Alonzo Liñán, P.E.

October 28, 2002

City of Olathe

Re: Draft guidelines on accessible public right-of-way proposed by the U.S. Access Board.

Dear Mr. Windley:

Since the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the city of Olathe has endeavored to maximize accessibility of city programs and facilities to all segments of our population. The city of Olathe has also incorporated the additional requirements of the Disability Act of 1990 and it subsequent revisions. All of these actions have been successful in removing barriers for the disabled and has provided access to all parts of the community to public services, programs and facilities. To date, none of these actions have resulted in a decrease of access to other segments of the community nor has it compromised the safety of other customers in our community.

Several of the proposed guidelines require pedestrian activated traffic signals at many locations. This blanket requirement for the placement of traffic signals in contrary to the MUTCD where at least some minimum warrant has to be met. Without at least minimum warrants, traffic signals will soon go the way of "Children At Play" and "Neighborhood Watch" signs. There will be so many traffic signals that when they are actually needed, they will be ignored. This is a very serious safety issue for the entire population.

The proposed draft guidelines will push communities like ours into a position of not providing facilities or services because of the cost of maintenance, rehabilitations and reconstructions as well as its impact on safety. In short, the Access Board's attempt to provide access for all people, at all times, for all programs, at all facilities, may deny access and services to all citizens of the community so that there will not be a "discriminated group". In the end, everyone will be treated equally as communities exercise their discretionary powers to not make improvements beyond a certain level.

Finally, I feel that many of these proposals are premature as statistical information is not available to draw conclusions from nor is there consensus between The National Federation of the Blind or the American Council of the Blind on many of these issues.

I hope the following comments illustrate these views.

Section 1102.2.2; Additions and Alternations - "Compliance in alterations is required except where it is 'technically infeasible.'"

My concern is that, as an engineer, the only thing that makes something "technically infeasible" is money and politics. This needs to be better defined.

"...such work might be technically feasible at other locations where acquiring right-of-way is practicable."

"Practicable" needs to be defined as well. Cities can use imminent domain, but the political ramifications of doing so for a sidewalk may force policy makers to avoid the project.

Section 1102.3; Alternate Circulation Path - "...call[s] for alternate circulation path are where pedestrian access routes are temporarily blocked by construction, alteration, maintenance, or other temporary conditions...(on the same side of the street parallel to the disrupted pedestrian access route)."

The concern is "or other temporary conditions". First, this needs to be more narrow in definition as snow can be considered a temporary condition. I would also suggest that the barrier requirement be changed to allow for barricades with modifications for the disabled.

Second, since an alternate path has to be parallel and on the same side, this may require easements to construct a temporary surface "to the outside". This speaks to a significant cost increase to repair or replace some sidewalk. If the sidewalk is on a 4 lane road and no easements or right-of-way exists "to the outside", then taking the outside lane of traffic may be the only other choice. But then you run into a curb, slope limits, additional traffic control... Regardless, a 30 minute job could now take hours.

In either case, the city will be faced with either increased costs for easements or potential reduced safety on the street by putting peds in the street; both of which may lead a city to determine that sidewalks may not be maintainable and, therefore, either removed or not put in.

Section 1102.4; Pedestrian Access Route - "...refers to the portion of the public right-of-way that serves as an accessible route."

What provision is there for sidewalks that are in easements? Does this proposed document extend into private property for public use but is not right-of-way? Does this unintentionally obviate easements for sidewalks in the future?

Section 1102.5; Protruding Objects - "...limited to a 4 inch protrusion."

This could lead to a lot of unintended prohibitions. Examples include call boxes, pole mounted controllers, streetlight controllers, directional and informational signs...

Section 1102.12; Vertical Access - "Elevators are not required by these guidelines except at certain pedestrian overpasses and underpasses with elevation changes greater than 60 inches."

Aside from the obvious maintenance and security issues, this will clearly prohibit any municipality from seriously considering any pedestrian over/underpasses.

Section 1102.14; On-Street Parking - "[For parallel parking] an access isle at 60 inches wide shall be provided at street level the full length of the parking space...[and]shall not encroach on the vehicular travel lane."

This is too broad of a statement and is unreasonable for every block face. Is this just for downtown blocks or residential blocks as well? What is considered a block? This seems to ignore the curvilinear nature of suburban street design if it includes residential streets. This also assumes that there is a need for this specific number of parking; "blocks" can have more or less need. This also assumes that there are "parking stalls" already marked. This is certainly not the case in residential areas.

