This handbook contains much info about audible traffic signals. The
author of many of the articles, billie Louise Bentzen wrote most of the 50
or so studies funded by the federal government on detectable warnings
during the 1970s and 1980s. She is not blind herself. She earns a living
by studying us.
kelly
>From the web page
http://www.acb.org/pedestrian/phd2a.html
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND
Pedestrian Safety Handbook
A Handbook for Advocates
Dedicated to
Improving the pedestrian environment
Guaranteeing people who are blind or visually impaired
Access to Intersection Identification and Traffic Control
Information
Second Edition: April 2000
Edited By
Debbie Grubb
The American Council of the Blind
1155 15th St., NW, Suite 1004
Washington, DC 20005
(202)467-5081
(800)424-8666
http://www.acb.org
ACB acknowledges and deeply appreciates the moral and financial
support of The Seeing Eye, Incorporated, of Morristown, New
Jersey, for their generous assistance in covering the printing
and supply cost of making this Pedestrian Handbook available.
The Seeing Eye and their seeing eye dogs are true partners in
promoting pedestrian safety.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface: Why This Handbook? by Charles Crawford
Facts About Pedestrian Travel from Mean Streets 1998 by the
Surface Transportation Policy Project
Pedestrian Injury Rates as a Function of Speed by Steve
Burrington et. al
Definition of Accessible Pedestrian Signals
Revision of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices;
Temporary Traffic Control, FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 64, No. 250
Proposed Rules, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT), Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA)
Application of the ADA To Pedestrian Facility Construction by
Julie Carroll
The "Modern" Intersection by Lukas Franck and Janet Barlow
Travels with Whitley by Jo Taliaferro
American Council of the Blind Survey of Signalized Intersection
Accessibility by Julie Carroll and Billie Louise Bentzen
Excerpts From Evaluation of Audible Pedestrian Traffic Signals
Prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments
Excerpts from TEA-21: A Summary of Accessibility Provisions by
Julie Carroll
Resolutions from ACB, AER and Old Dominion Council of the Blind
and Visually Impaired
Resource "Accessible Pedestrian Signals" by Billie Louise
Bentzen, Ph.D. and Lee S. Tabor, AIA
Accessible Pedestrian Signals Product Information by Billie
Louise Bentzen, Ph.D. and Lee S. Tabor, AIA
APS Product Sources by Billie Louise Bentzen, Ph.D. and Lee S.
Tabor, AIA
Curb Ramps and Blind Pedestrians by Billie Louise Bentzen, Ph.D
Manufacturers of Detectable Warning Materials
Open Letter from Charles Crawford, Executive Director, American
Council of the Blind
White Cane Safety Day: Police Chief in Virginia Learns Dramatic
Lesson by Sharon Lovering
One person makes a difference in Indiana
Advocating Locally for Pedestrian Safety by Debbie Grubb
Pedestrian Safety model law by Charles Crawford
How You Can Financially Support the ACB Pedestrian Safety
Campaign
Why This Handbook?
by Charles Crawford
America's pedestrian environment has become hostile to the safe
travel of all persons and especially to those of us who are
blind. Key factors in this sad state of affairs are traffic
patterns controlled by underground sensors that change the
signaling at intersections to accommodate heavier traffic flow
with a resulting lack of predictability to the time available to
cross a street, multiple street intersections with complex
pedestrian island configurations, turning signal arrows that
allow vehicles to cross in front or in back of moving
pedestrians, round-about traffic circles without signalization,
blended or level curbings that are not always detectable at the
entrance to the street, and signaling devices that are difficult
to locate and understand. All this in addition to disappearing
sidewalks that are either never constructed or allowed to fall
into serious disrepair.
If we as a blind community are to preserve our ability to
independently travel, then we simply must take the necessary
actions to engage the decision makers in federal, state and
local agencies to educate them to the dangers of the decisions
they are making. We must also link our efforts with other
pedestrian groups to put the issues clearly on the public
agenda.
Advocacy requires information. It is not simply enough to know
the danger but we must speak to those who are responsible for
traffic control and pedestrian infrastructure in the language
they speak, in the concepts they understand and with a force of
commitment as if our lives depend on it because in many ways
they do.
This second edition handbook begins the process of providing a
baseline education to the issues and offers some ways of making
a positive change. As time goes by and we make progress in our
effort, this handbook will reflect the wisdom we will gain.
Read this information well. Even as we are taking on a challenge
of truly massive proportion, our blind brothers and sisters
remain at risk. In the short period since the first release of
this handbook there have been at least 6 deaths of blind people
of which we know and serious injuries to others. For all the
sorrow we feel and for all the pain their families have endured,
the tragic reality is that we cannot bring them back. However,
we can make a solemn promise to work to make the pedestrian
world a safer place for people who are blind and sighted alike.
This is our goal and we truly can accomplish it armed with the
love and support we have for each other, the memory of those who
might have lived in a more safe environment and from the
knowledge we gain through this handbook.
Facts About Pedestrian Travel
MEAN STREETS 1998
Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP)
1100 17th Street, NW, 10th floor, Washington, DC 20036
On a per-mile basis, walking is more dangerous than driving,
flying, or riding a bus or train.
In 1996, 5,157 pedestrians were killed on U.S. streets.
On average, just 1 percent of funds spent in states on safety
projects were directed at pedestrian safety despite the fact
that nationwide approximately 12 percent of traffic deaths and
serious injuries were to pedestrians.
People who are blind or visually impaired are disproportionately
represented in the pedestrian population.
Pedestrian signs can and should be made accessible for
pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired.
Pedestrian Injury Rates as a Function of Speed
by Steve Burrington et. al.
The following information is from "Take Back Your Streets-How to
Protect Communities from Asphalt and Traffic," written by Steve
Burrington et al (e-mail: [log in to unmask]). It was first
published in 1995 by the Conservation Law Foundation, Boston,
and updated in January 1998 ($10.00; 617-350-0990); the text can
be found at http://www.tlcnetwork.org. It was shared on the
pednet listserve by Werner (e-mail: [log in to unmask]).
The likelihood that a pedestrian will be hit increases at higher
speeds because a motorist's ability to take in the surrounding
environment is more limited. At a speed of 30 miles per hour, a
motorist has a field of vision ("peripheral vision angle")
spanning approximately 150 degrees, and will fix his or her
vision about 1,000 feet ahead. At 60 miles per hour, the
motorist's field of vision is reduced by two-thirds to 50
degrees, and the motorist will fix his vision at 2,000 feet. (6)
What this means in daily life is that motorists driving at 25
mph or faster have difficulty perceiving that a pedestrian is
ready to cross a street, deciding to slow down, and actually
doing so. The normal driver usually decides to speed up,
assuming that another car will stop. (7)Thus, from the point of
view of pedestrian safety, widening a roadway is
counter-productive. The probability of a pedestrian being killed
(when hit) is 3.5 percent when a vehicle is traveling at 15
miles per hour but increases more than tenfold to 37 percent at
31 miles per hour, and increases to 83 percent at 44 miles per
hour. (8) Pedestrian injuries also increase in severity with
vehicle speed. As a 1994 treatise puts it, an injury's severity
"depends primarily on the car's speed at impact with the
pedestrian." The treatise ranks injuries on a scale of 1 (no
injury) to 6 (fatality), and states that, in general, injury
severity is 1.5 at 20 miles per hour, 4 at 30 miles per hour,
and 6 at speeds greater than 35-40 miles per hour. (9)
6. Limpert, R., Motor Vehicle Accident Reconstruction and Cause
Analysis, p. 546 (Charlottesville, VA: Michie Company, 4th ed.
1994).
7. Untermann, Richard, Accommodating the Pedestrian: Adapting
Towns and Neighborhoods for Walking and Bicycling, p. 175 (New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1984).
8. Limpert, at 66 9. Ibid. at 66
DEFINITION OF ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS
Accessible pedestrian signals provide information in non-visual
format, which includes audible tones or verbal messages, and/or
vibrotactile information.
FEDERAL REGISTER
Vol. 64, No. 250
Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
23 CFR Part 655
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-99-6576] RIN 2125-AE72
Revision of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices;
Temporary Traffic Control
Part II
4D.3 Provisions for Pedestrians
Support:
Chapter 4E contains additional information regarding pedestrian
signals.
Standard:
The design and operation of traffic control signals shall take
into consideration the needs of pedestrians, including those
with disabilities, as well as vehicular traffic.
If engineering judgment indicates the need for pedestrian
provisions for a given pedestrians or other non-motorist
movement, signal faces conveniently visible to pedestrians shall
be provided by pedestrian signal heads or a signal face for an
adjacent vehicular movement.
Guidance:
Safety considerations should include the installation, where
appropriate, of accessible pedestrian signals that provide
information in non-visual format (including audible tones,
verbal messages, and/or vibrotactile information). Provisions
for accessible signals are presented in Sections 4E.6 and 4E.8.
Where pedestrian movements regularly occur but are low in
volume, pedestrians should be provided with sufficient time to
cross the roadway by adjusting the traffic control signal
operation and timing to continually provide sufficient crossing
time or by providing pedestrian detectors.
Option: If it is desirable to prohibit certain pedestrian
movements at a traffic control signal, a NO PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
sign (R9-3a, R9-3) may be used. (see Section 2B.36.)
4E6. Accessible Pedestrian Signals
Support:
The primary technique that people who have visual disabilities
use to cross streets at signalized locations is to initiate
their crossing when they hear the traffic alongside them begin
to move, corresponding to the onset of the green interval. The
effectiveness of this technique is reduced by several factors
including: increasingly quiet cars, right turn on red (which
masks the beginning of the through phase), complex signal
operations, and wide streets. Further, low traffic volumes make
it difficult for pedestrians who have visual disabilities to
discern signal phase changes.
Local organizations providing support services to pedestrians
who have visual and/or hearing disabilities can often act as
advisors to the engineer when consideration is being given to
the installation of devices to assist such pedestrians.
Orientation and mobility specialist or similar staff might be
able to provide a wide range of advice. Information might range
from assessing the needs of a single individual to commenting on
the operation of proposed devices.n3
n3 For guidance relative to techniques for making pedestrian
signal information accessible to persons with visual impairment,
including directly audible tones, transmitted speech messages,
and vibration, refer to U.S. Access Board Document A-37b
"Accessible pedestrian Signals" and the Federal Highway
Administration.
Standard:
When used, accessible pedestrian signals (see Section 4D.3)
which provide information in non-visual format (including
audible tones, verbal messages, and/or vibrotactile
information), shall be used in combination with pedestrian
signal timing. Accessible pedestrian signals shall clearly
indicate the direction of the pedestrian crossing served by
devices, such as the tactile arrows.
Under stop-and-go operations, accessible pedestrian signals
shall not be limited in operation by the time of day or day of
week.
Guidance:
The installation of accessible pedestrian signals at signalized
intersections should be based on an engineering study, which
should consider the following factors:
a. Potential demand for accessible pedestrian signals.
b. A request for accessible pedestrian signals.
c. Traffic volumes during times when pedestrians might be
present; including periods of low traffic volumes or high
turn-on-red volumes.
d. The complexity of traffic signal phasing.
e. The complexity of intersection geometry.
Support:
Technology that provides different sounds for each
non-concurrent signal phase has frequently been found to provide
ambiguous information.
Standard:
When choosing audible tones, possible extraneous sources of
sounds (such as wind, rain, vehicle back-up warnings, or birds)
shall be considered in order to eliminate potential confusion to
pedestrians who have visual disabilities.
Guidance:
Audible pedestrian tones should be carefully selected to avoid
misleading pedestrians who have visual disabilities when the
following conditions exist:
a. Where there is an island that allows unsignalized right turns
across a crosswalk between the island and the sidewalk.
b. Where multi-leg approaches or complex signal phasing require
more than two pedestrian phases, such that it may be unclear
which crosswalk is served by each audible tone.
c. At intersections where a diagonal pedestrian crossing is
allowed, or where one street receives a WALK indication
simultaneously with another street.
