Web Conference on Truncated Dome Detectable Warnings[^1]

Monday Aug. 1, 2005, noon to 2 pm EST

Sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration[^2] and

Hosted by the National Highway Institute[^3]

(The captioner is ready and standing by. )

Mark this is Ken cooper with A dot. Can you hear me?

Yes I can.

Who is that? Darlene coal from the state of Delaware.

Good morning.

can you hear us from Vermont?

Yes I can.

Good thank you.

Suzy?

: This is kirsten Poston from FHWA Civil Rights Office thank you.

Hi.Flush

Okay this is Indiana division office.

I\'m Stewart in New York.

Hello.

Well we\'re going to be starting right now.

thank you. Hello.

This is Shane from South Carolina.

Hi cir sten this is jean Tess measure.

Darlene coal from the state of Delaware.

Maryland.

Jane bell cher from South Carolina.

Stewart from New York.

He had read Lou sky Indiana. \-- Ed read Lou sky.

Lloyd rue Montana.

Lorna California.

Alice Montana.

Ben cooper Arizona.

This is Mary finch in Michigan. We have Michigan and Michigan D.O.T.

John snider east Jordan iron works.

David what robbery in Kansas with \-- LAROSR in Kansas.

Mcman from South Dakota division.With five people.

John cap Lynn Vermont transportation an there is five additional folks
here right now.

Dean Ohio D.O.T. and mark federal Ohio highway.

He Ed Frazier federal highway Missouri division.

Martha Virginia division.

Gary Kentucky division with Kentucky transportation personnel also.

Jessica ridge Tennessee division federal highway division.

Amy hef Lynn Arkansas division.

Curt Smith Alaska D.O.T.

This is Becky Hyatt from highway Iowa federal highway.

This is mill ferd Miller.

This is ee vet of New York department of transportation. Joining me is
Barry vander pool.

Leasey Mcfee I\'m hear for the federal highway chief counsel\'s office.

: before you start, I\'d like to ask if everyone who speaks pls state
who they are this will help me in knowing who is talking in this forum
as im using the relay service to capture everything you are saying thank
you

This is Jeff from the California division of FHWA with caltrans and
California division of state architect.

This is jean ces measure with space options I\'m a prevat consultant
giving presentation from Hawaii.

Low us U.S. access Board.

Peter Kemp Wisconsin department of transportation.

Brad Gibbs North Carolina federal highway.

This is mark chandler federal highway in Madison Wisconsin with whiz
D.O.T. participants I think we\'ll go ahead and start the web
conference. One thing I\'d like to point out to you if you don\'t have a
mute control on your phone use star 6 of the phones has been programmed
now to act as a mute button and you can toggle with star 6. If you need
to break in to ask a question or make a comment use your star 6 to get
into the tell conference and ask your question and then your star 6 to
get out of it.

Whowfer whoever is doing that cut it out.

Today we have three presentationing. We\'re going to start with Lisa
Mcfee.She will be followed by LOIS tee bow. Followed by Gene from
Hawaii. then we\'ll have an expert panel for the last half hour. That
will have Jeff home from California division of FWA. John cap Lynn um,
Dr. Alex actor. Dr. Billy Louise Ben steen who\'s nickname is bee bee.
Ithink with that one more caution about using you\'re mute buttons,

Again I don\'t hear you.

Alex hi.

Hi jean? can you hear mark Alex?

Can you hear mark?

No.

Mark caw hear Alex.

I can hear Alex.

Now I hear mark.

You came right in the middle of mark talking. Do you want to introduce
yourself?

I\'m Alex Zacher.

Alex we\'re using the star 6 button or the mute buttons on our phones we
have 80 70 participants so we have to use the mute on our phones. Is
Jennifer out there can she help us?

This is Suzanne McDonald and Jennifer is in the background she\'s going
to set up that audio piece in a moment.

Thank you very much.

She we go ahead and let Lisa Mcfee start.

Let me ask a question here, lorna?

Yes.

Are you seeing a box that saying warning telephone disconnected?

No I\'m not. wait a minute.

Low us LOIS tee bow I have it on my screen.

Close out the box, click okay and those that joined us as attendees are
not seeing T. for us preventers click okay and it will disappear.

It says what I\'m doing is connecting to the audio via my computer but
right now I\'m on a landline.

Correct just close that box out.

aLisa Mcfee would you like to pull up the presentation?

Okay I\'m working on that right now.Can everyone see?

Slide begins. Legal perspective detective warning devices. Great. I\'m
Lisa Mcfee. I\'m an attorney individualser with program legal services
office for the federal highway administration office of chief council.
If you call our office of chief council and you want to ask a disability
law question you will get me I\'m the go to person for this. To I\'ll
answer your questions to the best of my ability. The three questions
we\'re going to to be answering today, concerned detect ible warnings
about what are detectible warnings, when are detectible warnings
required on a public right of way and what should FHWA be doing
regarding detectible warnings? since this is a web presentation and I
would be looking at faces to see what I\'m saying is making sense or
boring everyone to tears. I\'m going ask if you have a question an and
you think something is not making sense feel fry to try an ask it. Just
so that make sure we\'re staying on track. And um, I\'m sure we\'ll be
learning a lot through this process. So, my um, presentation will have
three basic parts. As a outline of detective warnings that\'s the focus
of this presentation. First I\'ll be presenting legal context. Next
I\'ll be presenting the general requirements for detectible warning and
last I\'ll be discussing FHWA responsibilities an requirements lard
regarding detectible warnings specifically in transition plans. Now the
legal context for detectible warnings concerns the disability law
statutes. For your purposes there is really two prime ones an they
overlap in terms of their focus. Section 504 of the rehabilitation act
of 1973, I provided the legal site there 29USC. I\'m refer to it as the
rehab act for short. This key language. No otherwise qualified
individual with the disability in the United States shall solely by
reason of her or his disabilityd be excluded from participation in be
denied the benefits of or be subject to discrimination or under any
program or activity conducted by any executive agencies. That\'s a very
broad statute. And that one, works in tand um with the next statute the
American disabilities act of 1990. Section 12,111 that\'s generally
shortened to ADA. portion of the ADA that concerns federal highways
people dealing with the public rights of way is title 2 part A. Key
language there you\'ll see has a lot of overlap between with the section
504 title 2. Says no qualified individual with a disability shall by
reason of such disability be excluded from participation in or be denied
the benefits of the services, programs or activities the public entity
or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. As a practical
matter the difference is that the rehabilitation act concerns nen anyone
using federal funds. The Americans disabilities act title 2, concerns
public entities, that control over the public right of way. That\'s a
difference. Because this means that public entities regardless of the
use of federal funds have to follow the ADA requirements that persons
with disabilities not be discriminated against in their access to
pedestrian public rights of way. That is different from the rehab act
because under that act. The federal funds question is important porn an
that drives through all the regulation that reality on the ground. So
there is some overlap there but they\'re not exactly the same. What is
the same under these acts is the standard that you have to meet show no
decripple nation. Those standards allow at least under the ADA either
use of the uniform standards or what you\'ll hear discussed at the ADA
access ability guidelines. If anyone has questions about what is a
qualified individual I can provide it. As practical matter fors use of
what federal highway personnel are concerned about, any qualified
individuals a used under the ADA refers to somebody who qualified
individual as a person that needed assistance to walk such as a
wheelchair or a person that is blind or deaf to a degree that has a
problem to cross the walk or navigate.

Was that a question?

Okay. There are also some questions on \[INAUDIBLE \] I\'ll answer that
later at slide 11. Fundamentally because of the difference in the over
overlap of where the rehab act versus the ADA act within the federal
system the rehab act is enforced through remedies an procedures an
rights outlined in section 794A. Quarter looking at complaints an
withholding of federal funds potentially. Under the ADA federal funds
are not the focus of the act. Lawsuits against public entities there\'s
a regulation that I provide sections 35.171 through 178 that provide
more detail on that. Look at slide 11 if you need more detail there. The
other thing I want you to note about the ADA he versus section 504,

Is that a question?

Hi this is Suzanne of federal highway, if you are not speaking you
probably want to mute your phone because 70 people will be able to hear
you. Thank you pardon me for interrupting.

Thank you.

Here\'s one key thing to remember about the ADA. It\'s a lot of numbers
but this matters for understanding what the ADA does do. \[INAUDIBLE \]

Other titles in the ADA govern the public right away only congestionly
at best. People hear that in the news when there is a question is
somebody is is near sighted. Not our problem.

\[INAUDIBLE \]

And three has the A dag that we presently use published out in the
federal religion stur \-- public ridge us REGIS terch STER.For now, we
under title 2, end up looking at the A dag for title 3. Things don\'t
quiet fit. We\'re getting there it\'s process.

So the other thing to remember if you\'re ever reading through the act
and you see all this additional stuff in the A ADA which I\'m sure
everyone reads, right before going to bed or something. When you\'re
talking about public streets or public access, public right away and
access to streets is not defined as designated public trance pors po \--
transportation as the ADA uses those words, so look at title 2. You\'ll
see that there is all of this detail providewide designated public
transportation. It\'s anything with we\'ll or wheels or rails.Much of
what is in part B of title 2 and the rest of title 2 only concerns us.
That\'s our statutory context. All that means excuse me, somehow this
got out of focus. here we go. Three concepts to take away. Legal context
combines statutory effect. ADA require that where the public agency
provides pedestrian access that public agency must ensure that the
pedestrian access meets A dag standard. This is a key point. That\'s
what the ADA requires.In other words the disability statutes do not
require they provide sidewalks. The statutes require that where public
agencies provide sidewalks their to be accessible to persons with
disabilities. That is a key concept to understand. The other two that
are important to take away from these statutes. The rehabilitation act
and ADA have parallel requirements. You meet one you meet the other. And
finally the rehabilitation act have overlapping enforcement powers. The
rehabilitation act that \[INAUDIBLE \] nawd the ADA covers public
agencies of power regardless of federal funding.

Please excuse me.One of our participants have asked that you slow down
just a little bit.

Certainlyy.Thank you.

Okay. Within the legal context of statutes then. Adetectible warning is
a many toss provide a method for a person that is blind to identify of
location of a curb to allow safe street cro crossing. This is a way to
prevent discrimination. Therefore detectible warning meets statutory
definitions for ADA or rehab act requirements. Because, with a
detectible warning, the person who is blind under the amp the ADA would
not be excluded providing \[INAUDIBLE \]in rehab acts speak that\'s a
little differently phrased and use the words of the rehab act. The
person who is blind would not be ex excluded from benefitting the
program of federal funding streets within the public right of way.

As a practical matter of anyone dealing with highways public right of
way issues to many the same thing. When you\'re coming upon a curb cut
look for a detectible warning that is required. Where is it required
they\'re provided here at slide A.

