Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practice 81 Chapter 5: When to Install APS CHAPTER SUMMARY Th is chapter provides guidance on when and where APS should be installed. It contains information on requirements for installation and a tool for prioritizing APS installations. CHAPTER CONTENTS Where are APS Required? 82 Prioritizing APS Installations 85 APS Prioritization Tool 86
82 Chapter5: When to Install APS Where are APS Required? CURRENT PRACTICE Currently in the U.S., APS are typically installed upon request along a speciï¬ c route of travel for a particular individual, or group of individuals who are blind or visually impaired. Various states and municipalities have established policies on installation of APS, some of which may not be in accordance with Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements. SECTION 504 AND ADA REQUIREMENTS As discussed in Chapter 1, since 1973, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act has required nondiscrimination in all programs, services, and activities receiving federal ï¬ nancial assistance. Th e ADA requirements for state and local governments extend and increase the requirements in the Rehabilitation Act, requiring newly constructed or altered public facilities to be accessible, regardless of the funding source. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION Th e speciï¬ c requirement in ADA for eï¬ ective communication was discussed in Chapter 1. A recent publication by the Federal Highway Administration speciï¬ cally mentions accessible pedestrian signals as a means to communicate information: âImplementing regulations for Title II of the ADA, which covers State and local governments, also address âcommunications and information access,â requiring âeï¬ ective communicationsâ with persons with disabilities. In the sidewalk/street crossing environment, this would include accessible pedestrian signals, markings and signage.â (FHWA, 2004). Where there are pedestrian signals, this may require the installation of accessible pedestrians signals to provide access to signal information for pedestrians who are blind or who have low vision. ADA STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY As discussed in Chapter 1, ADA standards that speciï¬ cally address the public rights-of-way have not yet been ï¬ nalized. Draft PROWAG was published on June 17, 2002 for comment and revised on November 23, 2005. Th ese minimum technical standards would require APS at all newly constructed or reconstructed intersections where visual pedestrian signals are installed.
Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practice 83 ACCESSIBILITY STILL REQUIRED ADA Accessibility Guidelines are minimum guidelines for new construction or reconstruction, and must be applied to the maximum extent feasible in alterations, renovations, or additions. While the ADA does not require going back and reconstructing all intersections and locations, it does require improving accessibility when work is performed at a location. When an intersection is being completely reconstructed, the expectation is that new construction guidelines can and will be met. See the section in Chapter 6 on new construction for a description of the elements covered by the Draft PROWAG. When certain elements of an intersection are being upgraded, the accessibility features should also be upgraded to new construction standards to âthe maximum extent feasible.â Th e âmaximum extent feasibleâ is explained in the Title II regulations issued by the Department of Justice. SELF-EVALUATION AND TRANSITION PLANS When the ADA regulations were published in 1992, the Department of Justice extended the Section 504 requirement for transition plans and required a âself- evaluationâ by all public entities (28 CFR, Part 35.105 Self-evaluation). Th e goal was that eventually each service, facility and activity of the state or local government, when viewed in its entirety, would be accessible to individuals with disabilities. If structural changes are required to existing facilities to provide program accessibility, a transition plan is required, and 28 CFR, Part 35.150 d discusses the elements of a transition plan. A summary from FHWA Oï¬ ce of Civil Rights provides a short description of requirements: âA public entity may not deny the beneï¬ ts of its programs, activities, and services to persons with disabilities because existing facilities are inaccessible. State and local governments of 50 employees or more were required to prepare a self- evaluation plan to identify program access issues (Rehabilitation Act (1973), section 504). From this, a transition plan was to be developed to modify inaccessible services, policies and practices. Th is includes removing barriers and inaccessible features. Transition plan work was to have been completed by January 1995. If work was not completed by that date, those entities are out of compliance. Many states and localities are out of compliance and this makes them more susceptible to lawsuits. Ways of complying with the law are to have an ongoing transition plan for improving existing facilities and providing a citizenâs request program for accessible parking, curb ramps, Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) and removing sidewalk and street crossing barriers.â (McMillen, 2002)
84 Chapter5: When to Install APS APS IN TRANSITION PLANS Some municipalities have considered the addition of APS at intersections as part of their ADA transition plan, but many have not. As part of their compliance with ADA, municipalities may need to establish a plan to prioritize and make decisions about installation of APS at âunalteredâ intersections: Where a request for APS is received Where there is insuï¬ cient information for street crossing using non-visual clues
Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practice 85 Prioritizing APS Installations Th e information regarding prioritizing intersections for installation of APS is not intended for application to new or reconstructed intersections. In new construction or reconstruction projects, it is appropriate to consider the Draft PROWAG as the best guidance available at this time (Isler memo, 2006). In new construction, APS should be installed wherever pedestrian signals are installed. WHERE ARE APS NEEDED? When considering and prioritizing crossings and intersections for retroï¬ t with APS, consideration needs to be given to the information available to pedestrians who are blind and which crossings are in greater need of the APS. A number of factors enter into that decision. MUTCD GUIDANCE Th e MUTCD Section 4E.06 recommends: âTh e installation of accessible pedestrian signals at signalized locations should be based on an engineering study, which should consider the following factors: ⢠Potential demand for accessible pedestrian signals; ⢠A request for accessible pedestrian signals; ⢠Traï¬ c volumes during times when pedestrians might be present; including periods of low traï¬ c volumes or high turn-on-red volumes; ⢠Th e complexity of traï¬ c signal phasing; and ⢠Th e complexity of intersection geometry.â ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Locations that may need APS include those with: ⢠Vehicular and/or pedestrian actuation ⢠Very wide crossings ⢠Crossings of major streets where minor streets have minimal or intermittent traï¬ c (APS may be needed for crossing the major street) ⢠T-shaped intersections ⢠Non-perpendicular or skewed pedestrian crossings ⢠Low volumes of through vehicles ⢠High volumes of turning vehicles ⢠Split phase signal timing ⢠Exclusive pedestrian phasing, especially where right-turn-on-red is permitted ⢠Leading pedestrian intervals
86 Chapter5: When to Install APS Where these conditions occur, it may be impossible for pedestrians who are visually impaired or blind to determine the onset of the WALK interval by listening for the onset of parallel traï¬ c. It would also be diï¬ cult to obtain usable orientation and directional information about the crossing from the cues that are available. Too little traï¬ c is as great a problem for pedestrians who are blind as too much traï¬ c. In the absence of APS, blind pedestrians must be able to hear a surge of traï¬ c parallel to their direction of travel in order to know when the WALK interval begins. ADVISORY COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT Some jurisdictions may wish to set up a process where ratings are reviewed by an advisory committee of stakeholders, including blind citizens, O&M Specialists and transportation professionals, that assists the traï¬ c engineering department in the process. In many of the current systems used, crossings with the highest number of points are generally considered highest priority. However, date of request, plans for other construction at the intersection, and other local issues may aï¬ ect priority of installations. APS Prioritization Tool As discussed previously, prioritization information is to be used in prioritizing existing intersections for retroï¬ t with APS either in response to requests, or in updating an ADA transition plan. Prioritization schemes should place only limited emphasis on factors related to frequency or likelihood of use by blind pedestrians. Th e information provided by APS may be necessary at any time, along any route, to residents, occasional travelers, and visitors. Intersections having high pedestrian volumes are likely to have pedestrians whose vision is suï¬ ciently impaired so as to have diï¬ culty using conventional pedestrian signals. Of greater importance in prioritizing crosswalks are factors related to determining whether suï¬ cient acoustic information exists â at all times â to permit safe crossing at a particular intersection or crosswalk. PAST RATING SCALES Several rating scales have been developed in cities across the country, some of which have been utilized for over 20 years. Th ese rating scales have been used in diï¬ erent ways in diï¬ erent cities. In some locations, they were developed as warranting schemes and APS were not installed unless the intersection met a required minimum number of points. Other cities used rating scales only to aid in prioritization. Generally, points are assigned to speciï¬ c intersection features, as well as proximity to services (such as transit, government oï¬ ces, or shopping) for all pedestrians. Th e cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, and Portland, as well as the state of Maryland, have used point rating scales as part of their process.
Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practice 87 Th e parties responsible for rating the intersections vary according to the locality. In San Diego, a traï¬ c engineer and an O&M Specialist rate separate aspects of the intersections. In Los Angeles and Portland, the rating is conducted jointly by an O&M Specialist and a traï¬ c engineering department staï¬ member. In Maryland, the DOT engineer determines the rating. APS PRIORITIZATION TOOL OVERVIEW Th e APS Prioritization Tool was developed as part of this research (National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Project 3-62). Th e tool provides traï¬ c engineers and other technical practitioners with the means to take observable characteristics of a pedestrian crosswalk and produce a rating that reï¬ ects the relative crossing diï¬ culty for pedestrians who are blind, thus enabling prioritization of crosswalks for installation of APS. Practitioners can use this tool to determine these ratings for each crosswalk. Th e crosswalks with the highest ratings will have the highest priority for APS installation. While an overview of the tool and an example of use are shown in this chapter, the full instruction manual and blank Prioritization Tool forms can be found in Appendix D. Th e Prioritization Tool calculates the prioritization score for a crosswalk based on characteristics of the crosswalk itself and the intersection at which it is located. Characteristics that cause a crosswalk to have a greater need for APS are assigned higher point values. Intersection Characteristics ⢠Number of intersection legs ⢠Signal design (e.g., pre-timed, actuated, etc) ⢠Proximity of transit facilities ⢠Proximity to facilities providing services for people who are blind or visually impaired ⢠Proximity to major pedestrian attractors (e.g., sports arena, downtown area, etc.) Crosswalk Characteristics ⢠Crosswalk width ⢠Speed limit ⢠Approach and crosswalk geometrics (e.g., skewed crosswalks, large curb radii, islands or medians, etc.) ⢠Pedestrian signal control (e.g., pushbutton actuation required for WALK signal, leading pedestrian interval, etc) ⢠Vehicle signal control (e.g., right-turn-on-red, leading protected left turn phase, etc) ⢠Oï¬ -peak traï¬ c presence ⢠Distance to alternative APS crosswalk
