Pedestrian signal systems shall comply with 1106
Jennifer Campos, October 25, 2002
City of Vancouver
Transportation Services
On behalf of the City of Vancouver, Washington, I am submitting comments regarding the recently released Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way by the Access Board. The City is very supportive of the Board's decision to create guidelines for the public right-of-way, but we do have some concerns over several of the proposed requirements.
Below I have listed our comments below by section number. Assume that if any part of the guidelines is not mentioned, that we support what you have proposed.
1104.3.2 Detectable Warnings. Detectable warning surfaces complying with 1108 shall be provided, where a curb ramp, landing, or blended transition connects to a crosswalk.
We strongly feel that this requirement is unnecessary and over burdensome. Detectable warnings should not be placed at all curb ramps or landings, but only in those cases where it would be difficult for someone to detect where the sidewalk ends and the street begins. This would be at rail crossings, platform edges, blended transitions, or ramps that have a slope of 1:15
1105.2.2 Cross Slope. The cross slope shall be 1:48
EXCEPTION: This requirement shall not apply to mid-block crossings.
1105.2.3 Running Slope. The running slope shall be 1:20
Both of these requirements would place a huge burden on the City in trying to meet the standards since it would apply to all streets regardless of any outside circumstances that we would have no control over. This should be a guideline that jurisdictions should strive for while designing their roadways in order to improve pedestrian safety, but it would be impossible for many if not most areas to meet it in all cases.
1105.3 Pedestrian Signal Phase Timing. All pedestrian signal phase timing shall be calculated using a pedestrian walk speed of 3.0 feet
Requiring this change in signal timing would ensure much higher delays for all users. The requirement would be applicable on streets that were not overly wide and had curb returns over 25', but unfortunately this is not how many of our streets are built today. We currently respond to the request for more crossing time on a case by case basis, or any place we feel there are users who will benefit from the change.
1105.6 Roundabouts. Where pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian facilities are provided at roundabouts, they shall comply with 1105.6.
1105.6.1 Separation. Continuous barriers shall be provided along the street side of the sidewalk where pedestrian crossing is prohibited. Where railings are used, they shall have a bottom rail 15 inches
1105.6.2 Signals. A pedestrian activated traffic signal complying with 1106 shall be provided for each segment of the crosswalk, including the splitter island. Signals shall clearly identify which crosswalk segment the signal serves.
This portion of the proposed guidelines has to be the most excessive and unnecessary part of the entire guidelines. To require signals at all legs of roundabouts completely defeats the purpose of building a roundabout in the first place. The board mentions that roundabouts have become popular in the U.S because they "add vehicle capacity and reduce delay." These are not the only reasons and it would be careless of you to not recognize the most important benefits.
Roundabouts have become so successful because the virtually eliminate all accidents at intersections. This is not just automobile accidents, but pedestrian accidents as well. They do so by reducing the number of conflict points and more importantly reduce the speeds of motorists entering the intersection. When motorists drive slower they are more able to take account of their surroundings, making conditions much safer for pedestrians for crossing. We recognize that blind or visually impaired pedestrians can have difficulties crossing at roundabouts, but to install signals at all legs would make them cost prohibitive compared to a regular signalized intersection.
Because navigating the sidewalks around the edge of a roundabout is not different than navigating any other intersection, the need for barriers is completely unnecessary. Curb ramps are installed at roundabouts to indicate crossing locations just as they are for any other type of intersection.
1105.7 Turn Lanes at Intersections. Where pedestrian crosswalks are provided at right or left turn slip lanes, a pedestrian activated traffic signal complying with 1106 shall be provided for each segment of the pedestrian crosswalk, including at the channelizing island.
Rather than require signals at slip lanes for pedestrians, why not just prohibit their use? This would make much more sense, and would completely eliminate the pedestrian/auto conflict that a signal probably would not prevent.
1106.2 Pedestrian Signal Devices. Each crosswalk with pedestrian signal indication shall have a signal device which includes audible and vibrotactile indications of the WALK interval. Where a pedestrian pushbutton is provided, it shall be integrated into the signal device and shall comply with 1106.3.
We know that most of the controversy surrounding these guidelines has revolved around the audible signal requirement and we feel that to require an audible signal at every intersection with a WALK interval is cost burdensome and unrealistic. For new signals the installation cost would not be significant, but the impacts to the environment would be enormous. Imagine walking in the downtown of a city with a 200 ft
We work with the local blind community to prioritize needed audible signal locations, and try to install as many devices as we can. We get requests from people who have difficulty reading a certain intersection, and they have made it clear that they do not want audible signals at every intersection.
1109.2 Parallel Parking Spaces. An access aisle at least 60 inches
It would be impossible to install and maintain a disabled parking spot on each block of parallel parking. In areas where the block faces are around 200 feet
If you have any questions regarding our comments please don't hesitate to contact me at [ ... ]
Sincerely,
Jennifer Campos
Associate Transportation Planner
Edmund Waddell, August 14, 2002
Roundabouts have been shown to reduce intersection injury crashes by 76% compared to signals, and to reduce fatalities by 90% (Retting et al, 2001). Results of these American studies, published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and by the American Journal of Public Health, are identical to findings from decades of overseas research. Put another way, comparable crossroad intersections have FOUR TIMES AS MANY INJURIES - including severe brain and spinal cord injuries - and about TEN TIMES AS MANY FATALITIES as a roundabout. Where roundabouts have replaced signals, repeated studies have shown they reduce pedestrian accidents by 30-50% (Lalani 1975, Daley 1981, O'Brien 1985).
In lay terms, roundabouts can keep people out of hospitals, wheelchairs, and graveyards, and that's a common reason they're built.
Unfortunately, these safety facts were not emphasized in Dr. Richard Long's report to the Access Board: a report which was used to develop the Access Board's current design proposals. The proposed new unfunded federal mandate would require complex signals and barrier systems at every roundabout crosswalk, regardless of how easily the crosswalk operates or whether a blind person ever uses it. At $100,000 or more per intersection, that's an expensive proposal, and since it has serious ramifications on public safety, it bears close examination.
Like more than 90% of US crosswalks, most roundabout crosswalks are not signalized. Because a pedestrian refuge is provided mid-crossing (shortening the crossing distance), and because vehicles operate at unusually low speeds (typically 15-20 MPH), the overwhelming majority of roundabout crosswalks are extremely easy to use, and like the vast majority of all crosswalks in the US, they simply don't need signals. In such locations, even if signals were provided, pedestrians wouldn't use them.
Traffic engineers have known for decades that, if unwarranted and infrequently used, signals can confuse drivers, become ineffective, and INCREASE accidents, causing more injuries to pedestrians and vehicle occupants alike. That's bad for public safety, but too few lay people understand it. People tend to think that signals always improve safety, but signals can increase speeding, distract drivers' eyes away from traffic and pedestrians, and create a false sense of security for pedestrians. Signals do not put a concrete wall between vehicles and pedestrians: pedestrians are struck at traffic signals with sickening regularity.
