Angela I. Carmon
|
October 26, 2002 |
CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM
NORTH, CAROLINA
Re: Draft guidelines on accessible public rights of way
The City of Winston-Salem welcomes this opportunity to comment on the draft
guidelines for public rights of way. The City recognizes that Title II of the
ADA prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against people
with disabilities in their programs, services and facilities. The City is
committed to making its services, programs and facilities accessible to all of
its citizens including people with disabilities. To that end, the City certainly
recognizes the need for accessible public rights of way which will enable all of
its citizens to enjoy all that the city has to offer.
In the City's review of the draft guidelines, a few areas of concern were noted
as outlined in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. To the extent
any of the comments are unclear, the City welcomes the opportunity for dialogue
on these matters. The City's comments are not intended nor should they be viewed
as objections to the concept of providing access to people with disabilities.
The City has been and continues to be in support of reasonable accommodations
and reasonable efforts to afford access to all of its citizens. Our desire is to
seek clarity in the regulations and to perhaps point out unintended consequences
associated with several of the proposed standards.
Again, the City thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed
guidelines and welcomes any future opportunity for dialogue. Should you have any
questions, please feel
free to contact me at [ ... ].
Sincerely,
Angela I. Carmon,
Assistant City Attorney
ADA Coordinator for the
City of Winston-Salem
EXHIBIT A
COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA
OCTOBER 25, 2002
• Alternate Circulation Path (1102.3, 1111) It is not clear whether this section
is saying that alternate paths must be provided on the same side of the street
as construction/maintenance activities or if it’s saying that if a pedestrian
path is provided on the same side appropriate barriers must be used. If the
intent is to always require a path, on the same side of the street, as the
construction/maintenance activity, complete street closures might become a
regular occurrence. (There may not be enough street width to accommodate traffic
and the required pedestrian path.) In addition, it is not clear how this rule
would apply to sidewalks that are closed because of work off the right of way.
i.e overhead work on a building or structure that would pose a danger to
pedestrian walking underneath. The ability to close a sidewalk on one side of
the street and have people use the parallel sidewalk on the other side is
necessary for the safety of both pedestrians and motorists. The question becomes
how to we tell visually impaired people the sidewalk is closed before they cross
the street. In addition, there is no provision or definition that allows for
emergency work, a gas main or water main leak without having to implement these
provisions.
• Pedestrian Access Route (1102.4.) Is an alteration, considered the replacement
of broken sidewalk? If so then does the repair of one section of sidewalk have
meet the minimum clear width requirement? This could produce random 3- 4'
sections that have to be widened to meet this requirement, thereby disrupting
on-street parking and traffic flow and creating a very inconsistent minimum
clear width for those it was intended to help.
• Protruding Objects (1102.5) In many places traffic signal control boxes may
exceed the guideline for protruding objects. It’s neither feasible nor practical
to lower them to 27" or raise them to 80". In the past, we have installed raised
concrete slabs under the boxes to allow visually impaired pedestrians to detect
them with their cane. This would seem to be a more practical solution to the
problem.
• Pedestrian Crossings (1102.8,1105) Increasing the width of marked crosswalks
can be accomplished easily. However, since the painted lines offer no protection
and do not constrain pedestrian movement, the reasons for doing this must be
questioned. In addition, in all but the largest cities, pedestrians volumes are
such that existing crosswalks have more than enough space to accommodate people.
It has been speculated, that 1:48 cross slopes will require tabling at each
intersection. If so this will be cost prohibitive, and could impact the ability
of major intersections to process traffic safely and efficiently. Pedestrian
signal phase timing should be decided upon by practicing traffic engineers on a
case by case basis. At location where slower waking speeds are necessary,
traffic engineers can make the necessary timing changes. However, to require
timing based on slower walking speeds at every intersection risks adding to
congestions, crashes and driver frustration.
• On-Street Parking (1102.14,1109) As written, it appears that a handicapped space would have to be provided for each block face where parking is allowed. This would mean residential neighborhoods too. I doubt this was the intent and there ought to be language to clarify this. The requirement for one space per block face seems excessive. It ought to take into consideration block lengths and parking spaces on the block. In is especially excessive in North Carolina where motorists with handicapped placards are allowed to park in any legal parking spaces for as long a necessary, without regard for the time limits. On any given day, along several block faces, in our downtown, one can find parking space after parking space, occupied by vehicles with handicapped placards. These vehicles belong to workers and they arrive first thing in the morning and remain all day. The idea of a 5' aisle along side a handicapped on-street space, means that a 12' area (the equivalent of on traffic lane) must be constructed in each block face. In most areas, this would eliminate the sidewalk.
• Curb Ramps and Blended Transitions (1102.6, 1104) and
Surfaces ( 1104.3.3) When doing projects such as widening sidewalks on an
existing road it might be hard to
completely eliminate access covers, manholes or other appurtenances in the curb
ramps, landings, blended transitions, and gutter areas within the pedestrian
access route.
• Pedestrian Crossings (1105) Cross Slopes (1105.2.2) - The 1:48 maximum
requirement is stricter than AASHTO recommendations. The AASHTO book, “A Policy
on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets”, 2001 recommends the maximum grade
at an intersection to be 3% which would be 1:33. Most communities probably have
street standards that follow AASHTO guidelines.
• Roundabouts (1105.6) and Roundabouts Separation (1105.6.1) The requirement to
install barriers at each roundabout where pedestrian crossings are prohibited is
inconsistent. Barriers are not required at other locations where crossings are
prohibited. The notion that each leg of every roundabout should have pedestrian
signals is unreasonable. In many cases, roundabouts are installed, in
residential areas, as traffic calming devices. A requirement to install
pedestrian signals at every roundabout would be cost prohibitive and would
result in the installation of a large number of traffic signals that do not meet
MUTCD warrants. With respect to roundabouts separation, it does not seem
necessary to provide continuous barriers when the curb itself has been a
sufficient indication of prohibiting pedestrian crossing.
• Turn Lanes at Intersections (1105.7) If the intent of this suggestion is that
every slip lane have traffic signals, the idea needs to be re thought. Right and
left-turn slip lanes are often present at intersections that do not have or need
traffic signals, the cost and the installation of signals where not warranted by
the MUTCD make this poor suggestion. The signalization of slip lanes at
signalized intersections ought to be made by a traffic engineer working in
conjunction with the disabled community.
• Bus Route Identification (11027.1) This section appears to require that all
bus stop signs to be printed in Braille as well as conventional lettering. The
City has over 2,400 places were buses may stop to pick up passengers which means
that this requirement alone will cost the City at least $100,000.