We would like to include our support to the revised definition and application
of detectable warnings as noted in Article X02.5.5 of Building a True Community.
We believe that this would be the best use of the truncated dome surface
standard as defined in the document.
We also would like to point out to the committee that the current revision of
ANSI 117.1 the Standard that is referenced by many of the model building Code
used throughout the United States for defining Accessibility, is in opposition
to the application noted in Article X02.5.7. ANSI 117.7 1 makes reference to use
of the truncated dome surface to be used on all accessible routs where the
accessible rout would cross a vehicular pathway. This conflict in the two Codes
will in our opinion require that the truncated dome surface will be used at a
number of locations not intended by the Architectural & Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board. Most communities take the position that where there is a
conflict between governing Codes the more restrictive Code is to be followed.
We understand that Ms. Marsha Mazz, representing the US Architectural &
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, offered comment during the review
process of the ANSI 117.1 (Comment No. 4-047) and that the ANSI 117.1 Committee
abstained from action on her comments.
We request that if the US Architectural & Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board approves Article X02.5.5 as written that the Board contact the ANSI 117.1
Board and request that the same definition and limitation to the use of the
truncated dome surface standard be included in the ANSI 117.1 document so that
there is a uniform requirement between the two Codes.
Thank you for your consideration if you have any questions please do not
hesitate to call or contact us.
Sincerely,
Dennis Fitzgerald, CCS
Specification Manager
Albertsons, Inc.
We would like to voice our objection to the use of the truncated dome detectable warning surface shown in Article X02.5.N and X2.05 O of Building a True Community. We believe that an alternate surface of parallel scored grooves would be a better or alternative surface to the truncated dome surface standard as defined in the document.
It has been our experience with 2,285 stores throughout the United States that the truncated dome surface on a ramp condition is not practical for use by the general public. The domes do not allow for a uniform foot surface for the walking public especially for those who due to age or limited strength have some lack of stability in walking. In addition women in high heels do not find the surface safe to walk over. While the redesign of the dome surface shown in Article X02.5 N and X02.5 O would allow some improved for use by the wheelchair user we expect that it will be difficult for those individuals to align the wheels with the flat surfaces between the domes due to the different size of wheels and wheel spacing by the different manufacturers. We have also found that in climates where there is snow and ice accumulations the surface is difficult to clean and control making it more of a hazard to all users.
We would like to offer the following surface for consideration and inclusion into the US Architectural & Transportation Barriers Compliance Board Standards.
We have found that this surface is easily detected by someone with a cane
and with the painted perimeter it is also readily identifiable by someone who
has limited sight ability. The advantage it also offers is that it does not
cause excess jarring or roughness for someone in a wheelchair as they move over
the surface. In climates where snow and ice are a concern it can be cleaned
easily so it is safer for all users.
Thank you for your consideration if you have any questions please do not hesitate to call or contact us.
Sincerely,
Dennis Fitzgerald, CCS
Specification Manager
Albertsons, Inc.
