U.S. Access Board

Public Hearing:

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

November 9, 2011

9:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Washington, DC

Hans Van Winkle, Ad Hoc Committee Chairman

Scott Windley, Access Board Staff

Witnesses:

1. Jon Julnes, President, Vanguard ADA Systems

2. Diane Linderman, P.E, President, American Public Works Association

3. Thomas G. Blust, P.E., Director of Engineering, Road Commission for Oakland 

County, MI

4. Mr. Jesse Hartle, Government Programs Specialist, National Federation of the 

Blind

5. Bill Hecker – AIA, Consultant, Member of PROWAAC, Hecker Design

6. Kat Taylor, Disability Rights Program Manager, Equal Rights Center

7. Janet M. Barlow, Accessible Design for the Blind

8. Billie Louise (Beezy) Bentzen, Ph.D., Accessible Design for the Blind

9. Jim Vale, Director, Veterans Benefits Program, Vietnam Veterans of America

10. Patrick L. Wojahn, Co-Chair, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, 

Transportation Task Force

11. Shawn Lawrence, Community Action Specialist, disAbility Resource Center

12. Angela Stone, disAbility Resource Center

13. Jean Tessmer, RME, ASID 

14. Dayna Whitmer

15. Dennis Cannon
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

>> Hans Van Winkle: Well, good morning. I am pleased to see a good crowd 

here today. We are very excited about what is going to happen this morning. We are 

here to discuss our ongoing work on the notice to propose rulemaking for the public 

rights issue. We have been at this for quite a while and we can see the end of the tunnel. 

In that sense we are very excited to be here today. I am joined by the other members, the 

majority of the other members of the board. Our staff person who has been working 

feverishly, I think Scott is try to go get this rule out. It's been a long time we have been 

working hard, but again are pleased to be here with you the members of the public and 

the constituency to give us your thoughts and your issues. I think, as you know, this is

the second public hearing we have had. Scott will go over more details in a minute. We 

have had one public meeting already. And this will be the second. Again, welcome. We 

have rules to follow, Scott will cover those for you. We are interested in hearing your 

thoughts and comments. We do have a list of people who would like to testify this 

morning. If there are others in the audience, if you would let one of our staff know. We 

will make sure that we get you in. We will turn it over to Scott to give you some of the 

specifics about how we will proceed this morning.

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

bit of the history of what we are doing. We have a notice of proposed rules providing an 

update published on July 26th of this year. We had our first hearing in Dallas, Texas 

September 12 of this year. And we had several people testify, about 15 if I remember 

correctly. And comment period for this rule closes on November 23rd. I would 

encourage you to submit any written comments that you may have by that date. There 

are copies of the rule in the back of the room if you want to grab it after the hearing. It 

will tell you how to commit those comments. And we have a list of registered speakers. 

We are going to have limit it to 5 to 7 minutes. We may be a little flexible about that. 

And after all registered speakers are -- have presented, we will have an opportunity for 

others to testify, if there is time. And please ask, notify staff at the registration desk if 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 3

you want to testify and have not preregistered. Our staff is both in the back, and there is 

a row of staff in the front next to the columns. So, any of them, just let them know that 

you want to testify. Just let them know.

>> Hans Van Winkle: If we could have our staff raise their hands, particularly in 

the back, any of the individuals, let them know, we will make sure we give you an 

opportunity to talk.

>> Scott Windley: We will have a transcript of this hearing, and it will be kept

and will be entered into the docket, written remarks, PowerPoints, if you give them to the 

staff at the registration desk. And basically we don't want to turn this into a debate, we 

want to refrain from reacting publicly to guest presentations or board member statements. 

We are here to listen to you. We may have questions about your comments, that would 

be it. So, we will go through our list of people that have preregistered. What I will do I

will tell you who is up first, and then who is on deck for the -- after them. Jon Julnes, the 

president of vanguard ADA systems will be first, followed by Diane Linderman who is a 

professional engineer and president of the American public works association. And we 

will go from there.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Mr. Julnes, the floor is yours. Just hit the button in the 

back, and as soon as you see the green light you will be on.

>> Jon Julnes: Everybody hear me? Thank you for allowing me to speak here 

today. My name is Jon Julnes, president of vanguard ADA systems, and we both 

manufacture as well as install detectable warnings -- I plan on discussing five things in 

my allotted time. Outside forces affecting the integrity of detectable warnings-- issues 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 4

with existing designs and how mandates may obviate same. Ineffective 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 well as intriguing new concepts that may save money. More importantly adds 

significant value to the community. And finally further issues. Thank you.

