P.O. Box 10268 Oakland, California 94610-0268 (510)530-7198 djcross@pacbell.net
DOUGLAS J. CROSS Transportation Consulting www.douglasjcross.com
P.O. Box 10268 Oakland, California 94610-0268 (510)530-7198 djcross@pacbell.net
June 10, 2007
Docket 2007-1
Office of Technical and Informational Services
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1111
Attention: Dennis Cannon
Dear Dennis:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Revisions to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buses and Vans, as issued by the U.S. Access Board on April 11, 2007.
Unfortunately, I feel there are a number of issues with the process the Access Board used that seriously harm the goal of providing a reasonable and meaningful update of these important guidelines:
1. The outreach process to gather public and industry input was inadequate. There should have been a much more broad-based invitation to concerned individuals, organizations, public agencies, and vendor businesses. The lack of such public notice and outreach places serious question on the validity of the assumptions upon which the revisions are based.
2. The time allowed for review and comment was inadequate. A complicated and far-reaching change in guidelines such as this should have been given at least another month or two. Reading and understanding all of the changes, some of which are quite cryptic, is an involved and time-consuming process that is difficult for busy professionals and public officials to accomplish without dropping other important responsibilities of their busy schedules. This also includes the fact that in several instances, research was required on the part of commenters to understand what the ramifications may be.
3. The Access Board apparently did not coordinate with US DOT, which issued questions related to wheelchair accessibility in vehicles in their NPRM on ADA last year (49 CFR Parts 27, 37, 38 [Docket OST–2006–23985]):
Request for Comment on Other Issues; #1) Whether mobility aid securement systems are
necessary in ‘‘bus rapid transit’’ (BRT) vehicles. "The Department seeks comment on these or other issues concerning BRT accessibility, and on what, if any, specific provisions should be added to parts 37 and 38 concerning BRT"; and #6). "From time to time, there are changes in mobility devices used by individuals with disabilities. For example, the Department recently issued guidance concerning the use of ‘‘Segways’’ on transit vehicles. Another example concerns wheelchairs that do not fit the Department’s existing definition of a ‘‘common wheelchair’’ (a three-or four-wheeled mobility device that, together with its user, does not exceed 600 pounds and fits a specific dimensional envelope). Some newer wheelchair designs have six wheels, rather than three or four; others may
be longer, wider, or heavier than contemplated by the current definition. The Department seeks comment on how best to accommodate such change, while still providing certainty to designers and manufacturers of vehicles."
Not only should the Access Board be coordinating with parallel regulatory efforts such as this, information from such efforts should have been included as background in the Board’s draft revisions.
4. There are a variety of major and minor changes proposed, plus "questions" in the Access Board’s preamble discussion as to whether certain new specs are feasible:
Type:
(A) Proposed spec change only
(B) Proposed spec change + "question" in discussion preamble
(C) "Question" only in discussion preamble
There should have been an index of these different structural items. They ended up being confused between each other, and caused confusion among people trying to understand and respond to the changes.
Summary and analysis of selected items by Doug Cross (with new section numbers):
1. 1192.3 is stated to have removed the definition of "common wheelchair", which is intended to be replaced by 1192.21(c) to clarify min. width, length, & height available within the vehicle.
The statement that the “definition” was removed is confusing, as the proposed change primarily involves substituting the dimensional requirements for the term "common wheelchair" in Sec. 1192.23 (d)(3) “Mobility aids accommodated”. The new section 1192.3 contains definitions that were not previously contained in part 38; therefore, there was no definition of "common wheelchair" to remove, as stated in the preamble. The fact that the Access Board website has a version of the “ADAAG” covering vehicles is misleading, because most if not all people concerned with following the ADA regulations for public transportation will refer to the US DOT/FTA web site, where the ADAAG is in fact not presented.
The definition of "wheelchair", incl. the "common" description is not in Part 38, is however, still contained in the definitions in Sec. 37.3 of the separate US DOT regulation, "Transportation Services for Individuals with Disabilities (ADA)". The Access Board has no authority to make changes to these definitions (they are incorporated only by reference in Part 38). In fact, they state several times that the Board’s guidelines apply only to vehicles, and defer to DOT concerning operational issues. Their comment that the "definitions are not regulatory" is also not entirely true, as the term "common wheelchair" is used not only "to understand the requirements which are contained in the regulatory text", but is cited as a minimum criterion in the DOT "provision of service" regulations (37.165b).
