John Covey
|
October 28, 2002 |
Re: Draft guidelines on Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility as proposed by the
U.S. Access Board.
I wish to thank you for allowing myself and others an opportunity to provide
comments on the set of Draft Guidelines on Accessible Public Rights-of-Way as
proposed by the US Access Board.
I have reviewed the new guidelines, dated June 17, 2002, and I would like to
make comments of concern on these guidelines. There is significant unintended
consequences with many of the suggestions coming from the access board. There
should be additional thought given to how the suggestions impact the whole
community, rather than the impaired. Further thought should be given to the
whole Nation and its’ terrain rather than a flat surface. The new regulations
have to be stringent enough to enforce, yet flexible enough to provide the best
solution in all situations. The access board has a difficult decision to make,
whether to leave good roadway practices in place for vehicular safety or
sacrifice these practices for the benefit of those with disabilities.
Thoroughfares accommodating pedestrian traffic may need some design changes, but
it is essential that traffic safety and proper vehicular traffic flow is not
diminished.
1102.2 General.
The acquisition of additional right-of-way is a great idea, but the cost of
necessary right-of-way to have fully compliant curb ramps will add $150.00 to
$1,500.00 cost per ramp. All acquisitions have to have documentation and
recorded easements or right of entry permits prior to construction. Most
municipalities do not have the staff nor the funds to add to the existing burden
of providing new ramps. Cities have a right-of-way widths that will handle
acceptable sidewalk widths and allow compliant curb ramp installations in less
than half of the planned curb ramp locations. Existing drainage and utilities
prohibit compliance in the many of the locations surveyed.
If municipalities were able to obtain the easements or acquire necessary
right-of-way with no cost to the tax payers, they would be able to have fully
compliant ramps. Currently, narrow sidewalks, steep running grades and cross
slopes, and insufficient right-of-way is the current major problem that hinders
our goal for full compliance.
If the proposed guidelines and standards are too exacting and requires strict
mandated regulation for attaining maximum compliance, some of the guidelines
will not be attainable as accessible pedestrian corridors without excessive
costs to developers and the City.
The roadways are intended to move vehicular traffic as efficiently as well as
have sidewalks for pedestrians. Roadways should have president over pedestrian
movement not pedestrian over vehicular movement. We may be able to have harmony
in movements at most intersections, but not at all intersections because of
topographical constraints. There are many existing streets with grades that
range from 9% to 12%. The majority of the street intersections have pedestrian
paths with cross slopes in the 1:96 to 1:20 range, mostly 1:40, and running
slopes in the 0.4% to 5% range.
In historic areas the street cross slope may be in excess if 14%, though rare.
These streets are generally resurfaced and maintained using the circa 1890-1920,
parabolic crown. Some streets dating from 1845 have been flattened somewhat by
adding asphalt or raising the gutter line, altering the curb height to less than
five or six inches.
1102.3 Alternate Circulation Path.
This is to comply with 1111. When a roadway is closed in part or whole a safe
alternate pedestrian route will be determined. Likewise for building renovation
and/or construction, if the sidewalk must be closed, an alternate safe route
will be defined. This route may be on the opposite side of the street or in may
be a detour to the next parallel street that is accessible.
1102.4 Sidewalks.
This paragraph refers to 1103 and must comply with chapter 11. 1103.3 requires a
minimum clear width of 48 inches. In existing conditions the only accessible
route may be 32 to 36 inches in width with no possible solution short of total
reconstruction of the area.
1102.8 Pedestrian Crossings.
References 1105, specifically 1105.2.2 Cross Slope. The cross slope shall be
1:48 maximum measured perpendicular to the direction of pedestrian travel. This
cross slope will cause a tabling effect that affects the vehicular travel as
well as the street running grade. The Street running slope should be acceptable
for everyone. On major streets the traffic volumes may be reduced in order to
aid pedestrian movement if the crossings are made to 1:48 cross slopes. One side
effect of this proposal is greater air pollution that may be added to
significant unintended consequences with the proposed suggestions.
