Tim Bjorneberg
|
October 28, 2002 |
In order to provide an official comment to you and the U.S. Access Board on the
"Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way", I am writing this e-mail
as official comments from the South Dakota DOT.
After reviewing the comments and recommendations
from our AASHTO Task Force on Accessibility in Public Rights-of-Way, I support
the documentation presented to U.S. Access Board via resolution passed at our
recent AASHTO meeting in Anchorage, Alaska ([...]. I would like to especially
emphasize the need to develop an "accessibility design exception" process that
will empower the FHWA to sign-off on reasonable variance from the preferred
guidelines. I remember you saying that you do not intend to be unreasonable with
these guidelines and I can personally see where you and the Board have tried to
be flexible. However, I, like many of my associates, have the fear of legal
action if these "guidelines" are interpreted strictly. We all desire to
accommodate accessibility for people with disabilities, however, I believe there
may be very reasonable exceptions to strict rules in some cases (i.e. rural
South Dakota, historic districts, urban communities in mountainous terrain,
etc.). In such cases, the best reasonableness may be short of expectations, but
will at least give it the best shot possible.
A few more comments:
* Notation for Slope - we westerners prefer "flatter" over "shallower"
or "less than"
* Section 1108.1.1 - we suggest we use customary equivalents (i.e.
7/8" vs. 0.9, 1 3/8" vs. 1.4, 3/16" vs. 0.2)
* Section 1108.2 - we think it would be preferred to have a ½"
preformed expansion joint filler behind the back of the curb or railroad
crossing surfacing to prevent corner cracks on the detectable warning panel.
* There is desire to see relaxation on the domes and compromise by
using colored concrete only without the domes due to the icing up potential in
our climate. We have enough problems with icing on sidewalks with grooved
texture. Who will be liable for a pedestrian incident at the ramp locations due
to icing? Homeowners are usually responsible for the clearing of the sidewalk of
snow and ice in front of their home and, if a homeowner is on a corner lot will
that responsibility and liability come with this potential problem in the winter
months?
* In addition to the last comment, who would be liable if a child or
adult on a ped/bike path hit the domes while on a skateboard or roller blades
and fell into the street and is struck by a vehicle. The odds are there for this
to happen. There are a lot more non-disabled people using sidewalks than
disabled. We should protect the disabled too, but if there is research out there
somewhere where they actually had a test section for rollerbladers and
skateboarders we would like to see this. We understand the elderly and the domes
did not create much of a problem for them as well as high heeled shoes.
* It may be worth allowing less stringent guidelines in rural towns
with lower populations to at least allow some local decision making on whether
it is feasible to completely follow ADA requirements.
* The ADA guidelines should not be mandated until the MUTCD, AASHTO,
and ADA guidelines are redone to come up with practical intersection designs.
The way it is now the diagonal ramps are not liked by the ADA people, but the
diagonal ramps are the only ones that will work with Radii 20' or greater due to
guidelines from AASHTO and MUTCD.
*
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and I look forward to your responses.
Tim Bjorneberg
Chief Engineer
Division of Planning & Engineering
South Dakota Department of Transportation