As an installer I have had inspectors tell me when informed stamped mesh 

concrete was neither detectable nor met any possible design standard of a truncated 

dome, that if I say it's a truncated dome, it's a truncated dome. This happens every day. 

Today 22 years after the first detectable warning mandated installation we still have 

inspectors approving products that are not truncated domes. Moreover, they are 

approving them in ways that often have a negative impact on users.

Detectable warnings are subject to a variety of outside forces. Weather, impacts, 

shifting freeze style heating and vegetation and trip hazards. Some 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. Is indicating the color it was when originally installed.

The one on the top right kind of indicates what happens underneath some of what 

we call wet set which -- with the concrete when it -- the concrete just sits there and 

decays because the water starts to get out. It acts like a -- a acts like a greenhouse. I am 

not sure if this thing is on -- you hear me. Bottom photo is used as a backup -- is your 

light on? You have a red light?

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

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

>> Jon Julnes: The bottom one is a picture of a surface applied material warped 

by the sun. And so they are using pins to adhere that in city after city Nationwide, this is 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 5

a common -- this is a common procedure for fixing stuff that for some reason has come 

loose.

PowerPoint 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, again, 

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 pretty slippery actually. So, the 

fixes needed to improve these products would change their installed prices by as much as 

2 to 4% but will double or quintuple their life. Some will require mandate changes, some 

installation spec have to be written enforced. Issues with existing designs and how new 

mandates obviate same. Several southern states opt to go with brick largely because 

many of their buildings are brick and architecturally it makes sense to them. They are 

relatively easy for local municipal crews to maintain. However bricks without a 

manufacturing standard of 3500 psi. Can we get that -- I'm sorry, I missed one of the 

frames here. This other one this other set of photos show product shifting and vegetation 

growing on where you can't detect anything. Freeze-thaw heave, where products are 

shifting because of moisture getting in and causing movement from the product because 

of damage from extreme temperature ranges.

The one in the middle left is pretty important one. It's a picture of a product that 

has a plastic covering on it when it's being installed it's protected from -- it's protected 

from the concrete. Finish work that's being done. And it's often left there. And so, once 

it stays there four or five months, it can maintain and hold moisture and cause freeze, 

issues where people can walk on that and literally go sliding like a skating rink. Back to 

the brick. Largely because many of the bricks many of the buildings brick and 

architecturally it makes sense to use brick detectable warnings, they are relatively easy 

for most municipal crews to maintain however bricks without manufacturing standard of 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 6

3500 psi mortar only that products manufactured that meet the current spec will fail 

within months. Losing domes to abrasion is nominal and as infrequent as skate boards. 

Some examples of some mandates or specs. Wet set detectable warning products have 

air boys mandating the warnings when installed shall have appropriately strong 

supporting mechanism below the installed surface. Such that cracking and other 

structural failure is avoided will eliminate 80% of these failures. For surface mounted 

products a mandate could be added that the epoxy used to adhere the device shall cover 

the entire surface and shall have no voids between it and the surface applied to. 

Penetrating sealers that cure in less than 20 minutes prior to any surface mounted 

materials could applied ensuring a mechanical bond that would be nearly unbreakable. 

None of this will happen unless manufacturers are mandated to because everytime one 

peels up they get to sell another one. Paneled Injected Molded Products requiring 

caulking could be mandated to use only caulking that has a UV resistance level of XYZ 

or higher minimizing costly repairs as these pictures indicate. Most of the failure isn't 

because the caulking was done incorrectly, its because UV has damaged it. Where 

products require plastic covering to protect same from finish work when pouring 

concrete, a mandate that no protective covering shall remain on the detectable warning 

for a period of in excess of 24 hours after final installation is completed would be 

instructive. Ineffective enforcement. Someone said once, a poorly designed solution 

implemented well will be vastly superior to a superior one implemented poorly. 

PowerPoint 4. These are examples of detectable warnings installed approved products 

Nationwide that building officials have approved all over the country. They are as 

effective as if they had not been installed at all. You can see by the pictures that anybody 

blind or otherwise could walk right past most of them and not even see the -- not even 

detect the detectable warning. Everyone of those was approved by a local building 

official. Innovative and cost effective solutions for current mandates. 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 Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 7

diameter of 50% of the base diameter minimum, to 65% of the base diameter maximum 

can eliminate products that may have a top diameter of barely 75% of the base -- a 

differential less than the thickness of a match head. Yet provide better longevity and 

safer access. Budgets are literally being eviscerated in every municipal agency

Nationwide. A new definition of equivalent facilitation with more latitude would allow 

more cities to try products that last longer and are safer but are just barely outside the 

