index previous comment next comment

Dear Access Board Members:

For the most part, I give my appreciation to the past and present members of the Access Board for their diligent work on all the myriad issues related to the ADA statutes and Guidelines. This letter however, is related to the public hearing comment on the Pedestrian Right-Of-Way Access guidelines to be held in Portland on October 8. My two related comments follow.

My first and second comments both concern "truncated domes" and I have two different concerns related to their adoption within the statutes of the ADA. My first concern involves the use of detectable warnings and ONLY truncated domes being used within curb-cuts. My second and related issue concerns the present, adopted statutory language for new construction and that of the proposed draft, creating a definite limitation for the use of other established and/or developing detectable surfaces, devices or products that can serve the same purpose as "truncated domes. As a person with a disability (total Blindness) and also as a degreed and credentialed expert in the fields of Community Development and Rehabilitation for the Blind, I wish to note two inconsistencies in the logic that put the term "detectable warning" in the language that is delineated in the current PROWAAC statutes and also within the Proposed Rule Making amendment. It should be noted beforehand, that I am a STRONG PROPONENT of truncated domes when used in questionable safety areas, such as along elevated rail platforms or at blended curb intersections. Public safety is paramount in pedestrian zones, and truncated domes are useful to ALL PEDESTRIANS traveling in such areas, sighted or non-sighted. However, why is it that the same "detectable warning" device (truncated domes) are being required to warn pedestrians with vision impairments about danger zones near or within the Right-Of-Way, while simultaneously being advised for use in curb cuts at normal, non-blended intersections? Does it not seem oximoronic to say that in one zone they are to be used to limit or inhibit access for rational reasons of safety, then again to be used in a place where present (new construction) ADA statutes have designated the device as required for equal access? One use demarks a dangerous, unsafe area and one use actually limits accessibility in a zone that under ADA statute, was created for greater pedestrian access for persons with mobility impairments. Why is the use of truncated domes within a curb-cut suddenly NOT a barrier? As persons who use wheelchairs and other wheeled aids to travel explain to me, it certainly is a problem and barrier for them as they move through such curb-cuts. In most circumstances, standard truncated domes placed within a curb-cut are uncomfortable, and often painful for wheelchair users, who are supposed to be the primary pedestrian group gaining access to crosswalks from such zones. Why impinge the greater number of pedestrians who use wheelchairs, walkers, baby strollers or those who wear high heels or might shuffle as they walk? Simply put, if blind and vision impaired pedestrians, along with other pedestrians with disabilities DO NOT APPROVE of truncated domes in curb-cuts, why does the PROWAAC and subsequently the Access Board feel their placement needed within our Nation's rights-of-way? Contrary to the claims or rationale used by public works and transportation engineers, truncated dome company representatives, or other individuals or agents that THINK they know about Orientation and Mobility (O&M) practices that vision impaired pedestrians use during their daily travels, people who are vision impaired DO NOT commonly wander into traffic by gliding down or wandering through a curb-cut. Such vision impaired pedestrians may do so where blended curbs are present at busy intersections, and detectable warnings (or markers?) should be present at such locations. For vision impaired pedestrians, blended curbs in busy intersections disallow the location of a detectable edge for a safe stop before crossing traffic; but we can DEFINITELY notice the slant of a curb cut while simultaneously noting the uplifted or rolled edges of the cut while swinging a cane. And guide dogs are trained specifically to note traffic zones, curb-cuts and thereby limit their handlers movement into danger zones. A point of proof concerning vision impaired persons ability TO NOT FALL PREY TO CURB-CUTS, may be the fact that when it comes to standard or even unusual driveways along or near vehicular rights-of-way, the PROWAAC and Access Board in their past statutes DID NOT feel that truncated domes were necessary for safety purposes; and these areas are commonly far longer and more often smoother transition zones than curb-cuts. Additionally in driveway areas, the slant of the driveway itself usually causes a cane using pedestrian with a vision impairment, to slowly migrate toward the down side of the driveway and potentially into the vehicular traffic zone. Why then does the PROWAAC and Access Board address this situation similarly? Simply put, it is demeaning to place truncated domes within curb-cuts through the utilization of false premises related to blind persons travel capabilities; this required placement is both demeaning and furthers the stigma of blind persons being incompetent in their daily travels. Secondarily, why does the language used in both the previous Pedestrian Right-Of-Way new construction statutes and the proposed draft language only note "detectable warnings (i.e. truncated domes)" rather than leave the guidelines less stringent? Limiting "detectable warnings" to truncated domes seems to allow the few companies involved in their manufacture and installation to maintain a monopoly in the field. Most of the companies producing truncated domes also manufacture detectable devices that combine orientation with that detectability, but they also cost quite a bit less for those entities which are to purchase the devices. These detectable devices may be referred to as linear way-finding strips, orientation markers or guidance strips, but their detectability has also been researched and established, and they are being used (minimally) in mass transit areas and other public venues. So why not in pedestrian right-of-way environments like crossing zones, through curb-cut perimeters or other areas where DETECTABILITY AND ORIENTATION might insure greater safety? Because they do not make as much money for those same companies, might be the answer ... While current truncated dome corporations control the field, there are now companies on the horizon that are specializing in products that have similar detectability and orientation factors; does not the stringent language of the current standing and proposed statutes limit their access to the field? Seems like the use of systems that are common in Europe, Japan, Canada and other developed nations could save our Nation a great deal of money. Closing the field to the advantage of certain truncated dome manufacturers also seems both non-sensible and costly. Simply, there are other yet similar ways to deal with safety, detectability and orientation for pedestrians who are vision impaired, as proven in other nations; is the language being used and proposed not creating a monopoly? Our Country is based on capitalistic innovations that have put us ahead of other countries. Is the standing and proposed language of this ADA section consistent with the American way, when it apparently limits the potential good of our Nation's innovative and entraumpenurial spirit, by allowing a handful of companies to control the pedestrian environment with devices that may be improved upon? Broadening the language seems an easy fix and hopefully for the good of blind and vision impaired pedestrians, and for the benefit of the nation and future entraumpenures, the language will reflect the spirit of our Country.

Sincerely,

Robert G. Cook, M.S.C.D., M.A.R.T.