represented by committee members. The report follows a "toolbox" approach to the establishment of guidelines designed to facilitate implementation and to promote an understanding of the needs of all users of public rights-of-ways. The report comprehensively covers the various components of public streets and sidewalks and provides criteria for sidewalks, street fixtures and furnishings, street crossings, vehicular ways, parking, and other components of public rights-of-way. In addition, the report includes advisory notes, figures, and discussion of issues that merit further study or special attention in the Board’s rulemaking.

June 17, 2002 Release of Draft Guidelines

An ad hoc group of Board members reviewed the committee’s report in depth and crafted a set of draft guidelines based on the committee’s recommendations. Because the draft guidelines departed from the advisory committee’s report in several areas, the Board made an advance draft of the guidelines available for comment by the public. The notice of availability of the draft guidelines was published in the Federal Register on June 17, 2002. The Board requested information and feedback on the draft guidelines, including usability and cost data. In addition to seeking written comment, the Board held a public hearing in Portland, Oregon.

Over 1,400 comments were received from the public in response to the publication of the draft. Of this total, almost 900 comments were tabulated from persons with disabilities and groups representing them; the great preponderance of comments in this category came from people who indicated that they were blind or had low vision. Slightly over 200 comments were submitted by respondents from the transportation industry: design engineers and consultants, State and local government departments of transportation, and the organizations and groups that represent them. Another 100 were received from State and local government administrative agencies. Comments are posted on the Board's website at http://www.access-board.gov/prowac/comments/index.htm.

Almost all of the commenters from the two major blindness organizations, the American Council of the Blind (ACB) and the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), and persons who were not affiliated with either organization addressed only the use of detectable warnings and/or accessible pedestrian signals (APS) and virtually all of them supported the requirement for these features in at least some locations (detectable warnings at islands and medians and at all lowslope sidewalk connections to the street; APS at complex intersections, irregular intersections, intersections with compound turning movements, and intersections with leading pedestrian intervals). Some commenters misunderstood the effect of the scoping provisions for these
features, believing that all intersections would have to be retrofitted at tremendous cost. In fact, only future new projects would be subject to these guidelines. With respect to APS in particular, only pedestrian crossings that provide pedestrian signals would be required to include APS. Some commenters, expressing concerns about the noise output of APS, were apparently unfamiliar with the quiet, pedbutton-integrated devices now available in the United States (these devices are installed at the departure curb, near the listening user, rather than overhead).

Ten key issues from comment were identified for detailed analysis: crosswalk width; on-street parking; walking speed and pedestrian signal phase timing; elevators at pedestrian overpasses and underpasses; same-side alternate circulation routes; cross slope in crosswalks; detectable warnings; accessible pedestrian signals; roundabouts and roundabout signalization; andalterations. These issues have been addressed in this second draft. Changes include the following:

Other changes included the addition of significant advisory material throughout the document. Advisory notes are for informational purposes only.

The Board also considered industry recommendations that the guidelines be re-formatted to use transportation metrics and language and to be better coordinated with industry standards and documents, particularly the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

This draft is now formatted as a stand-alone document that expresses its dimensioning requirements first in international units, as is done in other industry documents. Its provisions have been harmonized with current MUTCD standards, support, options, and guidance. Industry terms and phrases have been adopted, and industry practices recognized where feasible.

The Board is placing the revised draft in the docket to facilitate the gathering of cost data necessary for the next step in this rulemaking which is the preparation of a regulatory assessment for government review and approval prior to issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). In order to develop an accurate picture of the potential costs and benefits of this rulemaking, the Board must work closely with the transportation industry representatives who have data on both current cost and industry practices and the knowledge and skills to assess potential effects.

The Board is not seeking comments on this draft. Readers will have an opportunity to provide input when the NPRM is published. Additional figures will be included in the NPRM. 4The Board is not seeking comments on this draft. Readers will have an opportunity to provide input when the NPRM is published. Additional figures will be included in the NPRM.

Back| Next

Download PDF Version