APPENDIX B

State of the Practice of Guidance Surfaces in the United States

U.S. Agencies Exploring GSs

The terminology around tactile surfaces used for guidance from point A to point B varies across the U.S. agencies interviewed. Phrases in use include “directional bars,” “tactile paths,” and “guide strips.” These descriptors indicate surfaces that are distinct from DWSs.

The most common applications of GSs in the United States are in transit stations to provide wayfinding paths from points of entry into the station to points of interest inside the station. An emerging use is as a delineator between bicycle lanes and pedestrian walkways when they are flush with each other. In these situations, the GS serves two functions: it defines the edge of the pedestrian zone and it provides a route to follow.

Generally, the use of GSs is in pilot stages for the agencies surveyed; not all agencies were able to provide specific dimensions, and only a few provided design standards or design drawings (Table B-1). In many cases, the uses are too new to have been incorporated into internal design guidance documents.

Uses of GSs in Transit Settings

In the transit setting, TWSIs are used to guide passengers from the entrance to the station, through the station via important points such as fare gates and ticket kiosks, and ultimately to the train platform. Often, the guidance surfaces lead to a specific location where the passenger can wait to board the train at a specific door.

Sound Transit described their wayfinding path as such: user would arrive at entry where they would find a starting point, consisting of a perpendicular paver. The GS would then lead to ticket vending, a line map with information in braille, and if necessary, to vertical circulation (escalator, stairs, elevator). The tactile wayfinding continues to mezzanine level, and on to the next vertical circulation element until they reach platform. At the platform level, the path shall extend from station entries or threshold of public vertical circulation elements to the tactile train waiting/information areas at center of platform. The waiting area is 4–6 ft back from platform edge or DWS depending on platform size. We require a minimum 4 ft of circulation on both sides of tactile path. The Tactile train waiting areas identify for the passenger the location of the two center-most sets of doors of a 2-car train based on a center platform vehicle stopping location. The waiting area is indicated with pavers with raised ribs (corduroy) oriented parallel to the platform edge used. On the platform, there are also paths to the info center at center of platform. The agency’s Tactile Wayfinding Provisions in their Design Criteria Manual describes this in detail. There are design standards for the pathway as well as the waiting area (SoundTransit 2018).

A quarter of all Bay Area Regional Transit (BART) stations feature TWSIs. BART was one of the first to install GS in the United States, but the program was placed on hold in 2015. Early installations at BART stations marked the waiting area at ‘door markers’ (FMG Architects 2015). Current BART GS paths guide passengers from the intermodal or accessible drop off locations to agent booths, restrooms, pay phones, ticket vending machines and through fare gates, to stairs which lead to the platform level. Treatments exist at tops of stairs, path intersections and arrival points. Two recently built BART stations, Milpitas and Warm Springs, have GS installations despite the hold.

In 2013, LA Metro updated their Metro Rail Design Criteria to include directional guidance in all stations. The new standard states:

In Los Angeles, TWSIs are in use in train stations and in larger bus rapid transit (BRT) facilities. The bar surfaces guide from entrances to stairs, where truncated domes are placed at the top and bottom, to tactile signage, telephones, ticket vending, fare gates and to the platform. The agency uses two by two ft square truncated dome tiles as a ‘node’ or attention field. These DWS tiles also create a ‘T’ shape with the TWSIs.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) are using TWSIs only to indicate to a visually impaired passenger where they should wait to board an eight-door train. The agency is piloting the use of more extensive tactile wayfinding in tandem with a Bluetooth navigation system. Early feedback from customers who use guide dogs has led WMATA to consider using two double rows of tactile wayfinding in order to improve detectability for those users.

MTA uses larger areas of truncated domes at intersections of GS paths and dome areas the same width as the GS path as “waypoints” along where travelers who are blind can find tactile signage, landmarks, or destinations of interest.

In San Francisco and Seattle, GS have been installed around floating transit islands to guide the visually impaired to the transit waiting area from the sidewalk.

An example of an agency who had worked across right-of-way jurisdiction to lead a passenger from a transit environment into a street environment or vice versa was not identified.

Uses of GS in Other Public Right-of-Way Settings

The Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT) is installing GS as delineators to separate bicycle and pedestrian facilities, in addition to a handful of specific contexts: in a shared use space, along the edge of a pedestrian only path, and on ramps which transition a cyclist from the street to a shared use path/multiuse path above street level. The agency did not want visually impaired pedestrians to find a DWS and think it might be a crossing location. CDOT have a criterion for placement, in the form of an excel spreadsheet.

The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) has adopted a similar approach to using TWSIs as delineators. SDOT has installed 12-in. wide GS between bike paths and pedestrian walkways to alert visually impaired pedestrian to the existence of a shared street. The agency is also piloting the use of a TWSI on both sides of a crosswalk near a Lighthouse for the Blind, where there is heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic on a busy arterial road.

