0.86. The breakdowns among the four
subcategories of LEP groups demonstrate a similar pattern presented earlier,
with Spanish, and Indo-European LEP groups occupying the higher spectrum of the
correlation while Asian LEP groups reside in the very lower end of the
correlation, 0.40.
One of the
main driving forces for this LEP research is to discover the significance of
public transit in the lives of LEP populations. As expected, the transit mode
share of each municipality has a high correlation with the number of LEP
populations, 0.74. Table 8 shows such correlation can be 0.52 for the Asian LEP
group and as high as 0.85 for other LEP communities. Furthermore, walking is another
mode of transportation that has high correlation with LEP group, 0.86.
Another
important indicator of travel characteristics is the commuting distance. The
correlation between the LEP population in each municipality and commuting
distance is fairly low, ranging from negative 0.05 to positive 0.05. Further
investigation, such as a survey of the LEP group, is necessary to learn more
about commuting practices in LEP communities.
What people
care about and why they care, stems at least in part from their cultural
backgrounds. A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002) booklet,
EPA
842-B-01-003, provides an example of how administrators should seek to
integrate economic, ecological, social, and cultural concerns in
communities. The cases in the guide
demonstrate how knowledge about community issues, language, influential
subgroups, historical trends, and other social factors within a community are
keys to establishing successful environmental protection goals, action plans,
and implementation strategies. On the other hand,
Based on the information generated from the Census Data, the research team
produced a series of Geographic Information System (GIS) maps and databases.
These GIS map and related database provided useful tools to make the
connections between the LEP population and transportation, especially transit
systems in
The last question is extremely important since most of transportation
agencies have been challenged to use a limited budget on a number of competing
priority projects. It is critical to evaluate the size and nature of the LEP
population, the issues and concerns this population faces, and the extent and
magnitude of resources it will require addressing the needs of LEP populations.
The GIS
mapping presented the geographic distribution of the LEP residents and network
routes in
The high
correlation between transit usage and LEP population distribution is more than
a coincidence. Previous studies (Polzin,
As presented
in Figure 23,
The spatial
correlation was analyzed between the LEP distribution and public transit
services. We also have created two maps with the LEP population and transit
overlays. As demonstrated in Figure 24, the first map created a buffer zone
along a New Jersey Transit Line and the second map, Figure 25, around a few
selected stations. While the buffer or adjacent zones along the transit line
did not demonstrate any regular pattern along the transit route, the buffer or access
zones to the selected stations definitely demonstrated a high concentration of
LEP populations.
LEP
communities are internally stratified by gender, income, education, and
age.
The minority
elderly constitute a special group that may face more barriers to
transportation access than other LEP individuals. One reason is that they
depend more on public transportation. Karafin et al. (1982) conducted a
literature review on elderly transportation needs among American Indians,
Blacks, Hispanics, and Pacific/Asian individuals and found that the need for
more adequate transportation service provision for minority elderly is
critical.
Low-income LEP
individuals may also face unique pressures. Due to the passage of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, millions of
welfare recipients are required to enter the paid labor market. Reliable
transportation, whether by automobiles or public transit, must be available for
them. Welfare recipients with unlimited access to automobiles have higher
employment rates and report fewer transportation problems than those without
such access. Access to automobiles is different for different groups.
African-Americans use more public transit and fewer cars than other minority
groups. Currently states differ in their transportation assistance or subsidy.
In providing help for welfare recipients to join the labor market, governments
should take the needs of LEP communities into account (Blumenberg, 2001).
As outlined in
the project scope, one of the major objectives of this research is to ¡°provide
residents and travelers in
This section
documents the survey process and results. The survey effort resulted in the
clear emergence of issues and concerns of the LEP community based on the large
number of responses and in-depth dialogs through focus group discussions. The
findings, based on the survey and focus group discussions, provided the
research team a clear picture of mobility information needs of LEP travelers in
As outlined in
the United States Department of Transportation Guidance (U.S. DOT, 2001), Title
VI regulations require recipients of Federal funding to take reasonable steps
to ensure that LEP persons receive the language assistance necessary to offer
them meaningful access to the programs and activities of these recipients. To
comply with the DOT guideline, each transit agency or transportation service
provider should provide LEP residents and travelers in their own jurisdiction
with the ability to gain essential access to transportation opportunities, such
as bus, rail, road, water, and air.
To assess
their compliance with Title VI regulations, transit agencies or service
providers may follow the general contingencies pointed out by the United States
Department of Transportation Guideline (U.S. DOT, 2001). Four major criteria
presented in the guideline are the following:
Applying the above criteria to
As documented in Section 3,
Corresponding to the evaluation criterion presented in the last section,
the project team agreed that the survey questionnaire should focus on the
transit riders, their perception and experiences of using transit system in
Working
closely with NJ TRANSIT staff at various brainstorming sessions, the project
team gathered a series of questions that need to be addressed in the survey:
1.
Do you
use public transportation? That is do you use buses, trains, or the city subway
to get around?
2.
If a
person answers yes, ask the following questions:
3.
How
often do you use public transportation?
4.
What
kinds of public transportation do you use¡ªtrains, buses, the city subway?
5.
When do
you use public transportation? For what purpose?
6.
Are you
satisfied with the transportation you use?
7.
Do you
have any suggestions how the people who run the transportation services could improve
it to make it work better for you? Please be as specific as you can.
8.
If a
person answers no to question 1, ask the following questions:
9.
How do
you travel if you have to go somewhere in your area or elsewhere in
10.
Would
you use public transportation if the trains or buses were set up differently?
11.
If the
person answers yes to question 2, then ask:
12.
Which
transit systems would you use?
13.
How can
the people who run that system improve it to make it work better for you?
The project
team has developed a preliminary questionnaire that was tested in a few pilot
surveys. The pilot surveys were smaller scale surveys conducted in the
English-as-Second-Language (ESL) classes on the NJIT campus. After reviewing
the pilot survey and discussing issues encountered during its administration,
the project team revised the questionnaire. For example, the questionnaire was
initially confined to one page to make the people feel less intimated, but we
found that the space was too limited to allow any elaboration, so the final
version, as shown in Appendix C, was on two pages, which incorporates a final
catch all question to ask for suggestions to improve the transit service or
increase transit use. A cover letter by the Principal Investigator accompanied
the survey questionnaire when the survey was sent via mail or email to the
survey administrator.
To comply with
the Federal DOT guideline, the survey questionnaire is designed to answer
questions posed in the early section. There are four major groups of questions
addressed in the questionnaire. The first group deals with the current travel
choices made, transit versus other modes, by the people who fill out the
questionnaires. The second group of questions concerned understanding of travel
information provided by transit agencies. The third group of questions
solicited input in order to improve the services of the transit information
system to the LEP community. The last bundle of questions was designed to
secure demographic and socio-economic information.
Incorporating
comments and suggestions from NJ TRANSIT staff, students working in the field,
and participants of pilot surveys, we also moved the socio-economic status
questions to the end of the questionnaire. Since the English proficiency of
participants varies a great deal, the research team determined that sometimes
it is necessary to translate the questionnaire for the participants. Therefore,
it may be efficient to translate the questionnaire to languages other than
English if a survey group has members of one language background. In the
process, we actually had the questionnaire translated into Russian as included
in Appendix D.
Concurrent
with the questionnaire design process, the project team contacted various ESL
classes in
Various
private, non-profit organizations and communities groups also offer ESL classes
in churches, night schools, and community centers. The project team gathered
about 14 such sites located throughout
The project team contacted a number of LEP
communities in
After
contacting various ESL Classes in the high LEP region identified earlier, we
conducted 14 on-site surveys and received 575 valid survey forms.
Among the 575
people we surveyed, about one third was male and two thirds female. The age
group of those people surveyed was concentrated around age 20 to 64, as exhibited
in Figure 27. The largest age group, 49 percent, was between 31 and 64, the age
range of the labor force. The household size was fairly evenly distributed with
the largest group of four people per family.
Respondents¡¯
income levels were skewed toward the lower end of the spectrum. About half,
49.9 percent, of the people we surveyed claimed a household income less than
$25,000 per year, as presented in Figure 28. The auto ownership was fairly
similar to the general public, that is, most families had one or two cars. As
for travel-related variables, about two-thirds of LEP people surveyed had valid
driver¡¯s licenses.
The language
backgrounds of those we surveyed present a colorful picture, which is fairly
consistent with the overall distribution of languages spoken in
Consistent
with the general observations made earlier, the LEP population tends to use
transit services more than the general population. As depicted in Figure 30,
more than half, 55 percent, of the population surveyed use public
transportation. For those who do not use public transit, 76 percent use private
automobiles, 13 percent ride as passengers. Another strong mode presence among
the LEP population is walking or bicycling. About nine percent of them use
walking, bicycling, or other modes as their primary transportation.
Among the
transit users, a majority use bus (57 percent), subways (21 percent), and
commuter rail (20 percent); a small portion use light rail (two percent), as
depicted in Figure 5. The trip purpose of transit usage ranges from regular
commuting, such as working or going to school, shopping and recreational trips,
to personal trips such as visiting friends and doctors.
The respondents were asked whether they understood or found useful
¡°station announcements¡±, ¡°timetable¡±, ¡°route maps¡±, ¡°ticket machine
instructions¡± or ¡°station signs¡±. Various portions of the surveyed, ranging
from 21 percent for timetables to 31
percent for station announcement, did not understand the
information provided. As presented in Figure 31, usefulness of that information
is affected by the understanding of its contents. Generally, the fewer people
who understand a message, the less useful it is to average travelers. The lack of
understanding and ability to utilize information provided by transit agencies
may also be partly blamed for the ¡°dissatisfied¡± rating of the services. About
18 percent of those surveyed rate the transit services as not satisfactory,
even though a majority of them rate the service either ¡°very satisfactory¡± or
¡°satisfactory¡±.
As for
improvement needed for better transit information or services, two major groups
garnered higher vote: signs, brochures, and announcement in native languages,
as well as picture signs as demonstrated in Figure 32. Some people supported
the use of translators, multilingual phone line, and website supported by
multilingual texts. Other suggestions, such as making buses more reliable and
planning the routes on the web, were also presented.
To assess the
potential for attracting additional transit riders, we also probed why people
are not using transit services. Less than half of those we surveyed who don¡¯t
use transit indicated that they simply prefer to drive. Others cited that no transit
route was available, transit was too expensive or took too long or was not
reliable as reasons for their not using transit services in
To facilitate
the focus group discussion and ensure data collection, we also developed a
discussion guideline based on the survey questionnaires constructed for the
general survey, which is included in Appendix E. Not limited to the guideline,
the facilitator uses it as a tool to direct the discussion and gather relevant
information.
Most of the
focus group discussions were conducted in community group settings, where an
ethnic or language group may gather and a translator or facilitator may be
present. The community group arrangement provides a comfortable environment for
focus group participants, access to translators when needed, and inclusion of
people with very few English skills.
In three of
the ten groups, participants spoke exclusively in their native languages; a
facilitator translated all our questions to the group members and all their
remarks to us. In the other groups, most conversation was in English;
facilitators provided occasional translation as needed. In all these sessions,
one member of the project team introduced the subject of public transit for
those with English-language difficulties and encouraged discussion among group
members and open-ended responses to the issue. After the discussion, the team
members asked the group to respond to certain items on the questionnaire if
these issues had not come up in the group give-and-take.
To actuate the
focus group discussion, our first task was to explore the domain of organized
groups in LEP communities and to explain our project to their administrators.
Spanish is
All groups were composed of people attending classes or support groups
at the organizations. While no attempt was made to get a representative sample,
the groups included men and women and participant ages ranged from the twenties
to the seventies. Group size varied from three to thirty participants.
Although the
small sample size suggests caution in interpreting results, the discussions
afford some idea of how members of
The initial
objective of this survey is to gather input from LEP communities in
As indicated
in the general survey, more than half of the LEP travelers use public transportation.
Among those who do not, a portion of them walk, bicycle, or use another
non-motorized mode as their primary transportation. Consistent with general
observation made by others (Polzin,
On the other
hand, certain LEP members are truly captive transit riders because they can¡¯t
drive, don¡¯t have a driver¡¯s license, or simply can¡¯t afford a car. For
example, the Arabic women, we met in one of the focus groups, largely relied on
public transportation since none of them have driver¡¯s licenses.
Among the
transit users, the large share on buses may be explained by the socio-economic
status of the LEP group and the locations of their origin and destination. In
most cases, the bus may be the only form of practical transportation. The
subgroup distribution among transit users also indicates that the transit
services are not only important to the LEP group, but in some cases, it may be
absolutely critical, that is, without the bus services or whatever the current
transit mode he or she is using, the LEP person may not have access to basic
employment or the necessities of life.
Examining the
trip purpose distribution further confirmed the importance of transit services
to the LEP community. As indicated in the survey results, about 37 percent of
the surveyed use transit for regular commute, 30 percent for shopping and
recreational trips, and another 26 percent utilize transit for personal trips
such as visiting doctors or friends.
The focus
group discussion confirmed the questionnaire evidence that comprehension was an
issue for some people in accessing transit in new immigrant communities.
Participant comments showed that language-based service-delivery problems
existed for Polish, Arabic, Portuguese and Spanish speakers. Again, the most
problematic source of formal information was the station announcement with
ticket-machine instructions second.
With written
materials, problems were least acute for Spanish speakers because some
bilingual Spanish/English materials were available. However, all focus groups
reported communication problems in oral attempts to get information from bus
drivers or train-station crews. It was difficult for LEP travelers to find
workers with whom to speak when they had questions about transfers or fare
zones. Lack of one-on-one
communication left LEP travelers without any idea how to move en-route to new
destinations.
Partially
related to the communication and mobility information needs, ¡°transfer¡± and
¡°zonal fare¡± are two confusing or difficult segments in LEP traveler
experience. ¡°Transfer¡± problems may not be unique to the LEP community since a
regular English speaker may also gets intimated by various modes, trains,
buses, tracks, and platforms in an intermodal transfer center; the difficulties
for LEP travelers may be further escalated due to language difficulties.
Similarly if ¡°zonal fare¡± structure is confusing for the average English speaking
traveler, it may very well become an obstacle for LEP person to use transit
