Issue 15: Installation Errors Increase Risk
This account shows clearly why it’s critical for installers to understand how APS work and something about how pedestrians use them -- particularly when the APS is installed in response to a user request.
Some years ago, a city highway agency was contacted by a pedestrian who requested that an APS be installed at an intersection he crossed twice a day, going to and from work. He was a colleague of a local orientation and mobility instructor, who emphasized the urgency of the need in follow-up communications with the DOT, as one of the streets was a busy arterial.
After a lengthy wait, APS were installed for all crosswalks of the intersection. On one corner, the APS were installed on the wrong poles (as discussed in Issue 4) and the tactile arrows had also not been installed, but the orientation and mobility specialist explained to the user which buttons were intended for which crosswalk, and he was able to use them satisfactorily. However, after a few months he began complaining that the APS were no longer working. Technicians checked the devices more than once and didn’t find any problems.
Eventually, the pedestrian and the DOT signal technicians arranged to meet at the site. Demonstrating the APS, the technician said: “See? The button ticks so you know it’s there. When you press the button, the light comes on to let you know that it’s working. When the WALK signal begins, you hear a fast ticking sound”. After the interpreter signed that information in the pedestrian’s palm, the user shook his head sadly and signed back: “I am 100% deaf. I am 100% blind. I need the signal to vibrate.” The vibrotactile feature on the APS was not working and the technicians hadn’t noticed. (See figure 20).
After several more attempts to correct the installation and many months of delay that led to the filing of an ADA complaint against the agency, the DOT’s ADA coordinator reported that a replacement APS from a different manufacturer had been ordered and installed.
When the ADA coordinator went to check the installation, however, he realized that the APS on one corner of the intersection, while installed on two separated poles, were still installed on the wrong poles (see Issue #4). He had the mistake corrected; each APS was moved and reoriented on the pole close to the crosswalk it controlled. At a subsequent meeting with the deaf-blind user and the orientation and mobility specialist at the intersection, the pedestrian demonstrated how he used the APS. Using the now ‘wrong’ pedestrian pushbutton, he prepared to start his crossing … but no one had told him that the APS had been switched to the correct poles. Before he could step into the street, he was stopped, and the change of the APS was explained to him. He paused, stepped back and looked dismayed, and then signed: “If you switch them again, please inform me!”
On the other corner, APS for the two different crossings were both installed on one pole, as shown in figure 21 and 22. The distance to the crossing (on crosswalk A) results in other problems. While there, it was noted that the Flashing Don’t Walk (FDW) signal also was extremely short – so short (3 seconds) that it was possible for a pedestrian to leave the pushbutton and prepare to cross the street while the vibrotactile indication was still active, but step into the street after the FDW had ended.
This timing issue is complicated by the fact that the pedestrian pushbutton for THIS crossing is well over 10 feet from the street (see figures 21 and 22). It takes this deaf-blind pedestrian nine seconds to get to the crosswalk after detecting the vibrotactile signal. After he arrives at the departure curb, it takes him 18 more seconds to complete the crossing.
Because the FDW is much shorter than the pedestrian needs for crossing, he cannot be confident of having enough time to cross unless he waits to start until the beginning of the WALK vibration, which causes him unnecessary delay. For this individual and APS location, the pedestrian clearance time should be set at 27 seconds. While signal timing here meets MUTCD minimums, the engineering of an accommodation like this, installed in response to a request, must be based upon individual use (Title II of the ADA requires that jurisdictions alter policies, practices and procedures when necessary for accessibility.16) To complete an effective accommodation for this pedestrian, a stub pole should be installed at the second crosswalk, so the two APS can be separated and each APS will be located close to the crosswalk it controls.
Another confusing complication here is that while the visual pedestrian signal comes on for each cycle, and the APS vibration for crossing the street from one direction comes on for each cycle, the APS vibration for the same crosswalk from the other direction comes up only in response to a pedestrian call (button press). This requires the pedestrian to use different strategies in timing of his button press at each corner, or he might start his crossing too late in the phase. At the corner where the vibration comes on with each cycle, he crosses at the beginning of the vibration. At the APS which requires a button press, if it starts to vibrate when he presses it, he needs to wait until the next cycle, because it could begin vibrating halfway through the walk interval. He must wait until it finishes vibrating, then press it again and start to cross as soon as it starts to vibrate for the second time in order to be sure he has enough time to cross. This inconsistency is the result of a simple incorrect setting in the APS, which needs to be changed so that the APS on each end of the crosswalk work in the same manner.
Small details can add up to big differences in the usability – and safety! -- of APS devices. The jurisdiction is still working on correcting the problems, more than 6 years after the APS were first requested. Meanwhile, the requestor continues to cross this street to and from work, as he’s done hundreds of times since his first request to the city. His risk is his safety; the city’s risk is that unreasonable delay may be seen by the courts as discrimination.
16. US DOJ ADA title II implementing regulation at 35.130(b)(7)
User Comments/Questions
Add Comment/Question