In locations where pedestrian and traffic volumes warrant them, crosswalks should have signals, and many roundabouts in the United Kingdom and Europe have pedestrian signals. They're common in London, Birmingham, and other cities. Examples of appropriate locations for signalized crosswalks include high-volume urban roundabout crosswalks, and locations where pedestrians (both blind and sighted) are most frequent. These factors are easily quantifiable. At rural intersections or low-volume locations, and locations where pedestrians are infrequent, signals are not used because they confuse drivers and unnecessarily increase highway construction, maintenance, and operating costs.
To assure that traffic signals are only installed where prudent, "warrants" have been developed for traffic signal installation in the United States. In the United Kingdom - a country with decades of experience with roundabouts in a wide variety of locations - the warrant for a signalized pedestrian crosswalk at a roundabout is where PV squared is greater than 1*10^8 (in words, where the number of pedestrians, times the number of vehicles per hour squared, exceeds a value of 100 million). Use of appropriate signal warrants assures that signals are provided only where needed, and not where they are unnecessary and potentially harmful.
The ramifications of an ill-considered intersection design policy can negatively impact the general public in unintended ways. For example, if ALL roundabout crosswalks were required to have signals, about $100,000 would be added to the cost of each roundabout, making them unnecessarily expensive in comparison to other intersection alternatives. As a result, far fewer roundabouts would be built, and many more of the common alternative - a signalized crossroad - would be built instead. As stated previously, studies show these have FOUR TIMES as many injuries, and TEN TIMES as many fatalities as a roundabout. The United States currently has about 15,000 deaths and about 1 million injuries at intersections every year, and installation of well-designed roundabouts might prevent countless human tragedies. Meanwhile, signals at unwarranted locations may help no one at all, and could in fact be harmful.
A single-user approach to traffic engineering would be a mistake. All users of an intersection must be taken into account, and the appropriate solution needs to be provided that will provide the greatest benefit to the public in each specific situation. No one wants more people injured or killed because we impose an ill-considered intersection design policy.
The Access Board proposal to require signals at all roundabout crosswalks needs to be reconsidered. Signals should be installed where they are warranted, and where there is no better alternative. In specific locations where users have special needs, the needs should be evaluated and provisions should be made in the design.
The opinions expressed above are those of the author, and do not represent an official policy statement of the State of Michigan or the Michigan Department of Transportation.
Edmund Waddell, Senior Transportation Planner
MDOT Project Planning Division
Lansing MI
David Harrell, P.E., October 25, 2002
Per our conversation, attached are comments from the City of Knoxville's Department of Engineering on the Draft Guidelines on Accessible Public Rights-of-Way. I will follow this up with a hard copy and cover letter via regular mail.
Sincerely,
David Harrell, P.E.
Chief Civil Engineer
City of Knoxville
Dept. of Engineering
CITY OF KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING
Comments on Draft Guidelines on Public Rights-of-Way
SECTION 1102.2.2 Alterations. It is noted that alterations must not be fully compliant "where compliance is technically infeasible". We find the statement to be too vague and believe it needs further clarification. The examples of technical infeasibility given in the "Discussion of Provisions" are extreme cases. For example, would adding a left turn signal to a signalized intersection that has a pedestrian signal system require making the pedestrian signal system fully accessible? If so, this could potentially turn a $400 upgrade into a $10,000 upgrade. We would consider this just as technically infeasible as "altering a load-bearing member of a structural frame". While technically this could be done, the cost to make the area within the alteration fully compliant compared to the cost of the alteration itself would make the project no longer viable.
SECTION 1104.3.2 Detectable Warnings. We concur with the advisory committee's comments on using detectable warnings on only those ramps that are the least distinguishable. While the revised specifications are an improvement we believe the truncated domes to be hazardous for elderly pedestrians and will still cause difficulties in maneuvering for wheelchairs.
SECTION 1104.3.3 Surfaces. When altering an existing facility such as adding a curb ramp where none exists, it is not always possible to locate the ramp to avoid manhole covers for utilities. While the elevation of these covers can be adjusted to match the slope and elevation of the ramp, it is impractical to have these manholes relocated. We would expect this situation to fall under the "technically infeasible" category.
SECTION 1104.3.6 Counter Slopes. Integral curb and gutter sections are typically slip-formed and typically have a cross-slope of 1:12
SECTION 1105.2.2 Cross Slope. With terrain such that is typical in East Tennessee, profile grades of 9 or 10 percent are very common. This requirement would be extremely difficult, it not impossible, to implement for roads having grades of this magnitude. In order to make an intersection design work for a road of this type, the profile grade must be changed by 7 or 8 percent along a vertical curve that maintains the design speed of the road. Typically, the cross-slope of the intersecting street is often sloped as much as 4 percent to minimize the required change in profile grade of the through street.
SECTION 1105.4 Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Islands. The cut through concept is a good idea to provide access for pedestrian access but the need for pedestrian storage needs to be considered as well, e.g., when crossing pedestrians to the refuge island on one phase and then the remainder of the crossing under another phase. The situation could arise where several pedestrians would be crossing but not enough space is provided in the island crossing area and would leave some of the pedestrians in the roadway until the next pedestrian crossing phase.
SECTION 1105.7 Turn Lanes at Intersections. Most right-turn slip lanes have no signalized control other than a yield sign. It would not be practical to locate a pedestrian signal system at these locations as the slip lanes are not signalized. Signalizing the slip lane to enable the use of a pedestrian signal system would effectively remove the reason for providing the slip lane.
SECTION 1102.8 and 1106 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Systems. Is the requirement to install these devices at all existing signalized intersections that currently provide pedestrian signal systems or at only that intersection that will be constructed and/or upgraded. If the Board is advocating that all the pedestrian signal systems be upgraded then there needs to be some consideration to phasing in a program over time to help defer the cost of these upgrades. The cost could exceed $20,000 per intersection for the accessible pedestrian signal system at complex signalized intersections and could be much higher if the relocation of existing signal poles or the addition of pedestrian signal poles is required. Considerations should take for the cost of initial installation and the need for additional maintenance personnel to maintain this type of facility to insure proper operation.
Gilmer D. Gaston, P.E., PTOE, August 14, 2002
As a traffic engineering professional, I feel compelled to comment on the Access Board's proposed Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way. I formerly managed the traffic signals section for the City of Houston, so I have a feel for how severe these requirements will impact the agencies.
While the guidelines were undoubtedly prepared by a group of well meaning individuals. They contain several items that could have severe and unintended consequences. I have provided a few comments on some of what I feel are the more onerous sections of the document.
1105.3 Pedestrian Signal Phase Timing. All pedestrian signal phase timing shall be calculated using a pedestrian walk speed of 3.0 feet
1105.7 Turn Lanes at Intersections. Where pedestrian crosswalks are provided at right or left turn slip lanes, a pedestrian activated traffic signal complying with 1106 shall be provided for each segment of the pedestrian crosswalk, including at the channelizing island.
Is there actual crash data that supports the need for this measure? We know that there are a lot of pedestrian accidents at intersections; however, it is my understanding that in most of those instances the pedestrian is not using or following the guidance of the existing pedestrian signals. This item would probably put an unnecessary burden on agencies to retrofit existing intersections for little, if any, safety benefits, and a likely decrease in the operational benefits of right-turn lanes.
Something that I didn't see, that I believe could be useful is a recommended maximum distance from the crosswalk for the placement of pedestrian pushbuttons.