services.
Furthermore,
comprehension was not the only problem group members faced. Asked to talk about
LEP transit problems, over half the focus groups took a broader perspective on
their concerns. In three focus groups, people shared anecdotes about the rude
behavior they encountered when they asked questions of bus drivers in Arabic,
Spanish or badly-accented English. At least six people said that they were told
that they should not talk to drivers in Spanish. One driver added, ¡°This is a
bus for Americans.¡± Another driver asked a Spanish-speaking passenger why she
came to this country if she did not speak English. A third driver screamed,
¡°This is
While the RFP
defined the problem in terms of headquarters design of a system to provide
access, focus-group members saw the problem emanating from the way the system actually
functioned in the field rather than from its formal design. Participants thus
saw multilingual information as at best a partial solution. An at least equally
pressing imperative was a need to recruit, select, and train courteous drivers.
In both Arabic
speaking groups, the discussion veered away from the subject of service
delivery altogether. Lack of information was not their chief concern although
it was a problem. A major issue was the nature of the service provided. Recent
years had seen the growth of Arabic communities in both
Parallel to
the deficient route coverage in
It is evident
that LEP community in general uses transit services more often than the public
in general and public transportation is important for LEP travelers in general
and even critical for certain groups. Despite the problems and difficulties
they have encountered in their traveling experiences, most of the participants
in our study are satisfied with the transit services and are optimistic about
the future of public transit services in
When asked
about ideas for improving mobility information for LEP communities, most
participants prefer a staff person speaking their native language to provide
information or to consult. This suggestion was clearly preferred in the general
survey and reiterated in several focus group discussions. The second preference
is to have timetable, schedule and other related information presented in their
native language. This solution may be effective due to the generally better
reaction from Spanish-speaking travelers since some of the timetables or other
transit information may be found in Spanish already.
Multilanguage
phone lines and multilingual websites both received mixed reactions. Some of
the participants think the Multilanguage phone is useless since most times
their information need may not be pre-recorded. Others think it might help.
Given the fact that NJ TRANSIT currently has a toll free multilingual phone
line, the problem may be simply not enough advertising. Most of the people we
surveyed were not aware of the existence of such services. Scanning a number of
major transit stations or bus stops, we did not spot such information readily
accessible. As for the websites, certain groups do not think it is useful due to
their limited access to computers and the Internet.
The project
scope proposed that researchers should find methods to provide mobility
information to LEP people by studying other transportation agencies including
peer transit organizations. The aim was to learn from these organizations¡¯ best
practices and innovative strategies. To generate such information the research
team conducted surveys of peer transit agencies and identified methods that they
used to communicate with LEP people. The team also attempted to obtain examples
of materials used, collect information on costs, and learn how agencies assess
the effectiveness of their strategies. This section documents the survey
process and results.
As outlined in
United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT, 2001) Guidance, Title VI
regulations require all transit agencies that receive federal funding to give
LEP people meaningful access to programs and activities. Over 450 recipients of
federal aid operate rail and/or bus systems. Since all these agencies share an
obligation to provide equal service to LEP travelers, it is useful to ask other
agencies with LEP populations how they provide transportation opportunities.
Such information would then allow NJ TRANSIT to build on successful strategies.
To this end the research team designed a questionnaire to elicit information on
strategies to meet the information needs of LEP people. The research team then
selected appropriate agencies to receive the questionnaire. The next two
subsections describe these activities.
The
questionnaire for transit agencies¡ªSurvey of Best Practice Services for Limited
English Proficiency Travelers¡ªappears as Appendix G. Its aim is to identify
information on mobility information strategies. It is built on issues
adumbrated in the original RFP and those that emerged in our surveys and focus
group encounters with LEP travelers in
The top
portion of the survey identifies the transit system, the agency responsible for
its operation, the service region, the type of service(s) offered, e.g.,
commuter rail, bus, light rail, as well as indicating whether the agency has a
written plan for serving LEP riders. The questionnaire then asks for a list of
the top languages other than English used by riders.
The next
questions ask for information on specific strategies: multi-language
announcements, timetables, route maps, ticket machines, phone lines, staffing
in information booths and websites. One question centers on the use of
pictograms. Respondents are given room to add other strategies used by their
agencies.
The following
questions ask for information on methods for handling complaints from LEP
riders and providing training for employees in interacting with LEP people. Question
14 asks for information on program costs. Other queries probe for information
on evaluating programs and changing procedures. Respondents are given room to
describe their successes and needs in providing service to LEP populations. A
final question asks if the issues probed in the survey are relevant; the intent
is to see whether this area of concern is an important one for many agencies.
Concurrent
with the questionnaire design process, the research team assembled a list of
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the
Based on the
literature review Census data analyses conducted in the previous task, the
research team generated a concentrated list of transportation and transit
agencies in the
The team
decided to contact administrators in at least one transit agency in at least 30
MSAs with sizeable LEP populations as determined by the
A difficulty
in any attempt to get information from surveys is the possibility of a low
response rate. As one means of persuading people to respond, team members used
multiple and varied contact methods as appropriate in each situation. Most
contacts included a telephone call and a follow-up questionnaire mailing. When
appropriate, e-mail correspondence and follow-up phone calls were also
initiated. In some cases the survey
was read out over the telephone, the contact responded orally to questions and
the researcher transcribed a written survey instrument.
After
contacting agencies throughout fall 2003, we received 32 responses. As Figure
34 shows about half our respondents provide bus service while smaller numbers
provide light, heavy and commuter rail services to their constituents. Almost
none of these agencies report having a specific written plan devoted to
strategies for serving LEP travelers.
As Figure 35
shows, the three most common languages for travelers other than English are
Spanish, Chinese and Vietnamese. The predominant position of Spanish mirrors
the
Figure 36
provides some information on how American transit systems help LEP clients. The
most popular strategy is the publication of timetables and/or route maps in
languages other than English, a tactic used in about two thirds of the
responding agencies. Such production varies from bilingual publication to
providing maps and/or timetables in eight or nine languages.
The next most
popular strategies are multilingual phone lines and the use of bi- or
multi-lingual people in information booths, tactics used in half of the
responding agencies. About one third of agencies use multi-language
announcements or pictograms. Most agencies that use pictograms report
displaying at most several of these pictorial devices, e.g., standard signs for
disabled access, danger, or signs to remind people not to eat or drink on
vehicles. Less used strategies are ticket-machine instructions in languages
other than English and multi-language websites.
About
two-thirds of the respondents have systems for receiving and processing
complaints from LEP travelers. Such systems can be as simple as having
bilingual employees translate complaints from Spanish-speaking travelers or as
technically complex as having multilingual web sites for non-English
complaints. With the development of such systems, agencies increasingly have an
idea of LEP community opinions.
On the other
hand, only a quarter of respondents train employees specifically in being
courteous to the LEP population. This failure means that most agencies do not
ensure through training that employees have cultural competency to interact
with LEP people from various communities. One agency notes that it sends
employees to take community college courses in Spanish and sign language as
needed. By reimbursing employees for acquiring these skills, the agency signals
it considers multi-language competence an asset.
Only a little
more than one-third of the respondents shared cost information with us. As
Figure 37 shows, of these agencies, about half spent between $10,000 and
$30,000 on LEP-related strategies. Of the remaining respondents, about half
spent under $5,000 and about half reported spending between $100,000 and
$250,000. The highest figure comes from
Few agencies have
plans to deal with emergencies or changes of procedure in communicating with
LEP clients. Yet, in the event of emergencies, LEP clients need to understand
evacuation and other plans.
Only a few
agencies have mechanisms for evaluating the success of their tactics. The lack
of evaluation procedures increases the difficulty of analyzing the success or
cost effectiveness of many strategies.
Figure
38 reveals that transit providers consider this issue to be ¡°somewhat¡± to ¡°very
relevant¡± to the services they provide. No respondent reported that the issue
was not relevant at all.
Transit
agencies vary in their approach to LEP travelers. Some agencies have minimal
strategies to offer equal access. Other organizations make equal access an
important priority. This section of the report looks at the approach taken by a
few pioneering agencies. All of the selected agencies have multi- rather than
bi-lingual clients so their environments are similar to
WMATA is a
complex multi-modal transit system in our nation¡¯s capital area. Its METRORAIL
provides over 800 railroad cars on more than 100 miles of track; METROBUS
provides over 1400 buses. WMATA serves over 300 million travelers a year.
The agency
offers a live translation service capable of handling 140 languages. The
service receives approximately 80 calls a month with 96 percent in Spanish.
Costs average $25 per call. Some people have suggested that WMATA should invest
in a phone system where clients push one number for English information,
another number for Spanish, another for Vietnamese, etc.
WMATA¡¯s Metro
Pocket Guide is available in eleven languages, as exhibited in Appendix I. Any
of these languages can be accessed on the web by clicking on the appropriate
icon at www.wmata.com. The agency works with foreign language groups to produce
web versions (e.g., Boat People SOS for the Vietnamese version). In addition, WMATA offers Spanish bus
schedules and the agency has 12 bilingual service employees.
Despite these
procedures, WMATA wants to do more to accommodate LEP travelers. To learn what
is needed, the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board¡¯s Access
for All Advisory Committee (2003) held a focus group with over 30
representatives of social service agencies that work with LEP communities.
These representatives who have daily contact with LEP travelers in and around
In response,
WMATA is preparing a video that it will be distributed to community groups. The
video will discuss WMATA services. It will initially have English, Spanish and
Vietnamese versions, but other languages may be added if funding is available.
The agency also holds workshops for social service workers. Agency employees will
explain their services and procedures; the social service workers can then
communicate WMATA information to their LEP clients.
The social
service workers noted that one problem that they hear from LEP people is that
transit workers are not sensitive to the needs of LEP travelers. This issue of
such rudeness in the field also emerged in our focus groups in
Tri-County
Metro serves the Portland-Salem Oregon MSA with light rail and bus systems. Its
website at www.tri-met.org,
is multilingual. It provides timetables on this website in Spanish, Russian,
Chinese and Vietnamese¡ªfour of the most frequently spoken languages in its
area. It also provides opportunities on the web for riders to contact the
agency with complaints or suggestions in any of these four languages. At first,
Tri-Met tried to use an automated on-line service to translate its materials.
The agency discovered, however, that this approach often led to inappropriate
translations, e.g., ¡°Tri-Met¡± became ¡°three meetings¡± in Chinese. The current
website translations are done by a contracted translation service and are then
checked by native speakers of each language who work for agency. For example,
Tri-Met graphic artist
As depicted in
Appendix J, the agency publishes a booklet called ¡°How to Ride¡± in English,
Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese. Among other
matters, this booklet tells readers about the agency¡¯s multilingual phone line.
The booklet has information on paying fares and transfers.
The agency
uses seven pictographic symbols to represent the various areas its vehicles serve,
e.g., a beaver, a deer, a flower, etc. These symbols appear on maps, schedules
and bus stop signs, as showed in Figure 39.
It costs the
agency $7,000 to print 100,000 copies of the ¡°How to Ride¡± booklet and $7,000
in staff costs. The multilingual phone line costs approximately $2,600 per
month.
This agency
serves the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton metropolitan area in the State of
The authority
is concerned that LEP people know about its services and procedures.
Accordingly, it publicizes its multilingual telephone line with community
mailings in nine languages besides English.
The agency
budgets $15,000 per year to communicate with LEP communities about existing
operations. It also budgets $150,000 per year to communicate with all people in
the area-at-large about new projects; part of this money is spent on special
mailings to LEP clients.
New York City
Transit provides heavy rail and bus services to the densely populated,
multi-lingual
When the
system has a change in service, the agency advertises this change in the
newspapers. If the change is expected to impact a LEP community, the agency
will also advertise in the appropriate ethnic newspapers, e.g., Russian, Korean
or Chinese. In addition, the agency prints small, two-sided brochures in
English and the appropriate foreign languages and distributes the material at
different stations, as demonstrated in Appendix K. The cost for these programs
is approximately $250,000 per year including map production and translation services.
This section
documents the survey effort performed under Task 6: Survey of Internationally
Oriented Activity Centers and Task 7: Survey of Selected Transit and Transportation
Providers in Other Countries. The primary objectives of these two tasks are to
gather strategies or tactics from various international entities for improving
mobility information to foreigners. To collect information or strategies in
serving LEP population, the research team contacted transit and transportation
service providers in other countries, international airports in
Practices from
transit and transportation providers in other countries can provide useful
information for New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) and NJ TRANSIT
if the providers operate in multi-language, multimodal environments. To learn
about some European practices we interviewed transit officials in
Both
Neither
London
Transport¡¯s website at www.tfl.gov.uk and www.tflwap.gov.uk provide icons so that
viewers can see some text in German, Spanish, French, Italian or Portuguese. To
access the entire website in another language, viewers would have to download
worldlingo.com¡¯s translation tool or www.altavista.com¡¯s ¡°Babelfish¡± translation
service. The
Both systems
employ multilingual employees to help language-challenged travelers in major
stations. London Underground has 350 staff members who speak a total of 58
languages besides English (British Department for Transport, 2003). These
bilingual/multilingual employees wear badges indicating the languages they
speak and their availability to help travelers.
Training is
provided to develop employees¡¯ ability to interact courteously with non-English
speaking clients. Our contact at London Transport said that such training
constitutes 80 percent of her job. Transport for
In
Our survey of
New Jersey LEP travelers found that some communities experienced problems with
transit routes that did not meet their actual travel needs. A British
Department of Transport (2003) study uncovered the same problem in some English
LEP communities. As new immigrants moved into areas, their travel patterns
differed from those of previous residents meaning that established routes and
bus-stop locations did not match preferred offerings. The British response to
this problem was to build the needs of minority communities into the next round
of local transport plans in 2005. One way they plan to get LEP input on travel
needs is to advertise requests for travel-pattern information in newsletters in
different languages. Transit officials will use this information in planning
routes and bus-stop locations.
Major English
and French railroad stations have multi-language announcements and multilingual
personnel. National-railroad web pages, however, do not offer multi-language
information.
A group of
Welsh speakers were asked to rank order the usefulness of various measures to
help them use Welsh in English speaking areas. 49 percent said their first
