1

Cost Analysis of Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) 

Prepared by: Volpe National Transportation Systems Center1

Date: November 29, 2010

Accessible Pedestrian Signals

Background

Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) provide auditory and tactile information about the 

pedestrian signal phases (“walk” and “don’t walk”) at signalized pedestrian crossings. 

This information parallels the visual information provided by conventional signals to 

sighted pedestrians. This PROWAG provision would require APS to be incorporated in 

all new and replacement pedestrian signals. There is no requirement to retrofit existing 

signals. Moreover, there is no underlying requirement to provide pedestrian facilities or 

pedestrian signals at any given intersection. 

Overview of Compliance Costs

Compliance costs can be thought of as the total lifecycle cost of pedestrian signal 

installations with this provision in place, less the cost of such projects under current 

baseline conditions in the absence of this provision, in present value terms over the 

course of the equipment lifecycle or other reasonable time period. This, in turn, is based 

on the difference in upfront equipment and installation costs for APS versus those for 

conventional (visual-only) signals, plus any incremental ongoing operations and 

maintenance costs for APS compared to conventional signals.

APS installations would result from two main types of roadway projects: (1) replacement 

of existing pedestrian signals at the end of their useful life, and (2) installation of entirely 

new pedestrian signals, either at newly built (“greenfield") intersections or at existing 

intersections where pedestrian signals are being added. This analysis therefore uses a 

lifecycle model of the current stock of pedestrian signals and assumes that existing, nonAPS signals will be replaced with APS equipment as they are retired from service, and 

that pedestrian signals installed at new locations will be APS. 

Data and Cost Estimates

The project team gathered technical specifications and cost information from the websites 

of eight APS vendors and conducted follow-up discussions by phone or e-mail with three 

 

1 The Volpe Center is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration. The report was prepared pursuant to Interagency Agreement VXG9 between the U.S. 

Access Board and the Volpe Center. The authors of the report are Sean Pierce and Lydia Rainville.
2

of these vendors.2 For APS models that appear to meet the proposed guidelines, 

equipment costs average about $600 per pushbutton station, versus about $250 for a nonAPS conventional pedestrian signal, for a net cost of $350 per station.

The number of stations that is required will vary according to the layout of the 

intersection. For a typical four-way intersection, one station may be needed for each of 

the two crossing directions at all four corners, for a total of eight stations. In some 

locations, it is possible for a single station to serve the two perpendicular crossings from a 

corner, such that only four stations are needed. In locations where roadways converge in 

a T- or Y-shaped junction, four to six stations would be needed, again depending on the 

layout of crosswalks. Two stations, one for each direction, would suffice for most 

signalized mid-block crossings. Assuming conservatively that the 8-station scenario is the 

most representative, net equipment costs are therefore approximately $2,800 per 

intersection (that is, $350 x 8).

Additional costs for APS installation labor and other equipment, such as stub poles and 

conduit, vary by location. Based on published cost estimates and interviews with cities 

such as Naperville, Illinois, and Portland, Oregon, that have already installed various 

forms of APS, the comprehensive cost of equipping an intersection with APS is in the 

range of $3,600.3 These figures generally reflect retrofit situations that are acknowledged 

to be more expensive than installation of APS as part of new construction, though even in 

new construction there can be site constraints that impose additional costs. 

Signal vendors expressed a belief that equipment costs would decline slightly if order 

volume increased due to new requirements and/or if the guidelines led to greater 

standardization in customer requirements. Therefore, these per-intersection incremental 

cost estimates should be regarded as relatively conservative. (These costs are also a 

relatively small share of the overall costs of intersection signalization and operation. The 

costs of adding traffic signals to an intersection, including engineering and design, are 

estimated at $178,000.4)

In terms of operating costs, APS draw 3 to 13 watts of power, which is equivalent to 

about $10 per year in electricity costs (depending on local rates) and comparable to nonaccessible signals. NCHRP report 117A Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best 

Practices includes a number of case studies of local governments that indicate 

 

2 Website data from Campbell Co., Novax Industries, Polara Engineering, Prisma Teknik, US Traffic 

Corp., and Wilcox Sales. Follow-up calls with Campbell and Polara; e-mail communication with Prisma 

Teknik.