If the Access Board and DOT intend to change both parts of the regulations concurrently, they should offer a joint proposal that takes all of the affected sections into consideration. Otherwise, there is likely to be confusion if "orphan" elements are left without definitional basis (but, regardless of that potential, note that the definition itself remains in its original location and retains its force of regulation).
This brings up the underlying need to better define the mobility devices intended to be covered, since the existing DOT regs still have the original definition of "wheelchair":
"Wheelchair means a mobility aid belonging to any class of three or four-wheeled devices, usable indoors, designed for and used by individuals with mobility impairments, whether operated manually or powered. A ``common wheelchair'' is such a device which does not exceed 30 inches in width and 48 inches in length measured two inches above the ground, and does not weigh more than 600 pounds when occupied."
It seems that since the concept is being brought up, now would be the time to update this definition. It is not clear how the ADA should provide for non-wheelchair mobility devices, such as Segways and wheeled walkers. There has been confusion about such devices, including both whether and how they should be secured, and whether people should be able to sit in them while being transported, as is the case with wheelchairs.
The FTA Office of Civil Rights has even opined that wheeled walkers meeting the "common wheelchair" definition be accommodated because they meet the dimensional aspects of the definition, even though such devices are clearly not wheelchairs (which are intended to be sat in while moving independently, while walkers, by definition are not.) While it is laudable that guidance is given that ensures access by all who may reasonably need it, increasing competition for limited space on vehicles by an ever widening variety of devices seems to beg review of what was intended to be guaranteed access and use of wheelchair securement locations by the ADA. This issue obviously goes beyond the scope of the Access Board’s vehicle specifications, and begs for a more coordinated approach at the federal level.
In reflecting on all of the confusion about this definition (actually, 2 definitions), I was struck
with the fact that US DOT and FTA made it worse by collapsing "wheelchair" and the "common wheelchair" subset into a single phraseology called "common
wheelchair", as used in their bulletin entitled, Questions and Answers Concerning Common Wheelchairs and Public Transit {http://www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3894.html}.
People are confused, and some even take it so far as to say that if it is not a "common wheelchair", such as one with six wheels, it doesn't need to be secured... (really!).
2. 1192.21 - General and 1192.23 - Mobility aid accessibility, (a)General:
The existing phrase "Sufficient clearances to permit a wheelchair or other mobility aid user to reach securement locations" has been clarified with the requirement for a route to each securement location to be 36" min. width. Where a turn is required, sufficient maneuvering space shall be provided to allow a wheelchair or mobility aid having a width of 30 inches maximum and a length of 48 inches maximum to turn with a minimum of back-and-forth movement.
The language in 1192.23 (C ) adds to similar dimensions in 1192.21(c), although that earlier section becomes misleading or at least confusing when read by itself -- Sec. 1192.21 should say 36", because there is no reason to state the required width as 30" when it is actually 36". The new statement about back-and-forth movement further muddles the issue, because it is vague and un-measurable.
The 36" minimum width may or may not be feasible in fixed route type buses, which is alluded to in the preamble question, "If a 36 inch width is not possible, would a 32 inch minimum width be achievable?". This large variation seems to beg the question, did the Access Board have enough information to select a new requirement to begin with? It would seem that if they were not quite sure of the needed dimension, the question about an alternative would be more like 34 or 35 inches (?).
Technical comment - the "box test" implied by the new section does not account for any maneuverability of wheelchairs; I have seen technical arguments that a 30x48 box cannot turn in a 36" wide right angle passage . This new dimension and the statement about back-and-forth movement could lead to continuation of, as the Access Board preamble states, "Performance requirements are intended to give design flexibility, but, in practice, this section has lead to disputes between manufacturers and transit agencies on whether a particular design complies."
Recognizing this, the preamble asks the question, “In building standards, a 42-inch minimum aisle is required to turn into a 36” wide aisle. Can this be achieved in a bus? How can the maneuvering and turning space be defined so that compliance is more verifiable?”
This question cannot be answered by considering vehicle aisle way and other dimensions alone. It implies that even the 36” wide aisle requirement may not be enough in some cases.
Without taking into consideration the maneuvering characteristics of wheelchairs, there is no answer for all of the needed space to be provided in vehicles without serious impacts that will seriously negatively affect a variety of other vehicle design needs. It seems that there is now sufficient reason for the Access Board’s approach to be reconsidered, in lieu of either more research into mobility device maneuverability characteristics, or a combination of that with some type of standard for mobility devices to be considered transportable on public transit vehicles.
