US ACCESS BOARD PUBLIC HEARING

Transcripts:

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Dallas Texas

Monday, September 12, 2011

MS. STARNES: Thank you, Mr. Leppert. Now as we move into our next item 

here, which is talking about our public rights-of-way hearing, I want to give you just a 

real brief note or two on the Access Board's work on this public rights-of-way that has 

led to our proposed rule. 

The Board has had a longstanding commitment to making sure these public 

rights-of-way are accessible to people with disabilities and we really couldn't give you all 

of the data that went into this during this brief period, but I want to highlight a couple of 

key activities that led to this proposed -- the release. 

It started back in 1999 when the Board created a federal advisory committee 

that was comprised of 33 members. They represented disability organizations, Public 

Works Department, transportation, engineers, government agencies and standard 

setting bodies; and their work proved to be invaluable to us and provided the Board 

with the building blocks for this proposed rule. 

Move forward to June 2002 when the Board released the draft guidelines based 

on the committee report and made them available for public comment until October of 

2002. At that time the Board received over 1,400 comments on the draft. So we also 

held a public hearing on the guidelines in Portland, Oregon. And then in November 

2005, the Board placed a second draft of the guidelines in the rule making docket so 

that we could gather additional information on cost analysis. The revised draft 

incorporated changes that were based on the comments that we received from that 

2002 draft. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 2

So we've conducted hundreds of training sessions around the country and 

hosted our own webinars and participated in webinars that others offered. We 

developed several comprehensive technical and assistance document for planning and 

design of alterations, an overall guide, and a four part video series on accessible 

sidewalks. 

We also committed substantial resources from our budget to research. And the 

research topics included accessibility pedestrian signals, common problems arising in 

the installation of those signals, detectable warnings, synthesized research conducted in 

the U.S. and overseas on maintenance and durability of detectable warnings, as well as 

research on visual detection of warning materials by pedestrians with low vision. 

Finally, we did research on pedestrian access to modern roundabouts and signalization 

on those roundabouts. 

So the activities in 2002 and 2005, along with a lot of training and outreach and 

research, provided us with the information that we needed to move forward. So now 

we have released proposed rule on public rights-of-way, and once we've received and 

analyzed proponents to this rule, the next step is going to be a final rule. 

So we look forward to hearing from the public on this proposed rule. Your 

comments are obviously very important to us and guide the development of the final 

document. 

The comment period is going to end on November 23rd of this year, 2011. And 

we're going to be holding one additional hearing in addition to the one today. The other 

will be in Washington, D.C. on November the 9th.
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 3

So instructions for submitting comments are Page 8 provided in the proposed 

rule. And we encourage you, if you don't have any comments you have on your list for 

today, to read the proposed rule and provide those to us at later date. 

So now I'd like to ask Mr. Scott Windley, who is our accessibility specialist 

working on this rule, to go over the ground rules for today's hearing. Scott. 

MR. WINDLEY: If I can get -- there we go. It's like magic. 

As you notice the proposed rulemaking to revise the guidelines for the public 

right-of-away is published in July 26th, 2011, and as Nancy mentioned, the second 

hearing will be on November 9th in D.C., and public comment period ends on November 

23rd. We encourage you to give us comments. The only way we improve rules is by 

receiving comments, and -- 

>>: Could you move the mike up? 

MR. WINDLEY: Yes, sure. Sorry. The registered speakers -- I have a list of 

registered speakers now, seven to five minutes, I might be able to give you eight 

depending on how it goes. 

After all registered speakers have presented, there will be an open microphone 

session for 2 others to testify if there's still time. And if you haven't preregistered, feel 

free to do that now. And a transcript will be kept and will be entered into the docket. 

Written remarks or PowerPoint shows shall be given to the staff at the registration desk. 

If you have anything that you want to give to us in addition to your comments in written 

format, you want to give that to the people at the registration desk. And I would like 

you to refrain from reacting publicly to witness presentations or Board members. We're 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 4

here to listen to you. It's not intended to be a debate at this point. So just so we know 

that that's the rules. 

And we'll move forward now with Dave Carter, Assistant Director of 

Development Services Transportation, City of Richardson. Is he here? 

>>: He's not here, Scott. 

MR. WINDLEY: He's not here, okay. Next, Nancy Edsel. 

MISS EDSEL: Okay. Is this loud enough? I used to be a teacher, so I do speak 

quite loudly. I'm a consumer from Temple, and I'm glad that I got good directions from 

Mapquest. Basically, I'm a consumer, I'm a wheelchair user, I also use a walker on 

occasion. I'm a former member of the architectural barriers advisory committee. I am 

on the Bell County Committee for People with Disabilities and I'm certified ADA trainer. 

I'm also a lifetime member of the disability community and an advocate for all people 

with all disabilities. 

Now, when the guidelines came out, it was to benefit pedestrians with 

disabilities. Now, in the information that I have read up, this information that 54.4 

million Americans, about one in five, reported some level of disability. This was -- this 

information was taken was six years ago, and in the 2010 census contained no questions 

in regards to persons living in a single family residence with any type of condition that 

interferes with an individual's ability to function. So at this point, there's not a -- not 

even a guesstimate as to how many people are actually living with disabilities. 

Congress went and after enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act. After the 

information, Congress found the effects of barriers to be a continuing problem that
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 5

denies people with the opportunity to compete on an equal basis. I still find that also 

very true. 

In the House report in 1990, the unemployment, transportation and public 

combination sections would be meaningless if people who used wheelchairs were not 

afforded the opportunity to travel on and between the streets. Well, that information is 

still true.

I moved here from Maryland and I have impaired accessibility. When the ADA 

was signed into law, most of the disability community thought it would be a dawning of 

a new era. However, now, as I sit here some 20 years later, there still remain multiple 

holes which many governmental and public and private entities have jumped through.

Public rights-of-way, as stated by Miss Johnson, should be considered a 

pedestrian network. They can affect those with mobility issues, those who use 

wheelchairs or walkers. The components can also affect those with visual or hearing 

challenges.

These routes are meant to be traversed with ease, but due to inadequate curb 

ramps, slopes being too high and not meeting the minimum requirement, even the lack 

of curb ramps, the lack of crosswalk signals, audible or not, in addition the very width of 

sidewalks and roundabouts, can impede a person's travel as they're there and do not 

afford the space for a wheelchair or a person using cane and/or a service animal.

Using bricks for a pathway may be aesthetically pleasing, but these surface areas 

are very disturbing to those individuals who use wheelchairs, such as myself, and have 

spinal cord injuries or pain radiating from the back as they are very jarring to someone

using a wheelchair. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 6

I understand there's still discussions about the materials for the truncated 

domes and corrugated surfaces, but there should be consideration for material 

uniformity of the pedestrian roundabouts or medians. 

To this day, sometimes I question why even ADA exists because it seems that the 

laws are only followed when they're convenient. When costs are low, when people in 

the community bring up issues because enforcement still involves a filing of lawsuits 

that are often dismissed as frivolous. 

Why hasn't there been an MPRM on the enforcement? They were signed into 

effect. And regulations do need to be consistent but at what price for those of us who 

would like to be able to travel, to liberalize, which include going to work. Tom Leppert 

spoke about going to work. 

