17064 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

as alerts, airspeed, attitude, altitude and 

direction, approach guidance, 

windshear guidance, TCAS resolution 

advisories, or unusual-attitude recovery 

cues. 

e. The SVS image and the HUD 

symbols, which are spatially referenced 

to the pitch scale, outside view, and 

image, must be scaled and aligned (i.e., 

conformal) to the external scene. In 

addition, the SVS image and the HUD 

symbols—when considered singly or in 

combination—must not be misleading, 

cause pilot confusion, or increase 

workload. Airplane attitudes or crosswind conditions may cause certain 

symbols (e.g., the zero-pitch line or 

flight-path vector) to reach field-of-view 

limits, such that they cannot be 

positioned conformally with the image 

and external scene. In such cases, these 

symbols may be displayed but with an 

altered appearance that makes the pilot 

aware that they are no longer displayed 

conformally (for example, ‘‘ghosting’’). 

The combined use of symbology and 

runway image may not be used for path 

monitoring when path symbology is no 

longer conformal. 

f. A HUD system used to display SVS 

images must, if previously certified, 

continue to meet all of the requirements 

of the original approval. 

3. The safety and performance of the 

pilot tasks associated with the use of the 

pilot-compartment view must not be 

degraded by the display of the SVS 

image. These tasks include the 

following: 

a. Detection, accurate identification 

and maneuvering, as necessary, to avoid 

traffic, terrain, obstacles, and other 

flight hazards. 

b. Accurate identification and 

utilization of visual references required 

for every task relevant to the phase of 

flight. 

4. Appropriate limitations must be 

stated in the Operating Limitations 

section of the Airplane Flight Manual to 

prohibit the use of the SVS for functions 

that have not been found to be 

acceptable. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

18, 2011. 

K.C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7147 Filed 3–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ARCHITECTURAL AND 

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS 

COMPLIANCE BOARD 

36 CFR Chapter XI 

[Docket No. 2011–02] 

RIN 3014–AA41 

Shared Use Path Accessibility 

Guidelines 

AGENCY: Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board (Access Board) is issuing this 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) to develop 

accessibility guidelines for shared use 

paths. Shared use paths are designed for 

both transportation and recreation 

purposes and are used by pedestrians, 

bicyclists, skaters, equestrians, and 

other users. The guidelines will include 

technical provisions for making newly 

constructed and altered shared use 

paths covered by the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 

(ABA) accessible to persons with 

disabilities. 

DATES: Submit comments by June 27, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Regulations.gov ID for this docket is 

ATBCB–2011–0002. 

• E-mail: sharedusepathrule@accessboard.gov. Include docket number 

2011–02 or RIN number 3014–AA41 in 

the subject line of the message. 

• Fax: 202–272–0081. 

• Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Office of Technical and Informational 

Services, U.S. Access Board, 1331 F 

Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, 

DC 20004–1111. 

All comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peggy H. Greenwell, Office of Technical 

and Information Services, Access Board, 

1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000, 

Washington, DC 20004–1111. 

Telephone number: 202–272–0017 

(voice); 202–272–0082 (TTY). Electronic 

mail address: greenwell@accessboard.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board (Access 

Board) is responsible for developing 

accessibility guidelines to ensure that 

new construction and alterations of 

facilities subject to the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 

U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and the 

Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) of 

1968 (42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq.) are readily 

accessible to and usable by individuals 

with disabilities. The ADA applies to 

state and local governments, places of 

public accommodation, and commercial 

facilities. The ABA applies to facilities 

designed, built, altered, or leased with 

Federal funds. 

In separate rulemakings, the Board is 

developing accessibility guidelines for 

outdoor developed areas, including 

trails, and accessibility guidelines for 

pedestrian facilities in the public rightof-way, including sidewalks. 

The Board issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the 

outdoor developed areas accessibility 

guidelines, including trails, under the 

ABA in 2007. 72 FR 34074 (June 20, 

2007). The NPRM was based on a 

consensus report containing 

recommended accessibility guidelines 

for trails and other outdoor elements 

from the Board’s Regulatory Negotiation 

Committee on Outdoor Developed 

Areas. The Board made available for 

public review a draft of the final 

outdoor developed areas accessibility 

guidelines in 2009. The NPRM and draft 

of the final outdoor developed areas 

accessibility guidelines included 

technical provisions for trails. 

References in this notice to the ‘‘Trails 

Guidelines’’ refer to the 2009 draft of the 

final outdoor developed areas 

accessibility guidelines (see http:// 

www.access-board.gov/outdoor/draftfinal.htm). 

The Board will issue a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for 

pedestrian facilities in the public rightsof-way accessibility guidelines, 

including sidewalks, in the summer of 

2011. The Board made available for 

public review drafts of the proposed 

public rights-of-way accessibility 

guidelines in 2002 and 2005. The drafts 

of the proposed public rights-of-way 

accessibility guidelines included 

technical provisions for pedestrian 

access routes within sidewalks. 