Standard:
When accessible pedestrian signals have an audible tone(s), they
shall have a tone for the WALK interval. The WALK interval tone
shall have a faster repetition rate than the associated
pushbutton locator tone. The audible tone(s) shall be audible
from the beginning of the associated crosswalk.
Support:
A pushbutton locator tone is a repeating sound that informs
approaching pedestrians that they are required to push a button
to actuate a WALK signal and that enables pedestrians who have
visual disabilities to locate the pushbutton. (See Section 4E.8)
Guidance: The accessible WALK signal tone should be no louder
than the locator tone, except when there is optional activation
to provide a louder signal tone for a signal pedestrian phase.
(See Section 4.E.8)
Automatic volume adjustment in response to ambient traffic sound
level should be provided up to a maximum volume of 89dB. n4
Where automatic volume adjustment is used, tones should be no
more than 5dB louder than ambient sound.
n4 Measurement of Highway-Related Noise, FHWA-PD-96-046,
DOT-UNTSC-FHWA-96-5. Available through the National Technical
Information Service, see Preface.
Standard:
When verbal messages are used to communicate the pedestrian
interval, they shall provide a clear message that the WALK
interval is in effect, as well as to which crossing it applies.
The verbal messages that is provided at regular intervals
throughout the timing of the WALK interval shall be the term
walk sign," which may be followed by the name of the street to
be crossed.
A verbal message is not required at times when the WALK interval
is not timing, but, if provided:
a. It shall be the term "wait."
b. It need not be repeated for the entire time that the WALK
interval is not timing.
Option: Accessible pedestrian signals that provide verbal
messages may provide similar messages in languages other than
English, if needed, except for the terms "walk sign" and "wait."
Standard:
A vibrotactile pedestrian device communicates information about
pedestrian signal phasing through a vibrating surface by touch.
Vibrotactile pedestrian devices, where used, shall indicate that
the WALK interval is in effect, and for which direction it
applies, through the use of a vibrating directional arrow or
some other means.
Guidance:
When provided, vibrotactile pedestrians devices should be
located next to, and on the same pole as, the pedestrian
pushbutton, if any, and adjacent to the intended crosswalk.
4E.8 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Detectors
Standard:
At accessible pedestrian signal locations with pedestrian
actuation, each pushbutton shall activate both the WALK interval
and the accessible pedestrian signals.
Guidance:
At accessible pedestrian signal locations, pushbuttons should
clearly indicate which crosswalk signal is actuated by each
pushbutton. Pushbuttons and tactile arrows should [*73671] have
high visual contrast. n5 Tactile arrows should point in the same
direction as the associated crosswalk. At corners of signalized
locations with accessible pedestrian signals where two
pedestrian pushbuttons are provided, the pushbuttons should be
separated by a distance of at least 3 meters (10 feet). This
enables pedestrians who have visual disabilities to distinguish
and locate the appropriate pushbutton.
n5 See Department of Justice Americans with Disabilities Act
Standards for Accessible Design.
Pushbuttons for accessible pedestrian signals should be located
as follows:
a. Adjacent to a level all-weather surface to provide access
from a wheelchair, and where there is an all-weather surface,
wheelchair route to the ramp.
b. Within 1.5 meters (5 feet) of the crosswalk extended.
c. Within 3 meters (10 feet) of the edge of the curb, shoulder,
or pavement.
d. Parallel to the crosswalk to be used (see Figure 4-9).
If the pedestrian clearance time is sufficient only to cross
from the curb or shoulder to a median of sufficient width for
pedestrians to wait and accessible pedestrian detectors are
used, an additional accessible pedestrian detector should be
provided in the median.
Standard:
Pushbutton locator tones shall be highly locatable and shall
repeal at one-second intervals.
Guidance:
Pushbuttons should be audible locatable. Pushbutton locator
tones should be intensity responsive to ambient sound, and be
audible 2 to 4 meters (6 to 12 feet) from the pushbutton, or to
the building line, whichever is less.
Pushbutton locator tones should be no more than 5 dB louder than
ambient sound.
Pushbutton locator tones should be deactivated during flashing
operation of the traffic control signal.
Option: At locations with pre-timed traffic signals or
non-actuated approaches, pedestrian pushbuttons may be used to
activate the accessible pedestrian signals.
The audible tone(s) may be made louder (up to a maximum of 89dB)
by holding down the pushbutton for a minimum of 3 seconds. The
louder audible tone(s) may also alternate back and forth across
the crosswalk, thus providing optimal directional information.
The name of the street to be crossed may also be provided in
accessible format, such as braille, or raised print.
See Illustration on Page 73672 of Original Document. [*73673]
4E.9 Pedestrian Intervals and Phases
Standard:
When pedestrian signal heads are used, a WALK indication shall
be displayed only when pedestrians are permitted to leave the
curb or shoulder.
A pedestrian clearance time shall begin immediately following
the WALK indication. The pedestrian clearance time shall consist
of a pedestrian change interval during which a flashing DON'T
WALK indication shall be displayed.
At intersections equipped with pedestrian signals, the
pedestrian signal indications shall be displayed except when the
vehicular traffic control signal is being operated as a flashing
device. At those times, the pedestrian signal indications shall
not be displayed.
Guidance:
The walk interval should be at least 7 seconds in length so that
pedestrians will have adequate opportunity to leave the curb or
shoulder before the pedestrian clearance time begins.
The pedestrian clearance time should be sufficient to allow a
pedestrian crossing in the crosswalk to leave the curb or
shoulder and travel at a normal walking speed of 1.2m (4 feet)
per second, to at least the far side of the farthest traveled
lane or to a median of sufficient width for a pedestrian to
wait. Where significant numbers of pedestrians who walk slower
than normal routinely use the crosswalk, a walking speed of less
than 1.2 (4 feet) per second should be considered in determining
the pedestrian clearance time.
Option: An alternative to using a lower walking speed to
determine the pedestrian clearance time is to employ the use of
passive pedestrian detection equipment in the crosswalks. Such
equipment can detect pedestrians who need more time to complete
their crossing. The equipment extends the length of the
pedestrian clearance time for that cycle to allow pedestrians to
complete their crossing before cross traffic begins.
Guidance:
Where the pedestrian clearance time is sufficient only for
crossing from the curb or shoulder to the median, additional
measures should be considered, such as median-mounted pedestrian
signals, staggered crosswalks, or additional signing.
Option: Pedestrian clearance time may include the yellow change
interval, if used, and the red clearance interval, if used.
If pedestrian volumes and characteristics do not require a
7-second walk interval, walk intervals as short as 4 seconds may
be used.
On a roadway with a median of sufficient width for pedestrians
to wait, a pedestrian clearance time that allows the pedestrian
to cross only from the curb or shoulder to the median may be
provided.
During the transition into preemption, the walk interval and the
pedestrian change interval may be shortened or omitted as
described in Sections 4D.13 and 8C.6.
Support:
The walk interval itself need not equal or exceed the pedestrian
clearance time calculated for the roadway width, because many
pedestrians will complete their crossing during the pedestrian
clearance time.
Application of the ADA
To Pedestrian Facility Construction
by Julie Carroll
Public rights of way, including pedestrian facilities, are
required by federal law to be accessible to people with
disabilities, including those who are blind or visually
impaired. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a civil
rights statute that prohibits discrimination against people who
have disabilities. Under the ADA, designing and constructing
facilities that are not usable by people with disabilities
constitutes discrimination. Failure to make facilities
accessible during alterations constitutes discrimination. In
addition, failure to make the benefits of government programs,
activities, and services available to people who have
disabilities because existing facilities are inaccessible is
also discrimination. Title II, subpart A, of the ADA covers
state and local government services, including the design and
construction of buildings and facilities and the operation of
government programs. Street, sidewalk, and shared-use path
construction that is funded wholly or in part with federal
monies is also subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, both of which prohibit
discrimination against individuals with disabilities.
New Construction - 28 CFR 35.151(a)
Any facility or part of a facility that is newly constructed by
a state or local government must be designed and constructed so
that it is readily accessible to and usable by people with
disabilities. This requirement applies to any construction that
was begun after January 26, 1992. Facilities under design on
January 26, 1992 are included if the date that bids were invited
for the construction was after January 26, 1992.
Alterations - 28 CFR 735.151(b)
Alterations to existing facilities must include modifications to
make the altered area accessible to individuals with
disabilities. The U.S. Department of Justice implementing
regulation (28 CFR 735.151) defines an alteration as a change
that "...affects or could affect the usability of a facility or
part of a facility." In Kinney v. Yerusalim, the court held that
if a street is to be altered to make it more usable by the
general public, it must also be made more usable for those with
disabilities.
Existing Facilities - 28 CFR 35.150
Government facilities which were in existence prior to the
effective dates of the ADA and which have not been altered must
achieve 'program access.' That is, the program must, when viewed
in its entirety, not deny people with disabilities access to
government programs and services. The obligation to provide
architectural access to existing state and local government
facilities is based on first determining whether program access
to government programs and activities can be provided without
the need to make structural modifications. If program access
cannot be provided without structural modification, structural
modifications must be made. A pedestrian circulation system--
sidewalks, street crossings, shared-use paths in the public
right-of-way--is a program that a local government provides for
its citizens. And it is the general availability of this program
to people with disabilities that must be evaluated when
considering the existing pedestrian environment. However, full
compliance with facility standards developed for new
construction and alterations may not be required to achieve
program access. With respect to the installation of curb ramps,
for example, DOJ's Title II Technical Assistance Manual notes
that curb ramps may not be required at every existing walkway if
a basic level of access to the pedestrian network can be
achieved by other means, e.g., the use of a slightly longer
route. Similarly, it will take time to install accessible
pedestrian features at existing intersections. Municipalities
should develop a plan for their installation such that
pedestrian routes are, when viewed in their entirety, accessible
to people who are blind or visually impaired within reasonable
travel time limits.
THE "MODERN" INTERSECTION
By Lukas Franck, The Seeing Eye, Morristown, NJ,
and Janet Barlow, Center for the Visually Impaired, Atlanta, GA
In the old days traffic lights made traffic easier by making the
environment highly predictable. Lights changed like clockwork
because they were clockwork. Big gears turned in the controller
boxes and the gears clicked into place with an audible click.
Cars with big V8's roared from their rumbling rests and
announced the light change that the box click had predicted.
With the mass move to the suburbs, the advent of computers and
the simultaneous explosion of the number of cars on the road,
things began to change. Although the idea of actuation is nearly
as old as the car itself, cheap reliable computer power,
combined with pressure to move traffic as efficiently as
possible, has made the actuated intersection an increasingly
common feature in the life of the American pedestrian. So... a
brief overview of the details of the new reality.
There are two main types of controllers used to switch traffic
lights, pretimed and traffic- actuated. Pretimed (fixed time)
traffic lights operate with a predictable, regularly repeated
sequence of signal indications. Signals rotate through a
definite cycle in a constant fashion but may change at different
times of day, such as during rush hours. Most signals used to be
of this type. They are still very common in downtown areas
because traffic volume is predictable, stable and fairly
consistent.
The clockwork itself is mostly gone though, replaced by silent
computer chips. At traffic-actuated intersections, the lights
respond to the traffic that is present. For example, if there is
no traffic in the left turn lane, the left turn arrow will not
function during that cycle. If there is only one car in the
northbound lanes, the light may be green only for enough time to
allow that car to cross the intersection.
