United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration FHWA HomeFeedback
safety Back to Roundabouts

ROUNDABOUT ACCESSIBILITY SUMMIT

DRAFT PROCEEDINGS
VERSION 2.0

OCTOBER 28-29, 2002
Location:
Institute of Transportation Engineers Headquarters
Washington, DC
Annotated with Attendee Comments

line  

ITE logo U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

line 

Introduction

A roundabout accessibility summit took place at the offices of the Institute of Transportation Engineers on Monday, October 28 and Tuesday, October 29, 2002. The final agenda for this meeting is included as Attachment No. 1 to these proceedings. The roundabout section of the U.S. Access Board Draft Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines is included as Attachment No. 2. A roster of the Summit attendees is included as Attachment No. 3. The individual presentations and reports that were discussed at this Summit will become part of the final proceedings and will be labeled as Attachments. These briefing materials, including the Proceedings, will be available in both hard copy and electronic format.

Meeting GOAL and Objectives

The overall goal of this Roundabout Summit was to bring all of the stakeholders together to initiate the dialogue on accessibility issues within roundabouts.

The following meeting objectives were set forth in the September 5, 2002 invitation letter to meeting attendees.

  1. To identify existing and innovative solutions, tools, and technologies.
  2. To develop information toolkit/package for practitioners.
  3. To develop recommendations for industry research.

At the beginning the participants decided to revise the meeting agenda to focus primarily on the goal that was set forth. It was felt that we had to establish a rapport among all of the stakeholders and try to gain an understanding of the viewpoints and positions of each entity.

This meeting represented the first time that regulators, consumers, engineers, policymakers, researchers, and orientation and mobility specialists were gathered in the same room to discuss both individual and mutual needs to provide vehicular, pedestrian access generally, and pedestrian access for blind and visually impaired individuals for roundabouts. All of the stakeholders gained an appreciation for each other's concerns and needs.

What we did accomplish was the following:

  1. Technical briefings from regulators, orientation and mobility specialists, traffic engineers, and international roundabout experience;

  2. The identification of issues to be placed "on the table" for future discussion;

  3. The development of a list of future needs and research priorities; and

  4. A willingness of the group to meet again, to continue the dialogue.

Meeting Conclusions and Next Steps

  1. We have developed greater awareness and understanding of orientation and mobility techniques used by pedestrians who have vision impairments and of the characteristics of roundabout design that confound analysis by means of these techniques.

  2. There was an acknowledgement of the technical issues that need to be considered to achieve roundabout usability by pedestrians who have vision impairments.

  3. There is an overall need to improve transportation facility access and usability for pedestrians generally.

DONNA SAURERBERGER ALTERNATE STATEMENT: There was an acknowledgement of the technical issues that need to be considered when designing roundabouts to meet the needs of non-sighted pedestrians crossing the roundabout.

  1. We need to unite and share ideas on how to make roundabouts serve all roadway users.

  2. The group will meet again to continue the dialogue. We have made considerable progress toward a full understanding of the relevant issues. The next step will be to attempt to develop and test solutions, tools, and prototypical designs in US roundabouts.

  3. We have made a commitment to develop project statements and fund research on the following topics: driver yielding behavior; gap creation, identification and acceptance; detectable surfaces to provide location and wayfinding information; and ITS technologies with respect to roundabout design and operation for pedestrians who have vision impairments.

  4. Existing data on the safety of roundabouts considers only vehicle use.

POST-MEETING ALTERNATE STATEMENT BY RON HUGHES:

There is a need for comprehensive performance data for operational pedestrian crossing behavior at roundabouts.

POST-MEETING ADDITIONS BY RON HUGHES:

  1. There is a need to develop analytic tools (models, simulations, etc.) capable of addressing pedestrian performance at the same level as traffic (vehicular) performance.

  2. There is a need to address the advisability of adopting alternative upstream or downstream crossing locations for pedestrian (similar to the UK model). There is no inherent reason why pedestrian crossings must be limited to the immediate area of the splitter island.

  3. Signalization, where used to create a crossable gap for a pedestrian (blind or otherwise, needs to be considered in the context of the entire roundabout, and needs to be considered in light of the performance of the roundabout over time, not just for the duration of the crossing, per se.

  4. The problems experienced by blind pedestrians at roundabouts need to be considered in the broader context of current traffic control concepts governing how to safely and effectively permit pedestrians to cross the path of motorized traffic.

Significant Overarching Comments and Questions

  1. There is the perception that a signal guarantees roundabout access to the blind community. [ORIGINAL STATEMENT].

POST-MEETING COMMENT BY RON HUGHES:

Such a statement can be made only given ones definition of what is meant by a 'signal.' Signal concepts differ in terms of how reliably they are able to produce the desired driver behavior (i.e., yield, reduce speed, stop, etc.)

