Donald J. Stypula

October 27, 2002

MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE


RE: Michigan Municipal League Comments on Draft Revisions to ADAAG

Dear Sir or Madam:

On behalf of the Hon. Kate Lawrence, President, the Board of Trustees and the more than 500 municipalities that are part of the Michigan Municipal League (MML), I am transmitting -via this letter --our formal comments on the proposed revisions to the guidelines for application of the Americans With Disabilities Act to public facilities and rights-of-way. These comments -compiled after consultation with municipal managers and public works directors from MML-member communities across Michigan --reflect our sincere concerns, not only with the proposed guidelines, but also with the manner by which public comment on these proposed guidelines is being solicited.

To facilitate an orderly discussion and critique of these draft guidelines, our comments are organized according to the headings of each section.

Concerns With the Public Comment Process

The MML and its member communities are very concerned with the fact that these guidelines have been published for comment only on the Internet. To our knowledge, no direct mailings to state associations, like MML, nor individual mailings or communications to individual municipalities have been transmitted to ensure that local governments were made aware of these proposed guidelines. This is especially troubling given the fact that cities, villages, townships and counties across Michigan - and the nation --will be required to comply with these proposed guidelines and pay all costs associated with the structural modifications required by these draft guidelines.

We believe that the close of the official public comment period should trigger a series of public hearings across the country to give both individuals and public corporations affected by these proposed guidelines an opportunity to articulate their viewpoints.

Comments on Specific Sections of the Guidelines

Section 1101: Application and Administration

We have no specific comments or recommendations on this section.

Section 1102: Scoping Requirements

The MML believes that "alterations" is not well defined. With the plethora of differing requirements for sidewalks, ramps, and on-street parking, it is still unclear what types of modifications require what type of changes. For example, when a block of street is resurfaced but curbs are not changed, do on-street disabled parking spaces need to be added at that point? If sidewalks are replaced but curbs are not changed, do parking space loading zones need to be added or not?

Section 1102.2.2 provides for exceptions where it is "technically infeasible" to do so. This language will force courts to decide the feasibility of projects and remove this decision-making authority from municipal managers and engineers. Some modifications, while technically feasible, require thousands of dollars in expenditures to achieve minor benefits, especially in older downtown areas. Section 1102.2.2 essentially requires that any previously accessible site entry points to the right-of- way continue to be accessible following right-of-way alterations. This poses a significant challenge for downtown areas of our state's cities and villages. For example, many existing downtown buildings have doorways flush with the adjacent sidewalk. However, the top of the curb line is often over 12 inches below the doorways, while the building faces are 15 feet from the curb horizontally. To replace the flush doorways with lips would make the buildings inaccessible and violate this section, however, replacing the sidewalk can result in cross slopes of over 6%, which also violate the 1:48 cross slope provision in the current ADA. This concern is virtually ignored by these draft guidelines.

Section 1102.14 requires one accessible parking space per block face. This is requirement is a costly mandate that defies common sense. Forcing communities to construct accessible spaces on every block face will add onto municipal street systems numerous spaces that will never be used.

Section 1103: Pedestrian Access Route

As stated earlier, requiring a 2% (1:48) cross slope is nearly impossible in built-up downtown areas where the sidewalk extends from curb to building line. While this requirement is somewhat easier to achieve in residential areas where grass terraces separate the curb from the sidewalk, we still feel it is unduly restrictive.

If changes in level must be separated by 30 inches horizontally, as per 1103.8, how can different slopes for a) the cross slope of the paved street, b) the street side slope of the gutter, c) the section of curb behind the flow line, and d) the ramp leading to the curb, be accommodated within the 24 inches that is typical for a curb and gutter section? Even if the ramp and curb behind the flow line have the same slope, it is very difficult to always match the gutter fore slope to that of the adjoining street and thus two level changes MUST occur within 30 inches.