There are still barriers to buildings; that people who use wheelchairs, if the 

elevators are out, they can't go to their job interview. Is -- are bus stops accessible? 

Does the roundabout provide enough width for my service animal and my 

wheelchair? What curb ramps along these three blocks, what is the slope? If I only have 

a short way to go, I need to find someone to go along that route with me and find out 

whether there are trees in the way, whether there are planters that are in the way. We 

are people and I know that uniform and consistent measurements matter, but so do we 

as people with disabilities. Thank you. 

MR. WINDLEY: Thank you. Judy Babbitt, Department of public Work, San 

Antonio. Is she here? 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 7

>>: Yes. 

>>: Thank you. Good morning. Is this on? 

MR. WINDLEY: Yes. Might want to get a little closer to it or get it a little closer 

to you. 

>>: I'll move me. That's a better idea. I'm Judy Babbitt from the City of San 

Antonio. I'm the city's accessibility compliance manager and have been in this role 

before the U.S. Access Board was created. So I'm probably the oldest living accessibility 

coordinator in the United States, but... 

And with that comes a great deal of experience. And I came today -- well, one, I 

wouldn't have missed it; but secondly, to congratulate you finally on getting the 

document in this place. It is a terrific document. I've been watching it since 2001 when 

there was a meeting in San Antonio presenting it. I'd like to give you a little bit of 

perspective on the City view of ADA compliant, at least my view. I am a city planner by 

training, and I had polio as a child, but I was fortunate to grow up in a town where there 

was nothing to do with me but put me right back into the mainstream, so that's where 

I've been. I went to school, went to the Peace Corps, came back, got a Masters and got 

very interested in city planning, and from there into accessibility planning. When the 

ADA -- and I was in Section 504 is the rehab act is when we created the office in San 

Antonio, and I was hit for that task because of my city planning ability. 

When the ADA was finally passed and some cities took the bull by the horn and 

did ADA transition plans, and we were one of them, and I can tell you very clearly that at 

that time, sidewalks were not an issue. Way back then, I mean, it was a long time ago, 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 8

but when we did our transition plan, there was no consideration of adding sidewalks as 

part of your transition plan. 

Everything was done in a silo. All of the buildings were made accessible and we 

had a grand transition plan, but it's all about the physical assets of the city. 

Those did not include the sidewalks at that time. They were not considered a 

part of the city's program, and so, I mean, I would say that most cities around the 

country did not really seriously look at sidewalks until the -- unless -- until the past ten 

years. 

And this is -- is a real wake-up call because we left ten years aside and waiting for 

a document. We were using -- we were using right-of-way guidelines that did not exist. 

We were using right-of-way guidelines out of state codes, our state code, and the ADA 

guidelines that were all for interior spaces, they were for parks, they were for plazas, 

but they were not for the public rights-of-way. 

And to watch the growth of this is terribly important and -- this document, we've 

been using it in San Antonio since the first draft came out. We've been pretending. I've 

been pretending that it was official, and we've gotten some good things done in San 

Antonio because of that. 

We have an active APS program. We have -- we already have 4-foot sidewalks as 

a requirement on all right-of-way, and I could go on and on, but it's all - many of these 

issues, many of the things that are in there are already in our San Antonio code. And 

that's pretty exciting. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 9

In San Antonio, we have -- our bus system was behind the rest of the city in 

terms of development of accessibility, and so, there were no buses with lifts or ramps 

until about the past, I would say, eight years. So there was no -- people were not going 

anywhere. 

Nobody saw people with disabilities on the street because they couldn't go 

anywhere. 

And as the bus system finally got the lifts or the -- they have ramps, and we got 

more and more sidewalks, we have a real partnership now, and we have a very active 

sidewalk program. 

And I'm not here to talk about what San Antonio did, because it's not any better 

than what a lot of cities have done, but to give you a little perspective on the 

importance of this document to tie the pieces of this system together. 

We cannot have an open and accessible system without open and accessible 

paths of travel for people with disabilities so they don't have to sign a form to get on a 

little bus, they don't have to have somebody watch where they go and delineate how 

often they can go. I think our transportation system and our sidewalk system is -- is -- I 

mean, it took a long time to learn, but that's what we need. So I appreciate all the work 

that you-all have done. I have been a very big fan of the US Access Board for years and 

will continue. Lois Thibault is a really good friend of mine and she came to San Antonio 

and did a most wonderful and energetic presentation for our Public Works staff and we 

had about 190 people there, so thank you so much, and let's get this thing off the 

ground. Thank you. 

MR. WINDLEY: Thank you. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 10

MR. JENKINS: Mr. Windley, can I ask something of Judy before she leaves? 

Phil Jenkins, public member. I was just wondering, since you've done a 

wonderful job in San Antonio -- and I was personally there Friday, Morgan's 

Wonderland, a theme park for people with disabilities, I think it's the only one in the 

world, great thing that San Antonio is doing. 

Question I have is, as you've been implementing some of these rules, is there 

anything that's come back that needs to be changed in the proposed rule? 

>>: Well, that's a good question. I think our biggest -- the biggest challenge 

we're having right now is because we're already requiring APS is when we put any new 

signalization. The biggest problem that we're having right now is the slip lanes, the right 

turn lanes. The slip lanes on a new intersection, where you have -- you can turn right 

and you have an intersection but you can turn right, how to signalize and how to control

the slip lane so you don't have pedestrians crossing the slip lane as the car's turning, 

because those are sometimes almost blind corners. 

And I know you're trying to address it because it's in here, but for us, I mean 

that's the -- that's an imminent problem we were dealing with last year, because we 

don't want to put in APS there because there's no way to stop the right turn -- right turn 

traffic. 

So, I mean, we've written a lot of memos if you'd like to see them. I mean, it's a 

big challenge, and we don't have any answer for that. So that would be -- that would be 

my -- 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 11

MR. WINDLEY: Thank you. Okay. I'm -- next up will be Dave Jepson, Mobility 

instructor for the Texas Division of Blind Services. And after him, on deck will be Priscilla 

Arvani, President of the National Federation of the Blind, Arlington chapter. 

>>: Hello my name is Dave Jepson, I'm the field director with the Division for 

Blind Services, which is part of the Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services 

here in the State of Texas. I'm also a certified orientation and mobility specialist, and 

I've served on accessibility advisory committees for the American Airlines Center, the 

new Dallas Cowboy stadium, the D/FW Airport terminal D and the Skylink around the 

terminal, as well as Reunion stadium. I appreciate the opportunity to share a few 

thoughts today.

I just wanted to say that I support the requirements of installing the detectable 

warnings on the curb ramps, blended transition, the cut-throughs, and also support 

requirement of having accessible pedestrian signals wherever pedestrian signals are 

installed. Also, clearly having clear and appropriate pathways through constructed 

areas with barricades and appropriate signage. When it comes to signals around the 

multilane crossings and roundabouts, support the concept of the clear location and the 

sidewalk through the landscaping and through other barriers. Concerned about 

protruding objects. I'm glad to see regulations about that. 