The US Congress is known for passing good intended legislation that often results in unintended actions by the public. This leads to more legislation and more requirements as it can produce unintended results. A possible,
unintended consequence of unnecessarily stringent requirements could be a reduction in the number of crosswalks. Some intersection crossings may be signed for no pedestrians because the disbenefits to intersection operations could outweigh providing a crossing that complies with these guidelines.
If you have any questions, or comments, let me know. I may provide additional comments later, as I have a chance to further review these materials.
Gilmer D. Gaston, P.E., PTOE
Sr. Transportation Manager
Pape-Dawson Engineers, Inc.
San Antonio, Texas
Comments to: Draft of Recommendations of The Access Board on Pedestrian Crosswalks At Roundabouts
Dear Committee Members:
I am since ten years a professor of transportation engineering in the United States. My training was in Sweden where I in 1982 presented my Ph.D.-thesis on Pedestrian Safety at Signalized Intersections. I have worked on research relating to pedestrian safety for 25+ years and parallel to this on roundabout safety for 20+ years and would like to give some comments to your proposed guidelines.
It seems like you write that wherever marked (and possibly unmarked) pedestrian crosswalks are provided at roundabouts, each shall meet the requirements set forth in this section, including: (C) Signals. A pedestrian actuated traffic signal complying with Section ? shall be provided for each segment of the crosswalk, including at the splitter island. Signals shall clearly identify which crosswalk segment the signal serves.
I will comment on this below, in connection to some direct comments to your discussion section. But first, inhttp://www.access-board.gov/rowdraft.htm#1106 you write, "Requiring the signal to be pedestrian activated may help limit the impact on traffic flow." In reality this may be true, but shouldn't the responsibility of lawmakers include that the code be made to be followed? Through education and/or enforcement activities if necessary? As far as I know, pedestrians, in all U.S. states, have the right-of-way in unsignalized marked crosswalks. In other words, the primary purpose of signalizing marked crosswalks should be to give automobile drivers the right-of-way part of the time so that automobile capacity does not become too low where pedestrian flows are high. In Germany, and some other European countries, this is clearly understood and given as the primary reason for signalizing crosswalks. Still, I acknowledge that we in the U.S. live in a country were many drivers do not stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, even for those carrying white canes, and I understand that we may have to 'accommodate' such illegal behavior, and have designs that make it reasonably safe for all pedestrians, including those in wheelchair or visually impaired, even when divers violate codes.
In Discussion (http://www.access-board.gov/prowac/commrept/part3-02-5.htm) you write:
"Modern roundabouts are ?. While this traffic pattern has been an asset to traffic planners in controlling and slowing the flow of traffic at intersections in lieu of having a signalized intersection, the absence of stopped traffic presents a major problem for blind and visually impaired pedestrians when crossing."
I would like that statement to be backed by facts in the form of crash statistics. If it were (only) a perceived "major problem" rather than an actual problem, then maybe education rather than engineering changes would be motivated. I do know that the 'sole' serious opposition to roundabouts in Sweden today stems from visually impaired people and their advocacy groups, and I do not mean that this is not a very important subgroup of the pedestrian population, but still, sub-optimization of our traffic environment is one of the reasons that the risk of fatality per mile walked is about ten times higher in the United States than in Sweden, where roundabouts are utilized frequently in the urban environment. I also know that signalized crosswalks or grade-separated passages are considered at roundabouts in Sweden, where there is a high demand by visually impaired pedestrians? But, to require signalization of all roundabouts is, in my opinion, definitely unwarranted. At least, it is my opinion, that all crosswalk locations away from roundabouts should be signalized prior to the ones adjacent to single-lane roundabouts getting this type of control.
Rather, you should consider requiring signalization of marked crosswalks (or grade-separated crossings) at multi-lane locations including at multi-lane roundabouts with high pedestrian volumes. I am fairly convinced that there is no crash data from the U.S. supporting the view that pedestrians are vulnerable to crashes at single-lane roundabouts. The only pedestrian crash at a U.S. roundabout was, as far as I know, the elderly person hit in Montpelier, VT, and that did not cause any serious injury. Rather, the roundabout prevented the injury. There is statistics from Sweden, showing that 'all' the country's (»700) single-lane roundabouts had a total of three pedestrian crashes (with not a single serious injury) in the 1994 to 1997 period. (Today there are a lot more roundabouts in Sweden, but I do not have any newer statistics.) If these locations had been signalized, there would have been at least 11 pedestrian crashes according to standard models. However, the two-lane roundabouts studied, had an actual safety very similar to signalized locations (10.4 predicted and 12 occurred at the 14 locations in Sweden that have considerable pedestrian traffic.)
You write: "Barriers or similarly distinct elements are needed to prevent blind persons from inadvertently crossing a roundabout roadway in an unsafe location. ? Because the pedestrian crosswalk is generally placed at least one car length from the entry point, in a location that is not immediately apparent to a blind or visually impaired pedestrian, a cue is needed for crosswalk location."
Again, I have no objection to the idea that pedestrians are guided to safe crossing points, but crossing outside the crosswalk at a roundabout is probably safer than crossing anywhere away from a roundabout, so there should be million of miles of barriers put up prior to the ones at roundabouts.
You write, "Pedestrians report that vehicles at roundabouts, right slip lanes, and other unsignalized pedestrian crosswalks often do not yield for pedestrians. Pedestrians with disabilities are particularly vulnerable in these situations. People who are blind or visually impaired are unable to make eye contact with drivers making it impossible to 'claim the intersection.' The driver's view of people using wheelchairs is often blocked by other vehicles. Pedestrians with slower than normal mobility may hesitate when entering the street. All of these situations may result in drivers misinterpreting the pedestrian's intention to cross."
I agree, but this is even truer away from roundabouts at non-signalized locations.
You write, "It is recognized, however, that the purpose of these types of unsignalized crosswalks is to keep traffic moving as continuously as possible."
That is one reason for constructing roundabouts, but I have for over a decade advocated the use of roundabouts for the primary purpose of improving pedestrian safety. That delays are reduces is a side effect rather than the primary purpose in my way of thinking.
You write, "Traffic flow can be achieved, while still affording pedestrians with disabilities the opportunity to cross safely, with the use of pedestrian actuated technologies that halt traffic only while the pedestrian is in the crosswalk. An advantage of passive detectors is that, when pedestrians cross slowly, more time can be automatically provided. When a pedestrian crosses quickly, the traffic is stopped only during the time the pedestrian is crossing, thereby eliminating the problem of traffic being held up when no pedestrian is in the crosswalk."
I agree fully with this strategy. Wherever it is economically feasible, I support the use of passive or active detection and stoplights. But, again, roundabouts should not be the first place to implement such systems.