Section 1104: Curb Ramps and Blended Transitions

1104.2.1 requires that all ramps meet the curb line at right angles. This, of course, is nearly impossible to do in most cases, and will likely result in all ramp crossings being offset from the running sidewalk leading into them. For example, in many Michigan cities, most sidewalks are installed 1 foot inside the right-of-way line, and most rights-of-way are no more than 66 feet wide total, with the paved streets centered on the right-of-way. Assuming even a 26-foot-wide street (13 on each side of the right-of-way centerline) with comer radii of 25 feet (typical), this would place the ramp between 5 and 9 feet minimum outside of the right-of-way line extended of the intersecting street. All walks would have to be offset by 6 to 10 feet, obviously causing a great deal of confusion for visually impaired pedestrians, and encouraging cyclists to "jump" the curb in line with their chosen path rather than divert to the ramp location.
1104.2.1.1 requires a minimum ramp running slope of 1:48. We believe it is wasteful to further constrain design by requiring a minimum grade that has no apparent purpose.
1104.3.3. states that no utility castings may be placed within ramps. Again, as other utilities must share the right-of-way with sidewalks in existing developed communities, it is very likely that established manhole covers are located at the intersection of utilities serving opposing streets. Removing these castings from these locations will usually involve completely relocating the ramps as utility lines cannot often be moved without great expense.
1104.3.4 and 1104.3.5 do not allow any vertical transition at curbs, which essentially disallows an) "lips." Lips allow runoff water to usually be contained within the curb line itself, thus preventing water from ponding into the ramp area during heavy rain events. Elimination of any lips, even though as small as 1/2" in height which can be easily managed by wheelchair users, will result in full gutter spilling into the ramps as well, which during freezing conditions (significant in many areas of Michigan) becomes a severe hazard to wheelchair users attempting to stop before entering the street.
1104.3.7 requires a "clear space" of 48 inches by 48 inches be provided within the roadway beyond the crosswalk and outside of the travel lane. This can be possible for streets where parking is allowed, however, where the traveled way is adjacent to the curb this becomes a mandate to eliminate travel lanes. In dense urban settings, roadway capacity is a scarce resource indeed, and reducing travel widths of arterial streets by 8 feet is completely unacceptable.
Section 1105: Pedestrian Crossing

Section 1105.2.2 requires that cross slopes on crosswalks be 1 :48 maximum. What about situation where the roadway at the intersection is steeper than 1 :48? This requirement could create numerous problems for many cities. For example, to flatten the crosswalk of a street with 5% grade to 2%, either the entire intersection would have to be flattened to 2%, resulting in a huge grade difference from the "lay of the land" that must be corrected on one side or the intersection or the other, or on the crosswalks would have to be flattened, which would create "humps" in the pavement, as the roadway transitions from 5% to 2% then back to 5% very quickly.
Many Michigan communities set pedestrian crossing speeds of3.0 feet per second near schools and areas where large numbers of elderly pedestrians cross. While this is certainly a worthwhile goal, it is inappropriate to mandate this at all locations as contemplated in 1105.3.
Section 1105.5.3 would require elevator devices for any "overpass or underpass" with a ramp run over 60 inches. We believe that this is a significant waste of taxpayer money for something that will require an inordinate amount of maintenance and be subject to vandalism, given the relatively low benefit it would provide.
Although most Michigan cities and villages currently have no roundabouts, we believe that section 1105.6.2 would likely ensure that these would never be an option available to municipal officials. The requirement for signalization of pedestrian crossings would not only defeat the purpose of a continuously flowing, low-speed intersection, but would be a detriment to safety by requiring motorists attempting to leave the roundabout to stop for up to 20 seconds to allow a pedestrian to cross, backing up all traffic in all directions of the roundabout.
Section 1105.7 (left turn and right turn "slip lanes") is very similar to 1105.6.2 in that traffic signals at these locations would defeat their purpose and cause traffic to back up into through lanes unexpectedly.
Section 1106: Accessible Pedestrian Signal Systems

The MML believes that audible pedestrian crossing signals, while appropriate for downtowns and other commercial areas, are not appropriate for use in residential areas. Vandalism would be a particular concern where residents become annoyed with the constant "chirping" sounds. Further, the cost of devices that would adjust the audible sounds to the ambient noise level will certainly be an added expense with minimal returns.
1106.2.1 requires all pedestrian "devices", which is assumed to mean push buttons, be located at least 10 feet apart. This may be impossible in many cases, and does not seem to have any real benefit to disabled pedestrians.
Section 1107: Street Furniture

