Isaac Wantland

October 29, 2002

Due to untimely rain on the weekends of the last month and a hectic work schedule with no room for much picture taking, I have several comments that do warrant pictures, but have been unable to take these. I would be happy to do so this Sunday, but realize that the technical date for comments will have been surpassed.

(Note: I decided to go out tonight and try to capture some of the more questionable practices.)

I would strongly encourage members of the Portland Summit to visit a city on the opposite side of the country for insight into how these PROWAAC ADA Standards are being enforced. I work for a Landscape Architecture firm in Nashville, TN. By working on several public projects, I have been intimately involved in discussions of accessibility in our town. Due to a legal ruling, Nashville has been singled out as a "test market", it seems, for the PROWAAC. Many of the standards that were placed into effect by the 1999 Guide: Accessible Public Rights-of-Way Design Guide
(http://www.access-board.gov/publications/PROW%20Guide/pdf/PROWguide.pdf)
are now being reversed. The city of Nashville is literally ripping up the corner of every intersection and re-pouring it. Nearly every intersection now requires a different analysis, approach, and maneuver by handicapped individuals. Because of the now much more complicated use of these intersections by those who are supposed to benefit, I feel that there needs to be more time to develop these guidelines in a more cost-effective, practical and standardized way. There are several issues concerns about intersections that I have with the PROWAAC as it is being interpreted in Nashville today:

1. Every intersection is different. There is no standard. I mentioned this before, but one cannot fathom how difficult it must be for blind people to navigate these intersections. The trip-hazards alone are formidable to the unwitting pedestrian. The formula appears to be to place a 4'x4' pad as close to the road grade as possible. Then, tie this back into the existing grade around the curve at the intersection, no matter the resulting grade. The problem here is, there are no two crosswalk beginnings alike. One pad could be 1' from the road, the other 5'. I have attached two pictures that I was able to take to illustrate this point. (Example 1.jpg and Example
2.jpg) This intersection used to be fairly evenly pitched around the turn on this side. The new ADA PROWAAC recommended solution was to cut this curved walk out; I assume because the cross-slope was greater than 2%. The resulting ramp between the upper side of the curve, and the lower was 16%. 16%! On the other side of this intersection, the result was 13%. Both of these exceed the acceptable slope on an accessible ramp. Are there any handrails? No! As a side note, the area that used to be the paved sidewalk around the curve on example2.jpg has now been grassed. This has resulted in major ruts by semis, whom always seem to jump sharp curbs in the city. It is now one of the largest rut/puddles I have seen.

 

 

2. There are now trip hazards for normal ambulatory pedestrians, and especially for blind persons. Because of the associated catch basins at typical city corners, trip hazards have been created by the new standards of the PROWAAC. Also, seemingly in no particular manner, there are other instances where it appears a curb was formed for lack of a better reason. In one particularly hilarious instance, the walk was lowered at the corner, but a curb was formed to the rear of the walk. (curb at back of walk.jpg) Kind of defeats the point, here.

 

.
 

3. Public health, safety, and welfare are in danger at instances where a new crosswalk corner is constructed on the downhill side of a slope. Water now gathers in the low places created by lack of a curb; I can't imagine how many lawsuits are bound to occur from people slipping on icy puddles in the winter. Additionally, some of these 4'x4' pads are so close to the Apex of the curb, within 6" in some cases, that the protection of the pedestrian seems to been have forgotten when designed for accessibility. Cars sharply cutting city corners could potentially harm pedestrians waiting to cross the street.

4. Damage to private/public/historic properties. As you can see from some of the pictures I have taken, there are walls that have been undermined to the point that you can see the footing-to-wall rebar, or the soil underneath older curb construction. Again, lawsuit is the only word that springs to mind.

I don't know if it is the enforcement of the PROWAAC that is causing all of this confusion, or the PROWAAC itself, but I do know that more time is needed for discussing the merits of the various proposed provisions and/or training those enforcing those standards..


See attached photos.


Thank you,

Isaac Wantland
Nashville, TN