References in this notice to the 

‘‘Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk 

Guidelines’’ refer to the 2005 draft of the 

proposed public rights-of-way 

accessibility guidelines (see http:// 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17065 

1The Department of Justice and Department of 

Transportation are authorized to issue enforceable 

accessibility standards for the ADA. The General 

Services Administration, Department of Defense, 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

and United States Postal Service are authorized to 

issue enforceable accessibility standards for the 

ABA. 

www.access-board.gov/prowac/ 

draft.htm). 

Public comments received during 

these rulemakings raised questions 

about applying the technical provisions 

for trails and pedestrian access routes 

within sidewalks to shared use paths. 

Commenters recommended that the 

Board develop specific accessibility 

guidelines for shared use paths that 

address their unique characteristics. The 

Board agrees that shared use paths differ 

sufficiently from trails and sidewalks to 

warrant specific guidelines for making 

them accessible. 

Applicability 

Like all of the Board’s accessibility 

guidelines, the guidelines for shared use 

paths will apply to newly constructed 

and altered facilities. When the Board’s 

final guidelines are adopted by other 

Federal agencies authorized to issue 

ADA or ABA standards, they will be 

enforceable.1 The Board’s guidelines do 

not address existing facilities unless the 

facilities are included in the scope of an 

alteration undertaken at the discretion 

of a covered entity. The Department of 

Justice has issued separate regulations 

on program accessibility for State and 

local governments and on barrier 

removal for places of public 

accommodation owned or operated by 

private entities that address existing 

facilities that are not altered. 28 CFR 

35.150 and 28 CFR 36.304. When the 

Department of Justice initiates 

rulemaking to adopt the shared use path 

accessibility guidelines as accessibility 

standards, the Department of Justice 

will address how program accessibility 

and barrier removal apply to existing 

shared use paths that are not altered. 

Comments concerning shared use paths 

that are not altered should be directed 

to the Department of Justice when it 

initiates rulemaking to adopt the shared 

use path accessibility guidelines as 

accessibility standards. 

Key Differences Between Shared Use 

Paths, Trails, Sidewalks, and 

Accessible Routes 

Shared use paths are a type of trail 

designed to be part of a transportation 

system, providing off-road routes for a 

variety of users. The primary users of 

shared use paths are bicyclists and 

pedestrians, including pedestrians using 

mobility devices such as manual or 

motorized wheelchairs. While they may 

coincidently provide a recreational 

experience, shared use paths differ from 

other types of trails with their 

transportation focus and serving as a 

supplement to on-road bike lanes, 

shared roadways, bike boulevards, and 

paved shoulders. They may extend or 

complement a roadway network. Shared 

use path design is similar to roadway 

design but on a smaller scale and for 

lower speeds. Whether located within a 

highway right-of-way, provided along a 

riverbank, or established over natural 

terrain within an independent right-ofway, shared use paths differ from 

sidewalks and trails in that they are 

primarily designed for bicyclists and 

others for transportation purposes such 

as commuting to work. 

Trails, on the other hand, are 

designed primarily for recreational 

purposes. Since they are not designed 

with a transportation focus, they are 

typically not parallel to a roadway. 

Trails are pedestrian routes developed 

primarily for outdoor recreational 

purposes and do not connect elements, 

spaces, or facilities within a site. Trails 

are largely designed for pedestrians and 

other users to ‘‘experience’’ the outdoors 

and may be used by a variety of users, 

but they are not designed for 

transportation purposes. 

Sidewalks are located in a public 

right-of-way and typically are parallel to 

a roadway. Consequently, sidewalk 

grades (running slopes) must be 

generally consistent with roadway 

grades so that they fit into the right-ofway. Sidewalks are designed for 

pedestrians and are not designed for 

bicycles or other recreational purposes. 

American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

Guide on Bicycle Facilities and Shared 

Use Paths 

The American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) advocates transportationrelated policies and provides technical 

services to support states in their efforts 

to efficiently and safely move people 

and goods. AASHTO develops and 

publishes more than 125 volumes of 

standards and guidelines that are used 

worldwide in the design, construction, 

maintenance, operation, and 

administration of highways, bridges, 

and other transportation facilities. 

AASHTO is considered a leading source 

of information related to the design and 

construction of pedestrian and bicycle 

facilities. The Board has worked closely 

with AASHTO over the years in 

developing accessibility criteria for 

pedestrian facilities and shared use 

paths. AASHTO developed the ‘‘Guide 

for the Planning, Design, and Operation 

of Pedestrian Facilities’’ (July 2004) and 

the ‘‘Guide for the Development of 

Bicycle Facilities’’ (1999). Although 

compliance with these AASHTO 

documents is voluntary, many states 

adopt these AASHTO documents as 

standards. 

In February 2010, AASHTO made 

available draft revisions to the 1999 

‘‘Guide for the Development of Bicycle 

Facilities.’’ The February 2010 draft is 

named the ‘‘Guide for Planning, Design, 

and Operation of Bicycle Facilities.’’ 

