index previous comment next comment

Re: City of San Diego
Comments to Proposed Public Right-of-Way Guidelines

Dear Mr. Windley:

This letter consists of comments on behalf of the City of San Diego regarding the Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way issued June 17, 2002. San Diego is the seventh largest city in the nation, with nearly 1.3 million residents, and represents the commercial, governmental, and cultural hub to the county’s 2.8 million people. In addition, San Diego is one of the premier vacation and convention destinations in the country, attracting more than 15 million visitors annually. Such a population naturally consists of a large number of disabled individuals as well. Thus, it is important that we strive to provide access along our public rights-of-way to those with disabilities, as well as all members of society.

These comments represent various concerns from a number of departments within the City of San Diego. Being charged with implementing these proposed regulations, the City has a great interest in their development.

While specific sections are addressed below, we have an overriding concern with the nature of the proposed Chapter 11 as it is currently written. There appears to be a lack of specificity in general, making compliance extremely difficult. The “discussion” portion of the guidelines provides a great deal of insight lacking from the proposed regulations themselves. For example, the discussion area relating to additions and alterations states that “compliance is ‘prorated’ based on the extent of the work planned.” This concept of “prorating” the work is mentioned nowhere in the regulations.

This type of confusion and ambiguity in the regulations will have a chilling effect on compliance. If it is unclear what it means to comply with a specific section, then challenges to construction projects would be quite easy, resulting in costly litigation and delays. Soaring costs can quickly turn a routine construction project into a cost-prohibitive quagmire. Greater clarity and specificity in what it means to comply with these regulations, or providing clear discretion to the affected government entity, will help reduce the chilling effect of challenges to construction projects.

1101.2.1 MUTCD.

Many States have adopted the MUTCD with an amendment providing supplemental regulation particular to that State. We question what effect a State’s adoption of the MUTCD, along with any State amendments, has on providing a “Reference Standard” to these guidelines. We propose that a State’s adoption of the MUTCD should be the recognized “Reference Standard.”

1101.3 - Defined Terms:

While some definitions are provided in the Right-of-Way Guidelines themselves, other important terms lack interpretation. Some definitions refer to other chapters of the ADAAG which do not relate to public rights-of-way. We have addressed our concerns by providing suggested language below.

Alterations.

“Alteration” should be defined specifically as it applies to this Chapter, considering it will be the primary trigger for implementing these regulations. Referring to the general definition of “Alteration” provided in section 3.5 of the ADAAG is insufficient, because section 3.5 relates to structures, rather than streets, sidewalks, and the like. That existing definition states:

An alteration is a change to a building or facility that affects or could
affect the usability of the building or facility or part thereof. Alterations include, but are not limited to, remodeling, renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, historic restoration, resurfacing of circulation paths or vehicular ways, changes or rearrangement of the structural parts or elements, and changes or rearrangement in the plan configuration of walls and full-height partitions. Normal maintenance, re-roofing, painting or wallpapering, or changes to mechanical and electrical systems are not alterations unless they affect the usability of the building or facility.

This definition fails to specifically address the circumstances unique to public rights-of-way. For an alteration to trigger compliance with Chapter 11, it should in some way effect the accessibility of the right-of-way. Simply rehabilitating a portion of the public right-of-way to its original condition as a result of routine maintenance or subsurface work would not constitute an “alteration,” but rather a “restoration.” We propose following definitions:

Alteration.
Any work to a public right-of-way that modifies its physical aspects to an extent that its access is appreciably affected. Alterations include any appreciable change to the slope, grade, or elevation of a Pedestrian Access Route. Alterations do not include resurfacing, slurry sealing, filling potholes or trenches, or similar work, if the effect is to restore the surface to its original condition without appreciably affecting the slope, grade, elevation, transition to sidewalks or other factors of accessibility. The scope of work required to comply with Chapter 11 shall not extend beyond the precise portion or aspect of the public right-of-way altered.