We have no specific comments or recommendations on this section.
Section 1108: Detectable Warning Surfaces

The MML believes that these are an unnecessary expense. We feel that they also could be easily damaged in climates, like Michigan's, where snow removal is required in the winter .
We question why no change in level is allowed at curbs, but 1/4 " truncated domes are considered acceptable on ramps.
Section 1109: On-Street Parking

This section of the proposed guidelines has by far the greatest potential financial impact on Michigan cities and villages. As stated earlier, this amounts to a requirement to place 800 to 1000 accessible spaces in locations where they may not be of any benefit. In addition, the presence of a "bump-in" from the curbs in a residential area will rob fronting residents of terrace space, and alter the appearance of curb lines. In historic neighborhoods, this can have a very detrimental visual impact. While we cannot accurately compute cost estimates for this work, we do estimate that it would cost Michigan cities and villages millions of dollars to construct spaces on each block. Lacking funding to comply with this requirement, many cities and villages would choose to prohibit on-street parking in many locations. This would decrease the accessibility of the street system in most communities.
Beyond the sheer costs of this construction lie the construction difficulties. As stated earlier, the typical right-of-way on many city and village streets is 66 or 60 feet. Assuming a 28-foot wide street (14 on each side of the right-of-way centerline), 60-foot wide right-of-way (30 feet each side of centerline), and 4-foot wide sidewalks placed one foot inside the right-of-way line, this leaves 11 feet between the "running" curb line and the sidewalk. 5 feet would then be "borrowed" from the terrace for use as the loading zone, leaving only 6 feet for the ramp at a maximum slope of 1:12, or maximum rise of 0.48 feet or 6 inches. This would require the sidewalk to be no higher than the normal top of curb, assuming a 6-inch high curb. All terraces would essentially be flat, and drainage would pond in the sidewalk areas, also creating a hazard to pedestrians. Many Michigan communities could not comply with this provision.
Section 1110: Call Boxes

We have no specific comments or recommendations on this section.
Section 1111: Alternate Circulation Path

1111.3 requires that all alternate circulation paths be located on the same side of the street as the original facility. This is impossible to achieve in projects such as downtown streetscape, where the entire sidewalk must be removed and replaced, or for some types of work involving large scaffolding for building renovation. In residential areas, this requirement essentially amounts to a requirement to place a "temporary" concrete sidewalk in the terrace when sidewalk removal closes the original sidewalk. This is a complete waste of taxpayer money that could be spent on permanent sidewalks in other areas of a community.
Conclusions

The Michigan Municipal League believes that these proposed rules have the effect of encouraging developers and communities to avoid building sidewalks, thereby making society less accessible for disabled persons and pedestrians in general. We believe these rules also encourage wide rights-of- way and urban sprawl. While these rules may fit reasonably well in urban fringes with lower-density development that are generally not as pedestrian- friendly, they do not work at all in dense urban settings. Also, due to the huge burden imposed by forcing the installation of accessible on-street parking spaces on every block face, these proposed guidelines will also encourage communities to remove on-street parking to avoid installing these spaces, which in turn will create higher speed neighborhood streets that further discourage pedestrian activity.

These comments are general in nature and do not necessarily include all possible impacts of these proposed guidelines on cities and villages in our state. We believe, as previously stated, that local governments have not been given ample time and/or notification to provide comment on these proposed requirements before they go into effect. While nearly all can agree with the spirit of allowing accessibility of public rights-of -way to persons of all abilities, these proposed guideline to not achieve a reasonable balance in doing so. We strongly urge you to consider all of the comments stated above before making final recommendations in this matter. We also reiterate our view that public hearings around the country would give all stakeholders an opportunity articulate their point-of-view on these guidelines. Please feel free to contact me at 517-485-1314 if you should have an questions.

Respectfully submitted,
THE MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE



Donald J. Stypula
Manager, Environmental Affairs
State & Federal Affairs Division