Logistically, this will come at a cost of at least three other parking stalls, if not more, and will negatively impact the sidewalk system. If the presumption is that a driver can pull next to the new curb so that the driver can utilize the additional 60 inches, then they will need to transition to that point. At least two more stalls will be lost to allow a vehicle to maneuver into and out of place.

The drainage will be severely affected as well. While the slope can be maintained for street drainage at the original curb line, this introduces ADA slope and transition issues to connect to a relocated sidewalk. The now relocated sidewalk becomes an unexpected variable for the blind and as such becomes a safety issue.

This one just needs to be dropped.

Section 1105.2.1; Pedestrian Crosswalk Width - "...shall be 96 inches wide minimum."

This is in inconsistent with the MUTCD which requires only 72 inches minimum. This should be dropped except in high ped areas. Low pedestrian volumes can be accommodated with 72 inches.

Section 1105.2.2; Pedestrian Crosswalk Slope - "...slope shall be 1:48 maximum measured perpendicular to the direction of pedestrian travel."

This maximum cross slope will require "tables" at each intersection which will degrade the ride-ability of vehicular traffic and may compound grade problems in mid-block sections of steep roadways.

Section 1105.3; Pedestrian Signal Phase Timing - "All pedestrian signal phase timing shall be calculated using a pedestrian walk speed of 3.0 feet per second (0.91 m/s) maximum. The total crosswalk distance used in calculating pedestrian signal phase timing shall include the entire length of the crosswalk plus the length of the curb ramp."

This is extremely unreasonable. The MUTCD indicates 4.0 f/s with the freedom to reduce as needed. To require 3 f/s and increasing the distance to include ramp lengths engender disrespect for the pedestrian indications as pedestrians will watch the flashing Don't Walk continue for as much as 15 to 20 seconds longer and vehicle and intersection delays will increase proportionally as well; which can be directly related to increased accidents at intersections as well as amplified driver frustration.

Section 1105.6; Roundabout

This is a principle example of how the proposed accessibility measures will come at the cost of safety on the street. It is my hope that these "proposals" are only published to generate discussion and are not truly seen as reasonable.

Section 1105.6.1; [Roundabout] Separation- "Continuous barriers shall be provided along the street side of the sidewalk where pedestrian crossing is prohibited."

This is not consistent with other street designs and conditions. If the attempt is to prohibit the blind pedestrian from inadvertently crossing, then "regular" curves in the road become suspect. I find it difficult to accept that the blind pedestrian would consider "jaywalking"; which is what would be required if they were on any other curved street.

Section 1105.6.2; [Roundabouts] Signals - "A pedestrian activated traffic signal...shall be provided for each segment of the crosswalk, including the splinter island."

It appears form the discussion that there is a view that roundabouts are intrinsically unsafe for pedestrians. There is no documented proof that indicates that roundabouts are unsafe for pedestrians. It seems that this proposal is an attempt to pass judgement on the appropriateness of a traffic control device and recommend remedial actions without the benefit of any statistical data. If this gets adopted as written, it will effectively remove roundabouts as a traffic control and flow option as any traffic benefit will be negated with the presence of traffic signals.

So, again, in an attempt to provide access for all people, at all times, for all programs, at all facilities, cities will be forced to not make these improvements because of the cost, or not make these improvements because of the reduced or no benefit, or live with the more dangerous condition of following these rules and increase rear-end accidents, increase delay, increase air pollution, increase driver frustration...

The bottom line is that every traffic control device can be dangerous if not used properly and roundabouts are no different. The difference with roundabouts is that there are fewer conflict points, slower traffic, and less severe crashes. The addition would again negate all of these benefits and would make the intersection very complex for any pedestrian and driver.

Section 1105.7; Turn Lanes at Intersections - "Where pedestrian crosswalks are provided at right or left turn slip lanes, a pedestrian activated traffic signal...shall be provided for each segment of the...crosswalk..."

What's a slip lane? If free-flow turn lanes are at issue, then there are literally thousands of existing "slip" lanes, both at signalized and un-signalized intersections. This is a common design element this requirement would essentially eliminate slip lane design from intersections.

Again, not until now have access accommodations resulted in a decrease of access and safety to other segments of the community.

Sincerely,

Alonzo Liñán, P.E.
Traffic Division Manager
City of Olathe