3. 1192.23[d], Securement devices
The title of this section should be expanded to cover the space (“Location and size”); calling it only devices is misleading. The general presentation on the new different “bays” is murky and has confused a lot of people. Examples should be given about how these spaces look in actual vehicles.
The variegated space requirement is likely to cause even more confusion among bus purchasers and vendors than already exists. Even though there are technical
solutions, below is my reasoning why this should be discussed further before anything is adopted. Securement devices would have to work on all wheelchairs in spaces as small as 48" and as large as at least 60" (granted, many do so now, but the current environment is based on variations of the same 30x48 envelope). The new rule would require that securement devices not protrude into the space when not being used, so the 60" space could be larger re: tiedown placement.
Since open floorplans usually involve clipping tiedown reels into and out of the floor only when being used, this rule may not come into play. Tiedown spacing can therefore be as close as 48". (Although savvy buyers get 4 longitudinal tracks - 2 wide for front and 2
narrow - for rear tiedowns down at least one side, making the length continuously adjustable)
Although manufacturers can develop guidelines to deal with this, I have seen a lot of mis-application based on existing installation instructions that give wide ranges for what are essentially "universal" tiedown units. It can result in tiedowns being too close,
front-to back. Note that 48" can be too short for some larger wheelchairs, depending on how the securement equipment is designed and installed. Current clip-in type reels
can take up to 10" of longitudinal space, meaning a front/rear combo will result in usable securement length of 38". When the tiedowns are too close on long wheelchairs, it may not be possible to tension them properly.
Large mobility devices, especially scooters, and the use of tether straps on non-"transit option" wheelchairs can result in 36" or more of effective length (and they are "growing"), leaving little room for error in such a set-up. And errors do occur; I have seen tiedown mounting spacings as close as 44" in supposedly ADA-compliant vehicles. (A side issue is that guidelines are needed to caution people from worsening the problem by using tether
straps that are longer than necessary. But this would be outside the Access Board's scope.)
Increase wheelchair securement location length from 48” to 60”; also removal of the current provision allowing some required floor space to be under seats and panels.
An increase in length of the typical securement space does seem to be needed, as my extensive experience in working with securement issues has led me to recommend spaces a minimum of 55 to 58” long. Otherwise, there can be significant difficulty with positioning and securing wheelchairs approaching the 48” inch envelope length. However the new 60” requirement combines with new requirements disallowing 6” under overhangs to be counted, as well as securement equipment to not intrude into the clear floor space, to create a significantly larger space.
It is not clear whether transit vehicle interiors can accommodate this increase without disproportionate impacts on other interior space needs. Another issue is that extra care will have to be taken so that the space is not made too long for securement devices to work with small mobility devices.
This section is somewhat confusing, since it starts out by stating that the minimum wheelchair space must be the existing 30x 48”, then describes that the typical space alongside a bus aisle must be 60” “wide”, and a “forward approach” space must be 36” inches wide. The nomenclature “wide” for the parallel approach space is somewhat confusing, as most people would use the descriptor, ”long”, for this dimension.
In addition, the 36" wide "forward approach" bay could effectively preclude minivans from being used with rear-loading ramps. Some such
minivans, such as in use in SF taxi fleets used for ADA paratransit, have a 30" wide space, and probably cannot accommodate the 36" width between the rear wheels.
5. 1192.23 (d) (4) Mobility aid accessibility:
Rear-facing securement padded barrier width reduced from 18” to 10-12”
This change seems to have been done to allow for narrow wheelchair handles (which can be as close as 12 inches apart) to straddle the padded barrier. However, the concept of backing up that closely to the barrier is part of the European/Canadian approach, which has a barrier that goes much closer to the floor and relies on contact with the passenger’s back. At 38 inches above the floor, the bottom of the ADA-required “head stop” style barrier is probably too high to be concerned about its interaction with wheelchair handles, since average wheelchair handles are 34-38” off the ground.
This brings up the larger issue that the existing ADA rear facing concept does not allow for the European/Canadian “passive compartmentalization” approach. ADA-compliant tiedowns and occupant restraints are still required, as the padded barrier is not intended to contain the wheelchair and user in the event of a sudden stop. The goal of the compartmentalization approach is to alleviate the need for cumbersome tiedown and occupant restraint devices, especially in BRT services where minimization of boarding dwell times is critical.
Another issue is that the required FMVSS-compliant type of occupant restraints are intended for forward facing vehicle passengers. They do not perform the intended function in the opposite direction. This requirement is another impediment to implementing the passive compartmentalization approach.