In San Francisco, Public Works is exploring the use of TWSI around shared streets, and they have looked at a trapezoidal pattern which could be used instead of directional bars. A document prepared for June 2019 Open Houses around the Better Market Street Project depicts a raised trapezoidal strip that could serve as a “potential path delineator” for between the pedestrian walkway and the bikeway (San Francisco Public Works and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency 2019).

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is requiring installation of tactile guide strips for roundabouts with bicycle ramps. The problem FDOT is trying to solve revolves around the fact that roundabouts are becoming more common in the state, particularly two-lane roundabouts. The agency saw a need to allow people on bicycles to travel on the sidewalks around roundabouts if they choose. Thus, FDOT installs a bike ramp in the roundabout to provide access to the sidewalk level. FDOT was concerned about keeping visually impaired pedestrians from heading down the ramps and want to guide them to stay on the sidewalk. They do not want to use warning surfaces/truncated domes, so they have chosen guide strips to delineate the bicycle ramps from the sidewalks. None have been installed as of this interview.

New York City DOT is also piloting the use of TWSIs around shared streets and bike lanes. Some bike lanes are delineated with a small drop in the curb, but in some cases where bike lanes are flush with the sidewalk the city has used a tactile guide strip. TWSI have also been used around shared streets in New York City. NYC DOT tested TWSI in situ in the Flatiron Shared Street (NYC DOT 2017). NYC DOT’s 2016 Strategic Plan listed tactile guide-ways as one of the new initiatives to test and pilot (NYC DOT 2016). In a 2015 presentation, NYC DOT noted the use of tactile warning strips at a high visibility mid-block crossing in a slow zone in NYC (NYC DOT 2015).

Many agencies cited space concerns, and reluctance to find themselves out of compliance with ADA regulations as the rationale for turning to tactile guidance strips in this context. Practitioners felt they could justify installing six to twelve in. of a tactile strip than 24-in.-wide detectable warning surface.

Sources, Guides, and Policies Consulted

Agencies rely heavily on existing guidance from the Access Board; PROWAG and the 2010 ADA standards for Accessible Design, state building codes, as well internal facility standards. Given the lack of information regarding the use of GS in any of these sources, interviewed agencies consulted a broad range of resources as they considered tactile path installations. The agencies frequently referenced the International Standard (ISO 23599) GS. Many agencies also consulted international guidance, such as that from the United Kingdom or Japan. San Francisco’s Department of Public Works named guidance from the Netherlands, Denmark, and the UK. Photographic references from Strasbourg, France were also cited.

Current GS Patterns

Typical patterns in use for guidance surfaces in the United States consist of two, three, or four raised bar strips. At least one agency used a corduroy pattern. Commercial products are used in more than one jurisdiction. The ISO 23599:2019 standard is either met or used as a general guidance by several agencies. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has been trying out different configurations of GS over time; installations have varied GS path width from 6 in. to 2 ft wide (FMG Architects 2015). In most cases, the bars do not run the length of the GS tile but provide a space to allow for drainage.

While the majority of installed guidance surfaces in the United States feature raised patterns, in some locations, other GS patterns installed for wayfinding were determined to be less effective. One agency tried grooved pavement in a previous project and determined that design to be obsolete. BART tried a geometry where the raised bars were 0.0625 in. high, and these were deemed undetectable via feedback from the Bart Accessibility Task Force (BATF) and other local stakeholders. Sound Transit installed a sinusoidal GS pattern at select stations and has since discontinued its use after finding it caused maintenance and detection concerns.

Materials, Maintenance, and Visual Contrast for GSs

Across the United States, agencies have worked with a variety of materials. Common is a plastic polymer material used in ready-made commercial products on the market currently. Methyl Methacrylate (MMA), concrete and granite have also been installed in various locations. NYC Metropolitan Transit Agency (MTA) is testing inlaid ceramic tile, chosen due to successful past installations, and mat made of a soft rubbery material. In some cities, cast iron has been used for truncated domes, but no agency noted trying this for guidance strips. These materials are all preformed tile materials set in or affixed to the pedestrian path; MMA is applied on site.

A commercial product was frequently used. The product is readily available, and agencies had used the vendor in the past and had been pleased with the outcomes. One agency installed a polymer cement, also from a commercial vendor.

SDOT selected MMA because of the flexibility in installation of the material. Tiles would be more difficult to install on hills, and around curves. Glass beads are mixed in, which makes the surface more reflective and provides more traction and slip resistance. The agency was initially finding that the surface was holding up in most locations, based on short-term observation.

