The Braille Monitor January, 2001 Edition
NFB Files Minority Report to
the
PROWAAC
by
Scott C. LaBarre
 |
|
Scott LaBarre
|
From the Editor: Scott Labarre is an
attorney practicing in Denver. He and Peggy Elliott have been representing the
NFB on the Public Rights of Way Access Advisory Committee of the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. He recently wrote a minority
report expressing the Federation's position on such things as accessible
pedestrian signals and detectable warnings. Here is that report with Scott's
commentary:
In the November, 2000, issue we
reported on recent activities of the Public Rights of Way Access Advisory
Committee (PROWAAC) of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (ATBCB). As indicated in that article, the PROWAAC held a meeting in
mid-October to consider the content of its final report to the ATBCB. The
report addressed two items of major concern for the blind. As predicted in the
November article, a majority of PROWAAC members voted in favor of broad and
sweeping proposals regarding accessible pedestrian signals (APS's) and
detectable warnings, strips of textured material placed on pavement and
discernible underfoot or using a cane.
As a result of the meeting, the
Editorial Committee of the PROWAAC undertook the task of drafting the final
report to be presented to the ATBCB. At the time of this writing
(mid-December), the final report is not yet finished. However, the first draft
of that report is ninety-three pages long and contains language objectionable
to the Federation. Although the final report may be slightly different, the
proposals of most concern to the blind will not change because the votes taken
by the PROWAAC in October are final and not subject to a recount.
Minority reports were due on December
4, 2000, and the National Federation of the Blind filed such a report. Below we
have printed the NFB's minority report. Please note that the language
addressing proposed standards is not ours. Instead of rewriting the proposed
standards incorporating our preferences and employing a less unwieldy style, we
thought it best to keep the Committee's text and make our changes in it.
Additionally, I will interrupt the Minority Report to provide commentary at
points at which the original language and concepts may not be clear to those
who have not participated in the PROWAAC process over the last year.
Minority
Report
National
Federation of the Blind
Submitted
by
Peggy Pinder Elliott
and Scott C. LaBarre
Introduction
This minority report is based on the
majority report published by the Public Rights of Way Access Advisory
Committee. This report identifies sections of the majority report that the
National Federation of the Blind finds objectionable. Our text identifies the
particular section by its designation in the majority report and then provides
alternative language. Following the alternate language is a section discussing
why the Federation finds the majority's draft objectionable.
In general the National Federation of
the Blind believes that blind and visually impaired people can and do function
successfully in the built environment. Therefore it is not necessary to rebuild
or restructure the existing environment dramatically. The Federation
acknowledges, however, that there are circumstances in the built environment
which do not permit blind and visually impaired individuals to use non-visual
techniques efficiently. In such circumstances it is prudent to provide
additional non-visual cues.
Alternative
Proposals
X02.5.2.1
General. Accessible Pedestrian Signals may be provided when
the following conditions are present:
(A) Pedestrian timing is affected by
push button activation,
(B) Timing includes a lead pedestrian
interval, or
(C) Where there is a fixed time signal
with pedestrian signal indication information presented. In this instance a
push button may be provided that delivers the same information in an accessible
format.
Discussion:
The majority report states that APS's Ashall@ be required in the
above-identified circumstances. This standard is far too broad and approaches
the underlying issue in the wrong manner. The majority's standard relies upon
the type of signal being used as opposed to the type of intersection.
The primary technique that people who
are blind or visually impaired 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 light. This technique is
effective in the vast majority of situations, since the built environment
provides sufficient non-visual cues to permit proficient use of the technique.
The effectiveness of this technique can be 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 may make it difficult for pedestrians who are blind or visually
impaired to discern signal changes.
The increasing use of actuated
signals, at which the pedestrian must push a button and cross during the
pedestrian phase, requires blind pedestrians to locate the pedestrian
pushbutton and to cross only at the proper time during that phase. These
changes in signalization affect the complexity of intersections and may make it
necessary to provide the pedestrian signal information in an accessible format.
In responding to a request for an
accessible pedestrian signal at an existing intersection, traffic engineers and
other officials should first examine the overall safety of the intersection for
all pedestrians. For example, a lead-left rather than a lag-left turn may make
it much more difficult for a blind or visually impaired pedestrian to use
non-visual techniques at an intersection. Improving the safety for all
pedestrians will often provide the blind or visually impaired pedestrian with
safe and efficient access.
Additionally, engineers may find it
useful to work closely with the blind pedestrian(s) who will be using the
intersection, local organizations of the blind, local organizations providing
rehabilitation or other services to the blind, and orientation and mobility
specialists.
The alternative language permits a
much more flexible standard and is far more manageable. The majority's standard
requires APS's at a large number of intersections where blind and visually
impaired pedestrians already operate successfully and where there is no need
for additional non-visual cues. The decision to install an APS is by its very
nature an intersection-by-intersection decision. It is also of great importance
for traffic engineers to consult the local blind community and seek its input
about whether a given intersection or intersections require an APS. The alternative
language provides local communities with the greatest degree of flexibility.
Commentary:
As the Minority Report suggests, the PROWAAC majority position is far too
broad. If adopted into final regulation, the federal government will require
APS's at virtually every intersection where a traffic signal controls when a
pedestrian can cross. Imagine every intersection with two signals at each of
its corners, and then remember that it will cost approximately $4,000 per
intersection to equip it with the standard eight APS's required when two
streets cross.
Different communities and different
intersections in those communities call for varying solutions. The language the
Federation suggests would provide the greatest flexibility. The standard which
the PROWAAC proposes would mandate APS's virtually everywhere.
X02.5.2.2 Required Features.
Where accessible pedestrian signals are provided, they shall comply with the
following requirements.
Note:
This section of the minority report proposes changes to Paragraphs b and c only
and does not alter any other part of Section X02.5.2.2.
Commentary:
Eight subsections appear in the "Required-Features" portion of the
Majority's report, most of which are not objectionable to the Federation. For
example, one standard calls for APS's to indicate clearly which crosswalk can
be crossed safely. In other words, there should be no ambiguity which part of
the intersection has been given the walk signal and which crosswalk is okay to
cross. The alternative language we propose addresses only the two subsections
that we find problematic.
(b) When indicating the walk interval,
the accessible pedestrian signal shall deliver the indication in vibrotactile
format.
Discussion:
The majority report calls for APS's to deliver information in both audible and
vibrotactile formats. As referenced earlier, the most important non-visual cue
is the sound of the traffic as it flows through the intersection. Consequently,
APS's which emit tones designed to be louder than the ambient background noise
have the undesired effect of masking the sound of traffic. If the APS unit is
located adjacent to the curb ramp, it is easy for a blind person to feel the
vibrotactile information transmitted. This solution does not emit unnecessary
noise into the environment and also gives the blind or visually impaired
pedestrian the information about when the signal has changed.
Commentary:
At our most recent convention in Atlanta, we passed Resolution 00-08 which
calls for local governments to install APS's that deliver information in
vibrotactile format only. Our Minority Report suggests language consistent with
that resolution.
Vibrotactile APS's alert the blind or
visually impaired pedestrian when the signal changes in his or her favor but do
not create any additional noise in the intersection. Typically the device has a
raised arrow that points in the direction to be crossed, and that arrow
vibrates when the signal changes. As indicated in the Minority Report,
listening to the flow of traffic is the most important non-visual technique
blind and visually impaired people use while crossing intersections. It is
absolutely crucial that society not create more noise in intersections which
can mask and drown out the sound of traffic.
(C) Where there is an accessible
pedestrian signal controlled by a pedestrian push button, there shall be a
locator tone complying with X02.5.1.5, only when the push button associated
with the APS is not within ten feet of the top of the curb ramp for which the
APS provides information.
Discussion:
The majority report requires a locator tone wherever an APS is present. If the
blind or visually impaired pedestrian can expect to find the push button in a
standard location close to the curb ramp, there is no need for a locator tone.
Locator tones are by definition designed to operate at a level louder than the
surrounding environment. Because the majority has chosen a frequency of 880
hertz, such locator tones will affect a blind or visually impaired person's
ability to listen to important cues such as the sound of traffic flowing
through the intersection. Most blind or visually impaired travelers would agree
that the ability to hear traffic clearly is the most important non-visual
technique used while crossing intersections. Interfering with the sound of
traffic poses a great safety risk and outweighs the benefit of making it easier
to find the push button.
Commentary:
This section of the Minority Report mostly speaks for itself. At a standard
signalized two-street intersection with four corners, the Majority Report would
require eight APS's, each having a locator tone. Just imagine how much extra
noise would be transmitted into the surrounding environment. It should also be
noted that in another section of the majority report a standard location for
APS poles is mandated. If blind pedestrians can find APS's in a standard
location, what need is there for a locator tone?
X02.5.6.2 Detectable Warnings.
Curb ramps at medians and refuge islands, and where medians and refuge islands
are cut through level with the street at crosswalks, shall have detectable
warnings complying with 705 and X02.5.7.
Discussion:
When detectable warnings for medians or islands are considered, detectable
warnings should be placed only pursuant to the standard set forth in the
following section.
X02.5.7 Detectable warnings.
X02.5.7.1 General.
Where required, detectable warnings shall comply with X02.5.7.
X02.5.7.2 Application.
Detectable warnings shall be provided only at the bottom two feet of curb ramps
having a slope of 1:15 [one inch rise for every fifteen inches of horizontal
distance]or less.
Discussion:
Curb ramps which slope at 1:15 or less are virtually flat. Therefore it can be
difficult for a blind or visually impaired pedestrian to locate the end of the
curb ramp and the beginning of the street. Detectable warnings in these flat
locations will provide the blind or visually impaired pedestrian with a
definitive cue about where the sidewalk ends and the intersection begins. Ramps
with a slope greater than 1:15 are readily detectable with non-visual
techniques used by blind and visually impaired pedestrians.
Commentary:
As in the majority APS standard, the Federation believes that the proposed
majority standard concerning detectable warnings is far too broad. Truncated
domes would be installed at all intersections, alley ways, and reflecting
pools. We believe that these truncated domes are not necessary unless the
intersection is flat. Otherwise blind pedestrians can feel with their canes or
their feet that the curb ramp slopes down towards the street. Why spend a great
deal of public money on a system of detectable warnings when the built
environment already provides non-visual cues?
So there you have it: the Federation's
Minority Report. As indicated in the November article, the PROWAAC report
is the first step in a long regulatory process. We believe that the PROWAAC
majority has proposed standards which are too broad and ultimately harmful
to the blind. Soon we will all have an opportunity to provide comment to the
ATBCB. We must take full advantage of this opportunity. I expect that a public
comment period will begin sometime in the spring. We will, of course, alert
everyone when it is announced.