Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities (2011)

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.

TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2011 www.TRB.org N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP REPORT 674 Subscriber Categories Highways • Pedestrians and Bicyclists • Design • Operations and Traffic Management Safety and Human Factors • Society Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities Bastian Schroeder Ronald Hughes Nagui Rouphail Christopher Cunningham Katy Salamati INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY Raleigh, NC A N D Richard Long David Guth Robert Wall Emerson Dae Kim WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY Kalamazoo, MI A N D Janet Barlow Billie Louise (Beezy) Bentzen ACCESSIBLE DESIGN FOR THE BLIND Asheville, NC A N D Lee Rodegerdts Ed Myers KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Portland, OR Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 674 Project 3-78A ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-15530-4 Library of Congress Control Number 2010942112 © 2011 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. Cover photograph by Robert Wall Emerson

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 674 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs S. A. Parker, Senior Program Officer Tom Van Boven, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Doug English, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 03-78A PANEL Field of Traffic—Operations and Control Elizabeth Hilton, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, TX (Chair) Dennis Cannon, Synergy, LLC, Washington, DC Julie Carroll, National Council on Disability, Washington, DC Jim De Luca, California DOT, Sacramento, CA James H. Dunlop, North Carolina DOT, Garner, NC Lukas Franck, Seeing Eye, Inc., Morristown, NJ Norman W. Garrick, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT Howard M. McCulloch, New York State DOT, Albany, NY Eugene R. Russell, Sr., Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS Gregory Davis, FHWA Liaison Philip J. Caruso, Institute of Transportation Engineers Liaison Ken Kobetsky, AASHTO Liaison Donna Smith, Easter Seals Project ACTION Liaison Richard A. Cunard, TRB Liaison C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S

Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities is intended to provide practitioners with useful information related to establishing safe crossings at roundabouts and channelized turn lanes for pedestrians with vision dis- abilities. The specific focus areas of the report provide guidance on: • Identifying under what conditions pedestrians with vision disabilities may experience problems with crossing performance, • Tying treatment solutions to specific crossing challenges faced by the visually impaired pedestrian population, • Conducting pedestrian/vehicle studies that help identify performance problems and appropriate treatment strategies, • Quantifying pedestrian accessibility at a particular crossing, • Presenting findings from selective field studies performed through this research, • Developing approaches for extending research findings to other locations, and • Discussing implications for the practitioner in terms of treatment selection and facility design. The results of this research will be useful to engineers, the accessibility community, pol- icy makers, and the general public to aid in understanding the specific challenges experi- enced at these facilities by pedestrians with vision disabilities. It is only through the under- standing of the components of the crossing task and the particular challenges involved that solutions can be developed, installed, and evaluated appropriately. This report is not intended to provide practitioners with requirements of when to install specific treatments, which is a policy decision. Instead, the report provides useful informa- tion on the concept of accessibility and how to provide improved crossing environments based on the pedestrian crossing task at hand. The research results also serve to introduce a structured and measurable framework for quantifying the chief operational parameters of accessibility and to establish decision-support through empirical research results. Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities was prepared under NCHRP Project 3-78A by the Institute for Transportation Research and Education at North Carolina State University, Western Michigan University, Accessible Design for the Blind, and Kittelson and Associates, Inc. F O R E W O R D By S. A. Parker Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals contributed to this research effort. Ronald G. Hughes, Ph.D., of the Institute for Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) at North Carolina State University (NCSU) served as the principal investigator. He was assisted by ITRE director Nagui M. Rouphail, Ph.D., and researchers Christopher M. Cunningham and Bastian J. Schroeder, Ph.D. Also at ITRE, graduate student Katy S. Sala- mati and undergraduate students Hunter M. Brown and Brian S. Statler assisted in the reduction and analysis of video data. The ITRE team worked closely with subcontractors at the Western Michigan Uni- versity Department for Blind and Low Vision Studies, at Accessible Design for the Blind, and at Kittelson and Associates, Inc. Researchers at Western Michigan University included Richard Long, Ph.D., David Guth, Ph.D., Robert Wall Emerson, Ph.D., Dae Kim, Ph.D., and Paul Ponchilla, Ph.D. Researchers at Accessible Design for the Blind were Janet Barlow and Billie Louise (Beezy) Bentzen, Ph.D. Researchers at Kittelson and Associates, Inc., included Lee Rodegerdts, Ed Myers, Erin Ferguson, Justin Bansen, Cade Braud, and Pete Jenior. All subcontractors made significant contributions throughout this project. Early in the project, the team further worked with researchers at the Midwest Research Institute and at the High- way Safety Research Center and is grateful for the contributions of these individuals. Throughout the proj- ect the team further received valuable input from Daniel Ashmead, Ph.D., of Vanderbilt University and Duane Geruschat, Ph.D., of Johns Hopkins University. The authors would like to express their gratitude for research partners in the various municipalities where data collection took place through this project. In particular, the team would like to thank Dan Hartman and Vince Auriemma of the town of Golden, CO, and Elizabeth Babson, Charlie Jones, and Scott Lamont with the city of Charlotte, NC. The team would also like to thank a number of people who assisted with the installation and programming of various crossing treatments tested through this project, includ- ing Mr. Richard Nassi from the city of Tucson, AZ, John McGaffey and Lynn Mack at Polara Engineering, and WL Contractors in Golden, CO. Special thanks go to all participants for completing challenging crossings and for providing frank opin- ions about observed issues at the test locations. The authors would also like to thank several individuals who have been invaluable in recruiting participants for this research, including Trian Boyd-Pratt of Aurora, CO, and Ajqcquelyn A. Jaikins, Alice Galvan, and Laura Park-Leach of the Metrolina Association for the Blind in Charlotte, NC. The authors especially thank the NCHRP Project 3-78A panel members for diligent service in guiding this multi-year project and in providing thorough and pertinent reviews of interim and final project deliv- erables.

C O N T E N T S 1 Summary 10 Chapter 1 Introduction 10 Safety Is Not Synonymous with Access 11 Comparing Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes 11 Scope of Work 12 Content of This Report 13 Chapter 2 Synthesis of the Literature 13 Facility Design 15 Accessibility Challenges 15 Locating the Crosswalk 16 Aligning to Cross 16 Identifying a Crossing Opportunity 16 Maintaining Alignment During Crossing 16 The U.S. Access Board and ADA 17 Pedestrian Signals 17 Midblock Crossings and Conventional Intersections 19 Blind Pedestrian Crossing Experiments 20 The Long List of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments 20 Driver Information Treatments 21 Traffic Calming Treatments 21 Pedestrian Information Treatments 21 Crosswalk Geometric Modification 22 Signalization Treatments with APS 23 Grade-Separated Crossing 24 Chapter 3 Methodology 24 Experimental Design and Field Methodology 24 Participants 25 Orientation 25 Procedure 25 Participant Questionnaires 26 Identification and Selection of Treatments 27 Site Selection 28 Identification of Treatment Site Alternatives 28 Selection of Treatment Sites 34 Chapter 4 Analysis Framework 34 Crossing Performance Characteristics 35 Crosswalk Usability Criteria 35 Crossing Opportunity Criterion 35 Opportunity Utilization Criterion

36 Delay Criterion 36 Safety Criterion 36 Field Evaluation Approach 36 Event Definitions 37 Performance Measures 39 Performance Measure Example 40 Adapting the Framework to Two-Lane Crossings 40 Research Hypotheses 43 Chapter 5 Results 43 Channelized Turn Lane 43 Study Overview 43 Crossing Performance Results 45 Participant Feedback 46 Impact on Vehicular Traffic 47 Single-Lane Roundabout 47 Study Overview 48 Crossing Performance Results 50 Participant Feedback 50 Impact on Vehicular Traffic 51 Two-Lane Roundabout 51 Crossing Performance Results 55 Participant Feedback 56 Compliance with Signal Indications 58 Impact on Vehicular Traffic 59 Summary of Results 62 Chapter 6 Study Extensions 62 Delay Estimation 62 Introduction 63 Approach 63 Results 67 Model Comparison 69 Model Application 73 Delay Model Discussion 73 Extension to Safety Modeling 74 Simulation Approach 74 Applying the Framework to Simulation 78 Simulation-Based Analysis of Signalized Crosswalks 81 Discussion 82 Chapter 7 Interpretation and Application 82 Synthesis of Approach 83 Implications of Field Study Results 85 Policy Implications 86 Discussion 86 Single-Lane versus Two-Lane Approaches 86 The Impact of Vehicle Speed 87 Crossing Geometry 87 Inter-Participant Variability 88 Learning Effect and O&M Training

89 Confidence in Decision-Making 90 Self-Assessment of Risk and Travel Skills 90 Viability of Interventions as a Measure of Risk 91 Driver Yielding and Enforcement 92 Implications for Facility Design 92 Channelized Turn Lanes 93 Single-Lane Roundabouts 93 Two-Lane Roundabouts 94 Wayfinding and Alignment Treatments 94 Future Research Needs 97 References 99 Appendix A Detailed Results 140 Appendix B Long List of Treatments 140 Appendix C Team Treatment Survey 140 Appendix D Details on Site Selection 140 Appendix E Details on Treatment and Site Descriptions 140 Appendix F Details on PHB Installation 140 Appendix G Participant Survey Forms 140 Appendix H Details on Team Conflict Survey 140 Appendix I Details on Simulation Analysis Framework 140 Appendix J Details on Accessibility Measures 140 Appendix K Details on Delay Model Development 140 Appendix L Details on Roundabout Signalization Modeling 140 Appendix M Use of Visualization in NCHRP Project 3-78A 140 Appendix N IRB Approval and Consent Forms Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.