Addition.
An expansion, extension, or increase in the gross surface area of a sidewalk, roadway, or Pedestrian Access Route. The scope of work required to comply with Chapter 11 shall not extend beyond the precise portion or aspect of the public right-of-way which constitutes the addition.

Block Face.
The length of a side of a roadway adjoining a sidewalk which has a natural ending or is intersected by another roadway. Where no natural ending or intersecting roadway exists for more than 300 yards along the length of a roadway adjoining a sidewalk, then an individual Block Face will be considered every 300-yard section and remaining fraction thereof. For purposes of this Chapter, Block Face applies exclusively to areas zoned as commercial, business or mixed-used, and not residential areas.

New Construction.
An area of newly designed and newly constructed public rights-of-way, which is not an alteration or addition. The scope of work required to comply with Chapter 11 shall not extend beyond the precise portion or aspect of the public right-of-way which is considered to be new construction.

Street Furniture.
Elements in the public right-of-way that are intended for use by pedestrians. This includes drinking fountains, public telephones, toilet facilities, tables, and benches.

Technical Infeasibility.
Technical infeasibility includes those circumstances where compliance would require alterations to existing buildings or structures along the public right-of-way, interfering with subsurface structures or utilities, and other factors determined on a case-by-case basis. Technical infeasibility shall also apply to those circumstances where compliance requires a governmental entity to acquire additional public right-of-way through the use of eminent domain, easements, or similar legal proceedings. Where technical infeasibility is encountered, compliance is required to the maximum extent possible.

1102 - Scoping Requirements.
The discussion indicates that only those elements affected by construction must comply with the provisions. However, there appear 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." This could increase the scale of work required under this chapter more than intended. Adoption of a clear definition for “alteration,” such as we have proposed above, would specify that only the precise features being touched in the alteration are affected by Chapter 11, and nothing more.

The discussion relating to additions and alterations which recognize the ability of local government to acquire right-of-way where "practicable" may have a chilling effect on projects. While a municipality’s use of easements or the power of eminent domain may not be technically infeasible, they generally do involve costly litigation with an uncooperative property owner. This burdensome and expensive process could force policy makers to abandon a worthy project. Therefore, we propose adding language to 1102 which would have the local government entity: "Acquire public right-of-way where practicable as determined by the local jurisdiction."

1102.2.2.2.1 Prohibited Reduction in Access.

An alteration that decreases or has the effect of decreasing the accessibility of a public right-of-way or site arrival points to buildings or facilities adjacent to the altered portion of the public right-of-way, below the requirements for new construction at the time of the alteration is prohibited.

This section is somewhat difficult to read, and could be interpreted to mean that the governmental entity also has an obligation that extends beyond the public right-of-way to the accessibility on the adjoining private property of buildings and facilities themselves. It appears the Board’s intent is to bring the accessibility of buildings and facilities adjacent to the public right-of-way up to the standards for new construction, but only to the extent that it relates to the public right-of-way itself.

Removing ambiguity would encourage compliance, because the responsibility of the government entity would be clear. We propose the following version for section 1102.2.2.2.1:

1102.2.2.2.1 Prohibited Reduction in Access.

An alteration shall not decrease or have the effect of decreasing the accessibility of a public right-of-way or site arrival points to buildings or facilities adjacent to the altered portion of the public right-of-way. Such alterations must meet the requirements for new construction to the maximum extent feasible, but in no circumstance shall any obligation to provide accessibility extend beyond the public right-of-way to the adjacent private property, buildings, or facilities.

1102.3 Alternate Circulation Path.

"An alternate circulation path complying with 1111 shall be provided whenever the existing pedestrian access route is blocked by construction alteration, maintenance, or other temporary conditions." Section 1111 states "the alternate circulation path shall parallel the disrupted pedestrian access route, on the same side of the street."