The semi-actuated intersection is the most common type you are
likely to encounter. They are very common once you are beyond
the downtown areas of the city, usually when a minor street
crosses a major one. It is called semi-actuated because the
minor street, and only the minor street, has sensors or
detectors in it. The engineer's goal here is to maximize
efficient and safe traffic movement. Therefore, the major street
has a green light unless there is a car waiting on the minor
street. That car triggers a detector and eventually will be
given a green light. If there were no cars there, the light
would never turn green! More cars = Longer light! One car =
Shorter light! Sometimes as short as 7 seconds!
If the intersection was designed for pedestrian use, there may
be a pedestrian walk/don't walk signal. To get a walk signal,
you must push the pedestrian button to get a special longer
pedestrian timing. Especially when the main street is very wide,
the green phase programmed for a single car will not be long
enough to allow a pedestrian to safely cross the street. In that
situation, it is essential for the pedestrian to push the
pedestrian button in order to have enough time to walk across
the street.
Rather than seven seconds for a single car, a pedestrian may get
20 seconds or more to cross the same street, but only if the
intersection "knows" the pedestrian is there.
One variation of a semi-actuated intersection occurs when both
streets are large. Turn lanes on both streets may also have
sensors in them which can affect intersection timings and phases
markedly. Fully actuated intersections are relatively rare and
occur where two streets meet and there are detectors on all
approaches. These are typically two very busy streets. It is
also possible for a street or intersection to operate on a
pre-timed basis at some times and on fully actuated or
semi-actuated control at other times. Also, in case of
construction damage to the actuators or computer failure, the
intersection will usually revert to pre-timed.
The possible variations make it important to call your local
traffic engineer to get the details when using an unfamiliar
intersection. Learn the theory and "jargon" so that you can
solicit the information from traffic engineers.
In some cases there may be a pedestrian button but no pedhead
(see definitions below). In that case the pedestrian timing will
apply, but there is no separate information provided. In other
cases there is a pedestrian button and a pedhead. The messages
provided by the pedheads are so widely misunderstood by the
general public that they are worth a review here.
The WALK interval is generally only 4 to 7 seconds long. That
is, the signal only says WALK (or shows the illustration of a
walking person) for that long. The pedestrian is expected to
leave the curb during this interval but is allocated a much
longer period to make it across the street.
When a flashing DON'T WALK or ORANGE HAND is visible, it is the
"pedestrian clearance interval." It lasts much longer than the
WALK interval. It is often misunderstood, but the intent of
flashing DON'T WALK is to discourage pedestrians from starting
to cross when there is insufficient time to complete the
crossing. The pedestrian who is in the middle of the street
generally has time to complete the crossing after the flashing
DON'T WALK begins.
The solid DON'T WALK signal occurs after the flashing DON'T WALK
in conjunction with the vehicular yellow signal. Pedestrians
should have cleared the intersection at that point. There is
also a "change interval" where the light is red in all
directions.
Definitions and Technical Information
Below are some definitions of common terms as used by traffic
engineers.
Phase and cycle, in particular, have precise definitions. It may
be helpful for you to understand these terms in talking to a
traffic engineer about an intersection.
Pedhead: the "walk/don't walk" signal, usually a square box type
signal on a pole, aligned to be visible to sighted pedestrians
from the crosswalk
Ped button: the button that you push (sometimes called the ped
detector), which may be difficult to locate at some
intersections, but is usually on the same pole as the pedhead
Pedcall: What happens when you push the button. It signals the
signal controller box that there is a pedestrian at the
intersection.
Ped Phase: what you get for pushing the button (the ped phase is
designed to be a long enough time to walk, rather than drive,
across the intersection).
Cycle: the time required for one complete sequence of light
changes (phases)
Phase: a part of a signal cycle allocated to any combination of
one or more traffic movements receiving the right of way at the
same time, for example, the westbound phase, the pedestrian
phase
Interval: a portion of the signal cycle during which the signal
indications remain unchanged, for example, the pedestrian walk
interval, the pedestrian clearance interval
Split percentage of the cycle length allocated to each of the
various phases.
Components of traffic-actuated signal
A traffic-actuated signal has four main components: detectors,
controller unit, signal heads (the traffic lights), and
connecting cables. The most common type of detector is an
"induction loop" where a loop of metal wire is embedded in the
pavement, and then covered with waterproof putty to prevent
weather damage. These "loops" may be diamond shaped,
rectangular, square or round, and are usually at least 5 feet on
a side. They are often, but not always, visible. An electric
current is passed through the loop. When a vehicle travels over
the detector, its metallic mass changes the inductance of the
loop, notifying the controller unit of the vehicle's presence.
The pedestrian "detector" is generally the ped button; however,
there are some other types of detection systems being developed.
Travels With Whitley
by Jo Taliaferro
[Editor's Note: Reverend Taliaferro's adventures, which she
described first in her postings to the ACB email listserve,
began when she left the home of a friend after a routine visit,
late one afternoon toward the end of February. We asked Jo for
permission to publish her story in the Braille Forum because her
experiences are ones that so many of us can relate to.]
Recently, I had an experience with my incredible guide dog and
our local transit authority which I'll never forget. My
adventure began when I was escorted by my friend, a cane user,
to a very busy street. My friend explained that I was standing
on the northeast corner of the intersection. I understood that I
should cross to the southwest corner and face west where I could
catch my bus going north.
Yes, there was a traffic light, but I took my time, making sure
it was safe to navigate the first part of the confusing and
unfamiliar crossing. As I was gaining my bearings, a woman
grabbed me and tried to force me bodily into the street. The
harder I tried to convince her that I preferred to manage on my
own for the safety of my dog and myself, the more she
aggressively interfered.
"Come on, come on, it's safe," she said, as I heard cars turning
in front of me! I could feel the fear and anger rising in me and
wanted to scream bloody murder at this outrage! I knew that my
dog was distressed and traffic was all around me. I dropped the
harness, praising Whitley as I gritted my teeth. Horns honked
and my friend, witnessing my struggle from the curb where I had
been minutes before, tried to demand that she let go of me but
the woman was absolutely deaf to our pleas. When we got to the
east side of the intersection and I still had one more crossing
to make, I pulled free of the woman and made a supreme effort to
do some educating. But the woman had vanished.
I choked back tears. I had been in partnerships with dogs for 25
years so why this? My heart was in my throat as Whitley and I
walked across a quieter street to the bus stop sign which was
not identifiable by bench, shelter or change in sidewalk
texture. I regained some composure and hugged my dog, thankful
that I could expect the next leg of our journey to be
uneventful.
I climbed aboard the bus, told the driver where to let me off
and he proceeded to tell me where I should sit! I went instead
to a forward-facing seat deeming that to be safer for the dog
and more convenient for other passengers. No stops were called
and the driver claimed that his ennunciator system was not
working! Apparently his mouth was not fully engaged either and I
had the impertinence to wonder about his eyesight as well. I did
manage to reach the stop I had requested thanks to alert
passengers. The driver said in answer to my query about a
traffic light, "Yeah, you're okay to cross here."
Knowing I was on the same extremely busy street I had been so
unceremoniously dragged across before, I asked for assistance
getting lined up with the light in order to make my crossing.
The driver refused to get out of his seat and I stepped from the
bus to the sound of one more cacophony of whizzing traffic and
turning vehicles. I was standing on grass and unable to find a
safe place to cross the street.
I knew that if I walked north I would reach yet another crossing
with only a stop sign. Had there been a pedestrian light there,
I could easily have walked the mile to my house.
I concluded that the corner was so rounded that I wouldn't be
able to line up properly to make a safe crossing. Gathering my
reserves of courage and the harness handle of the best dog in
the whole world, I turned to walk south keeping my traffic on my
right so I could slog through the mud and slush along the busy
thoroughfare in search of a human being, a sidewalk, ANYTHING
which would serve as a landmark to guide us. We found only more
brambles, melting snowbanks and a large dose of weariness.
Not wanting to project more stress on Whitley, and knowing there
must be a traffic light ahead, I praised her, reassured her
saying, "Good girl! We're almost there! We can do this!"
I'm a pastor by profession and I'm not supposed to lie but the
truth was, I had no idea when we would come to rest and be able
to head back north toward home.
On we sloshed. I knew there was another traffic light ahead but
just as before, there was no indication that could assist me in
making a safe journey to a familiar street. It was so close and
yet so far!
We traveled onward, feeling fatigued and worried. It was getting
later and later. Whit guided me around brambles, mud holes,
gnarled trees and eventually to a strip of pavement! We had
unwittingly rounded another very wide curve and were now walking
East! It was only afterward that I understood why there were no
people and why I had to be so careful to keep my parallel
traffic on my right! We had passed a cemetery and a golf course
so it was no wonder I wasn't feeling up to par because we were
in a desperately grave situation! I hoped that my sense of humor
would see me through till I could sob with mixed emotions in my
own bath tub!
Hearing cars moving a little more slowly and sensing we were
near civilization, I prayed for the smell of a McDonald's, the
sound of a door, the stamina to keep on keeping on. My cell
phone had died long before--probably back at the cemetery--so I
relied on Whitley's good judgment and survival instincts.
We were rewarded by a friendly voice asking if we needed help. I
requested assistance in crossing a street but once on the other
side, nothing felt right! The gentleman assisting us asked what
he could do so I told him I wanted to call a cab. I was trying
not to let my stress show but it was obvious that I had little
energy left. I was a 62-inch, mud-spattered rag-a-muffin and I
knew Whitley was grimy and soggy.
The stranger, vacationing in my town and not familiar with the
area offered us a ride. I hesitated. Who was he? Where would he
take us if we got in his car? I wanted to get home, not once
again lost, frightened, raped or killed.
I asked some questions, got his driver's license, realized that
he was a dog lover and made the decision to take him up on his
willingness to get us home. He helped me into his car and I gave
him directions to my house while he described landmarks and
supplied street names. When we reached my house, I offered to
pay him and he refused. I then directed him back the way he came
and waited outside my front door until he had gone. Then, a very
muddy dog and a bespattered woman headed for the basement where
I saw to Whitley's needs, groomed her and gave her a meal fit
for a queen, raw carrots and treats included. As for me, I threw
my sopping clothes on the basement floor, jumped into my
birthday suit and headed for a bubble bath and soapy tears of
relief, gratitude, love for a well-educated dog and life itself!
Addendum
Jo Taliaferro has written to the president of the Board of
Directors of her local transit authority offering to help
educate bus drivers, office staff, scheduling coordinators and
the general public concerning safe travel for people who are
blind or visually impaired. In her role as advocate, she has
called both the city office of traffic engineering as well as
the state of Michigan transportation safety engineers to request
audible traffic signals where street crossings are
life-threatening for a pedestrian who is blind or visually
impaired.
The city office indicated, in response to her request, that
audible signals are placed where great numbers of people would
be crossing a street and not just one or two people. Neither
office seemed to have a clue about how to solve the problem.
Such a request had never been made before according to the
offices of traffic safety and putting up accessible signals
would be very costly. One traffic technician said, "No one is
really concerned about pedestrian safety any more."
Jo wishes to express her gratitude to all who provide competent
mobility instruction and believes her dog and her training
school deserve praise beyond words!
Below are some safety tips for blind travelers, from one who has
been there!
1. Carry a cell phone when traveling and make sure the battery
is charged!
2. Follow your instincts if you accept help from a stranger.
3. Try not to project your own fear onto your dog so the dog can
do the job it was trained to do.
4. Remember that consistency and lots of work with a dog in
familiar places become assets when you are lost.
5. Following a terrifying experience, it is crucial for you and
your dog to pull yourselves up by the harness handle and take a
walk so as not to become paralyzed by the fear and stress of a
traumatic situation.
6. Be an advocate for pedestrian safety for all people as well
as accessible public transportation.