References in this notice to the 

AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide refer 

to the February 2010 draft of the ‘‘Guide 

for Guide for Planning, Design, and 

Operation of Bicycle Facilities.’’ Chapter 

5 of the AASHTO Bicycle Facilities 

Guide contains technical provisions for 

shared use paths. Chapter 5 applies a 

combination of the technical provisions 

in Board’s Trails Guidelines and 

Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk 

Guidelines to shared use paths. The 

Board’s rulemaking on shared use paths 

is timely given AASHTO’s current plan 

to revise its guide for bicycle facilities 

and shared use paths. This rulemaking 

presents an opportunity for AASHTO 

and the Board to coordinate their efforts. 

AASHTO and the Board share a 

common interest in providing clear and 

consistent technical provisions for 

designers, owners and operators of 

shared use paths. The Board welcomes 

this opportunity. 

Information Meeting on Shared Use 

Paths 

On September 13, 2010, the Board 

held a public information meeting in 

conjunction with the ProWalk/ProBike 

2010 Conference convened by the 

National Center for Bicycling and 

Walking. This was an opportunity for 

individuals with disabilities, designers 

of shared use paths, and other interested 

parties to provide information to assist 

the Access Board to consider how best 

to approach the development of 

accessibility guidelines for shared use 

paths. The meeting featured 

representatives from the State of 

Washington Department of 

Transportation, Florida Department of 

Transportation, AASHTO, and the 

Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA). Meeting participants 

addressed major issues, including how 

to define shared use paths and possible 

technical provisions. Input from this 

meeting is reflected in this notice. 

Request for Public Comment 

The Board seeks input from the 

public, including individuals with 

disabilities, and from representatives of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

17066 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Federal, State, or local governments, 

public transportation organizations, and 

industry professionals regarding matters 

covered in this notice. In particular, the 

Board invites comments on the draft 

definition of ‘‘shared use path’’ and draft 

technical provisions in this document. 

Please provide responses to the specific 

questions included in the notice and 

provide any additional information that 

may assist the Board to further refine 

the draft definition and technical 

provisions. 

Shared Use Path Definition 

Given the similarity between exterior 

pedestrian routes, including shared use 

paths, sidewalks, trails, and accessible 

routes, it is important to define the term 

‘‘shared use path’’ used in this document 

in order to minimize any potential 

confusion regarding applicable 

accessibility criteria. 

To accomplish this, the Board has 

developed a draft definition for ‘‘shared 

use path’’. AASHTO and several city, 

state, and Federal agencies have 

developed definitions; however, 

currently there is no universally 

accepted definition. The table below 

includes some of those definitions. 

Source Definition: Shared use path 

AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide ............................................................

http://design.transportation.org/Documents/ 

DraftBikeGuideFeb2010.pdf. 

A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an 

open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or 

within an independent right-of-way. Shared use paths may also be 

used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other 

nonmotorized users. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration .....

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/freeways.htm. 

The term ‘‘shared use path’’ means a multi-use trail or other path, 

physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open 

space or barrier, either within a highway right-of-way or within an 

independent right-of-way, and usable for transportation purposes. 

Shared use paths may be used by pedestrians, bicyclists, skaters, 

equestrians, and other nonmotorized users. 

State of Washington, Department of Transportation ...............................

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M22-01.htm. 

A facility physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic within the 

highway right-of-way or on an exclusive right of way with minimal 

crossflow by motor vehicles. Primarily used by pedestrians and 

bicyclists, shared use paths are also used by joggers, skaters, 

wheelchair users (both nonmotorized and motorized), equestrians, 

and other nonmotorized users. 

In related rulemaking, the Board 

developed a definition for ‘‘trails’’ in the 

Trails Guidelines and will reference the 

2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices (MUTCD) definition of 

‘‘sidewalks’’ in the Pedestrian Access 

Route—Sidewalk Guidelines. These 

definitions are provided below for 

comparison to the above definitions of 

‘‘shared use path.’’ 

Trail. A pedestrian route developed 

primarily for outdoor recreational 

purposes. A pedestrian route developed 

primarily to connect elements, spaces, 

or facilities within a site is not a trail. 

(Trails Guidelines, Section F106.5) 

Sidewalk. That portion of a street 

between the curb line, or the lateral line 

of a roadway, and the adjacent property 

line or on easements of private property 

that is paved or improved and intended 

for use by pedestrians. (2009 MUTCD 

Section 1A.13.192) 

Participants attending the information 

meeting in September 2010 held in 

conjunction with the ProWalk/ProBike 

meeting noted the need for a definition 

of ‘‘shared use path.’’ They identified the 

key characteristics of a shared use path. 

The focus on a ‘‘transportation’’ purpose 

and ‘‘multi-use’’ were found to be 

primary factors distinguishing shared 

use paths from sidewalks and trails. 

Shared use paths are designed primarily 

for bicycles and pedestrians. The Board 

has used this input to develop the draft 

definition below. 

Shared Use Path. A shared use path 

is a multi-use path designed for both 

transportation and recreation purposes. 

