### U.S. Access Board
Public Hearing: Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
November 9, 2011 9:30 a.m.

– 12:00 p.m. Washington, DC

Hans Van Winkle, Ad Hoc Committee Chairman Scott Windley, Access Board Staff

Witnesses:

1. Jon Julnes, President, Vanguard ADA Systems
2. Diane Linderman, P.E, President, American Public Works Association
3. Thomas G. Blust, P.E., Director of Engineering, Road Commission for Oakland County, MI
4. Mr. Jesse Hartle, Government Programs Specialist, National Federation of the
Blind
5. Bill Hecker

– AIA, Consultant, Member of PROWAAC, Hecker Design
6. Kat Taylor, Disability Rights Program Manager, Equal Rights Center
7. Janet M. Barlow, Accessible Desig n for the Blind
8. Billie Louise (Beezy) Bentzen, Ph.D., Accessible Design for the Blind
9. Jim Vale, Director, Veterans Benefits Program, Vietnam Veterans of America
10. Patrick L. Wojahn, Co

- Chair, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Transportati on Task Force
11. Shawn Lawrence, Community Action Specialist, disAbility Resource Center
12. Angela Stone, disAbility Resource Center
13. Jean Tessmer, RME, ASID
14. Dayna Whitmer
15. Dennis CannonUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

>> Hans Van Winkle : Well, good morning. I am pleased to see a good crowd here today. We are very excited about what is going to happen this morning. We are here to discuss our ongoing work on the notice to propose rulemaking for the public rights issue. We have b een at this for quite a while and we can see the end of the tunnel. In that sense we are very excited to be here today. I am joined by the other members, the majority of the other members of the board. Our staff person who has been working feverishly, I think Scott is try to go get this rule out. It's been a long time we have been working hard, but again are pleased to be here with you the members of the public and the constituency to give us your thoughts and your issues. I think, as you know, this is the second public hearing we have had. Scott will go over more details in a minute. We have had one public meeting already. And this will be the second. Again, welcome. We have rules to follow, Scott will cover those for you. We are interested in he aring your thoughts and comments. We do have a list of people who would like to testify this morning. If there are others in the audience, if you would let one of our staff know. We will make sure that we get you in. We will turn it over to Scott to gi ve you some of the specifics about how we will proceed this morning.

>> Scott Windley : Thank you, very much. So, let's go over a little bit of

-- a little bit of the history of what we are doing. We have a notice of proposed rules providing an update p ublished on July 26th of this year. We had our first hearing in Dallas, Texas September 12 of this year. And we had several people testify, about 15 if I remember correctly. And comment period for this rule closes on November 23rd. I would

encourage yo u to submit any written comments that you may have by that date. There are copies of the rule in the back of the room if you want to grab it after the hearing. It will tell you how to commit those comments. And we have a list of registered speakers.
We are going to have limit it to 5 to 7 minutes. We may be a little flexible about that. And after all registered speakers are

-- have presented, we will have an opportunity for others to testify, if there is time. And please ask, notify staff at the regi stration desk ifUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 3 you want to testify and have not preregistered. Our staff is both in the back, and there is a row of staff in the front next to the columns. So, any of them, just let them know that you want to testify. Just let them know.

>> Hans Van Winkle : If we could have our staff raise their hands, particularly in the back, any of the individuals, let them know, we will make sure we give you an opportunity to talk.

>> Scott Windley : We will have a transcript of this hearing, and it will be kept and will be entered into the docket, written remarks, PowerPoints, if you give them to the staff at the registration desk. And basically we don't want to turn this into a debate, we want to refrain from reacting publicly to guest presentations or board m ember statements. We are here to listen to you. We may have questions about your comments, that would be it. So, we will go through our list of people that have preregistered. What I will do I will tell you who is up first, and then who is on deck for the

-- after them. Jon Julnes, the president of vanguard ADA systems will be first, followed by Diane Linderman who is a professional engineer and president of the American public works association. And we will go from there.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Mr. Julnes, the floor is yours. Just h it the button in the back, and as soon as you see the green light you will be on.

>> Jon Julnes : Everybody hear me? Thank you for allowing me to speak here today. My name is Jon Julnes, presiden t of vanguard ADA systems, and we both
manufacture as well as install detectable warnings

-- I plan on discussing five things in my allotted time

. O utside forces affecting the integrity of detectable warnings

-- issuesUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 4 with existing designs an d how mandate s may obviate same. I neffective enforcement and suggestions for altering the regulations so those can be obviated

-- innovative and cost effective solutions for current enforcement mandates hitting cities and municipalities hard

as we ll as intriguing new concepts that may save money. More importantly adds significant value to the community. And finally further issues. Thank you. As an installer I have had inspectors tell me when informed stamped mesh

concrete was neither detectable nor met any possible design standard of a truncated
dome , that if I say it's a truncated dome, it's a truncated dome. This happens every day. Today 22 years after the first detectable warning mandate d installation we still have inspectors approving products that are not trun cated domes. Moreover, they are approving them in ways that often have a negative impact on users. Detectable warnings are subject to a variety of outside forces. Weather, impacts, shifting freeze style heating and vegetation and trip hazards. Some exam ples are shown here in the PowerPoint number 1 (indicating). I will put my glasses on. First one on the top left indicates UV damage and fading up to a fixture right below is one

-- is this thing still on. Is indicating the color it was when originally installed. The one on the top right kind of indicates what happens underneath some of what
we call wet set which

-- with the concrete when it

-- the concrete just sits there and decays because the water starts to get out. It acts like a

-- a acts like a g reenhouse. I am not sure if this thing is on

-- you hear me. Bottom photo is used as a backup

-- is your light on? You have a red light?

>> Jon Julnes : I don't appear to be on at all.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Let's get this straight here.

>> Jon Julnes : The bottom one is a picture of a surface applied material warped by the sun. And so they are using pins to adhere that in city after city Nationwide, this isUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 5 a common

-- this is a common procedure for fixing stuff that for some reason has come
loose.
Po werPoint 2 shows the impacts of abrasion. The very first photo on the top left is impact of something, bowling ball or something, at a train station. There is nothing underneath there holding it up. The one on the top right is of a grocery store and, ag ain, there is nothing below the material supporting it. There is a thin piece of plastic it can't support the weight. The ones on the bottom left are products that show that they were nonslip or slippery assistant when first installed and later became pre tty slippery actually. So, the fixes needed to improve these products would change their installed prices by as much as 2 to 4% but will double or quintuple their life. Some will require mandate changes, some installation spec have to be written enforced . Issues with existing designs and how new mandates obviate same. Several southern states opt to go with brick largely because many of their buildings are brick and architecturally it makes sense to them. They are relatively easy for local municipal cre ws to maintain. However bricks without a manufacturing standard of 3500 psi. Can we get that

-- I'm sorry, I missed one of the frames here. This other one this other set of photos show product shifting and vegetation growing on where you can't detect an ything. Freeze

- thaw heave, where products are shifting because of moisture getting in and causing movement from the product because of damage from extreme temperature ranges. The one in the middle left is pretty important one. It's a picture of a product that has a plastic covering on it when it's being installed it's protected from

-- it's protected from the concrete. Finish work that's being done. And it's often left there. And so, once it stays there four or five months, it can maintain and hold moi sture and cause freeze, issues where people can walk on that and literally go sliding like a skating rink. Back to the brick. Largely because many of the bricks many of the buildings brick and architecturally it makes sense to use brick detectable warnin gs, they are relatively easy for most municipal crews to maintain however bricks without manufacturing standard ofUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 6 3500 psi mortar only that products manufactured that meet the current spec will fail within months. Losing domes to abrasion is nominal and as infrequent as skate boards. Some examples of some mandates or specs. Wet set detectable warning products have air boys mandating the warnings when installed shall have appropriately strong supporting mechanism below the installed surface. Such that c racking and other
structural failure is avoided will eliminate 80% of these failures. For surface mounted products a mandate could be added that the epoxy used to adhere the device shall cover
the entire surface and shall have no voids between it and the surface applied to. Penetrating sealers that cure in less than 20 minutes prior to any surface mounted materials could applied ensuring a mechanical bond that would be nearly unbreakable. None of this will happen unless manufacturers are mandated to beca use everytime one peels up they get to sell another one. Paneled Injected Molded Products requiring caulking could be mandated to use only caulking that has a UV resistance level of XYZ or higher minimizing costly repairs as these pictures indicate. Most of the failure isn't because the caulking was done incorrectly, its because UV has damaged it. Where products require plastic covering to protect same from finish work when pouring concrete, a mandate that no protective covering shall remain on the detec table warning for a period of in excess of 24 hours after final installation is completed would be instructive. Ineffective enforcement. Someone said once, a poorly designed solution implemented well will be vastly superior to a superior one implemented poorly. PowerPoint 4. These are examples of detectable warnings installed approved products Nationwide that building officials have approved all over the country. They are as effective as if they had not been installed at all. You can see by the pictur es that anybody blind or otherwise could walk right past most of them and not even see the

-- not even detect the detectable warning. Everyone of those was approved by a local building
official. Innovative and cost effective solutions for current mandate s. Products exist that are nonskid as opposed to slip resistant that maintain that ability for decades as opposed to months. But something as simple as the mandate truncated dome shall have a topUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 7 diameter of 50% of the base diameter minimum, to 65% of the base diameter maximum can eliminate products that may have a top diameter of barely 75% of the base

-- a differential less than the thickness of a match head. Yet provide better longevity and safer access. Budgets are literally being eviscerated in ever y municipal agency Nationwide. A new definition of equivalent facilitation with more latitude would allow more cities to try products that last longer and are safer but are just barely outside the written standards. One issue keeps cropping up. Directio n of travel. Something as simple as a raised groove material running through the

-- running the length of the walkway as identified here on the left side, could be an easy identifier. Similar products
have been tested in Sacramento. It seems to me that guiding people across the pathway is as important as telling them where the path begins or ends. Another area of concern is where cities have only one ramp leaving a path of travel that splits off into two crosswalks. Cities are understandably required t o put in two new ramps to better identify the path of travel. Brian Doyle at Berkeley, California came up with a remarkable
solution

- same powerpoint slide, but on the right

- hand side

- I don't know if you can see it, but there is a ramp with detectable warning in the middle, and on the left and right

hand side in the wing, is a groove of material that's actually in the direction of travel of the crosswalk that that particular ramp would cover. It can be done with materials available in all markets provid ing a directional tactile cue at significantly lower cost yet providing similar and arguably improved directional cues. In any market this is a brilliant concept. In today's market where budgets are falling by the hour the cost savings would easily run i nto the hundreds of millions of dollars annually Nationwide. Final point is Future Issues. Electric cars. Currently there is no mandate for detectable warnings in most driveway intersections. With the Toyota Prius and Chevy volt, similar electrical veh icles, there is no sound. At night this could be a dangerous issue as drivers are notoriously unaware of their surroundings while blind and visually impaired are supremely aware of theirs. Solutions could be to put detectable warnings at all vehicular

- pe destrian crossover points. AnotherUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 8 would be to simply have the feds mandate that all vehicles provide familiar engine sound whenever it's in operation. Both may be advisable. In California the detectable warning standard with the exception of DOT, CALTR ANS

-- full width by 3 feet as opposed to the national standard of full width by 2 feet is what they call for. It's confusing at best; expensive for manufacturers; and ultimately more costly in many different ways for all.
In conclusion the detectable warning standard is one that clearly saves lives every day but only when implemented correctly. It's clear that without guidance, moreover, specific instructions how to properly install detectable warnings, manufacturers will design products that meet the mandate but lack basic structural elements of design to ensure longevity, and building officials will approve installations that lack any relationship to the mandates. We know products exist that don't have the issues, or if they do they can with a
little modification can be resolved. Further we know how to make the ones that don't perform well, safer and last longer. In places where enforcement and implementation is lacking the reasons could be as much lack of knowledge as fear what they are mandated

to install will cause them untold expense to maintain. When in fact almost everyone of these products can be improved to eliminate these concerns. Current mandates may limit some of these solutions even as they attempt to do just the opposite. With minor alterations in the standards or better definition of equivalent facilitation improved products providing longer lasting value safety would result. Current Enforcement

-- excuse me, correct enforcement is the key. Informed enforcement. Pictograms showing correct process would be unbelievably useful to some. Every product currently manufactured or installed today can be improved, made to last longer, and safer at nominal cost. We should strongly support innovative new design concepts, such as Mr. Doyle's , that could significantly moderate the expense that cities across America are mandated to comply with but not are funded for same. These are all issues uniquely that the Access Board can influence. Thank you for the opportunity. And in closing I willUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 9 g ladly make myself available to the board any time I can be of assistance. I welcome questions.