3

A report on the retrofit installation of APS in West Lafayette, Indiana, places the cost at approximately 

$3,000 in equipment and 8 person-hours of labor per four-way intersection. The report did not provide 

labor costs, but at an assumed hourly labor rate of $75, the total cost is equivalent to $3,600 per 

intersection. See R. Jacko, “Blind Pedestrians and Their Ability to Navigate Indiana Intersections – A

Review of the Technology Available for Audible Signals,” Report for Federal Highway Administration, 

FHWA/IN/JTRP-2006/12, May 2006.

4 BNi Public Works Costbook, 2010. 
3

maintenance of equipment has been minimal, e.g. volume adjustment. However, most of 

these cities have installed APS relatively recently, so there is only a limited history on 

which to base this information. One municipality that was interviewed noted that the 

pushbutton poles used with APS can require more frequent maintenance, as their location 

near the curb increases the frequency with which they are knocked over or damaged by

turning vehicles. However, the 2009 MUTCD uses this location requirement as the 

standard for all pedestrian pushbuttons, so this does not appear to be an APS-specific cost 

issue. Overall, based on available information, APS do not present any significant 

increase in operations and maintenance costs compared to conventional signals, and thus 

no incremental operating costs have been included in the overall cost estimate. As the 

adoption rates increase and the technology matures, more information about operations 

and maintenance costs may become available.

Scaling up the per-intersection cost estimates to the national level requires information on 

the extent of pedestrian signalization. Traffic signals are primarily a state and local 

responsibility, and there is no consolidated national inventory of traffic signals. The 

Federal Highway Administration has estimated that there are 300,000 signalized 

intersections in the U.S.5, but the share of these intersections that have pedestrian 

facilities and pedestrian signal indication is unknown. Based on discussions with 

transportation officials in several fast-growing counties, the share of signalized 

intersections with pedestrian indication is very roughly estimated at 70% for the current 

set of signals, but rising to perhaps 90% by the end of the analysis period due to an 

increasing number of localities that are making pedestrian signals a standard part of their 

treatment of signalized intersections, even in areas with low pedestrian traffic volumes.

According to vendors and local transportation officials, pedestrian signal equipment has a 

lifespan of approximately 25 years, though individual components such as pushbuttons 

and LED lights must be replaced every 5-10 years. In general, it is replacement or 

upgrade of the whole intersection treatment or system, not basic maintenance such as 

replacing a LED light, which would “trigger” compliance with the accessibility

guidelines. Therefore, the 25-year figure is most appropriate as the replacement 

lifecycle. With an assumption that 90% of signalized intersections have pedestrian 

indication (or will have it added), the total number of intersections to be equipped with 

APS would thus be 10,800 per year, i.e. 300,000 x 0.90 x (1/25). Based on the $3,600 

per intersection comprehensive cost figures cited above, the incremental cost of using 

APS rather than conventional signals for these replacements is approximately $38.9 

million per year. This figure is somewhat conservative in that it assumes that all

affected signals would require the upgrade to APS, when in fact a small number of 

pedestrian signals are already accessible and others are being added each year.

As noted above, the other cost component stems from the installation of APS at new 

intersections. To help develop a methodology to determine new intersection construction, 

the project team spoke with 6 local government and state DOT engineers in fast-growing 

U.S. counties to learn more about new road-building and intersections. Each described a 

 

5

Improving Traffic Signal Operations: A Primer, prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for 

FHWA, Report No. FHWA-SA-96-007, 1995.
4

trend of new road and housing development construction that has slowed in recent years 

due to both capacity constraints and economic conditions. Differences in oversight 

responsibilities and jurisdiction of traffic signals vary by state, making it difficult to 

aggregate or compare estimates. However, a rule of thumb that has been used in the 

transportation engineering community is that there is one signalized intersection per 

1,000 population (which accords with the current estimate of 300,000 signals, with the 

U.S. population at roughly 300 million).6 The Census Bureau’s forecasts of future 

population show an average rate of growth of about 0.85% per year over the next 40 

years.7 Therefore, if the 1:1000 ratio were to continue to hold in the future, 

approximately 2,550 signalized intersections would be added each year. Of these, an 

assumed 90%, or 2,295, would have pedestrian indication. Based on the cost-perintersection figures cited above, the incremental cost of equipping these intersections 

with APS rather than conventional pedestrian signals would be $8.3 million per year.