I walk around in my own neighborhood and I see the school zone signs and other 

signs that are within the sidewalk and they're, you know, about 5 feet off the ground. 

And if I were to walk under them with a cane, the cane would not detect them, I'd get a 

whack on the forehead if I were to do that. 

I also am thrilled to see the recommendations that are proposed guidelines 

where a pedestrian could have a remote signal that would only be noticeable by a van 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 12

through an infrared system whereby they can, you know, recognize the transmissions 

from the light signals and other signage and so forth with all the upcoming technology 

that's available. I think that's wonderful. I'm delighted to see that. 

I'd also like to encourage the Board to support contrasting edge strips on stairs 

for persons with low vision so they can safely maneuver in those environments. 

I read something that I didn't quite understand but -- I read something that some 

of the signage, it appeared to be exempt from the requirement of protruding objects, 

and I guess I need to study it more, but I was concerned that some things would be 

exempt and that there would be protruding objects that could endanger persons who 

are traveling. I can't tell all the times I've seen the guywires and all the signs and the 

posts and the trees and everything else along the pathway that, although it may be 

accessible to a blind person, it just creates so many obstacles if you're using a cane. 

You're just constantly running into one thing after another, unless you're using a guide 

dog. A guide dog can maneuver around them, but a person with a cane is not readily 

able to do so, and it just causes for a very cumbersome walking through the -- walking 

on the sidewalks. 

I was delighted to hear the previous comments that, although the bus stops may 

be accessible, you know, the pathways to the bus stops need to be accessible too. I 

have seen very often that it's just, you know, without accessible pathway from -- from 

your point of departure to your point of arrival. A lot of these accessible guidelines are -

- are futile to many people who are -- who do need to travel to the bus stop. 

So I just want to commend the Board for all of their efforts in again bringing this 

forward, and wish you the best of luck in doing so. Thank you. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 13

MR. WINDLEY: Thank you. 

PANEL MEMBER: Madame Chair, can I ask a quick question, follow-up? 

MS. STARNES: Please do. 

PANEL MEMBER: Just a quick follow-up. From your perspective, do you think on 

the -- if I understand it right, do you like the mobility instructions? 

>>: Yes. 

PANEL MEMBER: Do you think the proposed rule has gone far enough on the 

signage elements as far as for people who are blind and vision impaired? Do you think 

there's other things. I know you mentioned the IR. 

>>: The IR is another thing, and I -- I like the guidelines on the contrast of the 

signs, the uniformity of the lettering, and -- and the contrast. I think that's very helpful, 

extremely helpful for a person with low vision. 

PANEL MEMBER: Thank you. 

MR. WINDLEY: Okay. So next is Priscilla Arvani, and then on deck will be Carol 

Lee Pruitt. Miss Arvani, are you present? Okay. Miss Pruitt. Or I'm sorry, Mr. Pruitt. 

And then on deck will be Daniel L. Heishman. Forgive me if I butcher your last names. 

>>: Good morning. Carol Pruitt, I'm an architect in Texas and a number of other 

states. I'm a registered accessibility specialist here in Texas. An accessibility consultant. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 14

First of all, I want to applaud you on the work. I do have about three comments. 

First of all, I have a little bit of concern about the advisory comments. 

Sometimes we have sentences that are less than a line in length and an advisory that's 

two paragraphs in length. One thing that we need as design professionals is clarity in 

the rules so that we understand what needs to be done and how it needs to be done. 

I frequently get into discussions with clients who are -- and I'm not a design 

architect, I'm primarily a consultant, but I get into discussions with the design architect 

about what they have to do, and when you don't have clarity in rules, then you have 

argument in what has to be done or what can be done and what cannot be done. 

The other thing, I know that about 20 years ago, 25 years ago, the United States 

tried to move to metric. That hasn't happened. We design in feet and inches. Put the 

rules in feet and inches first and put metric separate. That's the way we design. You're 

going to create confusion putting metric first. 

The other thing that I had concern about and it may be here but I don't -- I don't 

see it; I meant to spend the weekend looking at this but a fence around the house 

decided to change my weekend, so I got to do that, rebuilding that. 

One of the things that I've run into occasionally is sidewalks that are the same 

level, the same grade as the street. There's no curb. Now, we very clearly talk about 

detectable warnings when we have curb ramps, but I haven't seen anything where we 

don't have curb ramps. So now I've got this five-mile sidewalk going -- following this 

street, that's crossing intersection after intersection and at the same level the street is. 

There's no warning there for the person that may be visual impaired. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 15

Do I need detectable warnings there? I think we should have them, but I don't 

think it's clear. So those are the only comments I have. 

Again, I applaud your work. I know it's a lot of work. I'm involved in the code 

development process and the model code organization so I know how much work this 

is. Thank you very much. 

MR. WINDLEY: Thank you. Any questions? 

MR. TALBOT: If I can ask a question, 

Madame Chair. Gary Talbot, public member. I'm tickled you read the advisory 

number one, but as far as a clarification on the rule itself, I mean, I agree with you, they 

have to be very, very clear so that everybody knows what's required, at least what the 

minimum requirement is. 

Any ideas, any suggestions on some specifics where you think we've gone maybe 

too far to try and explain different scenarios in an advisory, where, if we just had said if 

you have X, you know, do Y? 

>>: You know, I can probably go back and look at that and get back with you or 

do it in comments, but I think a lot of the things that you've seen advisory, I'm going, 

why isn't this just in the rule? 

You know, again, design professionals, whether it's the architect or the engineer 

or the civil engineer, what we need is clarity in the rules. You know, you can hear a lot 

of bad things about architects and designers and engineers and they don't want to -- 

they want to get around the rules. Well, there's always that sort of person out there, 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 16

but there are those of us who want to comply and we want to comply for a couple of 

reasons: One, because it's right; and two, because we want to avoid litigation. And 

when rules aren't clear, we can get involved in litigation when our full intent was to be 

fully compliant. So I mean, it can be done. I wish I'd had more time this weekend, I 

could have done some of that, but I think if you go back and look at them, when you 

have advisory comments that are two or three paragraphs long for a two line sentence, 

something's wrong. 

MR. WINDLEY: I would just mention to you that you do have until November 

23rd to give written comment, and I would encourage you to, you know, take a look at it 

again. 

>>: Thank you. 

MR. WINDLEY: Daniel Heishman, are you here? There you are. And up next 

after him will be Mrs. J. 

Mazel, representing Community National Network. 

>>: I do want you to say you said the last name perfectly, there's no problem 

there. I'm a senior engineer for the City of McKinney. I'm not sure how much you know 

this area, McKinney is the county seat in one of the fastest growing counties in the 

nation. For the past ten years we've been probably in the top ten, so we have a huge, 

new area of suburbian type development but we also have a much larger, older historic 

district; so we have, you know, new development also trying to comply with the, you 

know, alterations to our older streets. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 17

I don't have too much to say. I do, I think everything's been positive in our 

respect. What you have definitely gives us more direction than there has been in the 

past. 

I do echo my previous speaker that being -- also coming from the design 

engineer side, that there is lot of clarification that needs to be needed. Excuse me. And 

I think there's certain things, and we do -- we do plan on preparing written comments, 

one, to address all the questions that were in the preamble to just the general 

advisories and other comments. 

