ACB acknowledges and deeply appreciates the moral and financial support of The Seeing Eye, Incorporated, of Morristown, New Jersey, for their generous assistance in covering the printing and supply cost of making this Pedestrian Handbook available. The Seeing Eye and their seeing eye dogs are true partners in promoting pedestrian safety.

America's pedestrian environment has become hostile to the safe travel of all persons and especially to those of us who are blind. Key factors in this sad state of affairs are traffic patterns controlled by underground sensors that change the signaling at intersections to accommodate heavier traffic flow with a resulting lack of predictability to the time available to cross a street, multiple street intersections with complex pedestrian island configurations, turning signal arrows that allow vehicles to cross in front or in back of moving pedestrians, round-about traffic circles without signalization, blended or level curbings that are not always detectable at the entrance to the street, and signaling devices that are difficult to locate and understand. All this in addition to disappearing sidewalks that are either never constructed or allowed to fall into serious disrepair.

If we as a blind community are to preserve our ability to independently travel, then we simply must take the necessary actions to engage the decision makers in federal, state and local agencies to educate them to the dangers of the decisions they are making. We must also link our efforts with other pedestrian groups to put the issues clearly on the public agenda.

Advocacy requires information. It is not simply enough to know the danger but we must speak to those who are responsible for traffic control and pedestrian infrastructure in the language they speak, in the concepts they understand and with a force of commitment as if our lives depend on it because in many ways they do.

This second edition handbook begins the process of providing a baseline education to the issues and offers some ways of making a positive change. As time goes by and we make progress in our effort, this handbook will reflect the wisdom we will gain.

Read this information well. Even as we are taking on a challenge of truly massive proportion, our blind brothers and sisters remain at risk. In the short period since the first release of this handbook there have been at least 6 deaths of blind people of which we know and serious injuries to others. For all the sorrow we feel and for all the pain their families have endured, the tragic reality is that we cannot bring them back. However, we can make a solemn promise to work to make the pedestrian world a safer place for people who are blind and sighted alike. This is our goal and we truly can accomplish it armed with the love and support we have for each other, the memory of those who might have lived in a more safe environment and from the knowledge we gain through this handbook. TABLE OF CONTENTS

On a per-mile basis, walking is more dangerous than driving, flying, or riding a bus or train.

In 1996, 5,157 pedestrians were killed on U.S. streets.

On average, just 1 percent of funds spent in states on safety projects were directed at pedestrian safety despite the fact that nationwide approximately 12 percent of traffic deaths and serious injuries were to pedestrians.

People who are blind or visually impaired are disproportionately represented in the pedestrian population.

Pedestrian signs can and should be made accessible for pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired.

The following information is from "Take Back Your Streets-How to Protect Communities from Asphalt and Traffic," written by Steve Burrington et al (e-mail: sburrington@clf.org). It was first published in 1995 by the Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, and updated in January 1998 ($10.00; 617-350-0990); the text can be found at http://www.tlcnetwork.org. It was shared on the pednet listserve by Werner (e-mail: Werner.Lohe@state.ma.us).

The likelihood that a pedestrian will be hit increases at higher speeds because a motorist's ability to take in the surrounding environment is more limited. At a speed of 30 miles per hour, a motorist has a field of vision ("peripheral vision angle") spanning approximately 150 degrees, and will fix his or her vision about 1,000 feet ahead. At 60 miles per hour, the motorist's field of vision is reduced by two-thirds to 50 degrees, and the motorist will fix his vision at 2,000 feet. (6) What this means in daily life is that motorists driving at 25 mph or faster have difficulty perceiving that a pedestrian is ready to cross a street, deciding to slow down, and actually doing so. The normal driver usually decides to speed up, assuming that another car will stop. (7)Thus, from the point of view of pedestrian safety, widening a roadway is counter-productive. The probability of a pedestrian being killed (when hit) is 3.5 percent when a vehicle is traveling at 15 miles per hour but increases more than tenfold to 37 percent at 31 miles per hour, and increases to 83 percent at 44 miles per hour. (8) Pedestrian injuries also increase in severity with vehicle speed. As a 1994 treatise puts it, an injury's severity "depends primarily on the car's speed at impact with the pedestrian." The treatise ranks injuries on a scale of 1 (no injury) to 6 (fatality), and states that, in general, injury severity is 1.5 at 20 miles per hour, 4 at 30 miles per hour, and 6 at speeds greater than 35-40 miles per hour. (9)

6. Limpert, R., Motor Vehicle Accident Reconstruction and Cause Analysis, p. 546 (Charlottesville, VA: Michie Company, 4th ed. 1994).

7. Untermann, Richard, Accommodating the Pedestrian: Adapting Towns and Neighborhoods for Walking and Bicycling, p. 175 (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1984).

8. Limpert, at 66 9. Ibid. at 66

Accessible pedestrian signals provide information in non-visual format, which includes audible tones or verbal messages, and/or vibrotactile information.

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-99-6576] RIN 2125-AE72

Revision of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; Temporary Traffic Control

Part II

4D.3 Provisions for Pedestrians

Support:

Chapter 4E contains additional information regarding pedestrian signals.

Standard:

The design and operation of traffic control signals shall take into consideration the needs of pedestrians, including those with disabilities, as well as vehicular traffic.

If engineering judgment indicates the need for pedestrian provisions for a given pedestrians or other non-motorist movement, signal faces conveniently visible to pedestrians shall be provided by pedestrian signal heads or a signal face for an adjacent vehicular movement.

Guidance:

Safety considerations should include the installation, where appropriate, of accessible pedestrian signals that provide information in non-visual format (including audible tones, verbal messages, and/or vibrotactile information). Provisions for accessible signals are presented in Sections 4E.6 and 4E.8.

Where pedestrian movements regularly occur but are low in volume, pedestrians should be provided with sufficient time to cross the roadway by adjusting the traffic control signal operation and timing to continually provide sufficient crossing time or by providing pedestrian detectors.

Option: If it is desirable to prohibit certain pedestrian movements at a traffic control signal, a NO PEDESTRIAN CROSSING sign (R9-3a, R9-3) may be used. (see Section 2B.36.)

4E6. Accessible Pedestrian Signals

Support:

The primary technique that people who have visual disabilities use to cross streets at signalized locations is to initiate their crossing when they hear the traffic alongside them begin to move, corresponding to the onset of the green interval. The effectiveness of this technique is reduced by several factors including: increasingly quiet cars, right turn on red (which masks the beginning of the through phase), complex signal operations, and wide streets. Further, low traffic volumes make it difficult for pedestrians who have visual disabilities to discern signal phase changes.

Local organizations providing support services to pedestrians who have visual and/or hearing disabilities can often act as advisors to the engineer when consideration is being given to the installation of devices to assist such pedestrians. Orientation and mobility specialist or similar staff might be able to provide a wide range of advice. Information might range from assessing the needs of a single individual to commenting on the operation of proposed devices.n3

n3 For guidance relative to techniques for making pedestrian signal information accessible to persons with visual impairment, including directly audible tones, transmitted speech messages, and vibration, refer to U.S. Access Board Document A-37b "Accessible pedestrian Signals" and the Federal Highway Administration.

Standard:

When used, accessible pedestrian signals (see Section 4D.3) which provide information in non-visual format (including audible tones, verbal messages, and/or vibrotactile information), shall be used in combination with pedestrian signal timing. Accessible pedestrian signals shall clearly indicate the direction of the pedestrian crossing served by devices, such as the tactile arrows.

Under stop-and-go operations, accessible pedestrian signals shall not be limited in operation by the time of day or day of week.

Guidance:

The installation of accessible pedestrian signals at signalized intersections should be based on an engineering study, which should consider the following factors:

a. Potential demand for accessible pedestrian signals.

b. A request for accessible pedestrian signals.

c. Traffic volumes during times when pedestrians might be present; including periods of low traffic volumes or high turn-on-red volumes.

d. The complexity of traffic signal phasing.

e. The complexity of intersection geometry.

Support:

Technology that provides different sounds for each non-concurrent signal phase has frequently been found to provide ambiguous information.

Standard:

When choosing audible tones, possible extraneous sources of sounds (such as wind, rain, vehicle back-up warnings, or birds) shall be considered in order to eliminate potential confusion to pedestrians who have visual disabilities.

Guidance:

Audible pedestrian tones should be carefully selected to avoid misleading pedestrians who have visual disabilities when the following conditions exist:

a. Where there is an island that allows unsignalized right turns across a crosswalk between the island and the sidewalk.

b. Where multi-leg approaches or complex signal phasing require more than two pedestrian phases, such that it may be unclear which crosswalk is served by each audible tone.

c. At intersections where a diagonal pedestrian crossing is allowed, or where one street receives a WALK indication simultaneously with another street.

Standard:

When accessible pedestrian signals have an audible tone(s), they shall have a tone for the WALK interval. The WALK interval tone shall have a faster repetition rate than the associated pushbutton locator tone. The audible tone(s) shall be audible from the beginning of the associated crosswalk.

Support:

A pushbutton locator tone is a repeating sound that informs approaching pedestrians that they are required to push a button to actuate a WALK signal and that enables pedestrians who have visual disabilities to locate the pushbutton. (See Section 4E.8)

Guidance: The accessible WALK signal tone should be no louder than the locator tone, except when there is optional activation to provide a louder signal tone for a signal pedestrian phase. (See Section 4.E.8)

Automatic volume adjustment in response to ambient traffic sound level should be provided up to a maximum volume of 89dB. n4 Where automatic volume adjustment is used, tones should be no more than 5dB louder than ambient sound.

n4 Measurement of Highway-Related Noise, FHWA-PD-96-046, DOT-UNTSC-FHWA-96-5. Available through the National Technical Information Service, see Preface.

Standard:

When verbal messages are used to communicate the pedestrian interval, they shall provide a clear message that the WALK interval is in effect, as well as to which crossing it applies.

The verbal messages that is provided at regular intervals throughout the timing of the WALK interval shall be the term walk sign," which may be followed by the name of the street to be crossed.

A verbal message is not required at times when the WALK interval is not timing, but, if provided:

a. It shall be the term "wait."

b. It need not be repeated for the entire time that the WALK interval is not timing.

Option: Accessible pedestrian signals that provide verbal messages may provide similar messages in languages other than English, if needed, except for the terms "walk sign" and "wait."

Standard:

A vibrotactile pedestrian device communicates information about pedestrian signal phasing through a vibrating surface by touch.

Vibrotactile pedestrian devices, where used, shall indicate that the WALK interval is in effect, and for which direction it applies, through the use of a vibrating directional arrow or some other means.

