FHWA Supports:
PDF Version Document (20.7 MB)
| 1. Report No.: FHWA-HEP-17-096 |
2. Government Accession No.: | 3. Recipient's Catalog No.: | |
| 4. Title and Subtitle: Accessible Shared Streets: Notable Practices and Considerations for Accommodating Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities |
5. Report Date: October 2017 |
||
| 6. Performing Organization Code: | |||
| 7. Author(s): Elliott, J; Lohse, K; Toole, J; Lockwood, I; Barlow, J; Bentzen, B; Porter, C |
8. Performing Organization Report No.: | ||
9. Performing Organization Name and Address: Accessible Design for the Blind, 3 Manila Street, Asheville, NC 28806 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 100 CambridgePark Drive Suite 400, Cambridge, MA 02140 |
10. Work Unit No.: | ||
| 11. Contract or Grant No.: DTFH61-11-D-00030, Task 5012 |
|||
| 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 |
13. Type of Report and Period Covered: Planning and Design Resource |
||
14. Sponsoring Agency Code: |
|||
| 15. Supplementary Notes: |
|||
16. Abstract: The guide includes a description of shared streets, an overview of vision disabilities and the strategies people with vision disabilities use to navigate in the public right of way. It discusses the specific challenges pedestrians with vision disabilities face when navigating shared streets. It provides an overview of relevant U.S. guidance, a toolbox of strategies for designing shared streets that improve accessibility for pedestrians with vision disabilities, and ideas on how accessibility for pedestrians with vision disabilities can be addressed in the planning and design process. It provides information from case studies of completed shared streets in the United States that highlight accessibility features and lessons learned, as well as 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. |
|||
| 17. Key Words: Shared street, accessibility, pedestrian, walking, bike, bicycle, design flexibility, planning, design, vision disabilities |
18. Distribution Statement: This document is available to the public on the FHWA website at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian |
||
| 19. Security Classification (of this report): Unclassified | 20. Security Classification (of this page): Unclassified | 21. No of Pages: 40 | 22. Price: |
Dan Goodman, Elizabeth Hilton, Dave Kirschner, Gabe Rousseau, Candace Groudine, Patrick Gomez, Jodi Petersen, Brooke Struve, Shari Schaftlein, Gary Jensen
The Federal Highway Administration (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 (Virginia) Department of Transportation and Environmental Services
City of Minneapolis Public Works
City of Pittsburgh Department of Mobility and Infrastructure
City of Seattle Department of Transportation
City of Vancouver (British Columbia) Active Transportation Branch
District of Columbia Department of Transportation
Montgomery County (Maryland) Aging and Disability Services Unit
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
This document is disseminated 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 contained 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 necessarily reflect the official policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Images in the report are intended to serve as examples of the range of real world existing conditions; they are not limited to best practices or approved designs or behaviors and in some cases may reflect conditions that are not recommended.
All photographs by Toole Design Group unless otherwise noted.
Publication Number: FHWA-HEP-17-096
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 walking 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. It focuses 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:
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:
Shared street environments can be challenging for pedestrians with vision 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 streets include:
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.
FHWA maintains a table summarizing Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding Opportunities U.S. Department of Transportation Transit, Highway, and Safety Funds. The table indicates potential eligibility for pedestrian and bicycle projects under U.S. Department of Transportation surface transportation funding programs. This table includes planning and design elements that can be incorporated into shared streets, for example curb cuts and ramps, bicycle parking, benches, lighting, signs, and safety enforcement.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 provides that no person with a disability shall, because a public entity's facilities are inaccessible or unusable, be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity's programs, services, or activities-including pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way. However, there is relatively little U.S. guidance on how to design shared streets that are accessible to people with vision disabilities. The NACTO Urban Street Design Guide addresses shared streets, but does not discuss accessibility for pedestrians with vision disabilities in detail. Two recently published guidebooks from the FHWA, Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts and Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks, address shared conditions but include limited detail on accessible design of these spaces.
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. For that reason, the FHWA considers the Proposed PROWAG a best practice for the design and construction of sidewalks, pedestrian facilities, and other elements in the public rights-of-way. However, Proposed PROWAG has very little information specific to the shared street environment.