The nature of construction in some areas may not provide an opportunity to have the alternate route on the same side of the street without placing pedestrians in an unsafe condition, or having an adverse impact on vehicular traffic. Section 1102.3 should recognize these situations. We propose the following revision to section 1111.3:

1111.3 Location.

The alternate circulation path shall parallel the disrupted pedestrian access route, on the same side of the street, unless such a path will put pedestrian safety in greater jeopardy, or impede normal vehicular traffic. In such cases where the alternate circulation path is not parallel to the disrupted pedestrian access route, or on the same side of the street, the alternate path shall be direct and accessible to the maximum extent feasible.

1102.6 Curb Ramps and Blended Transitions.

By failing to address unmarked crosswalks, this section creates a conflict in the requirement to have the ramp located within the width of each crosswalk and the desire of the advisory committee to discourage single ramp installations. This is especially the case at unmarked crosswalks and 48" sidewalks, which are attached to the back of the curb head. The "unmarked crosswalk" definition, clarifying that a crosswalk is the extension of sidewalk lines, means that only a single combined ramp could be constructed, because it is located within the unmarked crosswalks.

We seek clarification on how to reconcile this apparent conflict.

1102.14 On-Street Parking.

Where on-street parking is provided, at least one accessible on-street parking space shall be located on each block face and shall comply with 1109.

It is our position that this requirement is flawed in several respects. First, it needs to differentiate between residential and commercial areas. While the need for accessible street parking in business areas is understandable, because all members of society frequent these locations, the same cannot be said for residential areas. Only specific areas where disabled individuals live or frequent would necessitate a designated disabled spot. Anything more would be plainly excessive, taking up space that may never be used. Currently, the City of San Diego accommodates individual requests in residential areas for designated disabled parking spaces. These spaces are specifically located at accessible locations agreed upon by both City officials and the disabled individual. With such accommodations available from local governments, residential areas should be exempt from the requirement of 1102.14.

Second, a working definition of “block face” is needed for areas that do not have tradition street designs which designate the beginning and end of a block. Some “block faces” could extend great distances. Clear guidance, as we have suggested above, would help eliminate this ambiguity.

Third, placing curb ramps at disabled spaces could very well lure mid-block pedestrian crossing where none was intended. (See section 1109) Encouraging these spaces to be located at the end of blocks, where accessible curb ramps already exist, would reduce unsafe street crossings.

Finally, reserving one space per block face, using a traditional city block as a model, is patently excessive. Many traditional block faces in the City of San Diego, for example, have but two or three total spaces, and rarely more than ten. The ADAAG requirements for parking lots uses a ratio of one disabled parking space for every twenty five regular spaces, and even less frequency when total spaces exceed 100. Requiring on-street parking to provide such an excessive ratio of disabled parking spaces, beyond that required in other parts of the ADAAG, would have the unintended consequence of further reducing already sparse street parking in urban areas.

We propose using a ratio such as found in the ADAAG section 4.1.2(5)(a), where no more than 4 percent of the total spaces are set aside for accessible, disabled parking. Our rewritten version of 1102.14 is as follows:

1102.14 On-Street Parking.

Where on-street parking is provided, a minimum of 4 percent of the total parking spaces shall be accessible on-street parking spaces and shall comply with 1109. The location of these spaces shall be as near to primary destination points as is feasible.

1102.15 Passenger Loading Zones.

Requiring one accessible space in 100 linear feet of loading zone space or fraction thereof is inappropriate where there is insufficient public right-of-way to comply with cut out requirements of 503.2, 503.3, and 503.5. We propose adding the same exemption found for parallel parking spaces (section 1109.2) with the following language:

EXCEPTION: Compliance with this section is not required where the width of the sidewalk between the extension of the normal curb and boundary of the public right-of-way is less than 14 feet (4270 mm).

1103.5 Grade.

The grade of the pedestrian access route within a sidewalk shall not exceed the grade established for the adjacent roadway.