I recently studied the safety of pedestrians at over a hundred locations in Maine. I counted pedestrian and vehicle volumes and predicted how many crashes there ought to have been if the layout was 'typical' (according to TRL models from England and VTI models from Sweden, which in parenthesis gave very similar results) and compared these estimates to actual crash experience involving pedestrians. I found that the risk of a pedestrian collision is
- roughly 25 times the 'average' where pedestrians cross multi-lane streets at unmarked locations with 25 mph speed limits but actual speeds around 30 to 40 mph
- roughly 10 times the 'average' where pedestrians cross multi-lane streets in marked crosswalks with 25 mph speed limits but actual speeds around 30 to 40 mph
- roughly 4 times the 'average' where pedestrians cross multi-lane streets at unmarked locations with 25 mph speed limits but actual speeds around 25 mph
- roughly 2.5 times the 'average' where pedestrians cross multi-lane streets in marked crosswalks with 25 mph speed limits but actual speeds around 25 mph
- signalization of the above listed locations reduces the risks by roughly 50%
- roughly half the 'average' where pedestrians cross 2-lane streets as an average for all speeds if the street is posted as 25 mph
- extremely low risk where pedestrians cross 2-lane streets in marked or unmarked crosswalks with 25 mph speed limits but actual speeds around 20 mph
There were no multi-lane streets with actual speeds below 25 mph.
All the figures above include visually impaired people but are not specifically true for that group by itself. In summary, 4- and 6-lane streets are very dangerous where speeds are high. Signalization reduces the risk, but the risk is still much higher than at a narrow low-speed location, especially since many of the crashes still occur at very high speeds (jaywalkers or drivers running red lights account for over 50% of the pedestrian crashes). For example, the risk of a pedestrian collision is about 5 to 12 times higher than 'average' at a signalized 4-lane crosswalk if cars are driven at 30 mph whereas it is maybe 20% of the average in the vicinity of a single-lane roundabout (2-lane street) handling the same traffic volume. That is a difference of roughly 50 times. And that is risk of collision, not risk of serious injury or fatality. The risk of fatality, for Maine streets and roads, vary as seen in the table here. In other words, the roundabout may be more than 50 times safer than the signalization.
Table 1 Speed limit and crash severity, Maine data
In conclusion to my comments. I may be wrong in my assessment that non-signalized crosswalks adjacent to roundabouts are very safe for visually impaired people. And I do not want to advocate accepting collateral damage. But, if the design procedures suggested here means that roundabouts will not be constructed, and this means that we will 'keep' signalization and see 500 additional pedestrian fatalities a year compared to if roundabouts were utilized, which would have led to (annually) one visually impaired person being killed at a roundabout, should we then celebrate the saving of that one life at a cost of 500? Maybe? But, what if I am correct, and there will not be any additional deaths among visually impaired people, and the result of this practice will be 500 more pedestrian fatalities and not a single saved life? Then we should feel bad about our choice, shouldn't we? Especially since some of the 500 will be visually impaired people.
Roundabouts are not the only way of slowing down traffic. There are other traffic-calming methods that can be used. Unfortunately, the experience with signalization as a traffic calmer is not encouraging. Even if the mean speeds are reduced, the top speeds are very high. And some of those top speeds are found just after the perpendicular walk signal indicates a clear crossing. And, what the roundabout has in its favor that most other traffic-calming measures don't have is that it allows for narrow streets, something very important for elderly pedestrians' safety.
Now, as my last words, if the suggested design criteria lead to no reduction in the rate of constructing roundabouts, and the proposed signals are such that pedestrians have the absolute right-of-way both when the signal is activated and deactivated (as is the formal rule today if they go blank) then the signalization should cause no bad safety-effects and we would all be winners. My concern is that the cost for such systems will be prohibitive, and the construction of roundabouts will be delayed.
Thank you for listening to my thoughts,
Per Gårder, Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Maine
Dwight Kingsbury, Ph.D., October 28, 2002
Comment on Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way, published in the Federal Register, 17 June 2002.
As a pedestrian safety analyst, I support the goals of this effort, but share the concerns expressed by others (e.g., AASHTO) that in some sections, the draft guidelines propose inflexible, "Gordian knot" criteria to the application of pedestrian crossing features that are more appropriately and effectively evaluated through the application of engineering judgment, in the light of the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices" and other engineering guidance documents.
Specifically, I am concerned about the following.
S. 1105.3 would require calculation of pedestrian signal phase timing using a pedestrian walking speed of 3.0 ft
S. 1105.5.3 would require installation of elevators where the rise of a ramped approach exceeds 60 inches
S. 1105.6.2 would require provision of a pedestrian activated signal at each segment of a roundabout crosswalk. Although pedestrians often expect they will have difficulty using such crosswalks, prior to construction, I have never heard of any pedestrian request for a signal at a signal-lane roundabout, after it has opened. Adoption of this requirement could result in a reduction of the use of marked crosswalks at roundabouts. I concur with AASHTO that this section should be reserved, pending completion of NCHRP Project 3-65, "Applying Roundabouts in the United States."
S. 1105.7 would required provision of a pedestrian activated signal where crosswalks are provided at right or left turn slip lanes. The problem is that, if the slip lane is designed to facilitate a high speed turn, and the signal is used infrequently, it will be ineffective; many drivers simply fail to heed signal indications they are not used to seeing. The failure of drivers to yield to pedestrians in slip lane crosswalks is better addressed through design, e.g., greater use of high-entry-angle slip lanes such as those used in Australia (cf. the Austroads "Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice," Part 5). Let us hope that NCHRP Project 3-72, "Lane Widths, Channelized Right Turns, and Right Turn Deceleration Lanes in Urban and Suburban Areas," will produce some useful recommendations for the pedestrian crossing problem at slip lanes.
S. 1106 would require all pedestrian signal systems to use audible and vibrotactile indications. In Florida, there have been differences among visually impaired pedestrians as to the usefulness of audible signal systems. Some blind persons believe these features are unnecessary, or create a false sense of security, or make it difficult to hear traffic (at least, if not installed properly). They must also be maintained. It is probably better to continue with the current practice of considering installation of such systems on request.
I also concur with AASHTO that the hard conversion of dimensions stated in US customary units into their SI equivalents lends itself to impractical inferences with respect to tolerances. Metric tolerances need to be clarified.
Dwight Kingsbury, Ph.D.
Arthur Slabosky, P.E., September 25, 2002
There is no need to put pedestrian actuated signals at all roundabout crosswalks. Both sides on this issue are approaching it mechanistically as only a design issue, with no recognition of a role for education and enforcement. Access for pedestrians with vision impairments should be accomplished at roundabouts by enforcement of the law, with motorist and police education devoted to that purpose.. The anti-signal people seem to think that no education is necessary. The pro-signal people seem to think that no education is enough.
The description of the problem as expressed by the Access Board are misleading because they do not recognize that drivers are required to yield for pedestrians in crosswalk, although admittedly this is not enforced in the U.S.
Let us examine the following excerpt from http://www.access-board.gov/rowdraft.htm in section (1105.6) on Roundabouts: "...Because crossing at a roundabout requires a pedestrian to visually select a safe gap between cars that may not stop, accessibility has been problematic...." A pedestrian is not required to cross between cars that may not stop. A pedestrian that steps into the crosswalk legally mandates cars to stop. That is a legally available option to crossing in a gap in traffic.