Shared use paths typically are separated 

from motorized vehicular traffic by an 

open space or barrier, either within a 

highway right-of-way or within an 

independent right-of-way. 

Shared use paths are used by 

pedestrians and bicyclists, joggers, 

skaters, wheelchair users (both 

nonmotorized and motorized), 

equestrians, and other nonmotorized 

users. The draft definition does not 

include a list of all the groups that may 

use a shared use path. The purpose of 

the definition is to clarify when to apply 

the scoping and technical provisions for 

these paths. Local jurisdictions have 

authority to establish permissible uses 

on shared use paths. The Department of 

Justice (DOJ) ADA regulations require 

local jurisdictions to permit individuals 

with mobility disabilities to use 

manually-operated and power-driven 

wheelchairs in any areas open to the 

public. See 28 CFR 35.137 (a) as 

amended on September 15, 2010 (75 FR 

56178). The DOJ ADA regulations 

further require local jurisdictions to 

establish policies regarding the use of 

other power-driven mobility devices by 

individuals with mobility disabilities 

subject to legitimate safety 

requirements. See 28 CFR 35.137 (b) as 

amended on September 15, 2010 (75 FR 

56178). FHWA has issued similar 

guidance regarding use of other powerdriven mobility devices by individuals 

with mobility disabilities on pedestrian 

routes funded with Federal-aid highway 

funds. See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

environment/bikeped/framework.htm. 

Question 1. Does the draft definition 

of ‘‘shared use path’’ sufficiently 

distinguish these paths from trails and 

sidewalks? If not, please provide any 

recommendations that would strengthen 

this distinction. 

Draft Technical Provisions for Shared 

Use Paths 

Based on input at the information 

meeting in September 2010 and other 

sources, the Board has developed draft 

technical provisions for shared use 

paths and invites public comment. 

Discussion follows each of the draft 

technical provisions. For some of the 

draft provisions, we have provided 

tables showing corresponding 

provisions for sidewalks in the 

Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk 

Guidelines; trails in the Trails 

Guidelines; and shared use paths in the 

February 2010 draft AASHTO Bicycle 

Facilities Guide. The draft technical 

provisions establish criteria for the 

following components of a shared use 

path: surface; changes in level (vertical 

alignment and surface discontinuities); 

horizontal openings; width; grade and 

cross slope; protruding objects; gates 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17067 

and barriers; and intersections and curb 

ramps. 

Question 2. What technical 

provisions, if any, should apply where 

separate unpaved paths are provided for 

equestrian use? Additional information 

and guidance on this issue is welcomed. 

1. Surface 

Surface. The surface of the shared use 

path shall be firm, stable, and slip 

resistant. 

A firm, stable, and slip resistant 

surface is necessary for persons with 

disabilities using wheeled mobility 

devices. Bicyclists with narrow-tired 

bicycles and in-line skaters also need a 

hard, durable surface. Shared use paths 

typically are comprised of asphalt or 

concrete and these surfaces are 

generally accessible for people with 

disabilities. These surfaces perform well 

in inclement weather and require 

minimal maintenance. Unpaved 

surfaces that are firm, stable, and slip 

resistant may be used; however, they 

may erode over time requiring regular 

maintenance. 

Surface Provisions 

Access Board Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk Guidelines ............. Firm, stable, and slip resistant. 

Access Board Trail Guidelines ................................................................. Firm and stable. 

AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide ............................................................ Hard, durable surface such as asphalt or Portland cement concrete 

recommended. 

2. Changes in Level 

Vertical Alignment. Vertical 

alignment shall be planar within curb 

ramp runs, blended transitions, 

landings, and gutter areas within the 

shared use path. Grade breaks shall be 

flush. Where the shared use path crosses 

rail tracks at grade, the surface of the 

shared use path shall be level and flush 

with the top of the rail at the outer edges 

of the rail. The surface between the rails 

shall be aligned with the top of the rail. 

Surface Discontinuities. Surface 

discontinuities shall not exceed 0.50 

inch (13 mm) maximum. Vertical 

discontinuities between 0.25 inch (6.4 

mm) and 0.5 inch (13 mm) maximum 

shall be beveled at 1:2 maximum. The 

bevel shall be applied across the entire 

level change. 

In addition to firm, stable, and slip 

resistant surfaces, smooth surfaces are 

also necessary for the safe use of 

wheeled mobility devices, as well as 

bicycles and in-line skaters. The draft 

technical provisions allow vertical 

changes in level up to 1⁄4 inch without 

treatment and other vertical changes in 

level from 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch if they are 

beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2. 

Surfaces with individual units laid out 

of plane and those that are heavily 

textured, rough, or chamfered, will 

greatly increase rolling resistance and 

will subject pedestrians who use 

wheelchairs, scooters, and rolling 

walkers to the stressful (and often 

painful) effects of vibration. Surface 

discontinuities are also dangerous for 

bicyclists and in-line skaters. It is highly 

desirable to minimize surface 

discontinuities. However, when 

discontinuities are unavoidable, they 

should be widely separated. 