American Council of the Blind Survey of Signalized Intersection
Accessibility
by Julie Carroll and Billie Louise Bentzen
The American Council of the Blind (ACB) surveyed 163 pedestrians
who are legally blind regarding their experiences in
independently crossing at intersections with and without audible
pedestrian signals. Surveys were administered orally to 154
persons in groups who were attending conventions in Florida
(30), Virginia (24), and California (100). Responses were by a
show of hands. Surveys were administered orally and individually
to 9 persons in various locations in Pennsylvania. The number of
respondents for each question varied from 128 to 159.
Respondents indicated that they sometimes had difficulty knowing
when to begin crossing (difficulty hearing surge of traffic on
street beside them), which they attributed to one or more of
four reasons.
The surge was masked by right turning traffic 91% (144 of 158)
Traffic flow was intermittent 86% (132 of 154)
The intersection was too noisy 81% (125 of 154)
The surge of traffic was too far away 65% (98 of 152)
Respondents indicated that they sometimes had difficulty
traveling straight across the street, for one or more of the
following four reasons.
Difficulty figuring out where the destination corner was 79%
(101 of 28)
Veered because there was no acoustic guideline (parallel
traffic) 75% (119 of 159)
Veered because the street was too wide 70% (112 of 159)
Confused by unexpected features such as medians or islands 85%
(138 of 155)
Respondents had experienced one or more of the following
problems with pushbuttons.
Couldn t tell whether they needed to push a button 90% (142 of
158)
Had difficulty locating the pushbutton 87% (137 of 158)
Couldn t tell which crosswalk was actuated by the pushbutton 81%
(127 of 157)
Push button was so far from the corner that they couldn t push
the button and then return to the crosswalk and prepare for
crossing before the WALK interval began 78% (122 of 157)
Respondents had experienced one or more of the following eight
difficulties with existing accessible pedestrian signals.
The signal was too quiet 71% (112 of 158)
Couldn t tell which crosswalk had the WALK signal 68% (107 of
158)
The signal was too loud 45% (71 of 158)
Couldn t remember which of two sounds was associated with
crossing in a particular direction 27% (42 of 158)
Confused by the sound of an APS for another intersection 19% (30
of 158)
Couldn t localize the sound of an APS and use it for guidance6%
(10 of 158)
Crossed street with an actual bird instead of bird call signal
4% (7 of 158)
Didn t cross because they thought the signal was an actual
bird3% (4 of 158)
8% (12 of 158) of respondents had been hit by a car.
29% (45 of 158) of respondents had had their cane run over.
62% (98 of 158) of respondents have gotten part way across an
intersection and realized that the light has changed against
them.
36% (57 of 158) of respondents try to avoid crossing unfamiliar
signalized intersections.
17% (26 of 158) of respondents limit their travel to familiar
areas due to the complexity of intersections.
34% (22 of 158) of respondents have one or more audible
pedestrian signals in the area where they live.
20% (24 of 128) of respondents were aware of the existence of
local guidelines for the installation of audible pedestrian
signals.
The frequency of experiencing any of the above problems is
influenced by many factors, including the environment in which
respondents live, and their own travel experiences. Therefore
the percentages reported here cannot be generalized to all
environments or to all blind pedestrians. In addition,
respondents were asked only whether they had sometimes
experienced particular problems. Their responses did not reveal
whether the problem was experienced rarely or frequently.
Therefore the results are only suggestive of the relative
frequencies with which blind pedestrians experience difficulties
at intersections.
The percentage of respondents who sometimes experienced various
problems is not necessarily the same as the perceived severity
or importance of those problems. For instance, a blind
pedestrian may have difficulty locating pushbuttons but consider
this a less important problem than being unable to determine
which crosswalk is actuated by a pushbutton because the
difficulty of locating a pushbutton is not normally
life-threatening, while pushing the wrong button to cross a
street may lead to crossing with the wrong signal. Therefore,
respondents were also asked to indicate the one problem in each
of four categories which they considered most important.
The two problems considered most important in knowing when to
cross were: 1)right turning traffic masked the surge of parallel
traffic-71% (91 of 128) and 2)traffic was intermittent-13% (16
of 128).
The two problems considered most important in crossing straight
across the street were 1)getting confused by an unexpected
feature such as a median strip or island-57% (62 of 108), and
2)not knowing where the destination corner was located-18% (19
of 108)
The two problems related to pushbuttons, which were considered
most important were: 1)knowing whether there was a
pushbutton-58% (57 of 98) and 2)they had trouble finding the
pushbutton-15% (15 of 98).
The two problems considered most important in using APS were: 1)
the APS was too quiet-36% (24 of 67), and 2)they had difficulty
remembering which sound was for which direction 21% (14 of 67).
California is the only state which has specifications for APSs.
Bird-call type signals are recommended and are widely used
throughout California, although several other types of signals
are used in a few cities. Elsewhere in the US, there is less
uniformity in signal type. The bird-call type signal, sounding
cuckoo for north/south crossings, and peep-peep for east/west
crossings, is intended to convey to blind pedestrians
unambiguous information about which street has the WALK signal.
To obtain data on the success of this strategy, responses of
Californians (100) vs non-Californians (63) were compared for
two questions.
Seventy eight percent of Californians (78 of 100) and 50% (29 of
58) of non-Californians indicated they sometimes did not know
which crosswalk an APS was for. Twenty-five percent of
Californians (25 of 100) and 29% (17 of 158) of non-Californians
indicated they sometimes couldn t remember which sound was for
which direction. Therefore, despite the greater use of and
familiarity with bird-call type signals in California, which are
intended to clearly indicate which street at an intersection has
the WALK interval, blind pedestrians in California report a
particularly high incidence of problems in deciding which street
an APS is for.
This may be partly a result of forgetting which signal is
associated with which direction. Other possible causes include
being unaware of either the direction in which they are
traveling or the compass orientation of the intersection.
Forgetting which signal is associated with which direction was
considered the most important APS problem by 23% (10 of 44) of
Californians who indicated a most important problem with APSs vs
17% (4 of 23) for non-Californians, and difficulty deciding
which crosswalk an APS indicates has the WALK signal was
considered the most important APS problem by 14% (6 of 44) of
Californians and 30% (7 of 23) for non-Californians.
Since many Californians, who are primarily familiar with bird-
call type signals, indicated that they had difficulty
determining which street had the walk signal and a number of
Californians indicated that they considered difficulty
determining which street had the walk signal to be the most
important problem in using APSs, this survey indicates that a
bird-call type signal is of no particular advantage in conveying
information about which crosswalk at an intersection has the
WALK signal.
Excerpts From
Evaluation of Audible Pedestrian Traffic Signals
Prepared by the
San Diego Association of Governments
December 1988
(Editor's Note) Although this survey was published over a decade
ago, it remains the most comprehensive piece of research on
audible pedestrian signals to date. The technology that now runs
these signals has undergone many changes, including signals that
provide tactile and verbal cues making accessible pedestrian
signals more flexible. The English language has done a bit of
evolving too in the last ten years. However, the issues of more
complicated intersections and the necessity for traffic
engineers to create innovative traffic control patterns and
devices to move an ever increasing number of motor vehicles
through them while endeavoring to safeguard the right of
pedestrians to move in these intersections as well are, if
anything, more complex and potentially dangerous than they were
in 1988 when this survey was published. Portions of the survey
excerpted for publication in this handbook were chosen primarily
to give credence to the following three points:
1. Most individuals who are blind or severely visually impaired
believe that they benefit from the information provided to them
by accessible pedestrian signals just as sighted individuals
benefit from the information provided to them by pedestrian
signals.
2. Most mobility instructors who are familiar with accessible
pedestrian signals believe they provide useful information.
3. Accessible pedestrian signals are beneficial to all
pedestrians.
*** Surveys of organizations and mobility instructors, showed
their blind and low vision members or clients liked the signals
for the feeling of safety the signals gave them. Instructors
support the use of audible traffic signals as an additional cue
to the traffic cues blind pedestrians are taught to use.
*** Organizations serving blind and low vision members or
clients are better acquainted with audible signals than those
serving primarily senior citizens. More than three-quarters of
the organizations that have a position on the audible signals
support their use and most of the survey respondents have
communicated with their members or clients about them.
*** Organizations, orientation and mobility specialists, and
educational counselors report their clients or students
typically like the signals and find them helpful at
intersections with inadequate traffic cues. Clients particularly
liked knowing when the WALK signal is on and in being alerted to
changes in the traffic signal cycle. They reported that they
felt safer using audible signals when crossing streets.
*** Several respondents reported that partially sighted persons
like the audible signals because they don't have to focus on the
traffic lights and can concentrate on the vehicles. Two
commented that the signals give clients more time to cross the
street.
*** None of the college and university counselors expressed
opposition to the audible signals. One respondent said she
thought the signals were "wonderful."
*** The responses showed support for audible signals by school
mobility instructors who teach their high school students to use
the signals and by college counselors in programs for students
with disabilities. College students, sighted and blind, report
liking the signals and blind faculty members at two colleges
support having them. Instructors supported locating the signals
at intersections without adequate traffic cues.
*** Additional comments from the college and university
counselors included the following:
o Blind, low vision, and sighted students like the audible
signals.
o Some low vision students find them distracting at first, but
learn to use them.
o Staff at several universities are actively supporting
installation of additional signals in their communities.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Educational institutions have the opportunity to inform all
members of the student body and the faculty and staff in matters
of pedestrian safety, including the use of audible signals. Not
only blind students benefit from instruction in use of traffic
cues for safe travel. The educational institutions, as community
resources, could instruct or otherwise inform citizens in their
locales about safe pedestrian travel, including the use of
audible signals, as a community service. This could be carried
out either alone or in cooperation with local public safety
offices and community service organizations.
*** One of the first U.S. cities to have Nagoya audible signals
was Salt Lake City, Utah. There, the City Traffic Engineer
reported that in the two years before the 1980 installation of
audible signals at six intersections, there were a total of 22
pedestrian accidents. In the two years following installation of
audible signals, at the same intersections there were only nine
pedestrian accidents.
*** The signals were installed with city funds at the request of
the Braille Institute. The Braille Institute acknowledges that
there is some disagreement among teachers of the blind whether
the signals are helpful to their blind clients but it reports
that the clients tend to like the signals. City staff reports
that there were complaints about the noise of the signals when
they were first installed but that there has been no complaints
recently. Vandalism is reported to have been minimal.
*** The city (Norwalk) has received comments of appreciation
from blind residents who have requested additional installations
of audible signals.
*** The audible signals can be useful to the older adults and
persons with low vision who have difficulty in seeing the
pedestrian WALK signals, in addition to helping persons who are
blind. The survey results showed that blind and low vision
persons find the audible signals a useful tool in helping them
to cross streets more safely.
*** Location: The existing traffic signal equipment, the uses of
the property at the intersection, and the complexity of the
intersection itself are of importance. Concentration of
pedestrians and heavy traffic flow at the intersection are
additional factors. Inconsistent traffic cues, resulting from
uneven traffic flow or irregular intersection configuration, can
impair the blind persons ability to cross safely. Wider streets,
especially those with islands or medians, are more difficult for
persons crossing who do not walk as quickly as younger or
sighted persons.
*** The general public seems to like them. The signals are good
for elderly persons and persons who become blind because of an
accident or illness.
*** One national organization, the National Federation of the
Blind and its California chapters are opposed to the
installation of audible signals.
In Oakland, the Mayor's Commission on Disabled Persons holds
that installation of audible signals is a "504" issue. That is,
if traffic control information such as the words WALK and DON T
WALK is available to sighted pedestrians, then this information
must be made available to blind and vision impaired persons
through some means such as the audible signals. The American
Council of the Blind, a national organization, and the
California Council of the Blind support the use of audible
signals.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
states: "No otherwise qualified handicapped individual ...
shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance ..." Section 54 of the State of California
Civil Code states: "Blind persons, visually handicapped persons,
and other physically disabled persons shall have the same right
as the able-bodied to the full and free use of the streets,
highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, public
facilities, and other public places."