Guidance:

When provided, vibrotactile pedestrians devices should be located next to, and on the same pole as, the pedestrian pushbutton, if any, and adjacent to the intended crosswalk.

4E.8 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Detectors

Standard:

At accessible pedestrian signal locations with pedestrian actuation, each pushbutton shall activate both the WALK interval and the accessible pedestrian signals.

Guidance:

At accessible pedestrian signal locations, pushbuttons should clearly indicate which crosswalk signal is actuated by each pushbutton. Pushbuttons and tactile arrows should [*73671] have high visual contrast. n5 Tactile arrows should point in the same direction as the associated crosswalk. At corners of signalized locations with accessible pedestrian signals where two pedestrian pushbuttons are provided, the pushbuttons should be separated by a distance of at least 3 meters (10 feet). This enables pedestrians who have visual disabilities to distinguish and locate the appropriate pushbutton.

n5 See Department of Justice Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design.

Pushbuttons for accessible pedestrian signals should be located as follows:

a. Adjacent to a level all-weather surface to provide access from a wheelchair, and where there is an all-weather surface, wheelchair route to the ramp.

b. Within 1.5 meters (5 feet) of the crosswalk extended.

c. Within 3 meters (10 feet) of the edge of the curb, shoulder, or pavement.

d. Parallel to the crosswalk to be used (see Figure 4-9).

If the pedestrian clearance time is sufficient only to cross from the curb or shoulder to a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait and accessible pedestrian detectors are used, an additional accessible pedestrian detector should be provided in the median.

Standard:

Pushbutton locator tones shall be highly locatable and shall repeal at one-second intervals.

Guidance:

Pushbuttons should be audible locatable. Pushbutton locator tones should be intensity responsive to ambient sound, and be audible 2 to 4 meters (6 to 12 feet) from the pushbutton, or to the building line, whichever is less.

Pushbutton locator tones should be no more than 5 dB louder than ambient sound.

Pushbutton locator tones should be deactivated during flashing operation of the traffic control signal.

Option: At locations with pre-timed traffic signals or non-actuated approaches, pedestrian pushbuttons may be used to activate the accessible pedestrian signals.

The audible tone(s) may be made louder (up to a maximum of 89dB) by holding down the pushbutton for a minimum of 3 seconds. The louder audible tone(s) may also alternate back and forth across the crosswalk, thus providing optimal directional information.

The name of the street to be crossed may also be provided in accessible format, such as braille, or raised print.

See Illustration on Page 73672 of Original Document. [*73673]

4E.9 Pedestrian Intervals and Phases

Standard:

When pedestrian signal heads are used, a WALK indication shall be displayed only when pedestrians are permitted to leave the curb or shoulder.

A pedestrian clearance time shall begin immediately following the WALK indication. The pedestrian clearance time shall consist of a pedestrian change interval during which a flashing DON'T WALK indication shall be displayed.

At intersections equipped with pedestrian signals, the pedestrian signal indications shall be displayed except when the vehicular traffic control signal is being operated as a flashing device. At those times, the pedestrian signal indications shall not be displayed.

Guidance:

The walk interval should be at least 7 seconds in length so that pedestrians will have adequate opportunity to leave the curb or shoulder before the pedestrian clearance time begins.

The pedestrian clearance time should be sufficient to allow a pedestrian crossing in the crosswalk to leave the curb or shoulder and travel at a normal walking speed of 1.2m (4 feet) per second, to at least the far side of the farthest traveled lane or to a median of sufficient width for a pedestrian to wait. Where significant numbers of pedestrians who walk slower than normal routinely use the crosswalk, a walking speed of less than 1.2 (4 feet) per second should be considered in determining the pedestrian clearance time.

Option: An alternative to using a lower walking speed to determine the pedestrian clearance time is to employ the use of passive pedestrian detection equipment in the crosswalks. Such equipment can detect pedestrians who need more time to complete their crossing. The equipment extends the length of the pedestrian clearance time for that cycle to allow pedestrians to complete their crossing before cross traffic begins.

Guidance:

Where the pedestrian clearance time is sufficient only for crossing from the curb or shoulder to the median, additional measures should be considered, such as median-mounted pedestrian signals, staggered crosswalks, or additional signing.

Option: Pedestrian clearance time may include the yellow change interval, if used, and the red clearance interval, if used.

If pedestrian volumes and characteristics do not require a 7-second walk interval, walk intervals as short as 4 seconds may be used.

On a roadway with a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait, a pedestrian clearance time that allows the pedestrian to cross only from the curb or shoulder to the median may be provided.

During the transition into preemption, the walk interval and the pedestrian change interval may be shortened or omitted as described in Sections 4D.13 and 8C.6.

Support:

The walk interval itself need not equal or exceed the pedestrian clearance time calculated for the roadway width, because many pedestrians will complete their crossing during the pedestrian clearance time.

Public rights of way, including pedestrian facilities, are required by federal law to be accessible to people with disabilities, including those who are blind or visually impaired. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a civil rights statute that prohibits discrimination against people who have disabilities. Under the ADA, designing and constructing facilities that are not usable by people with disabilities constitutes discrimination. Failure to make facilities accessible during alterations constitutes discrimination. In addition, failure to make the benefits of government programs, activities, and services available to people who have disabilities because existing facilities are inaccessible is also discrimination. Title II, subpart A, of the ADA covers state and local government services, including the design and construction of buildings and facilities and the operation of government programs. Street, sidewalk, and shared-use path construction that is funded wholly or in part with federal monies is also subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, both of which prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

New Construction - 28 CFR 35.151(a)

Any facility or part of a facility that is newly constructed by a state or local government must be designed and constructed so that it is readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. This requirement applies to any construction that was begun after January 26, 1992. Facilities under design on January 26, 1992 are included if the date that bids were invited for the construction was after January 26, 1992.

Alterations - 28 CFR 735.151(b)

Alterations to existing facilities must include modifications to make the altered area accessible to individuals with disabilities. The U.S. Department of Justice implementing regulation (28 CFR 735.151) defines an alteration as a change that "...affects or could affect the usability of a facility or part of a facility." In Kinney v. Yerusalim, the court held that if a street is to be altered to make it more usable by the general public, it must also be made more usable for those with disabilities.

Existing Facilities - 28 CFR 35.150

Government facilities which were in existence prior to the effective dates of the ADA and which have not been altered must achieve 'program access.' That is, the program must, when viewed in its entirety, not deny people with disabilities access to government programs and services. The obligation to provide architectural access to existing state and local government facilities is based on first determining whether program access to government programs and activities can be provided without the need to make structural modifications. If program access cannot be provided without structural modification, structural modifications must be made. A pedestrian circulation system-- sidewalks, street crossings, shared-use paths in the public right-of-way--is a program that a local government provides for its citizens. And it is the general availability of this program to people with disabilities that must be evaluated when considering the existing pedestrian environment. However, full compliance with facility standards developed for new construction and alterations may not be required to achieve program access. With respect to the installation of curb ramps, for example, DOJ's Title II Technical Assistance Manual notes that curb ramps may not be required at every existing walkway if a basic level of access to the pedestrian network can be achieved by other means, e.g., the use of a slightly longer route. Similarly, it will take time to install accessible pedestrian features at existing intersections. Municipalities should develop a plan for their installation such that pedestrian routes are, when viewed in their entirety, accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired within reasonable travel time limits.

In the old days traffic lights made traffic easier by making the environment highly predictable. Lights changed like clockwork because they were clockwork. Big gears turned in the controller boxes and the gears clicked into place with an audible click. Cars with big V8's roared from their rumbling rests and announced the light change that the box click had predicted. With the mass move to the suburbs, the advent of computers and the simultaneous explosion of the number of cars on the road, things began to change. Although the idea of actuation is nearly as old as the car itself, cheap reliable computer power, combined with pressure to move traffic as efficiently as possible, has made the actuated intersection an increasingly common feature in the life of the American pedestrian. So... a brief overview of the details of the new reality.

There are two main types of controllers used to switch traffic lights, pretimed and traffic- actuated. Pretimed (fixed time) traffic lights operate with a predictable, regularly repeated sequence of signal indications. Signals rotate through a definite cycle in a constant fashion but may change at different times of day, such as during rush hours. Most signals used to be of this type. They are still very common in downtown areas because traffic volume is predictable, stable and fairly consistent.

The clockwork itself is mostly gone though, replaced by silent computer chips. At traffic-actuated intersections, the lights respond to the traffic that is present. For example, if there is no traffic in the left turn lane, the left turn arrow will not function during that cycle. If there is only one car in the northbound lanes, the light may be green only for enough time to allow that car to cross the intersection.

The semi-actuated intersection is the most common type you are likely to encounter. They are very common once you are beyond the downtown areas of the city, usually when a minor street crosses a major one. It is called semi-actuated because the minor street, and only the minor street, has sensors or detectors in it. The engineer's goal here is to maximize efficient and safe traffic movement. Therefore, the major street has a green light unless there is a car waiting on the minor street. That car triggers a detector and eventually will be given a green light. If there were no cars there, the light would never turn green! More cars = Longer light! One car = Shorter light! Sometimes as short as 7 seconds!

If the intersection was designed for pedestrian use, there may be a pedestrian walk/don't walk signal. To get a walk signal, you must push the pedestrian button to get a special longer pedestrian timing. Especially when the main street is very wide, the green phase programmed for a single car will not be long enough to allow a pedestrian to safely cross the street. In that situation, it is essential for the pedestrian to push the pedestrian button in order to have enough time to walk across the street.

Rather than seven seconds for a single car, a pedestrian may get 20 seconds or more to cross the same street, but only if the intersection "knows" the pedestrian is there.

One variation of a semi-actuated intersection occurs when both streets are large. Turn lanes on both streets may also have sensors in them which can affect intersection timings and phases markedly. Fully actuated intersections are relatively rare and occur where two streets meet and there are detectors on all approaches. These are typically two very busy streets. It is also possible for a street or intersection to operate on a pre-timed basis at some times and on fully actuated or semi-actuated control at other times. Also, in case of construction damage to the actuators or computer failure, the intersection will usually revert to pre-timed.

The possible variations make it important to call your local traffic engineer to get the details when using an unfamiliar intersection. Learn the theory and "jargon" so that you can solicit the information from traffic engineers.

In some cases there may be a pedestrian button but no pedhead (see definitions below). In that case the pedestrian timing will apply, but there is no separate information provided. In other cases there is a pedestrian button and a pedhead. The messages provided by the pedheads are so widely misunderstood by the general public that they are worth a review here.

The WALK interval is generally only 4 to 7 seconds long. That is, the signal only says WALK (or shows the illustration of a walking person) for that long. The pedestrian is expected to leave the curb during this interval but is allocated a much longer period to make it across the street.