>> Hans Van Winkle : It's pronounced Julnes?

>> Jon Julnes : Yes.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Thank you. That's a very interesting presentation. All of the members of the board are interested in the standards and particularly the longevity issues that you talk about maintainability. I think you are correct, it doesn't do good to have a great stan dard and within months, literally it's less than desirable and less usable. Do you have data or research in terms of these issues.

>> Jon Julnes : Anecdotal.

>> Hans Van Winkle : These are anecdotal at this point?

>> Jon Julnes : And this is stuff tha t everyone of us seen in every parking lot and every street we have all gone across. I don't think there is anybody in the room that hasn't seen most of the pictures whether taken in their lot or not.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Absolutely yes, those are great points. Any members of the board have any questions?

>> Phill Jenkins : Good morning. Phil Jenkins member of the public member of the board. I think Hans asked the question 80% number that you used it was not researched, it was anecdotal.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 10 >> Jon Julne s : It was not but I am fairly confident it's pretty accurate. I have been installing the things since 1993 or '4, something like that. And it's pretty

-- I mean, as a guy that has his hands on the product all day long, it's easy to figure out how to mak e thee things better; most people just don't want to. Like I said, if it's not mandated, they get to sell another one, you know?

>> Phill Jenkins : The question to further clarify were you looking at ten types of issues, and say, eight of the ten were a problem or was 100 occurrences, and 80 of the
hundred.

>> Jon Julnes : I am not sure I understand.

>> Phil Jenkins : Was it by type of issue or was it by frequency of failure?

>> Jon Julnes : Oh, my gosh. All of the above and more. It was certainly ev ery single product out there that we are all familiar with whether glue downs set sets bricks steel plates whatever. They all have a really great benefit. They all do something really, really well that the others don't. But they all can be improved so t hat these

-- my biggest fear is that you know that the people that need these types of services this types of devices that they are not going to be there when they need them or be ineffective and dangerous. The reason to be here isn't to promote anybody's product or to denigrate any product but to simply say that with your wording and with your efforts, these products can be improved and made better for the people that are out there, they aren't expensive
to do.

>> Phill Jenkins : Thanks.

>> Jon Julnes : Thank you.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 11 >> Hans Van Winkle : Any other questions of the board? Mr. Julnes, thank you very much.

>> Scott Windley : Next up will be Diane Linderman, and after her will be
Thomas Blust.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Good morning.

>> Diane Linderman : Good morning. Mr. chairman, members of the board, thank you very much for holding the hearing today and for the opportunity to present our statement this morning. I am Diane Linderman president of the American public works association, or APWA. APWA is an international education and professional association representing more than 28,500 members. Working in the public interest are members plan design and operate and maintain public infrastructure including transportation, rights

- of

way, water supply, sewa ge and refuse disposal systems, public buildings and other structures and facilities essential to our nation's economy and way of life. Public works professionals serve a diverse range of local communities, municipalities counties townships villages and d istricts whether large or small, rural or urban. First I would like to express our appreciation for the dedication, commitment and hard work you and the staff have applied over the years in developing the proposed accessibility guidelines. We appreciate also the continued extensive outreach to the stakeholders. At multiple points throughout the process APWA provided technical expertise and recommendations, we served as a member of the 1999 federal advisory committee formed to recommend the guidelines. We participated in the regulatory assessment process to evaluate the guidelines' potential cost and benefits.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 12 Public works agencies throughout the nation are committed to making pedestrian facilities and public buildings as accessible as possible. We beli eve that every community has a responsibility to provide a safe and inviting environment with facilities and amenities accessible to all. Infrastructure within the public right of way is rightfully intended to serve the needs of and provide a benefit to a n entire community. Maintaining the highest level of flexible in the application of accessibility guidelines will work best for local communities because right of way characteristics can vary significantly from one community to the next. Perspective one size fits all standards typically fail to take into account the diverse conditions of individual localities and the engineering realities of a given situation. Best practices and guidance that provide for flexibility creativity and professional judgment i n the planning design construction maintenance and operation of public right of way infrastructure generally constitutes best approach for local communities as they implement accessible facilities. Local communities have the difficult responsibility to ba lance needs against available resources as part of the overall service delivery missions. Without funding assistance from federal or other sources many communities lack the means and ability to pay for the costs of implementing new standards. Throughout

t he United States many pedestrian pathways are in serious need of repair and updating to provide accessibility. Federal state and local funds are limited to address each upgrade. When funds are made available to improve a location or to make repairs along the pathway

-- (inaudible).

>> We seem to have a tech

-- technical issue with feedback.

>> If you are on the phone, could you please mute? I'm sorry for the interruption.

>> When funds are made available to improve a location or to make repairs along a pathway, the proposed guidelines state access will be provided through construction.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 13 The cost to keep the pathway open and/or detour for the pedestrian would be cost prohibitive in most cases. The dollars used to make a pedestrian pathway accessible
th rough construction could be counter productive when those dollars could provide a permanent benefit for the pedestrians with disabilities. therefore we recommend the guidelines be rewritten to provide that they apply to permanent facilities with reasonabl e accommodations for access made during construction. Reasonable accommodations during construction could include such things as notification that the pedestrian pathway will be closed and alternative routes or transits suggested to assist pedestrians that these improvements while they are being constructed. For projects under construction for extended periods of time it may be preferred to close all access to the construction zone. Complete closure of the construction zone protects
workers as well as the public. As written the guidelines require that where pedestrians have access prior to construction the same level of access be provided during construction. While safety of pedestrians is of utmost importance there are several risks
that come with the c onstruction zone even after reasonable precautions have been made. Workers pedestrians and drivers still get injured and killed within construction zones. In many cases it would be in the best interest of all pedestrians to use an alternative route of

tr avel around construction. This is true even if the alternative route is longer or if a transit provider needs to be utilized. We therefore recommend making the following change to the guidelines : In the overview of proposed guidelines page 12 where it sa ys in quotes, the proposed guidelines ensure that the following facilities for pedestrian circulation and use located in the public right of way are readily accessible to and usable by pedestrians with disabilities end of quotes. And to change that to : t he proposed guidelines ensure that the following permanent facilities for pedestrian circulation and use located in the public right of way are readily accessible to and usable by pedestrians with disabilities. Any temporary pedestrian facility shall be c onstructed in compliance with of the guidelines provided by the US Access Board and the current manual on uniform traffic control devices. And in the first bullet below the statement where it saysUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 14 sidewalks pedestrians overpasses and underpasses and other pedestrian circulation paths including requirements for pedestrian access routes, alternative pedestrian access routes when pedestrian circulation paths are temporarily closed and protruding objects along or overhanging circulation paths. Change that to : sidewalks pedestrian overpasses and under passes and other pedestrian circulation passes including notifications of temporary closed access and or delays due to the requirements for pedestrian access routes. alternative pedestrian access routes when p edestrian circulation paths are temporarily closed and protruding objects along or overhanging pedestrian circulation path. Many of the guidelines can be accomplished with minimal effort or expense. We appreciate that the exceptions allow for physical h istoric and national resource constraints. It would be good also to include exceptions for impacts to residential and business property use, operations and access. However, the proposed guidelines identify four requirements that will have more
than minima l impact on state and local transportation departments. They are : detectable warning surfaces required on newly constructed and altered curb ramps and blended transitions at pedestrian street crossings. Accessible pedestrian signals and push buttons

req uired when they are newly installed or replaced at signalized intersections. Maximum cross slope of 2% required on pedestrian access routes including within pedestrian street crossings with stop or yield control and pedestrian

- activated signals required a t roundabouts with multi

- lane pedestrian crossings. These requirements will have major impacts on local agencies and the maintenance and expansion of their street networks. Without a funding source to assist local governments it can be delayed or cancel led due to the expense of implementing the new measures, which would result in compromising the overal safety of the area. The proposed guidelines apply to alterations and elements added to existing facilities. The guidelines indicate that alterations ar e changes to an existing facility that affect or could affect pedestrian access circulation or use.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 15 Alterations : the guidelines further state, include but are not limited to resurfacing rehabilitation reconstruction historic restoration or changes or re arrangement of structural parts or elements of a facility. Also resurfacing of a facility is listed as an alteration. Therefore it appears that resurfacing the street where a facility is located is enough to trigger implementing the regulations. It is o ur recommendation when streets are resurfaced, that accessibility guidelines be implemented where practical as determined by the local jurisdiction. There are other issues that are problematic for local governments. For alternate pedestrian access routes R

- 205, the guidelines states that the proximity

- actuated audible signs are a preferred means to warn pedestrians who are blind or have low vision about sidewalk closures. Proximity automated audible signs are not commonly used, would be expensive to provid e, and are likely to be easily stolen if used. We recommend this guideline be removed until the technology is more available. The guideline also requires accessible pedestrian signals and pedestrian push
buttons R

- 209 be provided when new pedestrian signals are installed. Push button pedestrian signals are required if signal controller and software are altered or the signal head replaced. We believe this requirement would be a significant issue for local governments. Re quiring audible pedestrian signal push buttons just because the pedestrian head is being replaced adds significantly to the cost and does not have a strong Nexus. Because replacing the head does not functionally also require you to replace the push button . We recommend that this guideline be reconsidered. Many times throughout the year in Auburn, Alabama for example, a city with population of 5400 controllers are replaced and signal heads are damaged and must be replaced. This could be expensive
for loc al governments and difficult to schedule. It especially problematic if the push buttons have to be installed prior to the replacement of the controller of the signal heads.

>> Scott Windley : Excuse me Ms. Linderman. You are running out of time.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 16 >> Di ane Linderman : I have two pages left.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Okay, could you summarize, please.