choice was having staff members wear badges to show who speaks Welsh. Providing
bilingual signs, the next most popular measure, was only rank-ordered first by
21 percent of respondents (Grin and Vaillancourt, 1999).
Another unique
vehicle for providing mobility information is the Rhein-Main-Verkehrsverbund
(RMV) system in
A traveler may
purchase a ticket from the ticket counters of the transport companies or at one
of the ticket machines. The ticket machines are equipped with user screens to
guide customers through the process: first, enter the destination; then select
the type of ticket; finally, pay the amount displayed. Most importantly, by
simply pressing a button, a traveler can select his or her own language for the
ticket machine user guide from the following choices: English, French, Italian,
Spanish or Turkish. The flags on the lower left corner in Figure 42 indicate
language choices.
Airports and
airlines in
In
The
investigation yielded a number of methods with interest for transit providers.
Listed below are key airport strategies for giving LEP travelers equal access.
6.2.1.1
Web Pages
All the
airports investigated have their own web pages. In
Outside of the
6.2.1.2 Multilingual Publications
The New
York-New Jersey Port Authority airports print taxi brochures in six languages.
The brochure lets LEP travelers understand the fare system if they use cabs to
leave the airport.
Prior to
September 11, 2001
6.2.1.3
Telephone
Lines
All the
American airports investigated link customers to multilingual telephone lines
through staff at information booths. At
6.2.1.4
Pictograms and Visual Aids
All American
airports surveyed use internationally recognized symbols for access-related
services for people with disabilities, e.g., wheelchair accessibility or telecommunications
devices for the deaf. Such pictograms are also used in
The Port
Authority airports use symbols and visual aids to orient travelers. For
example, in all three airports, signs pointing passengers to gates are yellow;
signs pointing people to the front of the airport are green; and signs pointing
to services such as phones or restrooms have black backgrounds, as shown in
Figure 46. In the last few years, the Port Authority airports moved from using
multilingual announcements and signage to use of the three colors to orient
clients.
6.2.1.5
Multilingual
Announcements
6.2.1.6
Personal
Assistance
All the
airports surveyed have at least some multilingual employees who can interact
with LEP travelers.
At
All customer
service agents wear red blazers that identify the languages each agent speaks.
Employees are urged to be proactive in searching out travelers who seem to need
assistance; they do not wait for questions but ask people if they can help.
Port Authority
airports motivate employees to help travelers by allowing clients to nominate
staff members for ¡°airport ambassador of the month¡± awards. An airport
ambassador of the year, who receives $500 and an international vacation, is
chosen from the monthly winners. Some staff members have won airport ambassador
of the month status for working to clarify difficult travel issues with LEP
clients.
The Port
Authority contracts with Gateway Security for customer service representatives.
Gateway provides training that runs the gamut from security to customer
service. The multiyear Port/Gateway contract runs in excess of $35 million for
the three airports.
Airports also
leverage the service of non-profit groups. All airports surveyed have at least
one Travelers Aid Kiosk on the premises. The kiosk is staffed by volunteers who
help travelers in distress, including people who have language problems. The
volunteers can assist in map reading and accessing local transportation. At
LEP travelers
in airports, or in transit to or from them, can also ask help of airline staff.
United Airline, for example, tries to have multilingual staff at each
international airport. A contact at
British
Airways received a 2001 United Kingdom National Language for Exports Award for
its successful deployment of multilingual airport and cabin staff. The
airline¡¯s visitor service employs 140 employees at Heathrow and
Air
Many airlines
have access to their own language-assistance phone lines. United Airline has a
phone number dedicated to Spanish speakers and another one for speakers of four
Asian languages¡ªJapanese, Mandarin, Cantonese and Korean. Delta Airline has a
phone line on which representatives speak Spanish and another line on which
they speak Japanese. The airlines publicize the phone numbers on the web pages www.united.com
and www.delta.com,
respectively.
Airlines change
the languages in which they offer in-flight entertainment depending on their
destination. Continental, for example, has English and Spanish language tracks
for flights in
Most countries
and some cities have official tourism centers, which are organized by travel
bureaus or local authorities. Normally, the more developed tourist industry
provides detailed and useful information about public transit on the website of
tourism center. However, the services provided by different agencies vary.
Based on a search of over 30 websites of tourism centers around the world, the
research team selected 14 candidates for this survey. In these 14 countries or
regions, seven of them are located in
After
searching the websites of the 14 tourism centers in detail, we collected the
principal transportation information that is presented in foreign languages.
The information reflects the number of languages, market regions, the authority
or owner of the tourism center, the website addresses and the travel modes.
Given the aim of this survey, we focused on the information about public
transit provided by the tourism centers.
As shown in
Table 10, most tourism centers are operated by the official travel
administrations of the countries or regions. An Italian commercial registered
travel agency was the only non-official agency of the 14 tourism centers
studied. Nevertheless, it provides similar functions as the other official
tourism centers. All of the tourism centers have the same goals - to attract
more travelers and provide better services.
Some tourism
centers provide numerous local websites serving different market regions.
The structure
and characteristics of the tourism centers are quite diverse. The location and
path to secure public transit information vary among the websites of tourism
centers. Most of them link the transportation contents under Travel Information
or General Information. However, only a few websites, such as
Most of the
tourism centers use similar structures (interfaces) on the websites with
different languages serving numerous market regions.
As shown in
Table 11, different tourism centers provide different content regarding
information on public transit. Some not only offer an overview of multi-modes
transportation, but also provide fares, operating hours and relevant telephone
numbers. Most of the tourism centers also provide links to travel agencies,
which include both agencies serving international travel and those serving
domestic travel. The tourism centers of
Although Table
11 shows that many tourism centers provide the routes and operating hours, most
of the websites only present points of origin and destinations, the start and
end time of the mode services, but not the complete layout and schedules. One
reason for this limitation is that it is difficult to show complete lines,
stops and time tables for all of the transit routes on the tourism center
website; the other reason is that most of the tourism centers provide links to
the related transit agencies that provide more comprehensive references.
Since the
tourism centers are serving non-local travelers, it is important to provide
information on transportation connecting the airport, rail and coach terminals.
More than half of the tourism centers clearly provide the major details
regarding public transit. These include the operating hours, special tickets
(cards), the limitation of some modes of travel, service range, security,
discounts, the regulation of luggage size and rules on pets.
A general
overview of information provided by tourism centers may assist the project team
in evaluating the overall usage of websites and efforts provided to attract
foreigners. Meanwhile, a few selected cases will help the research team to
identify specific strategies or innovations that can be adopted to serve LEP
populations. Therefore, we present the following three case studies,
The
Table
12 exhibits public transit information provided by the
The interface
of the transportation information web page is user-friendly and easy to
explore. The information provided covers almost all of the public transit modes
in
The
Octopus card, an electronic stored-value card used as payment on public transit
in
The websites
of the
A
tourist can locate detailed fare information and purchase multi-mode tickets
from the websites. A Bus Service Guide even shows the different fares depending
on whether or not the buses are equipped with air-conditioning. A particular
interest to this project is that the websites explain how to purchase tickets
of Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) in detail for travelers who speak foreign
languages. A simple step by step instruction accompanied by pictures of the
ticket vending machine menu and station entrances is displayed on the website,
as depicted in Figure 50.
Detailed
illustrations of the public transit services to the airport provide great convenience
for both domestic and foreign travelers. A guide for Airport Shuttles is
presented in the same fashion as the normal public transit. Similarly, fares
and ticket purchase procedures are described in details. The first and last
service times of the MRT are also included. In addition, the dimensions of each
piece of luggage that can be brought into the train are also described.
A special feature of the website
by Germany National Tourist Board is the interactive maps of transportation
networks. Visitors can select their preferred type of transportation map¡ªrail,
motorways, and long-distance trains. Moreover, different types can be mixed as
shown in Figure 51. Furthermore, the website also provides
detailed maps for
many
Besides
transit agencies in other countries and international airports and airlines,
potential best practices for providing mobility information for LEP populations
may be gleaned from diversified internationally-oriented activity centers such
as, sport facilities, convention and tourism centers, car rental agencies,
intermodal freight terminals, etc. A large number of sport facilities in the
Another
important category of activity centers will be the cities and transit systems
that recently hosted Olympic games, such as
The main
method of communicating to non-native speaking individuals attending the
Olympic Games is through the use of internationally-recognized signage
employing iconic symbols, rather than language. Language is used, however, in
an effort to make the multi-lingual audience feel comfortable rather than to
provide information. For example, the word ¡°Welcome¡± will appear at entrance
sites in many languages. Although brochures are provided in a variety of
languages depending on the site, road signs and directions are pictorial.
Destination
names remain in the language of the host country. For example, in
To access
specific information on how to serve LEP spectators, athletes, and media teams
during the game period, the team members also contacted both
Traffic
engineers and transportation planners in
The
Besides
the vast contents of the rail, road, and waterway transport, the Museum also
hosts a wide range of exciting modern technological and education materials,
all of which are narrated in four languages: German, English, French and
Italian as depicted in Figure 53. Another effective way to communicate
information in a multi-language environment is via different audio systems. As
demonstrated in Figure 54, the red column next to the TV monitor is actually an
audio control switch. The museum patron may switch the button to one of the
pre-recorded languages among English, French, Italian and German. The message
will change instantly, and it is synchronized with the content displayed on the
TV monitor.
As proposed in
the scope, a team member,
The Institute
has developed relationships with bus and taxi drivers in its area to assist LEP
travelers with directions and fares. Institute staff has found the importance
of having LEP individuals repeat in English, or demonstrate graphically, what they
have been told to assure that they truly understand the information
communicated. Staff also arranges appropriate trips for specific groups of LEP
individuals. For example, Chinese seafarers are not only encouraged to visit
Airport and European
transit practices reinforce the benefits of multilingual websites for computer
literate LEP clients¡ªa market segment that may grow in the coming years. The
New York-New Jersey Port Authority¡¯s shift from multilingual signage to symbols
highlights the difficulties of providing verbal information to multi-language
populations, as opposed to bilingual populations. The only place where
organizations can provide such information easily and economically is
cyberspace. Since symbols are limited in providing complex information,
multi-language web pages have a role to play in customer access.
Airport and
European transit experience highlight the advantages of properly trained
multilingual employees who can interact courteously with LEP travelers. Because
so many clients of these facilities and airports are international travelers,
the organizations try to provide staff members who consider helping LEP clients
a regular part of their jobs.
Airport
experience highlights the advantages of leveraging other organizations to help
communicate with LEP people. While airports have an advantage over transit
facilities in having airline personnel on hand, transit organizations can
cooperate with community groups to learn about their members¡¯ travel needs.
In addition,
the current research reinforces the importance of the public¡¯s being aware of
any strategy for it to work. As a way of accommodating people with sensory
disabilities,
Strategies for
equal access must be easy to operate, highly visible, and clearly labeled to
succeed. Services may be underused if providers publicize language assistance
in English-only websites or on English-only signs, or if providers require
clients to download special software to access multilingual information.
Publicity for multilingual assistance must be easy to obtain and multilingual
or pictorial in its own right.
This survey of
tourism centers provided the researchers with suggestions and methods relevant
to the Project. We were able to assemble a list of tourism centers with
innovative methods, describe those methods, and learn some of their strategies.
Multi-language
websites are very useful in improving services for travelers who use foreign
languages. The same content in different languages is used to serve specific
customers.
The
application of the multi-edition of one language might increase the
professionalism and accuracy of public transit services. The comprehensive
introduction of public transit would help the non-native language travelers to
understand and master the local transit supplements.
Detailed
information regarding fares and methods of booking tickets could help travelers
understand the operation of public transit systems and use them with increasing
efficiency. On this point, tourism centers in
Several
countries and regions use special fares cards that could be accepted by
multi-mode public transit. The Octopus Card of Hong Kong is an excellent
example of this.
A concrete
description of the guidelines necessary to ride public transit is very useful
for non-native language users who might not be familiar with local conditions.
Such details as service range, operating hours, and even the regulations
dealing with luggage size and pets, are important for the travelers who speak
foreign languages.
Interactive
transportation maps are very helpful to non-native language travelers. The
German tourism center did a lot of work on this issue although it needs to improve
the language used to communicate on the maps.
Travelers
using foreign languages might use public transit to airports, rail and coach
terminals more frequently than local riders. Therefore, service on this kind of
transit should receive special attention. Many tourism centers have done good
work on this matter. Adding related links could increase speed and ease when
travelers search for information on public transit.
The use of
numbers and/or letters at Olympic sites to assist non-native speakers not only
to travel from one point to another, but also to be aware of the time required
for such trips, is effective. Most non-native travelers will know the name of
their current location, even if it is a foreign name, as well as the name of
their destination. Personal attention given by speakers of various languages is
always helpful, but even a few signs in different languages (even merely
¡°welcoming¡± signs, rather than directional), provides a comfort zone for
non-native speakers. Iconic and pictorial symbols clearly remain the most
effective way of reaching people who speak the diverse languages of those who
attend Olympic Games. Such a strategy would be effective for New Jersey
Department of Transportation.
To the extent
possible, the staff at the Seafarers Center has learned that merely giving
directions to non-native speakers and even having such speakers ¡°nod¡± or
otherwise indicate they understand what is being communicated, does not ensure
comprehension. Time permitting, it is best that the traveler be asked to repeat
verbally, or if that is not possible, diagrammatically, what has been said. Too
often, such non-native speakers are trying to be polite, or are embarrassed, or
truly do not know that they have not understood what was said to them. Staff
members at the Center also emphasize the importance of developing relationships
with local bus drivers and others in the area that deal with non-native
speakers. In that way, it is more likely that such personnel, becoming
respectful of and patient with LEP travelers, will be willing to give such
travelers the extra time and support that they require.
The foregoing
descriptions build on the material gathered in our parallel survey of American
transit systems, selected transit agencies in other counties as well as
internationally oriented activities centers. Examining a variety of agencies is
the key to our approach to ascertaining which strategies constitute best
practice. The ultimate goal of this project is to produce a best practices
catalog that our client, New Jersey Transit or similar agencies, may refer to