When a flashing DON'T WALK or ORANGE HAND is visible, it is the "pedestrian clearance interval." It lasts much longer than the WALK interval. It is often misunderstood, but the intent of flashing DON'T WALK is to discourage pedestrians from starting to cross when there is insufficient time to complete the crossing. The pedestrian who is in the middle of the street generally has time to complete the crossing after the flashing DON'T WALK begins.

The solid DON'T WALK signal occurs after the flashing DON'T WALK in conjunction with the vehicular yellow signal. Pedestrians should have cleared the intersection at that point. There is also a "change interval" where the light is red in all directions.

Definitions and Technical Information

Below are some definitions of common terms as used by traffic engineers.

Phase and cycle, in particular, have precise definitions. It may be helpful for you to understand these terms in talking to a traffic engineer about an intersection.

Pedhead: the "walk/don't walk" signal, usually a square box type signal on a pole, aligned to be visible to sighted pedestrians from the crosswalk

Ped button: the button that you push (sometimes called the ped detector), which may be difficult to locate at some intersections, but is usually on the same pole as the pedhead

Pedcall: What happens when you push the button. It signals the signal controller box that there is a pedestrian at the intersection.

Ped Phase: what you get for pushing the button (the ped phase is designed to be a long enough time to walk, rather than drive, across the intersection).

Cycle: the time required for one complete sequence of light changes (phases)

Phase: a part of a signal cycle allocated to any combination of one or more traffic movements receiving the right of way at the same time, for example, the westbound phase, the pedestrian phase

Interval: a portion of the signal cycle during which the signal indications remain unchanged, for example, the pedestrian walk interval, the pedestrian clearance interval

Split percentage of the cycle length allocated to each of the various phases.

Components of traffic-actuated signal

A traffic-actuated signal has four main components: detectors, controller unit, signal heads (the traffic lights), and connecting cables. The most common type of detector is an "induction loop" where a loop of metal wire is embedded in the pavement, and then covered with waterproof putty to prevent weather damage. These "loops" may be diamond shaped, rectangular, square or round, and are usually at least 5 feet on a side. They are often, but not always, visible. An electric current is passed through the loop. When a vehicle travels over the detector, its metallic mass changes the inductance of the loop, notifying the controller unit of the vehicle's presence.

The pedestrian "detector" is generally the ped button; however, there are some other types of detection systems being developed.

[Editor's Note: Reverend Taliaferro's adventures, which she described first in her postings to the ACB email listserve, began when she left the home of a friend after a routine visit, late one afternoon toward the end of February. We asked Jo for permission to publish her story in the Braille Forum because her experiences are ones that so many of us can relate to.]

Recently, I had an experience with my incredible guide dog and our local transit authority which I'll never forget. My adventure began when I was escorted by my friend, a cane user, to a very busy street. My friend explained that I was standing on the northeast corner of the intersection. I understood that I should cross to the southwest corner and face west where I could catch my bus going north.

Yes, there was a traffic light, but I took my time, making sure it was safe to navigate the first part of the confusing and unfamiliar crossing. As I was gaining my bearings, a woman grabbed me and tried to force me bodily into the street. The harder I tried to convince her that I preferred to manage on my own for the safety of my dog and myself, the more she aggressively interfered.

"Come on, come on, it's safe," she said, as I heard cars turning in front of me! I could feel the fear and anger rising in me and wanted to scream bloody murder at this outrage! I knew that my dog was distressed and traffic was all around me. I dropped the harness, praising Whitley as I gritted my teeth. Horns honked and my friend, witnessing my struggle from the curb where I had been minutes before, tried to demand that she let go of me but the woman was absolutely deaf to our pleas. When we got to the east side of the intersection and I still had one more crossing to make, I pulled free of the woman and made a supreme effort to do some educating. But the woman had vanished.

I choked back tears. I had been in partnerships with dogs for 25 years so why this? My heart was in my throat as Whitley and I walked across a quieter street to the bus stop sign which was not identifiable by bench, shelter or change in sidewalk texture. I regained some composure and hugged my dog, thankful that I could expect the next leg of our journey to be uneventful.

I climbed aboard the bus, told the driver where to let me off and he proceeded to tell me where I should sit! I went instead to a forward-facing seat deeming that to be safer for the dog and more convenient for other passengers. No stops were called and the driver claimed that his ennunciator system was not working! Apparently his mouth was not fully engaged either and I had the impertinence to wonder about his eyesight as well. I did manage to reach the stop I had requested thanks to alert passengers. The driver said in answer to my query about a traffic light, "Yeah, you're okay to cross here."

Knowing I was on the same extremely busy street I had been so unceremoniously dragged across before, I asked for assistance getting lined up with the light in order to make my crossing. The driver refused to get out of his seat and I stepped from the bus to the sound of one more cacophony of whizzing traffic and turning vehicles. I was standing on grass and unable to find a safe place to cross the street.

I knew that if I walked north I would reach yet another crossing with only a stop sign. Had there been a pedestrian light there, I could easily have walked the mile to my house.

I concluded that the corner was so rounded that I wouldn't be able to line up properly to make a safe crossing. Gathering my reserves of courage and the harness handle of the best dog in the whole world, I turned to walk south keeping my traffic on my right so I could slog through the mud and slush along the busy thoroughfare in search of a human being, a sidewalk, ANYTHING which would serve as a landmark to guide us. We found only more brambles, melting snowbanks and a large dose of weariness.

Not wanting to project more stress on Whitley, and knowing there must be a traffic light ahead, I praised her, reassured her saying, "Good girl! We're almost there! We can do this!"

I'm a pastor by profession and I'm not supposed to lie but the truth was, I had no idea when we would come to rest and be able to head back north toward home.

On we sloshed. I knew there was another traffic light ahead but just as before, there was no indication that could assist me in making a safe journey to a familiar street. It was so close and yet so far!

We traveled onward, feeling fatigued and worried. It was getting later and later. Whit guided me around brambles, mud holes, gnarled trees and eventually to a strip of pavement! We had unwittingly rounded another very wide curve and were now walking East! It was only afterward that I understood why there were no people and why I had to be so careful to keep my parallel traffic on my right! We had passed a cemetery and a golf course so it was no wonder I wasn't feeling up to par because we were in a desperately grave situation! I hoped that my sense of humor would see me through till I could sob with mixed emotions in my own bath tub!

Hearing cars moving a little more slowly and sensing we were near civilization, I prayed for the smell of a McDonald's, the sound of a door, the stamina to keep on keeping on. My cell phone had died long before--probably back at the cemetery--so I relied on Whitley's good judgment and survival instincts.

We were rewarded by a friendly voice asking if we needed help. I requested assistance in crossing a street but once on the other side, nothing felt right! The gentleman assisting us asked what he could do so I told him I wanted to call a cab. I was trying not to let my stress show but it was obvious that I had little energy left. I was a 62-inch, mud-spattered rag-a-muffin and I knew Whitley was grimy and soggy.

The stranger, vacationing in my town and not familiar with the area offered us a ride. I hesitated. Who was he? Where would he take us if we got in his car? I wanted to get home, not once again lost, frightened, raped or killed.

I asked some questions, got his driver's license, realized that he was a dog lover and made the decision to take him up on his willingness to get us home. He helped me into his car and I gave him directions to my house while he described landmarks and supplied street names. When we reached my house, I offered to pay him and he refused. I then directed him back the way he came and waited outside my front door until he had gone. Then, a very muddy dog and a bespattered woman headed for the basement where I saw to Whitley's needs, groomed her and gave her a meal fit for a queen, raw carrots and treats included. As for me, I threw my sopping clothes on the basement floor, jumped into my birthday suit and headed for a bubble bath and soapy tears of relief, gratitude, love for a well-educated dog and life itself!

Jo Taliaferro has written to the president of the Board of Directors of her local transit authority offering to help educate bus drivers, office staff, scheduling coordinators and the general public concerning safe travel for people who are blind or visually impaired. In her role as advocate, she has called both the city office of traffic engineering as well as the state of Michigan transportation safety engineers to request audible traffic signals where street crossings are life-threatening for a pedestrian who is blind or visually impaired.

The city office indicated, in response to her request, that audible signals are placed where great numbers of people would be crossing a street and not just one or two people. Neither office seemed to have a clue about how to solve the problem. Such a request had never been made before according to the offices of traffic safety and putting up accessible signals would be very costly. One traffic technician said, "No one is really concerned about pedestrian safety any more."

Jo wishes to express her gratitude to all who provide competent mobility instruction and believes her dog and her training school deserve praise beyond words!

Below are some safety tips for blind travelers, from one who has been there!

1. Carry a cell phone when traveling and make sure the battery is charged!

2. Follow your instincts if you accept help from a stranger.

3. Try not to project your own fear onto your dog so the dog can do the job it was trained to do.

4. Remember that consistency and lots of work with a dog in familiar places become assets when you are lost.

5. Following a terrifying experience, it is crucial for you and your dog to pull yourselves up by the harness handle and take a walk so as not to become paralyzed by the fear and stress of a traumatic situation.

6. Be an advocate for pedestrian safety for all people as well as accessible public transportation.

The American Council of the Blind (ACB) surveyed 163 pedestrians who are legally blind regarding their experiences in independently crossing at intersections with and without audible pedestrian signals. Surveys were administered orally to 154 persons in groups who were attending conventions in Florida (30), Virginia (24), and California (100). Responses were by a show of hands. Surveys were administered orally and individually to 9 persons in various locations in Pennsylvania. The number of respondents for each question varied from 128 to 159.

Respondents indicated that they sometimes had difficulty knowing when to begin crossing (difficulty hearing surge of traffic on street beside them), which they attributed to one or more of four reasons.

The surge was masked by right turning traffic 91% (144 of 158)

Traffic flow was intermittent 86% (132 of 154)

The intersection was too noisy 81% (125 of 154)

The surge of traffic was too far away 65% (98 of 152)

Respondents indicated that they sometimes had difficulty traveling straight across the street, for one or more of the following four reasons.

Difficulty figuring out where the destination corner was 79% (101 of 28)

Veered because there was no acoustic guideline (parallel traffic) 75% (119 of 159)

Veered because the street was too wide 70% (112 of 159)

Confused by unexpected features such as medians or islands 85% (138 of 155)

Respondents had experienced one or more of the following problems with pushbuttons.

Couldnt tell whether they needed to push a button 90% (142 of 158)

Had difficulty locating the pushbutton 87% (137 of 158)

Couldnt tell which crosswalk was actuated by the pushbutton 81% (127 of 157)

Push button was so far from the corner that they couldnt push the button and then return to the crosswalk and prepare for crossing before the WALK interval began 78% (122 of 157)

Respondents had experienced one or more of the following eight difficulties with existing accessible pedestrian signals.

