Where rail systems cross pedestrian facilities that are not shared with vehicular ways, a detectable warning shall be provided in compliance with 1108
I am strongly in favor of providing detectable warning at all intersections.
Tom Heinl
Gary Fottrell, P.E., August 29, 2002
After reading the proposed guidelines, I would like to offer the following comments:
1. In the "Discussion of Provisions" section, Crosswalks, (1105.2), the proposal is to require the cross slope on crosswalks be limited to 1:48
When designing a major roadway - let's say you're widening an existing 2-lane roadway to a 5-lane roadway with curb & gutter and sidewalks in a suburban area - the first thing the designer does is take the survey and design a profile. This profile is always a smooth profile, and hopefully is in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the AASHTO "Green Book". No designer that I know will interrupt his profile every few hundred feet with the introduction of the adjacent vertical curves required to flatten the grade through intersections. They certainly will not want to create a "table effect", but would, instead, want a smooth, uninterrupted profile, particularly on the primary route. On the side roads, the situation is completely different. Minor side roads are always tied in to the main route, and the result is a table effect. This is an expected condition for a minor side road, and vehicles usually are required to stop on these minor streets anyway, so the effect of a "table" is of no consequence. Cross slopes of crosswalks on side streets are usually acceptable.
I understand what the Board is trying to achieve, and, ideally, it would be great if the crosswalk side slopes could all be no more than 2%. Is this really the maximum slope that is acceptable for these cross slopes?
I believe that the "table" requirement on primary, heavily traveled routes is not feasible, and that the vast majority of crosswalks that cross major routes will continue to have cross slopes that are equivalent to the grade on the main roadway.
2. I am having some confusion concerning 1103.7.1, Detectable Warnings at rail crossings. In the "Discussion of Provisions" section, it is noted that "the draft guidelines would also require detectable warnings at the outside of each group of tracks that cross the pedestrian access route". So every time a railroad track crosses an access route, detectable warnings (i.e., truncated domes) are required to be installed. Then it notes that the warnings "would not be required at tracks sharing vehicular ways, such as street car tracks". This is all clear.
In the Draft Guidelines, Section 1103.7.1, it states "Where rail systems cross pedestrian facilities that are not shared with vehicular ways, a detectable warning shall be provided." This sentence says that when the pedestrian facility is not shared with a vehicular way, i.e., when you do not have a sidewalk with curb & gutter section along a roadway, but when you would have a pedestrian trail of some type separated from the roadway, then you would have a detectable warning. In other words, with a curb & gutter with sidewalk, you don't need the warning because the pedestrian facility is shared with the roadway. If you have a separated pedestrian trail, you do need the warning. I don't think this is what is intended to be said, according to the "Discussion of Provisions".
I could better understand it if it were stated as "Where pedestrian facilities cross rail systems that are not shared with vehicular ways, a detectable warning shall be provided in compliance with 1108." That would more closely parallel the comments made under 1103.7.1 in
3. In the Draft Guidelines, Section 1108.2.2, Rail Crossings, the text discusses the placement of the detectable warning as related to the "vehicle dynamic envelope". I assume this envelope is the edge of a moving train, plus a little extra for safety. Designers will not know what a vehicle dynamic envelope is. I recommend that the research be done that is required to determine a good number to put in place of this term.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the guidelines.
Also, do you know of any states that have good, ADA compatible, standard drawings of handicap ramps that I could access on the internet? I would like to try to get the one Tennessee uses redrawn to comply. If you'd like to see it, check out drawing RP-H-1 athttp://www.tdot.state.tn.us/Chief_Engineer/engr_library/design/Std_Drwg_Eng.HTM
Gary Fottrell, P.E.
Area Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
Nashville, TN
L. Dianne Ketts, COMS, CLVT, October 28, 2002
My name is L. Dianne Ketts. I hold a certification in Orientation & Mobility (O&M) and in Low Vision Therapy with the Academy for Certification of Vision Rehabilitation & Education Professionals. I serve as a member of the Environmental Access Committee of the Orientation and Mobility Division of AERBVI (the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired.) I am currently employed at CITE, Inc. in Orlando, Florida as the O&M and Low Vision Programs Coordinator. Please accept my comments on the Draft Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines.