>> Diane Linderman : I can, I can. Obviously it's going to be expensive and difficult to retrofit existing intersections to meet the cross slope requirements a t pedestrian crossing. The requirement was basically

- necessitated intersection to be flat this intersection design will cause significant jolt to automobile drivers as they cross the intersection and very difficult to implement. We recommend this guide line be
reconsidered. We oppose one size fits all approach to providing pedestrian actuated signals at every multi

- lane roundabout. Signals at round abouts will increase the cost at roundabouts significantly and negatively impact the operation of the rou ndabout and significantly reduce the safety and air quality benefits. It's not clear what options public agency has for requirement for continuous and detectable edge treatment for the street edge of all sidewalks without planter setback. Our members in the city of Eugene, Oregon indicate this would add another expensive fix to a perception of a problem that they have never encountered with their roundabouts. Members of the board that concludes my remarks thank you for holding the hearing and taking our testimony. We look forward to working with you. We stand ready to offer our assistance, expertise and experience as a resource.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Ms. Linderman, thank you those are very thoughtful remarks we appreciate the work that APWA has done in the past we look forward to working with you. We certainly appreciate where you have given us concrete recommendations that's helpful for us as we write the rule. One question that I took to heart your note I think it's absolutely true not one size
fit s all. And I note from the Mr. Julnes's presentation we talked a little bit about aUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 17 standard that fits in Florida for example versus one that in Maine where snow removal could damage. I wonder if you have concrete examples of how we might operationalize that. As one writes standards it's difficult to take into account every situation. Are there suggestions that you might have how we could provide flexibility in the role?

>> Diane Linderman : I am happy to take that back so we can provide you with

some comments before your deadline. Nothing comes to mind immediately but we have
members that have some ideas that

--

>> Hans Van Winkle : I think that would be helpful to because we agree different conditions would be changeable. Let me see if any other boar d members have questions?

>> Christ Hart : Yes. Chris Hart, Public Member. Can you clarify when you said that the temporary access routes would be problematic? Are you suggesting that if New York Ave out here, was dug up there should be no temporary ro uting of pedestrians?

>> Diane Linderman : If I understand your question the issue is not as much providing a temporary path as it is the challenge that the communities have in construction zones of making them accessible or making the path the same leng th as it was in its normal condition as you probably know. Oftentimes you are asked to cross a street to avoid a construction zone. The challenge is protecting the pedestrian whether they are

-- have a disability or whether they don't is always a challen ge.

>> Chris Hart : Are you also suggesting to change dectable protection around that site while using caution tape? Or or orange cones? Is that how you

-- your concern of how you protect it?US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 18 >> Diane Linderman : I think it's a less about the mechanics of the protection that is certainly governed by other standards. It's creating a

-- an accessible pathway that meets your guidelines that we are concerned about.

>> Chris Hart : Okay. Because I couldn't imagine APWA would want to do away
with requirements for pedestrians at that zone. I just want to clarify that.

>> Diane Linderman : Sure. I hope that helped.

>> Scott Windley : Well, in the interest of time. Let's move on with Thomas
Blust. After Thomas it would be Jesse Hartle.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Ms. Linderman, thank you very much.

>> Thomas Blust : I thought I was being shown to the door already. (LAUGHTER)

>> Thomas Blust : Good morning, I am Tom Blust, the director of engineering at the road commission in Oakland county Mi chigan RCOC. First, we want to compliment the Access Board for your work to date on the PROWAG. We find the proposed rules well thought out, balanced and fair in the most part. Additionaly, as I mentioned to Scott before the meeting I thought they were very well written and very clear. So I congratulate you to do on that. It's difficult to do on a technical manual. RCOC joins with you in the effort to provide safe and accessible public rights

- of

way. RCOC oversees the largest road network in Michigan , aside from MDOT. We have jurisdiction 2700 miles of road with 13 billion annual vehicle miles traveled and 1300US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 19 traffic signals. RCOC is a very progressive agency, thanks in our parts Oakland county today boasts lowest traffic fatality rates in the worl d. Approximately about 1/3 of the national fatality rate. Safety is our number one priority. That includes the safety of motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and all users of the transportation network. RCOC is leader in Michigan and USA in embracing incor porating the ADA requirements and elderly mobility standards and guidelines. I am here today to voice concerns on two issues in the
PROWAG. The first is the tolerances allowed on handicap ramps and pedestrian pathways. As a practitioner I can tell you we put a great deal of effort into building these facilities with many survey points, careful design, layout, construction and inspection. Despite these efforts, we still sometimes have to tear it out and start again. The tolerances set in PROWAG particula rly for cross slopes are very difficult to achieve in the world of heavy construction. This especially true when a pathway is asphalt. Since asphalt pathways are usually constructed by hand not with a paving machine, then rolled, the mat will vary slight ly due to compaction. This often puts the cross slope out of the tolerances at one or
more locations. We recommend instead the slope tolerances for ramps and pathways be measured at multiple locations within a given distance and averaged. For example, cr oss slope could be measured at four random locations within 20 feet and averaged to check for compliance. Our second concern is the mandate for pedestrian hybrid beacons at multi lane roundabouts. If RCOC is not known to you for the reasons mentioned, p erhaps you are aware of our involvement in a federal lawsuit regarding accessibility issues at a multi

lane round about. Shortly after opening multilane roundabout at Maple Road and Drake Road in West Bloomfield, MI, RCOC were sued under the Americans wi th Disabilities Act, despite the roundabout meeting all of the current ADA standards. Prior to constructingUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 20 the Maple/Drake roundabout, RCOC recognized the challenges of multilane roundabouts, and what they pose for pedestrians particularly handicap and b lind pedestrians and we had committed to work with these groups to find the best treatment for accessibility at
this multi lane roundabout. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed RCOC offered to install two pedestrian

treatments : the hawk and rectangular r apid flash beacon at adjacent, similar multilane roundabouts and to study their effectiveness for pedestrian accessibility as well as their effect on vehiclular traffic using the roundabouts. To our knowledge, this is the only study in the country of two m ulti

- lane roundabouts, each equipped with permanently mounted pedestrian beacons on all four legs : one with the hawk and one with the RRFP. RCOC engaged essentially the same research team that performed NCHRP 378A. Since our study was part of a lawsuit resolution the federal court retained jurisdiction and only very recently was it appropriate to release the study. I am here today to present the Access Board with the CD of the final report from our study. I believe it will also be available on our web site but I am not sure it's on there yet. That's

-- I will give you the address at the end of the conversation today. As you will see from the report, both the hawk and rapid flash beacon increased driver yielding rates. However, the rates are still fa r below what we would all like to see. I personally have seen drivers several drivers go through the solid red hawk beacon while looking up at it (indicating). (laughter)

>> Thomas Blust : Not good. I mentioned earlier RCOC's highest priority is for safety for all users of the transportation network. Our concern with the pedestrian beacons as tested, is the low driver yield rate. The low driver yield rate, especially coupled with pedestrian over confidence due to the presence of a pedestrian signal may actually put pedestrians atUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 21 harm's way. It's RCOC's contention that pedestrian safety and accessibility are inseparable when crossing streets. Though the hawk, and to a lesser extent, the rapid flash beacon showed increase in pedestrian safety and accessibility we can and we must find better solutions for pedestrian accessibility at multi

- lane roundabouts. This will require development and study of alternative treatments including options such as the tabletop crosswalks, moving the walk away from the circle, evenly placed rumble strips to indicate a car's speed, use of PHB's or rapid flash beacons, or possibly some combination of these tools. RC OC is concerned if the PROAG is adopted as currently written, the federal requirement of a PHB at multilane roundabouts, will stifle the development of alternative treatment which may produce better accessibility and safety in multi

- lane roundabouts. This is our mutual goal. We recommend the requirements for the PHB's at multilane roundabouts be
removed from the PROWAG. It is noted the PROWAG allows for the use of alternative signals with FHWA approval. RCOC recommends the language be changed to allow for alternative treatments with a simplified approval process in order to facilitate finding the best crossing solution. Ladies and gentlemen I thank you for attention and for your consideration. I mentioned our study I believe it is or will be available shortly at
WWW.RCOC web.ORG.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Mr. Blust, thank you very much. That's a very good presentation. We certainly look forward to seeing the research again as we talked earlier flexibility where we can put it in is important. A question about the first point in terms of tolerances. I guess you know the tyranny of the average always comes up in the sense that, I know from my corps days, that some cases we had 20 feet of water some cases no water. On average 10 feet, but doesn't help you a re flooded out or dry. Same thing with
the

-- an individual who is moving along. It doesn't help them if the cross slope averages to a percentage in

-- in fact, you hit a 5% at one particular location, then they can't moveUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 22 forward, how do you deal with t hat issue, the averages? you have to be at a certain spot at a certain time. If you don't have a correct slope, then you're not going to be able to navigate. How do you handle that issue?

>> Thomas Blust : I agree with you. There still have to be tolera nces, there's no doubt about that. There has to be a ceiling set. Hopefully we will have a little bit of slope just for some drainage either way. But the

-- the tolerances, especially when rolling asphalt path. Remember on a four or five

- foot path you are looking at about that much cross slope about an inch cross slope from one side to the other. As it rolls, you will get slight depressions and dips. If you put the smart level, use the two foot smart level, if you put it right on one spot it can show 1.7%. You can move it a foot it will be 2 feet, 2.3% for example.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Yes.

>> Thomas Blust : So, either we tear out all these little minor spots that are 1.7 or 1.5% or we set a standard that allows for taking with a maximum let's say w hatever 3% or whatever. But would allow for several measurements in a given period or distance and then averaged out we see we do have essentially an accessible pathway of this.

>> Hans Van Winkle : I think research would help us there. Questions from
B oard members?

>> Phill Jenkins : I have a question Phil Jenkins. Thank you on the report, I was look forward to reading it. I was wondering if you had comparative data with right turn lane issues compared to roundabout and whether drivers yield better o r worse, and if that was included in your study.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 23 >> Thomas Blust : At a slip lane?

>> Phill Jenkins : a right

- turn lane where they don't have to stop, and they turn right?

>> Thomas Blust : At a standard intersection, no. We did not compare that. I believe there is other research that compares that, to my knowledge, there is no one research project that's been done in comparison.

>> Phill Jenkins : Slip lane versus roundabout.

>> Thomas Blust : Well, there is a

--

>> Scott Windley : 378 does do sl ip lanes a little bit, but doesn't do it greatly.

>> Phill Jenkins : The question is :

>> Scott Windley : 378 did do slip lanes, but not to the degree it did roundabouts.

>> Thomas Blust : Yes. Right.

>> Phill Jenkins : Okay, Thank you.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Any other questions?

>> Thomas Blust : Again, thank you very much.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 24 >> Thomas Blust : Should I leave with this

-- leave this with whom?

>> Hans Van Winkle : Yes, give it t o our staff.

>> Scott Windley : Jesse Hartle will be next. After him Bill Hecker.