Excerpts From TEA-21:
A SUMMARY OF ACCESSIBILITY PROVISIONS
by Julie Carroll
TEA-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, was
signed into law on June 9, 1998. TEA-21 reauthorizes federal
surface transportation legislation formerly entitled the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). It has
been called the largest public works legislation in U.S.
history, authorizing $217.5 billion in transportation funding
over the next six years.
The law, as originally enacted, was designed to promote the safe
and efficient mobility of goods and people, including people
with disabilities, while mitigating congestion and pollution by
striking a balance between the federal investment in highways
and the federal investment in mass transit. Advocates for public
transportation struggled to maintain this balance during the
ISTEA rewrite. Overall, this balance was maintained and there
was approximately a 50 percent increase in funding for both
highway projects and mass transit over previous authorization
levels. Only part of the funds authorized, however, are
guaranteed. Part of the funds are subject to the annual
appropriations process. Thus, public transportation advocates
must work every year to educate their representatives to ensure
that maximum funds are appropriated for public transportation.
There are a number of provisions in TEA-21 that are important to
people who are blind or visually impaired.
The purpose of this article is to provide advocates at the state
and local levels with the information and references to use in
local advocacy efforts. It is up to local advocates to make
accessibility projects a priority with local planners.
Pedestrian access
Section 1202 of TEA-21 requires that bicyclists and pedestrians,
including pedestrians with disabilities, be given due
consideration in the comprehensive transportation plans
developed by each metropolitan planning organization and state.
This section further provides that "Bicycle transportation
facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered, where
appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and
reconstruction of transportation facilities, except where
bicycle and pedestrian use are not permitted." Additionally,
TEA-21 provides that transportation plans and projects must
provide due consideration for safety and contiguous routes for
bicyclists and pedestrians. Safety considerations must include
the installation, where appropriate, and maintenance of audible
traffic signals and audible signs at street crossings. While
this section does not specify where audible street crossing
technology must be installed, its inclusion in this section of
the legislation means that projects to install such technologies
are eligible for federal matching funds of at least 80 percent.
ACB is serving on an advisory committee of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers to establish guidelines for the
installation of accessible pedestrian technologies. Advocates
will have to work at the local level to ensure that funds are
applied to making street crossings accessible. The Access Board
has recently completed a report summarizing the accessible
pedestrian technologies currently available. To obtain a copy,
call: 1-800-USA-ABLE (873-2253).
Section 1202 of TEA-21 calls for design guidelines to be
developed by the Secretary of Transportation, in cooperation
with the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, and other interested organizations, on the various
approaches to accommodating bicycles and pedestrian travel. The
guidance must include recommendations on amending and updating
the policies of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials relating to highway and street design
standards to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. ACB will
work to ensure that the new design guidelines consider the
access needs of blind and visually impaired pedestrians.
Advocates must remember that TEA-21 is authorizing legislation.
Most of the access provisions are not mandates, they are merely
authorizations for federal matching funds. Local planners will
determine which projects will have federal funds applied to
them. To learn how you can get involved in seeing that TEA-21
funds are used to make pedestrian and public transportation
access a reality in your area, contact your metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) or your state Department of
Transportation. You can also contact your regional office of the
Federal Transit Administration to learn how to get involved in
the TEA-21 planning in your area. Contact information for FTA
regional offices can be found on the FTA web site,
http://www.fta.dot.gov. For more information and updates, visit
the following web sites: http://www.dot.gov,
http://www.transact.org, http://www.istea.org.
RESOLUTIONS FROM ACB, AER AND OLD DOMINION COUNCIL OF THE BLIND
ACB RESOLUTION 99-02
Takes the position that whenever an accessible pedestrian signal
is installed at a signalized intersection, such a signal be
installed at all legs of the intersection at which a pedestrian
signal is provided, except to the extent that doing so would be
inconsistent with safety and access.
WHEREAS, the American Council of the Blind has long advocated
for the fulfillment of the goal of insuring that people who are
blind or visually impaired have full access to information
provided by pedestrian signals; and
WHEREAS, it is not uncommon for public entities, for reasons
which have nothing to do with safety or access concerns, to
install accessible pedestrian signals at some, but not all, of
the legs of an intersection at which pedestrian crossings are
provided; and
WHEREAS, this practice can lead to confusion among blind and
visually impaired pedestrians as to when and where to make a
safe crossing; and
WHEREAS, this practice also has the potential for increasing
public entity liability;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the American Council of the
Blind in convention assembled this 8th day of July, 1999 at the
Airport Westin Hotel, Los Angeles, California, that it is the
position of this organization that whenever an accessible
pedestrian signal is installed at a signalized intersection,
such a signas be installed at all legs of the intersection at
which a pedestrian signal is provided, except to the extent that
doing so would be inconsistent with safety and access.
ACB RESOLUTION 99-25
Supports the accessible pedestrian signal language approved by
the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, calls
for its usage in all future installations of accessible
pedestrian signals, continues the support of the American
Council of the Blind (ACB) for the installation of accessible
pedestrian signals, and urges completion of the additional
research needed to develop the necessary accessible pedestrian
signal guidance and standards.
WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act guarantees the
right of access to information to persons with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, the American Council of the Blind has at least 25,000
members who are blind or visually impaired; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21) provides that "Transportation plans and projects . . .
shall include the installation, where appropriate, and
maintenance of audible traffic signals and audible signs at
street crossings"; and
WHEREAS, many signalized intersections provide information to
pedestrians with sight that is not provided to pedestrians with
visual impairments; and
WHEREAS, accessible pedestrian signals have been widely used for
more than 15 years in countries including Austria, Australia,
Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Sweden, and the
United Kingdom and are considered by traffic engineers to be
widely effective, not only in providing information to blind and
visually impaired pedestrians, but also in decreasing general
pedestrian delay and facilitating vehicular flow at signalized
intersections; and
WHEREAS, increasing numbers of quiet, alternatively fueled
vehicles, including electric vehicles, and increasing numbers of
quieter internal combustion engines make acoustic information
from traffic inconsistent, resulting in the inability of
pedestrians who are blind to reliably detect the onset of the
WALK interval by listening for a surge of traffic; and
WHEREAS, inexpensive technologies exist to make accessible
pedestrian signals which are automatically responsive to ambient
sound, being very quiet at night and in low traffic situations,
while still loud enough to be heard above vehicular sound in
high traffic situations; and
WHEREAS, the American Council of the Blind (ACB) has been
actively involved with efforts to develop national guidance and
standards for accessible pedestrian signals, streets and
intersections, working with the U.S. Department of
Transportation (U.S. DOT), U.S. Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board), National Committee on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Institute of Transportation
Engineers, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Transportation Research Board, and
Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and
Visually Impaired, Blinded Veterans Association and accessible
pedestrian signal manufacturers; and
WHEREAS, these efforts have resulted in the development of
resources, such as the Access Board's Publication A-37 on
Accessible Pedestrian Signals, the draft United States
Department of Transportation/Access Board's "Accessible Rights
of Way: A Design Manual", ACB's Pedestrian Handbook, ACB's
"Recommended Street Design Guidelines for People Who Are Blind
or Visually Impaired" and the National Committee on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices Accessible Pedestrian Signal language
(4E.6 - 4E.8); and
WHEREAS, these publications represent a laudable first step
toward developing standards which will advance access of persons
who are blind and visually impaired to traffic signal
information, and thereby also increase the awareness of traffic
engineers of the needs of blind and visually impaired
pedestrians; and
WHEREAS, these efforts have identified specific areas where
further research is needed prior to the development of
additional guidance and standards; and
WHEREAS, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program is
charged with assisting the U.S. DOT and other transportation
organizations in meeting these research needs;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the American Council of the
Blind, in convention assembled this 7th day of July, 1999 at the
Airport Westin Hotel, Los Angeles, California that ACB support
the accessible pedestrian signal language approved by the
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices in
Orlando, Florida in June, 1999 and call for its usage in all
future installations of accessible pedestrian signals; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that ACB continue to actively support the
installation of accessible pedestrian signals and urges the U.S.
Department of Transportation, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program and other transportation organizations to
support the additional research needed to develop the necessary
accessible pedestrian signal guidance and standards.
AER RESOLUTION 98-02
WHEREAS the Americans with Disabilities Act guarantees the right
of access to information to persons with disabilities; and
WHEREAS many signalized intersections provide information to
pedestrians with sight which is not provided to pedestrians with
visual impairments; and
WHEREAS it has been demonstrated (Crandall, W., Bentzen, B.L.,
and Myers, L., 1998) that competent, independent, blind
pedestrians at unfamiliar signalized intersections may initiate
as many or more than 34% of crossings during the clearance or
DON'T WALK intervals if those intersections are not equipped
with accessible pedestrian signals; and
WHEREAS accessible pedestrian signals have been widely used for
more than 10 years in countries including Australia, Japan,
Sweden, and the United Kingdom and are considered by traffic
engineers to be widely effective not only in providing
information to blind pedestrians but also in decreasing general
pedestrian delay and facilitating vehicular flow at signalized
intersections; and
WHEREAS increasing numbers of quiet vehicles, including electric
vehicles and those with quiet internal combustion engines, make
acoustic information from vehicles inconsistent, resulting in
the inability of pedestrians who are blind to reliably detect
the onset of the WALK interval by listening for a surge of
vehicles; and
WHEREAS inexpensive technologies exist to make Accessible
Pedestrian Signals which are automatically responsive to ambient
sound, being very quiet at night and in low traffic situations,
while still loud enough to be heard above vehicular sound in
high traffic situations; and
WHEREAS accessible vibrotactile and speech transmission signal
systems exist which add no noise to the environment; and
WHEREAS the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
provides that "Transportation plans and projects ... shall
include the installation, where appropriate, and maintenance of
audible traffic signals and audible signs at street crossings";
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, this 12th day of July, 1998, in
the city of Atlanta, Georgia, that the Association for Education
and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER)
urges the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and Transport
Canada to develop recommended practices for installation of
pedestrian signals which make information which is regularly
provided to other pedestrians, accessible to pedestrians who are
visually impaired, including but not limited to: information
specifying WALK and DON'T WALK intervals; information indicating
the presence and location of push-buttons; and information
unambiguously indicating the street to which the signal applies.
Unanimously approved.
AER RESOLUTION 98-03
WHEREAS traffic engineers are increasingly utilizing signal
systems in which the only safe time to cross signalized
intersections is provided in response to pedestrian use of a
push button; and
WHEREAS persons who are visually impaired consistently identify
location of the push button as a major problem they experience
at pedestrian actuated intersections (American Council of the
Blind survey, 1998; Uslan, M., 1988; and Tauchi, M., Sawai, H.,
Takato, J., Yoshiura, T., and Takaeuchi, K., 1998); and
WHEREAS persons who are visually impaired often have
insufficient time when pedestrian push buttons are far from
associated crosswalks, to actuate push buttons and then prepare
to cross before the onset of the WALK interval (American Council
of the Blind survey, 1998; San Diego Association of Governments,
1998; Uslan, M., 1988); and
WHEREAS unobtrusive technologies exist for providing information
in accessible format, specifying the presence and location of
push buttons;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this 12th day of July, 1998, in
the city of Atlanta, Georgia, that the Association for Education
and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER)
urges the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and Transport
Canada to develop standards for push button location technology
such as quiet audible locator tones, and to require the
placement of newly installed pedestrian pushbuttons in close
proximity to the top landing of the curb ramp serving that
crossing, within accessible reach range for use from a
wheelchair, and near enough to the curb line that persons with
visual impairments can actuate the push button and then align
and prepare for crossing before the onset of the WALK interval.
Unanimously approved.
