Online Conference on Accessible Transportation Hosted by Easter Seals Project ACTION in partnership with the Transportation Research Board August 2-5, 2010 WWW.TRB.ORG WWW.PROJECTACTION.ORG
Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines for Roundabouts and Intersections Lukas Franck, The Seeing Eye Donna Smith, Easter Seals Project ACTION Lois Thibault, U.S. Access Board August 4, 2010 WWW.TRB.ORG WWW.PROJECTACTION.ORG
Partners • Easter Seals Project ACTION (ESPA) • Transportation Research Board (TRB) 3
Event Information • Teleconference only • To obtain a transcript of the event, contact ESPA at espadistancelearning@easterseals.com or visit our web site at www.ProjectACTION.org 4
Online Conference on Accessible Transportation Remaining Session • Thursday, August 5, 2010 – The Role of Transit-Oriented Development: Livable and Sustainable Communities – Nat Bottigheimer, Lilly Shoup and Dr. Mary Leary 5
Transportation Research Board Russell Houston Senior Communications Officer Transportation Research Board WWW.TRB.ORG WWW.PROJECTACTION.ORG
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) • Began in 1920 the National Advisory Board on Highway Research • The Highway Research Board until 1974 • Part of National Academy of Sciences • Annually Engage More than 7,000 Volunteers • Finances - Federal 54%, State DOTs 39%, Other and Self- Generated 7%. • Original Mission – Get the Farmers Out of the Mud • Today’s Mission – Provide Leadership in Transportation Innovation and Progress Through Research and Information Exchange 7
TRB Services • Foster Information Exchange – Annual Meeting, Meetings and Conferences, Standing Committees and Task Forces, Electronic Networks, and Field Visits • Manage Research – Cooperative Research Programs, Strategic Highway Research Program, and Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis • Provide Policy Analysis and Advice • Issue Publications and Research Information – Publications, Online Research Information , Response to Inquiries 8
Getting Involved with TRB • Serve on a – TRB Standing Committee, Subcommittee, or Taskforce – Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) Panel – Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP 2) Expert Task Group • Join/Support TRB--Become an Affiliate or Sponsor • Submit a Paper • Exhibit • Respond to an RFP or RFI • Submit an IDEA • Subscribe to the TRB E-Newsletter - Follow us on Twitter 9
Learn More About TRB www.TRB.org Russell Houston Senior Communications Officer Editor, TRB Transportation Research E-Newsletter 202-334-3252 RHouston@nas.edu 10
WWW.PROJECTACTION.ORG Intersections as Barriers Lukas Franck, COMS WWW.TRB.ORG Morristown,NJ
Visual Impairment – an Overview • Vision impairment is to a great extent correlated with age • One eye condition; macular degeneration, will be responsible for nearly 3 million cases of central vision loss by 2020 • About 110,000 people use long canes to aid in travel (AFB 1990) • About 7,000 dog guide users, (Eames 1994) 12
Training Opportunities • People who are blind are eligible for some training, including training on how to cross streets (Mobility, or O&M training) • Varies widely by state • Limited by vocational need • System is overwhelmed by the numbers of people who need service 13
Street Crossing w/o Sight • Multiple tasks: – Locate street margin – Determine nature of the crossing and controls available –actuate if necessary – Determine direction to target – Depart at the correct time, and maintain line of crossing – Assess threats 14
Highway Fatalities: • Approximately 5500-6000 pedestrian fatalities each year. – 110,000 injuries • Pedestrians account for 14% of traffic fatalities • The elderly are over-represented in this statistic. 15
Elderly Pedestrian Fatalities • In 1995 senior citizens comprised 13% of the population. • Represented 23% of pedestrian traffic fatalities. • Majority of fatalities were not at intersections, but large intersections can pose challenges for the elderly… 16
The Aging Population • The aging population with attendant visual impairment is growing rapidly. • These former drivers will become pedestrians, but • Even before the level of ‘legal blindness’ is reached, the street crossing task may become very difficult for them. 17
Challenges Faced by Elderly Pedestrians at Intersections • Perceptual –Lack of ability to locate/utilize controls –Lack of ability to perceive information (Walk/ Don’t Walk indications) 18