Typically legal requirements are found in the ADA access ability
guidelines call it the A dag, two primary sections. 4.727 and 4.29. You
read those you get the idea. Also section 3-point . much more functional
then the one I previously provided. This requirement? the ADA access
ability guidelines, previously been suspended and that suspension was on
July 262001, we see a very detailed description of what has happened
legally with that at the website that I provided wmp WW.ADA. GOV..This
suspension and the suspension being expired so that the requirement was
again in effect. There are two memos that also outline this legal
requirement one of the prime ones is the MASIX2002 detectible warnings
memo that reinforced for anyone that had not been reading the federal
register religionly. There is also a memo that again, reinforces and
reminds people that A dag detectible warnings are required on FHWA
projects an for public entities as a practical matter.

There can be confusion about when detectible warnings have been require
and not required. Fundamentally what happened was that the initially A
dag issued in 1991 required detectible warnings, \[INAUDIBLE \]

The access Board and US D.O.T. The detectible warning requirement was su
spended for hazardous vehicular way between 1994 and 2001. Anyone that
has ridden the metro will know.That beas transit kept this requirement.
It was not requirement for hazardous vehicular ways. This lasted from
1994 to 2001, a series of register notices to make sure we have
detectible warnings that could handle snow equipment et cetera. And now
they\'re again required.

The design describe tear \-- criteria v. v 4 to define that. This is the
beginning part for you.As a simple matter. Detectible warnings are
raised tru Kateed domes as in section 4.29. There are also other
documents that provide some design criteria. Those are the detectible
warnings synthesis of U.S. and international practice. It can be found
on a website I can provide to anyone that needs it. Just go to the
access Board website and you\'ll find it.

Best practical sis \-- practices design guide and I spr have provided
the chapters you need to look at. that\'s essentially 6 \--
5.\[INAUDIBLE \] this is a federal highways document this designing
sidewalks and trails document and you can find that at the highways
website under environment. There is also something that isn\'t on the
web that provides useful design information. And that is the guide for
planning design and operation of pedestrian facilities, provided by ash
toe. July 2004 document pages 83 to 89.You have to cokt them to get that
one. \-- contact them to get that one. That\'s another source.

Highways roll in response abilities regarding detectible warnings as a
general matter, highways responsible for discrimination against persons
with disabilities with two overlapping duties, first we have oversight
of highways of federal aid and federal projects under the re
rehabilitation act. second we have oversight of public entights under
title 2. This title 2 power oversights authority and doesn\'t have
anything to do with federal funds.

What this means,

Excuse me this is John. Ihave a question about that last point.

Can you explain the difference between um, oversight and enforcement?

Absolutely.

My next slide should explain that a bit more. The next 2.

Great thanks.

Thank you for letting me know that you\'re right on point with where
we\'re going. Enforcement means where noncompliance exists when we found
it through a complaint that we initiated and that we either initiated or
investigated or somehow handled. Or when someone brought it to our
attention or the access Board. Wherever, the enforcement occurs under
the rehabilitation act when your dealing with a federal aid recipients
through the potential of holding federal funds, woops, okay. Um, it
moved again.I swear I did not touch my mouse. For federal funds it\'s a
site you see there for the sections 27.211 to .129. That\'s the method
you use to enforce taking away someone\'s federal funds thr. are all
sorts of things that have to occur. Decision by a ALJ. That\'s rehab
act. They get involved because of our act as a conduit for federal
funds. State and local governments regardless of the federal funds they
get involved in an enforcement by seeking col volume untear compliance
and if that doesn\'t work out then, volume untear ?erkses are considered
successful and we have to turn it to the attorney general foray
appropriate \-- appropriate action. That discusses how that occurs from
the U.S. DOJ um, regulations. However, this is different in some ways or
not exactly different it\'s part of a overlapping responsibility.
Enforcements only one part of that responsibility. The or part of that
is in this next slide slide 12 regarding detectible warnings that are in
the context. FHWA is oversight federal, state and low cailt planning an
installation processes for public rights of way features that includes
detectible warnings. It also includes a whole host of other things.
review the state and local transition plans an projects an would also
act under the ADA and or the remab has been act to process complaints.
In tran sis plans many that is FHWA must perform the oversight to ensure
that the transition plans include schedules to install or improve.

I have a question for you Lisa.

This is jean from Hawaii.

FHWA you keep referring to FHWA must perform oversight.

It means that we are part of the D.O.T.\'s delegated authority authority
that is delegated from pept of justice to make sure that the ADA in
particular, but also the rehab act, are followed by people with federal
funds in terms of the rehab act.

Now oversight is not anywhere defined to a detailed degree, within the
regulations. We\'ll be providing some guidance in the future that is
much flesh to these bones that I can\'t go into detail right now
because, the guidance isn\'t out yet.

Okay.

Slide 13 can provide some information and slide 14 something to watch
for because this is federal law that in an all ration project this is
the general rule of law. When resurfacing the street alters the
visibility of the street curve ramps must be fixed at the same time the
project occurs. Also, the sight to the U.S. department of justice
regulations 28CFR, that provides the all alterations standards. This is
a key point again, our future guidance from federal highways will be
going into this in much more depth providing more detail on what is
annal ter \-- alteration. We\'ll also be droog a question and answer \--
introducing an question and answer form with additional information, a
training, a glossary, a website you can go for that not out yet. Keep in
touch we\'ll be getting that out as quickly as we can.

In addition the access Board is providing future guidance through the
proposed rule making. \[INAUDIBLE \] and you can be rest assured that
once this information is public, we\'ll be announcing it through the
ongoing discussion forums that we have and it will be pretty hard to
miss.

Lisa, Ed Frazier. Regarding transition plans, I\'m not aware of any
requirement that they be submit today us so how do we go about if we
have oversight requirements how do we get cop ys of these?

We\'ll be trying to enforce an make sure happens in the future is that
transition plans and you can see I highlighted that here so you can see
the sights for them. The transition plans become part of the overall
documents that FHWA reviews through its ongoing compliance review
process. That\'s where we\'re headed. The details on that again, that\'s
part of the guidance I can\'t go into more detail than to say we need to
start looking at those to the degree we have not been. And, I really
can\'t say more.And I\'m really sorry soon I hope. This slide at least
can provide you with information on the regulations that the transition
plans are supposed to meet and which public entities would be required
to have them under the ADA those with more than 50 employees.

May I ask a question?

Yes who is this? there is David in California. The 50 employees a lot of
public agencies contract out for standard work we placing public
employees will this be included in the definition of an agency with more
than 50 employees? I\'m not sure I\'ll have to do some research on that
one. And to the degree these kind s of issues come up and if they\'re
not directly answered we\'re setting up a committee that will be dealing
only with these kinds of issueses so that we will regularly update our Q
and As an there will be a ongoing means for you to get direct con
concrete answers to this kind of question.

Lisa,

Lisa,

This is Ken cooper with the Arizona department of tran pour taition.

The question comes up here regularly on pavement preservation protects.
projects do we need to upgrade our curb cuts and when?

These questions will have to be answered to give you an answer for that
issue one concerns if it makes the definition of a alter ration. You can
see the definition of an alteration at section 35.151. Also the \--
we\'re trying to get more out to you that\'s in our upcoming memorandum.
It will depend on what you\'re doing.

Often time what weerl be doing \[INAUDIBLE \].

There wouldn\'t be any concrete work involved in the project.

It\'s going to depend on what you\'re doing.Is it an awe teration and
\-- alteration and second is what you do, does any any part of the
pedestrian right away come into the scope of the project. Ican\'t get
into it much more deeply on that. Perhaps LOIS can provide you guidance
I\'m not sure. As soon as we have the policy guidance out I can give you
more detail. Other than that call me and we\'ll talk one-on-one.

This is mark chandler I need to come in and thank Lisa for her
participation, I noticed that some people are writing questions posting
questions I\'m been trying to field some of those. So in the question
fields you\'ll see some of the answers I\'m posting. We\'ll try to post
thoas to the discuss. The FHWA community of practical sis is posted the
URL is listed above. With that I\'d like to aallow Lisa to sit back and
catch her breath and let low us make her presentation.

Thank you.

Take it LOIS.

Hi everybody. This is LOIS. At the access Board.I\'m hope that go my
unfamiliar airt of this means of communication doesn\'t um, handicap
some of you that have dial up lines. I\'m using um, a large number of
photographs in this presentation. And in our run through this morning
mark and I discovered that they loaded relatively slowly. I\'m hoping to
fill the space in time with comment tear commentary but aapologize in
advance. My first title slide shows 4 members of the access advisory
committee reviewing detectible warning installation in Portland Oregon
is a couple years ago. Portland studied a variety of materials suitable
for detectible warnings for new construction, and um, retro fit, and
this photo includes both the pro act chair while working for the city of
Portland and Janet bar low that was using the CANE a number partly
hidden tested this material for role ability. By wheelchairs an
scooters. Um, note that detectible warnings and I\'m on my second slide
now. On the left, a pedestrian using a um, dog guide to travel on the
right one who is using a long cain. They are used as understand foot
signs their intend today mark the boundary between pedestrian area and a
very hik ewe lar area \-- VEHICULAR area. Where there is no longer a
curb rather ramp.

Slide 3, um, shows some Japanese installations the Japanese were the
earliyest to do Research and Development on detectible warnings on the
left. You will see that um, they have not only the detectible warnings
the trun Kateed domes that we recognize, but also a bar tile that um, is
intended to give rooting an way finding information. On the right you
see um, a radio installation of the 1 by 1 tile there is. Regularly used
by the Japanese. Slide 4 here is a very very old slide. Some of you may
recognize on the left DOJ staffer Jim and Dr. Edward stein feld of the
state university of New York at buffalo. Quiet a good deal of research
some of it performed by members of our expert panel was done on the
relative detect ability of the various materials. Other issues were the
recognize ability of the material, under foot, and when the materials
effected roll ability for pedestrian thaz used mobility devices at all.
There is a good deal of current R going on here is a slide showing the
use of a street employee plow to clear detectible warnings. Some of you
from state D.O.T.s will probably recognize this as the state D.O.T.s
were the first to get out in front and take a look at the durability of
detectible warnings. Other ways of clearing detectible warnings is
rotating brushes on sidewalk size tractors and I think we would all
recognize that this minimizes wear and tear on the domes. Lest year
under a project. TRB um, published or gathered together the results of
most of the state D.O.T. research and issued a publication that is
called detectible warning products installation maintenance an
durability considerings. They have a allotted \$350,000 in 2006 for a
follow-up dire ibility stud \-- durability study there is a good deal of
work going on in this area. Another area where research is underway is
on contrast, the um, both the current and proposed standards call for
visual contrast but don\'t specific a um, a measure protocol or any
value for contrast, here you see a green detectible warning being
installed against a red paving surface. The federal highway
administration has allotted funds to study the eght cacy of a wide range
of contrasts. The access Board is participating in this study which I
believe is looking at 13 different color values, and there various
contrast was standard sidewalk materials.