>> Jesse Hartle : Good morning. My name is Jesse Hartle, I am a government program specialist at the national federation of the blind. The national federation of th e blind has affiliates in all 50 states plus The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and I am testifying on behalf of the organization's 50,000 members. While blind people can travel independently using a long white cane or guide dog, it still is essent ial that blind people have access to travel information at the same time and at same place as sighted people. Although achieving equal access is the goal, current accessibility guidelines developed specifically for buildings and facilities cannot always b e applied to pedestrian facilities in the public right of way. We thank the Access Board for recognizing this discrepancy in accessibility. We plan to submit detailed comments in writing for the board but today we will limit our testimony to the major iss ues of pedestrian signals and push buttons. The proposed guidelines require accessible pedestrian signals and pedestrian push buttons to be provided when new pedestrian signals are installed or existing signals and push buttons are altered or replaced. As mentioned in the NPRM our 2002 minority report recommended that state and local governments should consult with the local blind community to determine which signals should be accessible on an intersection by
intersection basis. While we are now satisfi ed that 100% of new signals and push buttons will be accessible under the proposed guidelines, we still urge the board to requireUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 25 consultation with the local blind community before making any decisions regarding accessibility. First, the local blind comm unity understands what type of accessible features may be most effective at that particular intersection. Second, it's essential that the accessibility features are not demeaning to blind people. Advisory R

- 209 of the NPRM defines accessible pedestrian signals as signals
that communicate information in a nonvisual format. Such as

-- such as audible tones or
vibro

- tactile surfaces. The only nonvisual format actually required in section 4E11 of the MUTCD is an audible walk indication which is far too vag ue and could result in an indication that is demeaning to blind people. For example, a signal that simulates the chirping of a bird to indicate to a blind person, or supposed to indicate to a blind pedestrian, that it's safe to cross that particular
inte rsection. This is a ridiculous way to achieve accessibility. Chirping bird or any audible signal, which on its own, says walk or beeps, that signal only indicates that the light has changed. The fall back for a blind person therefore still must listen to the sound of the traffic to determine A if somebody is going to run that red light or B if somebody is coming up to make a right

- hand turn on red. You have to listen to the sound of the traffic. You can't just go on an audible sound alone.
A consultati on with local blind community will ensure informed judgment for the local government in how to appropriately achieve accessibility. Although we ask the board to require a local consultation with the blind community, on an intersection by
intersection basi s, we expect the outcome of these consultations will always be to install a new accessible signal. This is the only way to achieve the objective of these guidelines which is to provide the same information at the same time and at the time place to blind

p edestrians.
We also ask the board to revise some of the technical standards. The accessible signals should have audible and vibrotactile features that can be activated by the blind putting the decision to utilize those features in the hands of the blind pedestrian.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 26 For example, the signal default would provide no audible output but a blind pedestrian could choose to utilize the nonvisual accessibility features of the signal by hitting the button to activate the audible walk indication. This is general ly a favorable approach for some blind users who use the sound of the traffic to determine when it is safe for them to cross. It is also consistent with other devices that have accessibility features in them for example if you go to the Metro stop, and wa nt to buy a ticket there is an accessible feature but it doesn't play all the time. Same thing at Penn Station or Union Station, the ticket machines

-- they have accessible features, but they are not continuously spitting out audible information. They ha ve to be activated by a person to use those
features. In addition, we ask the board to modify the technical standards to require that
when activated the audible features of the signal read the time remaining in the pedestrian change interval. And for what particular street it's referring to. Under the proposed standards, a signal may visually display 5 seconds as the remaining time in the pedestria n change interval but the audible feature would only read walk. Not accurately communicating all of the available information. When activated an audible pedestrian change interval will ensure the same information is shared at the same
time. For those wh o don't know when a blind person comes to an intersection and we are not sure how much time is left or we don't know when the light changed, we are trained to wait until the next light cycle to ensure that we

-- we cross at a safe time. And so, even
if we come up to an intersection and there is an audible pedestrian signal that's just beeping, that doesn't tell you hey you have 25 seconds left before the light changes. So you waste a lot of time sitting there when if the information was provided to you, y ou have an informed choice about whether you can make this street crossing in the allotted
time. The National Federation of the Blind also plans to make comments on other topics in the NPRM such as detectable warning surfaces on curb, ramps and roundabou ts and we submit those comments before they are due on November 23rd. We thank youUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 27 again to the Access Board for undertaking this issue. And for seeking the I object put

-- input of the National Federation of the Blind. We look forward to working togeth er as you finalize these guidelines. Thank you very much.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Mr. Hartle, thank you very much, we appreciate those comments. I have a question about

-- certainly we take your point about consultation at the local level, but we are also concerned about uniform standards, because as you know, I am not sure it would be helpful to have one standard where an individual trained and used to use one system goes to another location and uses a different system. How would you reconcile that aspect

.

>> Jesse Hartle : I would say there are a lot of things that go into this. The main thing to take into this, is I am not from the Baltimore area, I grew up in Louisiana, I think if blind people receive proper training, the techniques of cane travel or travel with dog

-- th ey don't change from neighborhood to neighborhood. I think the audible pedestrian signals are another piece of information that's available, but you always have to rely as I said in my presentation, you always have to fall back to the basics. You have to listen to the sound of the traffic to ensure even though the signal is saying one thing it doesn't mean the driver is doing another thing. So, I don't think that if different signals are used in different places it would be that big of a problem. As long as they provide good information. Information that can be used by that blind traveler.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Um

- hmm. Okay. Thank you. Other board members? Okay.

>> Scott Windley : Thank you

-- next up will be Bill Hecker and after Bill will
be Ka t Taylor. And just note I would encourage you guys to try to keep your commentsUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 28 to the 5 to 7 minutes we are getting a little tight on time I will try not to be a time Nazi from here on out, but I might get a little tougher.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Yeah, Sc ott, if you give the speaking members a one minute warning they could use that as a signal their time is running out.

>> Bill Hecker : Mr. Chairman and members of the Access Board, staff thank you for the opportunity to offer my comments on the board's new proposed ADA accessibility guidelines for design construction and alteration of pedestrian facilities in the public right of way. My name is Bill Hecker to put into context my opinions that are offered here today I am going to share a little bit about my professional experience related to ADA compliance and accessibility within the public right of way. I am an architect from Birmingham, Alabama and for the past 21 years have focused my practice on accessibility in the facility compliance requirements of the ADA and other federal laws dealing with accessibility. I have been retained as expert witness in ADA litigation by plaintiffs, defendants, and the U.S. Department of Justice. My experience with significant ADA public right

- of

way issues began in 1997 when I was retained as an expert witness for the city and county of Honolulu, which was the first large U.S. city to face ADA litigation specifically related to curb ramps and other public rights of way issues. I was also retained by the California De partment of Transportation in the first ADA litigation faced by a large state specifically on curb ramp issues. As you may be aware, that case resulted in one of the largest ADA financial settlements in history with CALTRANS committing to spend 1.1 billio n on curb ramps and other accessibility modifications within the public right of way. It was also my great honor to represent the city of Birmingham, Alabama as a professional member of the Access Board's public rights

- of

- way accessibility advisoryUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 29 commi ttee. I served as chair of the intersections subcommittee and had an active role in the development of recommendations related to accessibility within the public right of way for the Access Board. It is from this perspective, that I come here today to

co ngratulate the Access Board and its staff on a job well done. The proposed ADA accessibility guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the public right of way is an excellent document. I have read the entire document including the preamble and have a deep understanding of historic challenges related to earlier attempts at this rulemaking. The current proposed guidelines give clear concise and appropriate guidance to those designing and constructing in the public right of way. It is evident to me that th e board and its staff worked hard to synthesize the sometimes conflicting interest of a diverse group of stakeholders. Be it the various disability rights organizations design professionals, other federal agencies, and state or local government representa tives. I support the approach described in the scoping requirements of the proposed guidelines for new construction and alteration projects. From the new concept of a pedestrian access route in R

- 204 to the limitations of accessibility work based on spe cific scope of a project related to a given alteration in R

- 202.3. This is a thoughtful appropriate approach to defining the ADA design in the public right of way. The technical requirements also reflect a truly flexible approach to the concept of access ibility within the public right of way. The more simplified narrative and brilliant illustrations of the various components of curb ramps will make implementation easier and more consistent across the country. I am particularly glad to see the board's a cceptance of the fact that engineers really need flexibility in the way sidewalks connect to roadway level pedestrian facilities and crossings. This will lead to more site appropriate curb ramp installations and ultimately much greater opportunities for p eople with disabilities to travel independently within the network of pedestrian routes within our communities.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 30 In closing, I have a few comments about specific provisions. Regarding the proposed technical requirement for a 5% maximum cross slope within pedestrian street crossings at quote pedestrian street crossings without yield or stop control end quote this
is cited at R

- 302.6.1. I find the specific language confusing. From the preamble the definition of this type of street crossing condition is a crossing quote where there is no yield or stop sign or where there is traffic signal that is designed for the green phase, end quote. I suggest that this definition be modified slightly to read as follows : Quote, pedestrian street crossings without yield or stop controls are crossings within a roadway where the traffic has no yield or stop control. And crossings within a roadway where the traffic has a traffic signal that is designed for a green phase, end quote. Regarding the proposed scoping provision s for benches, in R

- 212.6. The guidelines state the quote clear space shall be provided either at one end of the bench or shall not overlap the area within 460 millimeters (1.5 feet) from the front edge of the bench, end quote. The latter portion of this specification is confusing to me and should be clarified in the final rule. Additionally, the specification for the clear space to be located at one end of the bench seems to be in conflict with the advisory recommendation regarding greater usability of b enches which include armrests. It seems to me that if arm rests are provided at the end of the bench where cleared space is specified, then transferring to the bench from the wheelchair would be more challenging. Regarding the board's preamble question 18, dealing with the slope limits of flared sides perpendicular curb ramps I suggest that the 10% maximum slope be retained but that it be evaluated within the context of the adjoining pavement surface slopes. Basically the specification would be that the , quote, flared sides of perpendicular curb ramps shall have a slope no steeper than 10% relative to the adjoining sidewalk slope end quote.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 31 This would minimize the likelihood of twisted ankles without having to go to extreme lengths to grade the curbs at pedestrian crossings which are allowed to have cross slopes steeper than 2% per section R

- 302.6.1. Lastly, I notice that there appear to be no provision within the context of newly constructed public rights of way facilities that parents the structurally impracticable provision of 4.1.1 (5) (A) in the 1991 ADA standards. I anticipate confusion over the limitations of existing site constraints in new construction projects not just alteration projects which are allowed to be accessible to the extent practicable. I will note that in the September 2010 title II ADA regulations from the justice department the concept of structural impracticability was extended and revised and expanded. And I found that it was

-- it would be rather beneficial for designers to have in the document that they will refer to most frequently, a reference to this particular except ion in new construction not just the concept of practicability in alteration. And with that, I thank you again for the opportunity to speak.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Thank you Mr. Hecker, we look forward to getting your written comments to make sure we get t he parentheses correct there.

(LAUGHTER)

>> Bill Hecker : Absolutely.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Board members any comments, questions? Okay. Thank

you.

>> Bill Hecker : Thank you.

>> Scott Windley : Okay, next up will be Kat Taylor and then Janet Bar low.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 32 >> Kat Taylor : Good morning. I am Kat Taylor from Equal Rights Center this is my colleague Ian Watlington. We have comments to share with you today I am actually going to turn my time over to Ian at this time.