But I do want to say, it's positive on the aspect that it's been hard in the past to 

apply the old rules with rights-of-way when it's a little bit vague and being someone of 

not experienced on that, and so I do think this is very positive and gives us a little bit 

direction than it has been. Thank you. 

MR. WINDLEY: Is there any questions from the -- 

Miss Mazell. No? Okay. Yeah, here she comes. Okay. 

And then -- just a second, you can sit down, go ahead. But let me just ask again 

if Dave Carter has arrived at all? Or Priscilla Arvani? Well, then on deck after Miss Mazell 

will be Al Godwin. 

>>: I'm representing the Community Transportation Network. I'm going to be 

very short because my issues have been spoken to, primarily. Clarification was an 

extremely important one, especially in the City of Dallas where sidewalks are the 

responsibility of the building or homeowners, so that can be -- that's going to be --

proposed an unfunded mandate for our private citizens. In no way do I think this is not 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 18

an extremely important issue. You may have noticed my footwear. That's because my 

foot was broken on a Dallas city sidewalk while jogging because it's uneven. So I do 

think it's important. 

But I think that's an issue that is going to be extremely troublesome is how we 

bring these mandates into being in cities where the sidewalks are the responsibility of 

the private owner. So that is something that I wanted to speak to. 

And that's it. It's just an additional thank you. Thank you very much. 

MR. WINDLEY: Okay. Mr. Godwin, Al Godwin? Going once, going twice. Sorry, I 

tend to joke around a little bit. Barry Sweeney? 

>>: I don't have any comments. 

MR. WINDLEY: Just, you're on the list, sorry. 

>>: All right. 

MR. WINDLEY: Okay. Why don't we take like a 15 minute break and we'll come 

back. So 15 minutes. 

>> Ladies and gentlemen -- it's like herding cats. If you all would return to your 

seats, we hope you've been productive during your break time and we’ll resume with 

Mr. Scott Windley and more information on the proposed rulemaking. 

MR. WINDLEY: While you're sitting down, the next person up on my list is Brian 

shamburger from kinley 1 [sp]. And then on deck would be Chris -- 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 19

>> Kislander [sp]. 

MR. WINDLEY: Thank you. This is not typed so it's hard to read. Out of curiosity, 

do you know Bruce Greenville [sp]. 

>> I do, we were sad to see him go. My name is Brian shamburger. I'm a 

professional engineer with Kimberly horn [sp] and associates in Fort Worth and also a 

professional traffic operations engineer, and I also represent Texas District of Institute 

of Transportation Engineers. I'm not sure if I'm officially representing them today but 

that's another hat that I wear. It's on. Okay. A couple of comments I just want to 

provide and I was talking with some of the other engineers here in the room and I may 

have added a few since my original comments were prepared this morning. One of the 

things I do want to appreciate and support is some of the clarification on clock cross 

load I think in section 306 where except when you're looking at the cross over access 

pass route shall be 2% maximum. Where we have situations as a designer, along 

locations of pedestrian crossings where they're without yield or stop control, having 

that ability to have a maximum cross load of 5 percent, it makes that a lot more -- it's 

more appealing and also provides more flexibility as we're designing facilities. And a 

couple other comments related to dealing with roundabouts, and 

I do have a concern where it's requiring the use of pedestrian activated signals. 

It's a "shall" requirement, where any multilane roundabout, we do have a couple under 

design right now, where we're probably thinking about how we would need to 

incorporate pedestrian actuated signals and multilane roundabouts, and whether that 

should be a requirement. I understand the need for it, but without any type of 

guidelines or warrants when they may be requested by individuals, it seems to be that it 

would not only discourage potentially the use of a roundabout in general, or it may add 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 20

additional cost on the intersection. I know that cost should not be a considering factor 

but at times when you're looking at appropriate treatments for intersection control, 

cost is always a consideration. 

So maybe there needs to be some -- I'd like to get some clarification on the 

requirement and it being a "shall" requirement on multilane roundabout as opposed to 

single lane roundabouts. Finally, I also have a request or a comment that, you know, 

having started working on ADA transition plans for the last several years, I think it would 

be good to see some type of verbiage included in this document that talks about the 

requirements of ADA transition plans, specifically as it relates to exterior path of travel, 

sidewalk programs and plans that should be required by cities and jurisdictions. Cities 

are looking at ADA and saying requirements are in place and you need to have that done 

and it's almost too late since the plans needed to be in place since the early '90s. I think 

it would be good to have something in this document that would really reinforce the 

requirements on ADA transition plans as it relates to exterior path of travel. 

MR. WINDLEY: Thank you. If I can interrupt the flow. Priscilla has arrived I 

guess. She wasn't here earlier. We called her earlier but she wasn't here, so if we could 

have her come up now, that would be great. And then we'll have Chris. 

>> Okay. Can you hear me? 

MR. WINDLEY: Yes. 

>> Do I begin now? 

MR. WINDLEY: Sure. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 21

>> I thank you for this opportunity to come before you now and I am president 

of the National Federation of the Blind for the Arlington chapter here in Texas, and I 

have never -- I was not aware of this board even existing. If it wasn't for Mr. Dale 

Campbell from the radio -- reading radio for the blind, I would never have known about 

this adventure for today. I wish this board was more noticed or made available or 

known to all disabled different organizations that are out there, other than just the 

National Federation of the Blind. 

But I'm going to go on to what I'm here for is, as you know, NFB had been a main 

proponent for pushing the Senate bill 841, pedestrian safety enhancement act, which 

was signed by President Obama last year. And the reason for that pedestrian safety act 

is for the blind, use the sound of the motors of the vehicle to enable us to safely cross 

any major highway or cross road. With the event of Congress and everyone pushing 

silent cars and hybrid cars, it would make it rather very difficult for the totally blind to --

or as myself, I am partially blind, and hard of hearing, say a modified version of Helen 

Keller. 

I am a guide dog user but I just lost my dog, she passed away. Without my guide 

dog, I have to depend on my cane and the sound of vehicles and it's going to be rather 

difficult to cross that street if things change to the silent cars, so the pedestrian Safety 

Act will protect us on that end. But what I'm here for is when I cross that street, those 

signals that say "walk" and "don't walk" or a man or whatever is up there, it doesn't talk 

to me. I have no way of knowing, when you have silent cars or no cars there, I have no 

way of knowing that I can safely cross that street. And in my experience of living in 

many different parts of our country, I have to cross major highways, street ways that are 

4 to 6 lanes wide, even when I was using my guide dog, the timing is not enough for me 

to get across that roadway, let alone using the white cane. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 22

Also, in a lot of these cities, they are grandfathered in. They don't have to have 

the up curb and down curb being more accessible for blind people, people who use 

walkers, mothers and daughters that use baby carriages to push, or wheelchairs. People 

in wheelchairs are the ones that are really suffering the most. I can at least walk and I 

have people I know that have used wheelchairs, and for them to get around is pretty 

precarious out there. The conditions of some of the sidewalks, even in my own City of 

Arlington, is appalling. I mean, it is dangerous. 