when selecting strategies to serve LEP travelers. The research team strove to
carry out a comprehensive approach in gathering and evaluating both verbal and
nonverbal approaches. Since nonverbal approaches may be more effective and
preferred under certain circumstances, these are highlighted in one of the
sections of this report.
In previous
tasks the project identified current practices to ensure equal transportation
access for LEP travelers. Information came from project surveys of many
entities--American transportation and transit agencies, foreign transportation
and transit agencies, airports and internationally oriented activity centers.
These surveys make plain that no one technique can provide equal access; a
spectrum of methods is required to meet travel needs. Because each jurisdiction
has its own population mix and political/social indices, the ideal strategies
will vary from area to area. What works in one jurisdiction will not
necessarily work in another. The appropriate spectrum of responses must take an
area¡¯s unique market/demographic realities into account.
Below is a
list of practices surveyed transportation entities use to enhance LEP traveler
access. NJDOT and NJ TRANSIT should implement those strategies that are most
likely to address the particular problems that actually exist in their service
area, particularly those issues raised in the project¡¯s market/demographic
interactions with LEP travelers in
A popular
strategy to enhance communication is use of printed material in multiple
languages. Although the most widely issued bi-or multilingual publications are
timetables and route maps, a few agencies publish even more comprehensive
multilingual material.
Advantages:
This strategy enables LEP travelers to access material in the same format
offered to English proficient people. It works particularly well in bi- as
opposed to multilingual communities. Short messages can be placed in vehicles
as well as stations.
Disadvantages:
Multilingual publications become clumsy and expensive where demographic
realities require addressing many languages. Including some languages and not
others can exacerbate inter-community tensions. For these reasons, and also
because of budget constraints, several agencies reported moving away from a
multilingual print strategy in recent years.
A few carriers
play multilingual announcements at facilities or in vehicles.
Advantages:
Multilingual announcements allow a facility to impart up-to-date information to
LEP travelers. The strategy allows LEP clients to access information in the
same format as other travelers.
Disadvantages:
In a multilingual environment, reciting announcements for all appropriate
languages takes a long time. In addition, we do not know if English-language
announcements are intelligible even to people who understand the language. To
the extent that poor equipment and competing noises sabotage clarity,
multilingual announcements are not a useful communication tool.
Another
popular strategy is to give LEP travelers access to a multilingual phone line
that connects them to a speaker of their native language. Costs vary.
Washington Metro reports it handles approximately 80 calls a month at an
average price of $25/call. Tri-Met has approximate costs of $2,600/month.
Advantages:
This strategy enables LEP travelers to tell their individual stories to a
linguistically competent person. A phone conversation can offer the traveler
information tailored to his or her situation in a way that printed materials
cannot.
Disadvantages:
LEP travelers may not be aware of the phone line. Access to the line may be
restricted to certain geographical areas; travelers outside those areas - but
wishing to enter their boundaries - may not be able to use the phone line.
All agencies
use standard pictograms to indicate certain facilities such as access for
people with disabilities. Many agencies also use pictorial devices to indicate
exits, entrances, food facilities, restrooms, safety procedures, etc. Tri-Met
uses seven different pictorial devices to represent the seven different areas
served by its transit systems, e.g., a deer for one area and a flower for
another. By looking for a specific symbol, travelers know if they are going
into the right area.
Facilities and
vehicles often color code information. At New York-New Jersey Port Authority
airports, yellow signs indicate travelers are moving toward the gates, green
signs indicate movement towards the entrance.
Advantages:
Many facilities are increasing use of pictograms and color coding as a
universal system for indicating facility placement and safety procedures.
Pictorial devices take up less room than multilingual signage. The aim is to
find visual representations that are comprehensible to all language
communities.
Disadvantages:
Pictorial information can never wholly supplant verbal instruction. Pictograms
cannot respond to individual queries and complaints expressed by LEP travelers.
At the present time, pictorial devices cannot convey complex material.
A few
organizations have upgraded their websites to bi- or multilingual status. The
Washington Metro offers information in eight languages. Tri-Met and
Advantages: The
multilingual website offers a unique opportunity to interact with the computer
savvy segment of the LEP population - a segment likely to grow in the coming
years. Detailed multilingual information and announcements can be offered more
easily electronically than in print.
Disadvantages:
This strategy does not help LEP travelers who have no access to or facility
with computers. It only works for a particular segment of the market.
Airports, in
particular, report personal interaction as their major strategy for working
with LEP travelers. At
Agencies let
travelers know about the abilities of their staff through badges. These emblems
indicate the languages given employees speak. At
Because
airports and airlines consider the LEP customer an important part of their
market, they train employees to interact with these people. British Airways
reimburses tuition when customer-contact staff members study foreign languages.
Its figures show that revenues rise in areas where staff has requisite language
capabilities.
Airports also
use employee incentives to focus staff members on courteous service. At the New
York-New Jersey Port Authority airports, employees have won ¡°ambassador of the
month¡± status - with monetary and free travel rewards - for especially diligent
interaction with LEP customers.
Advantages:
Bi- or multi-lingual personnel are an optimal way of giving LEP traveler¡¯s
information tailored to their personal needs. Conversational feedback affords
opportunities to avoid misunderstandings that can arise from print messages or
hurried phone calls. When agencies train and motivate employees to help LEP
travelers, the transit experience improves for this segment of the population.
Disadvantages:
Facilities will need back-up strategies if their personnel cannot cover all
requested languages. In some jurisdictions, employees may not want to advertise
or use their bilingual abilities; the jurisdiction must decide if such use is
an essential job feature. Agencies can place bi- or multilingual personnel in
train stations and major bus facilities, but these employees will not be
available at bus stops or in many vehicles; additional strategies will be
needed at those locations.
Because all
organizations have limited resources, some transportation providers try to
involve other entities in providing information to LEP travelers. Airports use
the services of Travelers Aid volunteers and resident airline personnel. WMATA
involved a community group, Boat People SOS, in preparing the Vietnamese
version of its web page. In addition, WMATA personnel have met with social
service agencies active in LEP communities to learn about the problems LEP
travelers face. A prerequisite for involving other organizations is learning
the identity of appropriate groups and motivating them to become involved in
transit access issues.
Advantages:
Agencies gain additional skills and resources by involving outside
organizations. Community groups have a unique perspective on problems LEP
travelers face.
Disadvantages:
Appropriate groups may not be available or interested in all instances.
All of the above
strategies will only succeed when travelers know about their availability and
understand how to access and use them. If agencies have language lines or other
communication mechanisms that remain unknown to commuters, the strategy is not
useful.
Transit
providers must not only publicize what is available in media that LEP travelers
use, but such providers also must share information with community groups
serving LEP travelers. Some agencies advertise access strategies in community
newspapers.
Advantages:
Publicity is vital to energize all strategies.
Disadvantages:
Publicity is only useful if an agency has chosen appropriate strategies that
meet community needs. Also, unless agencies know the social patterns of new
immigrants, it may be difficult to learn which media and community groups LEP
travelers actually consult.
Research has
indicated that the use of non-verbal communication strategies (pictograms,
icons, symbols) may be the most effective means of conveying information to
non-native speaking travelers. Pictograms improve communication within today's
global metropolis, bridging language barriers and simplifying basic messages.
As has been pointed out, the effectiveness of such strategies increases in what
has been labeled as a ¡°high context situation,¡± where the sender and receiver
(traveler) share common knowledge or information. As indicated earlier,
international airports throughout the world, as well as Olympic sites, are
major users of pictograms. Due to the spread of the English language and
American culture, the ability to create universal or near-universal signs has
increased, decreasing the likelihood that the symbols will be
misinterpreted. One study has even
shown that nonverbal auditory icons, such as the sound of breaking glass, can
be used to warn transportation users of danger (Belz et al, 1999).
As documented
in his textbook, Dreyfuss (1984) recognized the importance of symbols in
communicating with increasing speed and effectiveness; for many years he and
his staff collected and codified graphic symbols as they are used in all walks
of life throughout the world. The result is this "dictionary" of
universally-used graphic symbols. Dreyfuss designed this sourcebook to be as
practical and easy to use as possible by arranging the symbol information
within ingeniously devised sections: The term ¡°Basic Symbols represent a
concise and highly selective grouping of symbols common to all disciplines
(on-off, up-down, etc.). Disciplines provide symbols used in accommodations and
travel, agriculture, architecture, business, communications, engineering,
photography, sports, safety, traffic controls, and many other areas. Color
lists present the meanings of each of the colors in various worldwide
applications and cultures. Graphic Form displays symbols from all disciplines
grouped according to form (squares, circles, arrows, human figures, etc.),
creating a unique way to identify a symbol out of context, as well as giving
designers a frame of reference for developing new symbols. To make the
sourcebook truly universal, the Table of Contents contains translations of each
of the section titles and discipline areas into 17 languages in addition to
English.
There is little theoretical work
that deals with communication situations using the medium of English and
including people with Limited English Proficiency. However,
considerable insight into the
use of nonverbal strategies can be culled from the works of well-known
linguists, anthropologists, and others who have built upon their contributions.
Hall (1959 and 1983) reminds us
that the effectiveness of nonverbal communication increases with context. In a
high context situation where there is abundant common knowledge, complex ideas
can be communicated without speech or writing. Conversely, if the situation is
low context, as is the case where the sender and receiver have very little
knowledge in common, non-communication or miscommunication is likely.
In the public sphere people must
often acquire information from static symbols instead of from other humans, so
the success of the vital information being transmitted is especially dependent
on the context or frame. Whether or not there is enough information in the
static sign for the receiver to understand the message, to a useful degree, depends on recognizing
something familiar about the symbols used.
Eco (1970 and 1990) has pointed
out that most signs are multi-vocal; they are likely to be interpreted in a
variety of ways. The likelihood of misinterpretation is, therefore, great. Few
symbols are truly universal since interpretation of such symbols is based solely on the receiver¡¯s experience. Due to the spread of American
culture and the English language, however, it may be possible to create universal
or near-universal signs. Furthermore, the hypothesis that a certain sign can be
interpreted cross-culturally could be tested in most urban American
environments. If a sign is not universally univocal, then ensuring that it has
the fewest possible interpretations will increase its potential for use in
multicultural public situations.
Hodge and Kress (1988),
following kinesic researchers like Hall (1959) and Birdwhistle (1979) emphasize
that the physical relationships between people, and, by inference, between
people and static symbols, can influence the degree to which a message is
successfully communicated. The size of a sign, its placement, how others in the
situation react to it, and the proximity of others in the situation, all
influence the transmission of information.
Transportation systems across
the country and around the world have taken a variety of approaches to
communicating with their customers in public spaces. These range from totally
non-verbal designs to ones with large numbers of written and auditory
explanations. Our survey of transportation systems will acquire and assess
examples from varied approaches. Out of this assessment we should be able to
apply some of the theoretical concepts discussed above to determine which
systems most effectively use a primarily nonverbal approach, along with
supporting verbal information, to frame the context of the public situation for
maximum understanding.
The information that traffic signs
provide depends not only on language but also on nonverbal factors involved in
sign development. Karczewski (2003) studied motorists¡¯ reaction to the color of
emergency lighting in
Metaxatos and Soot (2001) showed
that the ability of drivers to recall portable changeable message signs (PCMS)
in highway work zones depends on the time of day, driver age, type of vehicle,
and familiarity with the site. Belz et. al (1999) showed that nonverbal
auditory icons such as the sound of breaking glass can be used to warn
transportation users of danger.
As recorded
earlier, 26 percent of multi-language
Our study of
over thirty
Airports in
the
The main
method of communicating to non-native speaking people attending the Olympic
Games is through the use of internationally recognized signage employing iconic
symbols. Road signs and directions are pictorial. During the Olympic Games in
The
The cost of pictograms may vary depending on the size
and quantities of signs produced at times. A spectrum of pictogram or sign
costs is included based on our discussions with various venders and users. For
example, pictograms used inside and outside of light rail vehicles or buses as
displayed in Figure 55 may cost as little as $5 a piece if ordered in large
quantities. On the other hand, larger signs or pictograms that are mounted on
posts may cost $20 to 25 per square feet as documented in Table 13. It is noted
that those included in the table are some approximate figures for sign installation
costs, based on construction project bid prices in
The ultimate
objective of this study is to provide NJ TRANSIT and NJDOT with a manual to be
used in recommending ways of improving services to the LEP population in
Early objectives of this
study were to gather input from LEP communities in
The initial objectives of this research focused on
learning the mobility information needs of LEP travelers in
As indicated in the general survey, more than half
of the LEP travelers use public transportation. Among those who do not, a
portion of them walk, bicycle, or use other non-motorized mode as their primary
transportation. Consistent with general observation made by others (Polzin,
In addition to the perceived deficiencies in route
coverage in
To provide adequate transit services to the LEP
communities and travelers in general, we suggest NJ TRANSIT work with NJDOT and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) such as North Jersey Transportation
Planning Authority (NJTPA) and consult regional transit demand models
maintained by local MPOs. This consultation will allow NJ TRANSIT to identify
unique travel demand or travel patterns developed by the local communities.
NJ TRANSIT may also need to evaluate transit
services against demographic and economic conditions periodically. In recent years,
rapid transitions from one ethnic group to another have been observed in
various locations. In
As documented in our previous survey, the majority
of the LEP transit users are satisfied with the transit services provided by NJ
TRANSIT and its employees. However, there are a few instances, as revealed in
the focus group, where riders had experiences with drivers who became nasty
after these riders tried to ask questions in Spanish or heavily accented
English. Those incidents may be few and far between, but the effects, which are
very significant, may permanently damage the customer relationship if not
addressed properly.
The emotional intensity of the group¡¯s condemnation
of racially biased bus drivers suggests this may be an important issue to
address. To eliminate or reduce such incidents in the future, we suggest that
NJ TRANSIT provide cultural sensitivity training for their employees
particularly for those who frequently interact with customers and for all bus
drivers. If needed, the research team might help to identify or provide
technical resources for such training.
When asked in our survey about ideas for improving
mobility information, most participants prefer a staff person speaking their
native language to provide information or consult in person. This suggestion
was clearly preferred in the general survey and reiterated in several focus
group discussions. The three parallel agency surveys we have conducted also