Okay now for some text slides and I\'m a little bit of this repeats what
you have already heard from Lisa Mcfee. The two access ability laws that
govern um, the requirements for access ability on the right of way are
the rehab act and the ADA. And it\'s in their regulations that you find
the first mentions of curve rather ramps and in the technical standards
where you find the mentions of detectible warnings but note here that
the rehab act and title 2 of the ADA which cofers states and \-- covers
state and local governments have some updating of language but the basic
requirements in the implementing regulations require access abl to and
use ability by people with disabilities an that\'s the basic underlying
requirement of both of these nondiscrimination statutes.

I want to draw attention to an issue raised by Lisa and in the
questions. This is a particular requirement in the title 2 implementing
regulations. That um, applies to um, new construction and alter ages
ations and requires curb ramps to be conducted if you are altering
streets or sidewalks. It\'s a kind or anal gis to the path of travel to
the path in that it adds the requirement to slightly increase a scope of
work in order to include um, curve ramps an of course detectible
warnings. If you\'re doing an alteration to a sidewalk or street that
effects its use ability.

We are looking to the federal highway, administration \[INAUDIBLE \]

Um we\'re looking to the access Board to the federal highway
administration to um, further define um, those issues that are
connectwide resurfacing what constituting a re resurfacing. But
basically the ewe URUSALEM decision in the early 90s reinforced this
here by agreeing that a resurfacing was an all ration and that this
required curve ramps. No other items of access ability are mentioned.

E time you have a implementing regulation it references an access
standard and those access standards govern new construction. And all \--
alterations so in the 1973 rehabilitation act which covers any program
facility project that gets federal aid UFAS is referenced. Most federal
agencies have they\'re own rehab act or what we often call 504
regulations and most of them have um, directed um, contractors an
implementers to use the ADA access ability guidelines a more modern
standard where it provides greater access ability. The department of
tran pour taition has adopted A dag as it\'s 504 standard. The 1990ADA
title 2 regulation covering state and but because virtually every agency
gets some sort of um, federal funding, through D.O.T., um, the A dag is
likely to be the standard that governs for all projects.

I want to talk a little bit specifically here about the ADA title 2 2
standards because that\'s the area where the access Board is more
active. Right now, in 1992 we after we completed the development of the
basic A dag an pub accomplished it in 1991 we proposed our first set of
standards specifically for title 2. There were 4 4 sections covering
things like congressional facilities an um, jails, judicial facilities,
um, the kinds of meeting rooms an facilities that local governments
typically use and local government assisted housing. Section 14 of that
dow. covered public \-- development covered public rights of way. In
1994 that became a final rule and in 1998 a final role but at that time
section 13 which was housing and section 14 were reserved and only
correction al and judicial facilities went forward.

After that, um, the access Board um, pulled together and assigned a task
to public rights away access called proact to develop a set of um,
recommendations including um, the um, the development of guidelines to
the committee, those recommendations were pub published in 2001. There
was a gradual consensus on detectible warnings an out of this series of
meetings came a new technical specificification that limited the extent
of um, detectible warning material installation but expanded its scope.
Those recommendations were reflected in the 2002 draft. guidelines those
are posted on our website now. We got 1400 public comments most of them
from people with disabilities. You can look at those on our website and
there was a broad consumer support for the use of detectible warnings in
at least some areas. We are now ready to publish a second draft of these
guidelines, with quite a number of changes as a result of um, industry
and consumer comment and we hope to be able to publish those in the
federal register late this fall.

Now I want to turn I\'m on slide 12 to the current standards for
detectible warnings then I will illustrate the changes that are in the
porks. \-- works. The ADA access accessibility guidelines contains
scoping an it cancal provisions, those were suspend and a part of those
were suspended as Lisa noted between 1994 and 2001. We did research to
determine when um, there were really safety hazards associated with the
under foot use of the detectible warnings finding none. They were
reenstated in July 2001 and Lisa has referred to the memo. That the
federal highway administration put out following the suspension of the
suspension if you will. Current technical provisions um, are several
with respect to depth and here the slides CR curb ramp hazardous V
EHICULAR areas. For curb ramps the requirement is the full length of a
curb ramp. For hazardous areas we were thinking of level transitions at
raised crossings or blended transitions. Location relative to a curb or
curb line wasn\'t specified. Dome size an spacing weas was given in
absolute values. Dome orientation wasn\'t specified but in technical
assistance that we issued we suggested an offset relationship of the
domes. And then of course a visual contrast so that is the current
specification. Here\'s a photo illustrating a full curb ramp I will
stallation in Austin Texas of a brick used as a detectible warning. Many
agencies um, recognizing that DDAG included a provision that included a
if sill taition tried other surface marketer markings. I\'ve seen a
diagonal pattern impressed by expanded mesh. These in size lines, but
the research says that only are the alternatives that are most commonly
used not detectible but they\'re not distinguishable enough under foot
to function as a um, a recognizable detectible warning.

Question for you this is jean from what wry.

On the research one is, you\'re saying the research yielded that the um,
alternatives were not as distinguishable. Are you talking about the
research by beesy?some of it there were research done at the university
of Virginia as well. Some by V D.O.T. staff. And BZ or Jeanette bar low
could also identify other research projects.

And this as far as I noted in the research I ready from BZ. On the
safety aspept I Salk more in her documentation on the detect ability.

I\'m talking about eye equivalent lnt fa sill fa sill taition. The
Virginia tech did most of the look at safety issues. Um doing some many
many hours of videotaping of people passing over detectible warning.

I see.

This is BZ Benson.Ithink the most relevant research as it refers to
partners in concrete goes back to that by done by Seinfeld and picked up
and followed up by John temp letter in Georgia. by the time I came into
this field that had already been demonstrated that those were not
detectible.

Thanks BZ.

Let me go on to the technical standards that were proposed in um, what
I\'m calling W1 which is the draft public rights of way access
accessibility guidelines accomplished in June of 2002 and posted on our
website and this is our first attempt to um, develop accessible
guidelines for the public right of way. Rather than relying on building
and facility guidelines of ADAG. What was different? well we proposed
and this was consistent with the recommendations of the advisory
committee. Standardizing on a 24-inch.eght in the direction of travel.
We suggested a location relative to the curb, saying at that time 6 to 8
inches um, we were um, interested in relieving Information Technology
Office stallers of trying to install \-- installers out of the curve so
we want today to have a set back that would make set back easier. We
provided and this is in line with other improve ments we were making at
the time. A small range in dome size an spacing to provide some built in
tolerance BZ may speak later about some research on both dome height and
dome diameters, and some ee ee give equivalent that led us to believe
that such a precise requirement wasn\'t necessary for detect ability.
And we first than in this document, began to speak of aligning the domes
with the travel direction which is a big issue for users of mobility
devices an was raised in the proact meetings an visual contrast
continued the requirement for visual contrast.

LOISI would like to ask a question. Seeing that dome size and spacing
has range of the people out in the local jurisdictions here in the
Phoenix area keep asking about the dome heights which is specified of
0.20 inches which is a precise measurement for that without any
tolerance. At what point do these need to be replaced if they get worn
down a hundredth or 200th of an inch does that mandate replacement how
tight is that specification?

This is an issue I think we\'re going to be continuing to consider
maintenance techically falls with the federal highway administration an
the department of justice and the ADA um, the research from Japan that I
talked about and BZ can probably um give us some more details suggested
that um, a height in excess of 1.5 was excuse me .15. Provided a fairly
good degree of detectability. You know that at .25 inches you have
become a lip or change in level that is regulat generally under the ADA.
So I have en technical assistance Sething this is the range but of
course you have a number of domes not all of which may be worn and to
determine at what point a pattern rather than an individual dome um,
creates problems we haven\'t finished thinking about this yet and it may
be that when we do finally issue a notice of proposal making that um,
there will be public comment or other information that will help us be
more specific.

LOIS this is Jolene with the Kansas D.O.T. and I tried to ask this
question earlier but I couldn\'t get to the phone to unmute it. The
hazardous areas there is no definition provided about that word.
Hhazardous vee I ous vehiclele lar areas. Iget a lot of questions from
cities saying we just laid a new sidewalk an put domes at every dwoi and
all they have is a bunch of driveways and a bunch of trun Kateed domes.

I\'m going to talk a little later about the driveway issue and I\'ll
show you what the language we have developed for the second draft, there
will be no um, languaged in there isn\'t any language in draft one that
talks about hazardous areas anymore. It\'s gone from our final A dag
which was pub accomplished in 2004 and is awaiting roll making action
that proved to be a concept that was difficult for people to implement
and it will be going away in daft one you\'ll see that we talk about
curb ramps an in um, blended transitions so these are areas where the
curb has been dropped or street surfaces or the crosswalk raised and
there is a flurk connection between the \[INAUDIBLE \] um I don\'t know
if that\'s the helpful answer for right now, we often say that a
hazardous area probably isn\'t a parking lot on a site. If vehicles are
moving slowly but the more something resem blgs a street the more
hazardous it\'s likely to be to pedestrians that are not traveling with
vision cues.

This is John cap Lynn in ver Vermont. One question I have had come up
from actually a trun Kateed dome manufacturer has to do with making them
more durable with winter maintenance is when there is any part of the
regulations that would prevent the panel from being placed in the ramp
so that the tops of the domes are flush with the rest of the ramp. The
sort of depressing it by that 2/10 ghts 0th 10 of an inch. Ididn\'t see
anything that staid to be flush with the rather than \-- ramp.

That was our thinks about the pedestrian access route can accept the
changes in willful between adjacent surfaces up to our quarter of an
inch. So if its recessed the depth of the dome itself, that maybe um,
one way of um, dealing with it. It\'s not prohibited by concern
standards although I think it will effect roll ability to some extent.

This is mark chandler I\'m going to have to point out to LOIS that we
only have a couple minutes left for your allotted half hour. And I
notice you have lots of excellent slides and all I can propose is you
pick a few to wind up with and we could possibly post your presentation
and at the next we web conference we could ask you to continue with your
presentation an make more time visible. We only selected 2 hours because
we weren\'t sure how much interest weed have.