Overall, then, total compliance costs would comprise the estimated $38.9 million per year 

for the ongoing replacement of existing signals at the end of their service lifetimes, plus 

the $8.3 million per year for APS at new signalized intersections, for a total of $47.1

million per year over a 25-year signal replacement cycle. Incremental operations and 

maintenance costs are believed to be minimal, as noted above. 

Tabled Intersections

Background

For drainage, safety, and visibility reasons, streets in hilly urban areas are typically cutand-filled at crossroads to produce relatively flat (“tabled”) intersections. In some cases, 

this tabling design may encompass the crosswalks, but in other cases, the crosswalks are 

far enough up- or downhill from the intersection as to experience significant cross-slopes. 

Cross-slopes present difficulties for pedestrians with mobility impairments. 

This provision would require that intersections that are newly constructed (or rebuilt with 

changes to grading, to the maximum extent feasible) be designed such that the crossslope on any pedestrian crosswalks would be no more than 2% at controlled intersections, 

and 5% at other intersections. There is no requirement to re-grade existing intersections 

for this purpose.

Overview of Compliance Costs

 

6 Actual ratios vary according to the level of urbanization and other factors. For example, according to 

their respective city websites, there is roughly 1 signalized intersection per 705 residents of New York City, 

1 per 632 in Cambridge, Mass., and 1 per 614 in Seattle. Ratios are higher in suburban areas, e.g. 1:923 in 

Naperville, Ill., 1:1055 in Loudon County, Va., and 1:1976 in Gwinnett County, Ga. Although these 

figures constitute a very limited sample, they suggest that the 1:1000 figure is reasonable as a nationwide 

rule of thumb. 

7 US Bureau of the Census, National Population Projections, 2008. 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/summarytables.html
5

Compliance costs can be thought of as the total costs of intersection construction projects 

with this provision in place, less the cost of such projects under current baseline

conditions, in present value terms over the course of the pavement lifecycle or other 

reasonable time period. The principal cost element is the additional site preparation and 

grading/earthwork costs of extending the tabling design to the crosswalks. There is the 

possibility that some incremental operations and maintenance costs (e.g. for additional 

drainage equipment) could also be involved.

Previous research by the Access Board places the per-site cost of extending the tabling 

design to include crosswalks at roughly $60,000, a relatively small share of the overall 

design, engineering, and construction costs associated with a new intersection. (Roadbuilding costs vary substantially according to site conditions, intersection geometry, and 

local cost factors, but for comparison purposes, the average cost of a single lane-mile of 

roadway is estimated at $2.3 million.)8

The tabled intersection design is used only in specific circumstances, and many of the 

existing examples are in highly urbanized areas where future construction of new 

intersections will be limited, such as downtown San Francisco. Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS) software generally does not present elevation data in enough detail to 

identify locations where this provision would be relevant, and no other data source has 

been identified that would allow the per-site cost to be scaled up to a comprehensive 

national estimate. 

Some locations with many tabled intersections, such as Seattle, already use a 2% crossslope requirement in their internal design manuals.9

 As such, any incremental 

compliance costs would be minimal.

Pedestrian Signalization at Multi-Lane Roundabouts

Background

Pedestrian-demand signals are traffic control devices that produce a red (stop) signal for 

vehicles and a “walk” phase for pedestrians when actuated by a pedestrian, usually via a 

pushbutton. This PROWAG provision would require that roundabouts with pedestrian 

facilities provide pedestrian-demand signals at each pedestrian crossing that involves 

more than one lane in each direction. There is no underlying requirement to provide 

pedestrian facilities at any given roundabout. The provision is technology-neutral, and 

there are several different approaches that can meet the guidelines, including 

conventional red-yellow-green signals and more specialized types. It is anticipated that 

 

8 Washington State Department of Transportation, Highway Construction Cost Comparison Survey: Final 

Report, April 2002. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/construction/pdf/I-C_Const_Cost.pdf . 