written standards. One issue keeps cropping up. Direction of travel. Something as 

simple as a raised groove material running through the -- running the length of the 

walkway as identified here on the left side, could be an easy identifier. Similar products 

have been tested in Sacramento. It seems to me that guiding people across the pathway is 

as important as telling them where the path begins or ends. Another area of concern is 

where cities have only one ramp leaving a path of travel that splits off into two 

crosswalks. Cities are understandably required to put in two new ramps to better identify

the path of travel. Brian Doyle at Berkeley, California came up with a remarkable 

solution - same powerpoint slide, but on the right-hand side - I don't know if you can see 

it, but there is a ramp with detectable warning in the middle, and on the left and righthand 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 providing a directional 

tactile cue at significantly lower cost yet providing similar and arguably improved 

directional cues. In any market this is a brilliant concept. In today's market where 

budgets are falling by the hour the cost savings would easily run into 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 vehicles, there is no sound. At 

night this could be a dangerous issue as drivers are notoriously unaware of their 

surroundings while blind and visually impaired are supremely aware of theirs. Solutions 

could be to put detectable warnings at all vehicular-pedestrian crossover points. Another 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 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 ways for all. 

In conclusion the detectable warning standard is one that clearly saves lives every

day but only when implemented correctly. It's clear that without guidance, moreover, 

specific instructions how to properly install detectable warnings, manufacturers will 

design products that meet the mandate but lack basic structural elements of design to 

ensure longevity, and building officials will approve installations that lack any 

relationship to the mandates.

We know products exist that don't have the issues, or if they do they can with a 

little modification can be resolved. Further we know how to make the ones that don't 

perform well, safer and last longer. In places where enforcement and implementation is 

lacking the reasons could be as much lack of knowledge as fear what they are mandated 

to install will cause them untold expense to maintain. When in fact almost everyone of 

these products can be improved to eliminate these concerns. Current mandates may limit 

some of these solutions even as they attempt to do just the opposite. With minor 

alterations in the standards or better definition of equivalent facilitation improved 

products providing longer lasting value safety would result. Current Enforcement --

excuse me, correct enforcement is the key. Informed enforcement. Pictograms showing

correct process would be unbelievably useful to some. Every product currently

manufactured or installed today can be improved, made to last longer, and safer at 

nominal cost. We should strongly support innovative new design concepts, such as Mr. 

Doyle's, that could significantly moderate the expense that cities across America are 

mandated to comply with but not are funded for same. These are all issues uniquely that 

the Access Board can influence. Thank you for the opportunity. And in closing I will 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 9

gladly make myself available to the board any time I can be of assistance. I welcome 

questions.

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

>> Jon Julnes: Yes.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Thank you. That's a very interesting presentation. All of 

the members of the board are interested in the standards and particularly the longevity 

issues that you talk about maintainability. I think you are correct, it doesn't do good to 

have a great standard and within months, literally it's less than desirable and less usable. 

Do you have data or research in terms of these issues.

>> Jon Julnes: Anecdotal.

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

>> Jon Julnes: And this is stuff that everyone of us seen in every parking lot and 

every street we have all gone across. I don't think there is anybody in the room that hasn't 

seen most of the pictures whether taken in their lot or not.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Absolutely yes, those are great points. Any members of 

the board have any questions?

>> Phill Jenkins: Good morning. Phil Jenkins member of the public member of 

the board. I think Hans asked the question 80% number that you used it was not 

researched, it was anecdotal.
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 10

>> Jon Julnes: It was not but I am fairly confident it's pretty accurate. I have 

been installing the things since 1993 or '4, something like that. And it's pretty -- I mean, 

as a guy that has his hands on the product all day long, it's easy to figure out how to make 

thee things better; most people just don't want to. Like I said, if it's not mandated, they

get to sell another one, you know?

>> Phill Jenkins: The question to further clarify were you looking at ten types of 

issues, and say, eight of the ten were a problem or was 100 occurrences, and 80 of the 

hundred.

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

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

>> Jon Julnes: Oh, my gosh. All of the above and more. It was certainly every 

single product out there that we are all familiar with whether glue downs set sets bricks 

steel plates whatever. They all have a really great benefit. They all do something really, 

really well that the others don't. But they all can be improved so 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 anybody's product or to denigrate any

product but to simply say that with your wording and with your efforts, these products 

can be improved and made better for the people that are out there, they aren't expensive 

to do.

>> Phill Jenkins: Thanks.

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

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 11

>> Hans Van Winkle: Any other questions of the board? Mr. Julnes, thank you 

very much. 

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

Thomas Blust.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Good morning.