They're just wide enough for me to walk. Some of them are broken up with 

weed growing out. There's no shoulder between the car to the curb of the sidewalk, 

and some of these vehicles driving by at 40 miles per hour is enough to push an old lady 

over with a walker. 

There are areas I can vouch for that have no sidewalks at all, and they're in 

pretty populated, traveled roadways. These are my main beef. We need sounding 

signals, cross signals that I can hear or tell me it's safe to cross XYZ street or, you know, 

plus the cars have to make some kind of a noise for the blind to cross safely. And for us 

to get enough time to get over, like another extra five seconds or so, because when I'm 

a guide dog user at the time, and I will be very shortly, my dog will slow down when it 

approaches a high curb to warn me that we're coming up to a curb. Now, I've got to 

figure out how high. Some of these curbs are quite high. I can't even see how an elderly 

person gets up using a walker, it’s unreal and forget the wheelchairs, they'll never be 

able to make it. That's the main beef. 

I also have a member of my chapter totally blind in a wheelchair and he lives in 

an apartment complex that has no sidewalks, but roadways with speed bumps every 10 

feet. Being in a wheelchair, even though he has a care giver, he's able to use a white 

cane and propel his feet to get himself around but he cannot go down to get to his mail 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 23

box because of the speed bumps and no accessible sidewalks for him to get around. So I 

think that should be it. Any questions? 

PANEL MEMBER: Madam Chair. Gary Talbot, public member. Your first 

comments, you talked about how you didn't know we were having this hearing today. Is 

there any advice you can give us on what we can do a better job of as far as advertising? 

>> Well, there are major -- like the National Federation of the Blind, they do have 

home web pages, you can contact Dr. Mauer over there, he's in Maryland, the American 

foundation of the blind. Any of those, or Easter Seals. There are thousands of different 

organizations. Cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, they all have major web pages that I 

as a member of those organizations would go in and check in, so that's one way. Get in 

touch with the headquarters there and let them know you exist and what's your main 

reason for it, and members could do things online. I could contact somebody online, do 

I know your web address? Oh, yes, because Mr. Campbell gave it to me or Ms. Johnson I 

just spoke with, Kathy Johnson, but other than that, the general public who are the 

disabled public, they have no knowledge. I mean, I never heard of you until last week. 

And that's only because of the Ms. Adele Campbell. And other than that, we don't even 

know you guys exist. And I'm sure there are many, many other hundreds of areas that 

are -- where the disabled have no accessibility to, or who to contact to complain about 

it. Not to complain but make people aware, especially those in the right position that 

enable to maybe make some kind of changes. So that's another thing I can say. 

PANEL MEMBER: Thank you very much. 

>> Thank you for the opportunity to be before you. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 24

PANEL MEMBER: This is Nancy starves, public member. A quick note, we do 

make every effort to make sure information gets out. I know I have seen it in other 

publications that are specific to a particular disability, and we're always looking for ways 

it share that information so we appreciate that you now know who we are and we hope 

you will spread the word as well. 

>> Right. I sure will. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. 

MR. WINDLEY: Thank you. 

>> That's it for now. Thank you. 

MR. WINDLEY: The writing is not good on this, Chris sum-- [pronouncing name]. 

He's a director of access partnership. There we go. And Scott Gibson is up after him. 

>> Chris will do. I'm Chris shexneider [sp]. I'm quite accustomed to that. 

MR. WINDLEY: Sorry. 

>> No problem. Appreciate the opportunity to be here and thank y'all for 

bringing this to Dallas and I just want to welcome you on behalf of the accessibility 

professionals association, of which I'm a board member, and we were formally titled 

Texas registered accessibility specialist association, TRASA, and we have made it one of 

our goals to expand beyond the State of Texas and therefore our name changed. I only 

have one comment and it has to do with what someone labeled uber-developments 

when I was discussing this issue earlier, where you have very large commercial retail, 

maybe even multifamily developments that have streets within their boundaries and 

stop signs and perhaps even sometimes light signals at intersections, and it may in some 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 25

cases ever be deeded over to a public entity may remain in the realm of the developer 

for purposes of maintenance and ownership and such, and so if that is the case, my 

understanding by the definition of the public right of way, then they sort of fall outside 

that domain, and there are no requirements, I believe, in the latest 2010 standards as 

far as detectable warnings go, so there's been some discussion about those types of 

situations where we feel like there's really no difference between the streets on such a 

development in a public street and why would you not require detectable warnings in 

those conditions where the public right of way you would. So I don't know if perhaps 

that might be addressed, if you feel if it's a concern through the definition of a public 

right of way, might somehow be expanded to address those situations. 

Of course a local jurisdiction could always take the public right of way guidelines 

and apply them where they will and, on the state level such as we have here in Texas, 

we could make our requirements more stringent and apply those in situations like that. 

That's all I had today, thanks. 

MR. WINDLEY: Scott Gibson, and then Bill Stalter. 

>> Good morning. I'm Scott Gibson, with tikno & perkins [sp], a civil engineering 

firm in Fort Worth Texas. Most of our protocols deal with private developments and 

public municipalities dealing -- we deal daily with accessibility on all our projects. One 

question or comment I'd like to make is the continuity between I believe the 2004 

accessibility guidelines and the current proposed right of way guidelines, having some 

continuity between the two, because a lot of times, if we're doing a private 

development for say -- we'll incorporate the 2004 guidelines and now with the public 

right of way guidelines, there might be some differences, for example, detectable 

warnings on curb ramps and in public right of ways, it's 24 inches. On the public 

developments, it's the entire length of the curb ramp. So there's some indifferences 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 26

between the two that I would recommend and suggest making some continuities

between both guidelines. Also, I was glad to see that there were some comments made 

for on-street parking. Though in the same sentence, there could be and indifferences 

between the two dealing with private guidelines and also the public right of way 

guidelines. 

In essence, if a development is adjacent to the street and the city allows onstreet parking, he would have to meet both requirements, and then based on the 

guidelines being within a block proximity, somebody on the other side of the block could 

utilize his parking to meet the current right of way guidelines or the accessible parking 

spaces because it is a block proximity. And so that's a difficult response to address but it 

is something you might want to look at as you go through this process and that's all I 

have. Thank you. 

>> Stalter. Good morning and welcome to south Texas -- or north Texas, pardon 

me. I come from Corpus Christi in south Texas. I'm an architect and I was a rigid 

accessibility specialist for some time. I'm now an architect doing consulting work on 

accessibility and was tunnel visioned to just those with mobility problems until I became 

part of a group who lost their hearing and now I have greater appreciation for an 

expanded accessible issues, but today I'm speaking to the subject of public right of way. 

I would hope, as the two speakers before me raised questions that was common with 

what I came here to talk about. The definition of public right of way in the proposed 

standards, public land or property usually interconnected corridors that is required for 

dedicated -- acquired or dedicated to transportation purposes. 

And that has been defined in most cases as actually public-owned land. And if, 

as the gentleman just before me addressed, if that could be expanded to any similar 

private facility, then we have some continuity walking about the city from the public-
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 27

owned right of way to the private-owned right of way, that sometimes the definition 

between the two is not distinguishable. 

There is the suggestion that we might leave it to the local approving authorities 

to expand on this, and I think that invites the situation that would turn a blind eye to 

conformity. We already have at least one state who has indicated that you may have 

accessible detectable surfaces in the full length of a parallel ramp approaching a very 

safe landing, upon which you make a right-hand turn and step out into the traffic and 

potentially not be warned that you're doing so. That was done in good faith to fill a gap. 

It's just that the definition for that type of approach to the geometry and the surfacing 

should be left, I think, in parallel to what happens when you're in the public domain 

property. So if you would address that issue, I would appreciate it very much. Some of 

my other questions and comments were covered by previous speakers, and we thank 

you for being here. 

MR. WINDLEY: Thank you. Bill Franz and then Angela white. 

>> I'm bill Franz. Concerning detectable warning services, I like the way the 

federal highway administration has come down and said they really only need to be 2 

feet back from the edge of a dangerous situation. A curb ramp itself in its own right is 

on a dangerous situation. It's actually where you're crossing a curb into a street on the 

edge of a railroad type form or approaching railroad tracks. Those are dangerous 

situations. It's really to detect underfoot that something is coming up. One of my big 

problems here in the state of Texas is the Texas accessibility standards. The Texas 

department of licensing and regulation stated Texas accessibility standards has been 

certified by the Department of Justice as being compatible or exceeding -- meeting or 

exceeding the requirements of ADA, but I had to inquire about what that meant, and 

the certification was only for title 3. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 28

But they've been using that hammer on state governments and local 

governments saying well, we're certified, so we're going to tell what you it do in a public 

right of way and they have no certification in that respect. 

They're even charging local governments for inspecting public right of way 

crosswalks, which are a situation in which I think they have no right or knowledge or 

even know-how in how to do public right of way access ability. The only thing I've seen 

from the Texas accessibility standards is the requirement for detectable warnings, but 

they are clueless as to the location of the required curb ramps. So I've seen T 

intersections where they're having a curb on the ramp on the front side where the state 

ramp said that was acceptable. I saw a situation in the City of Wyllie where the city was 

expanding a major roadway and they lowered the whole deck of the roadway about 2 

feet down. 

The intersecting streets, they lowered the street ways down to meet it but they 

did not lower the sidewalks. They put in curb ramps 2 feet below the sidewalk from the 

intersecting street. That was totally unacceptable and it's been complained. The 

federal highway administration has said that that needs to be fixed. 

This addresses a situation on where the sidewalks like in the City of Dallas are 

privately owned but the street was publicly owned, so the city said well we can lower it. 

Texas accessibility standards said it is accessible, but the sidewalk was never lowered, 

because 

20 it was privately owned and I thought that was totally wrong. The previous speaker 

said, if it's a street for public access, whether it was privately owned or publicly owned, I 

think that needs to be addressed as a public access situation for streets and sidewalks. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 29

Another big problem I've seen over the last five years monitoring this is new 

construction and redo’s trying to be ADA compliant are totally still not acceptable. If 

you can't afford to do it right the first time, how can you afford to do it over again. So it 

needs to be acceptable, and do not depend on a Texas accessibility specialist to tell you 

how to do it right because they're clueless on how to do it themselves. I would 

recommend that there be an ADA specialist certified perhaps at the federal level and by 

the federal Highway Administration who can be called upon to certify that the design 

and changes made in the public right of way are compliant with the requirements of 

accessibility standards for the public right of way, or best practices that the highway 

administration has put out. For the last five to eight years, federal highway 

administration has put out a best practices guide for sidewalks and I think they're 

excellent. And if you were following them, you would be compliant today. Someone 

said earlier that -- I think it was the City of San Antonio said, well, the public right of way 

accessibility guidelines, even the old ones you had, if you follow them, were good, but 

they weren't a standard. What has happened in some states and I think the state of 

Texas and local governments have adopted that accessibility guideline as their standard. 

Doesn't need to be a national standard. It could be their local standard and if you do 

that, you can do that. There's no reason why you can't -- the public right of way 

accessibility guidelines as their local standard or their county standard and some states 

adopted the state standard. As for clearance over sidewalks, I believe in the 2010 

standard, they require that the sidewalk have a clearance of at least 80 inches high for 

the full width of a sidewalk, so a blind person doesn't walk into an overhead sign. 

Where cities kind of fall down on that, is they do put signs up in the middle of the 

roadway or there could be telephone posts put up in the middle of the sidewalk and 

have telephone posts under the sidewalk, and another big problem is overgrown 

bushes. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 30

I've seen bushes completely obscure the sidewalk in business districts. It needs 

to be addressed as something that needs to be clear. So the clearance -- it's not just the 

public accessibility of right of way. 

It's the public right of way. The sidewalk right of way needs to be totally clear 

from edge to edge to at least 80 inches high. I came across a new roadway built here in 

the State of Texas actually in the City of Rowlett. 

It's the George bush extension. They've put in frontage roads crossing a creek 

but they did not build a sidewalk. You can walk up to that creek on one side and the 

creek on the other side but the only way to get across that creek is to walk in a lane of 

traffic. They didn't even put an edge on that road for a stalled vehicle. Another issue I 

came across was you can walk up to the edge of a toll bridge over lake Lewisville from 

either side, but you cannot cross that bridge because they do not allow bicycles, 

wheelchairs or pedestrians on that bridge because they're not paying the toll. Railway 

crossings, in the City of Lewisville, we had a light rail system completely rebuilt here in 

the last year, and while they're rebuilding it, they tore up the sidewalks, and they were 

torn up for a year. 

They got the streets torn up, replaced, and back in use within three weeks. But 

the sidewalk was never replaced until we got a complaint. Also one of those rail way 

crossings is very oblique. The road goes this way and the railroad crossing is like 20 

degrees off center. 

And in a wheelchair you're going to fall in the flange way of that rail way and I 

think that ought to be required, in MUTCD and also the federal highway administration, 

they recommended any pedestrian crossing of a rail way be done at right angles or at 

90 degrees so you can get across that rail way crossing in a safe manner. If you're at an 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 31

oblique rail way crossing, you can immediately get your casters falling into that flange 

way alongside the rail way. 

One of my biggest complaints is what I call long continuous curb ways in 

neighborhoods. In my neighborhood, there's usually available parking along the 

roadway. The street's only like 30 feet wide. If you have a car parked on the right and 

the left, there's only enough room for the car to get back to the center. They take their 

terms moving back and forth, which is okay, but the problem is some of these blocks are 

1200 feet long and if you get in the middle this roadway and you want to visit a person 

or your house is in the middle of that mid-block and you want to park in front of the 

house, along the street, there's no driveways, we all have backway alleys for parking in 

your garages and stuff. So if my friend comes to me and has a passenger with him who 

is abled, they can park in front of my house, but they can't get across the curb or they 

can park on the corner where the curbed ramp is and then they have to come 500 to 

600 feet to get to my house. The county of Larimer Colorado I think has some excellent 

guidelines on that and I'm going to kind of read a couple of the items out of their thing, 

modify it a little bit as I go along. In the county of Larimer, Colorado, which is where 

Fort Worth is, they talk about where to locate curb ramps, and they say, because of the 

way the long phrase, curb ramps or blended transitions, that's a really long way to say a 

curb access point. So I'm just going to call it curb access point from this point on in this 

discussion. 