A later phrase on the same page mentions that ..., the absence of stopped traffic presents a problem for pedestrians with vision impairments in crossing streets." Out of context this is a true statement. In the context of a roundabout with marked crosswalks it is again not quite on target because of the pedestrian's legal power to stop traffic as mentioned above. Furthermore it is not true that automobile traffic is never stopped in the absence of pedestrian demand. During busy times automobile traffic yields for vehicles inside the circle until there is a gap. This creates a stop-and-go queue in which vehicle drivers are amenable to leave a gap at the crosswalk (because they have to stop anyway).
The major premise of the Access Board's approach is that a red light displayed in front of a driver will cause them to stop, but a human being will not. The law on red lights is no higher a law than the one on pedestrians in a crosswalk. Then we can apply the Access Board's own argument also to a red light, and say that this is traffic that "may not stop." Red light running is a documented phenomenon on our streets.
Even red light compliance depends upon awareness of police enforcement presence. The same traffic police who now monitor red light running and speeding in the vicinity of signalized intersections have a simpler task at roundabouts. Failure-to-yield is almost the only violation that can occur in a roundabout. Unlike stop sign and speed violations, which are symbolic most of the time, failure to yield is never victimless. This means more efficient use of traffic police forces where they count; it also means that there should be plenty of police resources available to enforce respect for crosswalks in roundabouts.
Opening of the first roundabout in a community is already a time of change. Such openings are usually accompanied by scads of publicity on how to use the roundabout. Part of such publicity must include a message that at these facilities crosswalk observance will be enforced. Then the police must follow up with some actual enforcement. A few weeks of pedestrian testers followed and cops lying-in-wait should send the message of behavior that is expected.
A tangible suggestion of what the access board's proposal should be:
The design of every new roundabout in a community shall carry a surcharge a of (fill in number) percent up to (Fill in amount of money) that the road authority must use for publicity, police and testers to train the public to use the roundabout in a safe and legal manner with special attention to yields to pedestrians.
Such publicity and training should include but not be limited to:
1. Explaining to the police chief that replacement of signals with roundabouts relieves police of enforcement of stops and substitutes yield requirements which are just as critical for a roundabout's proper operations as are stops for a signal.
2. Placement of temporary signs that emphasize yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks.
3. Printed brochures in public places and radio and TV ads that describe motorist obligations.
4. Literature aimed at pedestrians that emphasizes the importance of crossing roundabouts at the crosswalk.
5. Deployment of pedestrian testers shadowed by uniformed police. The testers can even be police. This is similar to the method where police in unmarked cars spot violators on the road and notify officers in marked cars who issue the citation.
The Access Board 's recommendation for pervasive roundabout ped signals is justified if we assume the best features of perpendicular intersections and the worst features (including driver behavior) of roundabouts. The above recommendation seeks to effect the best features of roundabouts. The roundabout at its best is safer than a signalized intersection for any kind of pedestrian AND motorist.
There are also some things worth mentioning about the side-effects and extremely small cost-effectiveness of the would-be signals as proposed by the Access Board.
In terms of reasonableness of application, the universe in which the pedestrian signals would provide any benefit are very narrow. It would be under the following circumstances:
1. There is a blind pedestrian at the roundabout.
2. Such blind pedestrian doesn't have a dog.
3. The roundabout is busy enough that gaps are not obvious to his/her ears. (There may be NO cars present).
4.. The roundabout is not busy enough to slow speeds to a point where all drivers will observe the crosswalk.
This is a very tight set of conditions to provide at massive expense solution, and certainly stretches the limits of the meaning of reasonable accommodation. In contrast the pervasive signalization requirement offers the following negative side-effects:
1. More injuries and loss of life at the signals that will continue to be built at locations where roundabouts would have been affordable but for the required ped signals.
2. Rear end crashes at roundabouts where pedestrians unnecessarily activated the signals.
3. Increased delay because of persistence of red display after pedestrian has crossed.
4. Fewer pedestrian facilities, e.i. sidewalks and crosswalks at roundabouts.
5. Decreased safety in general for persons who are blind.
6. The death blow to respect for pedestrians in traffic.
Items number 1 through 3 above are well known already. I explain items 4 and 5 and 6 below.
4. Fewer pedestrian facilities. Proposed item 1105.6 requires the actuated signals only "where pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian facilities are provided at roundabouts. " If you really want the roundabout but can't afford it with the signals, leave out the sidewalk. Now ALL pedestrians are worse off. There must be a specification somewhere describing where a sidewalk is required, but everybody knows how to play the specs game. The temptation to decide that a sidewalk is not required will be strong if the sidewalk involves $100,000 in
5. Decreased safety in general for persons with visual impairments. . This is not a simple trade-off between people in cars whose overall safety is enhanced vs. blind pedestrians whose safety is decreased. Although the Access Boards proposed measure may increase safety and access for blind pedestrians, these are people who do not spend 24 hours a day as pedestrians without any interest in the survivability of motor vehicle users. . They are also passengers in motor vehicles at times. Also the blind persons' friends, drivers, plumbers, mail carriers and everyone else with whom they interact gains enhanced survivability in motor cars when a roundabout is built instead of a signal. Therefore the blind person has a substantial interest as a member of a whole community not only for their own direct safety but for those in society around them. Everyone who interacts with the blind person, including the blind person themself benefits from the increased safety of the roundabout.
If this proposal is adopted, the blind persons will also benefit from police presence at non-roundabout locations. This notion is expanded in the following section.
6. The death blow to respect for pedestrians in traffic.
Some people will say that these signals are needed because respect for pedestrians is already dead. I submit that these signals will insure that such respect will never return. On the good side of things, emphasis of ped laws at roundabouts as herein proposed can become a beachhead for expanding enforcement to other locations. (Note again the freed-up police time as roundabouts replace signals) No matter what happens at major intersections, the majority of road crossings will remain without signal protection.
Roundabouts contain features (unnecessary to mention here) that are the best achievable for pedestrian consideration. If we can't expect drivers to yield to pedestrians at roundabouts, where will they yield to them? The answer is NOWHERE.
Pedestrian and walkability advocates have complained for a long time that drivers do not show pedestrians respect. This is coupled with the fact that the pedestrian laws are rarely if ever enforced. If the American community throws in the towel now and ASSERTS that a driver has to see a big glowing red ball in order to stop for a pedestrian, we can forget about ever re-asserting pedestrian consideration into our driving behavioral culture.
The blossoming of roundabouts is an opportunity to re-assert a pedestrian-aware culture on Americans, not to throw it away.
Related suggestion: Find ways to equip pedestrians to be more attention-getting to motorists.
There are technical opportunities to improve the signals that pedestrians send. Do blind people still walk streets with a non-illuminated red-tipped cane? Aren't there LED devices that the blind people can carry that will alert cars positively to their presence? There must be economical ways to put the signalizing power in the hands of the people who need it, rather than outfit the intersection at great expense in case a person in need comes along.
In fact, Dan Burden of Walkable Communities present slides of a low-tech device in one city. There are red flags on short sticks in umbrella holders at both ends of a non-signalized urban crosswalk. . The pedestrian uses the flag to signal an intent to cross. The person carries the flag across the street and leaves it in the holder on the other side.
In a few years we may be able to equip cars and blind pedestrians with transmitters to send signals that would replace the absent visual knowledge of car movements. Such as-needed features are by their nature more economical and more reliable than sweeping general "solutions."