>> Diane Linderman: Good morning. Mr. chairman, members of the board, 

thank you very much for holding the hearing today and for the opportunity to present our 

statement this morning. I am Diane Linderman president of the American public works 

association, or APWA. APWA is an international education and professional association 

representing more than 28,500 members. Working in the public interest are members plan 

design and operate and maintain public infrastructure including transportation, rights-ofway, water supply, sewage and refuse disposal systems, public buildings and other 

structures and facilities essential to our nation's economy and way of life. Public works 

professionals serve a diverse range of local communities, municipalities counties 

townships villages and districts whether large or small, rural or urban. 

First I would like to express our appreciation for the dedication, commitment and 

hard work you and the staff have applied over the years in developing the proposed 

accessibility guidelines. We appreciate also the continued extensive outreach to the 

stakeholders. At multiple points throughout the process APWA provided technical 

expertise and recommendations, we served as a member of the 1999 federal advisory

committee formed to recommend the guidelines. We participated in the regulatory

assessment process to evaluate the guidelines' potential cost and benefits.
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 12

Public works agencies throughout the nation are committed to making pedestrian 

facilities and public buildings as accessible as possible. We believe 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 typically fail to take 

into account the diverse conditions of individual localities and the engineering realities of 

a given situation. Best practices and guidance that provide for flexibility creativity and 

professional judgment in the planning design construction maintenance and operation of 

public right of way infrastructure generally constitutes best approach for local 

communities as they implement accessible facilities. Local communities have the 

difficult responsibility to balance needs against available resources as part of the overall 

service delivery missions.

Without funding assistance from federal or other sources many communities lack 

the means and ability to pay for the costs of implementing new standards. Throughout 

the United States many pedestrian pathways are in serious need of repair and updating to 

provide accessibility. Federal state and local funds are limited to address each upgrade. 

When funds are made available to improve a location or to make repairs along the 

pathway -- (inaudible).

>> We seem to have a tech -- technical issue with feedback.

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

>> When funds are made available to improve a location or to make repairs along 

a pathway, the proposed guidelines state access will be provided through construction. 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 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 

through construction could be counter productive when those dollars could provide a 

permanent benefit for the pedestrians with disabilities. therefore we recommend the 

guidelines be rewritten to provide that they apply to permanent facilities with reasonable 

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 construction 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 

travel around construction. This is true even if the alternative route is longer or if a 

transit provider needs to be utilized. We therefore recommend making the following 

change to the guidelines: In the overview of proposed guidelines page 12 where it says 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 readily accessible to and usable by pedestrians 

with disabilities. Any temporary pedestrian facility shall be constructed 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 says 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 14

sidewalks pedestrians overpasses and underpasses and other pedestrian circulation paths 

including requirements for pedestrian access routes, alternative pedestrian access routes 

when pedestrian circulation paths are temporarily closed and protruding objects along or 

overhanging circulation paths. Change that to: sidewalks pedestrian overpasses and 

under passes and other pedestrian circulation passes including notifications of temporary

closed access and or delays due to the requirements for pedestrian access routes. 

alternative pedestrian access routes when pedestrian circulation paths are temporarily

closed and protruding objects along or overhanging pedestrian circulation path. 

Many of the guidelines can be accomplished with minimal effort or expense. We 

appreciate that the exceptions allow for physical historic and national resource 

constraints. It would be good also to include exceptions for impacts to residential and 

business property use, operations and access.

However, the proposed guidelines identify four requirements that will have more 

than minimal 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 yield 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 delayed or cancelled due to the expense of implementing the 

new measures, which would result in compromising the overal safety of the area. The 

proposed guidelines apply to alterations and elements added to existing facilities. The 

guidelines indicate that alterations are changes to an existing facility that affect or could 

affect pedestrian access circulation or use. 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 15

Alterations: the guidelines further state, include but are not limited to resurfacing 

rehabilitation reconstruction historic restoration or changes or rearrangement of structural 

parts or elements of a facility. Also resurfacing of a facility is listed as an alteration. 

Therefore it appears that resurfacing the street where a facility is located is enough to 

trigger implementing the regulations. It is our 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 provide, and are likely to be easily stolen if used. We recommend this 

guideline be removed until the technology is more available. 