ALTERNATE PROPOSED STATEMENT BY LOIS THIEBALT:

There is the perception that a signal can act to provide and identify a gap.

  1. Crash statistics do not address facility usability. The Access Board's goal and mission is to ensure access to facilities for people with disabilities.

  2. Attendees discussed the concept of having a prescriptive set of standards and designs versus the requirement to meet performance standards.

  3. There is the concern that signalization can only act to reduce the operational efficiency of the roundabout.

  4. Signalizing a roundabout adds cost that may make the roundabout design non-competitive with other alternatives. The challenge is to maintain the operational efficiency of roundabouts for all users at a reasonable cost.

  5. Although pedestrians have the right of way and drivers must yield at crossings, sighted pedestrians are in fact expected to defer to vehicles and wait until they have a sufficient gap. The sound of the continuous flow of traffic in the roundabout and on the roundabout approaches masks the audible cues used in orientation and wayfinding so that gap identification cannot be accurate at all locations at all times.

  6. Vehicle fleet changes are occurring; quieter vehicles gaining market share. We need to build that reality into the [roadway] design and operation and into orientation and mobility training.

POST-MEETING COMMENT BY RON HUGHES:

While some sort of 'rumble' strip might serve to alert a blind individual of a vehicle's approach, they cannot be expected to ensure that gap detection by the blind pedestrian will not still be prone to error.

  1. Under various levels of control, there is a point where you lose all the benefits of a roundabout.

POST-MEETING COMMENT BY LOIS THIEBALT:

Disagreement with above statement: not so, many are signalized to both safety and capacity benefit. This statement assumes that only vehicles should benefit. You cannot solve a problem by eliminating key variables.

POST-MEETING COMMENT BY RON HUGHES:

Benefits need to be expressed in terms other than the avoidance of vehicle delay and reduction of vehicle crashes.

  1. Physical (landscape, buffers, edges and boundaries and detectable surfaces can provide wayfinding and orientation cues. The word "barrier" has particular meaning for the engineering community and should not be used in this context. . Guidance is needed on how to provide information.

POST-MEETING COMMENT BY RON HUGHES:

This is problematic not only for blind pedestrians. Observation of pedestrian behavior at the roundabout used for the NIH modeling work revealed that pedestrian crossing location, even for sighted pedestrians, is not well controlled.

  1. What is the appropriate amount of control required? Should consideration be given to the whole range of control types, including full traffic signals, yield, flashing signal operations, and stop signs? If signals are to be used, where should they be located?

POST-MEETING COMMENT BY RON HUGHES:

Need to differentiate 'minimum control required' in terms of the facility cost of the control versus minimum control from the standpoint of that which is required to achieve a stated level of driver (stop, yield, reduce speed, etc.) and pedestrian (gap detection/selection, etc.) behavior.

  1. Would the development of a typology of roundabouts meet the intent and requirements of the Access Board's objectives? The proposal that was placed 'on the table' would require a specific level and type of traffic control for a specific set of roundabout characteristics. There was a spirited discussion on this proposal. Specific comments relating to the roundabout typology proposal includes:

    1. What variables or breakpoints are relevant for all users?

POST-MEETING COMMENT BY RON HUGHES:

To define 'breakpoints' one needs to know with some certainty the functional relationships between key variables. We don't have that information yet.

    1. We cannot use land use as one of the characteristics since land use is subject to change (e.g., rural areas becoming suburbanized). Instead, typologies could be developed based on geometric design, speed, AADT, etc.

    2. The same roundabout will function differently at different times of day. Every roundabout might need signal control at some point.

    3. We need more information and research on the following variables and the relationship of each of the variables to each other with respect to gap detectability and the possible development of typologies to establish how to provide usability to pedestrians who are blind at a roundabout: (1) vehicular volume; (2) vehicle speed (reaction time); (3) single vs. multiple lanes within a roundabout roadway; (4) length of crosswalk; (5) location of crosswalk relative to central island; (6) vehicle gap distributions; (7) additional vehicle access in zone; (8) acoustic environment; (9) driver behavior; and (10) entry/exit geometrics and walking speed.

POST-MEETING COMMENT BY RON HUGHES:

(2) Speed (reaction time);

Do you mean reaction time as it relates to vehicle and pedestrian speeds?

(4) Length of crosswalk

and the availability and functional characteristics of 'refuge' islands;

(5) Location of crosswalk relative to central island;

Need to be more specific; do you mean upstream/downstream from the roundabout proper, or with respect to stop bar?

(8) Acoustic environment

As defined both in terms of vehicle sounds as a function of geometry, etc.; as well as the auditory discrimination capabilities/performance of the full range of pedestrians;

(9) Driver behavior

with respect to the likelihood of yielding to specific types of information

  1. The development of a roundabout typology may not be the right solution. If pedestrian access is provided, the roundabout must be usable by all. [Note: This was an opinion by one individual; there was not a consensus on the above statement.]