9

See http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/rowmanual/manual/4_11.asp. The city of San Francisco is 

also using a 2.5% cross-slope standard to prioritize improvement, meaning that the incremental cost of 

going to a 2% standard would be limited. 
6

in most locations the signals will only be occasionally activated, and will be structured so 

as to minimize vehicle delay.

Overview of Compliance Costs

Compliance costs can be thought of as the total present-value lifecycle costs of multilane 

roundabouts with this provision in place, less the cost of such projects under current 

baseline conditions, over the pavement or equipment lifecycle, or some other acceptable 

time period. The installation of pedestrian-demand signals at multi-lane roundabouts has 

not previously been required by accessibility guidelines and does not represent a 

widespread industry practice in the U.S., so the baseline for analysis is marked by little to 

no installation of pedestrian-demand signals, though the use of dedicated pedestriandemand signals on arterials appears to be growing.

Data and Cost Estimates

The study team gathered information from the Kittelson roundabout database10 on all 

roundabouts built between 2005 and 2009. This period was selected as being the most 

representative of recent levels of roundabout construction. During this five-year period, 

435 roundabouts were built, of which 117 were multi-lane. This ratio is consistent with 

information from informal conversations with state and local entities, who stated that 

roundabouts recently constructed in their jurisdictions have been predominantly singlelane.

The five-year total of 117 multi-lane roundabouts is equivalent to 23 per year. In 

addition, a small number of roundabouts were listed in the database as having an 

“unknown” number of lanes, and these roundabouts were re-allocated to the single- and 

multi-lane categories in proportion to the overall totals. A further adjustment is needed to 

account for multi-lane roundabouts that have no sidewalks or other pedestrian facilities, 

since the signalization guidelines would not apply in those cases. To estimate this 

adjustment, a 20% sample of the relevant set of multi-lane roundabouts were manually 

spot-checked using satellite imagery. Approximately 5 percent of the roundabouts 

checked did not have pedestrian facilities. The combined effect of the two adjustment 

factors is to raise the annual total from 23 multi-lane roundabouts per year to 27.

The Access Board’s previous analysis of signalization costs produced an estimate of 

$90,000 to $230,000 per roundabout. (This is roughly consistent with information from 

the RS Means Cost Workbook which lists costs from $178,000 for the signalization of an 

intersection to $320,000 for 4 “mid-block” pedestrian crossings.) Using the $90,000 

figure, the total costs are therefore $2.4 million per year (27 x $90,000). Using the 

higher $230,000 unit cost, the total is $6.2 million per year.

Compliance with the proposed guidelines can also be achieved using pedestrian under- or 

over-passes and similar approaches that separate pedestrians from conflicting vehicle 

 

10

 See http://roundabout.kittelson.com/ . The database is the best known source of information on 

roundabout construction but is not necessarily comprehensive.
7

movements. However, this approach is not required by the guidelines and generally 

presents significant additional expense, though it may be the preferred option in cases 

where there are heavy pedestrian flows or other local factors. Underpass costs are 

generally in the range of $0.5 to $4.0 million.11 

Detectable Warnings

Background

Detectable Warnings (DWs) are distinctive sections of raised material that are used at 

curb ramps and other locations to provide a tactile indication underfoot and contrast to 

the surrounding paving material. DWs alert pedestrians with visual impairments to the 

transition between the pedestrian way and the vehicular way.

PROWAG would require DWs at all new and re-built curb ramps, pedestrian crossing 

islands, and similar settings such as raised crosswalks. 

Overview of Compliance Costs

Compliance costs can be thought of as the total cost of sidewalk-related construction 

projects in the United States with this provision in place, less the cost of such projects 

under current baseline conditions, in present value terms over the course of a pavement 

lifecycle or other reasonable time period.