Let me point out 2 things from this slide and yes it\'s true I have
thirty more. The two um, changes to location relative to curve where we
tried to permit additional flexibility and dome or orientation where we
have made the requirement forum, domes oriented in the direction of
travel for ramps only, um let\'s see here. Um, we don\'t need this one.
Okay, let me try this one. Where does the detectible warning go here
parallel to the edge of the um curb line I\'m going to be flexible in
the way I use curb line or here parallel to the route of travel? and the
answer to that question depends on when you are designing a ramp or a
blended transition. It\'s much more flexible to design a transition
because it doesn\'t have requirements for the way the route meets street
or rememberments for a level \-- requirements for a level landing.
Here\'s a layout for an approach to the street that would be a ramp and
ramps um are those connections that have slopes between 1 and 20 and 1
and 12. First you need the landing here and you need the ramp itself and
it must have breaks that are per pen Dick ewe lar so that our use you
are doesn\'t have to change direction so leave the street on the ramp .
And then this is a location slide showing where they can placed relative
to the great breaks at the curb line back of sidewalk, I mean back of
curb. These are much better defined in the second draft that we\'re um,
hoping to issue soon. Slide 25 is a sort of a review of the same thing
here is a um detectible warning installation on the ramp. You can see
the great break in black.It if that next de demention toed leading
detectible warnings is more than 60 inches you need to put 2 on the
level surface. This is to ensure that when pedestrians are waiting to
cross their visibility and recognized by drivers an to make sure
they\'re also close enough to the um curb ramp that they can obtain um
the audible and other cues they need to annalize the crossing. Ican go
quickly through here\'s some brick units in Vancouver Washington. Some
rubberized tiles being tested here in Washington. Here\'s an
installation at the white house. These are granite custom units. Here
are masonry units. That is not required but it\'s not prohibited. Um,
composit units used at a raced crossing. Composite unit used at a par
little parallel curb ramp and they don\'t look like they\'re wide enough
to be continuous over the whole flush connection and it looks like there
is a lip that wouldn\'t generally be accessible. Alot of people are
concerned about how to deal with radio installations here\'s one where
the composite panels are altered to fit in to whatever raidous. Here\'s
an installation from Chicago using small brick units which take a curve
very nicely. Here are some um, domes that are um, constructed or
manufacturered to take a curve. Um, this one is a retro fit that uses a
tell plat to place the domes an provides a coater over it. There are
several kinds of metal tiles that some of which are um, manufacturered
to take a radius. This is a cast iron one.Here are some metal tiles used
in Holland.

Back a little bit to the scoping and location issues, and island with 24
inches of detectible warnings on either side. They are um, should be
used in pairs ideally you want to have a street between them so you
return to pedestrian safety you find a detectible warning.

We have a provision in daft 2 that will permit narrow islands to to put
the detectible warnings right at the edge. Here is um, a splitter at a
round about with panels and here\'s the question that driveways and
I\'ll go quickly onto the advisory note, that is in draft 2, it
basically says to the extent that um, you\'re driveway operates like a
street, if there is any sort of traffic control they then it probably
needs detectible warnings. If not we want to avoid overuse. Ifinished up
with um a couple here we\'re on sliet slide 43 with a couple of
questions um, forum, watchers. What is wrong with this photo here you
have um, a curb ramp that itself is non-compliant. The detectible
warning is installed with good directionality and may not be more than
60 mchs from the curve line but this requires a user of wheeled mobility
to make a turn as he or she is going up the ramp and that is that\'s not
permitted. Here\'s a slide that shows too little but really nice visual
contrast. This red detectible warning needs to extend the full width of
the opening to the street an here\'s one that again is not quiet enough.
It would be possible to miss this installation. Stepping or um, fanning
detectible warnings can work but um, this isn\'t um, quiet there yet.
Here\'s one where the ramp meets the street and it\'s not per pen Dick
ewe lar. \-- PERPINDICULAR.

All of these resources are ones that you can look at later and I
encourage you um, to um, let\'s see if I can get this last one up. There
we go. To give me a call. Or preferably to connect with me by email if
you have any questions at all its all for our rule making mill and
here\'s how to get ahold of me. That\'s it.

Thank you very much LOIS.Let\'s see a couple of things I\'d like to ask
the next speaker to try to talk a little louder. There is probably at
least one person on the conference that doesn\'t have volume control
that the rest of us do. We\'re going to try to get more time for the web
confreens. We\'re making arrangement tossed a more connectivity time for
the web conference and the tell conference side. I\'ll get back to you
on that. Again watch you\'re mutes star 6 will stogle \-- toggle you on
and off and I believe it\'s time for Gene to take the controls.

Are you ready?

I\'m ready.

Mark do you have my slide up?

Pardon me thanks jean. I\'ll um, pull yours up right now.

The title of my presentation is pedestrian surfaces detectible warning
safety performance an lie liability.

Would you tell the audience what you would like to make available in
terms of the presentation notes in particular.

The telecommunication will text will be available on the FWHA bulletin
Board. But the pictures will not because the pictures had to be approved
and borrowed from other suppliers but anyway. On this first slide um,
basically I want to also let anyone out there that is blind that this
presentation is accessible to the visually impaired and that I had
technical assistance from someone that made this an accessible
presentation. On this first slide I\'m showing you a picture of the one
of the thees that was accomplished in 1957 by a group that was um,
supervised by doctor Tim through Nugent. They they were developed in the
1950s at the university of I will know and \-- Illinois and later
adopted into the A 117 which was done in 1961. The picture of this thee
and the university of Illinois considered it as a safety code for
minimum design and construction requirement toss allow students to to
participate on the campus.

This shows a picture of the actual research ramp which was used in late
4 0S and mid-50s to that was used to create the first act set ability
standard which was adopted by the federal government in 1984 I believe
it was which was called UFAS. Tim Nugent developed these for making
access abl and usable by fiz Capitol physically handicapped people

Is there a question?

Coort coordinate and supervised research to provide that the mod
modifications used on the campus would be safe and usable for
disabilitied students. The initially research spanned approximately 7
years an stands as a reliable, staif and accessible standard. Nugent
studies also also include visual cues for the blind and deaf students.

This shows 2 more photos of the actual research ramp and um, the
accredited safety research along with the historical research for
reliability should be used for comising access accessible features in
the public right away. The reason I\'m saying this is from the aspkt of
construct ability is where we have o a lot of problems in the state of
Hawaii where we have gone through and installed ramps an we are now
going through and demolishing those ramps an we go through an rebuild
those ramps an I\'m finding it\'s due to lack of good spes of
specifications no tolerances or buffers, and that really taking into
consideration the fact that we\'re using a fluid and concrete primary
ily which can be pushed down hill so you end up creating a lot of under
laitions which then causing ramps to go out of compliance.

This slide just shows the kind of chronological develop of the standards
of the picture on the lower left is the original American national
standard. Which then was adopted by the federal agencies called the
uniform federal access ability standards an then um, again revised by
the federal agencies to the current ADAG standard and just wanted to
show pictures of this. Next slide please.

All right. On the next slide in the 1950s. They found that a running
grooves in the direction of travel at the base of the rather ramps
provided a warning service for the blind in outdoor situation. He also
found that changing the occasion is characteristics. Rubber flooring
versus wood flooring. Rubber flooring at the top of stairways is a
warning that they were getting close to a wide stairway and take cawx.
\-- caution. The 36-inch depth for detectible warnings, was
prove.through research that to be the most detectible distance and it\'s
based on stride. If you read the appendix actually in the ADAG.You\'ll
see that it is based on stride of 24 inches an they\'re assuming that it
will be detectible by cain or under foot through the stride distants. He
also found that the 1/8-inch heighth was um, tack till and as you
railroad \-- remember, they sals mentioned that .15 was also tack till.
So what Nugent found was 1/8 was tack tile.\[INAUDIBLE \] accessible
route that is Nugent also sited in his research. One other thing I want
to mention is in BZ\'s study she showed that a 36-inch depth cover add
higher percentage of people with visual impairment as far as tact
ability goes with. Ithink it was 100% could detect the surface versus
90% on the 24 24 inches.

Okay on this I\'m talking a little bit about the civil rights. Civil
rights regulations versus life safety performance standards an codes. It
seeps to \-- seems to be confusion between what is required for civil
rights an the legal liability for life safety and performance. And the
the question I\'m poser here is is there a line between safety and
accessibility and how do you recommend rec siel the differences. What
I\'ve been finding is that if the cry tear criteria for performance an
safety there would be no line dividing safe accessible design for
persons with disabilities. On the left, I\'m showing some samples of
specifications \[INAUDIBLE \] federal standard and the federal trade for
slip resistance is 0.5 with profishence.And the laboratory test messages
cover the laboratory test message covers the use of the James machine in
correlation to human locate lrve LOCOMOTION. In the technical Board from
the access Board they cover slip resistant but the numbers that were
recommended are being removed because of the confusion on slip
resistance tests.

Now on this slide, jiewl see a sandal entrapped under a flap of a piece
surface. What has happened here is under ultraviolet exposure and on the
differences of expanse the glue and the actual product its delaminated
over time. This particular installation is at an international parent
here in Hawaii. The materials used unfoot should have the following
characteristics. Match all regulations in code using scientific
standards that have historical reliability. Appropriate to the
application outdoors an indoors an maintainable for the duration of the
life cycle.

Excuse me, I\'d like to ask a question. When you talk about life cycle
of the construction what kind of time frame are you talking about? back
in Arizona this is Ken.Are are we talking about the life cycle for the
tile itself or for the concrete ramp?

Really usually when I say life cycle what I\'m talking about if I have a
surface what the goal is in the way I look at applying these devies is
that that device should withstand and last as long as the surrounding
surface is going to last. So that, it becomes more siewn form as far as
maintain ability for the municipalities. Does that answer your question?

Um, I would agree with you and I like that answer, unfortunately, most
of the tile manufacturers seem to want to give a 3 year warranty where
concrete ramps in Arizona will last between 20 and 40 years. Somewhere
there is a disconnect in there and I hate to think we\'re creating
maintenance programs.

what we\'re finding here in Hawaii and I work with California and Alaska
D.O.T.s is that you need to look at life cycle and durability otherwise
you will be creating a maintenance monster out at your municipalities an
it\'s going to add one more layer of problems in the public way. What
we\'re looking at is making sure anything we put under the public\'s
foot is reliable, is safe, is durable. So, I think those things really
repair mount. You have \-- paramount. You have to look at how many
things do you want to be digging that thing out or replacing it during
the life is cycle of the pedestrian surface.

I\'m going to proceed now. So anyway, and next slide please.

So the next slide I\'m showing more pictures of a polly mat desin
grating. The edges in one photo, the edges are flipped up and the other
upper photo it shows that it\'s actually bulged up and here we go go
went the they aremal cofish of the expansion differences in the
material. To me I look at historical legacy on materials now. Ihave
about know better that I cannot look at with the blinders on with
accessible. Ihave to look at these going in under the foot of the
general public. Under the elderly. Under babies under barefoot children.
Their feet are going across these surfaces what am I taking
responsibility for here and also incorps corporating the disability.
These standards also cover subgrade and floor preparations. Next slide
please.

This slide shows the failure of fiber fiberglass installation and
actually these are being removed routinely in California and I was told
that similar problem happened in Madison Wisconsin. Again we\'re use ago
material that is plastic.We\'re use ago material that has shown
historical legacy for dur durability and performance. What happens here
is we have failing like eggshell an causing deep pockets which caused
entrapment and could cause tripping, could cause stumbling. And um,
actually I have heard of a case in Washington state I don\'t have the
information on it where they cut through a leather shoe. So outdoor
pedestrian surfaces require heavy material and they should bes a safe an
durable as the pedestrian surface. Traditionally concrete has the best,
porcelain also have similar quality toss concrete with appropriate size
aggregate. All of these concrete, porcelain pavers are easy to maintain
when they\'re installed properly. The next slide please.