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 reduced visual acuity include 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 acuity 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 wayfinding are also affected by reduced fields of vision.
In addition to limitations in visual acuity and field of vision, pedestrians with low vision may have:
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 pedestrians with vision disabilities 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:
Individuals with vision disabilities also rely on a variety of non-visual cues to navigate streets and public spaces. These cues may include:
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.
Shared streets, which desegregate drivers and pedestrians to create a lively and flexible space, can result in an ambiguous, highly variable, and potentially difficult experience for pedestrians with vision disabilities. Potential navigational challenges include:
Safe space: Without the typical segregation 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 traffic 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 awareness, and eye contact or hand signals--activities that put pedestrians with vision disabilities at a disadvantage.
Patterns of use: Shared streets accommodate different types of use, including people 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 activities and patterns.
Orientation and wayfinding cues: Shared streets typically lack design elements like curbs, curb ramps, detectable warning surfaces, and crosswalks that help pedestrians with vision disabilities orient themselves. In addition, street furnishings, pedestrian 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 using audible cues for navigation due to low motor vehicle volumes.
Surfacing: Shared streets that use patterned paving for aesthetic effect can be confusing and disorienting to people with vision disabilities, who may mistakenly interpret the patterns as cues for navigation or as stairs or level changes.
Defined crossings: For pedestrians with vision disabilities, the lack of defined crossings, coupled with greater uncertainty about how other road users might respond, complicates 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 which pedestrians with vision disabilities are affected by these challenges depends on the unique context and design 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 most 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 individuals with vision disabilities (See 6. Planning Shared Streets).
Many countries have adopted the use of tactile surfaces to help pedestrians with vision disabilities navigate the built environment. 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).
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 (TWSIs), which is the term 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 specifications and use are clearly defined in the Proposed PROWAG. 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.
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.
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 single surface that was found to be detected by most participants on most trials (approximately 90% of trials across multiple experiments) was the truncated dome detectable warning surface.
Specifications for the use of detectable warning surfaces are contained in the Proposed PROWAG. Although not an enforceable standard, the FHWA recommends 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 full width of the flush sidewalk/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 public rights-of-way, detectable warning surfaces should be used in pairs that identify the beginning and ending of a crosswalk. When approached 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 travel way.
Detectable warning 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).
There has been no research in the United States on the detectability of directional indicators. However, international research has found directional indicators comprised of raised bars to be highly detectable and identifiable under foot.
If directional indicators are installed, it is best practice to use directional indicators that meet the standard dimensions specified in ISO 23599:2012 and that differ in visual contrast from the adjoining surface, either light on dark or dark on light (Figure 11). Other textures 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 provided on the following page.
| Top width of flat-topped elongated bars | Spacing (mm) |
|---|---|
| 17 | 57 to 78 |
| 20 | 60 to 80 |
| 25 | 65 to 83 |
| 30 | 70 to 85 |
Figure 12: Specifications for bar width and bar spacing. 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.
Best practice is to provide surfaces or landscaping on either side of pedestrian comfort zones that are sufficiently detectable to travelers with vision disabilities, so that they form detectable boundaries to the comfort zone. Adjoining surfaces need to differ from one another in visual contrast (light beside dark), as well as texture (Figure 12). The surface or landscaping can be either followed by travelers with vision disabilities, or can simply be noted in the same way that the two sides of a sidewalk are detected and enable travelers with vision disabilities to walk within the sidewalk width.
Additional research is needed on how to guide selection of walking surfaces that are reliably detected from one another. In the absence of such research, designers are encouraged to experiment informally before finalizing selection of surfaces intended to provide detectable edges or detectable changes in surface texture. The need for such surfaces to be both identifiable 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 majority of pedestrians with vision disabilities do not use a long white cane. Textures that differ from adjoining surfaces in resilience (i.e., in their ability to be compressed) as well as surface texture may be more highly detectable than the same textures that do not differ in resilience. Proposed surfaces to be used together should be subjected to informal evaluation by numerous pedestrians who have vision disabilities, who attempt to discriminate the difference between them 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 possible considerations for indicating the edge of the shared portion of the shared street, but their precise geometry will influence how detectable they are (Figure 13). Therefore, they should also undergo informal evaluation by numerous pedestrians with vision disabilities.