1102.14 On-Street Parking.
If this proposal is intended to include residential areas to have designated
accessible parking, then, in some cases it is not feasible because of the
existing short distances between street intersections. In the business
districts, usually, insufficient sidewalk widths and structural problems do not
allow provision for this proposal. The unintended consequences will be
significant and costly.
1103.2 Components.
Pedestrian overpasses and underpasses in their existing state are accessible
routes. The sidewalks follow the running slopes of the street that are usually
less than 6%. The need for elevators and platform lifts should be based on local
area need, with some flexibility based on need rather than a cover-all
regulation. The cost of installing 2 lifts or limited use elevators will add
significantly to the cost of planned pedestrian accessible routes. The proposed
regulation will cause some planned improvements to be discarded.
1103.3 Clear Width.
New construction should be able to readily accommodate this provision, but
existing right-of-ways and street widths may severely limit the pedestrian path
to 36 inches. In some areas the cost of additional right-of-way to provide this
wider access path may not be feasible because of excessive costs related to
property or easement acquisitions.
1104.2.1.2 Cross Slope.
This proposed regulation will in effect cause problems with roadway drainage as
well as with curb lane vehicular traffic when the street running slope is 1.5%
or greater. The ramp will be warped to the street and sidewalk running grades
which causes the rigid wheelchair frame to have three wheels on the ramp and one
in the air. This much warp in the ramp to landing causes some mobility devices
to tip over and spill the occupant to the pavement with possible injuries.
1104.2.1.3 Landing.
The 48 inch depth is not attainable in all circumstances. The cost of obtaining
additional right-of-way or easement for the required depth of 48 inches is
usually prohibitive. In existing conditions, very often there is insufficient
right-of way to provide space for landings and ramps.
1104.2.2.3 Landing.
The 1:48 running slope works under ideal conditions, but varying intersection
running grades at street intersections will cause unintended results that
include drainage problems and vehicular traffic flow problems. The tabling
effect at the foot of the ramp will cause unintended consequences.
1104.2.2.4 Diverging Sidewalks.
Without further clarification as to the protection barrier size and where the
drop-off is located, street side or back of sidewalk, makes this statement a
possible conflict with traffic safety as well as pedestrian safety.
1104.3.3 Surfaces.
This proposed regulation may work well for new construction, but existing street
intersections in most cities usually have utility access covers and power poles
that prevent proper ramp construction. The cost to relocate these appurtenances
to a fitting location out side the ramps and landings can cost in excess of
$3,500.00 per ramp. If a utility grating needs moving or adjusting to provide
ADAAG pedestrian access, the cost for engineering and construction soars to more
than $40,000.00 per ramp. Needless to say a curb ramp will not be constructed at
these locations.
1105.2 Cross Slope.
Pedestrian crossings on roadways intended for vehicular traffic should maintain
the same uninterrupted grade as the roadway. The proposed changes to the
crosswalk slope will cause a tabling effect that will cause unintended
consequences. The majority of street intersections where pedestrian access paths
are located will be between ⅛ inch to ½ inch per foot. This paragraph could have
significant bearing whether developers and property owners would bear the
additional cost associated with compliance.
1105.2.3 Running Slope.
There are many existing intersections that cannot be adjusted to this criteria.
The historic districts, for instance, often have slightly steeper grades. A
steep grade of 14% with a travel distance of 8 feet is one of the steepest found
to date.
1105.5 Pedestrian Overpasses and Underpasses.
Having to provide an elevator for every location that meets the proposed
criteria is not feasible in most communities. However, because of increased
project costs, construction of these facilities should be done with combined
efforts of the disabled community and the municipality. The decision to fund a
projects as well as where the project is located according to several factors
may cause the project to be dropped from an improvement program. Construction of
these facilities have to be funded and once these facilities are operational,
they must be properly maintained. The cost of repairs due to vandalism is
another concern for not constructing elevators.
The installation of an underpass at any location should be done in accordance
with area need, based on potential user input. In some locations the underpass
has the potential for flooding and water reaches a depth of 4 to 5 feet which
presents a maintenance problem for the elevators. If the pedestrian path is
designed to have the lifts above the flood line there is the consideration for
landings and handrails near the curb line of the roadway.