Um, this slide shows a porcelain paver tile actually delamb dmaiting
from the surface. Lack of proper \-- products which fall in the category
of hard ceramic tiles should meet \[INAUDIBLE \] subgrade installation
an prep preparation standards.

you\'ll have to wait a moment because it\'s taking a while for the
slides to load. It\'s showing the one tile off set, and you just asked
me to load the next slide.

All right.So I\'ll load the next slide and it will take about five sends
or ten seconds for each slide.

You want to tell me when it\'s up. Ithink it would work best if you go
ahead and talk and bare in mind it takes five or ten seconds to load.
I\'m going to the next slide now.

The next slide now again the lack of pressure installation \-- proper
installation can cause a good product to fail. What we\'re shing here is
pictures of sand based settled or washed out under the bricks an its
created an uneven surface an creates uneven edges and spaces so you can
see brick tiles that have sunk en down and created uneven surfaces under
foot.

Okay, um, answers to other issues such as dome integrity. Missing domes,
color shades an contrast, might be in the original research. For
instance in the original ANSI under 4.29. Figure 40B. There are
practical ranges sighted in the dimensions so in other in other words,
in the earlier ANSI standards they were given the code agency the
ability to say okay, if it was within this range they they were giving
toll ranges to the original tack til warning strips, realizing that
trying to build something that to degrees of intolerance is nearly
impossible. So what I\'m saying here is that the original standard which
was gathered by the gearing by the way and created to be a building code
that Tim Nugent and his group was actual actually hoping that states
would adopt as a building code, gave some tolerances on the tack tile
surfaces. In the picture to the left bottom, actually in the left top.
There is actually um, concrete using oozy that could treat a stumbling
on tripping hazard. You see the unevenness of the dome shape. This is
from a embossed type um, application for concrete surface. They press in
on top of wet concreet toss create the domes.

On the bottom picture what I\'m showing is the contrast in the case of
the picture in the left bot yom. This surface does contrast against the
con concrete even those the contrast is due to the degradation of the
product which was priet yellow originally.

Bright yellow originally.

Next slide please. Getting close to the end here folks. The next slide
shows a picture of porcelain tran sis tiles. This was done in 1994 at a
shopping center. Also the installation was done in a public rights of
way along the street and they are driven over by cars an were installed
using AST in standards be and to date knot none of these styles tiles
have failed.

Next slide please.

All right um, in this slide I\'m showing again, pushing for performance
here, but, this is a picture of a detectible warning surface showing a
fork lift droiive driving it over. The detect ible warning is installed
flush. This happens to be curb ramp that provides access to the public
but is also used as a utility route for the fork lift to do offloading
an loading so it has a dual purpose here. The wire mesh by the way that
is within this particular concrete tile is a stainless steel wire mesh
can be electrically connected to provide heat to melt snow from its
surface. These concrete tiles have there is a typeo here. The tile does
meet slip recess resistance. One thing I want to show is this is a buff
yellow color but you can see the contrast between yellow and light gray
is minimal.

This is my last slide and this is the end of the power point
presentation. Iwant to thank Cindy for the use of the pictures in her
report. The copy of the text is below.Ialso would like to thank you Dr.
Alex for participating as an expert. And I want to also extend and thank
you to Tim Nugent that I have talked to about this. Charles he will
measure ECharles ELMER who provided his THESIS to me and Lawrence that
helped me with the dk detectability of it. And barba Mcmillan for their
generous support.Thank you very much everyone.

I have a question if I maism this is David core dova in the California
D.O.T. We have faced recently you problems in construction with
detectible warning surfaces on curb ramps both new and retro fit
situations where we have utility lids an where we found that we would
have to cut the trun Kateed domes noord to identify the utility owner of
the lids and would that pose a problem?

Here in Hawaii we had a similar problem but it was not due to cutting
those domes around utility lids but to fit on curved ramps an what
happened was we ended up when you cut a dome in and a half you end up
especially in the polly mats when you add the distants of the polly mat
to the height of the dome and it is a edge you end up with more than a
quarter of an inch of a transition so what they did here was have the
manufacturer go in and grind the vertical fashions down \-- faces so it
became a beveled edges because shoas sharp vertical tran significants
can extend over the quarter inch.

Assume we don\'t have a problem with the vertical part but we have a
piece of a row missing to identify the utility owner we will cut around
the lid too. But exposing the owner of the utility so we have many of
these. And that we were thinking that would be probably the most common
option.

Which was to do what?

Which was to just remove a row a piece of a row of domes may be a foot
long.

You know on that I would probably have to defer to LOIS because really,
there is all the information that\'s coming out about detectible
warnings as I understand it is, it is guidance all right. Because, the
only research that I know has been established through an actual
standard an industry standard is the original ANSI standard which talks
about grooves so I can\'t talk about domes but I can get you more
information on grooves. So I would have to go back to LOIS or BZ.

This is LOIS. Iwanted to note that the ANSI standard doesn\'t permit
groves into outdoor low location. But this is 1980 and 1986 standard. So
they\'re not really amicable in exterior locations.

Okay got you low LOIS.Thank you.

Can anyone speak to his question about removing domes on around utility
lids?

I would wonder this is LOIS again.When you couldn\'t simply and maybe
I\'m misnding the question why you sciewnt add the detectible warnings
to the lid itself? as an insert and then provide um, and essentially um,

Yes that is what, is the option is to attach the detectible warning to
the lid and cut around the lid so that that lid maybe removed. Also the
notches,

just as you would in flooring,

But in order to identify the utility owner with which is cast into the
mold of the lid, to expose that by removing the domes so it can be
identified. That was what we were thinking we would do. The other option
is to provide little metal plates and that would identify the owner and
placing it on the lid portion in between the domes. Which may be a
better solution but I wanted to hear if there was an observation
objection of simply removing the domes glsm I think that with the
specification reduced to 24-inch the at the national level, I believe
California will be requiring um 36 inches, I\'d be concerned about
eliminating any area at all within that 24 inches because I think it
will effect the percentage of detect ible.

Aagree and that will probably be a good rule of thumb. Some of us were
thinking of attaching a numerical value. And I know as long as we have
the 2-foot effective depth we could remove some domes.

But that would be a issue for the state of California to decide I think.

Anything else jean.

No I don\'t have anything else.

Anymore more questions forward jean?

we have extended the web con conference so we\'re going to go over our
2:00 p.m. eastern standard time. We have as much time as we want
essentially. So we\'re going to be switching over to the expert panel if
there are no more question fossor jean. Last jans.

Hey mark.

We do have one question.\[INAUDIBLE \] we do have one more question in
this room here.

Om. This is path phlegming from Wisconsin dot.You brought up the
contrast and specifically pointing out that the yellow didn\'t show up
up next to the white concrete. And in our limited testing we did in
Wisconsin here with the visually impaired not with sited folks this is
with visually impaired subjects and we found that white in concrete and
yellow in concrete was the most individualsable from the furtherest
distance but yet it does not comply are the contrast issue which maybe
more apublicable with sited folks than unsighted folks

. Ithierchg I\'m think I\'m go to have to let LOIS answer that.

This is LOIS.We will be relying on the results of the federal highway
administration research in addition to research that\'s already been
completed. Iknow that Dr. Benson is an advocate for the international
yellow color because the detectible warnings seem to have greater
sailancy with low vision userses. However some organizations with people
of low vision voluntary objected to a limit of just yellow and um,
designers, are interested in having a range of products, available we
know generally, and available in colors for instance, those that use
brick sidewalks an papers would like to have the liberty of using
something that um, may not be our interest here is I think is first in
the under foot detectability and then to the extent that it\'s useful to
others. To provide some additional information on contrast when we have
results from the highway administration. There is a fare amount of
research already with but none performed specifically to detectible
warnings an we know it\'s useful to all pedestrians.

Okay this is.Yes thank you we found that white was the most advisable
for those that were extremely visually impaired. White was the most
detectible from the furtherest distance but yet in all the charts in
contrast white on concrete does not meet anywhere close to the 07%
contrast \-- 70% of sited folks see contrast as, wondering if it seems
as though there is some flexibility that you can siews any color that
you want to until some directive comes out from the access Board. Is
that what you\'re saying the most.

The current standard only requires visual contrast nothing else. There
is some that suggests 70% value which comes out of earlier research that
I believe was largely developed for a contrast in sign and. So, to the
extent that these colors can be said to visually meet the current
standard and we will not even in our second draft resign that anymore
that\'s likely to be until another it\'s ration I think of the
guidelines. The federal highway administration researches using a large
group of pedestrians with a low vision an a wide range of um, materials
and contrasts of reflectist and so on. And I think that we\'re going to
await to it fine it any better.

One thing I want to adhere is to on contrast is there is a very good
website called visual expert human factors and its doctor mark green
that has publications an he\'s an expert on um, colors an contrasts, and
what they have to do with accidents, and what is advisable mainly to
general public as far as pedestrians go not just people with low vision.
So if you want to look at more information from the visual aspects I
would recommend to going to the visual aspects. Dr. mark green.

Thank you.

You\'re welcome.

Anymore questions?

This is Dean with the South Dakota D.O.T. and my question comes with a
liability part of this with we have an isolated intersection we are
actually doing the curb ramp work an the detect warnings with an
isolated traffic signal upgrade location. Many time s no ADA upgrades
are been done an we\'re questioning if we need to do this work. We\'re
putting in the pedestrian button where we need to and oftentimes these
maybe take adding things that are making it a year and a half on a 6
month job. Iguess more specifically, are we doing in all ration when
we\'re putting in new traffic signals at an intersection when the work
we\'re doing is literally boring a 3-foot bearing behind the sidewalk.

That\'s an actual great qe q this is Arizona D.O.T. We have that same
come up in rural areas. We put in a small stretch of vertical curve and
ramps in the middle of no place.

The right. This is Lisa. And I can give you from the legal perspective,
something to considers a you\'re making toas determinations, the ADA and
section 504 of the rehab act only require that issues like detectible
warnings curb ramps be provided where you have pedestrian access already
there. ADA does not require sidewalks. ADA remember re has been acts
requires \-- rehab acts require that the public right of way be
accessible to people with disabilities.

If you\'re in a rural area you don\'t expect people to be crosses the
streelt street than you don\'t need to provide a ramp or detectible
warning to nowhere.

Thank you very much.

Yes it makes sense.

You\'re providing but keep this in mind if you provide the access for
anyone, you muf make that access accessible to people with disabilities
as well. Because otherwise you would would would be discriminating. You
can\'t provide a substandard sidewalk because it\'s rural that\'s not
allowed.

But what happens in many states is that in the rural areas, we don\'t
provide any sidewalk eye long these highways you say streets but these
are oftentimes highways an there\'s, there is no practical need for
pedestrian access an no, in there is no 2KEU6 2KEU6 rengs \--
differentiation level of services in not providing any sidewalks.