When the pedestrian comfort zone cannot be defined by detectably different surfaces, the raised bar directional indicator is recommended.
Ensuring that shared streets work for pedestrians with vision disabilities requires involving key stakeholders in the planning and design process, including individuals 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 programming of shared streets post-construction are also important.
Planners and designers should establish early and ongoing collaboration between local government representatives and key stakeholders, including:
Key stakeholders should be engaged at every stage in the planning and design process, from needs assessment to final design.
Planners and designers can take a number of steps to make project meetings more accessible to people with vision disabilities:
Accessible websites that comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 can also help engage people with vision disabilities in shared street projects. The website can be used to post basic information about the project, upcoming meeting dates, meeting minutes, information about alternative design scenarios, and other relevant materials.
Most people in the United States have limited experience with shared streets, so it is important to educate them about the goals and features of a shared street design before and after construction. Education should target users of all abilities and materials should be provided in formats accessible to people with vision disabilities (e.g., high visibility, large font size, tactile, audible). It may be advantageous to work with partners from the vision disability community and provide guided, explanatory tours of recently constructed shared streets.
Designers have the ability to “tweak” designs once they are implemented and behaviors can be observed. With newer, complex facility types like 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 15). A data collection and monitoring protocol is recommended for measuring the effectiveness of designs over time. It is also helpful to 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 well.
A number of communities in the United 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 gain a better understanding of current practice for accommodating pedestrians with vision disabilities. The following are some key lessons learned.
Figure 18. The couroy pattern used on this street to indicate the boundary of the shared zone is not reliably detectable underfoot or by cane and does not provide enough visual contrast with the adjoining surface. .
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 respond 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.
The abilities and needs of pedestrians with vision disabilities are varied 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 with low vision. Vision loss may be accompanied by collateral disabilities that may detract from a user's perceptions and ability to orient themselves in unfamiliar environments. Compromised balance, limited depth perception, reduced sensitivity to contrast, difficulty with both low light and glare, hearing loss, and difficulty reading signs may accompany low vision, particularly in older pedestrians with vision disabilities.
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 pedestrians use shared streets safely and comfortably. Navigational cues can be provided by the following streetscape elements, and should be used in combination where possible:
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, seating 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.
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 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.
Shared streets can provide a setting for farmers' markets, festivals, special events, and other public uses. Maintaining an accessible path of travel for pedestrians with vision disabilities, as well as for pedestrians with other disabilities, at all times 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.
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. Operational and maintenance costs and efforts must be addressed at all stages of the planning and design of shared streets.
Streetscape elements within a shared street should be organized in a way that facilitates navigation by pedestrians with vision disabilities. The defining feature of a shared street is a shared zone where pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles can safely interact in the same space. If there is sufficient right-of-way, shared streets may also have a pedestrian-only comfort zone.
Designate a shared zone where users can expect to encounter each other, using treatments that communicate pedestrian priority.
Create an obstacle-free pedestrian route(s) where pedestrians can move through the space without risk of conflict with other users or obstacles.
Define the comfort zone with contrasting materials, colors and detectable changes in surface texture to enable people who are blind or have low vision to distinguish the comfort zone from the shared zone. Street furnishings, landscaping, directional indicators, and other streetscape elements can also be used to define the space and help pedestrians with vision disabilities navigate through it.
Provide defined crossing opportunities, using treatments that respond to the needs of the users of the street and are appropriate to the context.
Clearly define, to both drivers and pedestrians, the shared street's entry and exit points through physical and visual means that distinguish the shared street from conventional streets and communicate pedestrian priority.
Use tactile walking surface indicators (such as detectable warnings and directional indicators) to facilitate movement through and across shared streets. Use detectable edges and detectable changes in surface texture to define the pedestrian comfort zone.
Use detectable warning surfaces to indicate the boundary between a shared street and a conventional street at crosswalks of either street.
In cases where the pedestrian access route is not intuitive, for example because it is not straight or is not supported by other detectable cues such as the building edge line, use directional indicators to designate a pedestrian access route through the comfort zone. Directional indicators may also be used to direct pedestrians to designated crossings and amenities like transit stops. Directional indicators may be located along the middle or edge of the comfort zone, depending on the context and width of the comfort zone. 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 oriented perpendicular to the pedestrian path of travel cross over the pedestrian access route) to accommodate wheelchair users. When used for designated crossings, directional indicators should be placed at the outside edge of the crossing rather than in the middle of the crossing, so that wheelchair users can more easily avoid the indicators when using the crossing.
OPTION: If the connection to the major street is not detectable due to low slope, a directional indicator across the shared street could potentially provide a cue to someone walking in the shared zone regarding the location of designated crossings across intersecting conventional streets. More research is needed on this application. If used, agencies should carefully monitor wear and tear from motor vehicles to ensure that it doesn't become a tripping hazard.
When considering detectable edge treatments, designers should consider the needs of both pedestrians with vision disabilities and pedestrians with mobility disabilities.
Organize the streetscape elements to create an easily understood space where people with vision disabilities can find their way and move through the street unimpeded by potential obstacles such as street furnishings.
Potential obstacles are organized and grouped together. This clearly demarcates them from the comfort zone. Elements in the furniture zone may include:
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 recognition 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 mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov to learn more about signing and pavement marking options and the most recent developments.
Accessibility Design Guide: Universal design principles for Australia's aid program. AusAID, January 2013. Accessed from http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/documents/accessibility-design-guide.pdf
Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts. FHWA, 2016. Accessed from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/multimodal_networks/
Bentzen, Ph.D., Billie 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 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/css/resources/warnings/
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 Education, North Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Design, 1997. Accessed from https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm
Brault, Matthew W. Americans With Disabilities: 2010. US Census Bureau, 2012. Accessed from https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2012/demo/p70-131.html
Deichmann, J., Winterberg, B., and Bredmose, A. Shared Space > Safe Space. Meeting the Needs of the Blind and Partially Sighted People in a Shared Space. Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. Accessed from https://www.guidedogs.org.uk/media/1497826/Shared_space_-_safe_space_Ramboll_Nyvig_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/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/289245/tactile-paving-surfaces.pdf
Hamilton-Baillie, Ben. “Shared Space: Reconciling People, Place and Traffic”. Built Environment, vol. 34, no. 2. Accessed from http://www.solaripedia.com/files/1233.pdf
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/english/#/home/
Jurewicz, Chris, 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 1/11: Shared Space, UK Department for Transport, 2011. Accessed from https://www.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/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/341513/pdfmanforstreets.pdf
Manual for Streets 2: Wider Application of the Principles. Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation, UK, 2010. Accessed from http://www.ciht.org.uk/en/document-summary/index.cfm/docid/055693F6-8DB0-4BBE-AA9FF1B5BC5E9412
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, FHWA, 2009. Accessed from https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009r1r2.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 0965-092X. Accessed from http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/17937
Norton, Peter D. Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. MIT Press, 2008.
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.hamilton-baillie.co.uk/_files/_publications/55-1.pdf
Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks. FHWA, 2016. Accessed from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/fhwahep17024_lg.pdf
Summary Health Statistics: National Health Interview Survey. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015. Accessed from: https://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/NHIS/SHS/2015_SHS_Table_A-6.pdf
Tauchi, M. Kizuka, Y., Sakamoto, Y., Sueda, O. & T. Tanaka. Report of Fundamental Research on Standarization Relating 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://www.cdc.gov/visionhealth/basic_information/vision_loss_burden.htm
The International Organization 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. Accessed from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:23599:ed-1:v1:en
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/media/1497871/TNS_Impact_Report_for_Guide_Dogs_2010.pdf
Urban Street Design Guide. National Association of City Transportation Officials, 2013. Accessed from https://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://www.ictct.org/migrated_2014/ictct_document_nr_777_Dick%20van%20Veen%20Shared%20Space%20possible%20solutions%20for%20the%20access.pdf