3. Horizontal Openings 

Joints and Gratings. Openings shall 

not permit passage of a sphere more 

than 0.5 inch (13 mm) in diameter. 

Elongated openings shall be placed so 

that the long dimension is 

perpendicular to the dominant direction 

of travel. 

Flangeway Gaps at Non-Freight Rail 

Crossings. Openings for wheel flanges at 

pedestrian crossings of non-freight rail 

track shall be 2.5 inches (64 mm) 

maximum. 

Flangeway Gaps at Freight Rail 

Crossings. Openings for wheel flanges at 

pedestrian crossings of freight rail track 

shall be 3 inches (75 mm) maximum. 

Surface openings or gaps must be 

minimized in order to ensure a smooth 

surface on shared-use paths. Utility 

covers and drainage grates can be 

hazards and, for the safety of all users, 

must be treated. Special treatment is 

necessary where shared use paths cross 

railroad crossings, both freight and nonfreight for the safe passage of wheeled 

mobility devices, as well as bicycles and 

other users. The AASHTO Bicycle 

Facilities Guide recommends that 

railroad crossings be smooth and be 

designed at an angle between 60 and 90 

degrees to the direction of travel in 

order to minimize the danger of falls. 

The draft technical provisions for 

surface gaps in shared use paths are 

consistent with the draft provisions in 

the Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk 

Guidelines. In most cases, the 

guidelines will require surface gaps or 

openings on shared use paths to be no 

wider than 1/2 inch. However, this 

specification is not practicable at rail 

tracks where gaps must be at least 21⁄2

inches to safely accommodate rail car 

wheel flanges. Due to variations in load 

and wheel play, the gap must be even 

larger (3 inches) to accommodate heavy 

freight trains. The Board is aware that 

such a gap can trap wheelchair caster 

wheels which are prone to turning 

sideways against vertical displacements, 

even slight ones but is unaware of a way 

to resolve this conflict. 

4. Width 

Width. The clear width of shared use 

paths shall be 5 feet (1.5 m) minimum. 

The AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide 

recommends the paved width for a 

shared use path to be 10 feet minimum. 

Typically, widths range from 10 to 14 

feet with the wider ranges in areas with 

high use or when planning for a wider 

variety of user groups. In very rare 

circumstances, a reduced width of 8 feet 

may be used. Wider shared use paths 

also are recommended where the path is 

used by larger maintenance vehicles; on 

steep grades to provide additional 

passing area; or through curves to 

provide more operating space. 

The Board is considering requiring 

accessible shared use paths to provide at 

least 5 feet minimum width to address 

those rare circumstances where the 

AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide is not 

applied so that sufficient space is 

provided for wheelchair turning and to 

allow wheelchair users and others to 

pass one another. 

Width Provisions 

Access Board Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk Guidelines ............. 4 feet minimum. 

Access Board Trail Guidelines ................................................................. 3 feet minimum. 

AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide ............................................................ 10 feet minimum (in rare cases, 8 feet minimum). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

17068 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5. Grade and Cross Slope 

Grade. The maximum grade of a 

shared use path shall be 5 percent. 

Exception: Where the shared use path 

is contained within a street or highway 

border, its grade shall not exceed the 

general grade established for the 

adjacent street or highway. 

Individuals with disabilities using 

wheeled mobility devices generally 

need less steep slopes in order to 

conserve energy and to better maintain 

control of the wheeled mobility device. 

For these reasons, the Board is 

considering a 5 percent maximum grade 

on newly constructed and altered 

shared paths that are not contained 

within a street or highway border. The 

AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide 

recommends that grades greater than 5 

percent are undesirable for a variety of 

reasons. Bicyclists may find ascents 

over-taxing and descents uncomfortable 

where speed is likely to build. Steep 

grades affect the safety of all users, 

particularly where multiple types of 

users are on the path at the same time. 

For example, pedestrians with 

disabilities may have difficulty avoiding 

faster moving bicycles. More 

importantly, however, pedestrians with 

disabilities are likely to experience 

greater difficulty traveling on steeper 

slopes than others. 

Grade (running slope) Provisions 

Access Board Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk Guidelines ........................ Where pedestrian access route within a sidewalk is contained 

within a street or highway border, its grade shall not exceed the 

general grade established for the adjacent street or highway. 

Access Board Trail Guidelines ............................................................................ Running Slope of Trail Segment Maximum Length of 

Segment 

Steeper than But not steeper 

than 

1:20 1:12 200 feet (61 m). 

1:12 1:10 30 feet (9 m). 

1:10 1:8 10 feet (3050 mm). 

* No more than 30 percent of the total length of a trail shall 

have a running slope steeper than 1:12. 

AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide ........................................................................ Grades greater than 5 percent are undesirable. 

Question 3. Are there conditions 

where a 5 percent maximum grade 

cannot be achieved on a newly 

constructed shared use path? If so, the 

Board is interested in a description of 

the specific conditions that might 

prevent compliance. The Board will 

consider providing additional 

exceptions where it may be difficult or 

impossible to meet the 5 percent 

maximum grade. 