The signal was too quiet 71% (112 of 158)

Couldnt tell which crosswalk had the WALK signal 68% (107 of 158)

The signal was too loud 45% (71 of 158)

Couldnt remember which of two sounds was associated with crossing in a particular direction 27% (42 of 158)

Confused by the sound of an APS for another intersection 19% (30 of 158)

Couldnt localize the sound of an APS and use it for guidance6% (10 of 158)

Crossed street with an actual bird instead of bird call signal 4% (7 of 158)

Didnt cross because they thought the signal was an actual bird3% (4 of 158)

8% (12 of 158) of respondents had been hit by a car.

29% (45 of 158) of respondents had had their cane run over.

62% (98 of 158) of respondents have gotten part way across an intersection and realized that the light has changed against them.

36% (57 of 158) of respondents try to avoid crossing unfamiliar signalized intersections.

17% (26 of 158) of respondents limit their travel to familiar areas due to the complexity of intersections.

34% (22 of 158) of respondents have one or more audible pedestrian signals in the area where they live.

20% (24 of 128) of respondents were aware of the existence of local guidelines for the installation of audible pedestrian signals.

The frequency of experiencing any of the above problems is influenced by many factors, including the environment in which respondents live, and their own travel experiences. Therefore the percentages reported here cannot be generalized to all environments or to all blind pedestrians. In addition, respondents were asked only whether they had sometimes experienced particular problems. Their responses did not reveal whether the problem was experienced rarely or frequently. Therefore the results are only suggestive of the relative frequencies with which blind pedestrians experience difficulties at intersections.

The percentage of respondents who sometimes experienced various problems is not necessarily the same as the perceived severity or importance of those problems. For instance, a blind pedestrian may have difficulty locating pushbuttons but consider this a less important problem than being unable to determine which crosswalk is actuated by a pushbutton because the difficulty of locating a pushbutton is not normally life-threatening, while pushing the wrong button to cross a street may lead to crossing with the wrong signal. Therefore, respondents were also asked to indicate the one problem in each of four categories which they considered most important.

The two problems considered most important in knowing when to cross were: 1)right turning traffic masked the surge of parallel traffic-71% (91 of 128) and 2)traffic was intermittent-13% (16 of 128).

The two problems considered most important in crossing straight across the street were 1)getting confused by an unexpected feature such as a median strip or island-57% (62 of 108), and

2)not knowing where the destination corner was located-18% (19 of 108)

The two problems related to pushbuttons, which were considered most important were: 1)knowing whether there was a pushbutton-58% (57 of 98) and 2)they had trouble finding the pushbutton-15% (15 of 98).

The two problems considered most important in using APS were: 1) the APS was too quiet-36% (24 of 67), and 2)they had difficulty remembering which sound was for which direction 21% (14 of 67).

California is the only state which has specifications for APSs. Bird-call type signals are recommended and are widely used throughout California, although several other types of signals are used in a few cities. Elsewhere in the US, there is less uniformity in signal type. The bird-call type signal, sounding cuckoo for north/south crossings, and peep-peep for east/west crossings, is intended to convey to blind pedestrians unambiguous information about which street has the WALK signal. To obtain data on the success of this strategy, responses of Californians (100) vs non-Californians (63) were compared for two questions.

Seventy eight percent of Californians (78 of 100) and 50% (29 of 58) of non-Californians indicated they sometimes did not know which crosswalk an APS was for. Twenty-five percent of Californians (25 of 100) and 29% (17 of 158) of non-Californians indicated they sometimes couldnt remember which sound was for which direction. Therefore, despite the greater use of and familiarity with bird-call type signals in California, which are intended to clearly indicate which street at an intersection has the WALK interval, blind pedestrians in California report a particularly high incidence of problems in deciding which street an APS is for.

This may be partly a result of forgetting which signal is associated with which direction. Other possible causes include being unaware of either the direction in which they are traveling or the compass orientation of the intersection.

Forgetting which signal is associated with which direction was considered the most important APS problem by 23% (10 of 44) of Californians who indicated a most important problem with APSs vs 17% (4 of 23) for non-Californians, and difficulty deciding which crosswalk an APS indicates has the WALK signal was considered the most important APS problem by 14% (6 of 44) of Californians and 30% (7 of 23) for non-Californians.

Since many Californians, who are primarily familiar with bird- call type signals, indicated that they had difficulty determining which street had the walk signal and a number of Californians indicated that they considered difficulty determining which street had the walk signal to be the most important problem in using APSs, this survey indicates that a bird-call type signal is of no particular advantage in conveying information about which crosswalk at an intersection has the WALK signal.

(Editor's Note) Although this survey was published over a decade ago, it remains the most comprehensive piece of research on audible pedestrian signals to date. The technology that now runs these signals has undergone many changes, including signals that provide tactile and verbal cues making accessible pedestrian signals more flexible. The English language has done a bit of evolving too in the last ten years. However, the issues of more complicated intersections and the necessity for traffic engineers to create innovative traffic control patterns and devices to move an ever increasing number of motor vehicles through them while endeavoring to safeguard the right of pedestrians to move in these intersections as well are, if anything, more complex and potentially dangerous than they were in 1988 when this survey was published. Portions of the survey excerpted for publication in this handbook were chosen primarily to give credence to the following three points:

1. Most individuals who are blind or severely visually impaired believe that they benefit from the information provided to them by accessible pedestrian signals just as sighted individuals benefit from the information provided to them by pedestrian signals.

2. Most mobility instructors who are familiar with accessible pedestrian signals believe they provide useful information.

3. Accessible pedestrian signals are beneficial to all pedestrians.

*** Surveys of organizations and mobility instructors, showed their blind and low vision members or clients liked the signals for the feeling of safety the signals gave them. Instructors support the use of audible traffic signals as an additional cue to the traffic cues blind pedestrians are taught to use.

*** Organizations serving blind and low vision members or clients are better acquainted with audible signals than those serving primarily senior citizens. More than three-quarters of the organizations that have a position on the audible signals support their use and most of the survey respondents have communicated with their members or clients about them.

*** Organizations, orientation and mobility specialists, and educational counselors report their clients or students typically like the signals and find them helpful at intersections with inadequate traffic cues. Clients particularly liked knowing when the WALK signal is on and in being alerted to changes in the traffic signal cycle. They reported that they felt safer using audible signals when crossing streets.

*** Several respondents reported that partially sighted persons like the audible signals because they don't have to focus on the traffic lights and can concentrate on the vehicles. Two commented that the signals give clients more time to cross the street.

*** None of the college and university counselors expressed opposition to the audible signals. One respondent said she thought the signals were "wonderful."

*** The responses showed support for audible signals by school mobility instructors who teach their high school students to use the signals and by college counselors in programs for students with disabilities. College students, sighted and blind, report liking the signals and blind faculty members at two colleges support having them. Instructors supported locating the signals at intersections without adequate traffic cues.

*** Additional comments from the college and university counselors included the following:

o Blind, low vision, and sighted students like the audible signals.

o Some low vision students find them distracting at first, but learn to use them.

o Staff at several universities are actively supporting installation of additional signals in their communities.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Educational institutions have the opportunity to inform all members of the student body and the faculty and staff in matters of pedestrian safety, including the use of audible signals. Not only blind students benefit from instruction in use of traffic cues for safe travel. The educational institutions, as community resources, could instruct or otherwise inform citizens in their locales about safe pedestrian travel, including the use of audible signals, as a community service. This could be carried out either alone or in cooperation with local public safety offices and community service organizations.

*** One of the first U.S. cities to have Nagoya audible signals was Salt Lake City, Utah. There, the City Traffic Engineer reported that in the two years before the 1980 installation of audible signals at six intersections, there were a total of 22 pedestrian accidents. In the two years following installation of audible signals, at the same intersections there were only nine pedestrian accidents.

*** The signals were installed with city funds at the request of the Braille Institute. The Braille Institute acknowledges that there is some disagreement among teachers of the blind whether the signals are helpful to their blind clients but it reports that the clients tend to like the signals. City staff reports that there were complaints about the noise of the signals when they were first installed but that there has been no complaints recently. Vandalism is reported to have been minimal.

*** The city (Norwalk) has received comments of appreciation from blind residents who have requested additional installations of audible signals.

*** The audible signals can be useful to the older adults and persons with low vision who have difficulty in seeing the pedestrian WALK signals, in addition to helping persons who are blind. The survey results showed that blind and low vision persons find the audible signals a useful tool in helping them to cross streets more safely.

*** Location: The existing traffic signal equipment, the uses of the property at the intersection, and the complexity of the intersection itself are of importance. Concentration of pedestrians and heavy traffic flow at the intersection are additional factors. Inconsistent traffic cues, resulting from uneven traffic flow or irregular intersection configuration, can impair the blind persons ability to cross safely. Wider streets, especially those with islands or medians, are more difficult for persons crossing who do not walk as quickly as younger or sighted persons.

*** The general public seems to like them. The signals are good for elderly persons and persons who become blind because of an accident or illness.

*** One national organization, the National Federation of the Blind and its California chapters are opposed to the installation of audible signals.

In Oakland, the Mayor's Commission on Disabled Persons holds that installation of audible signals is a "504" issue. That is, if traffic control information such as the words WALK and DONT WALK is available to sighted pedestrians, then this information must be made available to blind and vision impaired persons through some means such as the audible signals. The American Council of the Blind, a national organization, and the California Council of the Blind support the use of audible signals.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, states: "No otherwise qualified handicapped individual ... shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ..." Section 54 of the State of California Civil Code states: "Blind persons, visually handicapped persons, and other physically disabled persons shall have the same right as the able-bodied to the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, public facilities, and other public places."

TEA-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, was signed into law on June 9, 1998. TEA-21 reauthorizes federal surface transportation legislation formerly entitled the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). It has been called the largest public works legislation in U.S. history, authorizing $217.5 billion in transportation funding over the next six years.

The law, as originally enacted, was designed to promote the safe and efficient mobility of goods and people, including people with disabilities, while mitigating congestion and pollution by striking a balance between the federal investment in highways and the federal investment in mass transit. Advocates for public transportation struggled to maintain this balance during the ISTEA rewrite. Overall, this balance was maintained and there was approximately a 50 percent increase in funding for both highway projects and mass transit over previous authorization levels. Only part of the funds authorized, however, are guaranteed. Part of the funds are subject to the annual appropriations process. Thus, public transportation advocates must work every year to educate their representatives to ensure that maximum funds are appropriated for public transportation.

There are a number of provisions in TEA-21 that are important to people who are blind or visually impaired.

