1. Accessible shared streets
Jodi Petersen, Federal Highway Administration Civil Rights Program Manager – Washington State Division Office

2. background
Several communities in U.S. are implementing innovative roadway designs such as shared street concepts (economic development, improve safety, respond to demand for more bicycle-pedestrian facilities, et al);
FHWA recognizes the need to ensure that shared street designs meet the needs of all users (with focus on flexibility in design, multi-modal connectivity, public engagement);
FHWA sponsored the 2017 Accessible Shared Streets study to gain insight on the shared streets concept, specifically as regards to accessibility for persons with vision disabilities;

3. What is a shared street?
A street that includes a shared zone where pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles mix in the same space (typically no curbs present);
Frontage Zone – landscaping, street café, signage, accommodate door opening out;
Comfort Zone – pedestrian access route (prefer 6-foot minimum);
Furniture Zone – lights, utility poles, trees, bicycle racks, parking meters, transit stops, benches;
Shared Zone – shared circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles.
Not all streets without curbs are “shared streets”!
A street may periodically be closed to motor vehicles, allowing pedestrians free movement within the space (festivals, farmers’ markets); this should be not confused with “shared streets” which encourage both pedestrian and vehicle use within the same space.

4. Shared street

5. Overview of the accessible shared streets study resource document
Introduction
Shared Streets
Legal Requirements Regarding Accessibility (best source U.S. Access Board’s 2011 PROWAG)
Shared Streets and Persons with Vision Disabilities
Tactile Warning Surface Indicators and Detectable Edges
Planning Shared Streets
Lessons Learned from Shared Street Implementation in the U.S.
Shared Streets Design Toolbox
Conclusion

6. introduction Extensive stakeholder engagement process:
Pedestrians with vision disabilities, including persons who are both deaf and blind; orientation and mobility specialists; shared street designers, and Federal, State and local government officials;
Two multi-day workshops; two focus groups; a peer exchange with shared street designers and one-on-one interviews with stakeholders;
Field visits to several shared streets across the U.S. (including Seattle, Washington)

7. Shared streets and persons with vision disabilities
Workshops included:
Group discussion of the “shared street” design (typical elements), how pedestrians with vision disabilities navigate in general, and potential navigational challenges posed by shared streets;
Field visits (local transportation agency designers, State DOT bicycle-pedestrian coordinators, Orientation & Mobility Specialists, individuals with vision disabilities, individuals who were both deaf and blind, individuals with mobility disabilities, several signers, FHWA & Consultant)
Wrap-Up Discussions – feedback from participants

8. Workshop highlights

9. Workshop highlights Extremely engaged participants;
Discussions centered around features and issues at each location (Seattle, WA; Silver Spring, MD; Minneapolis, MN); but participants also shared good and bad experiences they have had while traveling in other parts of the country
Everyone benefitted from the experience – more informed equals better decisions (everyone learned something)

10. Field visit highlights

11. Field visit highlights
Traveled as one group to shared street locations; split into smaller groups to explore the features of the shared street;
Smaller groups – cross-representation (individuals with disabilities, orientation & mobility specialist, Federal/State/Local transportation representative, consultant staff – recording experiences;
Returned to workshop facility for discussion of experiences/wrap-up

12. What we learned from the workshops and field visits
Shared streets need to be “reliably” detectable by individuals with vision disabilities (important that features be consistently applied)
Transition from pedestrian-only space (sidewalk) to shared zones (entry into shared space area) – help to correctly interpret the transition
Transition from share spaces to vehicular lanes on intersecting conventional streets (end of shared space) – help to locate an designated crossing of the conventional street
Design must distinguish between shared streets and conventional streets
Gateway treatments, traffic calming measures, detectable changes in surface texture and color, and so on

13. What we Learned…
If using detectable warnings (truncated domes) to indicate transition between shared zone and intersecting conventional street – important to align with a marked crosswalk;
Different surfaces intended to help pedestrians with vision disabilities navigate were not reliably detectable under foot/detectable by cane; grooved surfaces were not effective
Visual contrast works well for pedestrians with low vision and color blindness, but does nothing for pedestrians who are blind; zig-zag pathways are also challenging
Clear path is important – great to have “comfort zones”, but need to avoid placing café seating, planters and so on, in pedestrian access route; same tactile surface was used to not only provide navigational information to pedestrians with vision disabilities but also as a decorative treatment (confusing);

14. Moving forward
Hope that roadway designers will use the information contained in the Accessible Shared Streets document to help them improve shared street designs – making them accessible to persons of all abilities;

15. Key Takeaways
The need to involve pedestrians with a range of vision (and other) disabilities, and their advocates, in every stage of planning and designing a shared street;
The importance of detectability and consistency when using tactile surfaces to provide navigational information to persons with vision disabilities;
The importance of using detectable warnings consistent with the Public Right-of-Way Guidelines (PROWAG);
The need for additional U.S. research and guidance regarding the appropriate physical characteristics and use of directional indicators (to determine detectability and discriminability of potential surfaces); and more.

16. Jodi.Petersen@dot.gov (360)534-9325
Thank you!
(360)