Issues/Problems/Needs/Challenges

Regulatory Issues

  1. The Draft Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines require pedestrian-activated signals at roundabouts because of concerns about access for individuals who are visually impaired or who have difficulty crossing for other reasons.
  1. Modifications to the Draft Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines will be based on comments and information received by the Access Board. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a regulatory analysis will be the next step.
  1. We need to be able to achieve usability. We can try to gain equivalent facilitation through technical innovation, but consumers have a strong preference for environmental solutions.
  1. Attendees noted that the Draft Guidelines have identified specific treatments that shall be used as opposed to a performance standard (e.g., provide whatever is required to make sure that a functional gap is present). However, other attendees also noted that the ADA allows 'equivalent facilitation'. This means that other treatments can be used, as long as they provide access. The designer/engineer will have to defend his choice/decision if an ADA complaint is filed.

POST MEETING COMMENT BY DONNA SAUERBURGER:

  1. The Access Board must develop technical standards based on the law. If pedestrian facilities are provided at a roundabout, they must be accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.

[Many possible roundabout locations will not need pedestrian access provisions.] [Peirce added statement]

POST MEETING COMMENT BY LOIS THIBAULT:

Federal funding is immaterial; state and local governments are covered by ada requirements regardless of funding source.

POST-MEETING COMMENT BY RON HUGHES:

So, if the indicated roundabout crossing location for all pedestrians was at a point upstream/downstream from the circulating motorway, and if conditions (e.g., gap frequency and duration) at those locations provided all pedestrians an equal opportunity to cross (equal in terms of delay, in terms of safety, and in terms of 'difficulty'/workload) then the requirement for accessibility had been met?

Engineering Issues

  1. The following engineering variables must be addressed in any future requirements to accommodate pedestrians generally, and pedestrians who are blind or have low vision, within a roundabout environment:

POST MEETING COMMENT BY ERIC WORRELL, P.E., FHWA RESOURCE CENTER, ATLANTA:

Importance of clear sight lines between the driver and pedestrians. No, blind people can't see the drivers, but if the driver can't see the blind person clearly until the last instance, then the risk to the pedestrian, especially the visually disabled is much greater. There is a shortcoming in the roundabout guide. [We need to indicate that] clear sight lines to the top of the ramp rather than just the beginning of the cross-walk [are needed]. My sense was that there was then general agreement on this issue.

Janet Barlow showed a video where a blind pedestrian was waiting with a guide to cross the street near a roundabout. Many cars passed without slowing or stopping for the pedestrians. But in the case of the video there was a substantial stand of vegetation just up stream from the curb cut. Drivers clearly [were] not becoming aware of the presence of the pedestrians until it was too late for a safe controlled stop. I don't know that they would have been anymore courteous if the stand of trees wasn't there - but I do know the pedestrians would have been at less risk.

  1. Traffic Control.

    Discussion of hierarchy

[Operationally, how and at what point, would such gaps in traffic be generated?] [Ron Hughes]

  1. Gaps

[This suggests that a signal might be provided if, and only if, it were "impossible" for a {blind} person to cross. What about the notion of equivalency? At what point, either in terms of 'delay' or 'workload'] would conditions fall below threshold?] [Ron Hughes]

Note: Version 1.0 of the minutes used the term "measurable gaps." It has been recommended by a number of attendees that we use the term functional gaps."

[Ron Hughes: All gaps are measurable; so are we talking about those measurable gaps that are crossable?]

POST-MEETING COMMENT BY RON HUGHES:

It is important to distinguish between 'gaps' as a measurable phenomenon- that what it is that blind pedestrian is actually using as a basis for the selection of when to cross. Two measurable gaps may be identical, but be functionally different in terms of the pedestrian's ability them as having to identify them as having the same temporal characteristics. For example, the pedestrian may consider gaps of the same measured duration 'different'. This might be based upon when sounds are being emitted by a 'conventional' vehicle or a 'quiet' vehicle.

POST-MEETING COMMENT BY RON HUGHES:

By accessible pedestrian signal, I assume you are referring to the system's ability to 'sense' the presence of a safe/crossable gap and the ability to somehow communicate that (auditorially, tactually, etc. to the waiting pedestrian). While possible, it introduces the variable of how effectively that 'information' can be transmitted from the system to the pedestrian, and the pedestrian's response (reaction time) to the signal. The problem is how to define the information required for the system to make the determination (sensor locations, processing required, etc.) that a safe and crossable gap is, in fact, 'present."

Research Needs

  1. Models are needed of behavior of motorists and pedestrians in roundabouts. Need to make assumptions about driver yielding behavior and other uncertainties.