>> Ian Watlington : Thank you for y ielding the floor. (LAUGHTER)

>> Ian Watlington : Good morning everyone. I appreciate your time and attention this morning. My name is Ian Watlington, and I am the program coordinator for the Equal Rights Center disability rights program, and I am here to speak on behalf of the Equal Rights Center, ERC's and its members. For nearly 30 years the ERC has been fighting discrimination faced by people with disabilities with more than 3500 members in every state and The District of Columbia, we have inc reasingly been lending our voice to efforts which are forward looking and seek to proactively promote the equal participation of people with disabilities in all aspects of life. We believe that the adoption of these proposed regulations is a step in the right direction. We are here to offer public comment on the proposed regulations in general. To specifically address, I think it was question 23 whether the proposed guidelines have other qualitative or quantitative benefits. Enjoying equal opportunity in one's community requires the ability simply to get from point A to point B. The Equal Rights Center disability rights program has on a regular basis been dealing with issues of transportation such as taxicab discrimination against people with service dogs and operational deficiencies with good old Metro access, the paratransit service of the Washington Metropolitan area transit authority, and as part of this transportation system, pedestrian facilities in the public right

- of

- way need to be accessible s o that people with disabilities can actually get to places they need to go.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 33 While it's hard to quantify the level of human dignity and fairness the implementation of these proposed regulations these regulations will foster, there is unquestionably a quan titative economic advantage to this increased accessibility. Some figures estimate around 70% of people with disabilities are currently unemployed or under employed. It matters little of their actual still level or desire to work but many of
them face tr ansportation difficulties. And so, therefore, are unable to work and rely on federal benefit programs. Likewise, inaccessible pedestrian facilities may curtail the extent to which people with disabilities can access local business, medical care, governm ent, and other services. People with disabilities are a huge part of the consuming public and increasing access to goods and services will not only have a positive impact on them but also have a direct and tangible positive impact on those businesses an d the economy itself. Nearly every day, ERC receives complaints about lack of access due to narrow sidewalks, steep curb cuts or other barriers. People have gotten their scooter stuck, chairs stuck between light and utility poles and the edge of the sidew alk. We have also heard complaints of buses unable to let down their lifts at the designated bus stops because of
sidewalk clutter or other

-- other obstacles in the way. We realize these regulations don't really go to that level, and we may want them to , but we believe that the current regulations are a good step. Proactive and robust set of regulations would not just affect people with disabilities today, but generations of Americans in the future. By the year 2050 some statisticians estimate that at least one in three households will have a person with a
disabili ty. That incredible increase in the disability community will in turn increase the demand on transportation systems such as the pedestrian right of ways to be accessible. To deal with these issues now we will have a better infrastructure to ensure people with disabilities are able to get from point A to point B in the future. Again, the ERC applauds the Access Board in what is proposing. We hope as the board goes through its process of rulemaking it will keep in mind many tangible andUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 34 intangible benefi ts for our society when we work towards a more accessible world, and not merely get lost in the weeds of the dollars and cents to make these changes. Thank you for your time and attention this morning. I am happy to answer any questions.

>> Hans Van Win kle : Thank you both for sharing your thoughts. Questions by
the board members.

>> Scott Windley : Thank you very much.

>> Ian Watlington : Thank you.

>> Scott Windley : So next up will be Janet Barlow and then Billie Louise
Bentzen.

>> Janet Barlow : I am Janet Barlow with accessible design for the blind. I am representing the environmental access committee of the orientation and mobility division of the association for education and rehabilitation of the blind and visually impaired
known as AER. The orientation and mobility division of AER represents over 1,000 orientation mobility specialists who teach independent travel skills to persons who are blind or visually impaired. First, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak here toda y. And to provide more comments on these proposed guidelines. We will submit detailed comments in the next few days but I wanted to just discuss a few points with you here today. First, we can commend the Access Board for publishing the guidelines. I represented AER on the public rights

- of

- way access advisory committee, I know only too well these have been a long time coming. And the amount of work that has been done by the staff and board in getting to this point with these guidelines.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 35 The guidelin es for public rights

- of

- ways are really desperately needed by cities states and other jurisdictions and by pedestrians with disabilities. In order to have facilities that really consistent and accessible, I urge you to get this rulemaking done as

soon as possible. I hear on a regular basis from orientation mobility specialists around the country who are dealing with specific access issues with their clients and students who are blind or visually impaired. Those requests and concerns fall mainly into fou r broad categories
that I would like to talk a little bit about here. One is access to signal light intersections; two roundabouts; three would be stair markings; and four is construction areas. I will focus on those in the comments today.
We do have c omments on other areas

-- that we will present when we submit more
details. On access to signalized intersections we applaud the Access Board for requiring accessible pedestrian signals wherever pedestrian signals are installed. It's a critical safety i ssue for pedestrians who are blind with low vision. In the time I have teaching O and M well over 30 years now traffic signals have become much more complex. Computers are controlling the signals. They change in different phasing schemes. At the

-- al l throughout all throughout the day and can be confusing or impossible to determine from the traffic sounds anymore at some types of signals and some type of signalization because they relay the traffic presence but some of the timing schemes don't coordin ate with the traffic in the way that it used to when I started out teaching.
We are concerned about the focus listed for APS installation in alteration
situations. In R

- 209.2 it says existing pedestrian signals should comply with R209.1 when signal cont rol or software is altered or the signal head is replaced. Geometric changes to the intersection can take away the street crossing queues used for years by blind pedestrians. For example, recently in New York City lane configurations have been changed, sometimes with islands they have added bike lanesUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 36 and parking on one side of the street separate left turn phases for bicycles. There have been no changes at those locations to the pedestrian signal heads or to the traffic signal controllers. But they ha ve moved the traffic surge more than two lanes from the pedestrians crossing the street. That's resulted in inaccessibility of intersections for people who are blind at intersections they have been crossing for years they now can't hear the traffic surge t hey've been using. They didn't add use push buttons or change out signal controllers so the city didn't make changes that would trigger installation of APS
under this

-- as written the alterations guideline is written right now. But certainly the
alterat ion

-- the changes to those intersections altered the accessibility for pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired. In addition there are some changes that may take place in retiming signals to improve vehicular operations that may make intersections inaccessible to pedestrians who are blind. I am not sure exactly what is meant by the term "software is altered" in R

209.2. Does that mean when they change the programming or put in new software? Signal retiming is not typically a construction or reno vation operation. A series of software programming changes may not take place at the actual intersection. They are often done at a traffic management center downtown. And it can change the timing and phasing of a signal. The signal retiming may take only a few minutes there may be no evidence to the public or to a pedestrian who is blind that signal has been changed. And that it's operating in a different manner than it had previously. We urge a broader requirement for APS installation considering the impact of signal timing changes and some types of geometric design changes as well as pedestrian signal push button installation currently included. In general, in considering this question of APS installation, I would like to briefly
discuss the costs l isted for APS installation. Listed at $3600 per intersection a little perspective.

>> Scott Windley : Janet, you have one minuteUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 37 >> Janet Barlow : Oh, I do, okay. Well, keeping us tight on time now. Just to quickly quote from national traffic signal timing report card. They say that optimizing signal timing is a low cost approach to reducing congestion. That cost is 2500 to 3100 per signal per update recommended every three to five years. That's

-- that's a low cost modification. Your $3600 for accessible signals is a low cost modification in the typical funding issues of some of the intersections and costs for intersection construction. So, I know many consumers who are blind and waited more than a year for the APS to installed or had their request refused just because this costs too much. I do want you to look at what costs are in the typical transportation budget. To go to the other things, I want to talk about roundabouts I urge you to require
that roundabouts be accessible there are a great number being built in the U.S. Our members around the country are concerned or having people who are blind unable to cross intersections close to their home. There may be other types of modifications that can p rovide access besides the signals, but I urge you to require accessibility at roundabouts and equivalent facilitation, whatever. And stair markings

-- our members are particularly dismayed to find the requirement for contrasting edge strip on stairs was dropped. There was no comment or notice of that in the preamble; it had been in the PROWAG requirements in draft 407.4 and we are quite dismayed to see that. It's a feature many people with low vision want
and need. And finally construction areas as I mentioned in, well I didn't mention in discussing APS, but I will. I am concerned

-- we are concerned about the change to just referencing the MUTCD. In many cases the language in part 6 of the MUTCD on temporary traffic controls uses the term should rat her than shall. So it does not always require barriers in places we feel they may be necessary or accessible paths. We believe we need minimum standards requiring appropriate barriers and guidance in the Access
Board rule.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 38 In our detailed comments whic h we will submit soon, we expect to provide more information and references to suggest some language to address some of the issues I mentioned. We will provide comments regarding detectable warnings, signs, access to buildings and businesses to parking lo ts and shared streets. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Good. Thank you. We look forward to getting your written comments you have a question on the left from Gary?

>> Gary Talbot : Thank you very much Mr. Chai r. Gary Talbot public member. You stated that the stair markings had been removed from a previous version. Do you
know

-- you said a number and I was trying to take it down.

>> Janet Barlow : the 2005 PROWAG had a

--

>> Gary Talbot : Thank you very mu ch.

>> Janet Barlow : Had one two sentences related to contrasts on the stairs.

>> Gary Talbot : Thank you, I really appreciate it.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Chris.

>> Chris Hart : Do we have research to back up the stair marking issue, because I share your concern but I am mindful of how we justify.

>> Janet Barlow : I believe there has been research, I don't have it right here there
has been research on it not much as I would like to see. But there would be some

--US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 39 >> Chris Hart : Perhaps the research i s overseas.

>> Janet Barlow : It may be.

>> Scott Windley : Thank you. Next is Billie Benszen and then Jim Vale.

>> Billie Bentzen : Good morning I am Dr. Billie

- Louise

- or Beezy

- Bentzen , director of research at accessible design for the blind. We are a small firm that has been a major player in research on making the built environment more accessible to people who
are blind or who have low vision. Much of our research is reflected in t he document we are talking about today. Janet Barlow and I are principals of this firm and both of us are certified orientation and mobility specialists with more than well over a half century between us of teaching people visually impaired to travel inde pendently. I hold two other positions that are relevant to discussion. PROWAG : I am active member of ANSI A117 the committee on accessibility and participated in the development of the A117.1 standards in 2003 and 2008 representing AER the organization for which Janet just spoke. I am also a member of the signal's technical committee of the national committee on uniform traffic control devices and participated in the NUCCD standards for traffic control devices since about 1998. So, I am very
familiar w ith provisions there that relate to people with visual impairments and work very hard with them to develop good language. I would point out that we don't feel that we are there yet. Accessible design for the blind salutes the Access Board for the tremen dous amount of work that has brought us to this day. The lack of guidelines and standards for making public rights

- of

- way accessible to people who are visually impaired has been aUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 40 frequently cited reason for jurisdictions not to install accessible pedestr ian signals or detectible warnings at crossings where people are unable to cross or fearful of crossing. This has resulted in the inability to get to work, educational facilities, healthcare facilities, and social cultural religious and educational facil ities using public transit. This places the costly burden on jurisdictions to provide paratransit for these citizens. The per person cost of a one

- way paratransit ride in New York City January 2010 was $66. And the annual budget for New York City paratr ansit was $451 million. The cost to New York City was therefore approximately $30,000 a year for transporting one person with a disability to and from work every day. It costs a lot less to make street crossings
accessible.
Before the advent of modern intersections people who were blind or visually impaired could cross most intersections with confidence. Signalized intersections
functioned on a fixed

- time basis didn't have dedicated turning intervals. Pedestrians who are visually impaired could antici pate the onset of traffic going parallel to their direction of travel and used the surge of that traffic as a reliable indicator it was their time to cross. Before right turns on red were the norm they could assume any vehicular urge surge on
the street b eside them indicated it was their time to cross. Right turn on red means that complex perceptual and cognitive processing is required to determine whether a vehicle starting to move on the street beside them is moving on a red or green signal. Complex s ignal timing as well as complex geometry and varying traffic volumes mean there is often no steady stream of vehicular traffic from which pedestrians who are blind can establish the location and direction of the crosswalk and stay within it as they

cross. The advent of unsignalized turn lanes and roundabouts means that many people visually impaired can no longer walk to stores, transit stops and other destinations to which they used to be able to travel independently confidently and in safety. This resul ts in a lack of fitness and obesity resulting in unnecessary high costs of healthcare as well as paratransit.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 41 And research by Barlow and Bensen and other colleagues in three cities around the country, it was demonstrated that when crossing at unfamiliar signalized intersections without accessible signals, experienced blind pedestrians failed to begin crossing within the walk interval on 51% of crossings. The mean delay in starting to cross after the onset
of the correct interval was 6.4 seconds. This me ans that in the absence of accessible pedestrian signals it frequently occurs that crossings by blind pedestrians result in conflicts with perpendicular traffic and resulting delay in vehicular flow. In this same research, on 38% of crossings participants did not begin crossing within crosswalks and on 34% of crossings they completed their crossings outside of the crosswalk. Sometimes on the diagonally opposite corner having crossed the intersection diagonally, sometimes in the presence of fast moving lef t turning traffic that was responding to a left

- turn arrow which means the drivers had no reason to expect there would be a pedestrian in their path
of travel. In research of the same intersections after the installation of accessible signals
there were marked improvements in all of these statistics. Reduction in the cost of delays and pedestrian and vehicular crashes were not calculated into the regulatory assessment
as far as I can see.