In this case, the magnitude of the costs depends on the current baseline conditions. State 

and local government agencies must comply with Title II of the ADA. State and local 

government agencies that receive federal financial assistance must also comply with 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. State and local government agencies currently 

have a choice of accessibility standards to use under regulations implementing these 

laws. Under the DOJ ADA Title II regulations, State and local government agencies can 

currently use the 1991 DOJ Standards [which are based on the 1991 ADAG], 2010 DOJ 

Standards [which are based on the 2004 ADAAG], or UFAS.12 Under the USDOT 

Section 504 regulations, State and local government agencies can currently use the 2004 

ADAAG, as modified by USDOT, or UFAS.13 

The 1991 DOJ Standards and 2004 ADAAG, as modified by USDOT, require DWs at 

curb ramps. The technical provisions for DWs in the 2004 ADAAG, as modified by

USDOT, are consistent with PROWAG and require DWs to extend 24 inches minimum 

 

11 NCHRP Report 17-18(3). http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/peds/, Strategy 9.1 A5.

12

 28 CFR §35.151 (c). The DOJ ADA Title II regulations eliminate the 1991 DOJ Standards and UFAS 

as options effective March 15, 2012.

13 49 CFR §27.3 (b) and 49 CFR Part 37, Appendix A. USDOT adopted the 2004 ADAAG as an 

accessibility standard in 2006 and added a requirement for detectable warnings at curb ramps (section 

406.8) to the standard. USDOT is expected to amend its Section 504 regulations to eliminate UFAS as an 

option.
8

at curb ramps. State and local government agencies that use the 2004 ADAAG, as 

modified by USDOT, for sidewalk construction projects would not incur any additional 

costs for DWs under PROWAG. The technical provisions for DWs in the 1991 DOJ 

Standard require DWs to extend the full depth of the curb ramp. State and local 

government agencies that use the 1991 DOJ Standard for sidewalk construction projects 

would have reduced costs for DWs under PROWAG.

UFAS and the 2010 DOJ Standards do not require DWs at curb ramps. State and local 

government agencies that use UFAS or the 2010 DOJ Standards for sidewalk 

construction projects would incur additional costs for DWs under PROWAG.

All the State DOTs and District of Columbia DOT receive federal financial assistance 

from USDOT and must comply with the USDOT Section 504 regulations. Local 

government agencies that receive federal financial assistance either directly from USDOT 

or indirectly through State DOTs must also comply with the USDOT Section 504 

regulations. The USDOT Section 504 regulations cover all sidewalk construction 

projects, including state or locally funded projects. A review of the State DOT and the 

District of Columbia DOT websites (Attachment A) shows that as of November 2010 

they all install detectable warnings at curb ramps, and use the technical provisions for 

DWs in the 2004 ADAAG, as modified by USDOT. Limited interviews with local 

government officials indicate that they install DWs at curb ramps. Anecdotally, DWs can 

now be seen in new sidewalk projects in communities across the country. The NPRM 

should seek additional information on the extent to which local government agencies are 

installing DWs at curb ramps.

Data and Cost Estimates

Detectable warnings are made from a number of different materials, and the mix of 

products in use varies by jurisdiction. Metal panels, for example, are often used in areas 

with severe winters due to the wear and tear associated with snow clearance and de-icing 

chemicals.14 The type of material selected affects not only the upfront costs of materials 

and installation, but also the lifecycle cost including eventual replacement. 

Some basic data collection was conducted to understand the unit costs of DW products 

currently in use. A standard DW of eight square feet (i.e., curb ramp width of 4 feet 

minimum and detectable warning extending 2 feet minimum) was used for comparison. 

Based on discussions with city public works departments and price quotes from vendors, 

unit costs for materials appear to be consistent with those found in earlier Access Board 

research. These costs range from around $30 per square foot for stainless steel or cast 

iron, to $15 to $25 for polymer/composite material, $6-$10 per square foot for concrete 

 

14 Information on preferred and approved products for several cities and states is available in:

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NHCRP), Report 670, Recommended Procedures for 

Testing and Evaluating Detectable Warning Systems, 2010.
9

pavers, and $16 per square foot for brick pavers.15 Again, upfront costs need to be 

considered in conjunction with installation and replacement costs. To give a sense of 

installation costs, a standard polymer DW is estimated to require 0.5 person-hours of 

labor.