The debate over pedestrians and yielding should be part of the bigger issue of where traffic law enforcement has gone. The big enforcement actions now are red-light running, speeding and stop sign violations. Without demeaning the importance of such control devices, enforcement of these laws is usually symbolic, as mentioned earlier. That is, most of the time someone violates a stop or speed limit, there is no potential victim. It is easy for police to go to a place where most people "speed" and hand out tickets. It is easy to sit by a stop sign and find people who only came to a rolling stop even with no opposing traffic in sight. . In absence of a victim at the moment, the safety benefit of these enforcement actions is unknown. That is because we don't really know whether the rolling-stop driver would have yielded to an opposing vehicle or pedestrian. The speeder may be violating a politically low speed limit and might very well slow down when conditions warrant.
Implementation of roundabouts without signals coupled with yield-to-pedestrian enforcement emphasizes driver behavior where it counts. If there is no would-be victim, no the driver may proceed ahead.
A quote that followed a tragedy from Michigan illustrates how far we have gone from a culture of responsible responsive driver behavior. In August 2002 a driver hit a construction sign on the shoulder of an active highway work zone The sign hit two members of a crew, killing one and seriously injuring the other. The Detroit News (Macomb Section, 8-14-2002) quoted the director of safety services for the Michigan Road Builders Association thus: "For some reason, people are not getting the message that these are human beings out there, not just barrels with arms."... Maybe this is because drivers have been trained to consider lights and signs in front of them as more important than people.
Comments of Arthur Slabosky, P.E.
Michigan Department of Transportation
Anthony R. Candela, October 28, 2002
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to request full and due consideration be given to establishing
regulations and guidelines for audible pedestrian signals at unusual and
dangerous street intersections. This is not a black and white issue and
apparent divisions among the blindness community should not be allowed to
eliminate this issue from the landscape.
Audible pedestrian signals are a form of technology that is evolving. In
unusual or dangerous street intersections -- more numerous as modern
traffic control systems are being designed to move automobile traffic more
quickly -- additional help is needed if the non-visual person is to
navigate safely. Since artificial construction is often at the root of the
problem, artificial construction (e.g., easily visible and tactual
crosswalks, more elaborate and audible pedestrian signals, protective
barriers to shield pedestrians from vehicles, etc.) is required to
compensate for the added complexity.
Arguments in favor of and against audible pedestrian signals often overlook
the real problem -- appropriate and easily interpretable signals are
needed, inappropriate and ambiguous signals are harmful. Instead, the
argument becomes black and white. Regulators must not throw out the baby
with the bathwater. Please move forward to develop appropriate regulations
and guidelines. Don't let the 'with -em' or 'agin' 'em' style of argument
distract you from your duty.
Thank you.
Anthony R. Candela
National Program Associate
AFB West
Lawrence T. Hagen, P.E., PTOE, October 22, 2002
As a general comment, too much of the guidelines are attempts to eliminate any engineering judgment in determining what is the appropriate traffic control treatment. This leads to "cookbook engineering" where everyone just blindly implements the cookbook approach. This one-size-fits-all approach is not good engineering, is not good public works, and is usually not serving the overall best interest of the public. Many of the recommended guidelines also seem to have been done with no consideration of the fiscal impact. However, with the ever-increasing demands and less money, operating agencies will have difficulty implementing the proposed guidelines
Alternate Circulation Path - (1102.3, 1111)
I would suggest that an exception for short-duration blockages of pedestrian paths should be included. If construction activities will block the path for a few hours or maybe one day, you could spend more time and disrupt more people by the installation and removal of the accessible and protected alternate path than by the actual construction activity. Short-term closure of a pedestrian path, where the pedestrian could utilize the other side of the road is a reasonable alternative.
Minimum Clear Width (1103.3)
48" width exclusive of curbs will be difficult to obtain in many areas with already-constrained right-of-way. I agree with some of the other posted comments that perhaps we should look to including the curbs.
Pedestrian Crossings (1105.2.1)
I do not support the widening of crosswalks in a sweeping blanket mandate. In many cases at large intersections, traffic engineers struggle to get the signal indications located within the 40 - 150' distance from the stop line as mandated by the MUTCD. Adding a couple of feet doesn't sound like much, but in many instances that could be the difference between four and eight signal structures (mast arms). I would prefer to see the 72 inch
Pedestrian Signal Phase Timing (1105.3)
I am adamantly opposed to mandating a walk speed of 3.0 feet
have crossed.
Pedestrian Crossing Length (1105.4.1)
This requirement would seem to mandate the removal of unsignalized crossings where the median width is less than 72 inches
Pedestrian Overpasses and Underpasses (1105.5)
I believe that requiring elevators where there is a elevation change over 60 inches
Roundabouts (1105.6)
I think mandating signalized pedestrian crossings at all roundabouts is one of the silliest ideas imaginable. Many roundabouts do not warrant signalization, so they would certainly not meet the warrants for the pedestrian crossings on the approaches. There certainly are some roundabouts with poor pedestrian performance, but many of those have design flaws in the roundabout. Many I have seen have the pedestrian crossing at the circulating roadway edge. By properly designing and constructing the pedestrian crossings at roundabouts, I believe that peds can be properly and safely accommodated without signals at most roundabouts. I think "YIELD TO PEDS" signs at the crosswalks should be tried first, and signalized ped crossings should only be a last resort if nothing else seems to work. However, either of these treatments should only be installed after an engineering study determines that they are the most appropriate traffic control device. I am also unsure what type of barrier is needed around roundabouts. Would a small strip of grass or other landscaping (like that shown in the picture) be an appropriate barrier? Guidance on the barrier is needed.
Turn Lanes at Intersections (1105.7)
Among other things, installation of the pedestrian activated signal at each segment of the crosswalk crossing slip lanes creates a maintenance problem. Large trucks routinely hit poles or devices that are out in the refuge island, so the maintaining agency has to repeatedly replace the equipment. Also, with the requirements of 1106.2.1, there is not room on most slip lane channelization islands to accommodate the spacing requirements. Similar to roundabouts above, I believe that if there is a problem, an engineer should study to determine the most appropriate traffic control and be able to choose the best answer for that intersection from the available solutions.
Accessible Pedestrian Signal Systems (1102.8, 1106)
My only comment here is related to the fiscal issue. In large metropolitan areas where there are large numbers of signals, the costs of retrofitting all of the signals with upgraded pedestrian features can be staggering, especially in this day and age when everyone's budget is being cut. Additionally, by replacing a simple pushbutton switch with a more sophisticated device that also vibrates and emits sounds, you will incur more maintenance expense. Please understand, I wholly support having accessible pedestrian devices where they are needed. However, given the additional capital and maintenance costs, is it good public works to install these devices where they may not be needed? Again, my objection is basically the one-size-fits-all approach.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please let me know if you need additional information.
Larry Hagen
Lawrence T. Hagen, P.E., PTOE
Program Director - ITS, Traffic Operations, & Safety
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
University of South Florida, College of Engineering
Jeffrey A. Hillegonds, P.E., August 14, 2002
In response to the proposed rule to signalize all cross walks at roundabouts.