The purpose of this article is to provide advocates at the state and local levels with the information and references to use in local advocacy efforts. It is up to local advocates to make accessibility projects a priority with local planners.

Pedestrian access

Section 1202 of TEA-21 requires that bicyclists and pedestrians, including pedestrians with disabilities, be given due consideration in the comprehensive transportation plans developed by each metropolitan planning organization and state. This section further provides that "Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities, except where bicycle and pedestrian use are not permitted." Additionally, TEA-21 provides that transportation plans and projects must provide due consideration for safety and contiguous routes for bicyclists and pedestrians. Safety considerations must include the installation, where appropriate, and maintenance of audible traffic signals and audible signs at street crossings. While this section does not specify where audible street crossing technology must be installed, its inclusion in this section of the legislation means that projects to install such technologies are eligible for federal matching funds of at least 80 percent.

ACB is serving on an advisory committee of the Institute of Transportation Engineers to establish guidelines for the installation of accessible pedestrian technologies. Advocates will have to work at the local level to ensure that funds are applied to making street crossings accessible. The Access Board has recently completed a report summarizing the accessible pedestrian technologies currently available. To obtain a copy, call: 1-800-USA-ABLE (873-2253).

Section 1202 of TEA-21 calls for design guidelines to be developed by the Secretary of Transportation, in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and other interested organizations, on the various approaches to accommodating bicycles and pedestrian travel. The guidance must include recommendations on amending and updating the policies of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials relating to highway and street design standards to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. ACB will work to ensure that the new design guidelines consider the access needs of blind and visually impaired pedestrians.

Advocates must remember that TEA-21 is authorizing legislation. Most of the access provisions are not mandates, they are merely authorizations for federal matching funds. Local planners will determine which projects will have federal funds applied to them. To learn how you can get involved in seeing that TEA-21 funds are used to make pedestrian and public transportation access a reality in your area, contact your metropolitan planning organization (MPO) or your state Department of Transportation. You can also contact your regional office of the Federal Transit Administration to learn how to get involved in the TEA-21 planning in your area. Contact information for FTA regional offices can be found on the FTA web site, http://www.fta.dot.gov. For more information and updates, visit the following web sites: http://www.dot.gov, http://www.transact.org, http://www.istea.org.

Takes the position that whenever an accessible pedestrian signal is installed at a signalized intersection, such a signal be installed at all legs of the intersection at which a pedestrian signal is provided, except to the extent that doing so would be inconsistent with safety and access.

WHEREAS, the American Council of the Blind has long advocated for the fulfillment of the goal of insuring that people who are blind or visually impaired have full access to information provided by pedestrian signals; and

WHEREAS, it is not uncommon for public entities, for reasons which have nothing to do with safety or access concerns, to install accessible pedestrian signals at some, but not all, of the legs of an intersection at which pedestrian crossings are provided; and

WHEREAS, this practice can lead to confusion among blind and visually impaired pedestrians as to when and where to make a safe crossing; and

WHEREAS, this practice also has the potential for increasing public entity liability;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the American Council of the Blind in convention assembled this 8th day of July, 1999 at the Airport Westin Hotel, Los Angeles, California, that it is the position of this organization that whenever an accessible pedestrian signal is installed at a signalized intersection, such a signas be installed at all legs of the intersection at which a pedestrian signal is provided, except to the extent that doing so would be inconsistent with safety and access.

Supports the accessible pedestrian signal language approved by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, calls for its usage in all future installations of accessible pedestrian signals, continues the support of the American Council of the Blind (ACB) for the installation of accessible pedestrian signals, and urges completion of the additional research needed to develop the necessary accessible pedestrian signal guidance and standards.

WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act guarantees the right of access to information to persons with disabilities; and

WHEREAS, the American Council of the Blind has at least 25,000 members who are blind or visually impaired; and

WHEREAS, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) provides that "Transportation plans and projects . . . shall include the installation, where appropriate, and maintenance of audible traffic signals and audible signs at street crossings"; and

WHEREAS, many signalized intersections provide information to pedestrians with sight that is not provided to pedestrians with visual impairments; and

WHEREAS, accessible pedestrian signals have been widely used for more than 15 years in countries including Austria, Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Sweden, and the United Kingdom and are considered by traffic engineers to be widely effective, not only in providing information to blind and visually impaired pedestrians, but also in decreasing general pedestrian delay and facilitating vehicular flow at signalized intersections; and

WHEREAS, increasing numbers of quiet, alternatively fueled vehicles, including electric vehicles, and increasing numbers of quieter internal combustion engines make acoustic information from traffic inconsistent, resulting in the inability of pedestrians who are blind to reliably detect the onset of the WALK interval by listening for a surge of traffic; and

WHEREAS, inexpensive technologies exist to make accessible pedestrian signals which are automatically responsive to ambient sound, being very quiet at night and in low traffic situations, while still loud enough to be heard above vehicular sound in high traffic situations; and

WHEREAS, the American Council of the Blind (ACB) has been actively involved with efforts to develop national guidance and standards for accessible pedestrian signals, streets and intersections, working with the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board), National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Institute of Transportation Engineers, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Transportation Research Board, and Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired, Blinded Veterans Association and accessible pedestrian signal manufacturers; and

WHEREAS, these efforts have resulted in the development of resources, such as the Access Board's Publication A-37 on Accessible Pedestrian Signals, the draft United States Department of Transportation/Access Board's "Accessible Rights of Way: A Design Manual", ACB's Pedestrian Handbook, ACB's "Recommended Street Design Guidelines for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired" and the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Accessible Pedestrian Signal language (4E.6 - 4E.8); and

WHEREAS, these publications represent a laudable first step toward developing standards which will advance access of persons who are blind and visually impaired to traffic signal information, and thereby also increase the awareness of traffic engineers of the needs of blind and visually impaired pedestrians; and

WHEREAS, these efforts have identified specific areas where further research is needed prior to the development of additional guidance and standards; and

WHEREAS, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program is charged with assisting the U.S. DOT and other transportation organizations in meeting these research needs;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the American Council of the Blind, in convention assembled this 7th day of July, 1999 at the Airport Westin Hotel, Los Angeles, California that ACB support the accessible pedestrian signal language approved by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices in Orlando, Florida in June, 1999 and call for its usage in all future installations of accessible pedestrian signals; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that ACB continue to actively support the installation of accessible pedestrian signals and urges the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Cooperative Highway Research Program and other transportation organizations to support the additional research needed to develop the necessary accessible pedestrian signal guidance and standards.

WHEREAS the Americans with Disabilities Act guarantees the right of access to information to persons with disabilities; and

WHEREAS many signalized intersections provide information to pedestrians with sight which is not provided to pedestrians with visual impairments; and

WHEREAS it has been demonstrated (Crandall, W., Bentzen, B.L., and Myers, L., 1998) that competent, independent, blind pedestrians at unfamiliar signalized intersections may initiate as many or more than 34% of crossings during the clearance or DON'T WALK intervals if those intersections are not equipped with accessible pedestrian signals; and

WHEREAS accessible pedestrian signals have been widely used for more than 10 years in countries including Australia, Japan, Sweden, and the United Kingdom and are considered by traffic engineers to be widely effective not only in providing information to blind pedestrians but also in decreasing general pedestrian delay and facilitating vehicular flow at signalized intersections; and

WHEREAS increasing numbers of quiet vehicles, including electric vehicles and those with quiet internal combustion engines, make acoustic information from vehicles inconsistent, resulting in the inability of pedestrians who are blind to reliably detect the onset of the WALK interval by listening for a surge of vehicles; and

WHEREAS inexpensive technologies exist to make Accessible Pedestrian Signals which are automatically responsive to ambient sound, being very quiet at night and in low traffic situations, while still loud enough to be heard above vehicular sound in high traffic situations; and

WHEREAS accessible vibrotactile and speech transmission signal systems exist which add no noise to the environment; and

WHEREAS the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century provides that "Transportation plans and projects ... shall include the installation, where appropriate, and maintenance of audible traffic signals and audible signs at street crossings";

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, this 12th day of July, 1998, in the city of Atlanta, Georgia, that the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER) urges the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and Transport Canada to develop recommended practices for installation of pedestrian signals which make information which is regularly provided to other pedestrians, accessible to pedestrians who are visually impaired, including but not limited to: information specifying WALK and DON'T WALK intervals; information indicating the presence and location of push-buttons; and information unambiguously indicating the street to which the signal applies.

Unanimously approved.

WHEREAS traffic engineers are increasingly utilizing signal systems in which the only safe time to cross signalized intersections is provided in response to pedestrian use of a push button; and

WHEREAS persons who are visually impaired consistently identify location of the push button as a major problem they experience at pedestrian actuated intersections (American Council of the Blind survey, 1998; Uslan, M., 1988; and Tauchi, M., Sawai, H., Takato, J., Yoshiura, T., and Takaeuchi, K., 1998); and

WHEREAS persons who are visually impaired often have insufficient time when pedestrian push buttons are far from associated crosswalks, to actuate push buttons and then prepare to cross before the onset of the WALK interval (American Council of the Blind survey, 1998; San Diego Association of Governments, 1998; Uslan, M., 1988); and

WHEREAS unobtrusive technologies exist for providing information in accessible format, specifying the presence and location of push buttons;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this 12th day of July, 1998, in the city of Atlanta, Georgia, that the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER) urges the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and Transport Canada to develop standards for push button location technology such as quiet audible locator tones, and to require the placement of newly installed pedestrian pushbuttons in close proximity to the top landing of the curb ramp serving that crossing, within accessible reach range for use from a wheelchair, and near enough to the curb line that persons with visual impairments can actuate the push button and then align and prepare for crossing before the onset of the WALK interval.

Unanimously approved.

WHEREAS the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA- 21) authorizes federal matching funds for the installation of audible traffic signals and audible signs at street crossings; and

WHEREAS the safety of blind pedestrians will be greatly enhanced by the installation of such audible traffic signals and audible signs where appropriate; and

WHEREAS Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandates the accessibility of all programs, services and facilities of state and local governments;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Dominion Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired in annual convention assembled on this first day of November, 1998, in Arlington, Virginia, that this organization strongly urges the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and other applicable planning and policy making organizations to give a high priority to the installation of audible traffic signals and audible signs throughout the commonwealth; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be sent promptly to the heads of said organizations.