88 Chapter5: When to Install APS ⢠Pedestrian pushbutton location ⢠Requests for APS APS PRIORITIZATION TOOL VALIDATION PROCESS Although prior rating scales included many relevant factors, the point values assigned to these factors were not thoroughly tested in a ï¬ eld validation. Th e APS Prioritization Tool underwent validation through comparison with expert opinion from O&M Specialists and blind pedestrians. Th e steps in producing and validating the tool were as follows: 1. Th e research team selected factors (e.g., crosswalk width, signal design) to include in the tool. Factors that made crossing more diï¬ cult for blind pedestrians were given higher point values. Th is produced the initial form of the prioritization tool. 2. Th e team selected crosswalks in three cities (Cambridge, MA; Tucson, AZ; and Charlotte, NC). Each crosswalk was rated with the initial prioritization tool. Th e same crosswalks were rated by O&M specialists and blind travelers who ranked them in order of diï¬ culty for blind pedestrians. 3. Th e two sets of rankings were compared. Th e places where the prioritization tool results diï¬ ered from the expert results showed where the toolâs point values needed to be raised or lowered. Th is process produced a tool that was validated by comparison to expert opinion in real-world situations. EXAMPLE USES OF THE APS PRIORITIZATION TOOL Th e following example shows how the Prioritization Tool would be used to score a crosswalk that would be relatively diï¬ cult; an additional example showing a relatively easy crosswalk is included in Appendix D. Example Crosswalk Th is example rates a crosswalk at a large intersection of a major arterial and a minor side street. Th e crosswalk of interest is on the east leg (highlighted in Figure 5-1; shown at street level in Figure 5-2). Th e ï¬ rst worksheet deals with the intersection characteristics (Figure 5-3). Points were given for the following reasons: ⢠Th e signal is actuated but also uses split phasing, which is a higher point value than actuation, so the intersection gets the six points for split phasing. Split phasing is a less commonly used signal design, and the typically heavy turning movements make it harder to eï¬ ectively use the traï¬ c movement cue to determine signal changes. APS would provide a deï¬ nitive cue to the onset of the WALK interval for pedestrians who are unable to see the pedestrian signal.
Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practice 89 ⢠Th ere is a single bus route on the main street, which earns another point. Th e presence of public transit increases the likelihood that visually impaired pedestrians will travel at this intersection, thereby increasing the priority for APS. Th ere are no facilities speciï¬ cally providing services for individuals who are visually impaired or major pedestrian attractors within one-half mile, so no points are given for those categories. Th e total intersection score is seven points. Th e second worksheet deals with the crosswalk (Figure 5-4). Points were given for the following reasons: Figure 5-1. Overhead view of Example Crosswalk (Google Earth © 2005) Figure 5-2. Street view of Example Crosswalk
90 Chapter5: When to Install APS ⢠Th e crosswalk width of 110 feet and speed limit of 45 mph on the main street earn the crosswalk four and ï¬ ve points, respectively. Wider crosswalks and faster traï¬ c increase the crossing diï¬ culty and risk to visually impaired pedestrians, and APS may help expedite their crossing. ⢠Th e curb radius on one of the corners bordering the crosswalk is greater than 25 feet, so one point is given in the geometrics category. Larger curb radii create orientation problems for visually impaired pedestrians that may be decreased with the use of an APS. ⢠Th e signal requires push button actuation for the pedestrian WALK signal, so four points are given for the pedestrian signalization category. An APS locator tone would help a pedestrian who is visually impaired recognize that there is a pushbutton at that crosswalk and help in locating the pushbutton, and would increase the likelihood that pedestrian who is blind would use the pushbutton. ⢠Right-turn-on-red (RTOR) is permitted at the crosswalk, so two points are given in the vehicle signal control category. RTOR may produce misleading traï¬ c cues, and an APS would provide a deï¬ nitive cue of the appropriate time to cross. Figure 5-3. Intersection Worksheet for Example Crosswalk
Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practice 91 ⢠During oï¬ -peak hours, there was enough parallel traï¬ c to provide audible cues (2 or more vehicles per cycle) about 75% of the time. Th is earns two points. ⢠Th ere is not an alternative APS crosswalk within one-half mile, so four points are given towards the prioritization of an APS installation at this crosswalk. ⢠Th e pedestrian push button at one end of the crosswalk is located more than 10 feet from the curb, which is contrary to the recommendations in Section 4E.09 of the MUTCD. Th ree points are given for this drawback, since a correctly installed APS would position the push button closer to the curb which facilitates orientation alignment and pushbutton use for blind and visually impaired pedestrians. Th e crosswalk worksheet score is 25 points. When added to the intersection score of seven points, this yields a total crosswalk score of 32 points. In practice, this score of 32 points would be compared to other crosswalks under consideration for APS installations. Th ose crosswalks with the highest scores would have the highest priority for APS. Figure 5-4. Crosswalk Worksheet for Example Crosswalk
92 Chapter5: When to Install APS