>> Scott Windley : Beezy, you have one minute.

>> Billie Bensen : ADB commends Access Board for requiring the installation of APS in new construction and alterations where there are pedestrian signals, however we are concerned that the technical requirements have been deleted. The needs of people
who are blind or visu ally impaired are often not well understood by people designing the pedestrian facilities. While the proposed rule does incorporate the 2009 MUTCD by reference, we believe this could lead to confusion. For example the MUTCD lists factors that should be con sidered in determining whether to install APS. It doesn't require APS

- so the two are conflicting there.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 42 The language requiring placement of pedestrian push buttons in relation to the crosswalks and curb ramps is guidance rather than standard. In new construction appropriate location of push buttons should be required as location of that APS sound is critical to correct interpretation of the crossing that's indicated by that sound. ABD principles worked collaboratively and worked well with members of the naitonal committee on uniform traffic control devices and the federal highway MUTCD team, but these groups are not charged with writing minimum standards for accessibility. Rather than removing all specifications from R

- 307 we encourage the Access Boa rd to provide minimum requirements for APS that are not too restrictive allowing for
innovations and devices. But we think the following requirements well supported by research should be
included : Audible walk indication with a rapid ticking sound; a vi brotactile indication; Push button locator tone repeating at once a second; and a tactile arrow oriented in the
area of travel on the associated crosswalk. We commend Access Board for requiring pedestrian actuated signals at multi

- lane
roundabouts and ch annelized turn lanes, however research indicates the single lane roundabouts and single

- lane channelized turn lanes may also be inaccessible. Just to cite one research statistic in particular, signal lane channelized turn lane in Charlotte, North
Carolin a : on almost 10% of attempted crossings by blind participants, they resulted in interventions by the O&M specialists because drivers could not have stopped in time to
avoid a collision. I thank you for the opportunity to present these concerns. You wil l have some extensive written comments from us with documentation of research sources. Thank you.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Ms. Bensen, thank you we will accept the written testimony. The source of your research and conclusions was what again? You mentioned

s ome.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 43 >> Billie Bensen : Many sources.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Okay. Is that included in the written comments.

>> Billie Bensen : It will be included in my extensive written comments but not this brief draft; yes all the research will be documented.

> > Hans Van Winkle : Okay. Questions from the other members? Thank you very much.

>> Scott Windley : Jim Vale. And then Patrick Wojahn; hopefully I didn't totally butcher that last name, up next.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Good Morning.

>> Jim Vale : Go od morning. My name is Jim Vale I am the director of the Veterans benefits program for Vietnam Veterans in America. The Vietnam Veterans was founded in 1978, it is the only national Veterans organization congressionally chartered, exclusively dedicated to Vietnam Veterans and their families. A little bit about myself, I am also visually impaired I am legally blind for about 10 years. I have been through the VA blind rehab program. I served on the sound transit citizens accessibility advisory committe e in Seattle Washington and Arizona governor's council for blindness and visual impairment. I have a degree in blind rehab teaching. And I have also been a blind pedestrian struck in a crosswalk by a vehicle. I would like to share with you statistics, some Veterans statistics. There are a lot of living veterans today according to the 2010 national census

- 22.6 million.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 44 Approximately 2/3 of 14.5 million are over the age of 55. And half of them are Vietnam Veterans. They are at the age where as we ag e our vision gets worse. The VA estimates there is approximately 1 million Veterans with some form of vision loss. The Rand corporation estimates there's over 320,000 Veterans with traumatic brain injury and a
third of them have some form of vision loss . We have a lot of visually impaired Veterans
here in the United States. I would like to share with you issues from my own perspective. I notice the

- back in 2000 the ASME 17.1 required that the striping on the escalator was on the front
of the escala tor. In 2004, that was moved to the back of the escalator. As a visually impaired person with poor contrast sensitivity, when I travel down the escalator, I can't see the steps because the line has been moved to the back of the step of the escalator.
Wh en I come out of the senate building, all I see is marble I don't see individual steps. So, when that tread line was moved to the back it's made it harder for people like myself to travel down the escalator. It's also a problem here in the DC Metro area where so many escalators are undergoing maintenance and they're out of service for weeks, to months at a time, and we're having to travel escalators without the striping on the edge of the step. And I urge the committee to consider relocating that tread line to the front of the step. Now, I understand a lot of escalators are made of steel there is issue of maintenance; there are escalators in shopping malls, it looks like they are made of plastic and they have molding different colors. The molding on the back of the step is yellow to comply with standard. That could be, they could mold the front of the step and still be in compliance with the standard back in 2002. But I would argue look at ways of moving the tread line back to the front of the step

. Other issues, from Seattle, sound transit's done a great job with tactile markings on the edge of train platforms. When I travel down to Portland, I noticed on the Portland MAX, it's not yellow but black. That's a problem at night. I can't see the e dge of theUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 45 platform, I can feel the tactile markings but I can't actually see the platform. I would like there to be a standard as far as color in the platform edge, in Seattle, it's usually yellow, Portland is black. King County Metro in seattle at thei r bus bays, at the north gate they paint it white. Now at Tacoma at Pearce Transit, they paint it red. There is inconsistency I would like that to be made standardized to perhaps maybe yellow but the brightest color.
Also as far as issues with curb ra mps

- when I went through blind rehab I was taught to align myself with the wheelchair ramp to make it across the intersections. A lot of cities cut corners they put the ramp in the middle that makes it hard to orient myself as
far as with the crosswalk. There should be one ramp per crosswalk instead of one for two
crosswalks. I am in favor of the vibrating arrows for the crosswalk signals because that benefits not only visually impaired but hearing impaired persons and they can feel the vibrating arro w. From my own experience in Montgomery County they use audible system, it announces the name of the street you were trying to cross. When you have about 10 or 15 seconds left that audible stop now crossing Collesville road it stops then you have 15 seco nds to cross the street. There is still

-- there is still a beeping behind that but you know when the name of the street stops, you know you only have 15 seconds left. That might be a possible solution. Also, another issue is the poor lighting in DC Me tro stations especially Metro center and the Chinatown station it's too dark. Those stations need to be the lighting needs to be improved. Also, the

-- trying to cross as a pedestrian trying to cross railroad
tracks : when I was in Kent, WA, you have a c rosswalk and then you have a track, and you have to watch out for being hit by the gate when the gate comes down. There should be standards as far as pedestrian crossings at railroad tracks.

>> Scott Windley : You have one minute.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 46 >> Jim Vale : Okay. This concludes my remarks. I ask again that you consider moving the tread marks and the escalator back to the front of the stairs. This concludes my remarks and I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Thank you Mr. Va le. Question Gary?

>> Gary Talbot : Thank you. Gary Talbot, public member. Just so I am clear with your comments, it would be the nosing issue for you; the contrast nosing is

-- you would like that on the forward tread on both stairs and escalator?

>> J im Vale : On the stair on the escalator the front part of the escalator.

>> Gary Talbot : But would it apply to both stairs and escalators? I thought you had said on one case you came out of a building looked down at the stairs.

>> Jim Vale : Yes, oh. Y es, at the senate building it's white marble and I couldn't see it. If there was a visible tread mark that would help alleviate that problem.

>> Gary Talbot : Thank you very much.

>> Hans Van Winkle : All right. Thank you Mr. Vale.

>> Scott Windley : So Patrick Wojahn is next, after him is Shawn Lawrence.

>> Patrick Wojahn : Thank you. Good morning Mr. chairperson, distinguished
members of the Access Board.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 47 >> Hans Van Winkle : Good morning.

>> Patrick Wojahn : Thank you for the opportunity to tes tify this morning regarding the proposed accessibility guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the public right

of

- way. My name is Patrick Wojahn, my name is often mistaken, don't worry about it. I serve as a public policy analyst with the national disab ility rights network. I am testifying here today in my capacity as a co

- chair of the consortium for citizens with disabilities transportation task force. The CCD is a coalition of over 100 national consumer service provider and professional organization s which advocates on behalf of people with disabilities in chronic conditions and their families. The transportation task force is a smaller group within that coalition, that addresses access to transportation for people with disabilities, including advoc acy for paratransit programs and accessibility to all modes of transportation. The task force also advocates for increased support for those transportation resources that people with disabilities most frequently rely on such adds public transportation and accessibility in public rights

- of

- way. The national disability rights network is the national membership organization for the 57 federally mandated protection and advocacy and client assistance programs which advocate for people with disabilities to rec eive appropriate services and achieve maximum freedom in many government and private programs services and supports. I also serve as a member of the national capitol region transportation planning board and planning organization for the District of Colum bia and in that capacity as chair of the transportation planning board access for all advisory committee. The access for all committee provides advice to the transportation planning board on how to involve the concerns of low income and minority communiti es and people with disabilities in the regional planning process. The access for all committee is submitting testimony on the proposed accessibility guidelines under separate cover.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 48 The CCD transportation task force believes accessible public rights

- of

- wa y are critical for community integration and to serve the day

- to

- day needs of people with disabilities. People with disabilities typically rely on the ability to traverse public rights of way to access both public and private transportation to get to thei r jobs to go shopping to visit friends and family and to live. Obstacles to accessibility help contribute to the abysmal unemployment rate for people with disabilities and prevent them from being integrated as full members of the American community. The C CD transportation task force believes in complete streets policies and universal design to ensure accessibility is considered in every infrastructure project and throughout maintenance of public rights

- of

way. The 57 protection and advocacy agencies across the country work in a variety of ways towards promoting rights

- of

- way accessibility. Many protection and advocacy agencies such as the Louisiana advocacy center and the Connecticut office of protection
and ad vocacy have served on local access boards and advisory committees regarding rights of way access. Others such as disability rights New Jersey, in the case New Jersey protection and advocacy versus township of Riverside, and the disability rights network of Pennsylvania in Robertson versus city of Mathewsport, and culler versus the city of Lancaster, have been engaged in class action lawsuits based on the failure of local governments to provide sufficient curb ramps. The proposed accessibility guidelines go a long way towards ensuring that local and state governments follow accessibility principles when renovating existing rights