EXCEPTION: The running slope of a pedestrian access route shall be permitted to be steeper than the grade of the adjacent roadway, provided that the pedestrian access route is less than 1:20, or complies with 405.

There should be another exemption to 1103.5. to accommodate the transitions to level areas. For example, if one is trying to level out the landing in front of a business to provide access to that facility, or create a driveway running perpendicular to the sidewalk, then the adjacent transition between the level area and the sidewalk will necessarily exceed the slope of the street. We propose adding the following exception to 1103.5:

EXCEPTION: The running slope of a pedestrian access route shall be permitted to be steeper than the grade of the adjacent roadway at the transition between the pedestrian access route and a more level cross surface. In these cases, compliance with 1103.5 shall be made to the maximum extent feasible.

1104 Curb Ramps and Blended Transitions.

The wording seems to imply that ramps can only be parallel or perpendicular, thereby prohibiting diagonal curb ramps. However, in the discussion portion of the draft guidelines, the Board seeks to only “discourage” the use of diagonal curb ramps. While diagonal curb ramps may not always be ideal, often they are the best option, especially where sidewalk space is limited.

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 clear why there would be concern for specifying a minimum slope. A section 1104.2.3 could be added to state that in skewed crosswalks pedestrian ramps should be installed in the center of the crosswalk, or a parallel curb ramp should be utilized.

1104.2.2.4 Diverging Sidewalks.

It is unclear what a "barrier" is as it relates to this section.

1104.3.2 Detectable Warnings.

The public hearing in Portland, Oregon on October 8, 2002, was filled with blind individuals denouncing detectable warnings unhelpful, and even presenting safety concerns. A great number of previously submitted written comments reinforce this sentiment. Because the blind community itself, for whom detectable warnings are intended, objects to these surfaces, it is our position that they should not be used at curb ramps, except when absolutely necessary. If the Board does mandate this requirement, it is our contention that detectable warnings should only be required for ramps where the slope is too slight for blind persons to detect, such as a slope of 1:15 or less.

1105.2.1 Width of Pedestrian Crosswalks.

In 1105.2.1, the marked crosswalk width is increased to a minimum of 96 inches. MUTCD section 3B.17 provides for a minimum crosswalk width of 72 inches, thus putting these two regulations at odds. In addition, requiring marked crosswalks to be 96 inches wide minimum while the requirement for cut through refuge islands is 48 inches (see 1105.4), raises a question as to how these elements would align. Reconciling these apparent conflicts would be extremely helpful.

Finally, it is unclear whether a minimum crosswalk width of 96 inches should be measured by the area inside the crosswalk lines, or inclusive of the crosswalk lines. We proposed the following rewritten version of 1105.2.1:

1105.2.1 Width. Marked crosswalks shall be 96 inches (2440 mm) wide minimum, including the marked lines themselves.

1105.2.2 Cross Slope.

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 compound grade problems in mid-block sections of steep roadways. While such a modification may be technically infeasible, we nevertheless believe there needs to be an express exemption for the 2% cross-slope and 5% running slope for walkways at existing intersections. There are numerous six lane major intersections in San Diego with four cross walks. An overlay or intersection modification may trigger the requirement to flatten that entire intersection to 2%, which would necessitate regrading hillsides, condemning private property, and countless other untenable hardships. As such, it should be clearly stated that this requirement should only apply to new construction.

1105.2.3 Running Slope.

The 1:20 maximum running slope as specified in 1105.2.3 will not work on higher speed roadways with "T" 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. Thus, an exception should be provided in these circumstances.

1105.3 Pedestrian Signal Phase Timing.

To reduce the signal phase timing to 3.0 feet per second will result in several unintended consequences.

Lengthening signal times will increase system wide congestion and delay, adversely impacting air quality due to greater automobile emissions. More traffic accidents would be the result of added congestion, as those waiting at signals for longer periods of time would be more aggressive getting through the next intersection. This will be most problematic for signals that are part of a coordinated traffic signal system generally used in urban areas.

