Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL NCHRP REPORT 674 COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities

OCR for page R1
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS CHAIR: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington VICE CHAIR: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles Eugene A. Conti, Jr., Secretary of Transportation, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, and Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Virginia, Charlottesville Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN Paula J. Hammond, Secretary, Washington State DOT, Olympia Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA Steven T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO Beverly A. Scott, General Manager and Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Atlanta, GA David Seltzer, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Philadelphia, PA Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies; and Interim Director, Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, Davis Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing Douglas W. Stotlar, President and CEO, Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Peter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC David T. Matsuda, Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC Tara O'Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC Robert J. Papp (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT Polly Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC *Membership as of October 2010.

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP REPORT 674 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 AND Richard Long David Guth Robert Wall Emerson Dae Kim WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY Kalamazoo, MI AND Janet Barlow Billie Louise (Beezy) Bentzen ACCESSIBLE DESIGN FOR THE BLIND Asheville, NC AND Lee Rodegerdts Ed Myers KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Portland, OR Subscriber Categories Highways · Pedestrians and Bicyclists · Design · Operations and Traffic Management Safety and Human Factors · Society Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2011 www.TRB.org

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP REPORT 674 RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 3-78A approach to the solution of many problems facing highway ISSN 0077-5614 administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local ISBN 978-0-309-15530-4 interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually Library of Congress Control Number 2010942112 or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the © 2011 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 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 COPYRIGHT INFORMATION cooperative research. Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials published or copyrighted material used herein. initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on 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, a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of 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 Transportation. from CRP. 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 NOTICE modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which 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 authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it the Governing Board of the National Research Council. possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of 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 objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the research directly to those who are in a position to use them. researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Cover photograph by Robert Wall Emerson 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

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS 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

OCR for page R1
FOREWORD By S. A. Parker Staff Officer Transportation Research Board 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.

OCR for page R1
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.

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS 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

OCR for page R1
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

OCR for page R1
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.