### U.S. Access Board **Public Hearing: Public Rights** 
**- of** 

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

**– 12:00 p.m.**  **Washington, DC**
**Hans Van Winkle, Ad Hoc Committee Chairman Scott Windley, Access Board Staff** 

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

– AI A, Consultant, Member of PROWAAC, Hecker Design 6. Kat Tay lor, Disability Rights Program Manager, Equal Rights Center 7. Janet M. Barlow, Accessible Design for the Blind 8. Billie L ouise (Beez y) Bentzen, Ph.D., Accessible Design for the Blind 9. Jim Vale, Director, Veterans Benefits Program, Vietnam Veterans of America 10. Patrick L . Wojahn, Co

- Chair, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Transportati on Task Force 11. Shawn Lawrence, Community Action Specialist, disAbility Resource Center 12. Angela Stone, disAbility Resource Center 13. Jean Tessmer, RME, ASID 14. Day

na Whitmer 15. Dennis Cannon**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking** 

**Washington, DC**

>> Hans Van Winkle : Well, good morning. I am pleased to see a good crowd here today . We are very

excited about what is going to happen this morning. We are here to discuss our ongoing work on the notice to propose rulemaking for the public rights issue. We have b een at this for quite a while and we can see the end of the tunnel. In that sense we are very

excited to be here today . Iam joined by the other members, the majority of the other members of the board. Our staff person who has been working feverishl y, I think Scott is try to go get this rule out. It' s been a long time we have been working hard, but again are pleased to be here with y ou the members of the public and the constituency

to give us y our thoughts and your issues. I think, as you know, this is the second public hearing we have had. Scott will go over more details in a minute. We have had one public meeting alread y. And this will be the second. Again, welcome. We have rules to follow, Scott will cover those for yo u. We are interested in he aring your thoughts and comments. We do have a list of people who would like to testify this morning. If there are others in the audience, if yo u would let one of our staff know. We will make sure that we get y ou in. We will turn it over to Scott to gi ve you some of the specifics about how we will proceed this morning.

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

-- a little bit of the history

of what we are doing. We have a notice of proposed rules providing an update p ublished on July

26th of this y ear. We had our first hearing in Dallas, Texas September 12 of this y ear. And we had several people testify , about 15 if I remember correctly . And comment period for this rule closes on November 23rd. I would encourage yo u to submit any written comments that y ou may have by that date. There are copies of the rule in the back of the room if yo u want to grab it after the hearing. It will tell you how to commit those comments. And we have a list of registered speakers. We are going to have limit it to 5 to 7 minutes. We may be a little flexible about that. And after all registered speakers are

-- have presented, we will have an opportunity for others to testify , if there is time. And please ask, notify staff at the regi stration desk if**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 3 yo u want to testify

and have not preregistered. Our staff is both in the back, and there is a row of staff in the front next to the columns. So, any of them, just let them know that yo u want to testify . Just let them know.

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

to talk.

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

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

>> Thank you very

much.

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

>> Jon Julnes : Every

body hear me? Thank y ou for allowing me to speak here today

. My

name is Jon Julnes, presiden t of vanguard ADA s ys tems, and we both manufacture as well as install detectable warnings

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

. O utside forces affecting the integrit y of detectable warnings

-- issues**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

-- innovative and cost effective solutions for current enforcement mandates hitting cities and municipalities hard
as we ll as intriguing new concepts that may save money . More importantly adds significant value to the community . And finally further issues. Thank y ou. As an installer I have had inspectors tell me when informed stamped mesh concrete was neither detectable nor met an y possible design standard of a truncated dome , that if I say

it's a truncated dome, it's a truncated dome. This happens every day

. Today 22 y ears after the first detectable warning mandate d installation we still have inspectors approving products that are not trun cated domes. Moreover, they are approving them in way s that often have a negative impact on users. Detectable warnings are subject to a variet y of outside forces. Weather, impacts, shifting freeze sty le heating and vegetation and trip hazards. Some examples are shown here in the PowerPoint number 1 (indicating). I will put my glasses on. First one on the top left indicates UV damage and fading up to a fixture right below is one

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

-- with the concrete when it

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

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

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

-- is y our light on? You have a red light?

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

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

>> Jon Julnes : The bottom one is a picture of a surface applied material warped by the sun. And so they

are using pins to adhere that in city after cit y Nationwide, this is**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 5 a common -- this is a common procedure for fixing stuff that for some reason has come loose. Po werPoint 2 shows the impacts of abrasion. The very first photo on the top left is impact of something, bowling ball or something, at a train station. There is nothing underneath there holding it up. The one on the top right is of a grocery store and, ag ain, there is nothing below the material supporting it. There is a thin piece of plastic it can't support the weight. The ones on the bottom left are products that show that they were nonslip or slippery assistant when first installed and later became pre tty slippery actually . So, the fixes needed to improve these products would change their installed prices by as much as 2 to 4% but will double or quintuple their life. Some will require mandate changes, some installation spec have to be written enforced . Issues with existing designs and how new mandates obviate same. Several southern states opt to go with brick largely because many of their buildings are brick and architecturally it makes sense to them. They are relativel y eas y for local municipal cre ws to maintain. However bricks without a manufacturing standard of 3500 psi. Can we get that

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

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

-- it's protected from the concrete. Finish work that's being done. And it's often left there. And so, once it stay s there four or five months, it can maintain and hold moi sture and cause freeze, issues where people can walk on that and literall y go sliding like a skating rink. Back to the brick. Largel y because many of the bricks many of the buildings brick and architecturally

it makes sense to use brick detectable warnin gs, they are relatively

eas y for most municipal crews to maintain however bricks without manufacturing standard of**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 6 3500 psi mortar only

that products manufactured that meet the current spec will fail within months. L osing domes to abrasion is nominal and as infrequent as skate boards. Some examples of some mandates or specs. Wet set detectable warning products have air boy s mandating the warnings when installed shall have appropriatel y strong supporting mechanism below the installed surface. Such that c racking and other structural failure is avoided will eliminate 80% of these failures. For surface mounted products a mandate could be added that the epoxy used to adhere the device shall cover the entire surface and shall have no voids between it and the surface applied to. Penetrating sealers that cure in less than 20 minutes prior to an y surface mounted materials could applied ensuring a mechanical bond that would be nearl y unbreakable. None of this will happen unless manufacturers are mandated to beca use every time one peels up they

get to sell another one. Paneled Injected Molded Products requiring caulking could be mandated to use only caulking that has a UV resistance level of XYZ or higher minimizing costly repairs as these pictures indicate. Most of the failure isn't because the caulking was done incorrectl y, its because UV has damaged it. Where products require plastic covering to protect same from finish work when pouring concrete, a mandate that no protective covering shall remain on the detec table warning for a period of in excess of 24 hours after final installation is completed would be instructive. Ineffective enforcement. Someone said once, a poorl y designed solution implemented well will be vastly superior to a superior one implemented poorly

. PowerPoint 4. These are examples of detectable warnings installed approved products Nationwide that building officials have approved all over the country . They are as effective as if they

had not been installed at all. You can see by the pictur es that an ybod y blind or otherwise could walk right past most of them and not even see the

-- not even detect the detectable warning. Every one of those was approved b y a local building official. Innovative and cost effective solutions for current mandate s. Products exist that are nonskid as opposed to slip resistant that maintain that ability for decades as opposed to months. But something as simple as the mandate truncated dome shall have a top**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

-- a differential less than the thickness of a match head. Yet provide better longevity and safer access. Budgets are literally being eviscerated in ever y municipal agency Nationwide. A new definition of equivalent facilitation with more latitude would allow more cities to try

products that last longer and are safer but are just barel y outside the written standards. One issue keeps cropping up. Directio n of travel. Something as simple as a raised groove material running through the

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

- same powerpoint slide, but on the right

- hand side

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

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

- pe destrian crossover points. Another**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 8 would be to simply

have the feds mandate that all vehicles provide familiar engine sound whenever it's in operation. Both may be advisable. In California the detectable warning standard with the exception of DOT, CALTRANS