A reasonable response to increased signal phase timing would be to evaluate each crossing on a case-by-case basis. Working with the disabled community would assist local governments in identifying those intersections where increased crossing times are necessary. Furthermore, updated technologies could provide for increased crossing time where specifically requested, such as systems where pedestrians hold the crossing signal button down for three seconds to make the signal increase the crossing time to 3.0 feet per second for that particular phase.

The current value of 4.0 feet per second given in the MUTCD is appropriate for the majority of situations. The proposed value of 3.0 feet per second exceeds even the advisory committee's recommendation. If the Board is inclined to reduce the 4.0 feet per second as currently required, perhaps a more reasonable compromise would be 3.5 feet per second. This would provide increased crossing times, while minimizing the adverse consequences of traffic delays, greater pollution, and increased traffic accidents.

1105.5 Pedestrian Overpasses and Underpasses.

The requirement to install an elevator where the rise of a ramped approach exceeds 60 inches will have many unintended consequences. Since overpasses and underpasses are discretionary structures, and there are very few that will have a ramp approach of less than 60 inches, jurisdictions may be persuaded to forgo the installation of this type of structure rather than come up with the significant resources necessary to construct and maintain an elevator. Such resources not only include the cost of the structure itself, but supplying electricity, procuring the necessary space, staffing a maintenance crew twenty-four hours a day, and providing security for those who use the elevator.

Public safety is our primary concern. An unsupervised elevator in relatively remote area presents unique concerns. Where use at night would be infrequent, and by individuals or small groups of people, opportunistic criminals would find the perfect setting for preying on their victims. Elevators are closed from outside view, allowing the most heinous of crimes to occur inside. Even closed-circuit television cameras are of nominal value since the response time to the elevator would be too long to act as a deterrent. Even elevator malfunctions present a unique safety concern, especially to passengers at odd hours of the night.

Yet another consideration with providing an unsupervised elevator in remote areas includes the use by homeless persons. This population is well known to appropriate any unsupervised structure that provides shelter from the elements. An elevator would be no different. Homeless individuals using these elevators as a temporary home would undoubtedly deter anyone from its use.

We propose the Board eliminate this requirement all together. While we recognize the difficulty to disabled individuals for ramps that rise to certain heights, we must also take into account the adverse effects this type of elevator presents to the entire population. On balance, it is clear the pros are overwhelmingly outweighed by the cons of such a proposal, and we anticipate the Board will act accordingly.

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. As a matter of consistency, if barriers are required here, they should also be required at all "high-design" intersections, and even mid-block locations to prohibit pedestrian crossings. The different treatment for similar pedestrian crossings is bewildering.

Furthermore, this requirement defeats the purpose of the roundabout which is to provide an unsignalized traffic calming device. To require signals at roundabout crossings would not necessarily improve pedestrian safety. An unintended consequence may be drivers running the red light in disrespect for these signals where unwarranted stop lights are installed.

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.

Whether intended or not, this section presents a requirement that is so at odds with the objective and design of a roundabout, that it would effectively eliminate these traffic control devices from being constructed in the future. As such, we propose eliminating this requirement all together, allowing other portions of Chapter 11 to provide guidance for crossings at roundabouts. At the very most, mandate the use of traffic warning devices, such as those found at school crossings, which would alert drivers to be especially cautious.

1105.7 Turn Lanes at Intersections.

There are already countless "slip" lanes at un-signalized intersections, and this design is continuing to be built. Slip lanes at un-signalized intersections provide a valuable means of allowing vehicles to make safe turns without impeding the flow of traffic. The imposition of this requirement would essentially eliminate slip lane design for un-signalized intersections. It should be clarified that this section applies only to signalized intersections, thereby eliminating the need to place traffic signals where none is needed or intended.

Section 1106.2 - Pedestrian Signal Devices.