confirm that human interaction is the most preferred and effective methods in
serving LEP travelers. For example, all information booth personnel in
We suggest that NJ TRANSIT promote cultural
diversity starting within its organization. Given the headquarters location in
In addition, NJ TRANSIT may encourage employees to
take foreign language courses by reimbursing tuition or providing other
incentives as British Airways does. Incentives, such as ¡°customer
representative of the month¡± with modest monetary rewards, may work well to
encourage courteous services.
We are certainly aware of the personnel costs
associated with placing bi-or multilingual personnel in information booths and
key transit locations given the high volume of NJ TRANSIT services and
diversified language demands in the area. The next section discusses
cooperative programs with other organizations that may help offset the costs.
As EO 13166 does not come with additional funding,
it is critical for transit agencies to provide services within the existing
operation budget. To improve transit services to LEP travelers with limited
cost, we suggest that NJ TRANSIT reach out to local communities and interest
groups to provide information to LEP travelers. For example, the Hispanic
Development Corporation, Russian Jewish Family Centers, and Polish Community
Groups are actively involved in local communities in
A prerequisite for involving other organizations is
learning the identity of appropriate groups and motivating them to become
involved in transit access issues. It is vital for NJ TRANSIT to reach out to
various civil organizations to explore the potential cooperation opportunities.
As demonstrated by transit agencies such as WMATA and various airports, all
stakeholders--transit operators, community organizations, and transit
users--will benefit from such cooperation if carried out successfully. The
transit agencies will improve their services without exhausting limited
budgets. Community organizations may increase their visibility, credibility, or
influence by working as liaisons between the transit agencies and their
constituencies. The biggest winner may be the transit users, who receive
improved services without increased expenses or sacrificing quality of life. In
turn, happy customers have great potential to help promote transit use.
No service improvement will do any good unless the
end users are aware of it. As documented in our survey, a number of agencies
advertise their transit services in community newspapers, local radios, and
resident mailings. The modest expense of direct advertising to targeted
audiences has great potential as evidenced by the recent success of direct
advertising of the New River Line LRT opening to Chinese communities in
Publicizing what is available focuses limited resources
to targeted audiences so that the travel information will reach the targeted
communities where and when it is needed.
The focus group discussion confirmed questionnaire
evidence that comprehension was an issue for some people in accessing transit
in new immigrant communities. Participant comments showed that language-based
service-delivery problems existed for Polish, Arabic, Portuguese and Spanish
speakers. Again, the most problematic source of formal information was the
station announcement with ticket-machine instructions second.
Having received a large number of responses from
LEP travelers in
Given the large number of foreign languages spoken
in
To provide simple and brief directions, pictograms
work much better than multilingual written material. By the same token, color
codes should be explored to simplify or generalize transit information for LEP
travelers and travelers at large. NJ TRANSIT has implemented a color coding
system in the new Secaucus transfer station; it may be worthwhile to conduct a
follow-up study to examine the effectiveness of this technique in facilitating
travel and transfers.
As mentioned earlier, one advantage of pictograms
and color coding is their relative low cost to implement. Increasingly,
transportation agencies and other public entities are using those techniques
when conveying information to the public; therefore, there should be a growing
acceptance of commonly recognized signs or icons. However, it is also worth
noting that pictorial information can never wholly supplant verbal
instructions, especially to individual queries or complex materials.
With written materials, problems were least acute
for Spanish speakers because some bilingual Spanish/English materials were available.
However, all focus groups reported communication problems in oral attempts to
get information from bus drivers or train-station crews. It was difficult for
LEP travelers to find workers with whom to speak when these riders had
questions about transfers or fare zones.
Lack of one-on-one communication left LEP travelers without any idea how
to move en-route to new destinations. Pictograms can provide minimal
information when multilingual staff members are not available.
The survey of LEP groups in
One of the important effects of this tactic is to
enable LEP travelers to access material in the same format offered to English
proficient people, which is one of the criteria outlined in the United States Department of Transportation
Guidance (U.S. DOT,
2001). The difficult task for NJ TRANSIT is to choose which languages other
than Spanish to select for multilingual materials. This requires careful
attention to demographic patterns in specific areas.
Public Announcement (PA) is one of the most often
cited informational problems encountered by LEP travelers. These announcements
are also difficult to decipher by people who are proficient in English.
Psychologists suggest that PA systems are usually associated with changes to
normal life patterns; therefore, their sound increases the anxiety of travelers
and makes it difficult for travelers to concentrate on the message.
Transmission often occurs on poor quality equipment and, most times, in a very
noisy environment. To make such a tactic workable for LEP travelers, NJ TRANSIT
should try to improve the quality of the PA systems and the overall station or
vehicle environment.
NJ TRANSIT is currently subscribing to a toll-free
number to provide transit information, which may be used to reach certain
interpreters if the user is capable of navigating the first batch of questions
in English alone. This is not a multilingual phone line in the sense that
transit information may be accessed by simply pushing a button. Some of the
participants in our survey think the multilingual phone is useless since most
times their information needs are not pre-recorded. Others think such a phone
might help. Given the low usage of this tactic by other transit agencies, we
are not recommending that NJ TRANSIT focus its efforts on multilingual phone lines.
As recommended by airports, the multilingual phone line should be the backup
system. The primary focus should be on human interaction as we proposed in an
earlier section.
Given that NJ TRANSIT currently has a toll free
transit information phone, the problem may be insufficient advertising. Most of
the people we surveyed were not aware of the existence of such services.
Scanning a number of major transit stations or bus stops, we did not consider
such information as readily accessible. Furthermore, there is no evaluation or
statistics on the usage of such services. One step NJ TRANSIT may take is to
examine the usage records of the toll free phone line contract. If use is low,
such service may be dropped and the funds allocated to other strategies.
As documented in the survey of LEP groups in
On the other hand, multilingual websites may help promote
NJ TRANSIT to people from other parts of world. Therefore, it may prove
beneficial to develop multilingual websites with detailed system information
for marketing purposes. In conjunction with the strategic policy direction
proposed in the last section--cooperating with other organizations -NJ TRANSIT
may be able to tap into the talents of university students to develop website
materials. Given the close location of NJ TRANSIT to New Jersey Institute of
Technology and
Anttila, V.;
Baltes,
Belz, S.,
Birdwhistle,
Blumenberg,
Bullard,
California Department of
Education, 2002. Title III Language Instruction for Limited-English
Proficient and Immigrant Students.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/t3/,
2002. Accessed in September 2004.
British Department for Transport. 2003. Transport Requirements of
Minority Ethnic and Faith Communities. Wetherby,
Eco, Umberto. 1990. The Limits of
Interpretation.
Eco, Umberto. 1970. A Theory of Semiotics.
Erhart,
J, 1995. ¡°Signage and Multilingual Needs in the
Grin,
Hall,
Hall,
Hodge,
Kanada,
Karafin,
Karczewski,
Languageadvantage. 2003 ¡°British Airways
Gets the Language Advantage.¡± 2002. http://www.languageadvantage.com/news/britishairways2002.htm.
Accessed in March 2004
Metaxatos,
Miller,
Minnesota Department of Human
Services, 2003, ¡°MN DHS: Limited English Proficiency (LEP)¡±, http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/Language/default.htm,
Accessed in Sept. 2004.
Moeur,
National Capital
Region Transportation Planning Board Access for All Advisory Committee. 2003.
¡°Report on Major Findings and Recommendations to Improve Transit Information
for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Customers.¡±
Ontario
Ministry of Transport, 1996, Evaluation of Traffic Signs and Their
Application to Bilingual Signing.
Picha,
Polzin,
Polzin, S., X.
Ronningen,
Taylor, Orlando L., 1987,
¡°Cross-Cultural Communication: An Essential Dimension of Effective Education¡±,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002A, ¡°New
Jersey Census¡±, http://www.census.gov.
Accessed in June 2002.
United
States Department of Transportation, Office of Secretary, 2001, ¡°DOT Guidance
to Recipients on Special Language Services to Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Beneficiaries¡±, Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 14,
United
States Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, ¡°Community Culture and the
Environment: A guide to Understanding a Sense of Place¡± 842-B-01-003, Office of
Water,
U.S.
Railroad Retirement Board, 2001, ¡°U.S. Railroad Retirement Board's Plan to
Improve Service to Individuals with Limited English Proficiency¡±, http://www.rrb.gov/blaw/leptoc.html,
Updated in Sept. 2004.
Zavala,
In the last few
years, LEP related activities have increased rapidly around the country. Numerous
state and local agencies, such as human service agencies, health departments
and school systems, have developed plans to facilitate the needs of LEP
populations. The following section presents a sample of those activities, some
of which may provide potential sources for our best practice surveys even
though they take place outside the transportation field.
Due to the rapidly changing and growing
population of
As part of the department¡¯s LEP Program (Minnesota Department of Human Services, 2003), each
county and state department is mandated to develop a LEP plan. The LEP plan
needs to outline services, which may include a meaningful
access policy, interpreter and translation services, emergency situation
service and signage for major landmark buildings, major
activity locations, and the Government Centers. Language assistance posters,
such as ¡°free interpreter¡± posters, are placed in an accessible location for
public viewing so that people with limited English proficiency know that they
can ask for a free interpreter if they need one to access public information or
services.
The State of
As one of the pioneer agencies with a plan to serve LEP people, the U.S.
Railroad Retirement Board (USRRB) has maintained its visibility in the LEP area
(U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 2001). The USRRB is an independent agency in
the executive branch of the
The Railroad Retirement Board prepared a plan to ensure meaningful
access by LEP individuals to its programs and activities. It launched a
questionnaire survey in over 50 field offices asking employees about contacts
with LEP clients. Information from this survey and from a LEP community stake
holder¡¯s conference held in
The plan identifies the
LEP client population, frequency of contacts, and scope of languages (Spanish,
French, German, Swedish, Italian, Portuguese, Greek, Russian, Polish,
Czechoslovakian, Ukranian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Croatian, Armenian, Somalian,
Vietnamese, Hmong, Chinese, Tagalog, and Navajo). Current resources for dealing
with LEP customers include bilingual contact representatives, written
materials, and technological resources within and outside the agency. More
importantly, included in the LEP plan is a detailed study of LEP services and
suggestions for the improvement of LEP services to RRB customers.
As a part of the Texas
Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, the Adult Protective Services
Program provides protective services to individuals who are elderly or disabled
or reported to be abused, neglected, or exploited (Texas Department of
Protective and Regulatory Services, 2003). Funded by the federal government,
this program provides appropriate interpreter services to Limited English
Proficiency (LEP) and sensory impaired clients. The implementing staff is required
to identify any person who needs interpreter services or documents in a
language other than English. Services include bilingual workers, qualified
translators, sign language interpreters, pictures, objects and bilingual
brochures, communication devices, and forms or other materials in the client¡¯s
preferred language.
One of the language assistant
programs implemented by the Health Association of New York State is CyraCom.
CyraCom¡¯s Dialingual services can access more than 150 languages through a
patented dual-handset or any CyraPhone (
Even before Executive Order
13166 was issued, the transportation community was concerned with how users
with different cultures, languages, and educational backgrounds understood
official information. For example, airports were interested in the effects of
multilingual signage (Baer, 1995; Erhart, 1995) and signs that individual
travelers can activate (Rhodes and Associates, 1999).
As immigration and LEP
populations increased, the mobility needs of this population became of greater
interest. The analysis of Polzin et al. (2001) showed that mobility varies
between different cultural groups. While these differences have ameliorated
over time, Hispanic mobility is still about 2 percent below the national
average, while Asian mobility is about 15 percent below the national average.
We have therefore looked for language-related studies sponsored by
transportation agencies in the
In order to help LEP truck
drivers identify potential roadway hazards, the Texas Department of
Transportation awarded a five-year contract to the Texas Transportation
Institute to collect information on drivers¡¯ understanding of alternative
traffic signs in the
Alternatives that included
Spanish-only wording had a higher comprehension rate than all-English signs for
designations such as ¡°load zoned bridge¡± or ¡°weigh station next right.¡± The
researchers also recommended putting metric measurements next to American units
of measures.
In the Mexican border areas of
This paper also compares
different traffic control devices in the border areas in
A study of bilingual (Finnish and Swedish) message signs was
conducted In
The New Road & Street Works
Act 1991 mandates that almost all regulatory, warning, and information signs
for drivers in
The conclusion that bilingual
signs are not more visually demanding agrees with the Finnish study but may
conflict with the recommendations of Picha et. al. (1997). They argued for the
use of all-English or all-Spanish signs on the basis that signage with both
languages proved confusing for drivers. It also conflicts with the conclusions
of Ontario Ministry of Transport (1996) that found that multilingual signs on
Canadian roads contained too much information to digest easily. The reason for
these conflicts may be that some bilingual/multilingual configurations are
acceptable to some while others are confused.
LEP Travel Need Survey
No._________ Date: ______________ Surveyor: ___________________________
1. Have you used public transit in
( ) No, please go to question #6 on next
page.
( ) Yes, Please go to question #2
2. Please fill out the following table:
|
|
How many trips do you make in a month? |
Trip Purpose (working, going to school, eating, recreation, shopping, business meeting, visiting friends, visiting doctor or others) |
|
Bus |
|
|
|
Subway |
|
|
|
Light Rail |
|
|
|
Commuter Train |
|
|
3. Do you have trouble in understanding the transit information?
|
Transit Information |
Do you have difficulty? |
Is it useful? |
|
Route
map |
|
|
|
Timetable |
|
|
|
Station
announcements |
|
|
|
Ticket
machine instruction |
|
|
|
Station signs |
|
|
|
Other
_________________________ |
|
|
4. Are you satisfied with the transit services?
( ) Very satisfied
( ) Satisfied
( ) Not satisfied
5. What changes do you think should be done to improve your transit experience?
( ) Signs, brochures and announcements in
your native language
( ) Picture signs
( ) Translators
( ) Multilingual phone lines
( ) Website supported by multilingual texts
( ) Others________________
Please go to question #8 on
next page.
6. The reasons you did not use transit
( ) No transit route available
( ) Prefer to drive
( ) Transit is too expensive
( ) Transit takes too long time
( ) Can¡¯t
understand Transit information in English
( ) Not reliable
( ) Other________________
7. How do you get around?
( ) Drive by myself
( ) Ride as a passenger
( ) Use Taxi Cab
( ) Other _______________
8. What is your native language?
( ) Spanish or Spanish Creole
( ) Italian
( ) Chinese(Cantonese/Mandarin)
( ) Polish
( ) Russian/Ukrainian/RUM
( ) Portuguese
( ) Arabic
( ) Korean
( ) Other______________
9. How well do you read English?
( ) "Very well"
( ) "Well"
( ) "Not well"
( ) "Not at all"
10. 10. How well do you speak and understand
English?
( )
(
) "Very well"
( ) "Well"
( ) "Not well"
( ) "Not at all"
11. 11.
Gender:
( ) ( )Male
( ) Female
12.
12. Age:
( ) ( )Under
20
( ) ( )20 ¨C 30
( )
( ) 31 ¨C
64
( ) ( )65 or
above
13. 13. Do you have a valid driver¡¯s license?
( ) Yes
( ) No
14. 14.
Number of cars in your household:
( ) 0
( ) 1
( ) 2
( ) 3 or more
( ) 1
( ) 2
( ) 3
( ) 4
( ) 5 or more
16. 16. Total household income
($/year):
( ) Under $25,000
( ) $25,000 - $50,000
( ) $50,000 - $75,000
( ) $75,000 or more
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Questions for Focus Group
|
Native language |
Spanish |
Chinese |
Russian |
Portuguese |
|
Italian |
Polish |
Korean |