There is no comprehensive national database for curb ramps, and the number of locations 

is difficult to estimate on a national scale due to the sheer number jurisdictions involved. 

An inventory conducted by the city of San Francisco provides one point of reference: the 

city has approximately 7,200 intersections with an overall total of around 40,000 

potential curb ramp locations, about one-fourth of which currently have “safe and 

useable” ramps already in place.16 Since San Francisco’s population is roughly 815,000, 

that implies an average of 8.8 intersections (or 49 curb ramp locations) per 1,000 

population. However, simply scaling this estimate up to the national level could be 

problematic because intersections with pedestrian facilities are much more numerous in 

urban areas like San Francisco than in the suburban and rural areas where many

Americans live. A more sophisticated estimate could be generated by using GIS software 

and aerial photography to analyze a random sample of road intersections around the 

country, possibly grouped by community size and land-use type.

Overall, because the use of DWs has already become mainstream practice for publicsector transportation projects in all 50 states, any incremental compliance costs would 

appear to be minimal. 

 

15 Sources: Stainless steel and cast iron: City of Cambridge, Mass. (based on recent projects); 

polymer/composite: vendor price quotes (Home Depot and ADA Solutions, Inc.); concrete pavers: vendor 

price quotes (Tile Tech Pavers); brick pavers: Salt Lake City Corporation. 

16 City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Works, Americans with Disabilities Act 

Transition Plan for Curb Ramps and Sidewalks, 2007-2008.
10

Attachment A

State DOT Curb Ramp Standard Drawings with Detectable Warning Details

State State DOT Standard Drawings with Detectable Warning Details 

Websites Last Visited 11/4/10 Unless Noted Otherwise

AL SW-618 Wheelchair Ramp at Pedestrian Crosswalks and Details of Sidewalks 

http://alletting.dot.state.al.us/Docs/Standard_Drawings/English/STDUS10_0700.pdf

AK I-21.01 Parallel Curb Ramp

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcsprecon/assets/pdf/stddwgs/eng/i2101.pdf

I-22.01 Perpendicular Curb Ramp

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcsprecon/assets/pdf/stddwgs/eng/i2201.pdf

AZ C-05.30 Sidewalk Ramp (7 sheets)

http://www.azdot.gov/highways/Roadway_Engineering/Roadway_Design//Construction_Standards/Drawings_C

urrent/PDF/2007ConstructionStandardDrawings.pdf

AR 65-WR-1 Wheelchair Ramps New Construction and Alterations

http://www.arkansashighways.com/roadway_design_division/usunits/65--WR-1.pdf

66-WR-2 Wheelchair Ramps Alterations Only

http://www.arkansashighways.com/roadway_design_division/usunits/66--WR-2.pdf

CA RSP A88A Curb Ramp Details

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_plans/highway_plans/stdplans_dual_02/viewable_pdf/rspa88a.pdf

RSP A88B Curb Ramp and Island Passageway Details

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_plans/highway_plans/stdplans_dual_02/viewable_pdf/rspa88b.pdf

CO M-608-1 Curb Ramps (4 sheets)

http://www.coloradodot.info/business/designsupport/standard-plans/2006-m-standards/2006-m-standardspdfs/42-curb-ramps/curb-ramps-m-608-1-all.pdf

CT HW-921-02 Sidewalk Ramps

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/deng/standards/ctdot_highway_std.pdf 

DE C-2 Curb Ramp Type 1 

http://www.deldot.gov/information/pubs_forms/const_details/2008/pdf/SD_c02-1.pdf

C-2 Curb Ramp Types 2,3, and 4 

http://deldot.gov/information/pubs_forms/const_details/2008/pdf/SD_c02-2.pdf?011509

DC 609.05 – 609.09 Wheelchair-Bicycle Ramps 

http://www.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/Projects+and+Planning/Standards+and+Guidelines/Standard+Drawings+-