-- full width by 3 feet as opposed to the national standard of full width by 2 feet is what they

call for. It's confusing at best; expensive for manufacturers; and ultimately more costly

in many different way s for all. In conclusion the detectable warning standard is one that clearly saves lives every day but onl y when implemented correctl y. It's clear that without guidance, moreover, specific instructions how to properl y install detectable warnings, manufacturers will design products that meet the mandate but lack basic structural elements of design to ensure longevit y, and building officials will approve installations that lack any relationship to the mandates. We know products exist that don't have the issues, or if they do they can with a little modification can be resolved. Further we know how to make the ones that don't perform well, safer and last longer. In places where enforcement and implementation is lacking the reasons could be as much lack of knowledge as fear what they are mandated to install will cause them untold expense to maintain. When in fact almost every one of these products can be improved to eliminate these concerns. Current mandates may limit some of these solutions even as they attempt to do just the opposite. With minor alterations in the standards or better definition of equivalent facilitation improved products providing longer lasting value safety would result. Current Enforcement

-- excuse me, correct enforcement is the key . Informed enforcement. Pictograms showing correct process would be unbelievabl y useful to some. Every product currently manufactured or installed today can be improved, made to last longer, and safer at nominal cost. We should strongl y support innovative new design concepts, such as Mr. Doy le's , that could significantly moderate the expense that cities across America are mandated to compl y with but not are funded for same. These are all issues uniquely that the Access Board can influence. Thank you for the opportunity . And in closing I will**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 9 g ladl y make myself available to the board an y time I can be of assistance. I welcome questions.

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

>> Jon Julnes : Yes.

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

>> Jon Julnes : Anecdotal.

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

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

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

>> Phill Jenkins : Good morning. Phil Jenkins member of the public member of the board. I think Hans asked the question 80% number that y ou used it was not researched, it was anecdotal.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 10 >> Jon Julne s : Itwas not but Iam fairl y confident it's prett y accurate. I have been installing the things since 1993 or '4, something like that. And it's pretty

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

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

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

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

>> Jon Julnes : Oh, my

gosh. All of the above and more. It was certainl y ev er y single product out there that we are all familiar with whether glue downs set sets bricks steel plates whatever. They all have a really

great benefit. They

all do something reall y, reall y well that the others don't. But they all can be improved so that these

-- my biggest fear is that you know that the people that need these types of services this types of devices that they

are not going to be there when they need them or be ineffective and dangerous. The reason to be here isn't to promote any body 's product or to denigrate any product but to simply

say that with y our wording and with y our efforts, these products can be improved and made better for the people that are out there, they aren't expensive to do.

>> Phill Jenkins : Thanks.

>> Jon Julnes : Thank y ou.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

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

>> Hans Van Winkle : Good morning.

>> Diane L inderman : Good morning. Mr. chairman, members of the board, thank y ou very

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

- of

way , water supply , sewa ge and refuse disposal s ystems, public buildings and other structures and facilities essential to our nation's economy and way of life. Public works professionals serve a diverse range of local communities, municipalities counties townships villages and d istricts whether large or small, rural or urban. First I would like to express our appreciation for the dedication, commitment and hard work you and the staff have applied over the years in developing the proposed accessibility

guidelines. We appreciate also the continued extensive outreach to the stakeholders. At multiple points throughout the process APWA provided technical expertise and recommendations, we served as a member of the 1999 federal advisory committee formed to recommend the guidelines. We participated in the regulatory assessment process to evaluate the guidelines' potential cost and benefits.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 12 Public works agencies throughout the nation are committed to making pedestrian facilities and public buildings as accessible as possible. We beli eve that every community

has a responsibility

to provide a safe and inviting environment with facilities and amenities accessible to all. Infrastructure within the public right of way is rightfully intended to serve the needs of and provide a benefit to an entire community. Maintaining the highest level of flexible in the application of accessibility guidelines will work best for local communities because right of way characteristics can vary

significantly

from one community

to the next. Perspective one size fits all standards ty pically fail to take into account the diverse conditions of individual localities and the engineering realities of a given situation. Best practices and guidance that provide for flexibility creativity

and professional judgment i n the planning design construction maintenance and operation of public right of way

infrastructure generall y constitutes best approach for local communities as they

implement accessible facilities. L ocal communities have the difficult responsibility

to ba lance needs against available resources as part of the overall service delivery

missions. Without funding assistance from federal or other sources man y communities lack the means and abilit y to pay for the costs of implementing new standards. Throughout the United States many

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

-- (inaudible).

>> We seem to have a tech

-- technical issue with feedback.

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

>> When funds are made available to improve a location or to make repairs along a pathway , the proposed guidelines state access will be provided through construction.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 13 The cost to keep the pathway open and/or detour for the pedestrian would be cost prohibitive in most cases. The dollars used to make a pedestrian pathway accessible th rough construction could be counter productive when those dollars could provide a permanent benefit for the pedestrians with disabilities. therefore we recommend the guidelines be rewritten to provide that they appl y t o permanent facilities with reasonabl e accommodations for access made during construction. Reasonable accommodations during construction could include such things as notification that the pedestrian pathway will be closed and alternative routes or transits suggested to assist pedestrians that these improvements while they are being constructed. For projects under construction for extended periods of time it may be preferred to close all access to the construction zone. Complete closure of the construction zone protects workers as well as the public. As written the guidelines require that where pedestrians have access prior to construction the same level of access be provided during construction. While safety of pedestrians is of utmost importance there are several risks that come with the c onstruction zone even after reasonable precautions have been made. Workers pedestrians and drivers still get injured and killed within construction zones. In many cases it would be in the best interest of all pedestrians to use an alternative route of tr avel around construction. This is true even if the alternative route is longer or if a transit provider needs to be utilized. We therefore recommend making the following change to the guidelines : Inthe overview of proposed guidelines page 12 where it sa ys in quotes, the proposed guidelines ensure that the following facilities for pedestrian circulation and use located in the public right of way are readily

accessible to and usable by pedestrians with disabilities end of quotes. And to change that to : the proposed guidelines ensure that the following permanent facilities for pedestrian circulation and use located in the public right of way are readil y accessible to and usable by pedestrians with disabilities. Any

temporary

pedestrian facility

shall be c onstructed in compliance with of the guidelines provided by the US Access Board and the current manual on uniform traffic control devices. And in the first bullet below the statement where it say s**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

are newly

installed or replaced at signalized intersections. Maximum cross slope of 2% required on pedestrian access routes including within pedestrian street crossings with stop or yi eld control and pedestrian

- activated signals required at roundabouts with multi

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

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

- 205, the guidelines states that the proximity

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

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

>> Scott Windley : Excuse me Ms. L inderman. You are running out of time.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 16 >> Di ane L inderman : I have two pages left.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Okay , could y ou summarize, please.

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

- necessitated intersection to be flat this intersection design will cause significant jolt to automobile drivers as they cross the intersection and very

difficult to implement. We recommend this guide line be reconsidered. We oppose one size fits all approach to providing pedestrian actuated signals at every multi

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

>> Hans Van Winkle : Ms. L inderman, thank y ou those are very thoughtful remarks we appreciate the work that APWA has done in the past we look forward to working with y ou. We certainly appreciate where y ou have given us concrete recommendations that's helpful for us as we write the rule. One question that I took to heart your note I think it's absolutel y true not one size fit s all. And Inote from the Mr. Julnes's presentation we talked a little bit about a**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

>> Diane L inderman : I am happy to take that back so we can provide y ou with
some comments before your deadline. Nothing comes to mind immediately but we have members that have some ideas that

--

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

>> Christ Hart : Yes. Chris Hart, Public Member. Can y ou clarify when y ou said that the temporary

access routes would be problematic? Are y ou suggesting that if New York Ave out here, was dug up there should be no temporary ro uting of pedestrians?