And the one place you can loog for determining pedestrian need even
though that the need is not part of the ADA rehab act analysis. If
you\'re looking at a federal highway\'s perspective in the environment
area in terms of when is the sidewalk considered referrible, separate
issue from the disability law we have been discussing here. There are
some dedescriptions of pedestrian need on the environment website for
highways. It\'s limited but its there. Things to consider.

And I want to make one comment to that. This is jean from Hawaii. We\'re
finding here in Hawaii and I also found in California was, um,
especially here, each municipality or D.O.T. has criteria where they
require sidewalks and where they don\'t require sidewalks. It\'s usually
in their handbook on their shelf and for instance in Hawaii if have you
a school, and have you access to a shopping center, it\'s um, more urban
diep type development of our municipalities will require sidewalks. What
that does is triggers what we call program compliance. Whatever the
program that the municipality is. Is what triggers the need for the
sidewalk. In other words you municipal based that decision on their code
book on safety and who is going to be using it and wh. those determine
nations are usually made on the local level an the state willful an the
federal highways themselves when they\'re doing they\'re own highways
has a policies an procedures that trigger the program compliance aspect
and that defines whether or not there will be a sidewalken stallwide
that it can project.

I have a question. This is burk vits.

This question is probably for both Lisa and for LOIS. But in many
situations, we have locations around the country and a lot of states
where um, we don\'t have sidewalks but that doesn\'t many they aren\'t
needed and you see evidence of people walking around the dirt where you
see goat trails. How is that defined in terms if you don\'t have the
facility that are existed aren\'t you deskim naturing \--
discriminating. How does that fit into this definition of existing
facilities an what you were talking about a minute ago.

This is Lisa. Here\'s the legal perspective on that question. Have you
two issues of liability you have to consider. Looking at liability under
the civil rights statutes that we have discussed today, it\'s a city
with a low locality is not providing a sidewalk there there is no need
for public right away access. A.D.ADA does not require sidewalks.
However there is a difference section of liability that is public
entities must consider and in truth is probably more important to the
public entity they then anything required to the civil rights statute
and that it negligently jens. Iremember reading a report from San Diego
news information, about a couple million dollars worth of a lawsuit
because a student non-disabilitied no sidewalks near a school, was hit
by a car, died, the parents sue. Big lawsuit judgment again the city.
That\'s simple straight negligence on the part of the city. Nothing to
do with civil rights but would really hit the city in the pocket book
and as a practical practical mart should not have been allowed to occur.
Make sure that the areas responsible for are safe it\'s not strictly a
civil rights issue. So often the requirements you want to make as a
public entity to make sure you\'re safe as possible on your city streets
will go beyond these more narrow issues of civil rights statutes. Does
that answer the question?

Somewhat.

I want to shear what L OIS has to say. We don\'t have any mandate in
this area. Hour work is to develop the standard which by you know, um,
an improvement is measured as compliant or not. Um, but there is
technical assistance from the justice deputy that talk basis programs
that that a city might have. Amandatory walk to school program within a
certain distance of a school. Bus tops, those kinds of programs assume
um, that um, the user is arriving as a pedestrian. So there is kind of I
think an intermediate situation where um, the one of the prohi bights
under title 2 of the ADA is things that have the effect of
discriminating and I would think that the goat paths could be seen as
having the effect of discriminating.

Yeah. Iwanted to add that if that is okay. This is jean again. LOIS is
right in my thinking about it also and that is it really comes down to
program compliance an equality of access for people with disabilities so
you have an existing facility where there is only goat paths but
everybody is using it and the public is using it and the public is
iewlging it knowingly by the municipality. This is a provided public
way. The municipality should be looking at well, this is what we\'ve
stated as the public way are we giving equal programs access to people
with disabilities as well. So I think the liability could be in the fact
that this is a physical barer that could be denying access. Promoted as
a public way for by the municipality.Ithink Lisa can address the program
aspect of this better than I can.

Jean this is Lisa. You\'re ap absolutely correct. Iwould ask people.
Ican\'t get into more depth of it at this point but in our future
guidance we do go into sh issue of where the programs a ses where you
don\'t have the \-- where that fits into the overall scoom of things and
how highways need to be performing its oversight into transition plans
to make sure that throughout the planning process various planning
processes including transition plans there\'s a look at not only what
sidewalks are already there but what might need to be there in the
future. There is a lot more at the de tail in that kind of issue coming.

This is LOIS. You mute also \-- might also talk about individual
regulation and a lot of access accessible pedestrian signals an curve
ramps are ib stalled in response to a pedestrian request. That\'s an
issue we haven\'t specifically looked as but it is one way of
determining need.

Yes I\'ll have to look into that more deeply low us at a later point.
Ihave not myself done that yet.

This mark I\'m going to take over again. Ithink we should move into the
expert panel discussion. Ihave put occupy the up the questions that have
been posted on the discussion Board. The FHWA external practical
practice has been put up a couple of times under the questions an
answers. The questions were taken there it looks like a starting point
for the expert panel and we have had a number of good questions posted
as this web conference has gone on and I\'ll be checking those an some
have been answered and some haven\'t. In the next week or two I\'ll try
to get follow-up o everyone that has been posting on these. So again,
the expert panel there are four panelist that is are online. We have
pardon me I lost my notes.We have um, Jeff home from FHWA in California.
We have Dr. BZ Benson who is with the access for the blind. We have John
cap Lynn with the Vermont D.O.T. and Dr. Alex sacker. And I think what
we might do for the first half hour is just go ahead with these
questions and I have one of the questions up and start having the expert
panel take the questions an see how they go. Idon\'t know how long we
will have to answer these. We weren\'t sure if this format will work
well but it looked like a opportunity to get people together and see
what the questions were interest were. So the first question I will read
if you can\'t see it. Other funding sources an or resources. The
telecommunications for the deaf incorporated was awarded a grand for the
department of homeland security for emergency prepareness. Is this
detectible warnings have to do with the emergency prepareness then would
nor organize be able to use it?

Anybody out there want to take a shot at that?

This doesn\'t have anything to do with detectible warnings, TDI is an
organization that specializes in communications accessibility and they
lbl looking at getting information to people with hearing loss in an
emergency.

Mark this is Alex sacker.Ihave a further commitment. Iwas prepared to
stay online for 2 hours and I made another commitment. And so far,
there\'s nothing that I could add to what has been said already, and
understood by all. So unless something comes up later jean can contact
me.

I thank you very much.

Goodbye Alex thank you.

Bye-bye.

second question. Where detectible warnings are required to be installed
at both ends of the crosswalks?

This is LOIS. I\'ll take a stab at that one.If you have a curb ramp that
is in your scope of work obviously they should go there. If the opposite
side curb ramp isn\'t part of your scope of work then that installation
welcome backs part of a transition plan I would argue that I think that
the fact that detectible warnings have been installed on one side may
push the priority up for installation on the far side with but um,
there\'s nothing in our guidelines either current or propose that would
require it.

Back where dktable warnings are required to be installed what are the
project limits?

Well this is LOIS I\'ll shoot at this one too. The standard project
limits would be the meets and bounds of the project as it\'s been plans.
nding of course that the tile toll erchlmenting regulations that adding
additional requirements if you\'re altering a sthreet or sidewalk.

Would you occasion to talk about driveways?

Well driveways, um, I think um, are covered by the um, the statement
that I reproduced from our second draft of the guide lines so to the
extent that they are being operated like um, intr sections of streets an
have traffic control then detectible warnings are appropriate. What we
want to avoid is um, you know the um, you use across every driveway
along a and a block or length of highway where it becomes um, difficult
to attend to both the meaning of the detectible warning an to other cues
in the environment because of overuse.

Mark this is John cap land in Vermont. Just one think to add on the
driveways this question came up almost you know, right after we started
incorporating trun Kateed domes into our projects an the guidance that
we put together is similar to what has been um, talked about already in
terms of you know if it if a driveway has a traffic signal or looking
more like a street. In other words it has a curb rather than continuing
the sidewalk material across the driveway, then we\'re recommending that
you go ahead and put in the detectible warnings. So I guess I just want
to add that.With you said that residential driveways wouldn\'t be
required to use them but it also more was the how the driveway looked
like if it looks like a street and there is a crosswalk mark aid cross
it or a traffic signal or head face then you would incorporate the
detectible warnings. If there is still little gray area which is going
to require some judgment but at least we gave guidance on that.

About detectible warnings installed around median islands anyone want to
talk about that?

This is BZ I think that it\'s important that detectible warnings are
always required at median islands, I know this is LOIS may express is
different opinion here. But research that Janet bar low and I have done
on blind people crossing at complex interSECs indicates that whether or
not a bead median is wide. Very often vush visually incompetent paired
people \-- impaired people are going to get stuck on that island.
knowing it\'s an island is better than being in a posing traffic stream
so it\'s my strong feeling that they should always be marked with a
detectible warning. whether or not there is a signalized over marked
crosswalk. If it\'s a legal crossing then I believe it should always be
markwide detectible warnings.

This is LOIS.We don\'t disagree.We did consider when detectible warnings
could give disinformation if a um, a median wasn\'t wide enough to
include a space without them. So that the median would be clear.We have
changed that recommendation in the um, in the new guidelines, um and
have also added a provision that would permit the detectible warnings be
placed right at the curb line. So as to save space.

This is path phlegming \-- pat phlegming from the Wisconsin D.O.T. If
you have a 4-foot median and you did 2-foot panels they would be tight
back-to-back that would be perfect alignment type of arrangement. So the
question would be would you put 2 2 panels in there or one perhaps in
the middle and I have another question the second question is that many
times the crosswalk will go out ahead of the median island and will not
cross through the median island is there any thought that they should be
located out ahead of the island which is really not a protective refuge
at all.

It\'s BZ Benson I\'ll take the first half of that and just mention that
the report of the public rights of way advisory committee was input to
the access Board in developing the guidelines, um, recommended that um,
where um, a median was 4 feet wide or less, um, in the direction of
travel that the entire surface be a cut through be covered with a
deckable warning. Um, there wasn\'t room for 2 separate panels with a
space between them the entire wid widths with a recovered warning.

The Board concurs on that and that\'s what the guidelines will reflect
in the next draft. The use of the detectible warnings on medians was
uniformly supported among the membership. The issue of um, oh, that
painted area at the neez of a \-- nose of a median raises some
interesting questions. My own advise I guess would be pretty much based
on what Dr. Benson has said which is that if it\'s an area in one which
a pedestrian refuge is intended would be it provided with detectible
warnings.

This is Kent Stewart consumer user of pedestrian warnings. Iwant to
reinforce the point that LOIS is including is that there is a risk if a
median strip has just one detectible warning that it\'s misyoodz that
the pedestrian has completed they\'re crossing.

That\'s one of the good reasons to follow Dr. Benson\'s recommendation
to install them on the full width even if it\'s only 4 sfeet because
that will be a additional bit of information to the user that will find
something more extensive than the 2-foot hoish maybe expecting an in
addition to the audible skews that can be picked up. We\'ll give helpful
information about the nature of the space where they\'re waiting.