Access in the Larimer county Colorado, access points are required at the end of 

pedestrian street crossings, which is where there's a crosswalk, they want one on each 

end. I think the guidelines suggests that also. 

But we've got to realize a crosswalk does not necessarily need to be marked. 

There's also unmarked crosswalks and they're always available to be put in. A crosswalk 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 32

that ends in a dirt path or a grass path or a gravel walk way still needs to have that curb 

ramp to get up on the dirt path. My mobility vehicle can get down that dirt path fairly 

reasonably, it being electric. If I was in a wheelchair it would be rough but I think it's still 

passable. So a blended transition needs to be available at any point where a curb comes 

around a corner at an intersection, whether there's a paved sidewalk or not. In the 

standard -- the proposed standard, you're only requiring a curb ramp where there is a 

sidewalk. Of course you don't define sidewalk. You refer to MUTCD for that and it 

refers to sidewalk as a paved service so I personally think a sidewalk is any path way on 

the side of the road where you can maneuver, whether you walk or drive a mobility 

vehicle. So I repeat, unpaved grass dirt and gravel roads, as well as paved sidewalks, are 

all places where you need to be able to cross a curb. Residential streets need access 

points along long continuous curbs. 

In the county of Larimer, this is a requirement. Residential streets longer than 

600 feet will require additional access points spaced about 300 feet apart. 

We already require on a sidewalk there be a five-foot zone I think every 200 feet 

for passing wheelchairs. But we can not get between the street and the sidewalk, 

except at the end of the block, which could be as much as 600 to 800 feet away. So if 

I'm in the middle of a block in a car, I can't get on the sidewalk until I wheel down the 

driveway or the roadway to the end of the block to get across. Or if I had to park at the 

end of the block, perhaps with an accessibility parking space, then I have to come back 

to get to work where I need to be. In a commercial business lot in some of the new 

construction where they have lots of businesses facing a parking lot, I think they require 

a curb ramp across the curb somewhere close to where the businesses are, and I think 

that ought to be also in a residential neighborhood. 

MR. WINDLEY: One more minute. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 33

>> Pardon? 

MR. WINDLEY: You have about one more minute. 

>> Okay. So disabled people do regularly use on line parking spaces. There's 

plenty of parking at the end of the street. The county of LARIMER, it cul-de-sacs, they 

want to curb ramp across the end of the sidewalk to the end, otherwise you have to go 

clear back to the corner to get to the cul-de-sac. They also curb four-way intersections, 

T-intersections, and I'm adding any place where there's an L intersection. If the street 

goes around the corner and doesn't go right or straight, I think there needs to be a curb 

ramp at that point. And also they require any place where there's a walk way or a bike 

way, perhaps on a green strip if it approaches a curb ramp it needs to approach that 

street to go to the other side. That's really all I have to say. Oh, I do have this one thing, 

what I call dual inline blended transitions. You do have a picture in your guidelines for a 

single inline transition, but if two sidewalks meet at an intersection, I think you can go 

down a detectable warning and in five feet cross that curb in both directions, it would 

make it so that we don't have to go out of our way to find where the curb ramp is. It's 

25 inline with the sidewalk and inline with the crosswalk.

Thank you. 

MR. WINDLEY: Thank you. Angela white. 

MR. WINDLEY: Okay, thank you. That's the end of the list of people that are 

actually signed up. Is there anyone in the floor who would like to -- we'll just open up 

the mike for awhile to let you come and speak if you'd like to. If anyone would like to 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 34

add to their testimony. Just because you've already been up here doesn't mean you 

can't come again. Anybody who might want to do that, just feel free to come on up. 

Don't all come up at once though. (Laughter). I'm sorry? 

>> (Inaudible). 

>> I didn't ask for questions. Did you have any questions? 

MR. WINDLEY: You need to come to the microphone so those that need the 

mike can hear you. I'd like to ask if there was any questions because I was running tight 

on time. 

MR. WINDLEY: Does anybody have any questions? 

MS. STARNES: Yes, sir, I just had one, just a clarification for me. This is Nancy 

starnes, 

>> The state agency, the Texas department of licensing and regulation requires 

that local governments pay the state -- they have a Texas accessibility specialist come 

out and approve their accessibility of an installation of ramps and things at curb ramps, 

and in my opinion, it's a waste of money by the city because this Texas department of 

license and regulation, and Texas accessibility standards are not certified for title 2. 

MS. STARNES: Right. I understand they're using title 3 issues it try to control 

title 2 entities, is that -- 

>> Yes. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 35

MS. STARNES: Okay. That's all I needed. Thank you very much. 

MR. WINDLEY: Anybody else have any questions for Mr. Franz? Carol, you're on 

deck. 

>> Carol PRUitt, and if we sit here, we could think of lots of things, but a couple 

of things I wanted to go back about the advisory comments. One of the concerns about 

advisory comments is especially when advisory starts getting more specific than the 

language is, then if you don't follow the advisory, you're not following the law. So that's 

part of the issue there. 

One of the other things I think needs to be addressed, and we run into this 

problem all the time, is when curb ramps and intersections are rebuilt, and the curb 

ramp is replaced, and then you're replacing a portion of the sidewalk connecting back 

into the existing transitions and slopes of streets can be sometimes very difficult. 

While we can follow the slope of the street with the sidewalk, I have run into 

instances where literally you cannot put in a compliant sidewalk to find a point that you 

can connect back to and connect to the curb ramp. If you have an 8.33 percent street 

that's already sloping 1 to 12, you put in a curb ramp at the intersection and then try to 

slope a sidewalk back up to connect some place, you're always going to have to be a 

slope greater than the slope of the street to make it to connect back in. It is just nearly 

impossible. So you have to come up and figure out -- now, you know, we have heard 

things like, okay, well, you can transition it in the last two feet. Well, a 45-degree slope 

in 2 feet is not accessible. Sometimes it's better to have a slope that is slightly greater 

than the street to avoid something that somebody in a wheelchair is absolutely not 

going to be able to use. You know, but -- and I run into that situation in working with 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 36

municipalities where they're repaving and rebuilding streets and replacing because of 

the constraints of the distance of the back of the curb to the property line, ever come up 

with a solution that's compliant to make that sidewalk work. 

Now, there's always -- there's always exceptions to rules, and there's always 

exceptional conditions. But somehow, we have to get into the rules, how we deal with 

these exceptional conditions, and in the building code world that I work into, most of 

my work, we have exceptions in the codes all the time. And it could be that dealing with 

sidewalks, there are going to have to be some exceptions to the rules to make those 

things work. Just thoughts, and if I can figure out a way to write something before the 

November deadline, I'll do that, but thank you for allowing me to speak. 

MR. WINDLEY: Thank you. Okay. 

Miss Angela White. And after her, will be Norman Hogue. Sorry. 