Question 4. Should the Board provide 

guidance on how to address steeper 

segments of shared use paths when they 

cannot be avoided? For example, would 

providing space for bicyclists or 

wheelchair users to move off of the 

shared use path in order to avoid 

conflict with other traffic be helpful? 

Where the shared use path is 

contained within a street or highway 

border, the grade may not exceed the 

general grade established for the 

adjacent street or highway. This is 

consistent with the grade provisions for 

sidewalks. 

Question 5. What would be 

considered a sufficient separation 

between a shared use path and a 

roadway, or outside border of a 

roadway, where it may not be necessary 

for the shared use path to follow the 

grade of the roadway? 

Cross Slope. The maximum cross 

slope shall be 2 percent. 

Excessive cross slope (exceeding 2 

percent) is a major barrier to travel along 

shared use paths for individuals using 

wheeled mobility devices and can 

significantly impede forward progress 

on an uphill slope and compromise 

control and balance in downhill travel 

and on turns. Cross slope also 

negatively affects pedestrians who have 

braces or lower-limb prostheses and 

may use walkers or crutches, and those 

with gait, balance, and stamina 

impairments. Energy that might 

otherwise be used in forward travel 

must be expended to resist the 

perpendicular force of a cross slope 

along a route of travel. The AASHTO 

Bicycle Facilities Guide recommends a 

one percent cross slope, particularly at 

turns where bicyclists tend to lean to 

one side while turning. A one percent 

cross slope also provides sufficient 

slope to convey surface drainage in most 

situations. 

Cross Slope Provisions 

Access Board Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk Guidelines ............. The cross slope of the pedestrian access route within a sidewalk shall 

be 2 percent maximum. 

Access Board Trail Guidelines ................................................................. Where the surface is concrete, asphalt, or boards, the cross slope shall 

not be steeper than 2 percent. 

Where the surface is other than concrete, asphalt, or boards, the cross 

slope shall not be steeper than 5 percent. 

AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide ............................................................ 1 percent recommended where possible. 

Question 6. Are there conditions 

where cross slope steeper than 2 percent 

is necessary in new construction? If so, 

the Board is interested in a description 

of these specific conditions and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17069 

recommendations for appropriate 

allowances. 

6. Protruding Objects 

Protruding Objects. Protruding objects 

along or overhanging any portion of the 

shared use path shall not reduce the 

clear width of the shared use paths. 

Protrusion Limits. Objects with 

leading edges more than 27 inches (685 

mm) and not more than 80 inches (2 m) 

above the finish surface or ground shall 

not protrude more than 4 inches (100 

mm) horizontally into shared use paths. 

Post-Mounted Objects. Where objects 

are mounted on free-standing posts or 

pylons and the objects are 27 inches 

(685 mm) minimum and 80 inches 

(2030 mm) maximum above the finish 

surface or ground, the objects shall not 

overhang shared use paths more than 4 

inches (100 mm) beyond the post or 

pylon base measured 6 inches (150 mm) 

minimum above the finish surface or 

ground. Where a sign or other 

obstruction is mounted between posts or 

pylons and the clear distance between 

the posts or pylons is greater than 12 

inches (305 mm) the lowest edge of sign 

or obstruction shall be 27 inches (685 

mm) maximum or 80 inches (2 m) 

minimum above the finish surface or 

ground. 

The draft technical provisions for 

protruding objects are derived from the 

Board’s ADA and ABA Accessibility 

Guidelines and Pedestrian Access 

Route—Sidewalk Guidelines. The 

provisions addresses objects that may 

project into shared use paths in a 

manner hazardous to people with vision 

impairments. Any protrusion on a 

shared use path is considered hazardous 

for all users, including individuals with 

disabilities. These technical provisions 

would apply to the full width of the 

shared use path. Objects mounted on 

walls or posts with leading edges above 

the standard sweep of canes (27 inches) 

and below the standard head room 

clearance (80 inches) would be limited 

to a 4 inch protrusion. 

7. Gates and Barriers 

Clear Width. Where gates or other 

barriers are provided, openings in gates 

and barriers shall provide a clear width 

of 32 inches (815 mm) minimum. 

Gate Hardware. Gate hardware shall 

be operable with one hand and shall not 

require tight grasping, pinching, or 

twisting of the wrist. The force required 

to activate operable parts shall be 5 

pounds (22.2 N) maximum. Operable 

parts of such hardware shall be 34 

inches (865 mm) minimum and 48 

inches (1220 mm) maximum above the 

finish surface or ground. 

The draft technical provisions for 

gates and barriers are based on the 

Board’s ADA and ABA Accessibility 

Guidelines and Trails Guidelines. Gates 

or barriers often are wider than 32 

inches to allow for the safe passage of 

bicycles and other authorized users of 

shared use paths. The Board is 

proposing to require a 32 inch minimum 

clearance to address the rare 

circumstance where gate or barrier 

openings are deliberately narrow and 

could restrict access by wheelchair 

users unless a minimum width applies. 

