Chad J. Smith, P.E.

September 30, 2002

Re: Draft Guidelines on Accessible Public Rights-of-Way as Proposed by the U.S. Access Board

Dear Mr. Windley:

It is my understanding the U.S. Access Board is giving the industry an opportunity to provide ideas and suggestions before going to rulemaking on how to make the pedestrian environment within public rights-of-way more accessible. The City of Bloomington, Minnesota has, and will continue, to upgrade pedestrian facilities to improve mobility of all residents and visitors. However, our caution is there may be significant unintended consequences with many of the suggestions coming from the Access Board.

Many of the potential concerns and comments are listed below:

1101.3 Defined Terms: The definition of “Blended Transitions” should be included. The proposed definition of “Street Furniture” is overly broad.

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. 1102.2.2.2 seems to prohibit the conversion of expressways to freeways or the elimination of intersection or mid-block crossing locations. 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.”

In 1102.2 and 1102.3, the requirement to acquire right-of-way construction easements where “practicable” may have a chilling effect on projects particularly in areas with high property values, such as the City of Bloomington, 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 imminent 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.

1102.5.1 would prohibit and require the relocation of many common objects, such as pole mounted traffic signal cabinets and cabinet mounted electrical meters, before otherwise needed. Additional right-of-way often will be required for compliance.

In 1102.6 there is 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 when there are not marked crosswalks and 48” sidewalks 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 for the ramps to be located within the unmarked crosswalks.

1102.7.1 requires bus route identification signs located at bus shelters to have raised and Braille characters. If this sign is mounted at an accessible height and is reasonably sized, it is likely to conflict with 1102.5.

1103 Pedestrian Access Route: It is unclear how to interpret the meaning of “Changes in level shall be separated horizontally 30 inches minimum.” It is not clear if the rail authority or the pedestrian facility authority is responsible for compliance with 1103.7 and 1103.8. Unless 1103.8.1 allows significant variations from “level and flush,” this is not practical.

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 and .2.2.1 it is not obvious why there would be concern for specifying a minimum slope.

In 1104.2.2.4 it is unclear what a “barrier” entails.

In 1104.3.2 it is my contention that detectable warnings should be left to the discretion of the designer.

1105 Pedestrian Crossings: In 1105.2.1 the marked crosswalk width is increased from the MUTCD minimum width of 6 feet to 8 feet. While this is not much of 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 necessity 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 degradate the ride-ability of vehicular traffic and may compound grade problems in mid-block sections of steep roadways. This may also cause significant drainage issues.

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.

Sec. 1105.3 Pedestrian Signal Phase Timing: The requirements of 3 feet per second as the maximum walking speed and increasing the distance to include ramp lengths are both ill conceived and 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. Congestion is already a major problem which causes diversions to less appropriate routes and the demand for construction of more capacity which often results in more lanes, longer crossings, and less pedestrian friendly environments. 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 based on the specific requirements of the specific location and uses.

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. Our recommendation would be to have “resting platforms” at appropriate intervals like other ramps.

1105.6 Roundabouts: The requirements proposed in this section are ill conceived and 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. Since medians are available on most approaches to roundabouts, they provide the opportunity for pedestrians to select gaps and cross one traffic stream at a time.

1105.6.2 Signals: The requirement for signization on every leg of every roundabout is ludicrous. Thousands of low-volume, neighborhood roundabouts are being built, many as traffic calming devices. To require signals is tremendously cost prohibitive, does not ensure additional safety benefits and is not feasible. 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 unsignalized 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: Again, this is a poorly conceived idea. There are literally thousands of existing “slip” lanes at unsignalized intersections (hundreds in the City of Bloomington) and this design is continuing to be built. The imposition of this requirement would essentially eliminate slip lane design for signalized and unsignalized intersections. If these “slip” lanes are eliminated at signalized intersections, crossing lengths will increase and pedestrians will still be exposed to right turns on red. Signalizing these pedestrian movements will increase pedestrian delay, decrease pedestrian level of service and increase pedestrian disrespect of signals. This would have the unintended consequence of increased congestion (previously discussed) which would also increase intersection accidents.

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.

1108 Detectable Warning Surfaces: I am concerned about the complexity of removing snow and ice with the truncated domes which do not allow a snow shovel or any of the equipment used by the City of Bloomington to effectively contact the entire surface area.

1109 On-Street Parking: I believe there was insufficient thought put into these proposals. The majority of block faces being built each year are in typical residential neighborhoods where on-street parking (if allowed) supplements off-street parking. To require an indented, signed, handicap space on every residential block face is surely not what the committee intended, particularly if parking is otherwise prohibited. My recommendation would be to require handicap spaces only in business or commercial areas without off-street parking. Secondly, in areas such as the City of Bloomington with many short block lengths, the requirement of one space per block face will be viewed by the public and our business community as being extremely excessive. The City of Bloomington has many short block faces with as few as four spaces. If these requirements are imposed, we will have a tremendously high percentage of handicap spaces in some areas. In areas with off-street parking, 1109 would be like designating handicap stalls at the furthest point from the destination.

In 1109.2 Parallel Parking Spaces, the requirement to provide a 60” access aisle is extremely burdensome and will also have significant unintended consequences that will restrict the ability to help the disabled community instead of accommodate them. The five-foot indent is simply out of character in residential neighborhoods. In the future in order to install a handicap space, we will have to propose a capital project to construct a five-foot indent aisle. This means projects will have to compete with other city projects for very limited funds and, even if funded, would have large time delays before completion. This area would be very difficult to drain or clear of snow and ice. My 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.

1111 Alt. 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 instance. Many times the scope of construction is such that no pedestrians can be accommodated and, 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.

In 1111.6 the requirement of a lower rail within 1-1/2” 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. I have historically been and continue to be in support of reasonable accommodations within the right-of-way. My desire is to communicate potential pit-falls and unintended consequences associated with several of the proposed standards. Since the local jurisdiction is financially responsible for these facilities and most closely in contact with the community, the decisions on designs should be left to the local designers. Guidance and education, not regulations, should be the approach used for these issues.

Sincerely,


Chad J. Smith, P.E.
Traffic & Transportation Engineer