- of

- way or constructing new ones. The guidelines incorporate consideration of every public right of way that a person might conf ront, from public sidewalks to crosswalks and slope streets to overpass and roundabouts. We appreciate the hard work and effort that has gone into developing the proposed guidelines. Many of these standards will help ensure people with disabilities

are better able to travel over rights

- of

- way.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 49 Specifically as more and more local governments install roundabouts as a method to discourage speeding by automobiles, the provisions require pedestrian activated signals at multiple lane crosswalks and this will increase likelihood people with disabilities will able to safely navigate these. The requirements for detectable warning surfaces strike an appropriate balance between the needs of pedestrians with visual impairment and the needs of wheelchair
riders. The guidelines provide appropriate guidance regarding the surface of access routes to ensure wheelchair riders are not hindered by slippery, rocky or bumpy surfaces. These guidelines improve standards for accessible pedestrian signals to help
ensure th at the signals may be understood by pedestrians with visual impairment. The task force is however concerned about some guidelines in the proposal that could be stronger. For example, although the guidelines address safety and accessibility
for multi

- lan e approach and exit lanes at roundabouts there is no provision ensuring safety at single lane approach and exit lanes at roundabouts. Although the guidelines require minimum crossing time of 3.5 feet per second a recently review of studies by the
AAA foun dation found that the 15% speed for pedestrians age 60 and up, range from 3.02 to 3.19 feet per second. The minimum crossing time should be lengthened to ensure accessibility for all pedestrians. In closure, thank you for the opportunity to testify toda y regarding the views of the CCD transportation task force concerning the proposed accessibility guidelines for public rights

- of

- way. The transportation task force is ready to work in partnership to ensure all people with disabilities are able to travel t hroughout their communities and achieve full integration in society.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Mr. Wojahn, thank you. Members of the board questions

or comments.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 50 >> Scott Windley : Okay. Thank you next up Shawn after that is Angela Stone.

>> Shawn Lawren ce : Good morning, Mr. Chairman members of the Access Board, my name is Shawn Lawrence, and I'm a community action specialist at a disability resource center located in Fredericksburg Virginia. We are a Center for Independent Living and like our other 16 sister organizations in Virginia and 500 others throughout the United States, the term center for independent living means consumer controlled community based cross disability nonresidential private nonprofit agency designed and operated in local community for individuals with disabilities and provides an array of independent living services. Our core services are independent living skills training, peer counseling, advocacy, and information and referral. I want to comment on the proposed access guidelin es for pedestrians facilities in the public right of way. It is stated on page 28 in the regulatory assessment under number 12 benefits. Proposed guidelines would benefit pedestrians with disabilities. The U.S. census board reports that there are 54.4 m illion Americans, about in one in five U.S. residents reporting some level of disability in the year 2005. We can be assured that that number has and will increase in the coming years. Right of way is a term first used to describe the right to travel unh indered. These guidelines are designed to ensure public right of way contains the continuous accessible route that accommodates all pedestrians, including those with mobility aids. Street crossings where no signals are provided can present challenges fo r pedestrians with disabilities. Traditionally most intersections that lack any kind of signage or signalization to stop traffic were small roads and quiet areas. But certain street design features that reduce or eliminate vehicle stops have gained popula rity as traffic calming measures. Even at busy urban intersections traffic calming is a term that refers to a variety of methods to reduce motorized traffic volume and or speed. The goal is to enhance safety, especially for pedestrians.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 51 Ironically, man y of the physical measures used to promote traffic calming such as roundabouts, traffic circles, and islands can make it more difficult or confusing for pedestrians with disabilities to safely cross the street. There are two guidelines I would like to fo cus on : Detectable warning surfaces on ramps and blended transitions. As stated in the regulatory assessment on pedestrians access routes detectable warning surfaces indicate when there is a flush rather than curb connection to pedestrians who are blind or with low
vision. Accessible pedestrian signals and pedestrian push buttons. accessible pedestrian signal and pedestrian push button is an integrated device that communicates information about walk or don't walk intervals at signalized intersections i n nonvisual formats to pedestrians who are blind or have low vision. Although estimates vary, there are approximately 10 million blind and visually impaired people in the United States. Approximately 1.3 million are legally blind. There are approximate ly 55,200 legally blind children. This information was obtained from the Michigan Braille transcribe fund MBTF. Certain design elements audible can help pedestrians who are blind with low vision orient themselves to cross, look at crossing locations. P edestrian activated signals can be used to stop traffic only when needed. Attention to surrounding structures and landscape features can minimize noise that interferes with the ability to of pedestrians relying on the hearing to make judgments about trave l conditions. Signage, as an example, yield to pedestrians, can encourage motorists to stop for individuals waiting to go cross. I want to encourage you to pass the guidelines which will help millions of disabled Americans to function safely as they navi gate our streets. thank you very much.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Thank you for those comments, questions?US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 52 >> Regina Blye : Thank you, Mr. chair. Regina Blye, public member. I know this is beyond the scope of the four services that you provide at your CIL, do you participate in travel training, if so do you cover any of the guidelines in the training?

>> Shawn Lawrence : Well, funny you should mention that we are getting ready to do, we have an adult advocacy group at our center, called the A

- team which is most of the members that came up here with me today. We are getting ready to do a street survey that was put together by the I think it was AAA. They put the street survey togethe r. We are going to go around the City Fredericksburg and different neighborhoods and assess the streets and conditions that we just got thorugh talking about. As far as training goes. We have had some training, I myself personally am not really qualifie d to give that kind of training, but we do have like our transportation people, which is FredBus, they also do training and it goes into the community for people with disabilities that would need to learn how to access the routes and things or how to use t he features that they have. Yes,
sir?

>> Mathew McCollough : Good morning. My name is Matt McCollough. I'm very familiar with the Fredericksburg area because my parents live in Stafford, Virginia which is just north of it. And I realize that Frederick sburg is growing at a great speed with its population. I am starting to realize that there is a gap of modernization within the city where

-- where closer to Mary Washington University it's very modernized, but you pull away from the historic district, pe r se, it's much

-- there is such a discrepancy of the path of travel and how the sidewalks are made up and stuff like that. What would you

-- what would you propose for the Access Board in terms of trying to address this growing concern that there may be a gap between how cities are addressing the growing population that they should be even across the board in terms of the path of travel from the sidewalks and what have you. What would you recommend how we may address that
across the board?US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 53 >> Shawn Lawr ence : That's a very good question. Ironically I am a member of the city planning commission.

(LAUGHTER)

>> Shawn Lawrence : Sorry about that. (LAUGHTER)

>> Shawn Lawrence : And we are trying to address that

-- those concerns in our comprehens ive plan. Which we just finished 2007 version and we are getting ready to
have the five

- year review of that coming up in the spring. Fredricksburg as you know especially the area that you just mentioned about Mary Washington which our office is maybe abo ut two blocks from Mary Washington. By James Monroe High School it's an old city. Very historic city, I will put it that way. A lot of the problems especially Caroline Street, Princess Anne Street, you know the two streets I am talking about. Their
des igns, accessibility was just not a concern when those designs were made. Trying to retrofit them and with the city population too getting older, now I have been very blessed to be put in a position where I have seen some of the plans that Mary Washington foundation is planning for the city. And for the area that you just got through mentioning. But you are talking even a good economy, you are talking 15 years or more down the road. The question becomes what can we do between then and between now
and the n to correct some of those things. It's very hard. It's very hard. Because like I say you are dealing with historic town. And people are very hesitant to want to change where George Washington lived, they are hesitant to want to change where trolley ca rs and things go up and down the street. So, hopefully being on the planning commission as things begin to get built and when you guys be making new guidelines so as they are being built, because in Fredericksburg there is no place to go. Just like New Y ork you just have to tear down and rebuild right where you are. Because Stafford andUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 54 Spotsylvania have room to grow out; but Fredricksburg? that's it. As you tear down and rebuild I pray that you pass guidelines that will be able to address those concern s.

>> Mathew McCollough : Thank you, sir.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Other questions? All right. Thank you.

>> Shawn Lawrence : Thank you very much.

>> Scott Windley : Next up will be, Angela Stone, after that will be Jean Tessmer via the phone.

>> Ange la Stone : Hi, my name is Angela Stone, I am a member of the A

- team that Shawn just mentioned, I would like to talk to you today about some concerns regarding the accessible pedestrian push buttons. I am concerned that people like me may not be able to re ach them because sometimes there is obstructions, bushes in the way or sometimes there are just slightly too high so I have to try to extend out of my chair, which is a safety issue. I also recently went on a walk in Fredricksburg there was a sign that s aid, that cars may not yield to the pedestrian signal. That was very concerning to me. Because I don't want my independence to be compromised because I am concerned for safety. Also, as he mentioned for the blind, for the blind and visually impaired I d o agree there needs to be some type of audible device that can not only tell you when to cross but maybe to tell you in intervals how many seconds that you have to cross so that someone visually impaired doesn't have to wait for the next cycle to cross. I thank you for yourUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 55 time and consideration and I appreciate anything that you could do to make people's lives with disabilities like mine a little bit easier. Thank you.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Miss Stone, thank you. We will take that to heart any question s by the board? Thank you very much.

>> Scott Windley : Thank you.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Thank you for your testimony.

>> Scott Windley : Jean Tessmer is on the phone, after her will be Dayna Whitmer who is also hopefully on the phone. So, Jean?

>> Jean Tessmer : Okay.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Just a second, we are checking the audio. Could you start talking and we will turn up the volume.

>> Jean Tessmer : How is that?

>> Hans Van Winkle : Little more. We

-- can you hear me now.

>> That's very g ood, yes

>> Okay.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 56 >> Hans Van Winkle : Go ahead. Go morning.

>> Jean Tessmer : Good morning it's very early in the morning 6:30 a.m.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Well where are you?

>> Jean Tessmer : I am in Hawaii.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Ah, okay. (LAUGHTER)

>> Hans Van Winkle : Well ALOHA I guess we should say.

>> Jean tessmer : ALOHA to all of you too. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Jean Tessmer, I've been qualified by GSA as a consultant to federal agencies. I helped developed the design focus accessibility.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Ms. Tessmer speak slower, that will help.

>> Jean Tessmer : Yes.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Or get off the speaker phone might also help we have good volume, but you are breaking up so it' s a little hard to hear. Speak slower and start off again

>> Jean Tessmer : Okay. I have

-- I am also using a headset, I thought you could hear me speak.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 57 >> Hans Van Winkle : I think we just lost you. Can you hear us?

>> Jean Tessmer : Yeah, I can hear you.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Okay. Go ahead. Are you on speaker phone?

>> Jean Tessmer : No, I am not.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Okay. Well, that's pretty good. Try it again.

>> Jean Tessmer : Okay. My name is jean. I have been qualified by GSA as a barrier free consultant to federal agencies. I am involved in the development for the design buffers and tolerances for acceptance accessible features at federal states issue (inaudible). I hold construction design licenses in the state of Hawaii and h ave 20 years of applied design construction and acceptance of accessible projects. (inaudible). I also commend the efforts of the committee for (inaudible) giving me the opportunity for individual disability I appreciate all of your hard work. Okay. Le t's start with page 6 at the top of the page at the Architectural Barriers Act : My concerns is

--

>> Hans Van Winkle : Ms. Tessmer, we can hear you okay, then you fade away.

