Web Conference on Truncated Dome Detectable Warnings
Monday Aug. 1, 2005, noon to 2 pm EST
Sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration  and
Hosted by the National Highway Institute
This web conference is associated with the FHWA-sponsored  Detectable Warning Community of Practice: http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/dw
For further information, contact:
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
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.