+April+2009/Standard+Drawings+-+April+2009+-+Series+600+-+Part+1

FL 304 Public Sidewalk Curb Ramps

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/rd/rtds/10/304.pdf

GA A-3 Concrete Sidewalk Details Curb Cut (Wheelchair) Ramps 

A-4 Detectable Warning Surface Truncated Dome Size, Spacing and Alignment Requirements

http://tomcat2.dot.state.ga.us/stds_dtls/edtls.jsp?Preview=no 

HI R12-06-06 Curb Ramp and Detectable Warning Details (9 sheets)

http://www.state.hi.us/dot/administration/ada/curbrampdetails-r12-06-06.pdf 

ID H-2-B Urban Approaches Handicapped/Bicycle Types A5 & A6

http://www.itd.idaho.gov/design/StandardDrawings/English/h2b_0507.pdf

IL 424001-05 Curb Ramps for Sidewalks 

http://dot.state.il.us/desenv/hwystds/rev211/Web%20PDFs/211-424001-05_CurbRampsForSidewalk.pdf 

IN 604-SWCR-01 – 604-SWCR-12 Curb Ramps

http://www.state.in.us/dot/div/contracts/standards/drawings/sep09/m/sep600.htm

IA MI-220 Pedestrian Curb Ramps (7 sheets)

http://www.iowadot.gov/design/SRP/IndividualStandards/emi220.pdf

KS RD725 Sidewalk & Steps

http://kart.ksdot.org/StandardDrawings/_us_published_pdfs/rd725.pdf

RD725A Auxiliary Details for Sidewalk & Steps

http://kart.ksdot.org/StandardDrawings/_us_published_pdfs/rd725a.pdf

KY RPM-160-03 Typical Installations for Sidewalk Ramps

http://www.kytc.state.ky.us/design/standard/pdf2008/ROADWAY-SERIES2008.PDF#rpm160-03
11

RPM-170-06 Sidewalk Ramps

http://www.kytc.state.ky.us/design/standard/pdf2008/ROADWAY-SERIES2008.PDF#rpm170-06

RGX-040 Truncated Domes 

http://www.kytc.state.ky.us/design/standard/pdf2008/ROADWAY-SERIES2008.PDF#rgx040-00 

LA PED-01 Public Sidewalk Curb Ramps (4 sheets) 

http://www.dotd.la.gov/highways/standardplans/DirListing.aspx?txtPath=/highways/standardplans/Standard%20

Plans/Public%20Sidewalk%20Curb%20Ramps

ME Special Provision 608 Detectable Warnings (pp. 75-77)

http://www.maine.gov/mdot/comprehensive-list-projects/bp014871.10.pdf 

MD MD-655.11 -- MD-655.13 Sidewalk Ramps 

MD-655.40 Detectable Warning Surfaces

http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/BusinessWithSHA/bizStdsSpecs/desManualStdPub/publicationsonline/ohd/book

std/toccat6.asp

MA M/E 107.6.5R Detectable Warning Panel for Wheelchair Ramps

http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/downloads/engineeringDirectives/2004/E_04_007.pdf

MI R-28-G Sidewalk Ramp and Detectable Warning Details

http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/design/englishstandardplans/index.htm

MN 7036F Pedestrian Curb Ramp (2 sheets)

7038A Detectable Warning Surface Truncated Domes

http://standardplates.dot.state.mn.us/StdPlate.aspx

MS SDCRR-1 Curb – Cut Ramp 

http://ftp.mdot.state.ms.us/ftp/roadway_design/SpecialDesign/ADAramp.pdf (last visited 6/27/11)

MO 608.10N Concrete Sidewalk and Curb Ramps (4 sheets)

http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/standards_and_specs/documents/60810.pdf

MT 608-15 – 608-40 Public Sidewalk Ramps (6 sheets) 

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/const/external/detailed_drawings/2009/english/608_CONCRETE_SIDEWALKS_

2009_ENG.PDF

NE 303 Curb Ramps (pp. 8-9)

http://www.transportation.nebraska.gov/roadway-design/pdfs/stan-spec/standard.pdf

NV R-5.2.1 Sidewalks, Curb Ramps

http://www.nevadadot.com/business/contractor/standards/index/pdfs/english/r5_2_1.pdf 

NH Sidewalk Curb Ramps With Detectable Warnings

http://www.nh.gov/dot//org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/detailsheets/documents/crbrmp.pdf