Curb Ramps and Blended Transitions (1104)
Detectable Warning (1104.3.2)
I support inclusion of specifications in the draft guidelines for detectable warnings (1108 Detectable Warning Surfaces) and urge The Board to include requirements for detectable warnings at ALL slopes and curb ramps where a pedestrian way intersects with a vehicular way regardless of grade.
Rationale: In my experience as an orientation and mobility instructor of visually impaired adults, even slopes greater than that of 1:15
Pedestrian Signal Phase Timing (1105.3)
I support The Board's draft guideline for Pedestrian Signal Phase Timing (1105.3) stating that "signal phase timing shall be calculated using a pedestrian walk speed of 3.0 feet
Rationale: Because I serve many senior individuals and persons with other mobility impairments in addition to their vision loss, I often consider the benefit that a longer walk and pedestrian clearance phase would offer. Many clients I serve are not able to complete the crossing of multiple lanes of traffic in the normally allotted time of 4.0 feet
Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Islands - Detectable Warnings (1105.4.2)
I do not support the EXCEPTION to this recommended guideline stating that "Detectable warnings shall not be required on cut-through islands where the crossing is controlled by signals and is timed for full crossing." It is my recommendation that this EXCEPTION be removed from the proposed guidelines.
Rationale: Detectable warnings located at a median or refuge island give the visually impaired or blind pedestrian critical information regarding their location in relation to the crossing. The presence of detectable warnings may inform the pedestrian that the island is a place of refuge where they could possibly stop and rest if it were necessary. This may be especially important for a pedestrian who moves more slowly or with more difficulty.
Turn Lanes at Intersections (1105.7)
I whole heartedly support the recommendation for pedestrian activated traffic signals at these locations.
Accessible Pedestrian Signals - General (1106.1)
I support the inclusion of specifications for Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) systems.
Rationale: Many intersections in the central Florida area are typical of intersections that can be found throughout the country. Minor, lightly traveled streets often intersect with major arteries. When a visually impaired pedestrian's intention is to cross the major artery, there is often little or no parallel traffic movement on the minor street to indicate that it is the appropriate time for the pedestrian to begin crossing. Accessible Pedestrian Signal technology provides information critical to determining when to begin a crossing in a format that is accessible to the visually impaired pedestrian.
I recommend that The Board use the term "Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS)" when referring to these types of devices as opposed to "pedestrian signal systems" or "pedestrian signal devices."
Rationale: This terminology would more closely match the language in the MUTCD and current terminology. As a result, engineers and others utilizing the MUTCD when building public rights-of-way will be less likely to encounter conflicting or misguiding terminology.
Detectable Warning Surfaces (1108)
As I stated above, I support the inclusion of specifications for detectable warning surfaces.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
L. Dianne Ketts, COMS, CLVT
CITE, Inc.
Andrea Giudice, October 27, 2002
My name is Andrea Giudice. I am blind and want to let you know that I give my exuberant and total support to the existence and increase of Accessible
Pedestrian Signals and Detectable Warnings at intersections. I live in
the grater San Francisco Bay area and travel throughout the country. I can give you enumerable examples of how crucial Accessible Pedestrian Signals and Detectable Warnings are at intersections.
I have heard nothing about discontinuing the incorporating of crossing indicators for pedestrians who do not need accommodation in terms of size or contrast of signage or other forms of audible or detectable crossing indicators. Why then is this even being considered for Accessible Pedestrian Signals and Detectable Warnings? It is a crime to deny people with disabilities the same safety at intersections that is granted to our non-disabled partners in pedestriandom.
With Kindest regards,
Andrea Giudice
Virginia Parezo, October 20, 2002
I travel greatly, this would be at my advantage to have the pedestrian signals and detectable warnings. Please do what you can to support this forum. Thank-you!
Virginia Parezo
I strongly believe in detectable warning and accessible pedestrian signs. Any opportunity for safe warning is an opportunity for life itself!!!
Lee Brown
Joan Muldoon-Burk, October 28, 2002
To Whom It May Concern:
I'd like to register my support to provide accessible pedestrian signals and detectable warnings at busy intersections. I can be notified for further comment at my home address: Joan Muldoon-Burk [...] This is a serious concern. Please support the PROWAC report.
Thank you,
Joan Muldoon-Burk
Dory Fisher, September 8, 2002
I wish to express my support of the prowac report. It is vitally important that blind persons be provided detectible warnings and audible pedestrian signals to prevent unnecessary deaths.
Dory