There\'s a little fuzzy on what tooz out in front of a an island those
most of those are going to be single stage type crossings not for
pedestrians to stop in the middle of a 2 stainl crossing. It may not be
in the best interest to put them there.

LOIS. I\'m not certain why are the medians installed at all. Are they
not generally provided to permit pedestrian thaz wish to to make two
stage crossing to separate a um, a 2 way crossing into two one way
crossings?

Nearly all of the crossings of concern is single stage crossings an the
signals are set up so pedestrians can cross from one side of the radio
road so to the other. But um, it\'s a single stage crossing.

LO IS again. One of the things we know is that all pedestrians don\'t
walk the way or speeds that signals are timed for and in particular
people that wait to determine from sound cues that the signal is giving
the pedestrian walk um, may use up a good deal of the walk interval
before um, sitting out so I would think that I don\'t know why else a
median would be provided perhaps beautyification but they are generally
provided as pedestrian refuges so this is an area where detectible
warnings would be helpful

This is Elizabeth I will HILTON at text bleep D.O.T. We usually have to
set the nose of the median back far enough so that turning at the
intersection don\'t run over it. Sos common for crosswalks to be located
in front of the median, and the same thing the other gentlemen is
talking about where we\'re timing the signals so that the median refuge
should not be necessary because there is none provided. In those cases
we\'re not putting any detectible warnings out in front of the nose of
the median. We\'re only putting detectible warnings where we have
sufficient median width or refuge and we\'re cutting the crosswalk
through the median.

This is Ken cooper with Arizona D.O.T.We also will use very narrow
medians for channelization of traffic for left-hand turn base where the
median can bes a nair narrow as 2 feet at the nose an we also put
crosswalks in front of it rather than across it or through it. Like some
guidance on that.

This is an area where we probably need to do some rethinking of our
guidance then and Elizabeth, you can help us Liz beg was a member with
the rights away committee along with Dr. Benson an several others we may
need to put advisory language in to clarify this situation.

This is the South Dakota division an we encountered the same thing that
these other state willing are doing.

This is mark taking control again. I\'m going to pro 230EZ pose instead
of going through the questions as we have them posted we take some of
the questions from the audience at this point. Anumber of good questions
have been posted and I want to give a opportunity for people that
participated to be able to ask questions. If any of you out there have a
question that I have responded to you would some of you please ask
questions to the expert panel now.

This is Elizabeth HILTON can I ask a question.That concerned Lisa
you\'re first presentation about the use of the world you used the word
scope in some of your slides an alteration that is curb ramps were
needed adry surfacing projects you talked about the scope and you , I\'m
not clear if you\'re formulating some memo or form of guidance. Ithink
perhaps you mean, the um, within the limits of the project rather than
within the scope.

You\'re correct that um, scope can sometimes many limits of the project
and I I hesitate to give you the exact language we\'re working with
because it could be subject to change and I don\'t want to confuse
anybody.

if you use the word scope engineers will try to figure out who to scope
their project toss not include what you\'re talking about.

I understand and we\'re working with, those issues.

Okay.And I\'ll be able it get more detail as soon as we can possibly get
it to you. It\'s going through a bit of a political process here in its
rollout and I can\'t give you a huge amount more detail on that.

I understand.

Fundamentally it goes back to the issues that LOIS mentioned earlier
about perhaps doing an alteration project touching one conner of an
intersection. It would be deckable warnings and um come compliant curb
ramps. That meets the strict requirement of ADA and the rehab act.
However and the rest of it would have to go on the transition plan
bringing everything up to a com compliance, we would also hope as low us
has mentioned that then, using its tort authority to look at transition
plans that the priority for intersectionses such as one of those with a
patchwork quilt would um move you up the list to be done sooner rather
than later. That\'s as as much as I can answer right now I\'m afraid.

Lisa this is Jeff from the California division.Maybe you might want to
touch on ITS projects an signal timing projects as they\'re considered
projects for the audience benefit of understanding what stance we take
on those type of projects.

Certainlyy when you\'re looking at a project you want to look at the
scope of what you\'re doing. Most of our money tends to be spent on what
we class classify as alteration projects. And when you\'re looking at
what you\'re doing if you haven\'t disturbed change use ability of the
actual pavement at a curb, then, it\'s a question as to whether you\'ve
it\'s been brought within the scope of your project or the limits of
your projects shs to have to put in the curb ramps detectible warnings
then. If you\'re retiming the timing of a signal an you haven\'t Don
anything concrete around you then your timing needs to be, compliant
with ADAG specifications so a person with disabilities can still cross
the intersection within the appropriate timing, however the rest of your
scope would not seem in that kind of circumstance to be an all ration
project of the concrete only of the timing of the signals. Does that
make sense in or do I need to explain that again. ?it makes sense to me.
Jeff home California division. Because you understand an I have had
discussion on this quite a bit.

This is LOIS.We have been wrestling with this for a loong time and in
our new draft we address a series of questions to the issue of project
limits an project bondries an the important thing I think to remember is
that whatever your plan project is, you inside it meet access ability
guidelines within the work of that project. It is only when you\'re
doing something that is an alteration too the sidewalk or street, um,
and typically that would be I think a overlay that you have this
additional requirement to slightly expand your work to include, the
addition of curb rather ramps so it isn\'t a broad requirement at all as
Lisa says if the physical fabric of the sidewalk or street is part of
the alteration then you have the need to install curb ramps even if they
might not be part of your project but you don\'t then have a
responsibility to go on and put in APS and et cetera. So typically a
signalling projects wouldn\'t require anything Moore more than simply
making sure within the signal system that um, access guidelines are
objected.

Another question from anyone?

This is John in Vermont. know he I\'m supposed to be answering questions
but I have a lot of questions myself. This just came up recently and I
think that both Lisa and LOIS may have talked about it or it\'s related
about how ADAG is tied to title 3 is what I think I heard Lisa say and
low O LOIS a talking talk about equivalent. Ihave soon um like say in a
mall time type of development they end up with a like a pedestrian
network that is not in the public right of way but you know it looks
like a public right of way sidewalk. They provide curb ramps and um from
what I have heard today it sounds like those curb ramps should comply
with ADAG including detectible warnings an that there are no ee
equivalent lapts from the research that\'s been done to trun Kateed
domes so therefore in a private development curb ramp would be a trun
Kateed dome.

This is Lisa from my perspective that sounds correct and the reason for
that would be, the ADAG that they have to follow is the same ADAG that
federal highways would point people to and the same section I sighted to
you in my presentation and that\'s because, the ADAG under title 3 is
attached to the appendix A to part 26 which is the justice regulation
for private entities covered by the rch DA and it just so happens that
the detectible warnings requirement is essential the same. When we have
a public right of way regulation out. That public right of way would
trump what is in title 3. But until that occurs you\'d be looking at the
same requirement for both.

My question to you Lisa is triggered by last question is that is is
because detectible warnings will be dropped in the future. Um,
regulations right now it\'s required in the private sector, um, who will
be requiring the uniformity of these big resorts which have huge
pedestrian networks an shopping centers to condition to the access for
blind people or people with visual impairments in private facilities?

I guess I need to answer that in two parts. First, I\'m not entirely
familiar with the concept that they will be dropped in the future. That
would be news to me but I\'m not completely plugged into everything.

It\'s not in the current new revised standard it\'s about been talked

. I\'m not plugged into all of that.But even, if that was the case,
large private entities how that would work. They\'re com compliance
would be monitored under title 3, of of A ADAG and there only would be a
question for highways personnel where we would have a joint project for
instance, we have some questions that are been raised about tollways
where we have mixed public private partnership kind of deals an what
stades need to be used and when has liability for whasm I don\'t have
answers to those questions yet. They\'re being discussed up here in
headquarters an as soon as we have answers we\'ll let everyone know.

This is LOIS let me chafe what is happening with ADAG. When we determine
that the guidelines that wire developing for the public right of way
could be a stand alone documents that\'s one of the big changes. Um,
then it um, was possible to um, restrict detectible warning use to the
public right away which was a recommend dawtion of the ADAG revisory
committee. So work on sites would not be subject to the detectible
warning when it becomes the standard um, for title 3 which is expected
in 2 years or so when the justice department completes it\'s
administrative work to adot those guidelines our work on them is
finished bureau they\'re not yet enforce ful so it reminutes the
standard to that must be followed.

This is BZ. Iwould like to just follow-up on that with a note that um,
it has the same technical specifications that the new ADAG and the draft
guidelines for accessible rights of way have. That does not scope in
terms of international could counsel has not included in their scoping
document precisely where this technical standard applies but where it\'s
issues then the specification is the same.

I would also like if I may to address one of the things that was
previously submitted that relates earlier during LOIS\'s presentation of
the ce question committed was what is the it will rans dm terms of where
for detectible warnings. We lated questions were um, I think how how
much loss in the height would require replacement and then, if as a
panel that is recessed so the tops of domes are level with the surround
is that an okay thing. Ijust like to give research perspective on
that.One thin thing is that there is no research that has addressed any
of those head on. LOIS mentioned research in Japan that indicated that
um, .125 was detectible.That\'s not quite right LOIS. The Japanese
research on height which is the only research that the really has been
done on height, per se, um, I\'ll have to give you this in millimeter
but the .23 .2 inches core ponds to that and found that not to be very
detectible. Um, and then they\'re next range was 5-millimeter an then
7.5-millimeter which they found was hazard ous. Their conclusion was it
need to be at 5-millimeter. Iwhich wish they had tested more ranges but
they didn\'t. So we don\'t really have an answer to that yet. Um, I
think in terms of um, recessing the panels I can absolutely understand
why this might make sense from a um, maintenance and dur abilityd point
of view and it may be a good way to go. We don\'t know what that does in
terms of detect ability. My hunch is that it perhaps reduces detect
ability. Such that you might need a greater depth in the travel
direction in order to reach the haim shy detect abl that we do. \-- same
high detectability that we do.We don\'t know the answer to that yet.

what about people with par kind son\'s disease that should havele \--
should shuffle. That is has there been any research on that.

I did research um, in the early 90s for federal transit administration
that was looking at the impact of detectible warnings with people with
mobility imparmentses an we did put them on slopes such as curb rather
curb ramps, we tested that with 40 people with mobility impairments that
were chose ton be representative that were most liek likely to have
difficult. They were not broadly representative of the entire range of
people with mobility impairments but it was a targeted sample directed
at people expected to have difficulties and we did not find that people
with um, if I didn\'t have specifically anybody with par kind sons
disease but with compromised gait that there was any major impact. So
this is the research that I did did not find that um and some subsequent
research um, done by Ryan hues also did not find that.

The work that was done at Virginia tech while it didn\'t specifically
isolate user groups by gait, did not find that any of the users of the
deckable warnings, which included people purving strollers, pushing
grocery carts over them had any material difficult divvy. When the tech
cral provisions were temporarily suspended was to follow-up the many
many reports that detectible warnings had caused slips an falls or
accidents or um, other things that it got to the um, to the point of
becoming an urban legend I think so personally I followed up on every
report, that um, I was told of and could not identify a single liability
issue that arose as a result of a use of the detectible warnings. One
has been reported to me since, that I\'m having trouble following up on
just because of pry have privacy reasons of. It\'s been alleged that an
elderly passenger fell as a result of detectible warnings but as I said
I have not been able to obtain nem anymore information.

This is Ken Stewart. Iwill offer another angle to this and that is I
have evidence that people with unsteady gaits appreciate it because it
warns them of the flair nas spriet surprise them particularly if they
hit it at a per pen Dick ewe lar direction of warning. The more
predictable the ramp is the more likely they are to be visually warned
to watch out for that flair.

This is Lloyd, federal highway administration in Montana. Iwould like to
have thinking from the group and please for those out there on the panel
that have solved this dilemma I would like to get discussion going on
about this. There has been discussion about it.It\'s a whole suggest
dealing with resurfacing projects an scoping the project considering the
ramps of the ramps will be installed so even on miner resurfacing we\'re
going to be installing ramps where we don\'t exist. Bear in mind this is
a case where we have some system that triggers the pavement upgrade to
protect the investment. Let\'s say we have a 8 block long
corridor.Something like 32 corners and we don\'t have anything scoped
for the concrete. It\'s all just replacing it with a very small overlay.
Among that we have some that extended but some didn\'t. Maybe some of
them put in biby private interest and do not meet theed it today. It
wasn\'t the work of the public agency, per se, so you have this whole
Pope rye thing that something is wrong with them. Slow trun Kateed domes
no landing. You get a dprowp of people together to try to scope the
project about what is the right thing to do. Considering this 32 32
corners don\'t meet today\'s standards. Any response? this is

This is really a question for Lisa. Iwould like to note that the
technical standards absent the it cancal warnings haven\'t changed since
1973. Um, so, those inadequate curb ramps probably have been in
violation for a long time.

Um, I would on this question you have what to do about wlur 32 corners.
You really do have to ask two questions. And the answer to the first one
may many you don\'t have to answer the second one and the first one is
are you dealing with a resurfacing all ration project. In our knew
guidance we\'re trying to give detailed as we can manage guidance on
what is an alteration project and what season. The general rule of thumb
is an alteration project is something that changes the use ability of
the street/sidewalk, an, that if its maintenance it\'s not an
alteration. Now the line for resurfacing is something that is coming
under great debate up here in headquarters, and weather when we can give
um, an easy answer such as, an inch or inch half something like that I
don\'t have those answers for you right now. It\'s an alteration if
you\'re changing the structural capacity of the use of the roadway.
However, if it\'s non-structural an simply maintenance. Then, it\'s in
not an alteration. An you don\'t have to look at doing anything to all
of those 32 corners, if it\'s structural an therefore an alteration then
you have to bring it up to ADAG standards.

It makes sense and I did review our preliminary draft and it troubles me
just a little bit of use of the term structural.

Okay um,

Excuse me I\'m going to have to bow out Lisa. Ihave another engagements.
I\'m sorry I\'m going to have to hang up. This is jean with space
options in Hawaii. Bye-bye bye.

Thanks jean.

Here\'s what I would like to do.

To follow-up on that Lisa. It becomes ver arguable. If we\'re replacing
in kind we\'re techically have not Don anything to aller that section.
So a 4-inch, a 6-inch, a 8-inch, a 10.We have with techically Don
nothing to change the number of is that pave mnts section. Here\'s what
I would ask then.Ireally can\'t give you anymore guidance because it\'s
not public yet. And I\'m just not allowed to talk about it. Um, I would
love it if you would ckt me later. And we connect discuss the terms with
about that so we can open up to what is coming up or make sure is gets
on the list.

I hope we still have other folks out there from other eaks on the line
and I would be interested in somebody\'s responses on how other agencies
have dealt with it.

This is Elizabeth from Texas D.O.T. and Lisa I have a similar concern
about the term structural to me it takes the debate over what is
maintenance and moves it over to what is structural.

You\'re correct and our concern is changes thecy matics of the debate
and not the meaning.

I don\'t you know in my reeding an rereading. Hiem not a lawyer, I\'m an
engineer. But you know it didn\'t talk about anything like that about
the trur structure of the road it seemed to be focussed on improving the
use ability of the road for the public that\'s driving on it. So here in
Texas so far, we\'ve been removing barers even with sale coat projects.
Accept we don\'t do it as part of the same project generally because the
contractors that do sale coat and overlay work are not well versed in
curb work construction. So that\'s a separate project.

certainy if you\'re tawrking about a sale coke that would \-- if you\'re
talking about a seat coat that would be mains would be maintenance.
Pedestrian access has to be occur at the same time as the project where
if it\'s not it occurs in the \[INAUDIBLE \] that timing issue is
critical so, there\'s great debate on

: XExcuse me it would be very helpful if someone identifies who they are
wehn tehy speak this is kristen this.Ican you know do my best to bring
things into this upcoming guidance or whatever follows it. And I\'m
sorry I can\'t be more helpful in

This is pat phlegming from Wisconsin D.O.T. Something that has not been
addressed. That has to do with sidewalk and cross railroads an according
to the manual uniform traffic control device. Some other states are
thank are using 15 feet and we\'re going that direction. Is the access
Board looked to that or will that be addressed in the new draft or any
comment on that?

Hi this is LOIS. My mind was wandering would you repeat it please?

Yeah it has to do with sidewalks crossing railroads an I think um, I had
spoken to you back in August I think LOIS and you referred me to Dennis
canon about this issue.

You\'re asking about the location of the deckable warnings.

Yeah we have worked with um, FRA and the American association of
railroads an we have yeah defined um, ady dimension for the distance.
Since then we have seen what New York state and others have done and
have refined it even a little bit more so look to draft 2 for a better
description of the set back.

Um okay so there is nothing you can see at this time whether 15 is good
or bad.

No 15 is in line with what we\'re going to be using. Ithink I responded
on the list serve quoting the provision. The draft poition.

Okay so 15 wiewr saying you\'re saying is good.

I have a question for the panel mark. Ken Stewart in New York and John
cap Lynn in particularly infornled on this cast iron the material
durability. Visibility. Slippery iness.

Um, I can\'t tell you about dur abl ability yt because we have only had
our first installations of cast iron in Vermont happened just within the
last month. Um, I have been just sort of casually looking at the um, the
contrast issue and um, certainly you know in there installed state, they
do provide a contrast to the surrounding concrete um,

Somebody expressed concern about slipperiness do we know about the
coefficient on that

Not in any Kwan taitive way but I think that they certainly are both the
products have um, kind of some smaller raised dots on top of the domes
an the background.

Texture.

Yes. And I expect durability wise they\'re going to work well an the
fact I had a concern from a municipality when I told them there was this
cast iron product available the concern switched from are the domes
going to hold up to what is it going to do with our sidewalk plows?

I like the idea that the residents to obtain.

That\'s right and um, what else was I going to say? you know if you look
at how well man hole covers which are head from the same covers hold up
to snow plowing and to their color contrast.

I Ihave high expectations they\'re similar to other projects
installation wise but I had heard they they were a back injury waiting
to happen for the contractors. They\'re 75 pounds a piece for the 2 by 2
panel.

This is Pete from the Wisconsin D.O.T. we\'ve been using an informal
durability test where I set the panel up in a jig an put a snow plow on
the product an run 50 cycles on that product to take a look at what it
looks like after that and document each ten republicans on it and \--
REPS on it an the cast iron has done well. An the contrast is we had the
Company supply us the cast iron painted yellow and even painted the dur
abilityd of that paint did we will. Slip resistant I don\'t have a
number but it\'s very slip resistant much more so then any other product
in my opinion.

I\'m going to propose we give up that confroans. \-- conference. We have
had good questions there is a lot of material to follow-up on and we\'ll
be able to lead into a second conference in a month or two. any more
discussion from the expert panelists I think there are three of you
left. Would any of you like to address anything in your own choice?

that\'s a no than huh.

This is Pete Kemp from Wisconsin D.O.T. Ihad one question I would like
to pose before we closed and this had to deal with curb ramps in
radiuses. Whiz D.O.T. has tried to provide two ramps per intersection as
a another way to queue awe non-qish all queue an we have been installing
the detectible warning feel fields in line with the direction of travel
with the ramp as such some of these, um, curb ramps um, per se, both
wheels may not hit in a wheelchairs a wheelchair user may use it. And
um, are those in compliance or out of compliance?

Well this sounds like one for me this is LOIS.Because of the general
requirements that an access accessible route have a consistent running
an croas slope, anything that requires a turn on a ramp or um, would put
one caster or drive wheel over a great break before the other, um is
going to be um consideredu um, non-compliant. Um, I tried to gloss that
a little bit in my presentation showing the great break in the top an
the bottom of a ramp need to be parallel. If have you a blened
transition these considerations don\'t apply.

nem anymore discussion for Pete?

This is rob Mcman from the South Dakota division an I know we have
identified a lot of things that may require additional research that
type of stuff. Is there a need or thoughts on possibly doing a study to
address some of these items?

This is mark I have heard the mention of pool funds. Does anybody want
to talk about it?

I believe we have about reached our limit on this conference and I will
follow-up on the pool fund question because it has come up in the last
couple of months. Ihaven\'t got anything definitive to offer about it
other than I heard heard it discussed so it would pocket be a topic for
a pool fund. Ithink with that I\'m going to thank everybody for their
parmtion. We have gone almost an hour over. There is still 37 people
logged on so it must be a topic of interest. Any other final topics from
anybody?

Hi mark this is LOIS. Icertainly would welcome the opportunity to do
more of this. An to um, have more input from listeners as as to what
would be useful in terms of a follow-up. This is an area where a number
of different individuals have useful parts of the whole but nobody has
everything. And so this kind of collaboration is very useful.

With that I\'m going to thank you all and adjourn this tell conference
am we\'ll follow-up on the FHWA discussion Board. The community of
practice LOIS is facilitator of that as am I. Thank you Paul for all for
joinings.

Thank you for having us.

Bye-bye.

Thanks.

Bye-bye.

[^1]: This web conference is associated with the FHWA-sponsored
    Detectable Warning Community of Practice:
    <http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/dw>

[^2]: Mark R. Chandler, PE, CMfgE

    Technology Transfer/Quality Engineer; Marketing

    U.S. DOT - FHWA Wisconsin Division

    567 D\'Onofrio Dr. - Suite 100

    Madison, WI 53719-2844

    office: 608-829-7514

    fax: 608-829-7526

    mark.chandler@fhwa.dot.gov

[^3]: /media/pszemraj/PeterTrove/project-files/DATA/ms-word-files/big-DOC/067654.doc