Charles Carmalt

October 29, 2002

I realize that I am writing after the end of the comment period, so this message may be ignored. However, I have been reviewing the comments that have been posted on your web page, and have been dismayed to read the messages from blind persons who oppose the implementation of audible traffic signals.

A few years ago I spent three weeks in New South Wales where almost all traffic signals used audible push buttons. These devices in no way masked surrounding traffic noises for me, a seeing person. I am sure that blind persons, accustomed to a more discriminating hearing process, would have even less problem separating the chirps from the push button from the sounds of surrounding traffic.

A few comments about pedestrian push buttons.
In the US today push buttons are frequently not activated, or pedestrians activate the signal only after waiting 30 seconds for the signal to change. I have observed attendees of the TRB Convention in Washington regularly fail to activate the pedestrian phase when crossing the streets surrounding the Marriott and Sheraton hotels, and this is a population of transportation experts, many of whom are engineers. If they don't use push buttons, why should we expect more from the general public?

As a traffic consultant, it has been my experience that most persons have no concept regarding the intent of push buttons. They expect the push button to immediately provide them with a pedestrian phase, while in fact pushing the button only initiates a request for a phase. When the cycle does not quickly change, these people assume the button is broken.

The public also does not understand that at some signals a pedestrian clearance time is not introduced unless the button is pushed. They see a car waiting at the intersection and assume that activation has been signaled and therefore don't push the button.

I had thought from the literature that chirping pedestrian signal devices were intended to benefit blind persons. In Australia I discovered that they were a great benefit for everyone. When approaching a signal, one gently but quickly becomes aware of the presence of the pushbutton -- it almost invites one to push it. When pushed, the audible devices provide instant notification that a request has been initated, increasing confidence in the signal change process.

My other lesson from Australia is that the change in the tone when the walk cycle commences was a marvelous way of alerting the waiting pedestrian that its time to cross. Especially when walking with others, but even when walking alone, I find it easy to become distracted from the exercise of crossing the street and have even missed the entire ped phase on occaision. In Australia I found that the change of tone immediately brought me back to the task at hand and I began crossing the street.

Finally, when I cross a street I seldom spend a lot of time watching the pedestrian signal head to see if it has entered its warning phase. Instead I am watching out for turning motor vehicles, the surface of the crosswalk and other pedestrians. Or if these issues are not a major concern, I enjoy looking at what is interesting to look at. The change in the audible signal however quickly alterted me to the fact that I had better start hustling if I wanted to reach the curb before the cycle ended.

So if the NFB does not want audible signals to be installed to assist blind persons, I for one wish to express my support for their installation for the benefit of sighted pedestrians. It may not be a disability issue, but it does reflect good design practice.

Charles Carmalt
Transportation Planner
Lawrenceville, NJ