Many of the installations are novel, so agencies have not yet had a chance to evaluate long term durability. The sinusoidal pattern used previously by Sound Transit, which was made from granite stone, had become worn after years of foot traffic and cleaning. The pattern was also known for collecting dirt and debris, and generally required more maintenance.

All agencies noted maintenance considerations. The materials must hold up to basic use, such as foot traffic and power washing. In most cases, the directional tiles were not subject to vehicle traffic as some truncated dome surfaces would be, so the ability to withstand vehicle weight was not as often a concern. Power washing tactile strips takes extra time and is a special project for BART maintenance crews.

Rainwater management and drainage was a consideration for all agencies. In FL, detectable warning tiles need to be pinned down due to high water tables. Sinusoidal patterns collected dirt and debris. One agency noted the lack of construction site and contractor guidance around installation and upkeep of TWSIs.

Visual contrast is being used in most cases. Federal yellow is most common, though some agencies require contrast but do not exclusively use yellow. The degree of contrast is in the 70–80% range.

SDOT, who are using MMA, noted that the yellow becomes dirty after installation and does not remain as bright. SDOT also has one application where directional tiles are installed in a crosswalk, across a road traveled by motorized vehicles. That MMA is black, intentionally not contrasting with the road.

There are instances where there is no color contrast, or it is minimal based on the difference between the composition of the tiles and the sidewalk or platform. NYC MTA piloted tiles without color contrast and based on public feedback is weighing whether to change that approach

for future installations. Past tactile surface installations at BART stations did not contrast with the surrounding walking surface, but current criteria do require contrast, though a percentage is not stated (BART 2016).

LA Metro referenced a directional tile where color contrast was built in, the tiles are light colored in the center and dark along the outside.

Public Feedback and Evaluation

Accessibility boards, task forces and committees have played a significant role in implementing GS in select areas in the United States. Local advocacy groups, such as Metrolina Association for the Blind located in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Light Houses for the Blind, which have outfits throughout the country, have also provided input. Public input around TWSIs varies greatly. In some jurisdictions, orientation and mobility specialists oppose additional wayfinding indicators for fear of a threat to travel training skills learned. In others, wayfinding treatments are desired, but advocates emphasize the need to avoid unnecessary complexity. Most agency installations have not reached an evaluation stage or had not evaluated using sound scientific methods, so most conclusions drawn are more qualitative or anecdotal in nature.

Meeting minutes from a 2015 meeting of the BART Accessibility Task Force describes a discussion around tactile paths in BART stations. Concerns high on the list for those with visual impairments centered around clarity and consistency (FMG Architects 2015). BART further conducted an extensive evaluation of accessibility in their transit system in 2018. One component of the BART Accessibility Improvement Program process involved surveying ridership and stakeholders around their accessible travel needs in the BART system. Input was sought from the BART Accessibility Task Force, California Division of the State Architect, BART Limited English Proficiency Advisory Committee, Hearing Loss Association of America, Light House for the Blind, California School for the Deaf, and Metropolitan Transportation Association (HNTB and Kwan Henmi 2018). One of the central recommendations from the study was to: “install detectable tactile path from concourse stair, through accessible fare gate, to accessible drop off and bus loading areas” (HNTB and Kwan Henmi 2018).

In 2017, NYC DOT conducted an evaluation of the use of GS as a component of their Flatiron Shared Street project. More than 70% of participants indicated that the tactile surfaces helped improve their travel independence. The resources identified did not include findings around measuring detectability (NYC DOT 2017).

LA Metro will be conducting a proof-of-concept trial in late 2019 and early 2020. They will evaluate tactile wayfinding installations in five LA Metro stations. Based on public input and results of their evaluations they will make necessary modifications to their installations in 2021.

FDOT’s recommendation of the use of tactile wayfinding is developmental, which means the agency will be monitoring each installation over the coming years and will be collecting data and assessing the implementations over time.

San Francisco Public Works has also been involved in a study which seeks to identify the ideal delineator for separated bicycle lanes (SBLs) which are at the same level as a pedestrian walkway. Researchers studied several types of TWSIs which could be utilized as delineators and ultimately recommended the trapezoidal surface (Bentzen, Scott, and Myers 2020).

MTA is currently testing a variety of wayfinding features, including TWSIs, as part of its “Accessible Station Lab” at the Jay St-MetroTech Station. They have a robust public feedback process including online and in-person options, held over 30 guided tours with more than 300 people, and have received over 1,000 responses via survey, phone call, email or tweet. They are analyzing

data to understand rider experience and are also reviewing operational performance, durability and maintenance of the materials tested.

Agencies around the United States are sensing a need for TWSIs and have been working independently to implement pilot programs that are both meaningful and practical for their users. In most cases, TWSI work has been the result of collaboration with local stakeholders and advocacy groups. Testing and robust evaluation with any research rigor has been sparse, and consistency in application across agencies is lacking.