>> Diane L inderman : If I understand your question the issue is not as much providing a temporary

path as it is the challenge that the communities have in construction zones of making them accessible or making the path the same leng th as it was in its normal condition as y ou probabl y know. Oftentimes you are asked to cross a street to avoid a construction zone. The challenge is protecting the pedestrian whether they are -- have a disability

or whether they

don't is alway s a challen ge.

>> Chris Hart : Are y ou also suggesting to change dectable protection around that site while using caution tape? Or or orange cones? I s that how you -- your concern of how y ou protect it?**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 18 >> Diane L inderman : I think it's a less about the mechanics of the protection that is certainl y governed b y other standards. It 's creating a

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

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

>> Diane L inderman : Sure. I hope that helped.

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

>> Hans Van Winkle : Ms. L inderman, thank y ou very much.

>> Thomas Blust : I thought I was being shown to the door already

. (LAUGHTER)

>> Thomas Blust : Good morning, I am Tom Blust, the director of engineering at the road commission in Oakland count y Mi chigan RCOC. First, we want to compliment the Access Board for your work to date on the PROWAG. We find the proposed rules well thought out, balanced and fair in the most part. Additionaly , as I mentioned to Scott before the meeting I thought they were very

well written and very

clear. So I congratulate you to do on that. I t' s difficult to do on a technical manual. RCOC joins with you in the effort to provide safe and accessible public rights

- of

way . RCOC oversees the largest road network in Michigan , aside from MDOT. We have jurisdiction 2700 miles of road with 13 billion annual vehicle miles traveled and 1300**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 19 traffic signals. RCOC is a very progressive agency , thanks in our parts Oakland county today boasts lowest traffic fatalit y rates in the worl d. Approximately about 1/3 of the national fatality

rate. Safety is our number one priority . That includes the safet y of motorists, pedestrians, cy clists and all users of the transportation network. RCOC is leader in Michigan and USA in embracing incor porating the ADA requirements and elderl y mobility standards and guidelines. Iam here today to voice concerns on two issues in the PROWAG. The first is the tolerances allowed on handicap ramps and pedestrian pathway s. As a practitioner I can tell y ou we put a great deal of effort into building these facilities with many

survey points, careful design, lay out, construction and inspection. Despite these efforts, we still sometimes have to tear it out and start again. The tolerances set in PROWAG particularly

for cross slopes are very

difficult to achieve in the world of heav y construction. This especially true when a pathway is asphalt. Since asphalt pathway s are usually constructed by

hand not with a paving machine, then rolled, the mat will vary slight ly due to compaction. This often puts the cross slope out of the tolerances at one or more locations. We recommend instead the slope tolerances for ramps and pathway s be measured at multiple locations within a given distance and averaged. For example, cr oss slope could be measured at four random locations within 20 feet and averaged to check for compliance. Our second concern is the mandate for pedestrian hy brid beacons at multi lane roundabouts. If RCOC is not known to y ou for the reasons mentioned, p erhaps y ou are aware of our involvement in a federal lawsuit regarding accessibility issues at a multi

lane round about. Shortly after opening multilane roundabout at Maple Road and Drake Road in West Bloomfield, MI , RCOC were sued under the Americans wi th Disabilities Act, despite the roundabout meeting all of the current ADA standards. Prior to constructing**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 20 the Maple/Drake roundabout, RCOC recognized the challenges of multilane roundabouts, and what they

pose for pedestrians particularl y handicap and b lind pedestrians and we had committed to work with these groups to find the best treatment for accessibility at this multi lane roundabout. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed RCOC offered to install two pedestrian treatments : the hawk and rectangular r apid flash beacon at adjacent, similar multilane roundabouts and to study their effectiveness for pedestrian accessibility as well as their effect on vehiclular traffic using the roundabouts. To our knowledge, this is the only study in the country

of two multi

- lane roundabouts, each equipped with permanentl y m ounted pedestrian beacons on all four legs : one with the hawk and one with the RRFP. RCOC engaged essentially the same research team that performed NCHRP 378A. Since our stud y was part of a lawsuit resolution the federal court retained jurisdiction and only very recentl y was it appropriate to release the study

. I am here today

to present the Access Board with the CD of the final report from our study . I believe it will also be available on our web site but I am not sure it's on there ye t. That's

-- I will give y ou the address at the end of the conversation today

. As y ou will see from the report, both the hawk and rapid flash beacon increased driver yi elding rates. However, the rates are still far below what we would all like to see. I personall y have seen drivers several drivers go through the solid red hawk beacon while looking up at it (indicating). (laughter)

>> Thomas Blust : Not good. I mentioned earlier RCOC's highest priorit y is for safet y for all users of the transportation network. Our concern with the pedestrian beacons as tested, is the low driver yi eld rate. The low driver yi eld rate, especially coupled with pedestrian over confidence due to the presence of a pedestrian signal may actuall y put pedestrians at**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

at multi

- lane roundabouts. This will require development and study of alternative treatments including options such as the tabletop crosswalks, moving the walk away

from the circle, evenl y placed rumble strips to indicate a car's speed, use of PHB's or rapid flash beacons, or possibl y some combination of these tools. RC OC is concerned if the PROAG is adopted as currentl y written, the federal requirement of a PHB at multilane roundabouts, will stifle the development of alternative treatment which may produce better accessibility and safet y in multi

- lane roundabouts. This is our mutual goal. We recommend the requirements for the PHB's at multilane roundabouts be removed from the PROWAG. I t is noted the PROWAG allows for the use of alternative signals with FHWA approval. RCOC recommends the language be changed to allow for alternative treatments with a simplified approval process in order to facilitate finding the best crossing solution. Ladies and gentlemen I thank y ou for attention and for y our consideration. I mentioned our study Ibelieve it is or will be available shortly at WWW.RCOC web.ORG.

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

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

-- in fact, y ou hit a 5% at one particular location, then they can't move**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

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

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

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

>> Hans Van Winkle : Yes.

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

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

>> Phill Jenkins : I have a question Phil Jenkins. Thank y ou on the report, I was look forward to reading it. Iwas wondering if yo u had comparative data with right turn lane issues compared to roundabout and whether drivers yield better o r worse, and if that was included in your study.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

>> Phill Jenkins : a right

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

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

>> Phill Jenkins : Slip lane versus roundabout.

>> Thomas Blust : Well, there is a

--

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

.

>> Phill Jenkins : The question is :

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

>> Thomas Blust : Yes. Right.

>> Phill Jenkins : Okay , Thank y ou.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Any other questions?

>> Thomas Blust : Again, thank y ou very much.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Thank y ou very much for y our thoughtful comments.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 24 >> Thomas Blust : Should Ileave with this

-- leave this with whom?

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

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

>> Jesse Hartle : Good morning. M y name is Jesse Hartle, I am a government program specialist at the national federation of the blind. The national federation of th e blind has affiliates in all 50 states plus The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and I am testify ing on behalf of the organization's 50,000 members. While blind people can travel independently

using a long white cane or guide dog, it still is essent ial that blind people have access to travel information at the same time and at same place as sighted people. Although achieving equal access is the goal, current accessibility guidelines developed specificall y for buildings and facilities cannot always b e applied to pedestrian facilities in the public right of way . We thank the Access Board for recognizing this discrepancy

in accessibility . We plan to submit detailed comments in writing for the board but today

we will limit our testimony to the major iss ues of pedestrian signals and push buttons. The proposed guidelines require accessible pedestrian signals and pedestrian push buttons to be provided when new pedestrian signals are installed or existing signals and push buttons are altered or replaced. As mentioned in the NPRM our 2002 minority report recommended that state and local governments should consult with the local blind community

to determine which signals should be accessible on an intersection by intersection basis. While we are now satisfi ed that 100% of new signals and push buttons will be accessible under the proposed guidelines, we still urge the board to require**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 25 consultation with the local blind community before making any

decisions regarding accessibility

. First, the local blind community understands what ty

pe of accessible features may be most effective at that particular intersection. Second, it's essential that the accessibility features are not demeaning to blind people. Advisory

R

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

-- such as audible tones or vibro

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

- hand turn on red. You have to listen to the sound of the traffic. You can't just go on an audible sound alone. A consultati on with local blind community will ensure informed judgment for the local government in how to appropriatel y achieve accessibility . Although we ask the board to require a local consultation with the blind community , on an intersection by intersection basi s, we expect the outcome of these consultations will always be to install a new accessible signal. This is the only way to achieve the objective of these guidelines which is to provide the same information at the same time and at the time place to blind p edestrians. We also ask the board to revise some of the technical standards. The accessible signals should have audible and vibrotactile features that can be activated by the blind putting the decision to utilize those features in the hands of the blind pedestrian.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

-- th ey don't change from neighborhood to neighborhood. Ithink the audible pedestrian signals are another piece of information that's available, but y ou alway s have to rel y as I said in my

presentation, y ou alway s have to fall back to the basics. You have to listen to the sound of the traffic to ensure even though the signal is say ing one thing it doesn't mean the driver is doing another thing. So, I don't think that if different signals are used in different places it would be that big of a problem. As long as they provide good information. Information that can be used by that blind traveler.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Um

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

.

