Karen Ozmun
|
October 28, 2002 |
Strongly recommend specifically addressing the smoothness or flatness of
surfaces for crosswalks. This may already be adequately addressed in sidewalk
guidelines, but if not, then I make the same comment for all pedestrian
surfaces.
Recently, City of Seattle installed some cobblestone-like surfaces for
crosswalks in a number of locations. Technically, the surface is achieved via
concrete-stamping, but the result is the same as if bricks were laid ... UNEVEN
bricks laid. Each "brick" has an uneven surface, each "brick" is different from
"bricks" next to it, so the resultant surface is quite bumpy. You can hear it
when you drive over it in a vehicle.
In my view and the view of others who are aware of accessibility issues, this
surface is unacceptable due to its notably uneven surface and the problems it
may pose to those who use wheelchairs, walkers, canes, or crutches, or who
simply have difficulty with balance.
It is my understanding that local jurisdictions who use this type of surface are
trying to achieve a certain "historic" or "stylized" look to the crosswalk. I
have heard discussion of allowing such surfaces to be used, but also requiring
that a middle pathway that is smooth and flat to be included within the
crosswalk (min. 44"). With the smooth path in the middle, you have:
1. provided an accessible surface to those who need it,
2. allowed the local jurisdiction to use a surface to achieve a certain
aesthetic, and
3. with the edges of the crosswalk being textured, you have provided a version
of detectable warnings to those who are blind or have low vision to more safely
cross.
Thank you for your consideration.
Karen Ozmun, Disability Compliance Specialist
King County Office of Civil Rights
index
previous comment
next comment