Pedestrian Access Resolution Passed by
the Membership of the
Old Dominion Council of the Blind
and Visually Impaired
WHEREAS the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21) authorizes federal matching funds for the installation of
audible traffic signals and audible signs at street crossings;
and
WHEREAS the safety of blind pedestrians will be greatly enhanced
by the installation of such audible traffic signals and audible
signs where appropriate; and
WHEREAS Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
mandates the accessibility of all programs, services and
facilities of state and local governments;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Dominion Council of the
Blind and Visually Impaired in annual convention assembled on
this first day of November, 1998, in Arlington, Virginia, that
this organization strongly urges the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) and other applicable planning and policy
making organizations to give a high priority to the installation
of audible traffic signals and audible signs throughout the
commonwealth; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be sent promptly to
the heads of said organizations.
RESOURCE
ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS
U.S. Access Board
By Billie Louise Bentzen, Ph.D.
and Lee S. Tabor, AIA
This is an excellent written exposition on the subject of
accessible pedestrian signals. The topics covered in this
document are:
1. Accessible Pedestrian Signals
2. Information Requirements at Intersections
3. Accessible Traffic Signal Technologies
4. Characteristics of Accessible Pedestrian Signals
5. Determining When to Install Accessible Pedestrian Signals
6. Specifying Accessible Pedestrian Signals
7. Installing Accessible Pedestrian Signals
8. Pedestrian Detection Technology
9. Matrix: APS Functional Characteristics
10. APS Product Sources Sources of Information
You can order this report free of charge, in large print, on
disk or in regular print, through the U.S. Access Board by phone
by calling 1-800-872-2253 and requesting publication A37 or
through e-mail at: [log in to unmask] Accessible Pedestrian
Signals
Product Information
ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS
by Billie Louise Bentzen, Ph.D. and Lee S. Tabor, AIA
PRODUCT FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
[Characteristics of eleven products are described in a matrix
format, giving the following information for each product.]
1. Type of product: Speaker mounted in the ped-head (visual
pedestrian signal); transmitter mounted in the ped-head; or
push- button integrated
2. Audible walk signal characteristics: voice; bell; buzzer;
birdcalls; ticker; or tones
3. Sound volume: fixed; variable by the installer; automatically
varying in relation to ambient sound level; variable by the
user; or audible only at user request
4. Presence of an audible locating tone for a pedestrian push
button
5. Presence of a special walk onset tone at the beginning of the
walk interval
6. Presence of a vibrating walk signal
7. Actuation indication: either a light or a tone to indicate
that a pedestrian has pushed the button to request a walk
interval
8. Tactile information: either an arrow to indicate which street
a push button controls, or additional tactile information about
street geometry
9. Street name
For each product below, this text version will state whether the
characteristic is a standard feature or is optional. Information
on product sources follows this text.
Campbell/Panich Push button integrated-standard; tones-standard;
voice or birdcalls-optional; automatically variable volume-
standard; actuation indication (light)-optional; tactile arrow-
standard.
Georgetown Push button integrated-standard; buzzer-optional;
actuated only when button is depressed for at least three
seconds-optional; audible locating signal-optional; vibrating
walk signal-standard; tactile arrow-standard.
Intersection Development Corporation Speaker mounted on or in
the ped-head-standard; birdcalls (cuckoo and chirp to indicate
which crosswalk has the walk interval)-standard; automatically
variable volume-standard.
Mallory Speaker mounted on or in the ped-head, providing either
birdcalls or tones-standard; fixed sound volume-standard. This
product is a component for a ped-head.
Novax Industries Speaker mounted on or in the ped-head-standard;
birdcalls-standard; optional sounds include voice, bell, buzzer,
ticker, and tones; sound volume can be set by installer within
maximum and minimum limits, and then automatically variable
volume-standard. A separate push button product actuates an
audible signal only when the button is depressed for at least
three seconds.
Polara Engineering Push button integrated-standard; tones-
optional; vibrating walk signal-standard; audible locating
signal-optional; tactile arrow-standard; street name in braille
and raised print-standard; street geometry information-optional.
This product retrofits an existing push button.
Prisma Teknik Push button integrated-standard; tone-standard;
voice-optional; sound volume set by installer within maximum and
minimum limits, and then automatically variable volume-standard;
audible locating signal-standard; vibrating walk
signal-optional; actuation indicator (light and tone)-standard;
tactile arrow- standard; tactile crosswalk map-optional.
Relume Ped-head mounted transmitter-standard. Speech message
says "Proceed with caution" during walk interval, and "Don't
walk" during clearance and don't walk intervals. Requires hand-
held receiver.
STN Atlas Speaker mounted near ped-head-standard; WALK tones-
standard; automatically variable volume-standard; audible
locating signal (ticker)-standard.
Talking Signs Ped-head mounted transmitter-standard. Repeating
speech message says "Walk sign" and street name during walk
interval, and "Wait" and street name during clearance and don't
walk intervals. Volume variable by user. Requires hand-held
receiver.
Wilcox Sales Speaker mounted on ped-head-standard; birdcalls-
standard; sound volume variable by installer-standard;
automatically variable volume-optional. APS PRODUCT SOURCES
Compiled by Billie Louise Bentzen, Ph.D. and Lee S. Tabor, AIA
APS Product Sources
by Billie Louise Bentzen, Ph.D.
and Lee S. Tabor, AIA
Bob Panich Consultancy Pty. Ltd.
48 Church Street
P.O. Box 360
Ryde NSW 2112
Australia
Voice: 612 9809 6499
Fax: 612 9809 6962
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Website: people.enternet.com.au/~panich
Product: Audio Tactile PB
Dick Campbell Company
1486 NW 70th Street
Seattle, WA 98117
Voice: (206) 782-1991
Fax: (206) 782-2092
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Product: Audio Tactile PB
Georgetown Electric, Ltd.
2507 West Second Street
Wilmington, DE 19805
Voice: (302) 652-4835
Fax: (302) 652-6447
Product: VIPB
Intersection Development Corporation
9300 East Hall Road
Downey, CA 90241
Voice: (800) 733-7872 or (562) 923-9600
Fax: (562) 923-7555
Website: www.idc-traffic.com
Product: APS-10
Mallory/North American Capacitor Co.
P.O. Box 1284
Indianapolis, IN 46206-1284
Voice: (317) 273-0090
Fax: (317) 273-2400
Product: VSB 110
NOVAX Industries Corporation
658 Derwent Way
New Westminster BC V3M 5P8
Canada
Voice: (604) 525-5644
Fax: (604) 525-2739
Website: www.novax.com
Product: DS-100
Polara Engineering, Inc.
4115 Artesia Avenue
Fullerton, CA 92833-2520
Voice: (714) 521-0900
Fax: (714) 522-8001
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Product: TPA
Prisma Teknik AB
P.O. Box 5, S-543 21
Tibro
Sweden
Voice: (46) 504 150 40
Fax: (46) 504 141 41
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Website: www.prismateknik.com
Product: Prisma TS
Relume Corporation
64 Park Street
Troy, MI 48083
Voice: (248) 585-2640 or (888) 773-5863
Fax: (248) 585-1909
STN Atlas Electronik GmbH
Behringstrasse 120
D 22763 Hamburg
Germany
Voice: (49) 40 88 25 2155
Fax: (49) 40 88 25 4111
Product: AUDIAM
Talking Signs, Inc.
812 North Boulevard
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Voice: (888) 825-5746 or (504) 344-2812
Fax: (504) 344-2811
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Wilcox Sales Company
1738 Finecroft Drive
Claremont, CA 91711-2411
Voice: (909) 624-6674
Fax: (909) 624-8207
Curb Ramps and Blind Pedestrians
By Billie Louise Bentzen,
Certified Orientation and Mobility Specialist, Ph.D.,
Accessible Design for the Blind
The Problem
Down curbs used to be the only information needed to tell blind
pedestrians in urban and suburban areas that they had arrived at
intersecting streets. Since the 1960's, however, increasing
attention to sidewalk accessibility for persons who cannot
negotiate curbs has resulted in the replacement of curbs by
clearly defined curb ramps at some intersections and blended
curbs at others. (Traffic engineers may refer to blended curbs
as depressed corners or raised intersections.)
Early Solutions
Japan was the first country to make up for the information lost
by removal of curbs by the addition, beginning in the 1960's, of
a warning surface detectable both under foot and by use of the
long cane, to provide an unmistakable cue for blind pedestrians
that they have reached the limit of the sidewalk and are about
to step into the street. They function like a stop sign for
blind pedestrians, saying, in effect, There s a hazard directly
in front of you. Check it out before going further. While
neither the surface configuration nor its placement were
standardized, most of the Japanese surfaces intended to be
warnings had a surface configuration of domes-the precursor of
what is now the detectable warning surface of truncated domes
specified in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG) (4.29.2) for transit platform edges. Most
warning surfaces were placed on the lower end of curb ramps.
They have now been used for 40 years and are NOT considered in
Japan to be too difficult or expensive to install and maintain,
too slippery, impossible to use where there is snow, or to cause
problems for persons with mobility impairments or the general
public.
In England, a warning surface having a standardized pattern of
truncated domes referred to as modified blister paving has been
recommended for use in specified locations and dimensions on
curb ramps and blended curbs since 1983. It is now common
throughout England.
The US Recognizes the Problem Official recognition in the US
that curb ramps could handicap persons having visual impairments
came with publication of the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) standard A117, dealing with accessibility, in
1980. What were then referred to as tactile warnings were
specified for the entire surface of curb ramps and a 36 in (915
mm) wide strip was specified along the entire edge of blended
curbs, referred to as hazardous vehicular ways. Because this
standard was quite vague and because not much research had yet
been done to identify surfaces that were reliably detectable
both under foot and by use of the long cane, many locations
started requiring that curb ramps be grooved in various ways.
Some also installed fancy pavers on or outlining curb ramps in
the belief that they would provide adequate cues for identifying
the ends of sidewalks and the beginning of streets. Subsequent
research has repeatedly demonstrated that these modifications
are not highly detectable to blind pedestrians. They only help
some of the people some of the time. The Only Recommended
Warning Surface The only surface which has repeatedly been
demonstrated to be detectable most of the time to blind
pedestrians either under foot or by the use of a long cane is
the truncated dome detectable warning surface now required on
transit platform edges. It is, therefore, the only surface we
know of which is sufficiently detectable to be considered as a
cue to mark the end of the sidewalk and the beginning of the
street.
ADA Requirements ADAAG 4.29, adopted as a US standard in 1991,
required the installation of detectable warnings on the entire
surface of curb ramps, and required a 36 inch wide strip at
hazardous vehicular ways (blended curbs) extending for the full
distance at which the curb and street were at the same level.
The requirement for detectable warnings at curb ramps and
hazardous vehicular ways quickly became one of the most
controversial provisions of ADAAG. Blind persons opposing
detectable warnings at intersections claimed that they were
unnecessary, no research having been conducted which
demonstrated that remaining, non-visual, clues were insufficient
to enable blind travelers to detect streets reliably when they
were approached via curb ramps or blended curbs.
Research to Identify the Problem Two subsequent research
projects (Bentzen & Barlow, 1995, and Hauger, Safewright, Rigby
& McAuley, 1994) confirmed that, not surprisingly, removal of
the single reliable cue to the presence of an intersecting
street, that is, the down curb, did result in the inability of
even skilled, frequent blind travelers to detect some streets.
Bentzen and Barlow found that on 39% of approaches to unfamiliar
streets, blind travelers using a long cane failed to detect the
presence of an intersecting street before stepping into it; this
was true even when there was traffic on the intersecting street.