>>: Hi, my name is Angela White, I'm here as a representative of the National 

Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Area Agency on Aging. Myself, like the lady before 

me, I did not know about this organization. I was made aware of it from one of my 

members on the area agency on aging. 

I'm here because I live in a neighborhood where -- I live in a house that was built 

in 1950. I acquired the house from my late aunt. And so, when I was diagnosed with 

multiple sclerosis in 2000, I moved back from Houston and back to Dallas and at that 

time had no accessible housing. So the house where I live now, there are two houses on 

the right side of my home, and on the left side there's a vacant lot. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 37

And I have been in -- I call it a fight with the City of Dallas for seven years to put 

in a sidewalk in front of my house, and I've been told that it would cost -- first of all, I 

would have to get a petition signed by everyone in the neighborhood and pay $5,000. 

In all of my fighting, I was finally able to contact the Cerebral Palsy Foundation 

who came out and put a drive -- at that time, I had no way of getting off the property 

unless someone drove up to the sidewalk or to the existing driveway that was not 

accessible and I could get in that person's car or use the ramp from an accessible 

vehicle. 

So the Cerebral Palsy Foundation came out and put in a new driveway and built a 

ramp, a wooden ramp from my porch all the way across my yard up to the driveway. 

But the curb leading to the public street is still not cut, so I'm not able to get off the 

property in that way at all. 

And there aren't any sidewalks on either side of my street, and at the corner of 

each side, there aren't the accessible ramps. 

My neighborhood is what I would call in a poor area. There are individuals in 

that neighborhood who are sight challenged, and I never heard of the -- what's been 

talked about here, the signs or the what's going to be accessible for people who are 

sight challenged or blind. 

And so, I would like to see some changes made with regards to what is public 

property and private property, because, I mean, this neighborhood has been existing 

since 1951 and there are no sidewalks. As people age, there should be accessible 

sidewalks for everyone, and you shouldn't have to fight with the city to get them to 

come in and change the sidewalks. Put the sidewalks in, they should have already been 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 38

there. Or at least if they're not there, why not, you know, cooperate and come and put 

them there. 

I had to go to another organization that was gracious enough to spend money. 

Because I have a neurological disease, I qualify to get help, but until then, there was no 

help. 

And also, the signs at either end of my block are covered with branches from the 

trees, and I've been told that that property is also privately owned, but it's actually --

there's a bridge that is city owned, and they won't come and cut the limbs. 

So that's the reason why I'm here today, is to just plea to this Board to maybe 

oversee the city in a more way that helps those who are disabled by sight and by having 

to use wheelchairs, scooters, because we should all have the same rights. 

Are there any questions? That's all I have to say. 

MR. WINDLEY: Yes, ma'am. 

PANEL MEMBER: Thank you. 

MR. WINDLEY: This was Miss White. 

Norman Hogue? Has Dean Carter made an appearance since we started? 

>>: He will not attend. 

MR. WINDLEY: Okay. All right. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 39

>>: My name is Norman Hogue, I'm the traffic engineer and operations engineer 

for the City of Waco. I appreciate y'all having this meeting, allowing us to voice our 

concerns and the appreciation and the hard work that y'all have done. 

I just have two quick points. Since I deal primarily with traffic signals and the 

operations of the city network, two of the concerns I have are, first of all, the -- it seems 

to be a requirement now that as upgrades are done at traffic intersections, signals in 

particular, that the existing pedestrian signals automatically become accessible for the 

sight impaired. While I don't see that being a huge hurdle to overcome, I would like to 

see the ability to use engineering judgment and maybe some criteria of warrants of 

some necessary, you know, maybe public input at certain intersections. 

There are some areas in town that we have identified where there are either a 

large grouping of people that are visually impaired, and at those intersections, we have 

already put in the APS type signals. However, there are other parts of town where there 

are few that we've been able to identify, and we -- instead of having our hands tied and 

saying, automatically at every intersection you shall do this, we think we ought to be 

able to use engineering judgment and also react to the citizens whenever we do major 

reconstruction projects. 

We talked to the neighborhoods. We have several neighborhood associations 

that are very, very active, and when these concerns come up to us, we do our best to 

quickly address them. 

The other concern I have is in the requirement for traffic pedestrian signals at 

roundabouts for multi lanes. We are currently about to construct, it will be a multi lane 

roundabout in the future but under current construction plans and values, it's going to 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 40

be a single lane roundabout, primarily with entries but all the exits will be multi lane. 

And if you look at the surrounding area around the intersection, there's probably about 

150 houses and probably about four to 500 acres of farmland, and the requirement to 

go ahead and on the exits put in the pedestrian signals, to me, seems -- at this point it 

seems to be not well-advised. 

We don't have a problem adding those to, but when you're trying to improve the 

safety of an intersection and the operation as well by putting in a pedestrian activated 

signal that may not be used in a certain area, it seems that they would be better off for 

us to use that pedestrian signal in another part of town where we know we need to put 

it in. 

We have some areas where we have transit routes that cross major roadways

midblock and those are intersections where we feel we need to -- we can't put a full 

traffic signal but we could put a pedestrian signal and we could do four or five 

intersections or locations around town for the same costs and the same number of 

inner signals that we could do one roundabout. I think it's a good idea. 

I'm a member of the ITE Roundabout Task Force, and I've been a member of the 

listserv there, and this has been a very widely discussed topic. And I understand the 

pros and the cons, but I think there needs to be -- within the guidelines there needs to 

be some allowance for engineers to use best judgment to determine if at the time that 

the project is done, that the APS type signals are put in or that they should be delayed 

until a time when they're more appropriately to be placed in. 

And that's really all I have. Any questions? 

MR. WINDLEY: Thank you. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 41

>>: Yes, I'm Dave Jepson. Again, I am just a little concerned about some of the 

previous comments about exceptions to two rules about the audible traffic signals for 

roundabouts. 

Now, I'm not an expert on roundabouts, but -- and I applaud cities that are 

putting in the signals in heavily trafficked areas right now that I really think they need to 

do both. I think if we start making exceptions to the rules, then compliance is -- is really 

going to be withered. They need to be accessible, at all traffic signals, and when they 

say, well, you know, we have -- we have involved the community organizations and 

involved associations and so forth, you know a lot of these meetings, persons who are 

blind, they don't become aware of them, they don't have access to attend a lot of these 

meetings, especially if it's in the evenings, where perhaps the impair transit doesn't 

travel or because of other restrictions, and so I'm not sure that their voice is being 

heard. Talked about, mentioned, you know, going back in and reacting. Well, reacting, 

in terms of accessibility, we all know that doesn't work very well. If you do it right the 

first time, we don't need to react, and just because there's not a blind person in the 

community that's in the area that is using that now, doesn't mean a blind person won't 

be moving into the area, or maybe they're blind and they don't use that intersection 

because it's not accessible. 

It's kind of the Catch-22: If you build it, they'll come. Well, they can't come until 

you build it. So I'm just concerned about any deviations from having audible signals at 

all -- at all intersections where a person would be crossing into the path of traffic. 

Thank you. 

MR. WINDLEY: Thank you. 
PROW NPRM Public Hearing

Dallas, TX

September 12, 2011 Page 42