Comments:
I am distressed to hear about the proposed rule to signalize all cross walks at roundabouts.
Not only would this be a large financial burden to place at these intersections, it is likely not needed at the vast majority of locations. This type of condition should not be placed as a blanket rule. Signalization, where warranted, can enhance safety for pedestrians and vehicular traffic alike. However, where it is not warranted, it will sometimes increase the risk to pedestrians by confusing drivers or, if the signal is seldom used, creating a dangerous situation because vehicles get used to ignoring unused signals in areas with very few pedestrians.
In addition, the function of the modern roundabout, to promote uninterupted flow through the intersection, particularly at the exits, could be effected, thereby impacting the capacity and safety for pedestrians and motorists alike.
Roundabouts have been constructed, without signalization for pedestrians, in locations like college campuses and other high pedestrian areas with great success.
In my opinion, this rule is not needed at all. A prudent design professional will add signalization where it is warranted. At the very least, the language should be changed significantly, to provide warrants and guidelines for the designer, not a blanket statement that this is required at all locations.
Please consider my comments and re-consider this rule. It is a very bad idea to dictate this type of design at all locations when it really is only needed a very small percentage of the time.
Jeffrey A. Hillegonds, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Progressive AE
Grand Rapids, MI
Lynn B. Jarman, October 24, 2002
ACCESSIBILITY IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY DRAFT GUIDELINES
(Response to the Access Board's request for review and comment)
Salt Lake City Public Services has reviewed the proposed guidelines and respectfully submits the following recommended revisions and statements of concern:
1102.3, 1111.3 Alternate Circulation Path
Location. The alternate circulation path shall parallel the disrupted pedestrian access route, on the same side of the street.
Recommended Revision: The alternate circulation path shall parallel the disrupted pedestrian access route, on the same side of the street, unless in the judgment of the engineer, significant pedestrian safety issues exist, then the alternate circulation path shall be provided on the opposite side of the street.
1102.14 On Street Parking. Where on-street parking is provided, at least one accessible on-street parking space shall be located on each block face and shall comply with 1109.
Concern: Block lengths are not consistent across the country; the ratio of accessible stalls to non-accessible stalls will vary from city to city based on the standard block length. The proposed guideline does not clearly define whether the requirements apply to all block faces within a city, or only those locations with pavement marked stalls. The cost to identify accessible stalls on all block faces, including residential areas would be extreme.
1104 Ramps and Blended Transitions
1104.2.2.1 Running Slope
EXCEPTION: A parallel curb ramp shall not be required to exceed 15 feet
Recommended Revision: A parallel curb ramp shall not be required to exceed 16 feet
(The proposed minimum pedestrian access width is 48 inches; therefore, the common sidewalk scoring pattern would occur every 48 inches
1104.3.2 Detectable Warnings (see 1108)
1105 Pedestrian Crossings
1105.2 Crosswalks
1105.2.2 Cross Slope. The cross slope shall be 1:48
Concern: This requirement will create "tabled areas" in the roadway, potentially creating vehicular traffic hazards, particularly in areas where roadways have steep running slopes.
1105.3 Pedestrian Signal Phase Timing. All pedestrian signal phase timing shall be calculated using a pedestrian walk speed of 3.0 feet
Recommended Revision: All pedestrian signal phase timing shall be calculated using a pedestrian walk speed of 3.0 feet
Concern: Some consideration has been given to a walk speed of 2.5 feet
1105.5 Pedestrian Overpasses and Underpasses
1105.5.3 Approach. Where the approach exceeds 1:20
Concern: Overpasses and underpasses exceeding the maximum stated approach rise should not require the installation of an elevator. The extreme cost for installation, maintenance, and security makes this requirement an unjustifiable burden on municipalities with limited resources. Efforts should be made to meet ramping requirements, but site conditions may present a situation of infeasibility.
1105.6 Roundabouts
1105.6.2 Signals. A pedestrian activated traffic signal complying with 1106 shall be provided for each segment of the crosswalk, including the splitter island. Signals shall clearly identify which crosswalk segment the signal serves.
Concern: Installation of pedestrian signals at each roundabout crossing negates the intended benefits of installing a roundabout. Additional signalization does not always result in greater pedestrian safety. Instead of requiring signals at all roundabouts, local engineers should evaluate roundabout installations to determine which locations would logically benefit from the installation of pedestrian signals.
1105.7 Turn Lanes at Intersections. Where pedestrian crosswalks are provided at right or left turn slip lanes, a pedestrian activated traffic signal complying with 1106 shall be provided for each segment of the pedestrian crosswalk, including at the channelizing island.
Concern: Additional signalization does not directly equate to improved pedestrian safety. Well-engineered slip lanes (channelized turn lanes) with properly established pedestrian crossing times will result in improved safety. The slip lane design may or may not include additional signalization; the engineer should make this decision.
1108 Detectable Warning Surfaces
Concern: Considerable concern appears to exist from both the professional and public sectors regarding the installation of truncated domes. The major organizations representing the blind community cannot come to agreement on this issue. Initial installation costs and ongoing maintenance costs, especially in areas experiencing ice and snow, present real concerns regarding this proposed standard. Further evaluation is needed to ensure implementation of this guideline will provide the desired benefit.
Salt Lake City Public Services appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed guidelines. The Board's efforts in this matter are admirable. Hopefully, with feedback from local jurisdictions, guidelines meeting the true needs of our communities will be developed and adopted by those enforcing construction standards.
Sincerely,
Lynn B. Jarman
Salt Lake City Public Services
Engineering Division
Planning and Programming Manager
Lloyd Rasmussen, October 14, 2002
I am filing my comments with regard to the Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights of Way of June 17, 2002.
I am a member of the National Federation of the Blind, and support most of the recommendations contained in these guidelines. I am an electronics engineer, and have traveled in many places in the United States, using a long white cane, for forty years. This travel has included fair weather as well as foul, broken-down sidewalks, intermittent sidewalks, multi-lane street crossings, non-controlled street crossings, and much more. In 1992 I was one of the instigators of an NFB resolution that expressed some flexibility regarding the need for audible pedestrian signals. In 2001 I had the privilege of serving on a panel of the Maryland State Highway Administration which developed a set of warrants for the installation of "accessible" pedestrian signals.
I support the construction of more and better sidewalks, and a greatly increased understanding of the needs of pedestrians (particularly those who cannot drive) when vehicle ways and mass transit are being planned, re-purposed, reassessed and constructed.
I would not like to see these guidelines increase the cost of pedestrian accommodations so greatly that pedestrian access projects are not carried out or are postponed due to a lack of funds. I have the feeling that, even though thousands of hours have gone into the process of writing these guidelines, there are still too many proposed requirements that are "nice to have's" without properly delineating the "must-have's" of pedestrian access.
Blended transitions, perpendicular and parallel curb ramps: I am concerned that people are going to make blended transitions between sidewalks and streets the norm. Where is water supposed to drain?
Vehicles can tolerate more water on their paths than pedestrians can. I support the deprecation of "split the difference" curb ramps which dump pedestrians into the intersection instead of into the crosswalk.