A 32 inch wide clear opening provides 

the minimum clearance necessary to 

allow passage of an occupied 

wheelchair or other mobility device. 

The operation and location provisions 

for gate hardware are necessary to 

ensure that individuals with disabilities 

can operate the hardware. 

8. Intersections and Curb Ramps 

Curb Ramps and Blended Transitions 

Curb Ramps. Curb ramps shall have a 

running slope that cuts through or is 

built up to the curb at right angles or 

meets the gutter grade break at right 

angles. 

Running Slope. The running slope of 

curb ramps shall be 5 percent minimum 

and 8.3 percent maximum but shall not 

require the ramp length to exceed 15 ft. 

(4.5 m). 

Cross Slope. The cross slope of a curb 

ramp at intersections shall be 2 percent 

maximum. The cross slope of a curb 

ramp at midblock crossings shall be 

permitted to be equal to the street or 

highway grade. 

Landing. A landing 4 feet (1.2 m) 

minimum by 4 feet (1.2 m) minimum 

shall be provided at the top of the curb 

ramp and shall be permitted to overlap 

other landings and clear space. The 

running and cross slope of a curb ramp 

at midblock crossings shall be permitted 

to be equal to the street or highway 

grade. 

Blended Transitions. Where blended 

transitions are provided, the running 

slope shall be 5 percent maximum and 

cross slope shall be 2 percent maximum. 

Common Technical Provisions for Curb 

Ramps and Blended Transitions 

Width. The clear width of blended 

transitions and curb ramps, excluding 

flares, shall be at least as wide as the 

shared use path. 

Detectable Warning Surfaces. 

Detectable warning surfaces shall be 

provided where a shared use path 

connects to or crosses a roadway or 

railway crossing. 

Grade Breaks. Grade breaks at the top 

and bottom of curb ramps shall be 

perpendicular to the direction of the 

ramp run. At least one end of the bottom 

grade break shall be at the back of curb. 

Grade breaks shall not be permitted on 

the surface of curb ramps, blended 

transitions, landings, and gutter areas 

within the shared use path. Surface 

slopes that meet at grade breaks shall be 

flush. 

Counter Slopes. The counter slope of 

the gutter or street at the foot of a curb 

ramp, landing, or blended transition 

shall be 5 percent maximum. 

Clear Space. Beyond the curb face, a 

clear space of 4 feet (1.2 m) minimum 

by 4 feet. (1.2 m) minimum shall be 

provided within the width of the 

crossing. 

Detectable Warning Surfaces 

Truncated Domes. Detectable warning 

surfaces shall consist of truncated 

domes aligned in a square or radial grid 

pattern. 

Dome Size. Truncated domes in 

detectable warning surfaces shall have a 

base diameter of 0.9 inch (23 mm) 

minimum to 1.4 inches (36 mm) 

maximum, a top diameter of 50 percent 

of the base diameter minimum to 65 

percent of the base diameter maximum, 

and a height of 0.2 inch (5 mm). 

Dome Spacing. Truncated domes in a 

detectable warning surface shall have a 

center-to-center spacing of 1.6 inches 

(41 mm) minimum and 2.4 inches (61 

mm) maximum, and a base-to-base 

spacing of 0.65 inches (17 mm) 

minimum, measured between the most 

adjacent domes. 

Contrast. Detectable warning surfaces 

shall contrast visually with adjacent 

gutter, street or highway, or shared use 

path surfaces, either light-on-dark or 

dark-on-light. 

Size. Detectable warning surfaces 

shall extend 24 inches (610 mm) 

minimum in the direction of travel and 

the full width of the curb ramp or the 

blended transition. 

Location and Alignment of Detectable 

Warning Surfaces 

Curb Ramps. Where both ends of the 

bottom grade break are 5.0 feet (1.5 m) 

or less from the back of curb, the 

detectable warning surfaces shall be 

located on the ramp surface at the 

bottom grade break. Where either end of 

the bottom grade break is more than 5.0 

feet (1.5 m) from the back of curb, the 

detectable warning surfaces shall be 

located on the lower landing. 

Blended Transitions. The detectable 

warning surfaces shall be located on the 

blended transition at the back of curb. 

Rail Crossings. The detectable 

warning surfaces shall be located so that 

the edge nearest the rail crossing is 6 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

17070 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

feet (1.8 m) minimum and 15 feet (4.6 

m) maximum from the centerline of the 

nearest rail. The rows of truncated 

domes in a detectable warning surface 

shall be aligned to be parallel with the 

direction of pedestrian travel. 

Treatment of elevation changes, such 

as at curbs, and controlling cross slope 

are key factors in ensuring accessibility, 

particularly where shared use paths and 

roadways intersect. The draft technical 

provisions for curb ramps, blended 

transitions, and detectable warnings are 

based on the Board’s Pedestrian Access 

Route—Sidewalk Guidelines. In general, 

the draft provisions for shared use paths 

require the following. 