Bentzen and Barlow also found that failure to detect streets was
highly correlated with slope of the curb ramp and with the
abruptness of change in angle between the approaching sidewalk
and the curb ramp. Both projects (Barlow & Bentzen, 1995, and
Hauger et al., 1994) found that street detection was more likely
when curb ramps were at the apex of a corner than when they were
in the line of travel. Hauger et al. also found that apex curb
ramps were more likely to lead to unsuccessful street crossings.
Detectable Warnings May be Helpful to Most Persons with Mobility
Impairments Bentzen (1994), (also Bentzen, Nolin, Easton,
Desmarais & Mitchell, 1993; Bentzen, Nolin, Easton, Desmarais &
Mitchell, 1994b), and Hauger et al. (1994) found that truncated
dome detectable warnings on slopes or curb ramps had little
effect on safety and negotiability for persons having mobility
impairments in comparison with concrete curb ramps. In fact,
Hauger et al. found that persons with physical disabilities
generally considered curb ramps having detectable warnings to be
safer, more slip resistant, more stable, and to require less
effort to negotiate than concrete curb ramps. Both teams of
investigators found, however, that a small minority of persons
having physical disabilities were affected adversely by
detectable warnings.
Recommendation
Barlow and Bentzen (1995) concluded by recommending that, as a
compromise solution, only 24 in (610 mm) of truncated dome
detectable warnings be installed along the bottom of curb ramps,
as that amount had previously been demonstrated to be sufficient
to enable detection and stopping on most approaches. This is the
current recommendation of ACB and of the Association for the
Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired
(AER). The consensus (one dissenting vote) of a workshop on curb
ramps and detectable warnings which was conducted by Project
ACTION for the US Access Board on June 4 and 5, 1995 was that no
additional research on detectable warnings was needed, and
detectable warnings 24 inches wide should be required at the
bottom of curb ramps. There are now a number of truncated dome
products available for installation on curb ramps in various
climates and conditions.
References:
American National Standards Institute (1980). American national
standard for buildings and facilities: Providing accessibility
to and usability for physically handicapped people (A117.1). New
York: American National Standards Institute.
Bentzen, B.L. & Barlow, J.B. (1995). Impact of curb ramps on
safety of persons who are blind. Journal of Visual Impairment
and Blindness, 89, 319-328.
Bentzen, B.L.; Nolin, T.L.; Easton, R.D.; Desmarais, L. &
Mitchell, P.A. (1993). Detectable warning surfaces:
Detectability by individuals with visual impairments, and safety
and negotiability for individuals with physical impairments.
Final report VNTSC-DTRS57-92-P-81354 and VNTSC-DTRS57-91-C-0006.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit
Administration, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center,
and Project ACTION, National Easter Seal Society.
Bentzen, B.L.; Nolin, T.L.; Easton, R.D.; Desmarais, L. &
Mitchell, P.A. (1994b). Detectable warnings: Safety &
negotiability on slopes for persons who are physically impaired.
Federal Transit Administration and Project ACTION of the
National Easter Seal Society.
Hauger, J.S., Safewright, M.P., Rigby, J.C. & McAuley, W.J.
(1994). Detectable warnings project: Report of field tests and
observations. Final Report to US Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Manufacturers of Detectable Warning Materials
(Editor's Note) These companies sell a variety of products. Be
sure that ADAAG compliance is one of the criteria of the
selection process.
Applied Surfaces
1545 Jefferson Street
Teaneck, NJ 07666
Ph: (201) 836-5552
Fax: (201) 836-0346
Castek, Incorporated
20 Jones Street
New Rochelle, NY 10801
Ph: (800) 321-7870 or (914) 636-1000
Fax: (914) 636-1282
Cobblecrete
485 West 2000 South
Orem, UT 84058
Ph: (800) 798-5791 or (801) 224-6662
Fax: (801) 225-1690
Website: www.cobblecrete.com
Crossville Ceramics
P.O. Box 1168
Crossville, TN 38555
Ph: (931) 484-2110
Fax: (931) 484-8418
Website: www.crossville-ceramics.com
Detectable Warning Systems-manufacturer Disability
Devices-distributor
17420 Mount Hermon
Scotts Valley, CA 92708
Ph: (714) 437-9237 or (800) 747-5651
Fax: (714) 437-9309
Disability Devices Distributor
17420 Mt. Hermann Street, #C
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Ph: (714) 437-9237 or (800) 747-5651
Fax: (714) 437-9309
Engineered Plastics, Incorporated
300 Pearl Street, #200
Buffalo, NY 14202
Ph: (800) 682-2525 or (716) 842-6039
Fax: (800) 769-4463
Hanover Architectural Products, Incorporated
240 Bender Road
Hanover, PA 17331
Ph: (717) 637-0500
Fax: (717) 637-7145
Website: www.hanoverpavers.com
Increte Systems
8509 Sunstate Street
Tampa, FL 33634
Ph: (800) 752-4626 or (813) 886-8811
Fax: (813) 886-0188
Website: www.increte.com
Specialty Concrete Products
P.O. Box 2922
West Columbia, SC 29171
Ph: (800) 533-4702 or (803) 955-0707
Fax: (803) 955-0011
Website: www.scpusa.com
Steps Plus, Incorporated
6375 Thompson Road
Syracuse, NY 13206
Ph: (315) 432-0885
Fax: (315) 432-0612
Website: www.steps-plus.com
Strongwall Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 201
Ridgewood, NJ 07451
Ph: (800) 535-0668 or (201) 445-4633
Fax: (201) 447-2317
Website: www.strongwall.com
Summitville Tiles, Incorporated
P.O. Box 73
Summitville, OH 43962
Ph: (330) 223-1511
Fax: (330) 223-1414
Website: www.summitville.com
Transpro Industries, Incorporated
20 Jones Street
New Rochelle, NY 89701
Ph: (800) 321-7870 or (914) 636-1000
Fax: (914) 636-1282
Whitacre-Greer Fireproofing Company
1400 S. Mahoning Avenue
Alliance, OH 44601
Ph: (800) WGPAVER or (330) 823-1610
Fax: (330) 823-5502
Open Letter from Charles Crawford,
Executive Director,
American Council of the Blind
Note: The following letter illustrates the kind of op-ed piece
that can be very effective when sent to a local newspaper.
THE NEW KILLING FIELDS; AMERICA'S INTERSECTIONS.
On June 12, 1999, Bethel Mines and her husband Raymond were
struck by a delivery vehicle that left Bethel dead. Raymond now
lies in the hospital in critical condition. Six months ago a man
in Virginia named Joe was killed by a cable company van. Less
than a year ago Carolyn Garret, who lived in Texas, was struck
and killed on her way to a Christian School where she was
studying to be a counselor. All of these people and many more
who could be mentioned had one thing in common; they were blind.
Moreover, each of them had lives and families. Each of them had
their joys and sorrows like the rest of us and each of them died
in America's new killing fields as they simply dared to cross an
intersection.
Each year approximately 5,000 pedestrians die from being struck
by vehicles. When viewed over time, this is roughly the same
rate of killing of our soldiers in Vietnam. How does our public
reaction differ? Remember how hundreds of thousands marched on
Washington and conducted massive rallies around the nation to
protest the war. Now today, how many have rallied to protest
this killing?
The American Council of the Blind is a national consumer
organization that has been working day and night to prevent as
many needless deaths of blind pedestrians as we possibly can.
The disproportionate rate of blind and visually impaired
pedestrians being killed or maimed has caused us to work with
traffic engineers and other pedestrian groups to stop the
carnage. While we have made some real progress in getting public
officials to recognize the value of accessible traffic signals
that can be located, heard and used by blind folks, and while
our law suits have gotten safety warning strips at subway and
other platforms; more and more pointless deaths will happen
until our society truly considers the following.
We have surrendered our communities to faceless bureaucracies
and distant politicians who orient themselves to the ever
growing demands of vehicular traffic and urban sprawl. Their
decisions are made to move traffic along with ever more complex
intersection design and with ever decreasing attention to the
pedestrian infrastructure. From so called roundabouts where
pedestrians have to make eye contact with drivers and "claim the
intersection", to multi-angular crossings with complex traffic
patterns; these decision makers consistently put pedestrians at
risk. A truly lethal gamble that only increases with blindness.
Why do we let it happen? Until our child, parent, spouse,
relative or friend is struck, it's just a tragic accident.
Combine this with disappearing sidewalks where folks once met
each other as they walked and talked as neighbors and it is easy
to understand how we simply continue to lose the personal
contact with each other that once reinforced the fabric of our
society and gave meaning and action to concern for others. Now
we rely upon more impersonal ways of communicating that distance
us from the full realities and make tragedy an abstraction.
We can never fully stop all pedestrian accidents. We can however
re-engineer our environment to prevent the bulk of them and
rebuild an America based upon people knowing people. For all the
folks who have died and for those who remain at risk, isn't it
time we do it?
We can get in touch with our local politicians and ask them
about why sidewalks are not available. We can get in touch with
our local traffic engineers and ask them what they are doing to
create accessible signalized intersections for blind folks and
safer traffic patterns for all. We can get in touch with our
community leaders at our churches and philanthropic
organizations to ask them how we and they can make a difference.
We can most of all get in touch with ourselves to ask the
question; do we care enough to stop the killing and help rebuild
our community?
The American Council of the Blind and other pedestrian safety
groups cannot bring back Bethel, Carolyn, Joe or all the others.
We can, however, ask you to join with us in protecting and
celebrating life and community rather than looking the other
way. Call us in Washington at (202)-467-5081 or visit our web
site at www.acb.org and take a look at our pedestrian safety
link.
Please help. It's not just blind folks who are relying upon you.
It's children, everyday adults and seniors who need a safe
community in which to grow, contribute and live.
Charles H. Crawford
Executive Director
WHITE CANE SAFETY DAY:
POLICE CHIEF IN VIRGINIA LEARNS 'DRAMATIC LESSON'
by Sharon Lovering
In Arlington, Va., police chief Edward Flynn stepped out of his
office in the county court house, exited and met with a small
group gathered outside, which included an orientation and
mobility instructor, representatives of the local media, and a
handful of blind and visually impaired people. After speaking
with the group, and getting some quick instruction from the O&M
instructor, he slipped off his glasses, slid on a blindfold,
grabbed the cane and said nervously, "Let's go."
With the instructor by his side, the media ahead, and the group
of blind and visually impaired people behind, he negotiated the
walk from his office building to the corner of N. Courthouse
Road and 15th Street. He stopped, listening for traffic.
Overhead an airplane flew noisily in the direction of National
Airport; across the street came the sounds of construction,
including an extremely loud jackhammer. Along the street,
passengers in cars gawked out their windows; other pedestrians
stopped and took a second look. Still Flynn waited, listening
through three changes of the traffic light to be sure it was
safe. Only then did he cross.
When he was safely across the street, he took off the blindfold,
put his glasses back on, and told how he felt. "[You] try to do
the right thing and listen to the traffic, but all you can hear
is the jackhammer," he noted. Flynn hadn't realized how
hazardous the intersection was until he couldn't see it. At
first, he'd been worrying about stumbling, tripping and falling.
But, "I stopped worrying about making a fool of myself and
started worrying about getting from point A to point B." All in
all, he said, it was "quite a dramatic lesson."
Arlington County, he said, is trying to make intersections more
pedestrian friendly, but it will take a while. The county is
growing, and getting more cars and pedestrians. Longtime
residents know they're supposed to yield the right-of-way to
blind pedestrians, but there are so many residents from other
places who don't know that's what they're supposed to do.
"Nobody's got air bags in their pockets," he said. The county
has implemented a program to try to reduce the number of
accidents that occur in it.
One person makes a difference in Indiana
(Editor's Note: This portion was reprinted from the ACB of
Indiana "Focus.")