If a blended transition is built, and detectable warnings are placed around the corner, in front of both crosswalks, how are blind pedestrians expected to know the direction of these crosswalks. This would seem to be problematic at intersections with little traffic, where the intersection is offset or not at right angles. Remember that most intersections will not have pedestrian signals of any kind installed, due to the lack of traffic.
When a parallel curb ramp is built, dividing a sidewalk into a portion sloping downward toward street level and a part which is not, what sort of "barrier is contemplated between the two adjacent sidewalk segments? A raised row of bricks? A guard-rail? I can't really picture this.
"Accessible" Pedestrian Signals: I have major reservations regarding the usefulness, safety, and consistent application of these devices.
I support the NFB's position on APS's whole-heartedly. But many NFB statements have mistakenly said that a pedestrian signal "informs a pedestrian when it is safe to cross." It does no such thing. It only informs pedestrians that they have an enhanced right of way for a specific period of time, which may or may not be noticed by drivers. Blind people must be enabled to engage in "defensive walking" as much as drivers are encouraged to drive defensively. In developing these standards, we must not forget the phenomenon that people (pedestrians and drivers) can only pay attention to a small number of stimuli at any particular moment. The unexpected event is usually the most dangerous one. I would hypothesize that a tactile stimulus does not compete for attention among audible stimuli as strongly as an audible stimulus does. Knowing when the pedestrian "start walking" interval occurs is important and useful. Knowing what vehicles around you are doing, and walking in the proper direction, is critical.
Many of the comments you are receiving on the guidelines are from people who have never experienced what is being proposed. You see far too many references to "chirping birds" and other sounds which are not proposed. Nobody should be told that these signals are good or bad until they know how they are supposed to work, and they have tried them.
In my opinion, the studies which the Access Board has conducted have involved really small numbers of blind people, and in many cases the work was carried out under artificial conditions, or only in good weather. And in some studies, the opinions and performance of sighted orientation and mobility instructors are counted as just as important as those of the people who will use the equipment--blind people. In the Washington, DC area, as of this writing, I don't think there are ANY intersections containing the proposed types of APS's, whose crosswalks, curb ramps and other pedestrian features comply with the proposed guidelines. Why should anyone be expected to endorse a system when it stands on several unstable legs, and has not been tested as a whole? Why should the Access Board mandate the installation of APS when they are poorly understood by the Americans who need to build and use them? I support further research and limited installations, to address problems such as we identified in our Maryland Highway Administration warrants system. But I believe that mandating "accessible" pedestrian signals across the board, in all cases, is premature, expensive, foolish and dangerous.
Locator tones: These ought to be called "locator clicks" because they ought to be short enough not to have a well-defined pitch. If the locations of these new signals can become standardized, no tones should be necessary. A cane or guide dog can find APS pedestals, if they are in predictable locations. Even though the guideline and the studies state that the sound pressure level at a distance of three feet should be "plus 2 to plus 5 dB" above the ambient sound level, there is no mention of the time constant of the gain control circuit which maintains this level, and where the ambient noise level is measured in order to control the APS's audio output. The investigators have forgotten that these signals, especially the locator tones, could be set several dB below the noise level and still be heard, because the human ear and brain can detect weak signals having specific frequencies and amplitude profiles. If the levels were reduced 5 or more DB below what is proposed, and the time constant for gain control shortened, there would be less tendency to hear "ping-ponging" signals from several APS around one intersection. Researchers and blind people must also decide, once and for all, whether they expect to use these signals as beacons while out in the middle of the street, or not. The new signals seem to be designed to "launch" a person into the intersection at the designated time and in a specific direction, and not to provide a beacon as the pedestrian is approaching the opposite side of the street. That's how I think they should work, but I don't know whether that is the expectation of the people who want to use these signals. And I don't know whether enough research has been done to verify that this concept works well for intersections which are extremely wide and/or extremely complex.
I am not yet confident that traffic engineers and their contractors will be able to install and maintain APS devices. Will shortcuts be taken in the interest of not burying cable, such as wirelessly controlled signals which are occasionally mis-activated or blocked by radio interference? Signals whose timing has gotten out of sync with the visual signal timing, but an inspector didn't notice or didn't know how to properly check? Directional arrows not lined up with the crosswalk for which the device is signaling? Devices mounted to the existing pole for the pedestrian activation button, even though the existing pole is several feet away from the "starting line" which the pedestrian should be on? But speaking of starting lines, I'm happy that the guidelines posit a slower walking speed, and therefore a longer pedestrian clearance interval.
It is often asserted that traffic is becoming quieter, especially with the advent of electric cars and better mufflers. It is true that the difference in noise output at idle between the loudest and quietest vehicles is increasing. Many trucks and buses are getting louder without limit. In other locations, the noise of building ventilation systems can mask much of the traffic noise. This situation, particularly electric cars, deserves somewhat more study.
Clearly, electric cars will make tire noise while they are moving. I might support the concept that such cars be required to emit some noise while stopped and ready to accelerate or turn. In other words, rather than create more noise and put new pedestals on the sidewalks, it may make more sense to insure that motor vehicles are audible, and also that the greatest contributors to noise pollution be muffled.
Detectable Warnings: I think there may be some intersections and islands where truncated domes would be useful. But again I would rather see ramps and curved edges for walkways, which can provide as much information as the domes can. The installation of detectable warnings at all covered intersections seems wasteful and unnecessary, unless "flat" or "raised" intersections are to become the norm.
Thank you for your consideration of all of these comments. I hope that sanity will prevail when these guidelines become a proposed rule.
Sincerely,
Lloyd Rasmussen
Kimberly Pawling, COMS & RTC, October 28, 2002
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Kimberly A. Pawling. I hold a certification in Orientation & Mobility (O&M) and in Rehabilitation Teaching with the Academy for Certification of Vision Rehabilitation & Education Professionals. I am an active member of AERBVI (the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired), and I am currently employed at CITE, Inc. in Orlando, Florida as the O&M Specialist and Rehabilitation Teacher. I have reviewed the following comments written by my colleage Mrs. L. Dianne Ketts, a member of the Environmental Access Committee for AERBVI, and I would like to submit 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 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.
Pedestrian Signal Phase Timing (1105.3)
I support The Board's draft guideline for Pedestrian Signal Phase Timing, stating that "signal phase timing shall be calculated using a pedestrian walk speed of 3.0 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.
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.
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." 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.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Kimberly Pawling, COMS & RTC
CITE, Inc.
Judy Prociuk, September 28, 2002
To Whom it may concern,
Even though I am not a U.S. citizen, I frequently visit the United States and therefore would like to submit my comments on accessible pedestrian signals. I am a blind person living in Canada and very much appreciate the audible component in traffic signals to indicate when the walk light is on and therefore safe to cross the street. I look upon this as an access to information issue. If there is a visual signal to alert sighted pedestrians when to walk or not walk, the same should be true for blind pedestrians. Blind pedestrians should not have to depend on listening for traffic noises or for someone to help them across the street if an accessible signal is not present. In my opinion accessible signals should be at every intersection where a visual signal is present. If blind pedestrians don't need to know when the signal is on, then sighted pedestrians should also be made to rely on other means to determine when to cross a street. I trust my comments will be given some consideration, thank you for your time and attention, respectfully,
Judy Prociuk
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan