HomeMy WebLinkAbout9 Accesible Shared StreetsTechn ical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 1 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
FHWA-HEP-17-096 N/A N/A
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Accessible Shared Streets : Notable Pra ctices and Considerations for October 20 17
Accommodating Pedestrians with Visio n Disabilities 6. Perfonning Organization Code
N/A
7. Author(s) 8. Perfonning Organization Report No .
Elliott, J ; Lohse , K ; Toole , J ; Lockwood , I; Barlow, J ; Bentzen , B; Porter, C N/A
9. Perfonning Organization Name And Address 10. Work Un it No . (TRAIS)
Toole Design Group , Inc ., 8484 Georg ia Avenue , Suite 800 , N/A
Silver Spring, MD 20910 11. Contract or Grant No .
Accessible Des ign for the Blind , 3 Man ila Street, Asheville , NC 28806
DTFH6 1-11-D-00030 , Task 50 12
Cambridge Systematics , Inc., 100 Cambridge Park Drive Suite 400 ,
Cambridge , MA 021 40
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
U .S Department of Transportation Planning and Design Resource
Federal Highway Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
1200 New Jersey Ave , SE FHWA/HEPH-10
Washington, DC 2 0590
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract
This document re vi ews notable practices and considerations for accommodati ng pedestrians w ith vision disabilities
on shared streets . It focuses on streets where pedestrians , bicyclists , and motor vehicles are intended to mix in the
same space.
The guide includes a description of shared streets , an overview of vision d isabilities and the strategies people w ith
vision disabilities use to navigate in t he public right-of-way. It discusses the specific challenges pedestrians with
v ision disabilities face when navigating shared streets. It provides an overview of relevant U .S . guidance , a toolbox
of strategies for design ing shared stre ets that improve accessibility for pedestrians with vis ion disabilities , and ideas
on how accessibil ity for pedestrians w ith vision disabilities can be addressed in the planning and design process .
It provides information from case stud ies of completed shared streets in the Un ited States that highlight accessib ility
featu res and lessons learned , as well as a b ibliography that includes sou rces spec ifically referenced in the body of
the guide and other sources that inspired the guide content and may be useful for shared street designers .
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
Shared street , accessibility, pedestrian , This document is available to the publ ic on the FHWA website at:
walking , bike , bicycle , design flexib ility, hllp:L/www.fhwa .dQt gQvLe n vi rQnmenUbic~c l e pedes![ian
plann ing , design , vision disabilities
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20 . Security Classif. (of this page) 21 . No . of Pages 22 . Price
Unclassified Unclassified 40 N/A
Fonn DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
FHWA Project Managers and Technical Leads
Dan Goodman , Elizabeth Hilton , Dave Kirschner, Gabe
Rousseau, Candace Groudine, Patrick Gomez, Jodi
Petersen , Brooke Struve, Shari Schaftlein, Gary Jensen
Special Thanks
The Federal Highway Adm inistration (FHWA ) project
team would like to thank staff and members of the
National Association of City Transportation Officials
(NACTO) and the U.S. Access Board and staff from the
following agencies for sharing their time and expertise :
Arlington County (Virginia) Department of
Environmental Services
City of Alexandria (Virg inia) Department of
Transportation and Env ironmental Services
City of M inneapolis Public Works
City of Pittsburgh Department of Mobility and
Infrastruct ure
City of Seatt le Department of Transportation
City of Vancouver (Br it ish Columbia) Active
Transportati on Branch
District of Columbia Department of Transportation
Montgomery County (Maryland) Aging and Disability
Services Un i t
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Prince Georges County (Maryland) Department of
Public Works and Transportation
Washington State Department of Services for the
Blind
Washington State Department of Transportation
iii
Notice
This document is d isseminated under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Department of
Transportation in the interest of information
exchange . The U.S. Government assumes no
liability for the use of the information c ontained in
this document.
The U.S. Government does not endorse products
or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers'
names appear in this report only because they
are considered essential to the objective of this
document.
The contents of this report reflect the views of
the authors, who are responsible for the facts and
accuracy of the data presented herein . The contents
do not necessari ly reflect the official policy of the
U.S. Department of Transportation . Th is report
does not constitute a standard, specificat ion, or
regulation .
Images in the report are intended to serve as
examples of the range of real world existing
cond iti ons; they are not limited to best practices or
approved designs or behaviors and in some cases
may reflect conditions that are not recommended .
Photographs
All photographs by Toole Design Group unless otherwise
noted .
Publication Number: FHWA-HEP-17-096
ACCESSIBLE SHAR ED STREETS: NOTA BLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERAT IONS FOR ACCOM MODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................ 1 6. Planning Shared Streets ............................. 13
2. Shared streets ........................................... 2 7. Lessons Learned from Shared Street
2.1 Shared Streets .................................................... 2 Implementation in the United States ............ 15
2.2 Shared Streets vs . Curbless Streets ..................... 3 8. Shared Streets Design Toolbox ................... 18
3. Legal Requirements Regarding Accessibility 4 8.1 Guiding Design Principles for Shared Streets ...... 18
4. Shared Streets and People 8.2 Shared Street Components ................................ 20
with Vision Disabilities ................................ 5 8.3 Shared Zone ..................................................... 21
4.1 Vision Disab ilities ................................................ 5 8.4 Comfort Zones .................................................. 22
4.2 How Pede strians with 8.5 Crossings an d Connections ............................... 24
Vision Disabilities Navigate ...................................... 5 8.6 Defined Gateways ............................................. 26
4.3 Navigational Challenges on Share d Streets .......... 8 8.7 Tactile Walking Surface Indicators and
5. Tactile Walking Surface Indicators and Detect able Edges .............................................. 27
Detectable Edges ........................................ 9 8.8 Organi zation and Furnit ure Zone ........................ 30
5.1 Terminology ........................................................ 9 8.9 MUTCD Complian t and Other Signs
5.2 Research on Detectability .................................... 9 Curren tly in Use ................................................. 32
5.3 Detectable Warning Surfaces ............................ 10 9. Conclusion ............................................... 33
5.4 Directional Indicators ........................................ 10 Bibliography .................................................. 34
5.5 Detectable Edges and Dete ctable Changes in
Surface Texture ............................................... 12
iv
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRA CTI CES AND CONSIDERATION S FOR ACCOMM OD AT IN G PEDESTRIANS WI TH VIS ION DISABILITIES
1. INTRODUCTION
Communities across the U.S. are implementing shared
streets for a variety of reasons, including to foster
economic development, improve safety, provide more
flexible public space, and accommodate demand
for more walk i ng and bicycling opportunities . As the
shared street concept gains momentum, there is a
need to ensure that shared street designs meet the
needs of all users.
This document addresses a specific type of shared
street user-pedestrians with vision disabilities . It
reviews notable practices and considerations for
accommodating pedestrians with vision disabilities on
shared streets. This document is not a comprehensive
guide to shared street design and planning . For example,
it does not discuss the history and theory of shared
street design, drainage, parking, or other relevant
issues except as they pertain to pedestrians with vision
disabilities . Additional research is needed on these
and other shared street design topics . This document
focuses on accessibility, specifically on streets where
pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles are intended
to mix in the same space rather than streets that lack
curbs but are not intended to encourage this mixing,
such as curbless streets (see 2.2 Shared Streets vs .
Curbless Streets).
FHWA has engaged in topics relating to shared street
planning and design and speed management for
decades . The guide builds on this long history and
is based on an extensive stakeholder engagement
process that involved pedestrians with vision disabilities,
including people who were both deaf and blind,
orientation and mobility specialists, shared street
designers, and Federal , State, and local government
officials . The stakeholder engagement process included
two multi-day workshops, two focus groups, a peer
exchange involving shared street designers from
across the country, and one-on-one interviews with
stakeholders. It also included field visits to several
shared streets in the United States to gain on-the-spot
feedback and insight from pedestrians with vision
disabilities , orientation and mobility specialists, local
government officials and others. The guide includes:
• An overv iew of shared streets.
• An overview of existing legal requirements regarding
accessib i lity.
1
• An introduction to
vision disabilities and
the strategies people
with vision disabilities
use to navigate in the
public r ight-of-way.
A shared street is a
street that includes
a shared zone where
pedestrians, bicyclists,
and motor vehicles mix
in the same space.
• A description of the specific challenges pedestrians w ith
vision disabilities face when navigating shared streets .
• An overview of research, specifications , and best
practices for the use of tactile walking surface
indicators and detectable edges .
• Ideas on how accessibility for pedestrians with vision
disabilities can be addressed in the planning and
design process.
• Lessons learned from shared streets implementation
in the United States.
• A toolbox of strategies for designing shared streets
that improve accessibility for pedestrians with vision
disabilities (Figure 1).
• A bibliography that includes sources specifically
referenced in the body of the guide and other sources
that inspired the guide content and may be useful for
shared street designers .
Note : Research is underway on signs and markings relating
to shared streets. Signs that are compliant with the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and other signs
currently in use are shown in Figure 37 on Page 32. For more
information, visit ~
AC CE SSI BLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRAC TICES AND CO NSIDER ATION S FO R ACCO MM ODAT IN G PED ESTR IANS WITH VIS ION DISA BI LITI ES
2. SHARED STREETS
2.1 Shared Streets
A shared street is a street that includes a shared zone
where pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles mix in
the same space (Figure 2). This is accomplished through
a design that:
• Encourages low motor vehicle speeds. Low motor
vehicle speeds increase pedestrian comfort and
improve safety for all users by decreasing the
likelihood and sever ity of crashes (Jurewicz, Sobhani ,
Woolley, Dutschke, & Corben 2016). Shared streets are
generally designed to produce motor vehicle operating
speeds between 5 and 15 mph .
• Encourages low motor vehicle volumes. Low motor
vehicle volumes combine with low motor vehicle
speeds to increase pedestrian comfort and reduce
the potential for crashes. In commerc ial areas, the
low speed environment on a shared street often
results in lower volumes of motor vehicles , because
dr ivers tend to avo i d the street and take alternative
routes unless their destination is located on the
shared street.
• Lacks design elements that suggest motor vehicle
priority and segregate modes. Such elements include
vertical curbs, signs , many pavement markings, traffic
controls and othe r conventional street elements. (Note
that it is possible for a street to include some of these
elements and still function like a shared street, e.g ., a
downtown commercial street with curbs and narrow
sidewalks where pedestrian volumes are high and
motor vehicle speeds and volumes are low.)
• Includes design elements that suggest pedestrian
priority and the function of the street as a place
for social, economic, and cultural exchange . Such
elements include gathering areas, seating and site
furnishings, lighting, art, and special plantings.
Shared street environments can be challenging for
pedestrians with vis ion disabilities, because they often
lack navigational cues such as curbs and defined
crossings that pedestrians with vision disabilities
typically use when navigating the street, and because the
social exchange involved in negotiating the right-of-way
often depends on the ability to see . However, potential
benefits of shared st reets include:
2
• Additional space that offers pedestrians freedom of
movement.
• An expanded accessible walking area which can be
useful in constrained conditions , such as when there
is insufficient ro om for accessible sidewalks due to
limited rights -of-way.
• More space for amenities such as tables, chairs, and
benches, landscaping elements, bicycle parking, and
art.
• A flexible public space that can support a variety
of routine activities as well as parades, concerts,
festivals, and other special events .
• Improved physical access to the destinations along
the shared street, particularly for people with mobility
disabilities or people using strollers or bicycles .
• Improved safety through reduced motor vehicle
speeds .
• Economic development, because well-designed
shared spaces tend to attract more people and, as a
consequence, can play a role in boosting economic
activity.
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRA CTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCOMMODAT ING PEDESTR IANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
2.2 Shared Streets vs.
Curbless Streets
Curbless streets (also known as flush streets or festival
streets) are similar to shared streets in that they lack
curbs . However, curbless streets are not intended to
enable pedestrians to comfortably mix with moving
vehicles in the same space. Instead , curbless streets are
designed to provide flexible and accessible space for
festivals , farmers markets, and other activities, during
which time the street is closed to motor vehicles . At
other times , pedestrians and vehicles are segregated
as on a conventional street, with pedestrians occupying
the sidewalk and motor vehicles occupying the vehicular
travel lanes . (See Figure 3 and Figure 4)
This document is focused on the design of shared
streets . Although some of the guidance provided in this
document may be relevant for curbless streets, this
document does not cover some key considerations
related to curbless street, including how to prevent
pedestrians with vision disabilities from inadvertently
crossing into vehicular lanes at locations that are
not designated crossings when the curbless street is
operating as a conventional street.
3
Figure 3 and Figure 4: W. Church Street in Orlando, FL is an
example of a curbless street. For special events, a section of W.
Church Street can be closed off to motor vehicles with retractable
bollards . At other times this section operates as a conventional
street .
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATI ONS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
3. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
REGARDING ACCESSIBILITY
Title II of the Americans with Disab ilities Act of 1990
provides that no person with a disab ility shall, because
a public entity's fa cili t ies are inaccess ibl e or unusable,
be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits
of a public entity's programs, services, or activities -
including pedestrian facil ities in the public right-of-way.
However, there is relat ively little U.S. gu idance on how
t o design shared streets that are access ible to people
with vision disab ilit ies . The NACTO Urba n Street Design
Guide addresses shared streets, but does not d iscuss
accessibility for pedestrians with vision disabilit ies in
detail. Two recent ly published guidebooks from FHWA ,
A c hi eving Multimodal Networks: Applyi ng Design
Fl exibility and Reduc ing Conflicts and Small Town and
Rural Multimodal Networks, address shared conditions
bu t include limited deta i l on access ible design of these
spaces .
The best source for general guidance on creating
accessible pedestrian spaces in the pub li c right-of-way
is the United States Access Board's 201 1 Proposed
Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the
Public Right-of-Way (Proposed PROWAG). Because these
proposed guidelines have not yet been finalized by t he
Access Board and adopted by the U.S. Department of
Justice or the U.S. Department of Transportation , they
are not enforceable standards . The draft guidelines
may, however, prov ide a useful framework to help public
ent ities meet their obligations to make the ir programs ,
services , and act ivit ies in t he public right-of-way readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities .
For that reason, FHWA considers the Proposed PROWAG
a best practice for t he design and const ruction of
s idewalks, pedestrian facil ities, and ot her element s in the
public rights-of-way . However, Proposed PROWAG has
very little information specific to the shared street
environment.
4
s .,.
Proposed Accessibility Guide lines
fo r Pedestr ian Faci li ties
in the Publl~Right-o f-Way
July 26 , 20 11
UNITED ST ATE S A CCESS B O A RD
A FEDERAL AGENCY COMMI TT ED TO ACCESSIBLE DESIGN
Figure 6 : The best source for general guidance on creating
accessible pedestrian spaces in the public right-of-way is the
Proposed PROWAG .
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRA CTIC ES AND CONSIDERATIONS FDR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VIS ION DISABILITIE S
4. SHARED STREETS AND
PEOPLE WITH VISION
DISABILITIES
4.1 Vision Disabilities
As of the 2010 Census , over 56 million (18 percent)
Americans 15 years and older and 52 percent of
Americans age 65 and over have some kind of disability.
The curbless aspect of many shared streets enhances
access for the roughly 31 million individuals 15 years
and older who have a mobility disability (Brault 2010).
However, curbless conditions can create challenges for
people with vision disabilities, who in 2015 accounted for
9.4 percent of the adult population or 22 .9 million people
(CDC, 2015).
There are many forms of vision disability. Moderate to
severe visual loss can include limited field of vision,
peripheral loss, loss of central vision, night blindness,
or overall acuity loss (blurriness). Legal blindness is
defined as a visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better
eye with best correction or a visual field restricted to 20
degrees or less. Approximately 85 percent of those who
are considered legally blind do possess some remaining
vision . (See Figure 7)
The functional effects of reduc ed visual acuity includ e
failure to see or identify objects especially relevant to
pedestrian travel, such as traffic signals, crosswalks,
curbs, vehicles and other pedestrians. Even a slight
reduction in visual acu ity can affect a pedestrian's ability
to negotiate with drivers and bicyclists about when to
cross the street, since such communications often
involve eye contact, nods, hand gestures and other visual
forms of communication.
The functional effects of reduced visual field include
failure to see objects adjacent to the traveler, such as
vehicles and pedestrians. Especially problematic are
vehicles that may be turning across the pedestrian's path
of travel, for example, vehicles turning right at the corner
where the pedestrian is waiting to cross . Orientation and
wayflnding are also affected by reduced fields of vision .
5
In addition to limitations in visual acuity and field of
vision , pedestrians with low vis ion may have :
• Difficulty with depth perception, which affect the
ability to judge the location of vehicles or obstacles in
their path .
• Difficulty judging the approach speed of vehicles .
• Reduced sensitivity to visual contrast, which may
make it difficult to distinguish elements like holes from
shadows.
• Reduced ability to see different colors or color
contrast accurately.
• Difficulty reading signs and signals .
• Reduced attentional field (functional visual field is less
than clinically measured field).
• Age-related hearing loss.
4.2 How Pedestrians with
Vision Disabilities Navigate
Streets are designed with a myriad of cues that indicate
where to walk and where and when to cross . Elements
like sidewalk edges, curb ramps , crosswalk markings,
pedestrian signals , and the sight and sound of vehicle
and pedestrian movement help define the walking
environment. Often these are the same elements
pedestr ians with vision disabil ities use for navigation ,
but they take on more importance as guidance markers.
Pedestrians with vision disabilities may also use a
range of navigational aids to help them navigate streets,
including :
• Human guides, which are used in specific situations
by many people with vision d isabilities but are not
considered a primary navigational aid .
• Long white canes, which are used in an arc just wider
than the width of the body as a probe to identify the
ACC ESSIBLE SHA RED STREETS : NOTABLE PRACT IC ES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
Figure 7: Types of Vision loss 20/20 Vision
Legal Blindness
Other Vision Disabilities
6
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
walking surface and locate obstacles. There are
different types of canes and different techniques with
which they may be used . (See Figure 8)
• Dog guides, which can help pedestrians with vision
disabilities avoid hazards by leading their handler
around obstacles and by stopping at curbs, stairs and
other level changes. Dog guides and handlers work as
a team, with the handler giving commands and the dog
guide responding to those commands. Dog guides
are used by approximately 2-5 percent of people with
vision disabilities.
• Telescopes and other low vision aids, which are used
primarily for reading signs .
• Emerging technologies, such as digital navigation/
wayfinding applications and hand-held devices that
use ultrasonic echo -l ocation to help pedestrians
with vision disabilities detect objects .
Individuals with vision disabilities also rely on a variety
of non-visual cues to navigate streets and public spaces .
These cues may include:
• Audible information, such as the sounds produced
by traffic and other pedestrians, echolocation and
accessible pedestrian signals.
• Detectable edges, such as curbs and building faces
(although it is also important to understand that, to
avoid obstacles and move more quickly, many people
with vision disabilities do not follow along curbs or
buildings edges as a primary technique).
• Information received through touch, such as sidewalk,
ramp, or driveway slopes, or tactile walking surface
indicators perceived underfoot or by use of the long
cane (See 5. Tactile Walking Surface Indicators and
Detectable Edges).
Figure 8: Common Cane Techniques
Sweeping Technique
····..... "
It:.. . ............................ ····-.:>
··.. . ..... ········ ·· .............. ,.,_ ......... .
2-3'
Using the sweeping (or constant-contact)
technique, the forearm is held still and the
wrist bends left and right, with the cane
tip remaining in contact with the walking
surface at all times. The arc is just slightly
wider than shoulder width .
7
Touch Technique
2-3'
The touch technique is just two touches,
with the cane very slightly raised between
them . The arc is just slightly wider than
shoulder width.
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRAC TICE S AND CONS IDER ATIO NS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
• Direction of the sun or wind, which sometimes aid in
maintaining orientation.
• Movement of other roadway users.
• Visual contrast, via tone or color.
Familiarity with the area, or knowledge about it, helps
pedestrians with vision disabilities perceive, correctly
interpret, and use available cues for wayfinding
and hazard avoidance . However, people with vision
disabilities do travel to new places and are not oriented
in advance to every location where they may be walking .
4.3 Navigational Challenges on
Shared Streets
Shared streets, which desegregate drive rs and
pedestrians to creat e a lively and flex ible space , can
result in an ambiguous, highly variable , and potentially
difficult experience for pedestrians w ith vision
disabilities . Potential navigational challenges include:
Safe space : Without the typical segre g ation of users,
shared streets typically lack clearly delineated zones
for pedestrians of all abilities to seek refuge out of the
way of obstacles and potential conflicts with other
users of the space, especially motorists and cyclists .
Rules of the road : Conventional streets are regulated
by t r affic control devices and established "rules
of the road" that all users agree to follow. Shared
streets depend on social interaction and negotiation
established through visual awarenes s, and eye contact
or hand s ignals -activities that put pedestrians with
vision disabilities at a disadvantage .
Patterns of use: Shared streets accommodate
d ifferent types of use, including peopl e using the
space as a corridor for movement or the delivery of
goods and people using the area as open space for a
range activities such as cafe seating , open air markets,
movable seating, etc. These use patterns may confuse
people who are not able to visually discern such
activit ies and patterns.
Orientation and wayfinding cues: Shared streets
typically lack design elements li ke c urbs, curb ramps ,
detectable warning surfaces, and crosswalks that help
pedestrians with v is ion disabilities orient themselves.
In addition, street furnishings, pedest r ian amenities,
and vertical elements like trees, bollards, and signs
may not be organized in an intuitive manner, and
pedestrians with vision disabilities may have difficulty
8
using audib le cues for navigation due to low motor
vehicle volumes.
Surfacing : Shared streets that use patterned paving
for aesthet ic effect can be confus ing and disorient ing
to people w ith vi sion disabilities , who may mistakenly
interpret the patterns as cues for navigation or as
stairs or level changes .
Defined crossings: For pedestrians with v ision
disabilities, the lack of defined crossings, coupled with
greater uncerta inty about how other road users might
respond, comp li cates the process of determining
where and when to cross, which can contribute to
a feeling of chaos and make crossing a challenging
endeavor.
The degree to wh ich pedestrians with vision disabilities
are affected by these challenges depends on the unique
context and des ign of each shared street . Still , shared
streets can be designed in a way that mitigates these
challenges (see 8. Shared Streets Design Toolbox).
The first and m ost critical step is to acknowledge that
challenges exist. The next step is to address them
through a planning and design process that includes
active engagement with a broad range of stakeholders,
including indiv iduals with vis ion d isabilities (See 6.
Planning Shared Streets).
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRA CTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCOMMODAT ING PEDESTRIANS WITH VIS ION DISABILITIES
5. TACTILE WALKING
SURFACE INDICATORS AND
DETECTABLE EDGES
Many countries have adopted the use of tactile surfaces
to help pedestrians with vision disabilities navigate
the built env i ronment. Typically this is a combination
of small truncated domes intended to catch the user's
attention or indicate a hazard (Figure 9), and parallel
flat-topped elongated bars intended to guide the user on
a path (Figure 10).
5.1 Terminology
There is currently no umbrella term for these types of
surface treatments in the United States. However, the
International Standards Organization (ISO) has adopted
the term Tactile Walking Surface Indicators (TWSls),
which is the t erm that is used in this document.
Different countries use different terms to describe
these patterns. In the United States, the attention
pattern is called a "detectable warning surface" and
its spec ifications and use are clearly defined in the
Proposed PRO WAG . The use of the detectable warning
surface is limited to locations in which there is a
vehicular hazard; internationally similar truncated dome
surfaces are more widely used to call attention to places
where travelers with vision disabilities need to make a
decision .
9
The United States lacks an established term for the
guidance pattern, which is referred to as a "directional
indicator" in this document. There are currently no
specifications for the use of directional indicators in the
United States and more research is needed on them ;
however, directional indicators are used in public rights -
of-way internationally.
5.2 Research on Detectability
For a surface to be useful in providing warning or
guidance to individuals who are blind, the surface
must be both consistently detectable and identifiable.
Surfaces such as rough granite or grooved concrete
have been installed in shared street environments;
however, these surfaces are not readily detectable and
lack a clear message, rendering them of little value to
pedestrians with vision disabilities .
An extensive program of research to identify walking
surfaces that could be used to alert people with vision
disabilities to the presence of hazards such as streets
and platform edges is described in Bentzen, Barlow
and Tabor (2000). Many tested surfaces, such as
various geometries of grooves in concrete, were found
to be minimally detectable or not detectable at all. The
ACC ESSIBL E SHA RED ST REETS : NOTA BL E PRACT I CES AND CONS ID ERAT ION S FOR ACCOM MODATING PEDES TR IANS WITH VIS I ON DISAB ILITIES
single surface that was found to be detect ed by most
part icipants on most trials (approximat el y 90 % of trial s
ac ross multiple experiments) was the t runcated dome
detectable warning surface.
5.3 Detectable Warning
Surfaces
Specifications for t he use of detectable w arning surfaces
are contained in the Proposed PROWAG . Although not an
enforceable standard , FHWA recomme nd s the
specifications in the Proposed PROWAG as a best practice.
Detectable warning surfaces should be a minimum width
of 24 inches in the direction of pedestrian travel. They
should extend the f ull width of the flus h s idewalk /street
interface at pedestrian street crossings , or crosswalks,
and their color must contrast with the adjoining surface,
either light on dark or dark on light.
When used in publi c rights-of-way, det ectable warning
surfaces should be used in pairs that ident ify t he
beginning and ending of a crosswalk . When approached
10
from a sidewalk, detectable warning surfaces function
like a pedestrian stop line, alerting persons with vision
disabilities to the presence of the street or other
vehicular trave l way.
Detectable warn ing surfaces are not intended to be used
for guidance. Detectable warning surfaces are a hazard
warning . Research indicates that few pedestrians who
are blind are able to establish accurate headings on the
basis of detectable warnings (Scott et al 2011 ).
5.4 Directional Indicators
There has been no research in the United States on
the detectability of directional ind icators . However,
international research has found d irectional indicators
comprised of ra ised bars to be highly detectable and
identifiable under foot.
If directional ind icators are installed , it is best practice
to use directional i ndicators that meet the standard
dimensions spec ified in ISO 23599 :2 012 and that differ
in visual contrast from the adjoin i ng surface, either
light on dark or dark on light (Figure 11 ). Other te xtures
are likely to be less detectable and may be harder to
use for guidance .
Detectability and identifiability depend critically on bar
spacing and bar height as well as bar width (Tauchi
1998, 2002). ISO 23599:2012 specifies the bar spacing
for different bar widths (Figure 12)
A summary of best practice guidance for the use of
directional indicators in shared streets is prov ided on the
following page .
Top width of flat-topped
elongated bars
17
20
25
30
Spacing (mm)
57to 78
60to 80
65 to 83
70to85
Figure 12: Specifications for bar width and bar spacmg . SOURCE :
~ISO . This material is adapted from ISO 23599:2012 with
permission of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
on behalf of ISO . All rights reserved.
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRACTICES AND CONS I DERATIONS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
Summary of Notable Practices for the Use of Directional Indicators on Shared Streets
• Direct ional indicators that meet ISO standards
are detectable.
• The color of the directional indicator should
contrast with the adjoining surface, either light on
dark or dark on light.
• Directional indicators are often used
internationally to help pedestrians navigate
through large open spaces, avoid obstacles,
follow an accessible pathway, and find
crosswalks, transit stops, and other amenities,
when other cues in the built environment do not
provide enough gu idance.
• Direct ional indicators should generally be
installed in a linear fashion. That is, they should
not zig zag back and forth.
• The width of the d irectional indicator can vary
based on use. If the directional indicator is laid
out perpendicular to the pedestrian path of travel
it must be a minimum of 2' wide to be detectable.
If the d irectional indicator is laid out parallel to the
pedestrian path of travel , it can be as narrow as 1'
wide if space is lim ited .
• It is important to consider the impact of
d irect ional indicators on pedestrians who use
wheelchairs and other mobility devices. When
directional indicators are used, designers should
seek to maintain a recommended pedestrian
access route width of 5' that has a smooth
surface and is unobstructed by directional
indicators (except where directional indicators
perpendicular to the pedestrian path of travel
cross over the pedestrian access route).
• When directional ind icators are used in the
comfort zone of a shared street to guide
pedestrians along the street, they should be
placed either in the center of the comfort zone (if
the comfort zone is more than 11' wide, assuming
a 1' wide directional indicator) or nearer to the
furniture zone (if the comfort zone is less than 11 '
wide) to minimize the impact on other users. The
term "comfort zone· refers to a pedestrian
exclusive area on a shared street. Comfort zone
design is discussed in detail on p. 22.
11
• Directional indicators should not be used to
define the edge between exclusive pedestrian
space and vehicular lanes (bicycle or motor
vehicle) but rather to delineate the path for
through pedestrian travel. They also should not
be used for aesthetic or general edg ing purposes
as this could confuse the meaning .
• The need for and utility of directional indicators is
context sensitive and is influenced by other cues
in the built environment, for example the extent
to which other features are also incorporated
into the design such as rolled curbs , raised
intersections, other detectable surfaces, and a
thoughtfully arranged furnish ing/planting zones .
• Directional indicators should be installed in way
that prevents the edges from lifting up . The
materials used in d irectional indicators should be
durable enough to withstand expected use.
• There is no regulatory requirement for directional
indicators.
• Whi le there is a history of successful applications
of directional indicators in other counties , the ir
application i n the U.S. is still new and more
research is needed .
• People with visual d isabilities should be a part of
the planning and design process for shared street
projects, includ ing when d irect ional indicators are
being considered .
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NO TABLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR AC CO MMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VIS ION DISABILIT I ES
5.5 Detectable Edges and
Detectable Changes in Surface
Texture
Best practice is to prov ide surfaces or landscaping
on either side of pedestrian comfort zones that are
sufficiently detectable to travelers w ith vision disabilities,
so that they form detectable boundaries t o the comfort
zone . Adjoining surfaces need to differ from one another
i n visual contrast (light beside dark), as well as texture
(Figure 13). The surface or landscaping c an be either
followed by travelers with vision disabilit ies, or can
simply be noted in t he same way that the two sides of a
sidewalk are detected and enable trave lers with vision
disabilities to walk within the sidewalk width.
Additional research is needed on how t o guide selection
of walking surfaces t hat are reliably detected from one
another. In the absence of such research , designers are
encouraged to exper iment informally before finalizing
select ion of surfaces i ntended to prov ide detectable
edges or detectable changes in surface t exture. The
need for such surfaces to be both ident ifiable and
detectable requires careful consideration by the designer
and follow-through in construction . While differences
in texture of walking surfaces may be detected either
under foot or by use of the long white cane, under-foot
detection is the most critical, because a m ajority of
pedestrians with vision disabilities do not use a long
white cane . Textures that differ from adjoining surfaces
in resil ience (i.e ., in t heir ability to be c ompressed) as
well as surface texture may be more highly detectable
than the same textures that do not d iffer in resilience .
Proposed surfaces to be used together should
be subjected to informal evaluation by numerous
pedestrians who have vision disabilit ies , who attempt to
discriminate the difference between t hem and to follow
the joint between them using their feet or a long cane.
Visual appearance and exploration with hands are poor
predictors of detectability and discriminability under foot
or by use of a long cane.
Rolled curbs or valley gutters are poss ibl e
considerations for indicating the edge of the shared
portion of the shared street, but their precise geometry
will influence how detectable they are (Figure 14).
Therefore, they should also undergo informal evaluation
by numerous pedest rians with vision disabilities .
When the pedestrian comfort zone cannot be defined by
detectably different surfaces, the raised bar directional
indicator is recommended .
12
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
6. PLANNING SHARED
STREETS
Ensuring that shared streets work for pedestrians with
vision disabilit ies requires involving key stakeholders in
the planning and design process, including indiv iduals
with vision disabilities. Project meetings should be held
in accessible facilities , preferably locations served by
transit, with accommodations provided for a variety of
disabilities upon request . Providing accessible project
websites, educating people regarding shared street
goals and features, and monitoring the performance and
programm ing of shared streets post-construction are
also important.
Involve Key Stakeholders
Planners and designers should establish early and
ongoing collaboration between local government
representatives and key stakeholders, including :
• People w ith visio n disabilities who represent the
spectrum of vision disabilities and navigation
methods, including people who are deaf-blind.
• Groups that represent people with vision disabilities,
such as local chapters of the National Federation for
the Blind , American Council of the Blind, and guide dog
user groups .
• Orientation and mobility specialists
(professionals who teach independent
travel skills to people having vision
disabilities).
• Groups that represent seniors .
• Groups that represent pedestrians and
bicyclists .
• Maintenance and operat ions staff who
are responsible for pavement, vegetation
and site furnishings .
Key stakeho lders should be engaged at
every stage in the planning and design
process, from needs assessment to final
design .
13
Ensure Accessibility at Project Meetings
and Provide Accessible Project Websites
Planners and designers can take a number of steps to
make project meetings more accessible to people w ith
vision d isabilities:
• Advert ise meetings through agencies serving
individuals with vision disabilities and other channels
such as local radio reading services.
• Ask invitees well ahead of time whether they
will need special accommodations in order for
them to participate fully, and arrange for those
accommodations .
• Provide advance copies of meeting materials in
accessible electronic formats, including detailed
presentation notes with image/graphic descriptions.
• Print enlarged copies of presentations for people with
low vis ion, who may be able to read close up but not at
a distance.
• Use tactile maps or 3-0 models to convey key design
concepts (Figure 15). Allow sufficient time for people
with vis ion disabilities to review these materials or
make them available in advance .
ACC ESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERAT IONS FOR ACCOM MODATING PEDESTR IA NS WITH VIS ION DISABILI TI ES
Provide detailed verbal descriptions of visual elements
that are important for understand ing , such as
presentation graph ics or images.
• Hire interpreters for deaf-blind attend ees and adjust
t he pace of the presentation to accommodate
interpretation .
Actively engage people with vision d isab i li ti es. Ask
them to share their experiences nav igating the built
env ironment, including the technolog ies they use.
Provide an accessible website w ith ac c essible project
documents .