1105.6 Roundabouts.
Continuous barriers should not be considered as a way to channelize pedestrians.
Everyone in the community should receive adequate training on circumventing the
hazards as a pedestrian vs. traffic. Perimeter walkways and training where the
safest places are for pedestrians to get around this type of intersection is
better than too many signals. The committee needs to take a different approach
to melding vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow. Another thought is that a
perfectly clean open roundabout becomes cluttered and ugly with barriers that
may have a tendency to make the roundabout feel constrained and not freely
useable.
1105.7 Turn Lane Intersections.
Traffic signals installed to stop traffic on the right turn “slip” lanes will
only create congested intersections and increased air pollution. If a
modification to an intersection is warranted, it should be done in concert with
the disabled community and professional traffic engineers. This paragraph does
not help the pedestrian as related to safety.
1106 Accessible Pedestrian Signal System.
I generally agree with the proposal to require devices to provide guidance to
pedestrians, though it will increase installation costs. The location of the
system may not meet dimension requirements at each intersection all the time.
This proposed regulation should be a concept and not a hard mandate. It should
promote community involvement to place the accessible system where needed rather
than at all signal locations. There needs to be a paragraph that lets the city
and community work together to decide what pedestrian crossing time is required
at some major intersections. The time is based on actual need rather that a
fixed 3 second per foot walking speed.
1106.4 Directional Information and Signs.
The requirement for ”..of tactile and visual signs on the face of the device or
its housing or mounting indicating crosswalk direction and the name of the
street.. “. Tactile street names that are attached to the hardware changes these
devices from “off the shelf” equipment to custom devices. This will make them
more difficult and difficult to maintain.
1108 Detectable Warning Surfaces.
I am glad to see the detectable warning surfaces have been reduced to 24 inches
on ramp surfaces. The surface area does not let a person with mobility problems
walk safely nor does the detectable surface need to be installed on slopes
greater than 1:15. Another concern is removal of ice from between the detectable
domed surfaces. This can become a liability issue for both the city and the
property owner. Personally, the domes in the ramps are a tripping hazard.
1109 On-Street Parking.
There is insufficient thought put into these proposals. Residential
neighborhoods comprise the majority of the construction where the term block
face is considered. To require indented, signed, accessible parking on every
residential block face is hopefully not what the committee intended. The central
business district has areas that has parking with meters and a few spaces that
are designated for handicapped parking. The requirement for designated
accessible spaces should not be a requirement. It is too costly for installing,
moving signs. If the proposal becomes effective, the disabled persons or
community and the city should work to achieve a satisfactory solution.
In our city the right-of-way usually is not wide enough to accommodate access
aisles as proposed. There has been little or no concern for existing drainage
run-off in the streets. New construction of accessible aisles may not warranted
in the majority of cities. The street system allows parking needs with little
hindrance to the intended wheelchair user. If the proposal becomes mandatory
there may be unintended consequences. Why should a municipality be required to
have reserved parking spaces designated for the disabled along each block? All
motorists have the same equal opportunity to the current first come first parked
situation. I have heard several comments concerning equal rights. One being,
”This is beginning to become a bit biased”.
In some areas the distance between cross streets may be as much as 550 feet and
there are no business entrances within that block. This block should be exempt
of the proposed standard.
1111.3 Location.
This proposal needs to be reasonable. An alternate location paralleling the
pedestrian route on the same side of the street is not possible when half or all
the roadway is blocked by construction.
It would be better to have an alternate path that is best suited for
pedestrians, even if it takes them on the opposite side of the street or on the
next block that has an accessible walkway. Municipalities generally practice
same side accessible movement if it is feasible. We have to look at liability
issues when the accessible walkway is adjacent to some types of construction or
demolition.
I have read the comments submitted to your office by AASHTO and concur with
their comments.
Thank you for letting me have an opportunity to share my thoughts as it relates
to the proposed standards. The above comments and suggestions should not be
viewed as objections to the concept of providing reasonable access for the
disabled community. In my opinion, it is imperative that reasonable
accommodations for the disabled be placed within the right-of-way. My desire is
to communicate potential pit-falls or unintended consequences associated with
several of the proposed standards.