James R. Capaldi, P.E.
|
October 25, 2002 |
Draft ADA Regulations
Comments from the R.I. Department of Transportation
The RIDOT supports the design and construction of sidewalks that are accessible
to all individuals. We concur with the need for coherent regulations to provide
common sense guidance that will assure accessible routes to the maximum extent
possible in all public rights of way.
Where new facilities are being constructed, compliance with the proposed minimum
clear width requirement of 48” appears reasonable and practical. However, our
main concern with this draft regulation is that there does not appear to be an
allowance to exercise good engineering judgment when attempting to achieve this
revised clear width on projects involving improvement to existing facilities. A
public right of way equivalent to “technically infeasible” that can be equated
to cost (money or time) should be expressly defined.
A typical urban roadway with sidewalk in Rhode Island is narrow, bounded by
historically significant structures, and full of underground and overhead
utilities. Our rolling terrain results in grade changes that many times require
retaining walls at the back of sidewalk. Sidewalks of only 5 feet or less in
width, including the curbstone, are common. In many situations the utility poles
are set close to the back of curb and the Right-of-Way line is coincidental with
the back of sidewalk. With these constraints, at the present time we are
struggling just to achieve the existing 36” clear requirement for reconstruction
and maintenance level projects. An increase to 48” will be an economic
impossibility for the majority of these types of projects.
For virtually every roadway where existing sidewalks are less than 6 feet wide,
utility poles would likely have to be relocated to provide the proposed
clearance. Rhode Island State law requires that if Federal funds are utilized
for the project, and utility relocation is necessary due to the project, the
cost of the relocations must be borne by the State. These expensive utility
relocations would reduce the available funds that could be used for additional
ADA improvements.
Although the draft regulations address the application of the technical
requirements relative to the project Scope of Work, and that compliance will be
“prorated” based on the extent of work planned, we remain concerned as to the
expectations that will be raised by the new 48” standard, and how (and by whom)
this will be interpreted particularly for lower-level projects such as roadway
resurfacings. Currently, for most maintenance-level projects where there are
conflicts with utility poles, we are able to bump out the curb a few inches
(without compromising the integrity of the roadway), or slightly widen to the
back of sidewalk to achieve the 36” clear distance. Should the standard be
increased to 48”, the extra foot will frequently require that either utility
poles will need to be moved, additional right-of-way acquired, walls rebuilt, or
all of the above. This in turn will heighten the potential for adverse
environmental impacts to result from the expanded construction area. We
anticipate that the costs of attempting to comply would now far exceed the cost
of the initial project. Without a “technically infeasible” out, we may be
deprived of the application of good engineering (economic) judgment, resulting
in not only these additional costs, but also significant increases in time to
perform the engineering required to address these issues.
Equally of concern would be the proposed requirement for “tabled areas” at
intersections with crosswalks. Basically, this would require complete
reconstruction at virtually all intersections, including property acquisition
and the likelihood of more complex environmental permitting. This would be well
beyond the scope of any maintenance project, and add significant complexity to
even large reconstruction projects.
Rhode Island has been able to bring into compliance an average of 25-30 miles of
sidewalk per year over the past 4 years, utilizing primarily these
maintenance-level projects. Should the new 48” clear width be required for all
projects, the increase in project complexity and cost will result in a drastic
reduction in the amount of miles improved. Due to increased cost and
environmental impacts, in general, our projects have been trending away from
major reconstruction, and more toward maintenance-level work. These proposed
changes buck that trend, and are heading us back in the direction of major
reconstruction. Again, while we are encouraged by the language relative to
“prorating” level of compliance relative to project scope of work, this would
still be subject to interpretation. We remain concerned that the expectation
will be that 48” is the new standard for all improvement projects. The general
public will not understand why we were able to provide 48” clear in some areas,
but it was determined to be “technically infeasible” in others.
Roughly 50% of sidewalks on State roadways still do not even have curb ramps,
and are of such condition that they are difficult to traverse. Maintenance-level
projects, which can efficiently address these issues, as well as provide a
reasonably clear corridor, have been effective in making progress toward vastly
improving the accessibility of our sidewalks at an affordable cost. We would
view these issues as the most critical elements of providing an accessible
corridor. Unfortunately, the costs associated with improving the corridor to the
level of service required in the draft regulations, increase exponentially over
what we are currently experiencing. In short, we will end up with a very small
number of “perfect” sidewalks, and retain a large number that remain totally
inaccessible. We would see this as a step backward rather than continued
progress in our efforts to improve public rights-of-way to be accessible to all.