This is an excellent written exposition on the subject of accessible pedestrian signals. The topics covered in this document are:

1. Accessible Pedestrian Signals

2. Information Requirements at Intersections

3. Accessible Traffic Signal Technologies

4. Characteristics of Accessible Pedestrian Signals

5. Determining When to Install Accessible Pedestrian Signals

6. Specifying Accessible Pedestrian Signals

7. Installing Accessible Pedestrian Signals

8. Pedestrian Detection Technology

9. Matrix: APS Functional Characteristics

10. APS Product Sources Sources of Information

You can order this report free of charge, in large print, on disk or in regular print, through the U.S. Access Board by phone by calling 1-800-872-2253 and requesting publication A37 or through e-mail at: pubs@access-board.gov Accessible Pedestrian Signals

PRODUCT FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

[Characteristics of eleven products are described in a matrix format, giving the following information for each product.]

1. Type of product: Speaker mounted in the ped-head (visual pedestrian signal); transmitter mounted in the ped-head; or push- button integrated

2. Audible walk signal characteristics: voice; bell; buzzer; birdcalls; ticker; or tones

3. Sound volume: fixed; variable by the installer; automatically varying in relation to ambient sound level; variable by the user; or audible only at user request

4. Presence of an audible locating tone for a pedestrian push button

5. Presence of a special walk onset tone at the beginning of the walk interval

6. Presence of a vibrating walk signal

7. Actuation indication: either a light or a tone to indicate that a pedestrian has pushed the button to request a walk interval

8. Tactile information: either an arrow to indicate which street a push button controls, or additional tactile information about street geometry

9. Street name

For each product below, this text version will state whether the characteristic is a standard feature or is optional. Information on product sources follows this text.

Campbell/Panich Push button integrated-standard; tones-standard; voice or birdcalls-optional; automatically variable volume- standard; actuation indication (light)-optional; tactile arrow- standard.

Georgetown Push button integrated-standard; buzzer-optional; actuated only when button is depressed for at least three seconds-optional; audible locating signal-optional; vibrating walk signal-standard; tactile arrow-standard.

Intersection Development Corporation Speaker mounted on or in the ped-head-standard; birdcalls (cuckoo and chirp to indicate which crosswalk has the walk interval)-standard; automatically variable volume-standard.

Mallory Speaker mounted on or in the ped-head, providing either birdcalls or tones-standard; fixed sound volume-standard. This product is a component for a ped-head.

Novax Industries Speaker mounted on or in the ped-head-standard; birdcalls-standard; optional sounds include voice, bell, buzzer, ticker, and tones; sound volume can be set by installer within maximum and minimum limits, and then automatically variable volume-standard. A separate push button product actuates an audible signal only when the button is depressed for at least three seconds.

Polara Engineering Push button integrated-standard; tones- optional; vibrating walk signal-standard; audible locating signal-optional; tactile arrow-standard; street name in braille and raised print-standard; street geometry information-optional. This product retrofits an existing push button.

Prisma Teknik Push button integrated-standard; tone-standard; voice-optional; sound volume set by installer within maximum and minimum limits, and then automatically variable volume-standard; audible locating signal-standard; vibrating walk signal-optional; actuation indicator (light and tone)-standard; tactile arrow- standard; tactile crosswalk map-optional.

Relume Ped-head mounted transmitter-standard. Speech message says "Proceed with caution" during walk interval, and "Don't walk" during clearance and don't walk intervals. Requires hand- held receiver.

STN Atlas Speaker mounted near ped-head-standard; WALK tones- standard; automatically variable volume-standard; audible locating signal (ticker)-standard.

Talking Signs Ped-head mounted transmitter-standard. Repeating speech message says "Walk sign" and street name during walk interval, and "Wait" and street name during clearance and don't walk intervals. Volume variable by user. Requires hand-held receiver.

Wilcox Sales Speaker mounted on ped-head-standard; birdcalls- standard; sound volume variable by installer-standard; automatically variable volume-optional. APS PRODUCT SOURCES

Compiled by Billie Louise Bentzen, Ph.D. and Lee S. Tabor, AIA

Bob Panich Consultancy Pty. Ltd.
48 Church Street
P.O. Box 360
Ryde NSW 2112
Australia
Voice: 612 9809 6499
Fax: 612 9809 6962
E-mail: panich@enternet.com.au
Website: people.enternet.com.au/~panich
Product: Audio Tactile PB

Dick Campbell Company
1486 NW 70th Street
Seattle, WA 98117
Voice: (206) 782-1991
Fax: (206) 782-2092
E-mail: dickcampbell@seanet.com
Product: Audio Tactile PB

Georgetown Electric, Ltd.
2507 West Second Street
Wilmington, DE 19805
Voice: (302) 652-4835
Fax: (302) 652-6447
Product: VIPB

Intersection Development Corporation
9300 East Hall Road
Downey, CA 90241
Voice: (800) 733-7872 or (562) 923-9600
Fax: (562) 923-7555
Website: www.idc-traffic.com
Product: APS-10

Mallory/North American Capacitor Co.
P.O. Box 1284
Indianapolis, IN 46206-1284
Voice: (317) 273-0090
Fax: (317) 273-2400
Product: VSB 110

NOVAX Industries Corporation
658 Derwent Way
New Westminster BC V3M 5P8
Canada
Voice: (604) 525-5644
Fax: (604) 525-2739
Website: www.novax.com
Product: DS-100

Polara Engineering, Inc.
4115 Artesia Avenue
Fullerton, CA 92833-2520
Voice: (714) 521-0900
Fax: (714) 522-8001
E-mail: polaraeng@aol.com
Product: TPA

Prisma Teknik AB
P.O. Box 5, S-543 21
Tibro
Sweden
Voice: (46) 504 150 40
Fax: (46) 504 141 41
E-mail: info@prismateknik.se
Website: www.prismateknik.com
Product: Prisma TS

Relume Corporation
64 Park Street
Troy, MI 48083
Voice: (248) 585-2640 or (888) 773-5863
Fax: (248) 585-1909

STN Atlas Electronik GmbH
Behringstrasse 120
D 22763 Hamburg
Germany
Voice: (49) 40 88 25 2155
Fax: (49) 40 88 25 4111
Product: AUDIAM

Talking Signs, Inc.
812 North Boulevard
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Voice: (888) 825-5746 or (504) 344-2812
Fax: (504) 344-2811
E-mail: ward@talkingsigns.com

Wilcox Sales Company
1738 Finecroft Drive
Claremont, CA 91711-2411
Voice: (909) 624-6674
Fax: (909) 624-8207

The Problem

Down curbs used to be the only information needed to tell blind pedestrians in urban and suburban areas that they had arrived at intersecting streets. Since the 1960's, however, increasing attention to sidewalk accessibility for persons who cannot negotiate curbs has resulted in the replacement of curbs by clearly defined curb ramps at some intersections and blended curbs at others. (Traffic engineers may refer to blended curbs as depressed corners or raised intersections.)

Early Solutions

Japan was the first country to make up for the information lost by removal of curbs by the addition, beginning in the 1960's, of a warning surface detectable both under foot and by use of the long cane, to provide an unmistakable cue for blind pedestrians that they have reached the limit of the sidewalk and are about to step into the street. They function like a stop sign for blind pedestrians, saying, in effect, Theres a hazard directly in front of you. Check it out before going further. While neither the surface configuration nor its placement were standardized, most of the Japanese surfaces intended to be warnings had a surface configuration of domes-the precursor of what is now the detectable warning surface of truncated domes specified in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) (4.29.2) for transit platform edges. Most warning surfaces were placed on the lower end of curb ramps. They have now been used for 40 years and are NOT considered in Japan to be too difficult or expensive to install and maintain, too slippery, impossible to use where there is snow, or to cause problems for persons with mobility impairments or the general public.

In England, a warning surface having a standardized pattern of truncated domes referred to as modified blister paving has been recommended for use in specified locations and dimensions on curb ramps and blended curbs since 1983. It is now common throughout England.

The US Recognizes the Problem Official recognition in the US that curb ramps could handicap persons having visual impairments came with publication of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard A117, dealing with accessibility, in 1980. What were then referred to as tactile warnings were specified for the entire surface of curb ramps and a 36 in (915 mm) wide strip was specified along the entire edge of blended curbs, referred to as hazardous vehicular ways. Because this standard was quite vague and because not much research had yet been done to identify surfaces that were reliably detectable both under foot and by use of the long cane, many locations started requiring that curb ramps be grooved in various ways. Some also installed fancy pavers on or outlining curb ramps in the belief that they would provide adequate cues for identifying the ends of sidewalks and the beginning of streets. Subsequent research has repeatedly demonstrated that these modifications are not highly detectable to blind pedestrians. They only help some of the people some of the time. The Only Recommended Warning Surface The only surface which has repeatedly been demonstrated to be detectable most of the time to blind pedestrians either under foot or by the use of a long cane is the truncated dome detectable warning surface now required on transit platform edges. It is, therefore, the only surface we know of which is sufficiently detectable to be considered as a cue to mark the end of the sidewalk and the beginning of the street.

ADA Requirements ADAAG 4.29, adopted as a US standard in 1991, required the installation of detectable warnings on the entire surface of curb ramps, and required a 36 inch wide strip at hazardous vehicular ways (blended curbs) extending for the full distance at which the curb and street were at the same level. The requirement for detectable warnings at curb ramps and hazardous vehicular ways quickly became one of the most controversial provisions of ADAAG. Blind persons opposing detectable warnings at intersections claimed that they were unnecessary, no research having been conducted which demonstrated that remaining, non-visual, clues were insufficient to enable blind travelers to detect streets reliably when they were approached via curb ramps or blended curbs.

Research to Identify the Problem Two subsequent research projects (Bentzen & Barlow, 1995, and Hauger, Safewright, Rigby & McAuley, 1994) confirmed that, not surprisingly, removal of the single reliable cue to the presence of an intersecting street, that is, the down curb, did result in the inability of even skilled, frequent blind travelers to detect some streets. Bentzen and Barlow found that on 39% of approaches to unfamiliar streets, blind travelers using a long cane failed to detect the presence of an intersecting street before stepping into it; this was true even when there was traffic on the intersecting street. Bentzen and Barlow also found that failure to detect streets was highly correlated with slope of the curb ramp and with the abruptness of change in angle between the approaching sidewalk and the curb ramp. Both projects (Barlow & Bentzen, 1995, and Hauger et al., 1994) found that street detection was more likely when curb ramps were at the apex of a corner than when they were in the line of travel. Hauger et al. also found that apex curb ramps were more likely to lead to unsuccessful street crossings.

Detectable Warnings May be Helpful to Most Persons with Mobility Impairments Bentzen (1994), (also Bentzen, Nolin, Easton, Desmarais & Mitchell, 1993; Bentzen, Nolin, Easton, Desmarais & Mitchell, 1994b), and Hauger et al. (1994) found that truncated dome detectable warnings on slopes or curb ramps had little effect on safety and negotiability for persons having mobility impairments in comparison with concrete curb ramps. In fact, Hauger et al. found that persons with physical disabilities generally considered curb ramps having detectable warnings to be safer, more slip resistant, more stable, and to require less effort to negotiate than concrete curb ramps. Both teams of investigators found, however, that a small minority of persons having physical disabilities were affected adversely by detectable warnings.

Recommendation

Barlow and Bentzen (1995) concluded by recommending that, as a compromise solution, only 24 in (610 mm) of truncated dome detectable warnings be installed along the bottom of curb ramps, as that amount had previously been demonstrated to be sufficient to enable detection and stopping on most approaches. This is the current recommendation of ACB and of the Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER). The consensus (one dissenting vote) of a workshop on curb ramps and detectable warnings which was conducted by Project ACTION for the US Access Board on June 4 and 5, 1995 was that no additional research on detectable warnings was needed, and detectable warnings 24 inches wide should be required at the bottom of curb ramps. There are now a number of truncated dome products available for installation on curb ramps in various climates and conditions.

References:

American National Standards Institute (1980). American national standard for buildings and facilities: Providing accessibility to and usability for physically handicapped people (A117.1). New York: American National Standards Institute.

Bentzen, B.L. & Barlow, J.B. (1995). Impact of curb ramps on safety of persons who are blind. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 89, 319-328.

Bentzen, B.L.; Nolin, T.L.; Easton, R.D.; Desmarais, L. & Mitchell, P.A. (1993). Detectable warning surfaces: Detectability by individuals with visual impairments, and safety and negotiability for individuals with physical impairments. Final report VNTSC-DTRS57-92-P-81354 and VNTSC-DTRS57-91-C-0006. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, and Project ACTION, National Easter Seal Society.

Bentzen, B.L.; Nolin, T.L.; Easton, R.D.; Desmarais, L. & Mitchell, P.A. (1994b). Detectable warnings: Safety & negotiability on slopes for persons who are physically impaired. Federal Transit Administration and Project ACTION of the National Easter Seal Society.

Hauger, J.S., Safewright, M.P., Rigby, J.C. & McAuley, W.J. (1994). Detectable warnings project: Report of field tests and observations. Final Report to US Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

(Editor's Note) These companies sell a variety of products. Be sure that ADAAG compliance is one of the criteria of the selection process.

Applied Surfaces
1545 Jefferson Street
Teaneck, NJ 07666
Ph: (201) 836-5552
Fax: (201) 836-0346

Castek, Incorporated
20 Jones Street
New Rochelle, NY 10801
Ph: (800) 321-7870 or (914) 636-1000
Fax: (914) 636-1282

Cobblecrete
485 West 2000 South
Orem, UT 84058
Ph: (800) 798-5791 or (801) 224-6662
Fax: (801) 225-1690
Website: www.cobblecrete.com

Crossville Ceramics
P.O. Box 1168
Crossville, TN 38555
Ph: (931) 484-2110
Fax: (931) 484-8418
Website: www.crossville-ceramics.com

Detectable Warning Systems-manufacturer Disability Devices-distributor
17420 Mount Hermon
Scotts Valley, CA 92708
Ph: (714) 437-9237 or (800) 747-5651
Fax: (714) 437-9309

Disability Devices Distributor
17420 Mt. Hermann Street, #C
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Ph: (714) 437-9237 or (800) 747-5651
Fax: (714) 437-9309

Engineered Plastics, Incorporated
300 Pearl Street, #200
Buffalo, NY 14202
Ph: (800) 682-2525 or (716) 842-6039
Fax: (800) 769-4463

Hanover Architectural Products, Incorporated
240 Bender Road
Hanover, PA 17331
Ph: (717) 637-0500
Fax: (717) 637-7145
Website: www.hanoverpavers.com

Increte Systems
8509 Sunstate Street
Tampa, FL 33634
Ph: (800) 752-4626 or (813) 886-8811
Fax: (813) 886-0188
Website: www.increte.com

Specialty Concrete Products
P.O. Box 2922
West Columbia, SC 29171
Ph: (800) 533-4702 or (803) 955-0707
Fax: (803) 955-0011
Website: www.scpusa.com

Steps Plus, Incorporated
6375 Thompson Road
Syracuse, NY 13206
Ph: (315) 432-0885
Fax: (315) 432-0612
Website: www.steps-plus.com

Strongwall Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 201
Ridgewood, NJ 07451
Ph: (800) 535-0668 or (201) 445-4633
Fax: (201) 447-2317
Website: www.strongwall.com

Summitville Tiles, Incorporated
P.O. Box 73
Summitville, OH 43962
Ph: (330) 223-1511
Fax: (330) 223-1414
Website: www.summitville.com

Transpro Industries, Incorporated
20 Jones Street
New Rochelle, NY 89701
Ph: (800) 321-7870 or (914) 636-1000
Fax: (914) 636-1282

Whitacre-Greer Fireproofing Company
1400 S. Mahoning Avenue
Alliance, OH 44601
Ph: (800) WGPAVER or (330) 823-1610
Fax: (330) 823-5502

Note: The following letter illustrates the kind of op-ed piece that can be very effective when sent to a local newspaper.

THE NEW KILLING FIELDS; AMERICA'S INTERSECTIONS.

On June 12, 1999, Bethel Mines and her husband Raymond were struck by a delivery vehicle that left Bethel dead. Raymond now lies in the hospital in critical condition. Six months ago a man in Virginia named Joe was killed by a cable company van. Less than a year ago Carolyn Garret, who lived in Texas, was struck and killed on her way to a Christian School where she was studying to be a counselor. All of these people and many more who could be mentioned had one thing in common; they were blind. Moreover, each of them had lives and families. Each of them had their joys and sorrows like the rest of us and each of them died in America's new killing fields as they simply dared to cross an intersection.

Each year approximately 5,000 pedestrians die from being struck by vehicles. When viewed over time, this is roughly the same rate of killing of our soldiers in Vietnam. How does our public reaction differ? Remember how hundreds of thousands marched on Washington and conducted massive rallies around the nation to protest the war. Now today, how many have rallied to protest this killing?

The American Council of the Blind is a national consumer organization that has been working day and night to prevent as many needless deaths of blind pedestrians as we possibly can. The disproportionate rate of blind and visually impaired pedestrians being killed or maimed has caused us to work with traffic engineers and other pedestrian groups to stop the carnage. While we have made some real progress in getting public officials to recognize the value of accessible traffic signals that can be located, heard and used by blind folks, and while our law suits have gotten safety warning strips at subway and other platforms; more and more pointless deaths will happen until our society truly considers the following.

We have surrendered our communities to faceless bureaucracies and distant politicians who orient themselves to the ever growing demands of vehicular traffic and urban sprawl. Their decisions are made to move traffic along with ever more complex intersection design and with ever decreasing attention to the pedestrian infrastructure. From so called roundabouts where pedestrians have to make eye contact with drivers and "claim the intersection", to multi-angular crossings with complex traffic patterns; these decision makers consistently put pedestrians at risk. A truly lethal gamble that only increases with blindness.

Why do we let it happen? Until our child, parent, spouse, relative or friend is struck, it's just a tragic accident. Combine this with disappearing sidewalks where folks once met each other as they walked and talked as neighbors and it is easy to understand how we simply continue to lose the personal contact with each other that once reinforced the fabric of our society and gave meaning and action to concern for others. Now we rely upon more impersonal ways of communicating that distance us from the full realities and make tragedy an abstraction.

We can never fully stop all pedestrian accidents. We can however re-engineer our environment to prevent the bulk of them and rebuild an America based upon people knowing people. For all the folks who have died and for those who remain at risk, isn't it time we do it?

We can get in touch with our local politicians and ask them about why sidewalks are not available. We can get in touch with our local traffic engineers and ask them what they are doing to create accessible signalized intersections for blind folks and safer traffic patterns for all. We can get in touch with our community leaders at our churches and philanthropic organizations to ask them how we and they can make a difference. We can most of all get in touch with ourselves to ask the question; do we care enough to stop the killing and help rebuild our community?

The American Council of the Blind and other pedestrian safety groups cannot bring back Bethel, Carolyn, Joe or all the others. We can, however, ask you to join with us in protecting and celebrating life and community rather than looking the other way. Call us in Washington at (202)-467-5081 or visit our web site at www.acb.org and take a look at our pedestrian safety link.

Please help. It's not just blind folks who are relying upon you. It's children, everyday adults and seniors who need a safe community in which to grow, contribute and live.

Charles H. Crawford
Executive Director

In Arlington, Va., police chief Edward Flynn stepped out of his office in the county court house, exited and met with a small group gathered outside, which included an orientation and mobility instructor, representatives of the local media, and a handful of blind and visually impaired people. After speaking with the group, and getting some quick instruction from the O&M instructor, he slipped off his glasses, slid on a blindfold, grabbed the cane and said nervously, "Let's go."

With the instructor by his side, the media ahead, and the group of blind and visually impaired people behind, he negotiated the walk from his office building to the corner of N. Courthouse Road and 15th Street. He stopped, listening for traffic.

Overhead an airplane flew noisily in the direction of National Airport; across the street came the sounds of construction, including an extremely loud jackhammer. Along the street, passengers in cars gawked out their windows; other pedestrians stopped and took a second look. Still Flynn waited, listening through three changes of the traffic light to be sure it was safe. Only then did he cross.

When he was safely across the street, he took off the blindfold, put his glasses back on, and told how he felt. "[You] try to do the right thing and listen to the traffic, but all you can hear is the jackhammer," he noted. Flynn hadn't realized how hazardous the intersection was until he couldn't see it. At first, he'd been worrying about stumbling, tripping and falling. But, "I stopped worrying about making a fool of myself and started worrying about getting from point A to point B." All in all, he said, it was "quite a dramatic lesson."

Arlington County, he said, is trying to make intersections more pedestrian friendly, but it will take a while. The county is growing, and getting more cars and pedestrians. Longtime residents know they're supposed to yield the right-of-way to blind pedestrians, but there are so many residents from other places who don't know that's what they're supposed to do. "Nobody's got air bags in their pockets," he said. The county has implemented a program to try to reduce the number of accidents that occur in it.

(Editor's Note: This portion was reprinted from the ACB of Indiana "Focus.")

In Indiana, Nellie Kelly learned that one person can make a difference. She wrote a letter to the editor of the "Evening World" addressing the fact that the current Indiana Motor Vehicle Handbook fails to address state and federal laws concerning yielding the right-of-way to blind pedestrians. As a result of her letter, and contact with state officials, the next revision of the driver's manual will find the appropriate changes being made to address Kelly's concerns. In her letter, she explained, "Those of us who are blind or visually impaired, yet are able to be fairly independent with just a little consideration of others, would appreciate having the right-of-way law brought to the attention of all motorists. None of us will dart into a street without first ascertaining, to the best of our ability, whether or not a car is approaching. This is sometimes made difficult by cars parked nearby with the motor running, or a car may veer around a corner without slowing." The current driver's manual instructs drivers only to "respect" pedestrians with a white cane or guide dog, but state law requires that "A person who drives a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a blind pedestrian carrying a white cane or accompanied by a guide dog."

She also sent the letter to state representative Vern Tincher and the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Kelly later received a reply from BMV Director of Driver Service, Linda M. Datzman, who wrote, "While the current wording references any individual who may have difficulty in crossing streets, including the blind, I agree with your concern as to requirements by law. In that regard, I will make appropriate changes to the driver's manual with the next revision."

Part I
Information Packet

Use the materials in this handbook as well as information made available on the ACB Web Site and through the national office. Be sure to know these materials well. Copy and highlight cogent passages to clarify and give weight to your points before those to whom you are making your presentation.

Be sure to include the following:

1. A concise overview outlining the need for accessible intersections, i.e. intersection identification and access to traffic control information.

2. Anecdotal information outlining the need for accessible intersections with an emphasis on that provided by local residents who are blind and severely visually impaired as well as professionals in the field of orientation and mobility; references to state laws governing all pedestrians as well as to the state's White Cane Law if there is one; anecdotal information outlining how these laws are not enforced.

3. Statements from local law enforcement officers as to the difficulties in enforcing these laws.

4. A concise statement outlining how ongoing changes in controlling the ever-growing flow of traffic impacts pedestrian access to intersections, especially pedestrians who are blind and severely visually impaired.

5. A list of funding sources, especially the TEA-21 funding stream.

Part II
Actions To Be Taken

1. Determine ahead of time those intersections that are the best candidates for detectable warnings and accessible pedestrian signals. Choose those that are traversed often and by more than one individual if possible. Be sure that the intersection exemplifies problematic access areas so that it can be used as a model or precedent for making intersections like it accessible. Accessibility problems of one intersection will center more around identifying its exact location via a detectable warning strip. Another intersection will have such complicated and unpredictable traffic patterns that accessible pedestrian signals will be crucial in making it accessible to blind and visually impaired pedestrians. Of course, many intersections will need both location identification and access to traffic control information. If you are not offered the whole access package, be sure to think out the pros and cons of risking the loss of what you are offered against what you can gain if your gamble pays off. Remember that often the most successful advocates decide to take what they can get now to meet a real and present need and use the success of that program to launch further program development. When you are known as one who works from the sphere of compromise, the hard line that you must take on a particular issue will carry more weight with the legislators and/or department heads with whom you are advocating.

2. Recruit individuals who are willing to carry out any or all of the following tasks: write letters and informational documents, sign petitions, make telephone calls, visit local and state authorities, testify at hearings and participate in meetings, become part of a delegation attending such hearings and meetings, and coordinate transportation and presentations before state and local authorities.

3. Make good use of the informational packet. Remember that without a written document requiring a response, the meeting is much less effective.

4. Learn how the state traffic and safety authority works and become personally acquainted with that entity's leadership. Waste no opportunity to make it clear that you understand that the problems involved with pedestrian and traffic safety are an overwhelming responsibility. Whenever possible, offer solutions and resources that will assist in creating solutions.

5. Work with the state Motor Vehicle Administration to insure that there are appropriate questions in the driver's test booklet regarding pedestrian rights, especially the rights of those who use the cane or a guide dog.

6. Make friends in local police departments, presenting the issues in a manner that will make them their issues too, establishing the membership of these officers on your team.

7. Make friends with state and local representatives via individuals who live in their districts if possible. Recruit these representatives to assist the delegation to work with all appropriate authorities to implement pedestrian laws and to make intersections identifiable by the installation of detectable warning strips and navigable via accessible traffic signals.

8. Be sure to determine whether or not laws governing pedestrian rights are sufficient and are enforced as passage of new legislation should be a last resort. Remember that any bill accompanied by a fiscal note makes legislators nervous.

9. Use the press release especially when there is a positive movement on any of these issues. Assign credit to those who have assisted since public figures, especially politicians, love to see their names in print. When positive publicity is involved, staff assistance will be happily provided to help with the creation and publication of the press release.

10. Build bridges based on cooperation and compromise, entering the process with a clear vision of core areas on which no compromise can be entertained. Until the contrary is proved, treat every individual as an honorable person in need of education. Bridges can always be burned with fire fueled by demand and outrage should that be necessary. Much is accomplished when your issues become the issues of those with whom you are working and the benefits often bear positive fruit for years.

Good luck!

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE SAFETY OF PEDESTRIANS AND NON-MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVELERS

Be it enacted by the House of Representatives and the Senate and by the authority of the same, that there shall be a new chapter XX in the laws entitled The Pedestrian Safety and Non-Motor Vehicle Travelers Act.

Findings.

The growth of population and resulting urban and suburban sprawl has created: 1) the breaking down of the pedestrian sidewalk and street crossing infrastructure, 2) ever more dangerous intersections for especially visually impaired and elderly persons traveling on foot, and 3) increased difficulty for all pedestrians and non-motor vehicle travelers to make their way to their destinations.

Unless governmental assistance is provided, the pedestrian environment will virtually disappear as a realistic entity due to the failure to construct sidewalks and other pathways, the dangerous use of uncontrolled and inaccessible intersections, and the neglect of maintaining the existing pedestrian infrastructure.

It is therefore necessary to review and improve the existing pedestrian infrastructure and to newly construct pedestrian ways and intersections where required to provide for the safe and efficient travel of pedestrians and those who do not use motor vehicles to commute from one place to another. This task must be accomplished over a period of years. It must utilize a planned approach that prioritizes areas to be improved. Once the cycle of all state political subdivisions has been completed, then a continuing monitoring, maintenance and expansion function will be necessary.

Section 1. Definitions.

All terms in this Act shall have their plain English meanings unless otherwise defined as follows:

The abbreviation "PSC" shall mean the Pedestrian Safety Commission.

The term "Accessible" refers to the ability to have access to and the use of intersections, sidewalks, signaling devices and other constructions and designs encountered in the exercise of being a pedestrian or non-motor vehicle traveler with or without a disability.

The term "accessible signaling" means:

* the placement of pedestrian walk signaling devices next to the crosswalks at all corners of an intersection operable from a wheelchair in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines;

1. which devices shall have a low volume locating tone which can be heard six to twelve feet on approaching the device,

2. which devices shall have tactile and large print color contrasted information as to the direction the signaling will ultimately authorize the pedestrian in which to walk,

3. which device shall allow the user to depress the walk button for longer than three seconds which shall in turn raise the volume of the eventual audible walk signal,

4. which device shall provide a different vibration to those relying upon tactile communication to know when it is safe to walk, and

5. which device shall in association with the corresponding device across the street, alternate the sounds made for the pedestrian crossing to allow the pedestrian to know where the crossing leads.

6. The term "pedestrian" defines a person either walking or using another means of conveyance which is not a motor vehicle.

Section 2. Pedestrian Safety Commission and authority and duties.

Within 180 days of the enactment of this legislation, the Governor shall appoint a Pedestrian Safety Commission, hereinafter referred to as the PSC, which shall:

A) oversee the proper planning and construction and maintenance of existing and new pedestrian walks and traffic intersections within all the political subdivisions of the state, ensuring compliance with all pedestrian provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

B) Receive and approve whether in whole or in part or as modified; comprehensive pedestrian safety plans from the political subdivisions of the state, which plans shall be due within one year of a request from the PSC and shall contain at a minimum:

1. a full analysis of the street and road grid of the covered area,

2. a comparative analysis of traffic volume at intersections located near commercial, public transport terminal, school, church and other community areas where pedestrians would likely to be crossing if sidewalk and signaling infrastructures were to be improved,

3. an analysis of those intersections where traffic volume or intersection configuration rises to the point where pedestrians cannot cross without walk signaling and other improvements,

4. a mobility analysis of how persons living within the area could reasonably walk or bicycle or use public transportation to safely and efficiently reach all other parts of the covered street and road grid,

5. a cost analysis of what improvements would be needed to equip existing intersections in descending order of priority with accessible signaling, the installation of sidewalks and bicycle pathing, including ADA compliant curb cuts, spreading back from prioritized intersections and the cost of overall maintenance of the infrastructure once completed.

C. Receive and expend appropriate sums of federal and state highway funding or revenues collected from fines of traffic violations to assist the political subdivisions in funding allowed plans of improvement and maintenance, and provided further that such political subdivisions shall develop their own plans for addressing maintenance cost three years after completion of each segment of the approved plan.

D. Order the reconfiguration or redesign of intersections where the pedestrian safety is deemed to both be at too high a risk, and there are no safe and efficient alternative routes within a short distance of the unsafe intersection.

Section 3. Composition and human resource support.

A. The PSC shall have seven Commissioners of which one shall be a traffic engineer, another a representative of the elderly community expert in their pedestrian needs, another a representative of the blindness community expert in the mobility techniques used by members of that community and accessible intersection design and signage, another representative of pedestrians who use wheelchairs," another representative of the state Department of administration and Finance expert in ways and means of properly financing project operations, another representative of the bicycling community expert in the needs of non-vehicular travelers, another a high official in the state public safety law enforcement expert in community policing of traffic and pedestrian issues, and another a representative of parents with school age children expert in the pedestrian and bicycling needs of the children.

B. The Commissioners shall be appointed in staggered one, two and three year appointments which may be repeated only once over the course of ten years. The Commissioners shall not receive a salary or other compensation for the exercise of their duties beyond the normal costs of travel and other incidentals to the performance of their work.

C. The Commission shall elect its own Chair to serve on a yearly basis and shall promulgate its own rules of procedure to accomplish its mission.

D. The Commission is authorized to employ a Director and sufficient staff to properly support and accomplish the mission of the Commission at levels of competitive compensation for the ranges of expertise necessary to carry out the mission of the PSC.

Our struggle to bring about a pedestrian safe environment across America is a continuing challenge to all who have worked so diligently towards this goal. The American Council of the Blind and our thousands of members and friends who continue to keep this issue front and center rely upon the caring and goodwill of all who have provided economic support for this noble and yet expensive campaign.

You can help to financially support the preparation and printing of this handbook along with the organizational costs of supporting pedestrian safety advocacy by either selecting our donations link on our web site (www.acb.org) or by sending a check for whatever you can offer to:

American Council of the Blind 1155 15th Street, NW Suite 1004 Washington, DC 20005

All donations to ACB are tax-deductible.