>> Jean Tessmer : Yes, I'm sorry. I think I keep lowering my mouthpiece.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Yes, you are. If you could speak directly into that, we can hear you okay. Once you start talking you fade away. Speak slowly and right into the mouthpiece and we will be able to hear you.

>> Okay. I can do that.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 58 >> That's much bett er

>> All right. I would like to insert a phrase at the end of the paragraph on page 6.

>> Page 6, okay.

>> Yeah. Insertion is : The scope of covered (inaudible) on profit for profit federal state and local governmental agencies will receive directly or indirectly federal tax dollars. And my reason for wanting to insert that phrase is to actually broaden the scope of enforcement from the U.S. Access Board. And I think that we need uniform enforcement, and it needs to be addressed through higher profi le education. Each time a grant is let, the education needs to incorporate and require self evaluations that are reviewed for compliance before receipt of any dollars. and incorporate (inaudible) into the design before construction. (inaudible) being min us 1.3% for the 8.3%. Minus 1% for the 5% equalling 4% in the design. Minus 1% of the 2.1% which would be 1.1% for a period (inaudible). And minus 2% for the 2% which equals 0.1% for interior surfaces.
There is a difference between interior and exterio r surfaces because generally speaking, you need to compensate for some more covering. If we don't compensate those (inaudible) traditionally will be (inaudible). Additionally the allowance plus 1.3% pass

fail maximum which incorporates specified the 6th level be added. Whether the application of (inaudible) specification instructions of the (inaudible) submittal. Training on construction methods that build compliance and clear uniform inspection methods based on historically reliable research shall be i ncluded. The application of the previous combined procedures has resulted in close to 98% repeated compliance accessible surfaces and components for over a 12

- year period. The aforementioned combined surfaces (inaudible) successfully applied concrete asp halt and raised (inaudible) in Hawaii and California. (inaudible).US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 59 R

- 105

- 5

-- I'm sorry period 5. Insert the word practicable and insert the meaning which means that you

-- that unique characteristics presents incorporations of accessibility features in a facility in such a case that new construction requirements apply. Except where the entity can demonstrate to the office of inspector general of Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice that it is structurally impracticable to
meet thos e requirements. This exception is very narrow and should not be used in cases of merely hilly terrain. The department expects that it will be used in only rare and unusual circumstances. My concern is that the word impracticable without specifying
what it means and without setting these limits to the scope will add to confusion and also end perpetuating nonaccessible design construction. Page 64. R (inaudible) add an advisory note on impractical means and go back to referring to R105.5.
R

- 202.3.3 inser t advisory after the words solutions may include install planters to split the grade

- road grade from the walk grade; install secondary routes not a part of the right of way that provides (inaudible) access. Use (inaudible) limit the length or width of
2 % grade to reduce (inaudible). Page 67. R

- 202.1 Insert new sentence to determine if a missing (inaudible). Prevents compliance the impractical definitions shall apply. See R

105.5. In addition, alternate routes not a part of the right of way can be co nsidered as a secondary parallel route. Okay. Now, I have photos for R

- 208 detectable warning surfaces. (inaudible). Those being (inaudible).

>> Hans Van Winkle : We don't have any visuals.

>> Jean Tessmer : You have no visuals.

>> Hans Van Winkle : No.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 60 >> Jean Tessmer : Okay. Well, R

- 202 detectable warning surfaces I recommend deleting this section and R 305(inaudible) and replace with a nonhazardous, wheelchair accepted, textured detectable warning. The texture (inaudible) that has not been test ed to comply with the force limits to traverse of the 1/2in carpet, or the 1/2in grate spacing(inaudible). Truncated domes specified in R

- 305 are hazardous to able

- bodied and disabled pedestrians (inaudible). The permanent disabilities caused to able bodi ed mobility impaired individuals should not be underestimated. Doctor said it would have been better to fall on flat concrete as the dome pushed into the forehead like a hammer hitting to cause traumatic brain injury. Small children fall frequently on wa lkways I would hate to see what would happen to them. Blind individuals that I know and have friendship,the ramps are facing in the wrong direction any way, not in line with the crosswalk and they can't find or search for the small patch of the detectable warning. They say they could step off the curb like anyone else one of these days. Page 68R

209.1.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Miss Tessmer, for one we are out of time for the second point is that we are having a great deal of difficulty hearing and understanding what you have to say. Do you

-- is there testimony written up could you send it to us

>> Jean Tessmer : Yes, it is.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Why don't we suggest that. Because one, we want to make sure we incorporate your thoughts and comments into your deliberations and we want to make sure we get it right. If you could send it to us we could make sure that we accept
that

-- your comments

>> Scott Windley : we have received comments from her, if she has any
additional comments she should let us know.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 61 >> Jean Tessmer : Yes, I have this testimony I have not submitted.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Okay. You have additional things that you want to submit?

>> Jean Tessmer : W ell, I have this entire testimony which covered the entire new rights

- of

- way regulations.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Okay. Well, let's do that. If you make sure we have everything we will make sure that we pass it to all of the board members for our
deliberat ions.

>> Jean Tessmer : Okay.

>> Hans Van Winkle : All right. Well, thank you we appreciate you getting up early we hope you have a wonderful day in Hawaii.

>> Jean Tessmer : Thank you, very much.

>> Scott Windley : The next will be Dayna Whitmer, is she on the line?

>> Dayna Whitmer : Hello?

>> Scott Windley : Yes.

>> Dayna Whitmer : Okay. I am getting a lot of feedback.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 62 >> Hans Van Winkle : We can hear you well, good volume, if you make sure you speak slowly

>> Dayna Whitmer : Okay. I will try. My name is Dayna I am testifying as an individual. And I certainly don't have the expertise of the previous speakers but I can appreciate all of their efforts to make communities safer for every one. I wanted to speak to you about one aspect of the public right of way that's not been addressed at all in the guidelines of the proposed rules.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Okay. You were doing well at first now you faded out. If you could

--

>> Dayna Whitmer : Okay. As you work to ensure the safety of the people with various physical disabilities please remember those individuals with hidden disabilities are more vulnerable to (inaudible).

>> Hans Van Winkle : Okay. We have broken up totally we can understand nothing at this point is there a nything you could do technically you start off fine and fade out are you moving the mouthpiece?

>> Dayna Whitmer : No, I am not.

>> It's our end.

>> It sounds like we are having technical difficulty.

>> Dayna Whitmer : There is a lot of feedback.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 63 >> H ans Van Winkle : Is it possible to give us written comments.

>> Dayna Whitmer : I can certainly do that.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Okay. Do we have any other technical solutions.

>> David Capozzi : Hang up the call then retry.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Try that do we have your phone number.

>> Dayna Whitmer : ROSEMARIE does.

>> Rose Marie Bunales : Yes, I have it here.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Okay. Yes give us your

-- do you have the number?

>> Rose Marie Bunales : I have it.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Okay. Rose has your number hang up we will call you
back and see if we can do

-- if we can do better

>> Dayna Whitmer : Thank you.

>> Dayna Whitmer : Hello?

>> Hans Van Winkle : Yes, Miss Whitmer, can you hear us?US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 64 >> Dayna Whitmer : Yes, I can.

>> Hans Van Winkle : We have you loud and clear let's try it again.

>> Dayna Whitmer : Okay.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Speak slowly.

>> Dayna Whitmer : Start the beginning.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Yes, I think so.

>> Dayna Whitmer : Okay. My name is Dayna, I am testifying as an individual. I do not have the experience of previous speakers to appreciate their efforts to make communities safer for every one. I want to speak to you about one aspect of

-- (inaudible)

>> Hans Van Wink le : Miss Whitmer, we keep dropping off I am afraid we are going to have to take your written testimony.

>> Okay.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Yeah, we think it's a fault on our part. From a technology perspective. So, we apologize for that. We do want to mak e sure we get your testimony. Let's cut this off at this point. And if you would provide the written testimony we will
make sure we take it under consideration.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 65 >> Dayna Whitmer : Great. Thank you.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Thank you very much.

>> Scott W indley : All right. So, that's all of them.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak at this point. I think we are

--

>> Scott Windley : We finished all of the registered people who want to testify.
We can take a few more minutes to

-- if anybody wants to testify.

>> Hans Van Winkle : We have someone in the back?

>> Scott Windley : Yes. We are not sure if we are allowed to have retired staff members testify

-- no I am just joking.

(LAUGHTER)

>> Bill Hecker : We demand it.

>> Scott Windley : Dennis knows I love to give him a hard time.

>> David Capozzi : He can only call in. (LAUGHTER)

>> Hans Van Winkle : Dennis, welcome back.US Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 66 >> Dennis Cannon : Thank you.

>> My name is Dennis cannon. I am a consultant with synergy LLC. Now. And I wanted to make one comment about something that happens with respect to roundabouts. I am sure you are going to get comments from the folks who are the people who designed roundab outs and have been pushing them around. I think they have lots of advantages for lots of reasons in terms of safety. But I have been following

-- I used to be the board representative on the task force from TRB on roundabouts I have been
involved in some of the roundabout committees in the institute of transportation engineers. I followed the listserv which is basically an information source for lots of people on roundabouts. I wanted to point out that the vast majority of people on that
listserv do not take accessibility seriously. And some of them treat it with contempt. So, what you will see is a lot of comments about oh, we can't possibly put signals on roundabouts primarily because they don't understand the issue on multi

- lane roundabouts
which is the multiple threat problem. That is, the vehicle stops in the first lane, to let you cross, and then the vehicle comes by in the second lane. If there is a bus and maybe some of you have seen the video that was done by Von Inman of FHWA, a bus stops fo r a blind person totally blocking the view of the car in the second lane, and the cars in the second lane comes zipping past, and even when the bus tries to maneuver its way to block that lane, there are still cars coming past. The purpose of a signal in a multi

- lane situation is to stop the cars from that happening. Now, the blind person of course can't make eye contact with the driver. And can't really tell in most cases when the vehicle is simply slowing down to yield. They sort of wait until they ar e sure it's stopped before they cross. A lot of blind people don't step off the curb right away. They wait until the car stops. Lots of vehicles will simply speed back up assuming he or she isn't actually going to cross. If a vehicle like a bus or SUV or a van stops in the first lane, for the blind

-- for a sighted person you simply walk out in front of that vehicle and peer around to see if the cars had stopped. Not only can't the blind person do that, but the concern in theUS Access Board Public Hearing Public Rights

- of

- Way Notice of Proposed Ru lemaking Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 67 wheelchair when I roll out in front of that van, my feet and knees are in the opposite lane before I could look around the van to see if the car is coming. It's worse for someone in a scooter, because the scooter may be half way into the other lane before the person can actually l ook around the vehicle to see whether somebody is coming. So, I think you need to be careful and take with a grain of salt the comments I am sure you are going to get bombarded with from a lot of the people who are pushing roundabouts. As I said I
think roundabouts are great in many ways as long as they are accessible thank you.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Dennis, thank you. Any questions from the members of the board? Dennis, thank you very much. Glad to have you back. Okay. I think that's it. Seeing no other members that wish to testify we certainly thank all of you that took the time and effort to give us your comments. Again, I will restate my earlier comments we are excited about the progress we look forward to incorporate your comments thoughts
and suggestions to the extent to which you have them in writing make sure you give those to us and thank you for your participation and thank you to the board for good questions. David? We start again at 1:30 today. Thank you.

>> Hans Van Winkle : This ends this session, thank you very much.

(Recess taken.)