Online Conference on Accessible Transportation Hosted by Easter - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

WWW.PROJECTACTION.ORG

WWW.TRB.ORG

Online Conference on Accessible Transportation

Hosted by Easter Seals Project ACTION in partnership with the Transportation Research Board

August 2-5, 2010

WWW.PROJECTACTION.ORG

WWW.TRB.ORG

Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines for Roundabouts and Intersections

Lukas Franck, The Seeing Eye Donna Smith, Easter Seals Project ACTION Lois Thibault, U.S. Access Board

August 4, 2010

3

Partners

• Easter Seals Project ACTION (ESPA)
• Transportation Research Board (TRB)

4

Event Information

• Teleconference only
• To obtain a transcript of the event, contact ESPA at

espadistancelearning@easterseals.com or visit our web site at www.ProjectACTION.org

5

Online Conference on Accessible Transportation Remaining Session

• Thursday, August 5, 2010

– The Role of Transit-Oriented Development: Livable and Sustainable Communities – Nat Bottigheimer, Lilly Shoup and Dr. Mary Leary

WWW.PROJECTACTION.ORG

WWW.TRB.ORG

Transportation Research Board

Russell Houston Senior Communications Officer Transportation Research Board

7

The Transportation Research Board (TRB)

• Began in 1920 the National Advisory Board on Highway Research
• The Highway Research Board until 1974
• Part of National Academy of Sciences
• Annually Engage More than 7,000 Volunteers
• Finances - Federal 54%, State DOTs 39%, Other and Self-

Generated 7%.

• Original Mission – Get the Farmers Out of the Mud
• Today’s Mission – Provide Leadership in Transportation Innovation

and Progress Through Research and Information Exchange

8

TRB Services

• Foster Information Exchange

– Annual Meeting, Meetings and Conferences, Standing Committees and Task Forces, Electronic Networks, and Field Visits

• Manage Research

– Cooperative Research Programs, Strategic Highway Research Program, and Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis

• Provide Policy Analysis and Advice
• Issue Publications and Research Information

– Publications, Online Research Information , Response to Inquiries

9

Getting Involved with TRB

• Serve on a

– TRB Standing Committee, Subcommittee, or Taskforce – Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) Panel – Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP 2) Expert Task Group

• Join/Support TRB--Become an Affiliate or Sponsor
• Submit a Paper
• Exhibit
• Respond to an RFP or RFI
• Submit an IDEA
• Subscribe to the TRB E-Newsletter - Follow us on Twitter

10

Learn More About TRB

www.TRB.org Russell Houston Senior Communications Officer Editor, TRB Transportation Research E-Newsletter 202-334-3252 RHouston@nas.edu

WWW.PROJECTACTION.ORG

WWW.TRB.ORG

Intersections as Barriers

Lukas Franck, COMS Morristown,NJ

12

Visual Impairment – an Overview

• Vision impairment is to a great extent correlated with age
• One eye condition; macular degeneration, will be responsible for

nearly 3 million cases of central vision loss by 2020

• About 110,000 people use long canes to aid in travel (AFB

1990)

• About 7,000 dog guide users, (Eames 1994)

13

Training Opportunities

• People who are blind are eligible for some training,

including training on how to cross streets (Mobility, or O&M training)

• Varies widely by state
• Limited by vocational need
• System is overwhelmed by the numbers of people

who need service

14

Street Crossing w/o Sight

• Multiple tasks:

– Locate street margin – Determine nature of the crossing and controls available –actuate if necessary – Determine direction to target – Depart at the correct time, and maintain line of crossing – Assess threats

15

Highway Fatalities:

• Approximately 5500-6000 pedestrian fatalities each

year. – 110,000 injuries

• Pedestrians account for 14% of traffic fatalities
• The elderly are over-represented in this statistic.

16

Elderly Pedestrian Fatalities

• In 1995 senior citizens comprised 13% of the

population.

• Represented 23% of pedestrian traffic fatalities.
• Majority of fatalities were not at intersections, but large

intersections can pose challenges for the elderly…

17

The Aging Population

• The aging population with attendant visual

impairment is growing rapidly.

• These former drivers will become pedestrians, but
• Even before the level of ‘legal blindness’ is reached,

the street crossing task may become very difficult for them.

18

Challenges Faced by Elderly Pedestrians at Intersections

• Perceptual

–Lack of ability to locate/utilize controls –Lack of ability to perceive information (Walk/ Don’t Walk indications)

19

Challenges Faced by Elderly Pedestrians at Intersections

• Cognitive

– Understanding intersection control types as a new pedestrian may be very challenging

• Physical

– Wide streets without pedestrian refuges may be insurmountable – Crossing times may be insufficient (grade may be a factor)

20

Intersection Control Types

• Two types: Fixed Timed and Actuated
• Fixed timed:

– Older type – Common in downtown areas of cities

• Actuated type

– Common in the suburbs, increasingly used to enhance efficiency in other areas

21

The Problem of Actuation

• Many intersections- a growing proportion- are

actuated.

• Pedestrians must push a button to receive a

pedestrian timing-and a WALK indication.

• This interface is poorly designed especially for the

elderly and others with visual impairments.

• It is poorly understood by nearly everyone.

22

How Actuation Works

• The most common type of control is called semi-

actuated control. – Major street intersects a minor street – Sensors on the minor street. – Lights change when cars roll onto the sensors – Lights change for a time calculated to allow the car to enter or cross the intersection.

23

24

Pushing the Button Makes a Difference!

• At an 80’ wide crossing (perhaps 6 lanes) a single car

might be allocated a total of 11 seconds of combined green and yellow time.

• A pedestrian pushing the button will be allocated 30

seconds of combined WALK and flashing DONT WALK time.

25

Cognitive/Conceptual Problem:

• Understanding the “interactive” nature of the

‘interface’. – This problem is shared by many – But many elderly people may be unfamiliar with the changed nature of intersection design. – Walk and in particular flashing Don’t Walk may be poorly understood.

26

Perceptual/Cognitive Problem:

• Knowing when to start.

–Lack of interaction (based on a concept ‘gap’) may lead to poor judgments. –Inability to see signals due to visual deterioration.

27

28

29

30

31

How To Make the Interface Work for the Aging Population

• Redundancy will help

– Use sound to pull the pedestrians attention to the pushbutton – Notify the pedestrian of the WALK indication through sound- being careful to use sound that takes into account the high frequency hearing loss typical in the aging population

• Brings the information to the near side.

32

Accessible Pedestrian Signal

• Locator tone to draw

attention to and help people locate the button.

33

Walk Information Through Sound

• Locator tone followed by

WALK information in an accessible format

34

Physical problems

• Walking speed

– Most intersection timings are predicated on a walking speed of four (4) feet per second (fps). – In MUTCD 2009 this calculation is adjusted to 3.5 fps to take the aging population and people with disabilities into account.

35

Failure to Improve the Interface Will be Very Expensive

• Intersections can become barriers
• The costs will be high in many ways

–Personal freedom and independence –Increased burden on Para-transit services

36

Intersections as Barriers

• At signalized intersections with high volumes it can be quite

simple to determine the onset of the “parallel” traffic flow that is the auditory equivalent of the “walk indication”.

• Not just actuated intersections are problematic

– Intermittent traffic is problematic. – Light flow on side streets is problematic.

• Resolvable with APS

37

Intersections as Barriers

Paratransit for people who are blind is not automatic. They must qualify to be able to ride. In Pittsburgh there are three reasons that will allow a blind person to qualify:

• No path of travel
• Travel path too close to fast moving traffic
• Intersection barriers

38

39

40

Intersections as Barriers

• In calendar year 2001 blind people in Pittsburgh used

paratransit 13,000 times.

• Perhaps 50% of those trips were the results of

intersection barriers.

• Para-transit costs in Pittsburgh are $18 per ride.
• Several years ago costs in Atlanta were $75 per ride!

41

Intersections as Barriers

Taking a figure of $18 times 6,500 rides Results in costs of $117,000 to the transit system in Pittsburgh. In Atlanta the cost for the same number of trips is $487,500. The human costs are very difficult to calculate.

42

The End

43

Usable Roundabouts

August 2010

Lukas Franck, Senior Consultant The Seeing Eye Lois Thibault, Coordinator of Research US Access Board

44 44

28 CFR Part 35: Title II of the ADA

• Requires that all new facilities be designed and

constructed to be accessible to and usable by people who have disabilities

• Standards are the measure of compliance
• Standards are a safe harbor for agencies and

engineers

• No standards? Access is still required….

45

Access Board role

• Federal government’s accessibility specialist
• Develops guidelines that rulemaking agencies

adopt as standards

• Began development of rights-of-way guidelines

that include roundabout provisions in 1992

• Will publish Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) this Fall

45

46

Background

• ADA complaint to FHWA in 1998 alleged that new

Towson Roundabout was not accessible

• FHWA asked the Access Board to include provisions for

roundabouts in its new PROW rulemaking agenda

• National Eye Institute/NIH multi-year wayfinding

research at Western Michigan University

• Other Access Board/FHWA research

www.access-board.gov/research/roundabouts-signals/report.htm www.access-board.gov/research/roundabouts/bulletin.htm

46

47 47

48

Early findings

• Circulating traffic masks the sounds of entering and

exiting vehicles; quiet cars increase ambiguity and uncertainty

• Increased time for non-visual gap selection and

confirmation limits opportunities to cross

• Intended crossing locations are not evident and

curvilinear routes exacerbate veering

• Multilane crossings increase risk, particularly on exit

48

49

Wayfinding information

49

50

Gap information

50

51

PROWAAC Report (2001)

Recommended:

• Pedestrian activated signals at ALL roundabouts and slip lanes
• Separated sidewalks or barriers at curb-attached sidewalks

51

52

Draft PROWAG (2002)

52

PROW staff developed first draft from committee

• recommendations. Over 1400 public comments were

received, almost 900 of them from blind/low vision pedestrians. Scott Lois Dennis

53

Industry comments

• Strongly opposed
• No alternatives suggested
• Little understanding of accessibility objectives

and obligations

53

“While I have concerns for the safety of all pedestrians using transportation facilities, I believe the proposed requirement would create an undue constraint on the use of roundabouts, potentially eliminating their use in many locations at the state and local level. The budgets of all government entities are already stretched thin, so maximizing the opportunities for safety improvements is very

• important. Roundabouts improve safety for vehicles compared with

traditional intersections by keeping the speeds low and reducing conflict points…”

54

“One of the challenges faced by engineers working on pedestrian improvements is the status of (conflicting) research and the absence

• f clear guidance.”
• - ITE Journal,

December 2006

55

Idea: HAWKs?

• Successfully pioneered in Tucson (Richard Nassi)
• Many subsequent MUTCD requests-to-experiment
• Pedestrian-activated
• 2009 MUTCD change to permit dark-unless-activated

55

56

57 57

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf

TTI Research

58

Freedom to Travel (BTS 2000)

58

59

Draft PROWAG revised (2005)

• Signals provisions scoped for multi-lane crossings only

(provide integrated APS w/ locator tones)

• Separation provisions remain
• Detectable warnings at departure curbs and splitters
• HAWKs

encouraged in advisory note

• FHWA recommends PROWAG as a best

practice

59

60 60

Complaint Complaint… … Complaint Complaint… …

61

New research/testing underway

• Golden, CO
• Oakland County, MI

61

62

NCHRP 3-65 research

62

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_572.pdf

63 63

http://itre.ncsu.edu/ITRE/research/Pedestrian-Accessibility/index.html

NEI research continues

64

PROWAG provisions

64

R305.6.2 Signals. At roundabouts with multi-lane crossings, a pedestrian activated signal complying with R306 shall be provided for each multi-lane segment of each crosswalk, including the splitter island. Signals shall clearly identify which crosswalk segment the signal serves.

65

PROWAG provisions

65

R305.7 Channelized Turn Lanes at Roundabouts Where pedestrian crosswalks are provided at multi-lane right or left channelized turn lanes at roundabouts, a pedestrian activated signal complying with R306 shall be provided. R305.8 Channelized Turn Lanes at Traditional Intersections. Where pedestrian crosswalks are provided at multi-lane right or left channelized turn lanes at intersections with pedestrian signal indications, a pedestrian activated signal complying with R306 shall be provided.

