Douglas Isbell

October 25, 2002

The following are the County of San Diego Department of Public Works’ comments regarding the "DRAFT ADA GUIDELINES FOR ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY ISSUED BY THE ACCESS BOARD ON JUNE 17, 2002":

The overall guidelines do not differentiate between the rights-of-way characteristics of different regions in the Country. For example, the infrastructure of Southern California has little in common with the major cities on the east coast or midwest. The proposed guidelines seem to require a "wide brush" implementation approach for all types of street systems in the Country.

We ask that a second draft of the proposed guidelines be circulated for additional review and comment. The second draft should incorporate the comments and concerns expressed by the stakeholders.

The proposed guidelines must include definitions for the following terms, or phrases that are used throughout the document:

"New Construction". The common understanding in the municipal engineering field is that new construction means the installation of new infrastructure in newly developed areas.

"Additions". This term is vague and can be open to various interpretations. The addition of certain components of infrastructure such as underground utilities or traffic signals should not prompt the implementation of the guidelines. An addition should be defined as the widening or extension of a street segment, which would normally involve the installation of all components of infrastructure.

"Alterations". This term is also vague and can be open to various interpretations. Maintenance projects such as pavement overlays and surface treatments are not alterations but simply maintenance measures to preserve and extend the life of pavement. An alteration should be defined as the reconstruction of a given street segment. Reconstruction should be defined as the full removal and replacement of surface and subsurface improvements in already developed areas.

Also a definition of "Blended Transitions" should be included, and the proposed definition of "Street Furniture" seems to be overly broad and should be revised. The paragraphs under the additions and alterations section include several ambiguities with respect to type of work, project limits and extent of compliance with these guidelines. Some of the phrases that are unclear are: "substantial reconstruction", "less extensive projects", "limited improvements" and "maximum extent possible". Phrases like these are vague and cause implementation difficulties.

The following are comments that pertain to specific sections of the draft guidelines:


1102 Scoping Requirements

The discussion of provisions indicates that pedestrian elements are not required where none are intended. However, that interpretation is unclear from the wording of 1102. The discussion also indicates only the elements affected by construction have to comply with the provisions, but there appears to be areas of easy misinterpretation such as 1102.4 which states, "The pedestrian access route shall connect to elements required to comply with Chapter 11. "

The requirement to acquire right-of-way where "practicable" may have a chilling effect on projects, which may be technically feasible but have a requirement to purchase right-of-way from an unwilling seller. Most jurisdictions have the right to exercise eminent domain provisions, however, that is a very burdensome and expensive process and may force policy makers to abandon a worthy project rather than overcome those burdens. Guidance on limitation of "practicable" should be provided.


1103 Pedestrian Access Route

On some projects the minimum clear sidewalk width of 48" is infeasible due to physical constraints such as existing buildings or utility structures. A 36" minimum clear width should be allowed as an exception to the 48" minimum under such conditions.

The "changes in level" section needs to be clarified. It is unclear how to interpret the meaning of "Changes in level shall be separated horizontally 30 inches minimum."


1104 Curb Ramps and Blended Transitions

The wording seems to imply that ramps can only be parallel or perpendicular. Many times crosswalks are skewed and the allowance of a ramp parallel to the crosswalk (but not perpendicular to the road) might provide better direction.

In 1104.2.1.1 & 1104.2.2.1, it is not obvious why there would be a concern for specifying a minimum slope.

In 1104.2.2.4 it is unclear what a "barrier" entails.

In 1104.3.2 it is our contention that detectable warnings should only be required for ramps with slopes of 1:15 or less.

It is unreasonable to treat changes in level greater than ½" as a ramp or curb ramp. We would recommend removal of this requirement.

The requirement to install 2 ramps at each curb return should apply to new construction projects only.

1105 Pedestrian Crossings

In 1105.2.1 the marked crosswalk width is increased from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) minimum width of 6 ft. to 8 ft. While this is not much of a hardship on jurisdictions it does raise an area of concern about the general misconceptions of marked lines on the roadway. The discussion seems to indicate the extra width will help those with vision impairments and those who use wheelchairs to pass. Two thoughts about that concept: 1) the marking material does not provide a "magic zone of protection" nor does it in any way constrain or confine pedestrians – any pedestrian can reasonably step beyond the edge of any crosswalk boundary and 2) there is absolutely no requirement to mark any crosswalk. Therefore, the requirement to exceed the MUTCD widths appears to have no basis.