If the Access Board is really serious about updating the ADA vehicle specifications, it should investigate this concept fully, and wait to propose any and all revisions to the guidelines until this concept can either be accepted or rejected as feasible for use in US transit services. A related issue is that there is currently an effort to develop an ISO standard, and presumably correlated ANSI standards, for this topic. The Canadian Standards Association already has its own standard, which is interesting since several major bus manufacturers serving the US market are headquartered in Canada.
7. 1192.23 (b)(1) & (c)(1): Lift and ramp design load increased from 600 to 660 pounds
A weight limit increase is needed to deal with increasing mobility aid/user sizes. The proposed incremental increase may be seen by some advocates as not enough, but it appears to be prudent given existing information. It should be noted that the actual design strength of materials, components, and systems is affected by the required safety factors in this part. These are a factor of 6 for working parts and 3 for non-working parts. Some engineers feel that a safety factor of 2 is more appropriate for nonworking parts. It will be interesting to see if manufacturers can readily meet the safety factors for the proposed higher design load.
8. 1192.23 (C )(5): Ramp angle allowed from the ground reduced from 1:4 to 1:8
Experience with low floored buses equipped with ramps has shown that steep ramps can be problematic, especially where there are no curbs or low curbs. The interpretive appendix to the ADA provision of service regulations (“Appendix D” to Part 37) states that vehicle operators must push a manual wheelchair up a ramp. Many transit agency staff and riders do not know that this section exists, and that it carries the same weight as the main regulatory language. It also does not address power wheelchairs and scooters, which are now more commonly used on transit, and which can experience difficulties even though they may not need to be physically “pushed” up a ramp.
The common wisdom with architectural accessibility issues is that a ramp slope of 1:8 is maximum comfortable slope, and sometimes 1:6 is given as the maximum for pushing a wheelchair up a short ramp. Ramps steeper than 1:6 can be difficult even for modern power wheelchairs. However, some low floor bus designs have ramps that barely meet the 1:4 requirement when deployed to ground level, and none of them exceed it by very much.
It is impossible to incorporate a single section ramp in the front door of an urban fixed route bus that would be anywhere close to 1:8 to the ground.
SF Muni has a new front door bi-fold ramp. Muni staff says it is not very close to 1:8 to street when bus is kneeled. At 60" long (a possible bi-fold value), a ramp terminating 11" above the ground (a typical kneeled height) will have a slope of 1:5.4. (Single front door ramps are usually 46-50" long). At 11" high, a ramp would have to be 89" long to achieve 1:8 (assuming a traditional flat floor/edge of threshold mounting).
One manufacturer shows a 76" long ramp at 12" high and slope of 1:6, achieved by having about 1/3 of the ramp depress at an angle from the normal floor level inside the bus (so the part outside the bus is about the same length as conventional single section ramps). I don't know of any in-service examples of this one, though.
To get 1:8, either kneeled heights that are currently not feasible, even more sophisticated moving bus floors, ramp lengths longer than some sidewalks are wide, rear door placement, or a combination would be needed. In addition, folding/moving floor ramps can require fragile and/or complex mechanisms.
The proposed revisions allow for folding ramps, which may be able to meet this standard, but which are new in the marketplace and have not been extensively tested. Such longer ramps will undoubtedly involve more conflicts with deployment on narrow sidewalks. Also mentioned is using the rear or second door of a bus, because it would not have as many space constraints, such as the fare box and drivers seat area. The preamble acknowledges that this approach has other drawbacks. It would seem reasonable to look for more research and demonstration on these topics before making a significant requirement change such as the proposed slope value.
In addition to simply stating “rise over run” numbers for describing slopes, the Access Board should consider providing an explanation of how this is calculated, as well as displaying alternative methods alongside. This is because it is easy to misinterpret the “rise over run” method, where the edge of the triangle that runs along the ground is the run, and it is not always easy to measure. If only the rise and ramp length are available, one must use the Pythagorean Theorem to calculate the run. A common mistake is to use the ramp length, or longest side of the triangle, as the run, which will yield an incorrect slope calculation. There are two other common ways to describe how steep a slope is. One is by the angle in degrees, and the other is by the slope in a percentage. For example, a 100% slope is 45°.
