MEMORANDUM

Subject: 36 CFR Parts 1190 & 1191 {Docket No. 02-1] RIN 3014-AA26, Draft Guidelines
Americans With Disabilities Act

We thank you for this opportunity to comment on this draft of the long awaited accessibility guidelines for public rights-of-way. We appreciate the challenge in attempting to develop these guidelines. The Wyoming Department of Transportation is committed to the task of providing accessibility throughout our facilities and the comments which follow come from many years of attempting apply standards and guidelines to new facilities and the more challenging existing infrastructure.

AASHTO "Comments and Recommendations on the Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way":

The Wyoming Department of Transportation strongly endorses AASHTO's comments and recommendations and although not duplicated herein, should be considered a part of our official response.

General Comments:

It is difficult to review this document when it repeatedly makes reference to other sections of ADAAG using a numbering system which currently does not exist. We don't take issue with the new numbering system, but cannot fully cross-referenced guidelines from other sections.

The overall structure of Chapter 11 is more difficult to understand and interpret than previous versions. The preceding text "Draft Guidelines for Public Rights-of-Way: Discussion of Provisions" was very helpful to understand portions of the technical sections and as a minimum should be included as a commentary with Chapter 11 unless Chapter 11 is re-written. Far more illustrations need to be added to Chapter 11 as well.

Blended Transitions (1104.2.3):

Blended transitions need to be defined to better understand their purpose.

Minimum Clear Width (1103.3):

A 48" minimum clear width for a pedestrian access route should be desirable (actually, 60" as AASHTO recommends is better) however there are numerous existing facilities where site infeasibility makes this difficult to achieve and the previous standard of 36" provided an acceptable threshold. Perhaps language should be provided for an exception to 36" in existing facilities.

Curb Ramps (1104):

Although the commentary discusses the importance of dual wheelchair ramps at intersections, Chapter 11 only provides technical requirements for curb ramps. We believe there are strong merits for separate ramps, not only for disabled, but for queuing other pedestrians as well. Chapter 11 should strongly recommend dual perpendicular ramps, but permit diagonal ramps when compelling reasons or site infeasibility dictates a lesser standard. Building a single diagonal ramp rarely takes more right-of-way than dual ramps, but there may be factors such as drainage features, light poles, etc, which may make a single ramp work better.

Previous versions of this chapter preferred perpendicular ramps vs. parallel ramps as well they should for drainage problems. Again, Chapter 11 only gives the technical requirements, and not the warrants for use of parallel ramps. Furthermore, there should be discussion of whether a single parallel ramp should be provided vs. two parallel ramps which might have disabled persons going down and up and down and up going around a corner. Chapter 11 needs to give guidance on good design in altered facilities and not just serve as a set of inflexible standards.

Detectable Warnings (1104.3.2):

This issue stands in major controversy and needs to be resolved before widespread use of such features is required. The temporary suspension for such devices needs to be reinstated. Currently, the 1991 standard is back in force after July, 2001. Although the proposed standard is a vast improvement over the 1991 standard, technically the 1991 standard is in force since the proposed standard is yet to be adopted. This currently puts transportation authorities at risk of building infrastructure which may be detrimental to one portion of the disabled community and not help the visually impaired to the extent desired. The visually impaired community is split on this issue, with many feeling it is not a cost effective treatment.

Detectable warnings have always been a concern to northern states which experience snow and ice conditions. Snow and ice removal, tripping, difficult wheelchair movement, construction tolerances, long term durability are among the areas of concern. Although the Access Board issued a report "Detectable Warnings: Synthesis of U.S. and International Practice" this document fails to alleviate fear of operational and maintenance problems once widespread use of these devices is achieved.

To be effective, these devices must be constructed to some demanding tolerances. Too shallow they may not serve as detection to visually impaired. Too aggressive and they may become tripping hazards or wheelchair impediments. Although there are many pre-constructed devices, if they are not of the appropriate type or design, they may not endure in the environment and deteriorate and even further impede pedestrian traffic. Choosing the right treatment and insuring it is installed correctly may be problematic for widespread use. DOT's need better assistance in writing good generic specifications to address these issues. The fact that there are now many products available may increase the likelihood the wrong treatments are used or improperly installed.

Cross-walks ( 1105.2):

The width of 96" may be excessive and encourage motorists to encroach more into crosswalks. This should be made desirable criteria. If this is changed, it needs to be changed in the MUTCD.

A minium cross-walk cross-slope of 1:48 may be very difficult if not impossible to achieve particularly in existing facilities. The cross slope of the crosswalk becomes the longitudinal slope for the adjacent roadway. Forcing a 2% (1:48) cross slope may cause geometric problems for the roadway. This should be made desirable criteria.

Missing Driveway Criteria:

Discussion of driveway cuts through sidewalks should be included with viable options presented as in previous drafts of the guidelines.

Pedestrian Overpasses and Underpasses (1105.5):

The requirement for elevators when the elevation changes for underpasses and overpasses exceeds 60 inches is desirable, but not practical and in most cases is technically infeasible. In rural states such as Wyoming and in other environments as well, these structures would become totally infeasible, not only because of the additional cost to construct but more fully due to the fact that these elevators couldn't be properly maintained. This could pose a serious risk to the users of those elevators.

Many underpasses are constructed as part of a bicycle facility (shared use path). With this restriction, grade separated paths would become impractical in many cases. Often drainage facilities are modified to accommodate bicycles since the cost of new structures is not feasible.

If this restriction leads to the reduction in grade separated pedestrian ways, this adversely affects those disable persons who could make use of such facilities.

Roundabouts (1105.6):

The requirement for barriers or similarly distinct elements at prohibited crossing areas at roundabouts seems unnecessary and may actually result in other problems. If a crossing is not desired, a vertical curb would be present to discourage pedestrian crossings, as is the case for many other street situations. Visually impaired pedestrians should have some kind of awareness of the areas in which they travel and know they are in the area of a roundabout where unauthorized crossings should not be attempted.. The use of detectable warnings should be provided in these situations for curb ramps.

Accessible Pedestrian Signal Systems (1102.8, 1106):

We are aware there are conflicts by different groups with disabilities which should be resolved before establishing these guidelines.

Detectable Warning Surfaces (1108):

See comments for Detectable Warnings (1104.3.2) made earlier in this document. Again, our main concern is with the constructability and maintainability of these features so they perform their intended function without causing reduced accessibility or hazardous circumstances for others.

On-Street Parking (1109):

ADAAG requirements for accessible parking require a maximum slope in any direction of 1:48. There is no specific mention of that requirement in this section. This is interpreted to mean that this requirement does not exist due to the problems in providing a level area when the street grade is steeper than 2% or the cross-slope of the roadway is greater than 2% (usually caused by pavement overlays). Specific language should express this exception so others do not interpret the 2% (1:48) to be a mandated requirement would be technically infeasible to provide in many cases.

William B. Wilson, P.E.
Standards Engineer
Wyo. Dept. of Transportation