Arabic |
|
|
English proficiency |
Very well |
Well |
Not well |
Not at all |
|
Gender |
Male |
Female |
||
|
Age range |
|
|
|
|
|
Valid driver¡¯s license |
Yes |
No |
||
|
Cars in your household |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3+ |
|
Household size |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4+ |
To present the focus discussions, we have
grouped the various sessions under different language headings, even though
most of the issues and responses are not language specific. The format,
consistent with most focus group discussions, is organized and easy to follow.
On
The first class was for basic ESL students.
The class members were made up of 24 women and 6 men. The native language of
about a quarter of the students (7) was Portuguese and the rest Spanish (23).
The participants were mostly in their 20s and 30s. About 60 percent of them
(18) had driver¡¯s licenses and the rest (12) did not. About two thirds of the
group (21) had a family car, and the others did not.
They all used public transit to get to work.
Eleven people also used it to visit family. None used it for shopping. They used
the bus and the train (PATH, NJ TRANSIT). At least 16 people used it once a
week or more; seven people used it five times a week or more.
They understood maps, timetables (except for
one person), ticket machines and station signs. That is because many
instructions and signs are already bilingual Spanish/English. They said that
the announcements were not clear, and the microphones on the trains were poor,
but that they were satisfied with the transit service.
They said that their biggest problem was that
they do not know how to transfer from one train or bus to another. They would
like people who speak Spanish or Portuguese in the stations to help them. They
would like the addition of bilingual websites and phone lines.
The second class that
Fourteen people used public transit. They
used the bus and commuter train. Two people never used public transit because
they travel by car. One person said simply, ¡°No. Now I have my car.¡± Seven
people used public transit five times a week or more. Four people used it once
a week or less. The other people were in between.
Satisfaction levels varied. Two people said
they were satisfied. Two people said they were not satisfied. Eight people did
not like either of those choices. They said the correct choice for them would
be ¡°so so.¡± Two people did not want to answer the question.
Again people said they understood maps,
timetables, ticket machine instructions and signs because many are in Spanish
already. Two people said they could not understand the announcements because
people did not speak clearly and the microphones are of poor quality.
When asked ¡°how can we improve the transit
experience?¡± they answered that they would like to see people who speak Spanish
and Portuguese in the stations so that the riders can ask questions. Their
second choice would be a printed information guide in Spanish and Portuguese.
They said that a language line would be helpful, but only if a competent clerk
is in the station to give information, and a multilingual website would also be
useful. Similar to the first group, the biggest problem of the second group was
how to transfer from one train or bus to another.
On
Seven people used public transit. Two people
did not use it because they had cars. Types of transit accessed included buses,
subways, and commuter trains. These people used transit every day job searches,
shopping, hospital trips, and family visits.
The group members volunteered that their
biggest problem was that bus drivers did not understand them, so the riders
cannot ask questions about location or cost. Transfers were a big concern. These
riders did not understand how much to pay for a transfer and they could not ask
anyone in authority. They also had problems understanding how much to pay for
each ¡°zone.¡± Emergency doors in vehicles only have English labels so these
Spanish speakers did not understand the instructions. The concern was that they
cannot communicate with transit system employees when they have individual
questions.
They did not understand announcements, but
they realized that even English- speaking people had a hard time because of the
poor equipment. Some people had trouble understanding the timetables; they
believed that instructions on the bus timetable should be bilingual. They said
that the biggest problem with the timetables, however, was that they are
inaccurate; they do not indicate when the bus actually arrives. They could
understand the ticket machines and maps.
Several students volunteered that a bus
driver behaved rudely to them when they tried to ask questions in Spanish or
heavily accented English. At least six people had such experiences. One driver
told a rider that she should not speak Spanish to him because this was a bus
for Americans.
The group members did not want to rate
themselves either ¡°satisfied¡± or ¡°dissatisfied¡± with public transit. They preferred
terms such as ¡°so so¡± or ¡°regular.¡±
They were asked ¡°What changes would get more
transit information to them?¡± They said that their first choice would be
transit employees who speak some Spanish (e.g., bus drivers who speak some Spanish,
Penn Station information desk employees who speak some Spanish). They said that
they want personalized communication that meets their needs in a specific,
one-time situation.
Other useful changes they suggested were
more Spanish on the bus timetable and a bilingual website. They did not think a language phone line
would be helpful.
Seven people used transit
and seven did not. Those who did not use transit say it was because they had
cars. Transit users accessed buses, subways and trains every day. They used
transit to go to school, work, stores, and homes of family and friends.
Group members said that the biggest problem
is that bus drivers do not speak Spanish. The passengers have questions about
¡°zones,¡± but the driver cannot understand them and, therefore, cannot help.
Again people said they had experiences where
a driver became nasty after they tried to ask questions in Spanish or heavily
accented English. Drivers told passengers to speak in English or asked why the
person had come to this country if she didn¡¯t speak English. One driver
screamed, ¡°This is
Group members said that they could
understand maps and timetables, but that the timetables are hard to get and
they do not correspond to the times when the bus actually arrives. They said
that they could understand the ticket machines but have a hard time with the
announcements.
The second group was different from the
first group when asked whether they are satisfied with the transit services.
This group clearly indicated that they are satisfied with the transit services.
As for changes to be made to get more
transit information, their first choice was for bus drivers who speak some
Spanish. These riders suggested that drivers who don¡¯t speak Spanish should at
least be polite and try to help people who do not speak English well.
On being questioned, the riders said that
they would also find it helpful to have Spanish-speaking people at information
desks and bilingual schedules easily available. They called phone lines and a
bilingual website ¡°OK.¡±
Our focus groups with Arabic speakers were
all conducted at the International Institute of New Jersey located in
The ages of the participants ranged from 30
to 45. None of them had driver¡¯s licenses; therefore they used public transit,
bus and train, five days a week on average. They use public transit for shopping,
for visiting relatives and friends in
However, they were not satisfied with the
transit services. The reasons follow:
The suggestions that they made to get more
transit information to them follows:
The women noted that a major transportation
problem for them is that the state does not provide direct transit along routes
they want to use. They said that transit is not designed to take them where
they want to go. For example, they added, that there is no easy, direct public
transit between the Arabic communities of
In the Arabic
community, usually only men work while women mainly care for home and children;
the traveling public tends to be male, going to and from work and traveling
during the workday as part of their job responsibilities. Women and children do
some traveling, primarily close to home for shopping, visiting and school.
Although families tend to be large, most often they have only one car used
solely by the male members of the family. For all travel, however, about 80
percent use public transportation, while about 20 percent use cars.
The profile of
people from the well over twenty nations that make up Arab-American travelers
varies greatly. Not only do dialects of the Arabic language vary although
people generally understand one another, but also the major language other than
Arabic in a specific country may be English, French, or another language. Also,
the education levels differ from country to country,
People in the
community do indicate that they have problems with travel such as the following:
Some solutions to
the above problems were suggested:
In general,
Arabic-speaking transportation consumers are hopeful that New Jersey Department
of Transportation and NJ TRANSIT will recognize the travel requirements of this
growing population in the state and take appropriate action to meet consumer
needs.
On
At the same time,
most adults acquire individual automobiles once they reach driving age.
Families, therefore, tend to have several cars. Of course, there tend to be
fewer automobiles in families living in densely populated areas where parking
is a significant problem. Nonetheless, whether or not those of driving age own
their individual cars, once they are legally able to drive, they acquire a
driver¡¯s license.
A significant
number of Polish new arrivals are able to communicate in English. Since Polish
speakers come from one specific country unlike Arabic speakers who are from
many diverse nations, even those Polish speakers who cannot communicate in
English tend to be part of a very close-knit community. If they do not speak
English well enough to travel alone, they are accompanied by bilingual members
of the Polish community and taught how to use public transportation, or to
drive to get to their destination. One effect of this strong support system is
that new arrivals from
For everyday
activities, generally short trips within the neighborhood, the car is the
transportation mode of choice as soon as the new arrivals from
Factors that do encourage use
of public transportation are the difficulty of finding parking in some areas,
as well as the high cost of auto insurance. ¡°Park and Ride¡± to buses and trains
is considered very useful. Also, there is hope that the ferry system will be
augmented so that it will serve as an increasing mode of transportation. In
general, Polish transportation consumers are enthusiastic about public transit
and would like to see these improvements made that they believe will serve the
public more efficiently while also being cost-effective.
On
The group, as a whole, is highly educated.
However, the ESL program in question, offered by the Jewish Family Vocational
Service in
The basic problems faced by
the students in accessing public transportation are as follows:
When asked about how to
improve services or getting more information, the participants suggested that
the bus stops should have shelters, which provide route maps and a schedule.
The route map should depict each stop and the associated name of stop. At each
bus shelter there should be posted a telephone number to call for information.
Hopefully, a translator or at least a tape in various languages can be accessed
to answer pertinent and common questions.
Another suggestion is to have smaller buses run more often on evenings
and weekends, which may alleviate some of the above problems.
On June 25,
While there was agreement that public
transportation in
The rest of the group quickly agreed with
him and offered their stories about how inconvenient the routes and schedules
were for them. For all five of these men, PATH train service was occasionally
used, but mainly for leisure activities such as visiting
The bulk of the discussion addressed a more
troubling problem. There was a unanimous agreement that NJ TRANSIT personnel
were prejudiced, and that this LEP population experienced discrimination,
especially from bus drivers. One participant said the bus drivers practiced
¡°racial profiling.¡± ¡°More than regular people, bus drivers think we are
terrorists because we are Muslim. Sometimes they don¡¯t stop when they see me,
and I lose money for missing work,¡± he stated. Others described instances of
verbal abuse and general disrespect.
One member suggested bus drivers needed
training for cultural sensitivity. The emotional intensity of the group¡¯s
condemnation of racially biased bus drivers suggests this may be an important
issue to address.
On June 29,
Like the previous Zoni group, there were
general complaints about the scheduling. In fact, in the area that most live
there are private ¡°small white buses¡± that run much more often than ¡°regular¡±
buses, are cheaper, and generally provide better service. The only compromise
is time. Going to
The mention that the white bus drivers were
friendly prompted a discussion of NJ TRANSIT rudeness. There was unanimous
agreement. One female participant explained that every day she would smile at
the driver and say good morning. He never smiles and furthermore acts rudely to
her and most other riders who get on the bus along the way.
Another participant said
that he had experienced rudeness from ¡°information-givers¡± at Penn Station in
The session ended with one woman summarizing
the discussing by saying, ¡°Mexicans are poor. They don¡¯t like us, but we pay
like everyone. Why I have to wait one hour for a bus to get to work? It¡¯s not
right.¡±
Survey of best practice
services for
Limited English Proficiency
(LEP) travelers
ID.
___________________ Surveyer:
______________________________
Date: _________________ Contact:
_______________________________
Name of the
Transit System: ____________________________________
Operating
Agency: ____________________________________________
Service
Region: _________________________________________
1. Type of
Transit Services:
( ). Commuter Rail
( ). Light Rail
( ). Heavy Rail
( ). Bus
( ). Other, please specify
___________________________________.
2. Is there a
written agency plan for serving Limited English Proficiency (LEP) travelers?
( ). Yes. Would you please send us a
copy?
( ). No.
( ). Under production.
3. Would you
please name the top three languages other than English spoken by your riders?
I.
___________
II.
___________
III.
___________.
4. Do you use any multi-language
announcements?
( ) No.
( ) Yes. Please specify the
languages and locations.
__________ _____________
__________ _____________
__________ _____________.
5. Is there timetable or route map in
languages other than English?
( ) No.
( ) Yes. Please specify the
languages used.
__________ ____________ __________ _____________.
6. Are your ticket machines accessible via
other languages besides English?
( ) No.
( ) Yes. Please specify the
languages used.
__________ ____________ __________ _____________.
7.
Do
you provide multilingual phone lines?
( ) No.
( ) Yes. How do you publicize it?
_________________________________________________________.
8.
Do
you staff information booths with multilingual persons?
( ) No.
( ) Yes. What is the utilization
rate? __________________________.
9.
Is
there a multi-language website for your agency?
( ) No.
( ) Yes. Would you please give us
the address?
________________________________________________.
10.
Do you use pictograms?
( ) No.
( ) Yes. Would you please give us a
list of signs that you use?
___________ ____________ _____________ ____________
___________ ____________ _____________ ____________.
11.
What other strategies do you use to
provide information to LEP clients?
________________________________________________________________,
________________________________________________________________,
________________________________________________________________.
12.
Does your organization have a system for
receiving and processing complaints from LEP travelers?
( ) No.
( ) Yes, Please specify
__________________________________________.
13.
Do you provide training for transit
employees to develop their ability to interact courteously with LEP
populations?
( ) No.
( ) Yes, Would you please send us sample
materials?
14.
What are the estimated costs of your
programs to help LEP people use public transit?
_________________________________.
15.
Do you have a plan for dealing with
emergencies or changes in procedures?
( ) No.
( ) Yes. Please send us a copy of the plan.
16.
Do you have any mechanism for evaluating the
success of these procedures?
( ) No.
( ) Yes. Please specify
__________________________________________.
17.
What is your greatest success in providing
services for LEP users?
___________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
18.
What is presently your greatest need to
better serve LEP users?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
19.
In your opinion, are the above survey
questions relevant to the services you provide?
( ) Very relevant
( ) Relevant
( ) Somewhat relevant
( ) Not relevant at all.
20.
Please send the related information to the
following address:
Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering
New
Jersey Institute of Technology
Thank you very much.
|
MSA/CMSA |
Total LEP Population |
Total LEP Rank |
|
|
2,024,765 |
1 |
|
New
York--Northern New Jersey--Long Island, NY--NJ--CT--PA CMSA |
1,541,937 |
2 |
|
|
551,266 |
3 |
|
|
523,795 |
4 |
|
|
522,238 |
5 |
|
|
379,762 |
6 |
|
|
354,036 |
7 |
|
Washington--Baltimore, DC--MD--VA--WV CMSA |
228,630 |
8 |
|
|
199,335 |
9 |
|
|
191,069 |
10 |
|
|
187,492 |
11 |
|
|
152,775 |
12 |
|
|
137,607 |
13 |
|
|
114,233 |
14 |
|
|
107,224 |
15 |
|
|
105,663 |
16 |
|
|
101,468 |
17 |
|
|
96,958 |
18 |
|
|
90,147 |
19 |
|
|
87,736 |
20 |
|
|
85,262 |
21 |
|
|
85,051 |
22 |
|
|
84,815 |
23 |
|
|
67,115 |
24 |
|
|
65,571 |
25 |
|
|
63,577 |
26 |
|
|
62,622 |
27 |
|
|
61,157 |
28 |
|
|
59,166 |
29 |
|
|
58,801 |
30 |
|
|
52,796 |
31 |
|
|
49,359 |
32 |
|
|
48,874 |
33 |
|
Visalia--Tulare--Porterville, CA MSA |
46,893 |
34 |
|
|
45,676 |
35 |
|
|
42,374 |
36 |
|
|
39,114 |
37 |
|
|
38,641 |
38 |
|
|
38,365 |
39 |
|
|
36,059 |
40 |
|
|
35,976 |
41 |
|
Santa Barbara--Santa Maria--Lompoc, CA MSA |
35,541 |
42 |
|
|
35,056 |
43 |
|
|
34,619 |
44 |
|
|
33,633 |
45 |
|
|
32,396 |
46 |
|
|
29,127 |
47 |
|
|
27,110 |
48 |
|
|
26,153 |
49 |
|
|
22,352 |
50 |
Appendix