>> Scott Windley : Thank y ou -- next up will be Bill Hecker and after Bill will be Kat Tay lor. And just note Iwould encourage you guy s to try to keep yo ur comments**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

>> Hans Van Winkle : Yeah, Sc ott, if y ou give the speaking members a one minute warning they

could use that as a signal their time is running out.

>> Bill Hecker : Mr. Chairman and members of the Access Board, staff thank y ou for the opportunity

to offer my

comments on the board's new proposed ADA accessibility guidelines for design construction and alteration of pedestrian facilities in the public right of way . M y name is Bill Hecker to put into context my opinions that are offered here today Iam going to share a little bit about my professional experience related to ADA compliance and accessibility within the public right of way . I am an architect from Birmingham, Alabama and for the past 21 ye ars have focused m y practice on accessibility

in the facility

compliance requirements of the ADA and other federal laws dealing with accessibility

. I have been retained as expert witness in ADA litigation b y plaintiffs, defendants, and the U.S. Department of Justice. My experience with significant ADA public right

- of

way issues began in 1997 when I was retained as an expert witness for the city and county of Honolulu, which was the first large U.S. city to face ADA litigation specificall y related to curb ramps and other public rights of way issues. I was also retained b y the California De partment of Transportation in the first ADA litigation faced b y a large state specifically on curb ramp issues. As y ou may be aware, that case resulted in one of the largest ADA financial settlements in history with CAL TRANS committing to spend 1.1 billio n on curb ramps and other accessibility modifications within the public right of way

. It was also m y great honor to represent the cit y of Birmingham, Alabama as a professional member of the Access Board's public rights

- of

- way accessibility

advisory**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 29 commi ttee. Iserved as chair of the intersections subcommittee and had an active role in the development of recommendations related to accessibility within the public right of way for the Access Board. It is from this perspective, that Icome here today to
co ngratulate the Access Board and its staff on a job well done. The proposed ADA accessibility guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the public right of way

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

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

- 202.3. This is a thoughtful appropriate approach to defining the ADA design in the public right of way . The technical requirements also reflect a trul y flexible approach to the concept of access ibility within the public right of way . The more simplified narrative and brilliant illustrations of the various components of curb ramps will make implementation easier and more consistent across the country

. I am particularly

glad to see the board's a cceptance of the fact that engineers reall y need flexibility

in the way

sidewalks connect to roadway level pedestrian facilities and crossings. This will lead to more site appropriate curb ramp installations and ultimately

much greater opportunities for p eople with disabilities to travel independentl y within the network of pedestrian routes within our communities.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

- 302.6.1. I find the specific language confusing. From the preamble the definition of this ty

pe of street crossing condition is a crossing quote where there is no yi eld or stop sign or where there is traffic signal that is designed for the green phase, end quote. I suggest that this definition be modified slightl y to read as follows : Quote, pedestrian street crossings without yield or stop controls are crossings within a roadway where the traffic has no yield or stop control. And crossings within a roadway where the traffic has a traffic signal that is designed for a green phase, end quote. Regarding the proposed scoping provision s for benches, in R

- 212.6. The guidelines state the quote clear space shall be provided either at one end of the bench or shall not overlap the area within 460 millimeters (1.5 feet) from the front edge of the bench, end quote. The latter portion of this specification is confusing to me and should be clarified in the final rule. Additionally , the specification for the clear space to be located at one end of the bench seems to be in conflict with the advisory recommendation regarding greater usability

of b enches which include armrests. It seems to me that if arm rests are provided at the end of the bench where cleared space is specified, then transferring to the bench from the wheelchair would be more challenging. Regarding the board's preamble question 18, dealing with the slope limits of flared sides perpendicular curb ramps I suggest that the 10% maximum slope be retained but that it be evaluated within the context of the adjoining pavement surface slopes. Basically the specification would be that the , quote, flared sides of perpendicular curb ramps shall have a slope no steeper than 10% relative to the adjoining sidewalk slope end quote.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

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

-- it would be rather beneficial for designers to have in the document that they

will refer to most frequently , a reference to this particular except ion in new construction not just the concept of practicability in alteration. And with that, Ithank you again for the opportunity to speak.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Thank y ou Mr. Hecker, we look forward to getting y our written comments to make sure we get the parentheses correct there.

(LAUGHTER)

>> Bill Hecker : Absolutely

.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Board members an y comments, questions? Okay . Thank yo u.

>> Bill Hecker : Thank you.

>> Scott Windley : Okay, next up will be Kat Taylor and then Janet Bar low.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 32 >> Kat Taylor : Good morning. I am Kat Tay lor from Equal Rights Center this is my colleague Ian Watlington. We have comments to share with y ou today I am actuall y going to turn my

time over to Ian at this time.

>> Ian Watlington : Thank y ou for yielding the floor. (LAUGHTER)

>> Ian Watlington : Good morning every one. I appreciate your time and attention this morning. My

name is Ian Watlington, and I am the program coordinator for the Equal Rights Center disability rights program, and Iam here to speak on behalf of the Equal Rights Center, ERC's and its members. For nearl y 30 ye ars the ERC has been fighting discrimination faced by people with disabilities with more than 3500 members in every state and The District of Columbia, we have inc reasingl y been lending our voice to efforts which are forward looking and seek to proactively promote the equal participation of people with disabilities in all aspects of life. We believe that the adoption of these proposed regulations is a step in the right direction. We are here to offer public comment on the proposed regulations in general. To specificall y address, I think it was question 23 whether the proposed guidelines have other qualitative or quantitative benefits. Enjoy ing equal opportunity in one's community

requires the ability

simply to get from point A to point B. The Equal Rights Center disability

rights program has on a regular basis been dealing with issues of transportation such as taxicab discrimination against people with service dogs and operational deficiencies with good old Metro access, the paratransit service of the Washington Metropolitan area transit authorit y, and as part of this transportation system, pedestrian facilities in the public right

- of

- way need to be accessible s o that people with disabilities can actuall y get to places they need to go.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 33 While it's hard to quantify the level of human dignity and fairness the implementation of these proposed regulations these regulations will foster, there is unquestionably

a quan titative economic advantage to this increased accessibility . Some figures estimate around 70% of people with disabilities are currently unemploy ed or under emplo yed. It matters little of their actual still level or desire to work but many of them face tr ansportation difficulties. And so, therefore, are unable to work and rel y on federal benefit programs. Likewise, inaccessible pedestrian facilities may curtail the extent to which people with disabilities can access local business, medical care, governm ent, and other services. People with disabilities are a huge part of the consuming public and increasing access to goods and services will not only have a positive impact on them but also have a direct and tangible positive impact on those businesses an d the econom y itself. Nearl y ever y day , ERC receives complaints about lack of access due to narrow sidewalks, steep curb cuts or other barriers. People have gotten their scooter stuck, chairs stuck between light and utility poles and the edge of the sidew alk. We have also heard complaints of buses unable to let down their lifts at the designated bus stops because of sidewalk clutter or other

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

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 34 intangible benefi ts for our societ y when we work towards a more accessible world, and not merely

get lost in the weeds of the dollars and cents to make these changes. Thank yo u for y our time and attention this morning. I am happy to answer any

questions.