In 1105.2.2 the maximum cross slope of 1:48 will require "tables" at each intersection which will degrade the ride-ability of vehicular traffic, and may increase grades in mid-block sections of steep roadways. Many roads in San Diego have grades in excess of 6 percent.

The 1:20 maximum running slope as specified in 1105.2.3 will not work on higher speed roadways with "tee" intersections located on horizontal curves. The super elevation requirements of the through roadway may routinely be as much as 8% or 9%. To reduce this to 5% or less will potentially compromise the safety of the motoring public.
 

1105.3 Pedestrian Signal Phase Timing

The requirements of 3 feet per second as the maximum walking time and increasing the distance to include ramp lengths have the potential for significant unintended consequences. Most jurisdictions are now timing pedestrian clearance intervals based on the character of the intersection. Usually, if there is a demonstrated need for longer clearance times, the jurisdiction will accommodate that need. However, to mandate increased crossing time when there is not a demonstrated need will cause unnecessary vehicle delay, which can be directly related to increased accidents at intersections as well as amplified driver frustration. This mandate clearly needs to be linked to a demonstrated need for each individual intersection. Our recommendation would be to require jurisdictions to develop pedestrian clearance timing in concert with the disabled community, based on the specific requirements of the specific location.

In 1105.4 the width of the median island is not specified. We would assume it to be 48", however, the discussion contained in the crosswalk width section could lead one to assume the minimum width should be 96". This should be clarified.


1105.5 Pedestrian Overpasses and Underpasses

The requirement to install an elevator or limited-use elevator for applications where the rise of a ramped approach exceeds 60 inches, will also have unintended consequences. Since this is a discretionary structure and there are very few areas that will have a ramped approach of less than 60" a jurisdiction will, in many cases, forgo the installation of the overpass rather than come up with the significant additional funds to construct and maintain an elevator. Also, this requirement is not practical and can be dangerous for the public. An unsupervised elevator if they become disabled would be a dangerous situation for the passengers. This does not address the construction or maintenance costs of those elevators, along with the public liability of crimes against the public in an unsupervised enclosed area. The homeless population will use the elevators at night and possibly during the day. Some overpasses are located away from populated areas, and bringing electric power to those locations would be an unreasonable cost. This would be a bad regulation and violation of the public trust. Our recommendation would be to have "resting platforms" at appropriate intervals, like other ramps.


1105.6 Roundabouts

The requirements proposed in this section are not consistent with accessible pedestrian considerations in other areas. There will also be unintended consequences associated with these requirements if implemented.

In 1105.6.1 the requirement to install a continuous barrier is not consistent with other applications where pedestrians are prohibited, yet barriers are not required. The positive guidance approach is the best way to handle the concern of pedestrians wandering through the center of the roundabout. As shown in the discussion page picture, sidewalks and ramp locations can better address pedestrian channelization than ugly, hard to maintain, hazardous barriers. Also, as a matter of consistency, if barriers are required here they should also be required at all "high-design" intersections and even in mid-block locations to prohibit pedestrian crossings.

In 1105.6.2 the requirement for signalization on every leg of a roundabout defeats the original purpose of the roundabout concept. Thousands of low-volume, neighborhood roundabouts are being built, many as traffic calming devices. To require signals on every leg is tremendously cost prohibitive and does not ensure additional safety benefits. An unintended consequence may be an explosion of drivers pushing the red light and disrespect for these signals specifically and all signals generally if numerous unwarranted signals are installed where drivers perceive they are being stopped unnecessarily. A fundamental concept for roundabout crosswalks is the designer must treat each crossing as a mid-block crosswalk, both in theory and in design. The access board discussion states, "Because crossing at a roundabout requires a pedestrian to visually select a safe gap between cars that may not stop, accessibility has been problematic." However, this same problem exists at every mid-block crosswalk! If there is a mandate to require signals here then the argument could be made that every crosswalk everywhere should be signalized. Obviously, this is a preposterous argument, but that is why we use engineering criteria and judgment – so that a rational balance of perspectives is maintained. Again, the user community has the ear of jurisdictions and specific needs for each crossing can easily be accommodated without the imposition of a far-reaching, harsh standard.


1105.7 Turn Lanes at Intersections

There are literally thousands of existing "slip" lanes at non-signalized intersections and this design is continuing to be built. The imposition of this requirement would essentially eliminate slip lane design for non-signalized intersections. This would have the unintended consequence of increased congestion, which would also increase intersection accidents. We believe a better solution would be to require jurisdictions, in consultation with the disabled community, to evaluate the signalization of slip lanes at signalized intersections.

1106 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Systems

We generally agree with the proposal to require pedestrian signal devices that provide better information and guidance for the pedestrian, even though there will be a slight increase in installation costs. However, there is a precision to the location dimensions that many times simply cannot be met. The "location" wording should be changed to communicate the concept as a guidance statement without making it a mandate.

In 1106.4 the one area we would object to is the requirement "…of tactile and visual signs on the face of the device or its housing or mounting indicating crosswalk direction and the name of the street…". Tactile street name signs are not required at any other location and to require them on pedestrian crossing hardware changes these devices from "off the shelf" equipment to custom devices. This makes them almost impossible to effectively maintain.


1109 On-Street Parking

The majority of streets being built in the County of San Diego each year are in typical residential neighborhoods. To require an indented, signed, handicap space on every residential block is surely not what the committee intended. We would suspect the concern is associated only with areas where there are parking meters or time limited parking, such as in business areas. Our recommendation would be to require such handicap spaces only in business or commercial areas.

In 1109.2 Parallel Parking Spaces – the requirement to provide a 60" access aisle is extremely burdensome and will have significant unintended consequences that will restrict our ability to help the disabled community. Currently we install handicap signs in both residential and business areas quickly and easily to accommodate individual and varying requests. The five-foot indent is simply out of character in residential neighborhoods. With this requirement we will be unable to continue our policy of "immediately taking care of the disabled community." In the future in order to install a handicap space we will have to propose a capital project to construct a five ft. indent aisle. This means projects will have to compete with other county projects for very limited funds and, even if funded, would have large time delays before completion. It also means we would be unable to respond to changing needs by moving a handicap space slightly. It is amazing how many times we change sign locations. Our recommendation would be to eliminate this requirement. It does not serve the best long-term interests of the disabled community. In addition, the 5’ minimum height of handicap signs is in violation of the minimum requirements of the MUTCD.


Passenger Loading Zones

The discussion text states a 5’ access aisle is required for each passenger loading zone (PLZ). Again, as stated above in the handicap signing discussion, this has the effect of limiting our ability to quickly install PLZ signing and if these requirements are adopted we will not be able to install PLZ signs in the accommodating manner that we have historically done. Access aisles adjacent to PLZ zones should be eliminated as a mandated construction requirement.


1110 Call Boxes

The requirement to provide a motor vehicle turnout with a minimum paved area 16 feet wide by 23 feet long, connecting to a turning space at each call box, is not feasible. The requirement to provide teletypewriters (TYYs) at each call box for the deaf is also not feasible.

1111 Alternate Circulation Path

The requirement to provide an alternate path is generally correct. However, the requirement of a path only on the same side of the street, with no provision for "reasonableness", is not feasible in many instances. Many times the scope of construction is such that no pedestrians can be accommodated and, in fact, the forcing of pedestrians into this type of area may create an intolerable safety hazard. Simply put, there are situations where pedestrians cannot or should not be accommodated and must be moved to the opposite side of the street or in the case of total street closures moved around an entire block. The guideline for requiring alternate circulation paths should be a recommendation and not a requirement.

In 1111.6 the requirement of a lower rail within 1 ½" of the surface does not make sense since railings only require a rail at 27" for detectability. The restriction of non-flexible fencing material would appear to be an unnecessary restriction. Plastic fencing products are now extremely strong, durable and easy to install and would appear to accommodate the need to provide pedestrian channelization and protection in a reasonable manner. The allowance of this material would make it much easier for jurisdictions to require protection in very short-term construction areas.

The above comments and suggestions should not be viewed as objections to the concept of providing reasonable access for the disabled community. We, in the County of San Diego, have historically been and continue to be in support of reasonable accommodations within the right-of-way. We have been seeking direction for uniformity of devices and installation practices for years. Our desire is to communicate potential pit-falls and unintended consequences associated with several of the proposed standards and our plea is for balance in the regulations. Should you have any questions or need further clarification on any of our comments, please contact Julie Davis, County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, ADA Coordinator, at [...].


Respectfully submitted,

DOUGLAS ISBELL, Deputy Director
Department of Public Works