• The opening of a shared use path at 

a roadway must be at least as wide as 

the shared use path itself; 

• A curb ramp or blended transition 

must be provided, and must be the full 

width of the shared use path; 

• The running slope of the curb ramp 

must not exceed 8.3 percent and 

blended transition must not exceed 

5 percent; 

• The cross slope must be the same as 

the running slope of the roadway at 

midblock crossings; and 

• Where the shared use path crosses 

a roadway or railway, detectable 

warnings must be provided the full 

width of the curb ramp or blended 

transition for a depth of 2 feet. 

Markings at crossings of shared use 

paths and roadways must also comply 

with the provisions of Part 3—Markings 

of the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices (MUTCD). 

The Board has limited the 

requirement for detectable warnings to 

locations where a shared use path 

crosses a roadway or a railway. The 

Board has not included a requirement 

for detectable warnings where shared 

use paths cross other paths or 

pedestrian facilities. Where pedestrians 

and bicyclists share a pathway, 

established bicycle and pedestrian 

‘‘rules of the road’’ should provide 

sufficient guidance for safe use. 

Question 7. Is there a need to provide 

additional warnings or information to 

bicyclists regarding potential conflicts 

with other shared use paths users, 

including pedestrians with disabilities? 

9. Other Issues 

Overlap of Trails, Sidewalks, and 

Shared Use Paths 

In some locations, a shared use path 

may be part of a sidewalk, or part of a 

trail. Guidance is needed to clarify 

which set of guidelines should be 

applied where there is overlap since the 

technical provisions are different in 

some areas. For example, Pedestrian 

Access Route—Sidewalk Guidelines 

permit the grade to follow the slope of 

the roadway and Trails Guidelines 

specify a maximum grade. The Board is 

interested in suggestions for ways to 

treat areas of shared use paths that 

overlap sidewalks and trails that will 

provide an acceptable level of 

accessibility while taking into 

consideration any unique conditions or 

situations that may occur where these 

routes overlap. 

Question 8. What technical provisions 

should apply where the shared use path 

overlaps a trail or sidewalk? 

Shared Use Path Connections 

The draft technical provisions in this 

ANPRM apply to the newly constructed 

and altered shared use paths. Shared 

use paths may be constructed over many 

miles and connected with other 

pedestrian routes, creating a network for 

transportation purposes. The Board is 

interested in more information 

regarding connections between shared 

use paths and other parts of a 

transportation network. 

Question 9. Are different technical 

provisions needed when applying the 

draft technical provisions for shared use 

paths that ‘‘connect’’ shared use paths 

together or with other pedestrian routes 

(e.g., sidewalks, trails, accessible 

routes)? If so, please provide any 

additional information or 

recommendations. 

Where should the accessibility 

guidelines for shared use paths be 

located? 

The Board is considering including 

the accessibility guidelines for shared 

use paths in the same document as the 

accessibility guidelines for pedestrian 

facilities in the public right-of-way. 

State and local government departments 

of transportation appear to be the 

principal entities that design and 

construct shared use paths since these 

facilities are an extension of the 

transportation network, and having the 

accessibility guidelines for shared use 

paths in the same document as 

pedestrian facilities in the public rightof-way appears to be a logical choice. In 

addition, many of the draft technical 

provisions for shared use paths (i.e., 

intersection and curb ramps/blended 

transitions, detectable warning surfaces, 

4 inch limit on post-mounted 

protruding objects (signs), and rail 

flangeway gaps) are the same as those in 

draft guidelines for pedestrian facilities 

in the public-right-of-way. 

Question 10. Should the accessibility 

guidelines for shared use paths be 

included in the same document as the 

accessibility guidelines for pedestrian 

facilities in the public right-of-way? 

Question 11. Are there other issues 

that need to be addressed by the 

accessibility guidelines for shared use 

paths? If so, please provide specific 

information on any additional areas that 

should be addressed in the guidelines. 

Regulatory Process Matters 

The Board will prepare regulatory 

assessments required by Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563, and the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act as a part of a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM), the next step in this 

rulemaking. 

Question 12. The Board requests 

commenters to provide information for 

the regulatory assessments, including: 

• Number of existing and planned 

shared-use paths at the state or national 

level; 

• Number of shared-use paths 

constructed each year (on average) 

within your jurisdiction; 

• Typical cost for a new shared-use 

path on a per-mile basis; 

• Sources of funding for the 

construction of shared-use paths (e.g., 

Federal highway funds, other Federal 

grant programs, state funds, local 

funds); 

• The extent to which the AASHTO 

Bicycle Facilities Guide, or other design 

guides and standards are used for 

shared use paths; 

• Whether any of the draft technical 

provisions would result in additional 

costs for design work, materials, 

earthmoving, retaining structures, or 

other items compared to current 

construction practices or design guides 

and standards currently followed; 

• What, if any, unintended 

consequences (positive or negative) 

could result from an agency adopting 

the guidelines, and 

• What impacts will the draft 

technical provisions have on small 

entities and are there alternatives that 

would minimize those impacts? 

Nancy Starnes, 

Chair, Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7156 Filed 3–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS