Timothy Scott Bochum, P.E.
|
October 28, 2002 |
Re: Draft guidelines on accessible public rights-of-way as proposed by the U.S.
Access Board.
Dear Mr. Windley,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed guidelines on
accessible rights-of-way as proposed by the U.S. Access Board. We realize Title
II of the ADA requires state and local governments to not discriminate against
people with disabilities in their programs, services and facilities. However, it
is our professional opinion that many of the proposed rules and guidelines need
clarification, revision or removal. It is our contention that there may be
significant unintended consequences associated with many of the requirements
coming from the proposed rule.
It is our firm commitment to provide for accessible pedestrian accommodations
when building facilities within the public right-of-way. However, this access
needs to be balanced with all users of the public right-of-way. We agree with
the need to standardize these minimum design criteria and provide for more
consistent pedestrian systems. Many of the proposed guidelines achieve this
objective. Some do not.
We offer the following comments on the proposed rule.
1101.3 Defined Terms: The definition of “Blended Transitions”, “Clear Area” and
“Technically Infeasible” should be included. The proposed definition of “Street
Furniture” is overly broad and should be specific as to content.
1102 Scoping Requirements: The discussion of provisions indicates that
pedestrian elements are not required where none are intended. However, that
interpretation is unclear from the actual wording of 1102. The discussion also
indicates only the elements affected by construction have to comply with the
provisions, but there appears to be areas of easy misinterpretation such as
1102.4 which states, “The pedestrian access route shall connect to elements
required to comply with Chapter 11.”, also 1102.2.2, “Where existing elements or
spaces in the public right-of-way are altered, each altered element or space
shall comply with applicable provision of Chapter 11.” As an example, if a
roadway is resurfaced, does this “alteration” to the street require that it meet
Chapter 11 provisions? If so, achieving many of the new standards, such as
“table topping” of intersections along the way to meet the 2% crosswalk cross
slope requirement will not be financially feasible.
Similarly, the requirement to acquire right-of-way where “practicable” may have
a chilling effect on projects, which may be technically feasible but have a
requirement to purchase right-of-way from an unwilling seller. Most
jurisdictions have the right to exercise eminent domain provisions, however,
that is a very burdensome and expensive process and may force policy makers to
abandon a worthy project rather than overcome those burdens. Thus, even marginal
access improvements, that otherwise might be accomplished, will go undone.
1102.2.2.2 Prohibited Reduction In Access. The wording of this section can be
misinterpreted such that it makes it illegal to remove or reduce access in the
public right-of-way even if it is for health or safety reasons. The wording
should be clarified as to intent and limitation of the provision. Crosswalk or
crossing location removals may be necessary to meet specific objectives of the
safety engineer.
1102.3 Alternative Circulation Path. Concur with this section but please see
comments under section 1111.
1102.14 On-Street Parking. We strongly discourage establishing a minimum
requirement for accessible parking along public streets. The guidelines should
establish recommended minimum accessible parking standards for all parking
demand and pass on implementation of these ratios to State and local
jurisdictions in how best to achieve these desired results. Establishing a per
block minimum will be problematic in implementation, costly in its application
and could endanger accessible patrons as they attempt to negotiate limited cross
sectional right-of-way. Even allowing the placement of these spaces near
intersections is problematic in that this area is where most vehicles are making
turning movements and where it has been historically identified as the place
pedestrians are most likely to be struck. Similarly, mid block locations – even
with additional turn out space – requires a wheelchair bound individual to come
in contact with motor vehicles performing parallel parking maneuvers. This
requirement needs to be fully discussed and these issues addressed prior to
implementation.
1103 Pedestrian Access Route. It is unclear how to interpret the meaning of
“Changes in level shall be separated horizontally 30 inches minimum.”
1103.3 Clear Width Public right-of-way should have the same minimum width (48”
recommended, 36” minimum) as private property requirements. Regardless of the
minimum width requirement, the guidelines should not prohibit the use of the top
of curb width in meeting this calculation.
1103.6 Surfaces. Low impact, flush utility covers and other surface treatments
that meet minimum vertical level change requirements should be allowed in the
pedestrian access route.
1104 Curb Ramps and Blended Transitions. The wording seems to imply that ramps
can only be parallel or perpendicular. Many times crosswalks are skewed and the
allowance of a ramp parallel to the crosswalk (but not perpendicular to the
road) might provide better direction.
Sections 1104.2.1.1 & 1104.2.2.1 It is not obvious why there would be concern
for specifying a minimum slope.
1104.2.2.4 it is unclear what a “barrier” entails.
1104.3.2 Detectible Warnings. Because of many of the unintended negative
consequences of detectible warnings many visually impaired individuals do not
support the use of detectible warnings to demarcate entrance into the vehicle
roadway. Therefore these devices should be used only where they are most
efficient at accomplishing intended results. It is our contention that
detectable warnings should only be required for ramps with slopes of 1:5 or less
such as on blended transitions.
1104.3.3 Surfaces. Low impact, flush utility covers and other surface treatments
that meet minimum vertical level change requirements should be allowed in the
these areas. Of particular need are traffic signal boxes, which are necessary
near signal pole locations and often must be placed in the transition areas of
the ramps.
1104.36 Clear Space. What is this “clear space”? Clear from what? Is it an
intended landing area? If so, what are its requirements? In addition, on streets
with no parking and vehicle lanes adjacent to the curb, the 48” area for
perpendicular ramps, “outside of the vehicular travel lane” would require the
streets to be widened by 4 feet. Is this the unintended consequence of this
measure? If so, this provision will be “technically infeasible” the majority of
the time. On streets with a bike lane or parking lane the clear area seems to be
moot. So why is this provision even necessary?
Pedestrian Crossings
1105.2.2 Maximum Cross Slope. The maximum cross slope of 1:48 will require
“tables” at each intersection which will highly effect the ride-ability of
vehicular traffic and may compound grade problems in mid-block sections of steep
roadways. These grade breaks at steep intersections will be problematic and
could be unhealthful for drivers with back problems and could, even designed
correctly, cause visibility limitations for drives approaching the intersection.
The 1:20 maximum running slope as specified in 1105.2.3 will not work on higher
speed roadways with “tee” intersections located on horizontal curves. The super
elevation requirements of the through roadway may routinely be as much as 8% or
9%. To reduce this to 5% or less will potentially compromise the safety of the
motoring public.
Sec. 1105.3 Pedestrian Signal Phase Timing. The requirements of 3 feet per
second as the maximum walking time is ill conceived and will have the potential
for significant unintended consequences. We adamantly oppose establishing
pedestrian walking minimums of 3.0 feet per second. Most jurisdictions are now
timing pedestrian clearance intervals based on the character of the intersection
and appropriate recommended minimums established under the MUTCD. Professional
judgment is critical in establishing the most appropriate signal timing for all
users of an intersection. To overbalance this issue in favor of one particular
group, particularly in cases where a demonstrated need does not occur, is short
sighted and will lead to dire consequences. If there is a demonstrated need for
longer clearance times, the jurisdiction will accommodate that need. However, to
mandate increased crossing time when there is not a demonstrated need will cause
unnecessary vehicle delay, which can be directly related to increased accidents
at intersections as well as amplified driver frustration.
This increased crossing time could be as much as a 20% increase in lost time for
major movements of motor vehicle traffic on major flow streets. We can foresee a
vicious cycle as a result of this requirement. Pedestrian crossing times are
increased (even where they are not needed) the level of service of the
intersection falls below jurisdictional thresholds because of the increased
delay to motorists, and then the jurisdiction is faced with increasing the major
street widths to accommodate additional through lanes to get vehicles through
the intersection faster. The result: the street is widened, causing even further
pedestrian crossing times…and we start all over again.
This mandate clearly needs to be linked to a demonstrated need for each
individual intersection and should be based upon professional judgment of the
transportation engineer. Our recommendation would be to require jurisdictions to
develop pedestrian clearance timing in concert with the MUTCD, the disabled
community, and based on the specific requirements of the each location and the
professional judgment of the engineer.