In Indiana, Nellie Kelly learned that one person can make a
difference. She wrote a letter to the editor of the "Evening
World" addressing the fact that the current Indiana Motor
Vehicle Handbook fails to address state and federal laws
concerning yielding the right-of-way to blind pedestrians. As a
result of her letter, and contact with state officials, the next
revision of the driver's manual will find the appropriate
changes being made to address Kelly's concerns. In her letter,
she explained, "Those of us who are blind or visually impaired,
yet are able to be fairly independent with just a little
consideration of others, would appreciate having the
right-of-way law brought to the attention of all motorists. None
of us will dart into a street without first ascertaining, to the
best of our ability, whether or not a car is approaching. This
is sometimes made difficult by cars parked nearby with the motor
running, or a car may veer around a corner without slowing." The
current driver's manual instructs drivers only to "respect"
pedestrians with a white cane or guide dog, but state law
requires that "A person who drives a vehicle shall yield the
right-of-way to a blind pedestrian carrying a white cane or
accompanied by a guide dog."
She also sent the letter to state representative Vern Tincher
and the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Kelly later received a
reply from BMV Director of Driver Service, Linda M. Datzman, who
wrote, "While the current wording references any individual who
may have difficulty in crossing streets, including the blind, I
agree with your concern as to requirements by law. In that
regard, I will make appropriate changes to the driver's manual
with the next revision."
Advocating Locally for Pedestrian Safety
by Debbie Grubb
Part I
Information Packet
Use the materials in this handbook as well as information made
available on the ACB Web Site and through the national office.
Be sure to know these materials well. Copy and highlight cogent
passages to clarify and give weight to your points before those
to whom you are making your presentation.
Be sure to include the following:
1. A concise overview outlining the need for accessible
intersections, i.e. intersection identification and access to
traffic control information.
2. Anecdotal information outlining the need for accessible
intersections with an emphasis on that provided by local
residents who are blind and severely visually impaired as well
as professionals in the field of orientation and mobility;
references to state laws governing all pedestrians as well as to
the state's White Cane Law if there is one; anecdotal
information outlining how these laws are not enforced.
3. Statements from local law enforcement officers as to the
difficulties in enforcing these laws.
4. A concise statement outlining how ongoing changes in
controlling the ever-growing flow of traffic impacts pedestrian
access to intersections, especially pedestrians who are blind
and severely visually impaired.
5. A list of funding sources, especially the TEA-21 funding
stream.
Part II
Actions To Be Taken
1. Determine ahead of time those intersections that are the best
candidates for detectable warnings and accessible pedestrian
signals. Choose those that are traversed often and by more than
one individual if possible. Be sure that the intersection
exemplifies problematic access areas so that it can be used as a
model or precedent for making intersections like it accessible.
Accessibility problems of one intersection will center more
around identifying its exact location via a detectable warning
strip. Another intersection will have such complicated and
unpredictable traffic patterns that accessible pedestrian
signals will be crucial in making it accessible to blind and
visually impaired pedestrians. Of course, many intersections
will need both location identification and access to traffic
control information. If you are not offered the whole access
package, be sure to think out the pros and cons of risking the
loss of what you are offered against what you can gain if your
gamble pays off. Remember that often the most successful
advocates decide to take what they can get now to meet a real
and present need and use the success of that program to launch
further program development. When you are known as one who works
from the sphere of compromise, the hard line that you must take
on a particular issue will carry more weight with the
legislators and/or department heads with whom you are
advocating.
2. Recruit individuals who are willing to carry out any or all
of the following tasks: write letters and informational
documents, sign petitions, make telephone calls, visit local and
state authorities, testify at hearings and participate in
meetings, become part of a delegation attending such hearings
and meetings, and coordinate transportation and presentations
before state and local authorities.
3. Make good use of the informational packet. Remember that
without a written document requiring a response, the meeting is
much less effective.
4. Learn how the state traffic and safety authority works and
become personally acquainted with that entity's leadership.
Waste no opportunity to make it clear that you understand that
the problems involved with pedestrian and traffic safety are an
overwhelming responsibility. Whenever possible, offer solutions
and resources that will assist in creating solutions.
5. Work with the state Motor Vehicle Administration to insure
that there are appropriate questions in the driver's test
booklet regarding pedestrian rights, especially the rights of
those who use the cane or a guide dog.
6. Make friends in local police departments, presenting the
issues in a manner that will make them their issues too,
establishing the membership of these officers on your team.
7. Make friends with state and local representatives via
individuals who live in their districts if possible. Recruit
these representatives to assist the delegation to work with all
appropriate authorities to implement pedestrian laws and to make
intersections identifiable by the installation of detectable
warning strips and navigable via accessible traffic signals.
8. Be sure to determine whether or not laws governing pedestrian
rights are sufficient and are enforced as passage of new
legislation should be a last resort. Remember that any bill
accompanied by a fiscal note makes legislators nervous.
9. Use the press release especially when there is a positive
movement on any of these issues. Assign credit to those who have
assisted since public figures, especially politicians, love to
see their names in print. When positive publicity is involved,
staff assistance will be happily provided to help with the
creation and publication of the press release.
10. Build bridges based on cooperation and compromise, entering
the process with a clear vision of core areas on which no
compromise can be entertained. Until the contrary is proved,
treat every individual as an honorable person in need of
education. Bridges can always be burned with fire fueled by
demand and outrage should that be necessary. Much is
accomplished when your issues become the issues of those with
whom you are working and the benefits often bear positive fruit
for years.
Good luck!
PEDESTRIAN MODEL LAW
by Charles Crawford
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE SAFETY OF PEDESTRIANS AND NON-MOTOR
VEHICLE TRAVELERS
Be it enacted by the House of Representatives and the Senate and
by the authority of the same, that there shall be a new chapter
XX in the laws entitled The Pedestrian Safety and Non-Motor
Vehicle Travelers Act.
Findings.
The growth of population and resulting urban and suburban sprawl
has created: 1) the breaking down of the pedestrian sidewalk and
street crossing infrastructure, 2) ever more dangerous
intersections for especially visually impaired and elderly
persons traveling on foot, and 3) increased difficulty for all
pedestrians and non-motor vehicle travelers to make their way to
their destinations.
Unless governmental assistance is provided, the pedestrian
environment will virtually disappear as a realistic entity due
to the failure to construct sidewalks and other pathways, the
dangerous use of uncontrolled and inaccessible intersections,
and the neglect of maintaining the existing pedestrian
infrastructure.
It is therefore necessary to review and improve the existing
pedestrian infrastructure and to newly construct pedestrian ways
and intersections where required to provide for the safe and
efficient travel of pedestrians and those who do not use motor
vehicles to commute from one place to another. This task must be
accomplished over a period of years. It must utilize a planned
approach that prioritizes areas to be improved. Once the cycle
of all state political subdivisions has been completed, then a
continuing monitoring, maintenance and expansion function will
be necessary.
Section 1. Definitions.
All terms in this Act shall have their plain English meanings
unless otherwise defined as follows:
The abbreviation "PSC" shall mean the Pedestrian Safety
Commission.
The term "Accessible" refers to the ability to have access to
and the use of intersections, sidewalks, signaling devices and
other constructions and designs encountered in the exercise of
being a pedestrian or non-motor vehicle traveler with or without
a disability.
The term "accessible signaling" means:
* the placement of pedestrian walk signaling devices next to the
crosswalks at all corners of an intersection operable from a
wheelchair in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act Accessibility Guidelines;
1. which devices shall have a low volume locating tone which can
be heard six to twelve feet on approaching the device,
2. which devices shall have tactile and large print color
contrasted information as to the direction the signaling will
ultimately authorize the pedestrian in which to walk,
3. which device shall allow the user to depress the walk button
for longer than three seconds which shall in turn raise the
volume of the eventual audible walk signal,
4. which device shall provide a different vibration to those
relying upon tactile communication to know when it is safe to
walk, and
5. which device shall in association with the corresponding
device across the street, alternate the sounds made for the
pedestrian crossing to allow the pedestrian to know where the
crossing leads.
6. The term "pedestrian" defines a person either walking or
using another means of conveyance which is not a motor vehicle.
Section 2. Pedestrian Safety Commission and authority and
duties.
Within 180 days of the enactment of this legislation, the
Governor shall appoint a Pedestrian Safety Commission,
hereinafter referred to as the PSC, which shall:
A) oversee the proper planning and construction and maintenance
of existing and new pedestrian walks and traffic intersections
within all the political subdivisions of the state, ensuring
compliance with all pedestrian provisions of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century and applicable provisions of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
B) Receive and approve whether in whole or in part or as
modified; comprehensive pedestrian safety plans from the
political subdivisions of the state, which plans shall be due
within one year of a request from the PSC and shall contain at a
minimum:
1. a full analysis of the street and road grid of the covered
area,
2. a comparative analysis of traffic volume at intersections
located near commercial, public transport terminal, school,
church and other community areas where pedestrians would likely
to be crossing if sidewalk and signaling infrastructures were to
be improved,
3. an analysis of those intersections where traffic volume or
intersection configuration rises to the point where pedestrians
cannot cross without walk signaling and other improvements,
4. a mobility analysis of how persons living within the area
could reasonably walk or bicycle or use public transportation to
safely and efficiently reach all other parts of the covered
street and road grid,
5. a cost analysis of what improvements would be needed to equip
existing intersections in descending order of priority with
accessible signaling, the installation of sidewalks and bicycle
pathing, including ADA compliant curb cuts, spreading back from
prioritized intersections and the cost of overall maintenance of
the infrastructure once completed.
C. Receive and expend appropriate sums of federal and state
highway funding or revenues collected from fines of traffic
violations to assist the political subdivisions in funding
allowed plans of improvement and maintenance, and provided
further that such political subdivisions shall develop their own
plans for addressing maintenance cost three years after
completion of each segment of the approved plan.
D. Order the reconfiguration or redesign of intersections where
the pedestrian safety is deemed to both be at too high a risk,
and there are no safe and efficient alternative routes within a
short distance of the unsafe intersection.
Section 3. Composition and human resource support.
A. The PSC shall have seven Commissioners of which one shall be
a traffic engineer, another a representative of the elderly
community expert in their pedestrian needs, another a
representative of the blindness community expert in the mobility
techniques used by members of that community and accessible
intersection design and signage, another representative of
pedestrians who use wheelchairs," another representative of the
state Department of administration and Finance expert in ways
and means of properly financing project operations, another
representative of the bicycling community expert in the needs of
non-vehicular travelers, another a high official in the state
public safety law enforcement expert in community policing of
traffic and pedestrian issues, and another a representative of
parents with school age children expert in the pedestrian and
bicycling needs of the children.
B. The Commissioners shall be appointed in staggered one, two
and three year appointments which may be repeated only once over
the course of ten years. The Commissioners shall not receive a
salary or other compensation for the exercise of their duties
beyond the normal costs of travel and other incidentals to the
performance of their work.
C. The Commission shall elect its own Chair to serve on a yearly
basis and shall promulgate its own rules of procedure to
accomplish its mission.
D. The Commission is authorized to employ a Director and
sufficient staff to properly support and accomplish the mission
of the Commission at levels of competitive compensation for the
ranges of expertise necessary to carry out the mission of the
PSC.
Support Pedestrian Safety!
Our Challenge for the Future.
Our struggle to bring about a pedestrian safe environment across
America is a continuing challenge to all who have worked so
diligently towards this goal. The American Council of the Blind
and our thousands of members and friends who continue to keep
this issue front and center rely upon the caring and goodwill of
all who have provided economic support for this noble and yet
expensive campaign.
You can help to financially support the preparation and printing
of this handbook along with the organizational costs of
supporting pedestrian safety advocacy by either selecting our
donations link on our web site (www.acb.org) or by sending a
check for whatever you can offer to:
American Council of the Blind 1155 15th Street, NW Suite 1004
Washington, DC 20005
All donations to ACB are tax-deductible.
----------
End of Document
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask] In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
|