Challenges Faced by Elderly Pedestrians at Intersections • Cognitive – Understanding intersection control types as a new pedestrian may be very challenging • Physical – Wide streets without pedestrian refuges may be insurmountable – Crossing times may be insufficient (grade may be a factor) 19
Intersection Control Types • Two types: Fixed Timed and Actuated • Fixed timed: – Older type – Common in downtown areas of cities • Actuated type – Common in the suburbs, increasingly used to enhance efficiency in other areas 20
The Problem of Actuation • Many intersections- a growing proportion- are actuated. • Pedestrians must push a button to receive a pedestrian timing-and a WALK indication. • This interface is poorly designed especially for the elderly and others with visual impairments. • It is poorly understood by nearly everyone. 21
How Actuation Works • The most common type of control is called semi- actuated control. – Major street intersects a minor street – Sensors on the minor street. – Lights change when cars roll onto the sensors – Lights change for a time calculated to allow the car to enter or cross the intersection. 22
23
Pushing the Button Makes a Difference! • At an 80’ wide crossing (perhaps 6 lanes) a single car might be allocated a total of 11 seconds of combined green and yellow time. • A pedestrian pushing the button will be allocated 30 seconds of combined WALK and flashing DONT WALK time. 24
Cognitive/Conceptual Problem: • Understanding the “interactive” nature of the ‘interface’. – This problem is shared by many – But many elderly people may be unfamiliar with the changed nature of intersection design. – Walk and in particular flashing Don’t Walk may be poorly understood. 25
Perceptual/Cognitive Problem: • Knowing when to start. –Lack of interaction (based on a concept ‘gap’) may lead to poor judgments. –Inability to see signals due to visual deterioration. 26
27
28
29
30
How To Make the Interface Work for the Aging Population • Redundancy will help – Use sound to pull the pedestrians attention to the pushbutton – Notify the pedestrian of the WALK indication through sound- being careful to use sound that takes into account the high frequency hearing loss typical in the aging population • Brings the information to the near side. 31
Accessible Pedestrian Signal • Locator tone to draw attention to and help people locate the button. 32
Walk Information Through Sound • Locator tone followed by WALK information in an accessible format 33
Physical problems • Walking speed – Most intersection timings are predicated on a walking speed of four (4) feet per second (fps). – In MUTCD 2009 this calculation is adjusted to 3.5 fps to take the aging population and people with disabilities into account. 34
Failure to Improve the Interface Will be Very Expensive • Intersections can become barriers • The costs will be high in many ways –Personal freedom and independence –Increased burden on Para-transit services 35
Intersections as Barriers • At signalized intersections with high volumes it can be quite simple to determine the onset of the “parallel” traffic flow that is the auditory equivalent of the “walk indication”. • Not just actuated intersections are problematic – Intermittent traffic is problematic. – Light flow on side streets is problematic. • Resolvable with APS 36
Intersections as Barriers Paratransit for people who are blind is not automatic. They must qualify to be able to ride. In Pittsburgh there are three reasons that will allow a blind person to qualify: • No path of travel • Travel path too close to fast moving traffic • Intersection barriers 37
38
39
Intersections as Barriers • In calendar year 2001 blind people in Pittsburgh used paratransit 13,000 times. • Perhaps 50% of those trips were the results of intersection barriers. • Para-transit costs in Pittsburgh are $18 per ride. • Several years ago costs in Atlanta were $75 per ride! 40
Intersections as Barriers Taking a figure of $18 times 6,500 rides Results in costs of $117,000 to the transit system in Pittsburgh. In Atlanta the cost for the same number of trips is $487,500. The human costs are very difficult to calculate. 41
The End 42
Usable Roundabouts Lois Thibault, Coordinator of Research US Access Board Lukas Franck, Senior Consultant The Seeing Eye August 2010 43
Recommend
More recommend