>> Hans Van Win kle : Thank y ou both for sharing y our thoughts. Questions by the board members.

>> Scott Windley : Thank y ou very much.

>> Ian Watlington : Thank y ou.

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

>> Janet Barlow : I am Janet Barlow with accessible design for the blind. I am representing the environmental access committee of the orientation and mobility division of the association for education and rehabilitation of the blind and visually impaired known as AER. The orientation and mobility division of AER represents over 1,000 orientation mobility

specialists who teach independent travel skills to persons who are blind or visually

impaired. First, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak here toda y. And to provide more comments on these proposed guidelines. We will submit detailed comments in the next few day s but I wanted to just discuss a few points with y ou here today. First, we can commend the Access Board for publishing the guidelines. I represented AER on the public rights

- of

- way access advisory

committee, I know only

too well these have been a long time coming. And the amount of work that has been done b y the staff and board in getting to this point with these guidelines.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

- of

- way s are reall y desperately needed b y ci ties states and other jurisdictions and by pedestrians with disabilities. In order to have facilities that reall y consistent and accessible, I urge you to get this rulemaking done as
soon as possible. I hear on a regular basis from orientation mobility specialists around the country who are dealing with specific access issues with their clients and students who are blind or visually

impaired. Those requests and concerns fall mainly into four broad categories that Iwould like to talk a little bit about here. One is access to signal light intersections; two roundabouts; three would be stair markings; and four is construction areas. I will focus on those in the comments today

. We do have c omments on other areas

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

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

- 209.2 it say s existing pedestrian signals should compl y with R209.1 when signal control or software is altered or the signal head is replaced. Geometric changes to the intersection can take away the street crossing queues used for ye ars b y blind pedestrians. For example, recentl y in New York City lane configurations have been changed, sometimes with islands they have added bike lanes**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 36 and parking on one side of the street separate left turn phases for bicy cles. There have been no changes at those locations to the pedestrian signal heads or to the traffic signal controllers. But they

have moved the traffic surge more than two lanes from the pedestrians crossing the street. That's resulted in inaccessibility of intersections for people who are blind at intersections they have been crossing for ye ars they now can't hear the traffic surge they've been using. They didn't add use push buttons or change out signal controllers so the city didn't make changes that would trigger installation of APS under this

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

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

the term "software is altered" in R

209.2. Does that mean when they change the programming or put in new software? Signal retiming is not t yp ically a construction or reno vation operation. A series of software programming changes may not take place at the actual intersection. They are often done at a traffic management center downtown. And it can change the timing and phasing of a signal. The signal retiming may take only a few minutes there may be no evidence to the public or to a pedestrian who is blind that signal has been changed. And that it's operating in a different manner than it had previously

. We urge a broader requirement for APS installation considering the impact of signal timing changes and some ty pes of geometric design changes as well as pedestrian signal push button installation currentl y included. In general, in considering this question of APS installation, I would like to briefl y discuss the costs l isted for APS installation. L isted at $3600 per intersection a little perspective.

>> Scott Windley : Janet, y ou have one minute**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

-- that's a low cost modification. Your $3600 for accessible signals is a low cost modification in the ty pical funding issues of some of the intersections and costs for intersection construction. So, I know many

consumers who are blind and waited more than a y ear for the APS to installed or had their request refused just because this costs too much. Ido want y ou to look at what costs are in the ty pical transportation budget. To go to the other things, Iwant to talk about roundabouts Iurge y ou to require that roundabouts be accessible there are a great number being built in the U.S. Our members around the country are concerned or having people who are blind unable to cross intersections close to their home. There may be other t ypes of modifications that can p rovide access besides the signals, but I urge y ou to require accessibility

at roundabouts and equivalent facilitation, whatever. And stair markings

-- our members are particularly dismay ed to find the requirement for contrasting edge strip on stairs was dropped. There was no comment or notice of that in the preamble; it had been in the PROWAG requirements in draft 407.4 and we are quite dismay ed to see that. It's a feature many people with low vision want and need. And finally

construction areas as I mentioned in, well Ididn't mention in discussing APS, but Iwill. Iam concerned

-- we are concerned about the change to just referencing the MUTCD. In man y cases the language in part 6 of the MUTCD on temporary

traffic controls uses the term should rat her than shall. So it does not alway s require barriers in places we feel they may be necessary

or accessible paths. We believe we need minimum standards requiring appropriate barriers and guidance in the Access Board rule.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

to speak to you today.

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

>> Gary Talbot : Thank y ou very

much Mr. Chai r. Gary

Talbot public member. You stated that the stair markings had been removed from a previous version. Do y ou know

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

>> Janet Barlow : the 2005 PROWAG had a

--

>> Gary Talbot : Thank y ou very

mu ch.

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

>> Gary Talbot : Thank y ou, I reall y appreciate it.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Chris.

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

.

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

--**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

>> Janet Barlow : It may be.

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

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

- Louise

- or Beez y - Bentzen , director of research at accessible design for the blind. We are a small firm that has been a major play er in research on making the built environment more accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision. Much of our research is reflected in the document we are talking about today . Janet Barlow and I are principals of this firm and both of us are certified orientation and mobility specialists with more than well over a half century between us of teaching people visually impaired to travel inde pendently

. I hold two other positions that are relevant to discussion. PROWAG : I am active member of ANSI A117 the committee on accessibility and participated in the development of the A117.1 standards in 2003 and 2008 representing AER the organization for which Janet just spoke. Iam also a member of the signal's technical committee of the national committee on uniform traffic control devices and participated in the NUCCD standards for traffic control devices since about 1998. So, I am very familiar w ith provisions there that relate to people with visual impairments and work very hard with them to develop good language. I would point out that we don't feel that we are there yet. Accessible design for the blind salutes the Access Board for the tremen dous amount of work that has brought us to this day . The lack of guidelines and standards for making public rights

- of

- way accessible to people who are visuall y impaired has been a**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

- way paratransit ride in New York City January 2010 was $66. And the annual budget for New York City paratr ansit was $451 million. The cost to New York City

was therefore approximately $30,000 a y ear for transporting one person with a disability to and from work every

day . It costs a lot less to make street crossings accessible. Before the advent of modern intersections people who were blind or visually impaired could cross most intersections with confidence. Signalized intersections functioned on a fixed

- time basis didn't have dedicated turning intervals. Pedestrians who are visuall y impaired could antici pate the onset of traffic going parallel to their direction of travel and used the surge of that traffic as a reliable indicator it was their time to cross. Before right turns on red were the norm they could assume any

vehicular urge surge on the street b eside them indicated it was their time to cross. Right turn on red means that complex perceptual and cognitive processing is required to determine whether a vehicle starting to move on the street beside them is moving on a red or green signal. Complex s ignal timing as well as complex geometry and varying traffic volumes mean there is often no stead y stream of vehicular traffic from which pedestrians who are blind can establish the location and direction of the crosswalk and stay within it as they
cross. The advent of unsignalized turn lanes and roundabouts means that many people visually impaired can no longer walk to stores, transit stops and other destinations to which they

used to be able to travel independently confidently

and in safety . This resul ts in a lack of fitness and obesity resulting in unnecessary

high costs of healthcare as well as paratransit.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

opposite corner having crossed the intersection diagonally , sometimes in the presence of fast moving lef t turning traffic that was responding to a left

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

>> Scott Windley : Beezy , y ou have one minute.