10. 1192.35 New requirement for fixed-route buses to be equipped with an automated stop announcement system (both audible and visual, along with deletion of requirement for P.A. system)
It is interesting that this simplistic requirement was added, which demands potentially complex and expensive support systems. The systems necessary to utilize automated onboard annunciators are quite sophisticated and are completely outside the purview of any kind of vehicle specifications. While automated stop announcements seem to be the way of the future, I have seen more than one system struggle with the infrastructure to make it work, as well as with the onboard equipment. Small transit agencies may be especially hard pressed to make this happen.
Also of concern is the requirement for visual messages, which has no parallel in the DOT’s ADA provision of service requirements for audible stop announcements. While it may in fact be a good idea, and works well at some transit systems, a mandate for it seems to overstep the existing understanding of what the ADA is expected to accomplish. It is a concept that would seem to warrant more public input than has been allowed for in the Access Board’s extremely informal revision process. Another curious aspect of this is the absence of any guidelines for “readability”, which is a glaring contrast with the highly detailed graphic standards for priority seating signage and route/destination “head signs”.
It also seems that in writing this section, the Access Board overlooked the need for public address systems that can be used in manual mode, which is an existing requirement. Given the potential for automated systems to fail, either partially or completely, it would seem prudent to continue the requirement for microphone-oriented P.A. systems.
Outstanding issues not addressed by the proposed revisions:
1. 1192.23 (d) (1, 5, & 6) Securement design load, movement, and stowage
The proposal does not address any changes to the design and strength of securement devices. Rehabilitation engineering/wheelchair researchers have noted that the attachment strength requirements for large vehicles appear to be unnecessarily high in relation to the g-forces that can be expected in sudden stops or crashes. This is seen as potentially limiting innovation to develop less intrusive and cumbersome systems, of which the rear facing “passive compartmentalization” is one alternative.
The proposal also does not change the existing requirement that the securement system shall limit the movement of an occupied wheelchair or mobility aid to no more than 2 inches in any direction under normal vehicle operating conditions. This specification is vague, in that it does not define how such motion would be measured, nor does it say how “normal vehicle operating conditions” would be defined.
For example, some people would consider the latter to be normal driving on a straightaway with moderately fast stopping, akin to driving in typical city traffic. Others may feel that the steepest hill with the worst slant on a sharp turn should be approached at high speed, or that panic stops should be used as the gauge. While manufacturers may be comfortable with their approach to the requirement, consumers and transit operating personnel often question whether the federal law is being violated, based on widely differing assumptions.
The addition of the requirement for the securement devices to not intrude into the clear floor space required for the securement location is a helpful clarification, although in combination with the removal of the overhang option and the longer space, it is not clear what the total effect will be. Some securement devices are low enough to the floor so that they do not create an impediment to mobility device maneuvering. Some consideration of this could be given, such as in terms of the devices being allowed to intrude to the extent that they do not extend above where wheelchair footrests or maneuvering space will be affected. An example would be floor mounted wall-side securement reels that would be completely out of the way during the parking process and would not be where standing passengers would trip on them.
The requirement to not intrude into the clear space, however, is for when the securement devices are not in use. Unfortunately, many transit providers have found that the front aisle side tiedowns in four-point strap systems create a tripping hazard and liability exposure much greater than the exposure if that tiedown is not used, assuming that the other three are tightened appropriately.
Quite a few bus designs have dealt with this by placing the front tiedown farther inboard than is ideal securement geometry. This tends to minimize the tripping hazard, but creates a situation where either the fourth point is not used at all, or it is used with difficulty because of its conflict with the passenger’s foot or footrest, sometimes creating yet another safety hazard. There is probably no easy answer to this, but it is something that should be at least acknowledged when considering updates to standards and regulations on mobility device securement. It is also another incentive to give more emphasis to providing for research and demonstration of new technologies.
2.. 1192.37 Stop request controls with alerts requiring auditory and visual indications that the request has been made.
While most people understand that the auditory and visual indication is for the vehicle operator, this is not clear in the language. It can be interpreted to mean either for the driver, for the passenger who requested it, or both.
Also, the specification for this control to be located anywhere from 15 to 48 inches above the floor is too broad of a range, as it puts the typical small control out of reach of mobility device users that may have limited arm motion. A better range would be somewhere in the vicinity of 20 to 36 inches, but it seems more research is needed on this topic, especially with the longer required wheelchair securement area vis-a-vis the fore and aft placement requirement of 3 inches from the centerline.
Sincerely,
Douglas J. Cross, member:
APTA Access Committee (and past chair, Wheelchair User Issues Subcommittee)
ANSI/RESNA Committee on Wheelchairs and Transportation
Advisory Board, Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Wheelchair Transportation Safety