Accessible websites that comply with Se ction 508 of the
Rehab ilitation Ac t of 1973 can also help e ngage people
w ith v ision disab i lities in shared street projects . The
website can be used t o post basic information about
the project, upcoming meeting dates, meeting minutes,
information about alternative design scenarios , and
other relevant materials.1
Educate People Regarding Shared Street
Goals and Features
Most people in the United States have li mited experience
w ith shared streets , so it is important to educate them
about the goals and features of a shared street design
before and after const ruction . Educat ion should target
users of all abilities and materials shoul d be provided
in formats access ib le to people w ith v is ion disabilit ies
(e.g., high visibility, large font size, tactile, audible). It may
be advantageous to work with part ners from the vision
disability commun ity and provide gu ided , explanatory
tours of recently constructed shared streets.
Monitor the Performance of a Shared Street
Post-Construction
Designers have the ability to "tweak" designs once they
are implemented and behaviors can be observed . With
newer, complex facil ity types li ke shared streets , design
tweaks can be expected and are not indicative of a failed
design .
After a shared street is constructed , it is important
to monitor how well it works for people with vision
disabilities and others, and identify any adjustments
needed to ensure accessibility (Figure 16). A data
collection and mon itori ng protocol is recommended for
measuring the effectiveness of des igns over time . It is
also helpful t o capture lessons learned , so they can be
incorporated into future shared street planning efforts
and designs, or to develop evidence -based guidelines .
Monitoring need not be limited to accessibility issues.
Issues like safety and economic performance can be
useful to evaluate over time as we ll.
1 It is highly advisable for t he material yo u po st t o you r web s ite t o be access ible t o people wit h disabilities. For res ou rc es about web
access ibility, please see the W3C Web Accessi bility Initiative [1] and thei r Web Contents Acc essi bility Guidelines (WCAG ) 2 .0 [2] Level AA
wh ich the U.S. Board rece nt ly cited as pa rt of t heir 508 rulema k ing .[3]
[1] http'//www w3 org /WAl /gettingstarted /
[2] http//www w3 org /TR /WCAG20/
[ 3] http· //www access-boa rd goy/gu idel in es-and-stand a rd s /communications-and-it /about-the-jct-refresh /oye rvi ew-of-the-fi na 1-ru le
14
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS: NOTABLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VIS ION DISABILITIES
7. LESSONS LEARNED
FROM SHARED STREET
IMPLEMENTATION IN THE
UNITED STATES
A number of communities in the Un ited States have
converted conventional streets or alleys to shared
streets. Several of these streets were reviewed in
connection with the development of this resource to
ga in a better understanding of current practice for
accommodatin g pedestrians with vis ion disabilities . The
following are some key lessons learned.
• The design of shared streets should respond to the
context in which they are situated, including those
features intended to assist pedestrians with vision
disabilities. Where the shared street is located ,
adjacent land uses (rural, suburban, urban), the
characteristics of nearby and intersect ing conventional
streets, available right-of-way and other factors will
influence how the shared street is designed (Figure
17). At the same time, it is critical that features
intended to assist pedestrians with vision disabilities
be consistently applied , and applied in accordance
with Federal guidance.
15
• The design of a shared street must distinguish
it from conventional streets through gateway
treatments, traffic calming measures, detectable
changes in surface texture and color, and other design
elements . The combination of these treatments on
a shared street should encourage low motor vehicle
operating speeds, generally between 5 and 15 mph .
One of the shared streets rev iewed looked similar to
a conventional street and lacked effective gateway
treatments to signal to pedestrians, bicyclists, and
motor vehicle drivers that they were entering an
environment where pedestrians had greater priority
and could be expected at any point in the shared zone
(Figure 18). The street also lacked a reliably detectable
edge treatment, again creating a safety concern.
• It is very important for transitions from pedestrian-
only space to shared zones to be reliably detectable
in a way that enables pedestrians w ith vision
disab iliti es to correctly interpret the transition . Some
ACCESSIBLE SHAR ED STREETS: NOTABLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIO NS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
of the shared street designs reviewed attempted to
provide a detectab le edge treatment to indicate to
pedestrians with vision disabilities that they were
about to cross into the shared zone. However, the
effectiveness of this treatment was oft en undermined
by the fact that the surface used was not detectable
to the full range of pedestrians with vision disabilities
(e .g., pedestrians with vision disabilities who do not
use canes, or who use touch techn ique with their cane)
or understandable by them as the edge of the shared
zone (Figure 19).
16
• It is very important for transitions from shared
spaces to vehicular lanes on intersecting
conventional streets to be reliably detectable
in a way that enables pedestrians with vision
disabilities to correctly interpret the transition and
to find a des ignated crossing of the conventional
street . It should be assumed that pedestrians with
vision disabil it ies will walk in the shared zone of a
shared street and could potentially walk out into
the vehicular lane of an intersecti ng conventional
street at an undesignated crossing location
if not sufficiently warned . One of the streets
reviewed attempted to provide this warning by
configuring t r ansitions between the shared zone
and intersecti ng conventiona l streets as driveway
aprons. Unfortunately, the grade of these transitions
was often not steep enough for pedestrians w ith
vision disabilities to distinguish them from curb
ramps at a crosswalk.
• If a detectable warning surface is used to indicate
the transition between the shared zone and an
intersecting conventional street, it should align
with a marked crosswalk. On one of the streets
reviewed, a detectable warning surface was placed
across a shared alley to warn pedestrians with
vision disabilities walking in the shared zone that
they were about to enter vehicular space (Figure 20 ).
Detectable warn ing surfaces are reliably detectab le,
and pedestrians with vision disabilities interpret
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STR EETS : NOTAB LE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FO R ACCOMMODAT I NG PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
them as a warning that they have reached the edge
of pedestrian space. However, pedestrians with
vision disabilities may also interpret detectable
warning surfaces to indicate a designated pedestrian
crossing . In this case , the marked crosswalks were
located to the right and left of the shared zone,
meaning that a pedestrian with a vision disability who
interpreted the detectable warning surface across
the shared zone as a designated crossing would be
crossing outside the marked crosswalk .
• Where there is sufficient right-of-way, the provision
of pedestrian-exclusive "comfort zones" can benefit
pedestrians with vision disabilities, who are likely to
be less comfortable in shared space than pedestrians
with 20/20 vision due to the way that right-of-way is
negotiated on shared streets . However, it is important
that these comfort zones be designed with pedestrians
with vision disabilities in mind . Surfaces that are reliably
detectable and identifiable should be used to define a
linear, obstacle-free pedestrian access route through
the comfort zone. Several of the streets reviewed
included comfort zones; however, in some cases the
pedestrian circulation path was not reliably detectable,
zig-zagged back and forth, or was obstructed by
sandwich boards, low-hanging signs, cafe seating,
bicycle parking, and other elements (Figure 21). In other
cases, shared streets with comfort zones also included
designated mid-block crossing areas, but provided no
method by which a pedestrian with a vision disability
walking through the comfort zone could find these
crossings let alone properly align to cross , which is
another important consideration.
• If tactile surfaces are intended to provide navigational
information to pedestrians with vision disabilities,
they must be reliably detectable by pedestrians with a
range of vision disabilities, including pedestrians who
are blind and use different types of canes, pedestrians
who are blind and use guide dogs, pedestrians who are
color blind, and pedestrians with low vision . Some of
the shared street designs reviewed included surfaces
that appeared intended to help pedestrians with
vision disabilities navigate but which were not reliably
detectable under foot or detectable with a cane. In other
cases, tactile surfaces were used that did not provide
sufficient visual contrast from adjoining surfaces.
Visual contrast is a critical element of detectability for
pedestrians with low vision and color blindness .
If tactile surfaces are intended to provide navigational
information, they must be consistently applied.
On some of the shared streets reviewed the same
tactile surface was used at one location to provide
navigational information to pedestrians with vision
disabilities and at another location for purely
decorative purposes . Such inconsistent application of
tactile surfaces is likely to be extremely confusing to
pedestrians with vision disabilities.
• If motor vehicle parking is provided on a shared
street, its location and design needs to be carefully
considered and the edge of the parking lane should be
set off from pedestrian space by a detectable edge .
In some cases , the streets reviewed provided parking
along the shared street but there was not enough
space to enable deployment of a wheelchair ramp
without obstructing the comfort zone.
• Low motor vehicle speeds and volumes are essential
in the shared street environment. Shared streets are
generally designed to produce motor vehicle operating
speeds between 5 and 15 mph . In one case, a street
was converted to a shared street but traffic volumes
on the street continued to be relat ively high. Although
measures are planned to divert through motor vehicle
traffic away from the street, the street currently
operates as a curbless street with most pedestrians
avoiding the shared zone . The problem for pedestrians
with vision disabilities is that the edge treatment used
to mark the boundary of the shared zone is not reliably
detectable . As a consequence, it is possible that a
pedestrian with a vision disability might inadvertently
walk in the shared zone at a point where a motor
vehicle driver does not expect them, creating a safety
and wayfinding concern .
17 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
AC CE SSI BLE SHA RED STREE TS : NOTA BLE PRAC TIC ES AND CONSI DER ATIO NS FOR ACCOMMO DATING PED ESTR IANS WITH VISION DISABILI TIES
8. SHARED STREETS
DESIGN TOOLBOX
8.1 Guiding Design Principles for Shared Streets
Context Sensitivity and Treatment Levels
Every shared street has a unique mix of land use (rural,
suburban , urban), vehicle , bicycle, and pedestrian
circulation patterns, amongst other factors, and its
design should respo nd to the specific context while
anticipating the needs of all users of the street.
Treatment levels should also take into account the
function of the street and the street's role within the
larger network, along with every day and occasional uses.
Layers of Information
The abilities and needs of pedestrians with vision
disabilities are var ied and shared street designs should
respond by providing navigational information in a
variety of ways . For example, directional indicators must
be raised in order to be detected by pedestrians who
are visually disabled , but they should also have good
light/dark contrast so they are visible to pedestrians
w ith low vision. V is ion loss may be accompanied by
collateral disabilities that may detract from a user's
perceptions and ab i lity to orient themse lves in unfamiliar
environments . Compromised balance, lim ited depth
perception, reduced sensitivity to contrast, difficulty
with both low light and glare, hear i ng loss, or difficulty
reading signs may accompany low vision, particularly in
older pedestrians with vision disabilities.
18
Furthermore, both design and environmental conditions
can affect the ability of pedestrians with vision
disabilities to navigate a shared street on a day to day
basis, particularly for people who rely on audible cues .
Shared streets may create traffic patterns that are
difficult to discern by ear, and quieter users of the street
like electric vehicles and bicyclists can be challenging
to detect. Conditions like rain and snow can dampen the
sound of traffic patterns and make it more difficult to
detect changes in texture.
For all these reasons , it is important to provide layers
of navigational and environmental information to
help pedestr ians use shared streets safely and
comfortably. Navigational cues can be provided by the
following streetscape elements , and should be used in
combination where possible:
• Alignment of the pedestrian access route and other
streetscape features
• Tactile walki ng surface indicators , detectable edges ,
and detectable changes in surface texture
• Appropriate and consistent use of detectable warning
surfaces
• Materials and texture, in addition to color and tonal contrast
• Signs and markings
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FO R ACC OMMODATING PEDE STRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
• Audible information (e .g ., accessible pedestrian
signals, and environment information)
• Electronic wayfinding information or tactile maps (i.e .,
maps with raised features that people who are blind
can use for interpretation)
Consistency and Predictability
It is critical that tactile walking surface indicators and
other treatments intended to provide navigational
information to pedestrians with vision disabilities be
applied consistently. Street light poles, pedestrian push
buttons, seati ng and bike racks, and crossing treatments
(if present) are examples of other elements that should
be arranged in a predictable way.
Visual contrast can be a very helpful guidance cue, but
needs to be used in a consistent manner to be useful. For
example, decorative bars of different colors or textures
across the sidewalk may be mistaken for steps. Some
colors do not contrast in the expected manner to persons
who have low vision or those who are color blind . Red and
black may look very different to a person with "normal'
vision but appear essentially the same to someone with
some types of visual conditions or colorblindness. Taking
a photo of surfaces and displaying it in black and white
can sometimes be a helpful way to see whether surfaces
actually contrast visually.
Universal Design for All
It is important to keep in mind that decisions about the
ground plane and surfacing also need to work for people
with a range of physical abilities, including people with
limited mobility, children, people who have a hearing
disability, and people using mobility devices. As noted
previously, the best source for general guidance on
creating accessible pedestrian spaces in the public
right-of-way is the United States Access Board 's 2011
Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities
in the Public Right-of-Way (Proposed PROWAG). Because
these proposed guidelines have not yet been finalized by
the Access Board and adopted by the U.S. Department
of Justice or the U.S. Department of Transportation, they
are not enforceable standards. The draft guidelines
may, however, provide a useful framework to help public
entities meet their obligations to make their programs,
services, and activities in the public rights-of-way readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
It is advisable to field test treatments with people of
diverse abilities to ensure that designs meet the needs
of all users . It is especially important to field test
19
surfaces for detectability both under foot and by use of
a long white cane, if they are to be used to define edges
such as between the comfort zone and the shared zone .
Programming
Shared streets can provide a setting for farmers' markets,
festivals, special events, and other public uses. Maintain in g
an accessible path of travel for pedestrians with vision
disabilities, as well as for pedestrians with other disabilities,
at all t imes is critical. The design of shared streets should
address these occasional uses . Ideally, treatments that
work for both typical and special use should be used and
kept clear during programmed events .
Operations and Maintenance
Shared streets often feature non-standard materials
and treatments, which may require more care in
installation and special upkeep. The usefulness of these
treatments, and the success of the shared space for
pedestrians with vision disabilities, may depend greatly
on the durability of materials choices and maintenance
regime . Regular street cleanings, replacement of lost
or damaged site furnishings and streetscape elements,
and maintenance of plantings and trees will keep shared
spaces looking good , but extra effort may be required
to maintain accessibility for all users . For example,
materials may lose their color contrast and tactile
walking surface indicators may become less detectable
over time, depending on their durability and use. Also, in
climates where snow is possible, consideration should
be given to how snow will be removed from pedestrian
access routes, including pedestrian access routes in the
comfort zone, if provided . Operat ional and maintenance
costs and efforts must be addressed at all stages of the
planning and design of shared streets .
ACCESS IBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIO NS FOR ACCOMMODAT ING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
8.2 Share d Street Components
Landscaping, front
stoops, door swings,
awnings, cafe seating,
retail signage and displays (NOTE: If there is insufficient right-of-way for a
comfort zone of at least 6'-wide, consider the
shared alley design shown in Figure 25 .)
20
Ligh1s, signs, util ity poles and boxes,
trees, bicycle racks, parking meters,
transit stops, benches , stormwater facil ities
and snow storage
I
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
8.3 Shared Zone
0 Signs indicating
pedestrian priority
f) Speed management
measures
(raised crossing)
• Motorists tend to travel in the center of shared streets
where the space is otherwise undefined, so a centrally-
located shared zone may be the most intuitive location .
• In concert with defined gateway treatments
which distinguish the shared street from adjacent
conventional streets, shared zones should reinforce the
shared nature of the street by being visually distinct.
(See 8.4 Comfort Zones and 8.5 Defined Gateways)
• The edges of shared zones must be apparent and
demarcated for pedestrians with vision disabilities .
Edges can be defined with the furniture zone and
streetscape elements, or with detectable edge
treatments . (See 8.8 Organization and Furniture)
• Traffic calming measures like vertical deflection (e .g .,
raised crossings), horizontal deflection (e .g ., chicanes),
21
r-
i
i
!
I
textured paving (e .g., cobbles) which introduce friction,
as well as physical and visual narrowing of the field of
vision for drivers should be used to slow vehicle
speeds and reduce volumes .
• Service and delivery areas and on-street parking may
be located within the shared zone or used to define
the shared zone as distinct from the comfort zone .
Frequency and timing of supply deliveries for adjacent
businesses should be considered in the planning
and design of shared streets . Other freight-related
strategies include exploring delivery access points
that aren't on the shared street, timing deliveries
during low shared street activity times, or looking for
opportunities to provide delivery parking areas on
adjacent streets (if off-street loading/unloading areas
are not provided at the business).
AC CE SSIBLE SHAR ED STR EETS : NOTA BL E PRACTIC ES AND CONS I DERAT IONS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISIO N DISA BILITIES
8.4 Comfort Zones
• Comfort zones should be continuous , clearly-defined ,
straight, direct, and w ithout barriers . Pedestrians may
be free to use the entire shared street, but can choose
to travel within the comfort zone .
• Comfort zones should provide a pedestrian access
route that is at least 6' wide to enable pedestrians to
walk side by side in one direction wh ile comfortably
passing a pedestrian traveling in the opposite
direction. Additional space will be needed to account
for doors, awnings, sidewalk cafes , and other
obstacles.
• Comfort zones should provide connections to all
important destinat ions within the shared street. Where
space allows, provid ing comfort zones on both sides
of a shared street w ill provide enhanced access to
the destinations on each side . Pedest rians can cross
22
r-
1
I
:l ··-,,._
' -'
'
anywhere on a shared street, so if a comfort zone is
only provided on one side, additional consideration
should be given to destination access on the side
without a comfort zone or alternatively, a larger shared
zone that occup ies almost the full width of the street
can be cons idered , as is shown on p. 21 .
• Where possible and logical, align the comfort zone in
proximity with building edges or other linear features
to provide additional orientation, while also allowing
space for a frontage zone . Directional indicators can
be used to prov ide a secondary cue to pedestrians with
vision disabilities to help them stay within the comfort
zone, and may be particularly helpful when the comfort
zone shifts in alignment. For information about the
specifications and use of directional indicators, see
5.4 Directional Indicators . See also 8.7 Tactile Walking
Surface Indicators and Detectable Edges .
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRA CTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCOMM ODATING PEDESTR I ANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
Comfort Zones
!
f
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTAB LE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIO NS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
8.5 Crossings and Connections
0 Connections through
comfort zone
@ Crossings across
shared space
• Link comfort zones directly with designated crossings.
Creating a predictable "ladder-grid " pattern of linear
segments (rails) and connected crossings (rungs) can
make it easier for pedestrians with v ision disabilities to
navigate shared streets .
• Designated cross ings should be located at the entry/
exit points of the shared street.
• The design of the shared street may all ow pedestrians
to freely cross the shared street at any location but it
may also be advisable to provide "courtesy crossings "
in certain circumstances, such as to link important
destinations .
• White crosswalk markings that meet Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) should be
used to designate crossings at shared street gateway
locations. MUTCD compliant crosswal k markings
are also required at courtesy crossings , unless state
or local law gives pedestrians the right-of-way on
r
!
shared streets . The white crosswalk markings may be
composed of white-colored pavers to help distinguish
them from conventional street crosswalks markings;
however, they must be retroreflective , or ambient
illumination must be prov ided to ensure that the
markings are adequately visible .
• In addition to wh ite crosswalk markings, use changes
in paving, text ure , or color to d ist inguish crossings
from comfort zones and shared zones . Directional
indicators can also be employed to enable pedestrians
with vision d isabilities to more easily locate
crossings . Detectable warning surfaces should be
used to indicate the boundary of the shared zone at
designated crossings .
• All designated shared street crossings should be at
least 6' wide . If pedestrian signals are provided , they
must be accessible to persons with disabilities.
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRA CTICES AND CONS I DER ATIONS FOR ACCOMMODAT I NG PEDE STRIANS WITH VIS I ON DISABILI TIES
Crossings and Connections
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 25 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS: NOTABLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIO NS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILIT IES
8.6 Defined Gateways
0 Vertical elements
@Signs
@ Distinctive surface
treatments
0 Detectable warning
surfaces at crosswalks
• Establish the shared use operational protocol with
distinctive treatments that increase awareness of
vulnerable users and reduce motor vehicle speeds to
between 5 and 15 mph .
• Gateway treatments shou ld slow motor vehicle traffic
through changes in surfacing, raised crossings, and
vertical elements (e .g ., trees, landscap ing, or light
posts) that physically narrow the space as well as the
field of vision for drivers.
• Signs to encourage lower motor vehicle speeds and
promote courteous behaviors by motorists may be
used .
• Moveable elements such as planters and removable
bollards may also be used to temporarily block entry/
exit points for certain uses or times of day. These
elements should not be placed in the crosswalks or
the pedestrian access route.
• The gateway should be designed in a way that
enables pedestrians with vision disabilities to detect
an intersecting conve ntional street and navigate to a
designated pedestrian crossing of the conventional
street. The specific design treatment will depend on
site-specific factors, such as the width of the shared
street, whether it has comfort zones, the number of
intersection legs, and other site-specific factors . If the
gateway is configured as a driveway apron, the slope
of the apron should exceed 8 percent, so that a person
with a vision disability walking in the shared zone can
detect it and understand that it is not a pedestrian
ramp leading to a designated pedestrian crossing .
If the gateway does not include a driveway apron,
consider the option presented in Figure 33 on p. 28.
ACCESSIBL E SHARED STREETS : NO TABLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDE STRIANS WITH VIS ION DISABILI TIES
8. 7 Tactile Walking Surface Indicators and Detectable Edges
Detectable warning
surface
@ Directional
indicator (optional)
@) Detectable edge
e
• As conventional navigational cues can be limited
or absent in shared streets, establish an alternative
design language that is applied in a consistent
manner to enable pedestrians with vision disabilities
to understand and navigate the street.
• Pedestrian access routes should have a smooth
surface that contrasts visually with adjoining surfaces .
• Surfaces adjoining pedestrian access routes should
contrast visually with the pedestrian access route,
either light on dark or dark on light, and should
have a detectably different surface texture . (See 5.5
Detectable Edges and Detectable Changes in Surface
Texture)
• Detectable edge treatments can be used to help
pedestrians with vision disabilities distinguish the
edge of the shared zone. (See 5. 5 Detectable Edges
and Detectable Changes in Surface Texture)
r
I
i
I ;
t
I i..~-
• Directional indicators can be used to help pedestrians
with vision disabilities navigate through the comfort
zone and find designated crossings. (See 5.4
Directional Indica tors)
• Provide layers of navigational information to
supplement and/or complement other design
features . This could include audible treatments or
other visual or tactile elements.
• Consider providing kiosks, tactile maps, or other
technological tools to indicate to pedestrians with
vision disabilities that they are entering a shared
street and to provide information on the layout
and navigation of the street. If possible, provide
information about the shared nature of the street to
app/map providers .
ACC ESSIBLE SHAR ED STREETS: NOTA BLE PRACTICES AN D CONSIDERATIO NS FO R ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
Tactile Wa lking Surface Indicators and Detectable Edges
28
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRACT ICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
Tactile Walking Surface Indicators and Detectable Edges
)) When considering detectable edge treatments, designers should consider the needs of both pedestrians
with vision disabilities and pedestrians with mobility disabilities.
Detectable Edge Options
• Rolled curbs, beveled curbs, and valley
gutters are possible options for indicating
the edge of the shared zone. The precise
geometry of these options will influence
how detectable they are and should
be subjected to informal evaluation by
pedestrians with a wide range of vision
disabilities and navigational techniques
prior to installation.
• The color of detectable edge treatments
should contrast with the color of
adjoining surfaces, either light on dark
or dark on light. It is also important to
prov ide adequate, even lighting levels
to ensure such treatments are visible to
pedestrians with low vision at all times of
the day and night.
• Shared streets must accommodate
pedestrians with mobility disabilities. If
a detectable edge is used to indicate the
edge of the shared zone, designers must
consider how it will impact pedestrians
with mobility disabilities and adjust the
design to ensure convenient pedestrian
access routes along and across the street
for pedestrians with mobility disabilities.
• When the pedestrian comfort zone
cannot be defined by detectably
different surfaces, landscaping or
directional indicators can be used to
help pedestrians with vision disabilities
stay within the comfort zone and locate
designated crossings .
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
8.8 Organization and Furniture Zone
0 Space for bicycle
racks, signs, and
other static elements
@ Parking area
·····-····--..\--·--·-····-·······
• Cluster naturally compati ble elements together
(e.g., benches and bike racks) to distinguish active
and static uses of the public space .
• At roadway intersections within a shared space, design
crosswalks to be directly in line with the approach on
the pedestrian access route, not offset in any way.
• Where possible, elements should be arranged in a
continuous linear fashion.
• Where possible, physically combine elements to
minimize poles and clutter (e .g ., attac h signs to light
poles).
• Place freestand ing elements like bike racks out of the
pedestrian circulation path .
"' I ;
i
• Site motor veh icl e parking and loading zones outside
of the comfort zone and separate them from the
comfort zone with a detectable edge. These functions
can be located adjacent to the comfort zone and used
to define it; however, they should not encroach upon
the comfort zone. Avoid the use of wheel stops as they
can be a tripping hazard . Instead , consider using site
furnishings or surface changes that are detectable to
indicate park in g areas .
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREET S: NOTABLE PRA CTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTR I ANS WITH VISION DIS ABILITIES
Organization and Furniture Zone
31
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FDR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
8. 9 MUTCD Compliant and Other Signs Currently in Use
MUTCD Compliant Sign Options
IN STREET
Other Signs Currently In Use
10
MPH
YIELD
TO
PEDESTRIANS
IN STREET
IN STREET
10
MPH
YIELD
TO
PEDESTRIANS
IN STREET
NEXT
2 BLOCKS
IN STREET
NEXT
2 BLOCKS
Note: Research is underway to identify the most effective signing and pavement marking for shared streets. Official Experimentation
under Section 1A .10 of the MUTCD is available for potential traffic control device concepts that might not comply with the MUTCD .
Among the signs being studied for recognit ion and comprehension are symbol signs used internationally and various word legends
including SHARED STREET and PEDESTRIAN ZONE . Consult with the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations MUTCD Team
and visit ~ to learn more about signing and pavement marking options and the most recent developments . Figure 37
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRAC TICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILITIES
9. CONCLUSION
Interest in shared street design is on the rise in the United
States due to recognition of their many potential benefits,
includ ing improved safety for all roadway users, improved
access for pedestrians with mobility disabilities, and the
ability to use the street for a range of social, economic,
and cultural activities. There are dozens of shared street
examples that already exist, many of which have been
around for a long time. However, there is a need for
additional guidance on accessible shared street design in
the United States, particularly as it relates to the needs of
people with vision disab ilities.