NJ CD-607-1 Public Sidewalk Curb Ramps Detectable Warning Surface (Sheet 37)

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/CADD/E/RoadwayDetails/pdf/eRoadwayDetailsSet.pdf 

NM Pedestrian Access Details (10 sheets)

http://nmshtd.state.nm.us/upload/images/Plans_Specs_Estimates/Design_Directrives/608.pdf

NY 608.1 Sidewalk Curb Ramp Details (4 sheets)

https://www.nysdot.gov/main/business-center/engineering/cadd-info/drawings/standard-sheets-usrepository/608-01.pdf 

NC 848.05 Wheelchair Ramp, Curb Cut (4 sheets)

http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/ps/std_draw/06english/08/default.html 

ND D-750-3 Curb Ramp Details

http://www.dot.nd.gov/divisions/design/docs/standards/D750-03.pdf

OH BP-7.1 Curb Ramps (3 sheets)

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/ProdMgt/Roadway/roadwaystandards/Standard%20Construct%20Drawing

s/bp7.1_10-15-10.pdf

OK WCR-2 Wheelchair Ramps

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/roadway/roadway99/pdf/e098f.pdf

OR RD755 – RD757 Sidewalk Ramps 

RD757 Truncated Dome Detectable Warning Surface Details and Location

http://egov.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ENGSERVICES/roadway_drawings.shtml#Roadway_700___Curbs__etc_

PA RC-67M Curb Ramps and Sidewalks (13 sheets)

ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/Bureaus/design/pub72m/RC-67M.pdf

PennDOT Technical Information Sheet #139 Curb Ramps
12

ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_PDF_FILES/Documents/LTAP/TechSheets/TS_139.pdf

RI 48.1.0 Detectable Warning System (p. 263)

http://www.dot.state.ri.us/documents/engineering/stddetails/RIDOT_Std_Details_07312009.pdf 

SC 720-905-01 – 720-905-04 Detectable Warnings (pp. 119-125)

http://www.dot.state.sc.us/doing/sd_book.shtml 

SD 651.01 – 651.03 Curb Ramps (9 sheets) 

http://www.sddot.com/pe/Roaddesign/plates_index.asp 

TN RP-H-3 – RP-H-9 Handicap Ramp and Truncated Dome Surface Detail (7 sheets)

http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/Chief_Engineer/engr_library/design/Std_Drwg_Eng.htm

TX PED-05 Pedestrian Facilities Curb Ramps (4 sheets)

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/standard/roadway/ped05.pdf 

UT GW5A – 5C Pedestrian Access (3 sheets)

http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=567973324329877850

http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=567975530563879633

http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=567976704028881482 

VT C-3A Sidewalk Ramps

http://www.aot.state.vt.us/caddhelp/DownLoad/Standards/English/PDF/stdc3a.pdf

VA CG-12 Detectable Warning Surface 

http://www.extranet.vdot.state.va.us/LocDes/Electronic%20Pubs/Standards/TOC200.pdf 

A59 Curb Ramps 

http://www.extranet.vdot.state.va.us/LocDes/Electronic%20Pubs/insert/a59.pdf

WA F-40.12-01, 14.01, 15.01, 16.01 Curb Ramps (4 sheets)

F-45.10-00 Detectable Warning Surface

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Standards/Plans.htm#SectionF

WV PVT7 Sidewalk Ramps (2 sheets)

http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/Documents/revisedstandarddetails/Pvt701_09_24_10.p

df (last visited 6/27/11)

http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/files//websp/Pvt702.pdf (last visited 6/27/11)

WI 8D5-14a – 14e Curb Ramps (5 sheets)

http://roadwaystandards.dot.wi.gov/standards/fdm/16-05-001e001.pdf

WY 608-1A Concrete Sidewalk and ADA Accessibility (6 sheets)

http://www.dot.state.wy.us/webdav/site/wydot/shared/Engineering_Services/Standard%20Plans/608-

1A%20%20(DEC_2006).pdf?bcsi_scan_C17DAEAF2505A29E=0&bcsi_scan_filename=608-

1A%20%20(DEC_2006).pdf