POST MEETING COMMENT BY DONNA SAUERBURGER: Needs clarification. Do we mean research is needed to able to predict what drivers will do?

POST-MEETING COMMENT BY RON HUGHES:

There are models currently available (e.g., VisSim) that permit one, at a minimum, to conduct a sensitivity analysis based upon presumed differences in pedestrian crossing characteristics and differences in traffic characteristics. Such models need to be modified to permit users to analyze the effects of pedestrian 'mix' (proportion of pedestrians exhibiting different crossing characteristics) as well as the probabilistic nature of driver yielding performance.

  1. Gap acceptability and detectability. We need timely and accurate information about gaps including how to create gaps, how to selectively increase gap length and the number of gaps; how to improve pedestrian detection of gaps and gap length and how to reliably communicate gap information in a timely fashion to blind pedestrians.

  2. Informational surfaces. Investigate markings and colors for drivers (red approaches, squiggly lines).

  3. Intelligent Transportation Systems. Determine the extent to which ITS solutions can be used within the roundabout environment to accomplish both accessibility and traffic movement objectives.

POST-MEETING ADDITION BY RON HUGHES:

  1. Investigate the potential effectiveness of potential 'structural' changes to conventional roundabout design from the standpoint of pedestrian crosswalk location, physical measures for traffic calming/speed reduction at or beyond exit locations, etc.

  2. Research should be coordinated and funded between the following organizations: U.S. Access Board, FHWA, ITE, TRB, and AASHTO.

POST-MEETING ADDITION BY RON HUGHES:

  1. A well-defined approach for the systematic identification of system requirements, development of system/treatment concepts, the preliminary evaluation of concepts using modeling and simulation, the development and evaluation of operational prototypes, culminating with full-scale operational evaluations under the range of conditions necessary to ensure generalizability of results.

Lois Thibault

US Access Board. Discussed the Access Board's Draft Guidelines for Roundabouts, dated June 2002. No formal presentation slides or paper was presented. Attachment No. 1 presents Section 1105.6 of the Draft Public Rights-of-Way Guidelines which specifies the requirements for roundabouts.

Janet Barlow

PowerPoint Presentation entitled, "Pedestrians with Vision Loss or Blindness." Presentation Attached (See Attachment 4, Not Included in Draft Version 2,0 of the Proceedings).

Some key facts from this presentation:

Presentation includes video clips of pedestrians who are blind crossing at a signalized intersection and at a roundabout, and pedestrian who is sighted crossing at a roundabout.

Ed Meyer

PowerPoint presentation entitled, ITE Working Group on Roundabout Accessibility Issues, Ed Meyer's presentation reviews the history, geometry, traffic characteristics, pedestrian needs, benefits, issues, and international use of roundabouts. A few key aspects of Ed Meyer's presentation are included below: (See Attachment 5, not included in Draft Version 2.0 of Proceedings)

  1. Key roundabout features may include: (1) counterclockwise circulation; (2) splitter island; (3) circulatory roadway; (4) bicycle treatment; (5) central island; (6) sidewalk; (7) landscaping buffer; (8) yield line; (9) accessible pedestrian crossing; and (10) apron.
  1. Internationally, there are about 50,000 roundabouts; there are approximately 250 to 500 roundabouts in the United States.
  1. Positive aspects of roundabout include (1) speed-controlled environment, and (2) splitter island provides refuge. Negative aspects of roundabouts include (1) pedestrians must assess gaps; (2) disabled, children, and elderly may have difficulty; and (3) entries and exits with more than one lane are difficult to cross.
  1. The presentation includes slides from the Netherlands that shows multi-modal roundabout treatments.
  1. Design Guidance for visually impaired pedestrians: (1) determine optimal location and orientation of crosswalk and (2) consider application of textured pavements, raised crosswalks and use of traffic control.
  1. Technological Advancements for use in roundabouts: (1) flashing beacons; (2) in-pavement flashers and (3) pedestrian signals (mid-block, actuated, pedestrian activated)

Tom Brahms

Microsoft Word document, Meeting Notes and Follow-up Suggestions from 11th September 2002 Meeting in Australia. (See Attachment 6, not included in Draft Version 1.0 of Proceedings) - coming soon

A structured approach to the need for provision of special pedestrian facilities, using warrants for a pedestrian facility, might be as follows:

Peds
(pph)

Circulating + Exit Flow (vph)

1-lane roundabout

2-lane roundabout

3-lane roundabout

<250

250-500

500+

<500

500-1000

1000+

<1000

>1000

<10

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10-30

-

-

-

-

Z

Z

Z

Z

30-60

-

-

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

60-100

-

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

S

100-150

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

S

S

>150

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

S

S

S

- denotes no facility; Z - zebra crossing--S- Traffic Signals (typically PELICAN signals)

The idea of using "circulating + exit" flows as a variable is that visually impaired pedestrians use sound as a cue, and the sound or its absence is likely to be related not just to exiting traffic but also the circulating traffic. For crossings that may be located further than currently typical, it may be that exit flows are applicable - giving higher roundabout flows to "trigger" warrants.

(In the USA and Canada, there is a clear need to develop a set of standard pedestrian crossing facilities - such as the "zebra" signals, and PELICAN, and have those incorporated into the MUTCD, together with warrants for their use).

Potential "standards" for pedestrian facilities at roundabouts might include:

Note: The above potential standards are a result of the brainstorming session held on September 11, 2002, and do not represent technical requirements of any regulatory or transportation agencies within Australia. They are presented here as one line of thinking.

John Peirce

Powerpoint Presentation, Pedestrian Crossings At Roundabouts, Roundabout Accessibility Issues Working Group Meeting, Washington October 2002. (See Attachment 7, not included in Draft Version 1.0 of Proceedings)

Use signalized crossings

Crossing locations:

Use Colored Surfaces

Lighting: Use uniform brightness.

Ed Morris

US Department of Transportation, Office of Civil Rights. Powerpoint Presentation, The Big Picture. How Relevant are Pedestrian Access Issues to Everyday Life. (See Attachment 8, not included in Draft Version 2.0 of Proceedings)

David Guth, Daniel Ashmead, Richard Long, et.al.

Paper entitled, "Blind Pedestrians' Vehicular Gap Detection at Roundabout Intersections," David Guth, Daniel Ashmead, Richard Long, Paul Ponchillia, & Robert Wall, Department of Blindness and Low Vision Studies, Western Michigan University. (See Attachment 9, not included in Draft Version 1.0 of Proceedings)

Abstract - We investigated the judgments of blind and sighted persons about the duration of gaps in traffic at four modern roundabout intersections. Participants stood at roundabouts' crosswalks and indicated when they believed that gaps between vehicles were adequate for crossing to the pedestrian (splitter) island in the middle of the road before the arrival of the next vehicle at the crosswalk. We analyzed participants' latencies to detect gaps, their ability to detect gaps, and the frequency with which participants erroneously indicated that a gap was long enough to cross. The findings suggest that at some roundabouts, there are differences in pedestrians' abilities to determine whether it is safe to initiate a crossing, depending on whether they are using vision and hearing or hearing alone. Further, this effect appears to be related to the volume of vehicular traffic. Preliminary findings from three of the roundabouts were presented at IMC-10. This talk will review and expand upon those findings and then present new findings from an experiment at a single-lane urban roundabout at which pedestrians made judgments during both peak-traffic (rush) hours and off-peak hours.


Attachment No. 1: Final Agenda - (Dated October 24, 2002)

Working Group Meeting on
Roundabout Accessibility Issues

October 28-29, 2002

October 28

 

   

11:30 a.m.

12:15 p.m.

REGISTRATION AND LUNCH

12:15 p.m.

12:30 p.m.

Welcome - ITE/FHWA officials (George Ostensen and Tom Brahms)

  • Why this working group?
  • Goals of the meeting
  • Housekeeping
  • Ground rules: Facilitator solicits "norms" for the meeting from attendees

12:30 p.m.

12:35 p.m.

Introduction by Facilitator

  • Facilitator introduces himself and discusses his goals

12:35 p.m.

1:10 p.m.

Introduction of Attendees

  • Introduce themselves and organization
  • Each answers this question: For each of them, what would represent a successful meeting?

1:10 p.m.

1:25 p.m.

Briefing- Lois Thibault

U.S. Access Board Draft Guidelines

  • Legal and regulatory requirements
  • What is the genesis of the proposed of the Draft?
  • What are the next steps?
  • What are the general consequences of the Access Board's Draft?

1:25 p.m.

1:40 p.m.

Briefing- (Ed Meyers, Kittelson & Associates)

Roundabouts:

  • What are they and what variations exist?
  • What settings are they used in?
  • What problems are they trying to solve?
  • Geography: U.S. vs. International Scene
  • History: Past, present, and future in the U.S.
  • Issues of acceptance in the U.S.
  • How are pedestrians generally accommodated in roundabouts?
  • How can technology - especially ITS - make roundabouts safer and more efficient for vehicles, pedestrians, and pedestrians with disabilities?

1:40 p.m.

1:55 p.m.

Briefing- Pedestrians with Vision Loss or Blindness:(Janet Barlow)

  • What are the special issues faced by pedestrians with blindness or vision loss?
  • How have these been dealt with?

1:55 p.m.

2:00 p.m.

Tom Brahms- Briefing on Australian Roundtable

2:00 p.m.

2:15 p.m.

BREAK

2:15 p.m.