This guide helps to fill this gap in existing guidance. Key
takeaways include:
• The need to involve pedestrians with a range vision
disabilities and their advocates at every stage in the
planning and design of a shared street, so that shared
street designs address the navigational challenges
faced by pedestrians with a vision disabilities . This
guide details those challenges and provides a toolbox
of strategy ideas for addressing them.
• The importance of detectability, discriminability,
and consistency when using tactile surfaces to
33
provide navigational information to pedestrians with
vision disabilities .
• The importance of using detectable warning
surfaces consistent with the practices outlined in the
Proposed PROWAG (e.g., not as a guidance surface or
directional indicator).
• The need for additional U.S. research and guidance
regarding the appropriate physical characteristics
and use of directional indicators. Until this guidance
is developed, practitioners should refer to the ISO for
guidance and should involve numerous pedestrians
with vision disab ilities and orientation and mobility
specialists in determining the detectability and
discrimina bility of potential surfaces.
• The need for ongoing management, operations and
ma intenan ce of shared streets to ensure usability
and safety.
• The need for additional research on shared street
design, user perception, and operations.
• The need for more research on the Shared Street sign
and on other signs and markings relating to shared
streets .
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILIT IES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Accessibility Design Guide: Universal design principles
for Australia's aid program. AusAID, January
2013 . Accessed from http-Udfat goy au/about-us/
publications/documents/accessib ility-design -guide pdf
Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design
Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts . FHWA , 2016.
Accessed from https"//www.fhwa dot.gov/
environ ment/bicycle pedestrian/publicat ions/
multimodal networks/
Bentzen , Ph.D ., Bill ie Louise, Janet M . Barlow, COMS, Lee
S. Tabor, architect. Detectable Warnings : Synthesis of
U.S. and International Practice. Accessible Design for
the Blind/U.S. Access Board, 2002. Accessed from
http· Uc ontextsens itivesol uti ons . org /content/reading I
dw syothesis/resources/Detectable%20Wamings%20
Synthesis/
Bettye Rose Connell , Mike Jones, Ron Mace, Jim Mueller,
Abir Mullick, Elaine Ostroff, Jon Sanford , Ed Steinfeld,
Molly Story, and Gregg Vanderheiden . The Principles
of Universal Design . The National Institute on Disability
and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department of
Educat ion, North Carolina State Un iversity, The
Center for Universal Design, 1997. Accessed from
https://www ncsu edu/ncs u/design/cud/about ud/
udprjnciplestext .ht m
Brault , Matthew W. Americans With Disabilities: 2010 . US
Census Bureau , 2012. Accessed from https-Uwww.
census .gov/library/publicatjons /2012/demo/p?0-131
b1rn1
Deichmann, J ., Winterberg, B., and Bredmose, A . Shared
Space> Safe Spa c e. Meeting the Needs of the Blind
and Partially Sighted People in a Shared Space . Guide
Dogs for the Blind Association . Accessed from https:U
www guidedogs.org.uk/media/1497826 /Shared
space -safe space Ramboll Ny yj g report.pdf
Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces. United
Kingdom Department of Environment, Transportation
and the Regions , 2007. Accessed from https://
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syst em/up loads/
attachment data /file /289245/tactile-paving-surfaces.
Ild.f
Hamilton -Baillie, Ben . "Shared Space : Reconciling
People , Place and Traffic". Built Environment, vol. 34,
no . 2 (2008). Accessed from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/23289804
Havik, Dr. Else M . and Dr. Bart J . M . Melis-Dankers .
Shared Spaces for Blind and Partially Sighted People :
A Challenge for Designers. Issues and Advice for
Accessible Public Spaces . Royal Dutch Visio, Center
of Expertise for Blind and partially sighted people.
Accessed from http"//www eccolo nl/shared-space/
englis h /#/home/
Jurewicz, Chr is, Amir Sobhani , Jeremy Woolley, Jeff
Dutschke, and Bruce Corben. "Exploration of Vehicle
Impact Speed -Injury Severity Relationships for
Application in Safer Road Design ." Transportation
Research Procedia 14 (2016): 4247-256 .
Local Transport Note 1111: Shared Space, UK Department
for Transport, 2011 . Accessed from https:Uwww.gov.
uk/government/publications/shared-space
Lord Holmes of Richmond MBE . Accidents by Design:
The Holmes Report on "Shared Space" in the United
Kingdom . 2015 . Accessed from http://chrisholmes.
co .uk/wp-content/uploads /2015 /07/Holmes-Report-
on-Shared-Space-,pdf
Manual for Streets. UK Department for Transport, 2007.
Accessed from https ://www.gov.uk/goyeroment/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/
f!le/341513/pdfmaoforstreets .pdf
Manual for Streets 2 : Wider Application of the Principles .
Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation ,
UK , 2010 . Accessed from http·Uwww ciht.org .uk/en/
document-summary/index cfm/docid/055693F6-
8DB0-4BBE-AA9FF1 B5BC5E9412
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, FHWA,
2009 . Accessed from https-Umutcd fhwa dot gov/
kno 2009r1 r2 htm
Moody, S. and Melia, S. "Shared space : Research, policy
and problems . 2014. Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers-Transport , 167 (6). pp . 384-392 .
ISSN 0965-092 X. Accessed from http:Ueprints .uwe ,
ac .uk/17937
ACC ESSIBLE SHARED STREET S: NOTABLE PRACTIC ES AND CO NSIDERATIONS FOR ACCOMMODAT IN G PEDESTR I ANS WI TH VISION DISABI LI TIES
Norton, Peter D. Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor
Age in the American City. MIT Press , 2008 .
Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian
Facilities i n the Public Right-of-Way . United States
Access Board , 2011 . Accessed from https ://www.
access -board .gov/guidelines-and-standards/streets -
sidewalks/public-rights-of-way/proposed-rights-of-
way-guidelines
Saviskas, S. Taking Back our Streets: Demystifying
Shared Space Streets in America. Master's
Professional Report , 2015 . Department of City and
Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley.
Accessed from http-//www ham ilton -ba illie.co uk/
files/ publicatio ns/55-1 pdf
Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks . FHWA,
2016 . Accessed from https· //www fhwa dot gov/
environment/bicycle pedestrian/publications/small
towns/fhwah ep1 7024 lg.pdf
Summary Health Statistics: National Health Interview
Survey. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
2015 . Accessed from : https:Uftp.cdc .gov/pub/Health
Statistics/NCHS /NHIS/SHS/2015 SHS Ta ble A-6.pdf
Tauchi, M . Kizuka, Y., Sakamoto, Y., Sueda, 0 . &
T. Tanaka . Report of Fundamental Research on
Standardization Relati ng to Tactile Tiles for Guiding
the Visually Impaired. Ministry of International Trade
and Industry, National Institute for Technology and
Evaluation, Japan, 1998
Tefft, Brian C. "Impact Speed and a Pedestrians Risk
of Severe Injury or Death ." Accident Analysis and
Prevention 50 (2013): 871-78 .
The Burden of Vision Loss. Vision Health Initiative.
Centers for Disease Control. Accessed from https:U
www.cdc.gov/visionhealth/risk/burden .htm
The International Organ iz ation for Standardization.
Assistive Products for Blind and Vision-Impaired
Persons-Tactile Walking Surface Indicators .,
ISO 23599, Technical Committee ISO/TC 173 ,
Assistive products for persons with disability,
2012 . Accessed from https:Uwww.iso.org/obp/
uj/#is o:std :jso:23 599 :ed-1 :v1 :en
35
TNS-BMRB for Guide Dogs for the Blind . Inclusive
Mobility: The impact of Shared Surface Streets and
Shared Use Pedestrian/Cycle Paths on the Mobility
and Independence of Blind and Partially Sighted
People : Executive Summary. TNS-BMRB Report
JN :197369 March 2010 . Accessed from https://www.
guidedogs.org.uk/medja/1497871 /TNS Impact
Report for Guide Do gs 2010 pdf
Urban Street Design Guide . National Association of City
Transportation Officials, 2013 . Accessed from https:U
nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design -guide/
streets/residential-shared-street/
Van Veen, Dick, "Shared Space : Possible Solutions
for the Accessibility for Visually Impaired People ."
Mobycon . Accessed from http:Uwww.ictct.org/
migrated 2014/ictct document or 777 Dick%20
van%20Veen%20Shared%20Space%2Qpossible%20
solutjons%20for%20the%20access pdf
ACCESSIBLE SHARED STREETS : NOTABLE PRACTICES AND CONS IDER ATIONS FOR ACCOMMODATING PEDESTRIANS WITH VISION DISABILIT IES