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
index
previous comment
next comment