index
previous comment
next comment
|
Alan L. Childers, P.E.
|
September 20, 2002 |
It is well intentioned and good to improve access to the street environment for disabled users. Many of the ADA guidelines that have been implemented to date are reasonable and sound. However, physical limitations are just that, limitations, and this must be recognized. Some measures are practical and logical, while others may not be due to safety and economic considerations. For instance, we could make an argument that blind individuals have a "right" to drive cars, but is that really practical from a safety standpoint? In the same way, I feel that some of these proposed draft guidelines are impractical. The following are a few examples:
1. Requiring maximum crosswalk cross-slope to be 1:48. The expense of such in the terrain of our part of the country would be significant. 2. Changes in the pedestrian crossing time for pedestrian signals will force longer signal cycle lengths. This will generate additional delays, congestion, and driver frustration, and these things equal accidents. 3. Pedestrian signal changes to accommodate blind individuals will result in deaths and serious injuries. People do run red lights, especially right on red, and how is the blind individual to know? 4. Requiring pedestrian signals on channelized right-turn lanes. The occasional pedestrian activation will violate driver expectancy, resulting in red light runners, which again equal deaths and serious injury.
The overall cost increase of these requirements will result in fewer roadway projects being constructed, or tax increases, all to construct "improvements" that will result in an increase in delays, congestion, and pedestrian accidents. Frankly, spending massive dollars to encourage blind individuals to mix with the overly aggressive and sometimes intoxicated American driving population, is insane! I hope and pray that common sense will prevail!
Alan L. Childers, P.E.
Vice President, Mgr. of Transportation
Cannon & Cannon, Inc.