66

PROWAG provisions

66

R306.2 Pedestrian Signals. Each crosswalk with pedestrian signal indication shall have an accessible pedestrian signal which includes audible and vibrotactile indications of the WALK interval. Where a pedestrian pushbutton is provided, it shall be integrated into the accessible pedestrian signal and shall comply with R306.2.

67

PROWAG provisions

67

R306.3.2 Pushbutton Locator Tone. Pedestrian pushbuttons shall incorporate a locator tone at the

• pushbutton. Pushbutton locator tone volume shall be 5

dB maximum above ambient noise level and shall be responsive to ambient noise level changes, and be audible 1.8 to 3.7 m (6 to 12 feet) from the pushbutton

• r to the building line whichever is less. The duration of

the locator tone shall be 0.15 s maximum and shall repeat at intervals of one second. The locator tone shall operate during the DON’T WALK and flashing DON’T WALK intervals only. The locator tone shall be deactivated when the pedestrian signal is not operative.

68

PROWAG provisions

68

R306.2.1 Location. Accessible pedestrian signals shall be located so that the vibrotactile feature can be contacted from the level landing serving a curb ramp, if provided, or from a clear floor or ground space complying with R402 that is in line with the crossing line and adjacent to the vehicle stop line.

69

PROWAG provisions

69

R305.6.1 Separation. Where walkways are curb- attached, there shall be a continuous and detectable edge treatment along the street side of the walkway wherever pedestrian crossing is not intended. Detectable warnings shall not be used for this edge

• treatment. Where chains, fencing, or railings are used,

they shall have a bottom element 380 mm (15 in) maximum above the pedestrian circulation route.

70 70

71

PROWAG provisions

71

R304.2.3 Pedestrian Refuge Islands. Pedestrian refuge islands shall have detectable warnings at curb ramps and blended transitions. Detectable warnings at cut-through islands shall be located at the curbline in-line with the face of curb and shall be separated by a 610 mm (2.0 ft) minimum length of walkway without detectable warnings. Where the island has no curb, the detectable warning shall be located at the edge of roadway.

72

Design recommendations

• Avoid multilane crossings, especially on exit
• Consider raised crossings/speed tables
• Consider ways to increase wayfinding

cues

72

73

Good ideas Good ideas

73

74

Good ideas Good ideas

74

75 75

Deflection on exit, too? Deflection on exit, too?

76 76

77

What about RRFBs?

• Yielding data less persuasive (47% vs

97% in TTI research)

• Vehicle red more effective in early testing
• Legal/right of way considerations
• Visibility
• Possible effects of widespread use on seizure

disorders

77

Research in Washington State?

78

Next regulatory steps

• Complete cost/benefit analysis: Summer 2010
• OMB review: Fall 2010
• Publish NPRM: Spring 2011

– 90 days’ public comment – review/make any necessary changes

• Publish Final Rule: Fall 2011

– concurrent DOT adoption for 504 – DOJ adoption for ADA will follow

78

79

Want to comment to the NPRM?

• 1/Read it first;
• 2/Consider the direct questions;
• 3/Respond to specific issues;
• 4/Submit data, not opinion, and
• 5/Don’t argue access.
• (PS: We don’t dispute the vehicle safety data)

79

80

Need more information?

• Call us: 202.272.0023 (Lois); -0025 (Scott)
• Email us at ROW@access-board.gov
• Check out our PROW homepage at

http://www.access-board.gov/prowac/index.htm

• Follow us on the Roundabouts listserv
• Sign up for our electronic newsletter so you’ll

know when the NPRM is published in the Federal Register for public comment: http://www.access- board.gov/news.htm

80

81

Questions?

81

82 82

Questions

WWW.PROJECTACTION.ORG

WWW.TRB.ORG

Online Conference on Pedestrian Access

Easter Seals Project ACTION 1425 K Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 (800) 659-6428 ProjectACTION@easterseals.com www.ProjectACTION.org Transportation Research Board The National Academies 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 334-2934 http://www.TRB.org