Cameron Whitman, National League of Cities

October 28, 2002

RE: Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public-Right-of-Way (July 17, 2002)

Dear Mr. Windley:

Thank you for providing the National League of Cities (NLC) with the opportunity to assist the Access Board in its consideration of guidelines for Accessible Public-Rights-of-Way.

NLC is the oldest and largest national organization representing municipal governments throughout the United States. As the representative of more than 18,000 cities and towns across the nation, NLC fully supports the goal of increased accessibility. Local governments have spent many dollars to improve the accessibility of public space and urges than any guidelines concerning accessible public-rights-of-way take into account the following concerns.

NLC adopted policy states "Regulations should be based on performance standards worked out at the local level. These standards should emphasize program accessibility rather than structure accessibility." As written, the proposed guidelines contain wording that reads more like a requirement. Some specific instances include the definition of terms and the installation and/or operations of various traffic control devices. For example, Section 1101.3 of the proposed guidelines defines curb line as including sidewalk. In many suburban and residential areas, it is not always the case that the sidewalk is always adjacent to the curb. Indeed, sidewalks may be an easement on private property instead of public-right-of-way.

Section 1102 of the guidelines proposes to apply technical requirements, consistent with the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), to the scope of work for a planned alteration or addition. However, the term "alterations" lacks definition as it relates to the different requirements for sidewalks, ramps, and on-street parking. For example, if a municipality simply overlays a street is the city required to add on-street disabled parking spaces or install ramps? NLC is also very concerned that excavation repairs by private telecommunication or utilities might be deemed alterations of the public rights-of-way triggering municipal responsibilities, when the intent is merely to return the rights-of-way to their pre-existing condition.

An additional concern is raised by the fact that Section 1102.2.2 of the proposed guideline makes an exception to the compliance in alterations where it is "technically infeasible" without providing a clear definition of what constitute a technical infeasibility. NLC policy calls for one standard to be used whenever there are regulations involving structural accessibility. The lack of definition of what constitutes a "technical infeasibility" would leave municipalities vulnerable to lawsuits by those seeking clarity on the issue.

Moreover, any compliance in alterations must consider the cost and safety implications. There are many instances where modifications, although technically feasible, are expensive to accomplish and have very little public usage. The proposed language in Sections 1102.14 and 1109 to require one accessible parking space per block space is an example of gross overreaching. Municipalities, not the federal government, are in the best position to determine the need for additional parking space. Local government officials, because of their ties to their communities, can readily respond to the individual parking requests of their constituents and are in the best position to place parking spaces in locations most convenient to their disabled constituents. Indeed, in many residential areas, parking density is not an issue. The proposed parking space requirement is an unfunded mandate imposed on all localities without regard for the needs of particular communities. Sections 1102.14 and 1109 should be deleted to permit local governments flexible approaches and creative solutions to access.

NLC also questions the need for language that would mandate the timing of the pedestrian signal at an intersection. Again, local governments, not the federal government, would be in the best position to determine if the requirement that "all pedestrian signal phase timing shall be calculated using a pedestrian walk speed of 3.0 feet per second" is necessary. Local governments prescribe the timing of the pedestrian signals based on an intersection's proximity to a school, shopping mall, retirement community, or the concentration of residents with disabilities. The proposed signal of 3.0 feet per second is a "one-size-fits-all" approach that would unnecessarily impose great financial burden on municipalities without providing the best services for local residents.

Local governments want to continue working with disability constituency groups to devise plans that best meet the needs of their residents. Unfortunately, the proposed guidelines impose unfunded mandates that do more to burden local government with new costs and little in the way of providing practical and useable solutions to access. The above issues represent the National League of Cities' policy and would be, in our view, fundamental to the Access Board's guidelines. NLC, its member cities and state municipal leagues, would appreciate the opportunity to comment further on the guidelines before they are finalized and would request that the current comment period be extended. Please do not hesitate to direct any inquiries at [....].

Sincerely,
Cameron Whitman
Director
Center for Policy and Federal Relations