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

- so the two are conflicting there.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

. Rather than removing all specifications from R

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

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

- lane channelized turn lanes may also be inaccessible. Just to cite one research statistic in particular, signal lane channelized turn lane in Charlotte, North Carolin a : on almost 10% of attempted crossings by blind participants, they

resulted in interventions by

the O&M specialists because drivers could not have stopped in time to avoid a collision. I thank yo u for the opportunity to present these concerns. You wil l have some extensive written comments from us with documentation of research sources. Thank you.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Ms. Bensen, thank you we will accept the written testimony . The source of y our research and conclusions was what again? You mentioned
s ome.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 43 >> Billie Bensen : Many

sources.

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

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

> > Hans Van Winkle : Okay . Questions from the other members? Thank y ou very

much.

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

>> Hans Van Winkle : Good Morning.

>> Jim Vale : Go od morning. M y name is Jim Vale I am the director of the Veterans benefits program for Vietnam Veterans in America. The Vietnam Veterans was founded in 1978, it is the only national Veterans organization congressionally chartered, exclusively

dedicated to Vietnam Veterans and their families. A little bit about my self, I am also visually impaired I am legall y blind for about 10 y ears. I have been through the VA blind rehab program. I served on the sound transit citizens accessibility

advisory committe e in Seattle Washington and Arizona governor's council for blindness and visual impairment. Ihave a degree in blind rehab teaching. And I have also been a blind pedestrian struck in a crosswalk b y a vehicle. I would like to share with y ou statistics, some Veterans statistics. There are a lot of living veterans today

according to the 2010 national census

- 22.6 million.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 44 Approximately

2/3 of 14.5 million are over the age of 55. And half of them are Vietnam Veterans. They

are at the age where as we ag e our vision gets worse. The VA estimates there is approximately

1 million Veterans with some form of vision loss. The Rand corporation estimates there's over 320,000 Veterans with traumatic brain injury and a third of them have some form of vision loss . We have a lot of visuall y impaired Veterans here in the United States. I would like to share with y ou issues from my own perspective. I notice the

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

. Other issues, from Seattle, sound transit's done a great job with tactile markings on the edge of train platforms. When Itravel down to Portland, Inoticed on the Portland MAX, it's not yellow but black. That's a problem at night. I can't see the e dge of the**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 45 platform, I can feel the tactile markings but I can't actuall y see the platform. I would like there to be a standard as far as color in the platform edge, in Seattle, it's usually y ellow, Portland is black. King County Metro in seattle at thei r bus bay s, at the north gate they paint it white. Now at Tacoma at Pearce Transit, they paint it red. There is inconsistency

Iwould like that to be made standardized to perhaps may be yellow but the brightest color. Also as far as issues with curb ramps - when I went through blind rehab I was taught to align m ys elf with the wheelchair ramp to make it across the intersections. A lot of cities cut corners they

put the ramp in the middle that makes it hard to orient my self as far as with the crosswalk. There should be one ramp per crosswalk instead of one for two crosswalks. I am in favor of the vibrating arrows for the crosswalk signals because that benefits not only

visuall y impaired but hearing impaired persons and they can feel the vibrating arro w. From my own experience in Montgomery Count y the y use audible sy stem, it announces the name of the street y ou were try ing to cross. When y ou have about 10 or 15 seconds left that audible stop now crossing Collesville road it stops then yo u have 15 seco nds to cross the street. There is still

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

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

>> Scott Windley : You have one minute.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 46 >> Jim Vale : Okay

. This concludes m y remarks. Iask again that y ou consider moving the tread marks and the escalator back to the front of the stairs. This concludes my remarks and I would be happ y to answer an y questions at this time.

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

>> Gary Talbot : Thank y ou. Gary Talbot, public member. Just so Iam clear with y our comments, it would be the nosing issue for y ou; the contrast nosing is

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

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

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

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

>> Gary Talbot : Thank y ou very

much.

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

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

>> Patrick Wojahn : Thank y ou. Good morning Mr. chairperson, distinguished members of the Access Board.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

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

of

- way . M y name is Patrick Wojahn, my name is often mistaken, don't worry about it. I serve as a public policy

analy st with the national disab ility rights network. I am testify ing here today

in my capacit y as a co - chair of the consortium for citizens with disabilities transportation task force. The CCD is a coalition of over 100 national consumer service provider and professional organization s which advocates on behalf of people with disabilities in chronic conditions and their families. The transportation task force is a smaller group within that coalition, that addresses access to transportation for people with disabilities, including advoc acy

for paratransit programs and accessibility to all modes of transportation. The task force also advocates for increased support for those transportation resources that people with disabilities most frequentl y rel y on such adds public transportation and accessibility in public rights

- of

- way . The national disability

rights network is the national membership organization for the 57 federall y mandated protection and advocacy and client assistance programs which advocate for people with disabilities to rec eive appropriate services and achieve maximum freedom in many government and private programs services and supports. I also serve as a member of the national capitol region transportation planning board and planning organization for the District of Columbia and in that capacity as chair of the transportation planning board access for all advisory committee. The access for all committee provides advice to the transportation planning board on how to involve the concerns of low income and minority communiti es and people with disabilities in the regional planning process. The access for all committee is submitting testimony on the proposed accessibility

guidelines under separate cover.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

- of

- wa y are critical for community

integration and to serve the day

- to
- day needs of people with disabilities. People with disabilities ty pically rel y on the ability

to traverse public rights of way to access both public and private transportation to get to thei r jobs to go shopping to visit friends and family and to live. Obstacles to accessibility help contribute to the aby smal unemploy

ment rate for people with disabilities and prevent them from being integrated as full members of the American community . The C CD transportation task force believes in complete streets policies and universal design to ensure accessibility is considered in every

infrastructure project and throughout maintenance of public rights

- of

way . The 57 protection and advocacy agencies across the country work in a variety

of way s towards promoting rights

- of

- way accessibility . Many

protection and advocacy agencies such as the Louisiana advocacy center and the Connecticut office of protection and advocacy

have served on local access boards and advisory committees regarding rights of way

access. Others such as disability

rights New Jersey , in the case New Jersey protection and advocacy versus township of Riverside, and the disability rights network of Pennsy lvania in Robertson versus city

of Mathewsport, and culler versus the city of Lancaster, have been engaged in class action lawsuits based on the failure of local governments to provide sufficient curb ramps. The proposed accessibility guidelines go a long way towards ensuring that local and state governments follow accessibility principles when renovating existing rights

- of

- way or constructing new ones. The guidelines incorporate consideration of every

public right of way

that a person might conf

ront, from public sidewalks to crosswalks and slope streets to overpass and roundabouts. We appreciate the hard work and effort that has gone into developing the proposed guidelines. Many of these standards will help ensure people with disabilities
are better able to travel over rights

- of

- way .**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 49 Specificall y as more and more local governments install roundabouts as a method to discourage speeding by automobiles, the provisions require pedestrian activated signals at multiple lane crosswalks and this will increase likelihood people with disabilities will able to safely navigate these. The requirements for detectable warning surfaces strike an appropriate balance between the needs of pedestrians with visual impairment and the needs of wheelchair riders. The guidelines provide appropriate guidance regarding the surface of access routes to ensure wheelchair riders are not hindered by slippery , rocky

or bumpy

surfaces. These guidelines improve standards for accessible pedestrian signals to help ensure th at the signals may be understood by

pedestrians with visual impairment. The task force is however concerned about some guidelines in the proposal that could be stronger. For example, although the guidelines address safet y and accessibility for multi

- lan e approach and exit lanes at roundabouts there is no provision ensuring safet y at single lane approach and exit lanes at roundabouts. Although the guidelines require minimum crossing time of 3.5 feet per second a recently review of studies by the AAA foun dation found that the 15% speed for pedestrians age 60 and up, range from 3.02 to 3.19 feet per second. The minimum crossing time should be lengthened to ensure accessibility

for all pedestrians. In closure, thank you for the opportunity to testify toda y regarding the views of the CCD transportation task force concerning the proposed accessibility guidelines for public rights

- of

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

.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Mr. Wojahn, thank y ou. Members of the board questions or comments.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