The public hearing in Portland, Oregon on October 8, 2002, and previously submitted written comments should be a clear indication of the blind community’s adverse reaction to a audible pedestrian signals. Such devices generally mask and confuse other environmental indicators, such as traffic noise, which blind persons must use to sense when it is safe to cross. Although section 1106.3.2. attempts to specify some criteria for audible pedestrian signal devices, the nature of the sound itself is not addressed. Either eliminating this section, or adequately addressing the blind community’s concerns is needed here.

1106.2.1 Location [Pedestrian Signal Devices].

There are many circumstances where the precise device location mandated by this section cannot be met. Subsurface utilities, fire hydrants, or other preexisting items may directly conflict with the placement provisions of 1106.2.1. While moving such infrastructures may not be “technically infeasible,” doing so would nevertheless present an hardship. The "location" wording should be changed to communicate the concept as a guidance statement rather than a mandate, or at the very least exempting situations where preexisting features pose such an obstacle.

1106.4 Directional Information and Signs.

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 presents a concern of cost, maintenance, and efficacy. Furthermore, this section fails to specify whether the street names should be in Braille, raised lettering, an audio message, or some combination of these. When combining all these features along with a directional arrow and crosswalk configuration, the unique features required at every individual corner of an intersection would be clearly cost prohibitive, subject to constant maintenance to ensure accuracy, and be so convoluted that the information is more confusing to a blind person than if there were no such signs at all. This is especially true with regard to crosswalk configurations (1106.4.3), because there is no standard for graphic indications of intersections.

We agree that directional arrows, as required by 1106.4.1, are appropriate. However, the other technical requirements under 1106.4 should be either omitted altogether or be made discretionary.

1108 Detectable Warning Surfaces.

Although we have concerns about detectable warning surfaces (see our comment on section 1104.3.2), we like that this area has been minimized to 24 inches. If this section is not omitted, we would like greater clarity on whether detectable warning surfaces would be required in other areas not specifically mentioned in 1108.2.1, 1108.2.2, and 1108.2.3, such as a pedestrian walkway that crosses into the vehicular right-of-way without any discernable transition.

1109.2 - Parallel Parking Spaces

The requirement to provide a 60 inch access aisle is extremely burdensome and will also 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, the City of San Diego will have to propose a capital project to construct a 60 inch indent aisle. This accommodation will have to compete with other city projects for very limited resources. And, even if approved, it would experience long delays before completion. It also means we would be unable to respond to changing needs by moving a handicap space slightly when needed. Once the space is installed, we would lose our ability to quickly change locations to accommodate specific requests by disabled individuals, which is not uncommon. Our recommendation would be to eliminate this requirement, as it fails to serve the best long-term interests of providing on street parking to the disabled community.

In addition, the 5 foot minimum height of handicap signs is in violation of the minimum requirements of the MUTCD. The section also does not define the total dimensions required for the parking stall itself. We seek clarification on these issues.

1111.6 Barricades.

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. If erected correctly, this type of barricade would accommodate the need to provide pedestrian channelization and protection in a reasonable manner. Furthermore, allowing the use of this material would make it much easier and efficient to provide protection in very short-term construction areas, thereby encouraging compliance with this section.

Conclusion.

These comments are intended to promote regulations that are as clear, defined, and unambiguous as possible. The closer Chapter 11 gets to this end, the more the Board can expect compliance from jurisdictions like the City of San Diego. It is our goal and ambition to make San Diego among the most accessible cities in the nation. As such, the Board should view these comments as constructive criticism intended to promote regulations that will, in the end, provide local governments with the best opportunity to meet the needs of those with disabilities. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact either Timothy Campen, Deputy City Attorney, at 619-533-6295, or Fletcher Callanta, ADA Coordinator - Engineering and Capital Projects, at 619-533-3420.

Sincerely yours,

By
Frank Belock, Director
Engineering and Capital Projects