|
Types of Pictograms |
Examples |
|
No Smoking |
|
|
Ticketing |
|
|
Women¡¯s
and Men¡¯s Restrooms |
|
|
Currency
Exchange |
|
|
Telephone |
|
|
Stairs |
|
|
Elevator |
|
|
Parking |
|
|
No
Parking |
|
|
Customs |
|
|
Baggage |
|
|
Food |
|
|
No
Food |
|
|
Information |
|
|
Fire
Extinguisher |
|
|
Exit/Entry |
|
|
No
Exit/No Entry |
|
|
Taxi |
|
|
Bus |
|
|
Departing
and Arriving Plane |
|
|
Car
Rental |
|
|
Shopping |
|
Table
1. Top LEP municipalities
in
|
Rank |
Municipalities
with Top # of LEP Population |
Municipalities with Top
Percentage of LEP Population |
||
|
1 |
|
33,808 |
|
36% |
|
2 |
|
23,644 |
|
35% |
|
3 |
|
23,386 |
|
28% |
|
4 |
|
22,475 |
|
27% |
|
5 |
|
21,916 |
|
24% |
|
6 |
|
17,078 |
|
23% |
|
7 |
|
15,434 |
|
23% |
|
8 |
|
10,431 |
|
22% |
|
9 |
|
10,052 |
|
21% |
|
10 |
|
8,147 |
Guttenberg, |
19% |
Table
2. Spanish speaking LEP
population in New Jersey, 2000
|
Rank |
Municipalities
with Top # of Spanish Speaking LEP Population |
Municipalities with Top
Percentage of Spanish Speaking LEP Population |
||
|
1 |
|
22,065 |
|
35% |
|
2 |
|
21,373 |
|
34% |
|
3 |
|
21,180 |
|
25% |
|
4 |
|
18,807 |
|
23% |
|
5 |
|
15,390 |
|
22% |
|
6 |
|
14,938 |
|
18% |
|
7 |
|
14,682 |
Bound Brook, |
17% |
|
8 |
|
9,825 |
|
17% |
|
9 |
|
8,538 |
|
17% |
|
10 |
|
7,708 |
Guttenberg, |
17% |
Table 3. Other (Non-Spanish) Indo-European
language
speaking LEP population
in
|
Rank |
Municipalities
with Top # of Indo-European
Speaking LEP Population |
Municipalities with Top
Percentage of Indo-European Language LEP Population |
||
|
1 |
|
11,175 |
Wallington, |
12% |
|
2 |
|
4,511 |
|
9% |
|
3 |
|
4,047 |
|
8% |
|
4 |
|
2,638 |
|
7% |
|
5 |
|
2,613 |
|
7% |
|
6 |
|
1,988 |
|
5% |
|
7 |
|
1,975 |
|
5% |
|
8 |
|
1,710 |
|
5% |
|
9 |
|
1,493 |
|
5% |
|
10 |
|
1,414 |
|
4% |
Table 4. Asian and pacific
islander
language
speaking LEP
population in New Jersey, 2000
|
Rank |
Municipalities
with Top # of Asian/Pac. Is. Language Speaking LEP Population |
Municipalities with Top
Percentage of Asian/Pac. Is. Language Speaking LEP Population |
||
|
1 |
|
2,600 |
|
14% |
|
2 |
|
2,345 |
|
8% |
|
3 |
|
2,295 |
Leonia, |
8% |
|
4 |
|
1,520 |
|
6% |
|
5 |
|
999 |
Woodlynne, |
5% |
|
6 |
|
910 |
|
5% |
|
7 |
|
768 |
Demarest, |
4% |
|
8 |
|
711 |
Tenafly, |
4% |
|
9 |
|
706 |
Northvale, |
4% |
|
10 |
|
681 |
|
4% |
Table 5. Other language speaking LEP
population in
|
Rank |
Municipalities
with Top # of Other Language Speaking LEP Population |
Municipalities with Top
Percentage of Other Language Speaking LEP Population |
||
|
1 |
|
1,401 |
|
1.8% |
|
2 |
|
392 |
Haledon, |
1.4% |
|
3 |
|
295 |
|
0.8% |
|
4 |
|
252 |
Edgewater, |
0.7% |
|
5 |
|
244 |
|
0.6% |
|
6 |
|
215 |
|
0.5% |
|
7 |
|
208 |
|
0.5% |
|
8 |
|
177 |
|
0.5% |
|
9 |
|
167 |
|
0.5% |
|
10 |
|
132 |
Farmingdale, |
0.5% |
Table 6. Top Non-English languages
spoken
at home in
|
Number
of People (five
years and over) |
Percentage |
Rank |
|
|
Spanish or Spanish Creole |
967,741 |
12.32% |
1 |
|
Italian |
116,365 |
1.48% |
2 |
|
Chinese |
84,345 |
1.07% |
3 |
|
Polish |
74,663 |
0.95% |
4 |
|
Portuguese or Portuguese
Creole |
72,870 |
0.93% |
5 |
|
Tagalog |
66,851 |
0.85% |
6 |
|
Korean |
55,340 |
0.70% |
7 |
|
Gujarathi |
47,324 |
0.60% |
8 |
|
French (incl. Patois, Cajun) |
47,225 |
0.60% |
9 |
|
Arabic |
47,052 |
0.60% |
10 |
|
German |
41,025 |
0.52% |
11 |
|
Russian |
38,566 |
0.49% |
12 |
Table 7. Correlation between
social
economic
indicators
and LEP population
|
LEP
Categories |
Age |
Birth Place |
Employment |
Income |
|||||
|
Median Age |
Under Age 18 |
25+<9th grade |
Foreign Born |
Foreign Entered
1990- 2000 |
Civilian Unemployed |
Household Median
Income |
Below Poverty
Individuals |
Household Public
Assistance Income |
|
|
Total LEP |
-0.257 |
0.8036 |
0.9636 |
0.9273 |
0.9365 |
0.8581 |
-0.222 |
0.8825 |
0.8262 |
|
Spanish Speaking
LEP |
-0.258 |
0.7187 |
0.9128 |
0.8587 |
0.8709 |
0.7798 |
-0.227 |
0.8157 |
0.7456 |
|
Indo-European Language Speaking LEP |
-0.173 |
0.7868 |
0.8558 |
0.798 |
0.8003 |
0.8433 |
-0.159 |
0.8373 |
0.8518 |
|
Asian Language
Speaking LEP |
-0.111 |
0.4634 |
0.3421 |
0.5445 |
0.5306 |
0.3763 |
-0.018 |
0.3485 |
0.3189 |
|
Other Language Speaking
LEP |
-0.148 |
0.6772 |
0.6292 |
0.7712 |
0.7687 |
0.678 |
-0.118 |
0.6455 |
0.6115 |
Table 8. Correlation between
travel
characteristics
and LEP population
|
LEP
Categories |
No. of Vehicles |
Drove Alone |
Carpooled |
Public Transit |
Walked |
Other Means |
Worked at Home |
|
0.857 |
0.518 |
0.8702 |
0.7374 |
0.8598 |
0.8631 |
0.3843 |
|
|
Spanish Speaking LEP |
0.779 |
0.424 |
0.7996 |
0.6496 |
0.8024 |
0.8353 |
0.2998 |
|
Indo-European Language Speaking LEP |
0.825 |
0.580 |
0.7896 |
0.6992 |
0.7343 |
0.684 |
0.4246 |
|
Asian Language Speaking LEP |
0.401 |
0.467 |
0.4692 |
0.5150 |
0.4462 |
0.3487 |
0.4783 |
|
Other Language Speaking LEP |
0.753 |
0.51 |
0.6993 |
0.8520 |
0.755 |
0.5824 |
0.4864 |
Table 9. Samples of community
groups
as survey
candidates
|
ID |
Language
Group |
||||
|
1 |
The
|
|
250 |
Sunday
|
Korean |
|
2 |
|
|
200 |
Sunday
|
Chinese |
|
3 |
Oggi,
Italian Language Newspaper |
|
40,000
papers sold, daily reach 100K people |
Monday-Friday,
|
Italian |
|
4 |
Italian
Vice Consulate |
|
about
30,000 served |
Monday-Friday,
|
Italian |
|
5 |
|
|
serves
175-200 a year |
Monday-Friday,
|
Polish |
|
6 |
TV
3 (longest running Polish Station |
|
Reaches
17,000-20,000 HH in Tri-state |
Monday-Friday,
|
Polish |
|
7 |
Russian
Jewish ESL Class |
|
Entry
level/ advanced |
|
Russian |
|
8 |
Hispanic
Development Corp. |
|
|
|
Spanish/
Portuguese |
|
9 |
Arabic |
|
|
|
Arabic |
Table 10. General information
of the tourism
centers
|
Country
(Region) Name |
Authority/Owner |
Number
of Languages Provided |
Marketing
Region |
Website
Address |
|
|
|
Canadian Tourism Commission |
11 |
15 |
http://www.travelcanada.ca |
|
|
|
British Tourist Authority |
More than 15 |
49 |
http://www.visitbritain.com/ |
|
|
|
Ministry of Tourism |
More than 15 |
41 |
http://us.franceguide.com/ |
|
|
|
The German National Tourist Board |
More than 15 |
25 |
||
|
|
Greek National Tourism Organization |
3 |
3 |
http://www.greektourism.com/ |
|
|
|
|
12 |
11 |
http://www.discoverhongkong.com |
|
|
|
Registered Travel Agent |
5 |
5 |
http://www.itwg.com/ |
|
|
|
|
7 |
7 |
http://www.jnto.go.jp |
|
|
|
The |
More than 15 |
26 |
http://www.holland.com/ |
|
|
|
|
6 |
6 |
http://www.purenz.com/ |
|
|
|
|
13 |
13 |
http://www.visitsingapore.com/ |
|
|
|
|
More than 15 |
40 |
http://www.switzerlandtourism.ch/ |
|
|
|
Tourism Bureau of |
5 |
5 |
http://www.tbroc.gov.tw/lan/cht/index/ |
|
|
|
Tourism Authority of |
11 |
11 |
Table 11. The public
transit
service
information
|
Region |
Multi-modes |
Route (parts) |
Fares |
Operating Hours |
Map |
Phone # |
Related Link |
|
|
Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Yes |
|
Table 12. Public transit
information
provided
by
|
Mode |
|
Route |
Stops |
Terminals |
Interchange |
Fares |
Operating Hours |
Map |
Phone Number |
Related Link |
Points of Attention |
|
|
Mass
Transit Railway |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Airport
Express |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Buses
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
Minibuses |
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
Taxi |
X |
|
|
|
|
X |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
Ferries |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
X |
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
Peak
tram |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
X |
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
|
Trams |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
X |
|
|
|
X |
Table 13. Examples of traffic
sign
costs
|
Item |
Type |
Price |
|
Sign Panel |
Regulatory/Warning/Marker |
$15 to 18 / sq. ft. |
|
Large Guide Signs |
$20 to 25 / sq. ft. |
|
|
Electronic Variable Message Sign |
$40,000 to $125,000 each |
|
|
Sign Posts |
U-Channel |
$125 to $200 each |
|
Square Tube (Telespar): |
$10 to $15 per foot |
|
|
Large Steel Breakaway Posts |
$15 to $25 per foot |
|
|
Cantilever Sign |
$15,000 to $20,000 each |
|
|
|
$30,000 to $60,000 each |
|
|
Foundations |
Square Tube |
$250 each |
|
Breakaway Post |
$300 to $500 each |
|
|
Cantilever / Bridge |
$6,000 - $7,000 each |