>> Shawn Lawren ce : Good morning, Mr. Chairman members of the Access Board, m y name is Shawn L awrence, and I'm a community action specialist at a disability resource center located in Fredericksburg Virginia. We are a Center for Independent Living and like our other 16 sister organizations in Virginia and 500 others throughout the United States, the term center for independent living means consumer controlled community

based cross disability

nonresidential private nonprofit agency designed and operated in local community for individuals with disabilities and provides an array of independent living services. Our core services are independent living skills training, peer counseling, advocacy , and information and referral. I want to comment on the proposed access guidelin es for pedestrians facilities in the public right of way . It is stated on page 28 in the regulatory assessment under number 12 benefits. Proposed guidelines would benefit pedestrians with disabilities. The U.S. census board reports that there are 54.4 m illion Americans, about in one in five U.S. residents reporting some level of disability in the y ear 2005. We can be assured that that number has and will increase in the coming ye ars. Right of way is a term first used to describe the right to travel unh indered. These guidelines are designed to ensure public right of way

contains the continuous accessible route that accommodates all pedestrians, including those with mobility aids. Street crossings where no signals are provided can present challenges fo r pedestrians with disabilities. Traditionally most intersections that lack any kind of signage or signalization to stop traffic were small roads and quiet areas. But certain street design features that reduce or eliminate vehicle stops have gained popularity as traffic calming measures. Even at busy urban intersections traffic calming is a term that refers to a variet y of methods to reduce motorized traffic volume and or speed. The goal is to enhance safety , especially for pedestrians.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 51 Ironicall y, man y of the physical measures used to promote traffic calming such as roundabouts, traffic circles, and islands can make it more difficult or confusing for pedestrians with disabilities to safel y cross the street. There are two guidelines I would like to fo cus on : Detectable warning surfaces on ramps and blended transitions. As stated in the regulatory

assessment on pedestrians access routes detectable warning surfaces indicate when there is a flush rather than curb connection to pedestrians who are blind or with low vision. Accessible pedestrian signals and pedestrian push buttons. accessible pedestrian signal and pedestrian push button is an integrated device that communicates information about walk or don't walk intervals at signalized intersections i n nonvisual formats to pedestrians who are blind or have low vision. Although estimates vary , there are approximately 10 million blind and visually impaired people in the United States. Approximately 1.3 million are legally

blind. There are approximate ly

55,200 legally

blind children. This information was obtained from the Michigan Braille transcribe fund MBTF. Certain design elements audible can help pedestrians who are blind with low vision orient themselves to cross, look at crossing locations. P edestrian activated signals can be used to stop traffic only when needed. Attention to surrounding structures and landscape features can minimize noise that interferes with the ability to of pedestrians rely ing on the hearing to make judgments about trave l conditions. Signage, as an example, y ield to pedestrians, can encourage motorists to stop for individuals waiting to go cross. I want to encourage you to pass the guidelines which will help millions of disabled Americans to function safel y as they navi gate our streets. thank yo u very much.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Thank y ou for those comments, questions?**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 52 >> Regina Bl ye : Thank y ou, Mr. chair. Regina Bly e, public member. I know this is bey ond the scope of the four services that you provide at your CIL, do y ou participate in travel training, if so do you cover any of the guidelines in the training?

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

- team which is most of the members that came up here with me today . We are getting ready to do a street survey that was put together b y t he I think it was AAA. They put the street survey

togethe r. We are going to go around the City Fredericksburg and different neighborhoods and assess the streets and conditions that we just got thorugh talking about. As far as training goes. We have had some training, I m ys elf personally am not really

qualifie d to give that kind of training, but we do have like our transportation people, which is FredBus, they also do training and it goes into the community for people with disabilities that would need to learn how to access the routes and things or how to use the features that they have. Yes, sir?

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

-- where closer to Mary Washington University

it's very modernized, but you pull away from the historic district, pe r se, it's much

-- there is such a discrepancy of the path of travel and how the sidewalks are made up and stuff like that. What would y ou -- what would y ou propose for the Access Board in terms of try ing to address this growing concern that there may

be a gap between how cities are addressing the growing population that they

should be even across the board in terms of the path of travel from the sidewalks and what have you. What would you recommend how we may address that across the board?**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 53 >> Shawn Lawr ence : That's a very good question. Ironicall y I am a member of the city planning commission. (LAUGHTER)

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

>> Shawn Lawrence : And we are try ing to address that

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

- ye ar review of that coming up in the spring. Fredricksburg as you know especiall y the area that you just mentioned about Mary Washington which our office is may be abo ut two blocks from Mary Washington. By

James Monroe High School it's an old city . Very

historic city , I will put it that way . A lot of the problems especiall y Caroline Street, Princess Anne Street, you know the two streets I am talking about. Their des igns, accessibility

was just not a concern when those designs were made. Try ing to retrofit them and with the city population too getting older, now I have been very blessed to be put in a position where I have seen some of the plans that Mary Washington foundation is planning for the city . And for the area that y ou just got through mentioning. But you are talking even a good economy , y ou are talking 15 y ears or more down the road. The question becomes what can we do between then and between now and the n to correct some of those things. It's very hard. It's very

hard. Because like I say yo u are dealing with historic town. And people are very hesitant to want to change where George Washington lived, they are hesitant to want to change where trolley cars and things go up and down the street. So, hopefull y being on the planning commission as things begin to get built and when you gu ys be making new guidelines so as they are being built, because in Fredericksburg there is no place to go. Just like New Y ork you just have to tear down and rebuild right where you are. Because Stafford and**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 54 Spotsylvania have room to grow out; but Fredricksburg? that's it. As y ou tear down and rebuild I pray

that y ou pass guidelines that will be able to address those concern s.

>> Mathew McCollough : Thank y ou, sir.

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

>> Shawn Lawrence : Thank y ou very much.

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

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

- team that Shawn just mentioned, Iwould like to talk to y ou today about some concerns regarding the accessible pedestrian push buttons. I am concerned that people like me may not be able to re ach them because sometimes there is obstructions, bushes in the way or sometimes there are just slightly too high so I have to try

to extend out of my

chair, which is a safety

issue. I also recently

went on a walk in Fredricksburg there was a sign that s aid, that cars may not y ield to the pedestrian signal. That was very concerning to me. Because I don't want m y independence to be compromised because I am concerned for safet y. Also, as he mentioned for the blind, for the blind and visually impaired I d o agree there needs to be some t ype of audible device that can not only tell you when to cross but may be to tell y ou in intervals how many seconds that y ou have to cross so that someone visually impaired doesn't have to wait for the next cy cle to cross. I thank you for your**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 55 time and consideration and Iappreciate any thing that y ou could do to make people's lives with disabilities like mine a little bit easier. Thank y ou.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Miss Stone, thank y ou. We will take that to heart any question s by

the board? Thank y ou very much.

>> Scott Windley : Thank y ou.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Thank y ou for y our testimony

.

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

>> Jean Tessmer : Okay

.

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

>> Jean Tessmer : How is that?

>> Hans Van Winkle : Li ttle more. We

-- can you hear me now.

>> That's very

g ood, y es

>> Okay

.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

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

>> Hans Van Winkle : Well where are you?

>> Jean Tessmer : I am in Hawaii.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Ah, okay

. (LAUGHTER)

>> Hans Van Winkle : Well AL OHA I guess we should say

.

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

.

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

>> Jean Tessmer : Yes.

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

>> Jean Tessmer : Okay . Ihave

-- I am also using a headset, I thought you could hear me speak.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 57 >> Hans Van Winkle : I think we just lost y ou. Can y ou hear us?

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

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

>> Jean Tessmer : No, I am not.

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

>> Jean Tessmer : Okay . My name is jean. I have been qualified by GSA as a barrier free consultant to federal agencies. I am involved in the development for the design buffers and tolerances for acceptance accessible features at federal states issue (inaudible). I hold construction design licenses in the state of Hawaii and h ave 20 ye ars of applied design construction and acceptance of accessible projects. (inaudible). I also commend the efforts of the committee for (inaudible) giving me the opportunity for individual disability

Iappreciate all of y our hard work. Okay . Le t' s start with page 6 at the top of the page at the Architectural Barriers Act : My concerns is

--

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

.