1105.5 Pedestrian Overpasses and Underpasses Is it really the intention of the
proposed rule to never build a pedestrian grade separation over 5 feet in
height? This unfortunately will be the unintended consequence of the requirement
for elevators on such structures. This requirement while well intended, as
applied to the public right-of-way is ridiculous. Since this is a discretionary
structure and there are very few areas that will have a ramped approach of less
than 60” a jurisdiction will, in many cases, forgo the installation of the
overpass rather than come up with the significant additional funds to construct
and maintain an elevator. The primary driving factor of the facility is to
provide maximum safety for all pedestrian users.
Similar to grades of streets, the grade of a pedestrian grade separation should
be dictated by field conditions and access requirements the same. To establish
elevator requirements on these facilities and not on other street grades is
hypocritical and will encourage jurisdictions to violate the provisions to
address community needs.
1105.6 Roundabouts. The requirements proposed in this section are ill conceived
and not consistent with accessible pedestrian considerations in other areas.
There will also be unintended consequences associated with these requirements if
implemented.
Section 1105.6.1 The requirement to install a continuous barrier is not
consistent with other applications where pedestrians are prohibited, yet
barriers are not required. The positive guidance approach is the best way to
handle the concern of pedestrians wandering through the center of the
roundabout. .
1105.6.2 Signals. The requirement for signalization on every leg of every
roundabout is not based upon real world conditions. Thousands of low-volume,
neighborhood roundabouts are being built, many as traffic calming devices. To
require signals is tremendously cost prohibitive and does not ensure additional
safety benefits. An unintended consequence may be an explosion of drivers
running the red light and increased driver apathy and disrespect for these
signals. This has been continually verified where unwarranted signals are
installed and drivers perceive they are being stopped unnecessarily.
A fundamental concept for roundabout crosswalks is the designer must treat each
crossing as a mid-block crosswalk, both in theory and in design. The access
board discussion states, “Because crossing at a roundabout requires a pedestrian
to visually select a safe gap between cars that may not stop, accessibility has
been problematic.” However, this same problem exists at every mid-block
crosswalk. If there is a mandate to require signals here then the argument could
be made that every crosswalk everywhere should be signalized. Obviously, this is
a preposterous argument, but that is why we use engineering criteria and
judgment – so that a rational balance of perspectives is maintained. Again, the
user community has the ear of jurisdictions and specific needs for each crossing
can easily be accommodated without the imposition of a far-reaching, harsh
standard.
1105.7 Turn Lanes at Intersections. Again, this is a poorly conceived idea.
There are literally thousands of existing “slip” lanes at un-signalized
intersections and this design is continuing to be built and has been shown to
increase pedestrian separation from motor vehicles. The imposition of a signal
requirement would essentially eliminate slip lane design for un-signalized
intersections because of the costs associated with its inclusion. This would
have the unintended consequence of increased congestion, which would also
increase intersection accidents. We believe a better solution would be to
require jurisdictions, in consultation with the disabled community, to evaluate
the signalization of slip lanes at signalized intersections.
1106 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Systems. We generally agree with the proposal
to require pedestrian signal devices that provide better information and
guidance for the pedestrian, even though there will be a slight increase in
installation costs. However, there is a precision to the location dimensions
that many times simply cannot be met. The “location” wording should be changed
to communicate the concept as a guidance statement without making it a mandate.
1106.4.2 Street Name. The one area we would object to is the requirement “…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 name
signs are not required at any other location and to require them on pedestrian
crossing hardware changes these devices from “off the shelf” equipment to custom
devices. This makes them almost impossible to effectively maintain.
1108 Detectable Warning Surfaces . We like that this area has been minimized to
24”, however, we are still concerned about the complexity of removing snow and
ice with the truncated domes which do not allow a snow shovel to effectively
contact the entire surface area. Requiring these devices only on flat ramps
(less that 1:15) would help minimize our concerns.
1109 On-Street Parking. Please see comments under section 1102.14 above. Again,
we believe there was insufficient thought put into these proposals. The majority
of block faces being built each year are in typical residential neighborhoods.
To require an indented, signed, handicap space on every residential block face
is surely not what the committee intended. We would suspect the concern is
associated only with areas where there are parking meters or time limited
parking, such as in business areas. This is the case in our jurisdiction.
Minimum parking ratios should be developed and allow jurisdiction the best way
to meet these objectives.
Secondly, in areas such as ours with very short block lengths, the requirement
(one space per block face) will be viewed by both the public and our business
community as being extremely excessive. We have many short block faces with four
to eight spaces. Some have only commercial loading zones. To require an
accessible space in these blocks is not only excessive but could be a safety
issue for accessible users. Overall, if these requirements are imposed we will
have a tremendously high percentage of handicap spaces.
1109.2 Parallel Parking Spaces. This requirement will have major private
property ownership issues. The majority of parking is along residential streets.
The requirement to provide a 60” access aisle is extremely burdensome and will
also have significant unintended consequences that will restrict our ability to
help the disabled community instead of accommodate our ability to help them.
When a midblock private property owner wants to replace damaged sidewalk, do
they lose 6’ of their property because an accessible space must be provided,
even though it may not be used? Is it fair to have this property owner shoulder
the financial burden of this improvement that may not affect them personally? Is
it fair to have the general public shoulder this burden, even though a need has
not been demonstrated? Quite simply, that is a waste of taxpayer money or at a
minimum, an un-funded mandate.
In the future, in order to install a handicap space we will have to propose a
capital project to construct a five-foot indent aisle. This means projects will
have to compete with other city projects for very limited funds and, even if
funded, would have large time delays before completion. It also means we would
be unable to respond to changing needs by moving a handicap space slightly. Once
the space is installed we would lose our ability to quickly change locations to
accommodate specific requests. Our recommendation would be to eliminate this
requirement. It does not serve the best long-term interests of the disabled
community.
Even placing the access space at the end of the block may be problematic in that
high profile accessible vans can cause loss of intersection visibility, the
space placement requires a wheelchair bound individual to ride with his back to
a travel lane - where pedestrians are most prone to accidents, and the location
may not accomplish the access levels envisioned by the proposed guidelines.
Passenger Loading Zones. (We had trouble correlating the section number with the
discussion text and the sections) The discussion text states a 5’ access aisle
is required for each passenger loading zone (PLZ). Again, as stated above in the
handicap signing discussion, this has the effect of limiting our ability to
quickly install PLZ signing and if these requirements are adopted we will not
install PLZs in the accommodating manner that we have historically done. Access
aisles adjacent to PLZs should be eliminated as a mandated construction
requirement.
1111 Alt. Circulation Path: The requirement to provide an alternate path is
generally correct. However, the requirement of a path only on the same side of
the street, with no provision for “reasonableness”, is not feasible in many
instances. The wording of the section does not differentiate where a detour can
be used. Many times the scope of construction is such that no pedestrians can be
accommodated and, in fact, the forcing of pedestrians into this type of area may
create an intolerable safety hazard. Simply put, there are situations where
pedestrians cannot or should not be accommodated and must be moved to the
opposite side of the street or other detour route such as in the case of total
street closures.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to offer comment on these issues. The above
comments and suggestions should not be viewed as objections to the concept of
providing reasonable access for the disabled community nor our willingness to
implement sound and well thought out requirements. We, as a small jurisdiction,
have historically been and continue to be in support of reasonable
accommodations within the right-of-way. We have been seeking direction for
uniformity of devices and installation practices for years and see this document
as another small step in providing direction for all members of the public on
these issues. Our desire is to communicate potential pit-falls and unintended
consequences associated with several of the proposed standards and our plea is
for balance in the regulations. If you would like to discuss these issues, I can
be reached at the following locations.
Sincerely,
Timothy Scott Bochum, P.E.
Deputy Director of Public Works
City of San Luis Obispo
[PDF version]