3: 15 p.m.

Facilitated Discussion -IPNC (Issues/Problems/Needs/Challenges)

3:15 p.m.

3: 35 p.m.

Redefine/Repackage Issues

3:35 p.m.

3: 40 p.m.

BREAK

3:40 p.m.

4: 40 p.m.
Initial meeting of the Breakout groups

Complete template of issues and potential solutions. Note: we may want each group member to vote on the solutions. Recorder will complete template and provide to facilitator.

4:40 p.m.

 
Adjourn

October 29

7:30 a.m.

8:15 a.m.

CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST

     

8:15 a.m.

8:30 a.m.
Discussion
  • Feedback on Day 1
  • Housekeeping

ADDED AGENDA ITEM:

John Peirce, TRL (Briefing)

8:30 a.m.

9:15 a.m.

Report Back and Discussion

9:15 a.m.

11:15 a.m.
Breakout Group Meeting No. 2 (Rolling Break Included)

Purpose: To determine areas of common ground, areas of conflict.

11:15 a.m.

12:15 p.m.
Report Back and Discussion for Breakout Meeting No. 2

12:15 p.m.

1:00 p.m.

LUNCH

Speaker: Ed Morris, Associate Administrator, Office of Civil Rights, US Department of Transportation

1:00 p.m.

2:00 p.m.
Breakout Meeting No. 3

Purpose: To define future courses of action.

2:00 p.m.

2:30 p.m.
Report Back and Discussion

2:30 p.m.

3:00 p.m.

Wrap Up -

  • Attendees answer these questions: "Were my expectations met? Did we meet the overall goals of the meeting?"
  • Closing remarks by FHWA/ITE
  • When should this group meet again?
  • What needs to be accomplished before this group meets again?

3:00 p.m.

 

Adjourn

Back to top


ATTACHMENT NO. 2: PROPOSED ACCESS BOARD GUIDELINES ON ROUNDABOUTS

Discussion of Provisions Roundabouts (1105.6)

A growing trend in roadway design favors continuous-flow roundabouts over traditional signalized intersections. While their design varies widely, roundabouts typically feature a circulatory roadway around a central island. Entering traffic yields to vehicles already in the circle. Increasingly popular in the U.S. because they add vehicle capacity and reduce delay, roundabouts are a common feature in Europe and Australia. Because crossing at a roundabout requires a pedestrian to visually select a safe gap between cars that may not stop, accessibility has been problematic. While roundabouts may be an asset to traffic planners in controlling and slowing the flow of traffic at intersections without using traffic signals, the absence of stopped traffic presents a problem for pedestrians with vision impairments in crossing streets. Pedestrians report that vehicles at roundabouts, as well as at other unsignalized crossings, often do not yield for pedestrians. Persons with vision impairments and pedestrians who may hesitate at such crossings are at a particular disadvantage.

To provide safer crossing at roundabouts, the draft guidelines would require pedestrian activated crossing signals at each roundabout crosswalk, including those at splitter islands. (The draft guidelines would ensure that such signals are usable by persons with vision impairments under requirements in section 1106 discussed below.) Although roundabouts are typically used to avoid signalization, the Board is not aware of alternatives that would allow safe passage for pedestrians with disabilities. Aside from accessibility, the use of roundabouts in areas of high pedestrian use has been questioned by some in the industry.

Requiring the signal to be pedestrian activated may help limit the impact on traffic flow. Signal technologies are available that can further minimize the impact, such as devices that halt traffic only while a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. The Board seeks information on alternative design strategies and available technologies that can improve access at roundabouts for persons with disabilities, particularly those with vision impairments.

Barriers or similarly distinct elements are needed to prevent blind persons from inadvertently crossing a roundabout roadway in unsafe locations. The draft guidelines would require a continuous barrier along the street side of the sidewalk where pedestrian crossing is prohibited. If a railing is used, it must have a bottom rail no higher than 15 inches. This dimension would allow use of a standard roadside guardrail while providing sufficient cane detectability.

Text of Draft Guidelines

1105.6 Roundabouts. Where pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian facilities are provided at roundabouts, they shall comply with 1105.6.

1105.6.1 Separation. Continuous barriers shall be provided along the street side of the sidewalk where pedestrian crossing is prohibited. Where railings are used, they shall have a bottom rail 15 inches (380 mm) maximum above the pedestrian access route.

1105.6.2 Signals. A pedestrian activated traffic signal complying with 1106 shall be provided for each segment of the crosswalk, including the splitter island. Signals shall clearly identify which crosswalk segment the signal serves.

Back to top


ATTACHMENT NO. 3

OCTOBER 28-29, 2002

FINAL ROSTER

Ashmead, Dr Daniel H.
Associate Professor
Vanderbilt University
1114 19th Avenue S
Nashville, TN 37212
Tel: (615)-936-5114
Fax: (615) 936-5013
daniel.h.ashmead@Vanderbilt.Edu

Bared, Joe
Highway Research Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101
Tel: (202) 493-3314
Fax: (202) 493-3417
joe.bared@fhwa.dot.gov

Barlow, Janet M.
Orientation and Mobility Specialist
Accessible Design for the Blind
440 Hardendorf Avenue, NE
Atlanta, GA 30307
Tel: (404) 373-0611
Fax: (404) 373-0611
jmbarlow@mindspring.com

Bentzen, Dr. Billie (Beezy) L.
Principal
Accessible Design for the Blind
235 South Street
Berlin, MA 01503
Tel: (978) 838-2307
Fax: (978) 838-2307
bbentzen@accessforblind.com

Bloch, Arnie
Principal
Howard-Stein Hudson
516 W. 36th Street
4th Floor
New York, NY, 10018
Tel: (917) 339-0488
Fax: (917-339-1068

Brahms, Thomas W.
Executive Director
Institute of Transportation Engineers
1099 14th St., NW Suite 300 West
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 289-0222, x111
Fax: (202) 289-7722
tbrahms@ite.org

Redmon, Tamara A.
Transportation Specialist
US DOT-FHWA
400 7th Street, SW., HSA-1, Room 3407
Washington, D.C. 20590
Tel: (202) 366-4047
Fax: (202) 366-2249
tamara.redmon@fhwa.dot.gov

Brunson, Melanie
Director of Advocacy & Government Affairs
American Council of the Blind
1155 15th Street, NW, Suite 1004,
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 467-5081
Fax: (202) 467-5085
mbrunson@acb.org

Carroll, Julie
Attorney Advisor
National Council on Disability
1331 F Street, NW Suite 850
Washington, D.C. 20004
Tel: (202) 272-2004
Fax: (202) 272-2022
jcarroll@ncd.gov

Caruso, Phil
Deputy Executive Director
Institute of Transportation Engineers
1099 14th St., NW Suite 300 West
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 289-0222, ext-126
Fax: (202) 289-7722
pcaruso@ite.org

Coleman, Janet A.
Director, Office of Safety Program
FHWA
400 7th Street SW, HAS-1
Room 3407
Washington, D.C. 20590
Tel: (202) 366- 1153
janet.coleman@fhwa.dot.gov

Courage, Kenneth G.
Professor
University of Florida-Gainesville,
Civil Engineering Department, Weil Hall
PO Box 116588,
Gainesville, FL 32611-6588
Tel: (352) 392-0378
Fax: (352) 392-3224
kcourage@ufl.edu
[Was unable to travel on day of meeting.]

Crawford, Charles
Executive Director
American Council of the Blind
1155 15th Street, NW, Suite 1004
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 467-5081
Fax; (202) 467-5085
ccrawford@acb.org

Davis, Gregory
Engineering Research Psychologist
FHWA
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101
Tel: (202) 493-3367
gregory.davidQ@fhwa.dot.gov

Demosthenes, Phil
Colorado Department of Transportation
4201 E. Arkansas Avenue, Rom 291
Denver, CO 80222-3400
Tel: (303) 757-9844
Fax: (303) 757-9820
phil.demosthenes@dot.state.co.us

Franck, Lukas
Coordinator of Training
The Seeing Eye, Inc.
Box 375
Morristown, NJ 07963
Tel: (973) 539-4425
franck@sprynet.com

Guth, Dr. David
Professor
Western Michigan University,
Dept. of Blindness and Low Vision Studies
3405 Sangren Hall
Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5111
Tel: (269) 387-3446
david.guth@wmich.edu

Harkey, David
University of NC Highway Safety Research Center
CB# 3430, 730 Airport Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
Tel: (919) 962-8705
david_harkey@unc.edu

Hartman, Dan
Director
City of Golden, CO Public Works Department
911 10th Street
Golden, CO 80401
Tel; (303) 384-8000
Fax: (303) 384-8161
dhartman@ci.golden.co.us

Herman, Robert N.
Senior Advocacy Attorney
Paralyzed Veteran Association
801 18th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006-3517
Tel: (202) 416-7699
Fax: (202) 416-7706
bobhn@pva.org

Hughes, Ron
Senior Research Psychologist
University of NC
Highway Safety Research Center
730 Airport Road, CB# 3430
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3430
Tel: (919) 962-9411
Fax: (919) 962-8710
ron_hughes@unc.edu

Ito, James H.
Traffic and Lighting Design Engineer
City of Milwaukee, WI
841 N. Broadway, Room 920
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Tel: (414) 278-3263
Fax: (414) 278-3693
jito@mpw.net

Jacquemart, George G.
Principal
Buckhurst, Fish & Jacquemart
115 5th Avenue., 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10003-1004
Tel: (212) 353-7474
Fax: (212) 353-7494
g-jacquemart@peapc.com

Kalla, Hari
Transportation Specialist
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Safety Design
400 7th Street SW, Room 3407, HAS-10
Washington, DC 20590
Tel: (202) 366-5915
Fax: (202) 366-2249
hari.kalla@fhwa.dot.gov

Kobetsky, Ken
Program Director for Engineering
AASHTO
444 N. Capitol St., NW Suite 249
Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel: (202) 624-5254
Fax: (202) 624-5469
kenk@aashto.org

Long, Dr. Richard G.
Associate Professor
Western Michigan University,
Dept. of Blindness and Low Vision Studies
1903 W. Michigan Avenue, Room
3404 Sangren Hall
Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5111
Tel: (269) 387-3451
Fax: (269) 387-3567
richard.long@wmich.edu

Mazz, Marsha K.
Technical Assistance Coordinator
US Access Board Technical & Information Services Office
1331 F St. N.W, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004-1111
Tel: (202) 272-0020
Fax: (202) 272-0081
mazz@access-board.gov

McMillen, Barbara D.
Disability Policy Analyst
US DOT-FHWA
400 7th Street, SW., HCR-1, Room 4132
Washington, D.C. 20590
Tel: (202) 366-4634
Fax: (202) 366-1599
barbara.mcmillen@fhwa.dot.gov

Moreira, Patricia
Assistant for Charles Crawford
American Council of the Blind
1155 15th Street, NW, Suite 1004
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 467-5081
Fax: (202) 467-5085
ccrawford@acb.org

Myers, Edward J.
Senior Principal
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
36 S. Charles Street., Suite 2204
Baltimore, MD 21201
Tel: (410) 347-9610
Fax: (410) 347-9611
emyers@kittelson.com

Niederhauser, Mike
Transportation Engineer
Maryland State Highway Administration
PO Box 717
Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Tel: (410) 787-5879
mniederhauser@sha.state.md.us

Peirce, John
Traffic Consultancy Manager
TRL
Tel: (011-44134) 477-0032
Fax: (011-44134) 477-0864
jpeirce@trl.co.uk

Prosser, William A.
Highway Design Engineer
FHWA
400 7th Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20590
Tel: (202) 366-1332
william.prosser@fhwa.dot.gov

Robinson, Bruce W.
Principal Engineer
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
610 SW Alder St., Suite 700
Portland, OR 97205-3608
Tel: (502) 535-7408
Fax: (503) 535-7508
brobinson@kittelson.com

Sarandes, Judy
Arrowhead
1501 Farm Credit Drive, Suite 4400
McLean, VA 22101
Tel: (703) 883-4040
Fax: (703) 883-4041
sarandesj@arrowheadsat.com

Sauerburger, Dona
Orientation and Mobility Specialist
Environmental Access Committee,
AER Orientation and Mobility Division
1606 Huntcliff Way
Gambrills, MD 21054
Tel: (301) 858-0138
sauerburger@mindspring.com

Stanley, Jenine
Representative
Organization Guide Dog Users, Inc.
Tel: (614) 766-5524
jstanley@gdui.org

Stewart, Ken
Representative
Council for Citizens With Low Vision International
1155 15th Street, NW, Suite 1004,
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: (845) 986-2955
cclvi@yahoo.com

Stollof, Edward
Senior Director, Contracts
Institute of Transportation Engineers
1099 14th St., NW Suite 300 West
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: (202) 289-0222, x132
Fax: (202) 289-7722
estollof@ite.org

Thibault, Lois
Coordinator of Research
US Access Board Technical & Information Services Office
1331 F Street, NW Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004-1111
Tel: (202) 272-0023
Fax: (202) 272-0081
thibault@access-board.gov

Umbs, Rudy
Acting Director-Safety Design
US DOT-FHWA
400 7th Street, SW HAS-10
Room 3407
Washington, D.C. 20590
Tel: (202) 366-2177
rudolph.umbs@fhwa.dot.gov

Wainwright, Scott
FHWA
Office of Transp. Operations
400 7th Street SW, HOTO-1
Room 3408
Washington DC 20590
Tel: (202) 366-0857
Fax: (202) 366-3225
Scott.Wainwright@Fhwa.Dot.Gov

Windley, Scott
US Access Board Technical & Information Services Office
1331 F St. N.W, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004-1111
Tel: (202) 272-5434, ext-135
Fax: (202) 725-4473
windley@access-board.gov

Worrell, Eric S.
Safety / Geometric Design Engineer
FHWA-Southern Resource Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW Suite 17T26
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: (404) 562-3684
Fax: (404) 562-3700
eric.worrell@fhwa.dot.gov

Back to top


FHWA Home | Safety Home | Feedback
FHWA