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

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

>> Okay . I can do that.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

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

>> Page 6, okay

.

>> Yeah. Insertion is : The scope of covered (inaudible) on profit for profit federal state and local governmental agencies will receive directly or indirectly federal tax dollars. And my

reason for wanting to insert that phrase is to actually broaden the scope of enforcement from the U.S. Access Board. And I think that we need uniform enforcement, and it needs to be addressed through higher profi le education. Each time a grant is let, the education needs to incorporate and require self evaluations that are reviewed for compliance before receipt of an y dollars. and incorporate (inaudible) into the design before construction. (inaudible) being minus 1.3% for the 8.3%. Minus 1% for the 5% equalling 4% in the design. Minus 1% of the 2.1% which would be 1.1% for a period (inaudible). And minus 2% for the 2% which equals 0.1% for interior surfaces. There is a difference between interior and exterio r surfaces because generally speaking, yo u need to compensate for some more covering. If we don't compensate those (inaudible) traditionall y will be (inaudible). Additionally the allowance plus 1.3% pass

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

- ye ar period. The aforementioned combined surfaces (inaudible) successfully applied concrete asp halt and raised (inaudible) in Hawaii and California. (inaudible).**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 59 R

- 105

- 5

-- I'm sorry

period 5. Insert the word practicable and insert the meaning which means that you -- that unique characteristics presents incorporations of accessibility

features in a facility

in such a case that new construction requirements appl y. Except where the entity

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

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

- road grade from the walk grade; install secondary routes not a part of the right of way

that provides (inaudible) access. Use (inaudible) limit the length or width of 2 % grade to reduce (inaudible). Page 67. R

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

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

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

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

>> Jean Tessmer : You have no visuals.

>> Hans Van Winkle : No.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

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

- 305 are hazardous to able

- bodied and disabled pedestrians (inaudible). The permanent disabilities caused to able bodi ed mobility impaired individuals should not be underestimated. Doctor said it would have been better to fall on flat concrete as the dome pushed into the forehead like a hammer hitting to cause traumatic brain injury . Small children fall frequentl y on wa lkway s I would hate to see what would happen to them. Blind individuals that I know and have friendship,the ramps are facing in the wrong direction any way , not in line with the crosswalk and they

can't find or search for the small patch of the detectable warning. They say they could step off the curb like any one else one of these day s. Page 68R

209.1.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Miss Tessmer, for one we are out of time for the second point is that we are having a great deal of difficulty hearing and understanding what y ou have to say . Do you -- is there testimony written up could y ou send it to us

>> Jean Tessmer : Yes, it is.

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

-- your comments

>> Scott Windley : we have received comments from her, if she has any additional comments she should let us know.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

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

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

- of

- way regulations.

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

>> Jean Tessmer : Okay

.

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

>> Jean Tessmer : Thank y ou, very much.

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

>> Day na Whitmer : Hello?

>> Scott Windley : Yes.

>> Day na Whitmer : Okay . I am getting a lot of feedback.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

>> Day na Whitmer : Okay . I will try . M y name is Day na I am testify ing as an individual. And Icertainly don't have the expertise of the previous speakers but Ican appreciate all of their efforts to make communities safer for every one. I wanted to speak to y ou about one aspect of the public right of way that's not been addressed at all in the guidelines of the proposed rules.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Okay . You were doing well at first now y ou faded out. I f yo u could

--

>> Day na Whitmer : Okay . As y ou work to ensure the safet y of the people with various phy sical disabilities please remember those individuals with hidden disabilities are more vulnerable to (inaudible).

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

>> Day na Whitmer : No, Iam not.

>> It 's our end.

>> It sounds like we are having technical difficulty.

>> Day na Whitmer : There is a lot of feedback.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

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

>> Day na Whitmer : I can certainl y do that.

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

>> David Capozzi : Hang up the call then retry

.

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

>> Day na Whitmer : ROSEMARI E does.

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

>> Hans Van Winkle : Okay . Yes give us y our -- do y ou have the number?

>> Rose Marie Bunales : I have it.

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

-- if we can do better

>> Day na Whitmer : Thank y ou.

>> Day na Whitmer : Hello?

>> Hans Van Winkle : Yes, Miss Whitmer, can y ou hear us?**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 64 >> Day na Whitmer : Yes, Ican.

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

>> Day na Whitmer : Okay

.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Speak slowl y.

>> Day na Whitmer : Start the beginning.

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

>> Day na Whitmer : Okay . M y name is Day na, I am testify ing as an individual. I do not have the experience of previous speakers to appreciate their efforts to make communities safer for every one. I want to speak to y ou about one aspect of

-- (inaudible)

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

>> Okay

.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Yeah, we think it's a fault on our part. From a technology perspective. So, we apologize for that. We do want to mak e sure we get your testimony

. Let's cut this off at this point. And if y ou would provide the written testimony we will make sure we take it under consideration.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 65 >> Day na Whitmer : Great. Thank you.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Thank y ou very much.

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

>> Hans Van Winkle : Is there an ybod y else in the audience that wishes to speak at this point. Ithink we are

--

>> Scott Windley : We finished all of the registered people who want to testify

. We can take a few more minutes to

-- if an ybod y wants to testify

.

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

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

-- no I am just joking.

(LAUGHTER)

>> Bill Hecker : We demand it.

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

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

>> Hans Van Winkle : Dennis, welcome back.**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 66 >> Dennis Cannon : Thank y ou.

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

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

- lane roundabouts which is the multiple threat problem. That is, the vehicle stops in the first lane, to let y ou cross, and then the vehicle comes b y in the second lane. If there is a bus and maybe some of y ou have seen the video that was done by Von Inman of FHWA, a bus stops fo r a blind person totally

blocking the view of the car in the second lane, and the cars in the second lane comes zipping past, and even when the bus tries to maneuver its way to block that lane, there are still cars coming past. The purpose of a signal in a multi

- lane situation is to stop the cars from that happening. Now, the blind person of course can't make ey e contact with the driver. And can't reall y tell in most cases when the vehicle is simply slowing down to y ield. They sort of wait until they

ar e sure it's stopped before they cross. A lot of blind people don't step off the curb right away . They wait until the car stops. Lots of vehicles will simply speed back up assuming he or she isn't actually going to cross. If a vehicle like a bus or SUV or a van stops in the first lane, for the blind

-- for a sighted person yo u simply walk out in front of that vehicle and peer around to see if the cars had stopped. Not only can't the blind person do that, but the concern in the**US A ccess Board Public Hearing**  **Public Rights -**  **of -** **Way Notice of Proposed Ru**  **lemaking Washington, DC** 

Unofficial Transcripts We dnesday, November 9, 2011 Page 67 wheelchair when I roll out in front of that van, my feet and knees are in the opposite lane before I could look around the van to see if the car is coming. It's worse for someone in a scooter, because the scooter may be half way

into the other lane before the person can actuall y l ook around the vehicle to see whether somebody is coming. So, I think y ou need to be careful and take with a grain of salt the comments I am sure y ou are going to get bombarded with from a lot of the people who are pushing roundabouts. As Isaid I think roundabouts are great in man y wa ys as long as they are accessible thank y ou.

>> Hans Van Winkle : Dennis, thank y ou. Any questions from the members of the board? Dennis, thank y ou very much. Glad to have you back. Okay. I think that's it. Seeing no other members that wish to testify we certainly

thank all of y ou that took the time and effort to give us y our comments. Again, I will restate m y earlier comments we are excited about the progress we look forward to incorporate your comments thoughts and suggestions to the extent to which y ou have them in writing make sure y ou give those to us and thank y ou for your participation and thank y ou to the board for good questions. David? We start again at 1:30 today . Thank you.

>> Hans Van Winkle : This ends this session, thank y ou very much. (Recess taken.)