Figure 1. LEP population in


Figure 2. Commuter rail network in


Figure 3. Modal
distribution comparison
in New Jersey
Source: NJ TRANSIT, 2003 B.

Figure 4. Bus
transit network in


Figure 5. Rail
ridership In

![]()

Figure 6. Bus
ridership in
![]()
![]()


Figure 7. Concentric
belts of rail networks

Figure 8. Multimodel transportation
network and intermodal transit hubs
Figure 9. LEP
population by municipality, 2000


Figure 10. Distribution
of LEP population


Figure 11. Distribution
of Spanish speakers in


Figure 12. Distribution
of Italian speakers in New Jersey


Figure 13. Distribution
of Chinese speakers in New Jersey


Figure 14. Distribution
of Polish speakers in New Jersey


Figure 15. Distribution
of Portuguese speakers in New Jersey


Figure 16. Tagalog
speakers by municipality, 2000,


Figure 17. Korean
speakers by municipality, 2000,


Figure 18. Gujarathi
speakers by municipality, 2000,


Figure 19. French
speakers by municipality, 2000,


Figure 20. Arabic
speakers by municipality, 2000,


Figure 21. German
speakers by municipality, 2000,


Figure
22. Russian speakers by
municipality, 2000,
MIDDLESEX


Figure 23. Rail
network and LEP population in the Urban Core
![]()
![]()
Rail Station


Figure 24. LEP
population along transit lines

![]()
![]()

Figure 25. LEP
population around transit stations

Figure 26. LEP
travel survey sites


Figure 27. Demographic
characteristics of LEP communities


Figure 28. Economic
status of surveyed LEP population



Figure 29. Language
backgrounds of surveyed LEP population

Figure 30. Travel choices of
surveyed LEP population

Figure 31. Understanding
and usefulness of mobility information provided
Figure
32. Acceptances of solutions

Figure 34. Type
of transit services

Figure 35. Top
languages other than English

Figure 36. Transit
information provided for LEP travelers

Figure 37. Estimated
costs to help LEP people use public transit
Figure 38. The
relevance of this survey to the services of
the
transit agencies



Figure 42. Multilingual
Guide for ticket vending machine in

Figure 43. Language
choices shown in



Figure 44. Pictograms
and bi-lingual signs used in Narita (


Figure 45. Bi-lingual
directions and pictograms in

Figure 46. Signs
used in Newark Liberty International Airport

Figure
49. Instruction on how to use Octopus Card
in
Determine
the fare by looking at the system chart prominently displayed at all MRT
stations

Figure
50. Instructions used in the

Figure 52.


Figure 53. Transport
museum narration in four different languages

Figure 54. Audio
information by four different languages

Figure 55. A
production sample of pictograms