The guideline also requires accessible pedestrian signals and pedestrian push 

buttons R-209 be provided when new pedestrian signals are installed. Push button 

pedestrian signals are required if signal controller and software are altered or the signal 

head replaced. We believe this requirement would be a significant issue for local 

governments. Requiring audible pedestrian signal push buttons just because the 

pedestrian head is being replaced adds significantly to the cost and does not have a strong 

Nexus. Because replacing the head does not functionally also require you to replace the 

push button. We recommend that this guideline be reconsidered. Many times throughout 

the year in Auburn, Alabama for example, a city with population of 5400 controllers are 

replaced and signal heads are damaged and must be replaced. This could be expensive 

for local governments and difficult to schedule. It especially problematic if the push 

buttons have to be installed prior to the replacement of the controller of the signal heads. 

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

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 16

>> Diane Linderman: I have two pages left.

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

>> Diane Linderman: I can, I can. Obviously it's going to be expensive and 

difficult to retrofit existing intersections to meet the cross slope requirements at 

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 guideline be 

reconsidered. 

We oppose one size fits all approach to providing pedestrian actuated signals at 

every multi-lane roundabout. Signals at round abouts will increase the cost at 

roundabouts significantly and negatively impact the operation of the roundabout and 

significantly reduce the safety and air quality benefits. It's not clear what options public 

agency has for requirement for continuous and detectable edge treatment for the street 

edge of all sidewalks without planter setback. Our members in the city of Eugene, 

Oregon indicate this would add another expensive fix to a perception of a problem that 

they have never encountered with their roundabouts. 

Members of the board that concludes my remarks thank you for holding the 

hearing and taking our testimony. We look forward to working with you. We stand 

ready to offer our assistance, expertise and experience as a resource.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Ms. Linderman, thank you those are very thoughtful 

remarks we appreciate the work that APWA has done in the past we look forward to 

working with you. We certainly appreciate where you have given us concrete 

recommendations that's helpful for us as we write the rule. 

One question that I took to heart your note I think it's absolutely true not one size 

fits all. And I note from the Mr. Julnes's presentation we talked a little bit about a 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 17

standard that fits in Florida for example versus one that in Maine where snow removal 

could damage. I wonder if you have concrete examples of how we might operationalize 

that. As one writes standards it's difficult to take into account every situation. Are there 

suggestions that you might have how we could provide flexibility in the role?

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

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

members that have some ideas that --

>> Hans Van Winkle: I think that would be helpful to because we agree different 

conditions would be changeable.

Let me see if any other board members have questions?

>> Christ Hart: Yes. Chris Hart, Public Member. Can you clarify when you said 

that the temporary access routes would be problematic? Are you suggesting that if New 

York Ave out here, was dug up there should be no temporary routing of pedestrians? 

>> Diane Linderman: If I understand your question the issue is not as much 

providing a temporary path as it is the challenge that the communities have in 

construction zones of making them accessible or making the path the same length as it 

was in its normal condition as you probably know. Oftentimes you are asked to cross a 

street to avoid a construction zone. The challenge is protecting the pedestrian whether 

they are -- have a disability or whether they don't is always a challenge.

>> Chris Hart: Are you also suggesting to change dectable protection around that 

site while using caution tape? Or or orange cones? Is that how you -- your concern of 

how you protect it?
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 18

>> Diane Linderman: I think it's a less about the mechanics of the protection that 

is certainly governed by other standards. It's creating a -- an accessible pathway that 

meets your guidelines that we are concerned about.

>> Chris Hart: Okay. Because I couldn't imagine APWA would want to do away

with requirements for pedestrians at that zone. I just want to clarify that.

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

>> Scott Windley: Well, in the interest of time. Let's move on with Thomas 

Blust. After Thomas it would be Jesse Hartle. 

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

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

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Thomas Blust: Good morning, I am Tom Blust, the director of engineering at 

the road commission in Oakland county Michigan RCOC. First, we want to compliment 

the Access Board for your work to date on the PROWAG. We find the proposed rules 

well thought out, balanced and fair in the most part. Additionaly, as I mentioned to Scott 

before the meeting I thought they were very well written and very clear. So I

congratulate you to do on that. It's difficult to do on a technical manual. 

RCOC joins with you in the effort to provide safe and accessible public rights-ofway. 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 Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 19

traffic signals. RCOC is a very progressive agency, thanks in our parts Oakland county

today boasts lowest traffic fatality rates in the world. Approximately about 1/3 of the 

national fatality rate. 

Safety is our number one priority. That includes the safety of motorists, 

pedestrians, cyclists and all users of the transportation network. RCOC is leader in 

Michigan and USA in embracing incorporating the ADA requirements and elderly 

mobility standards and guidelines. I am here today to voice concerns on two issues in the 

PROWAG. 

The first is the tolerances allowed on handicap ramps and pedestrian pathways. 

As a practitioner I can tell you we put a great deal of effort into building these facilities 

with many survey points, careful design, layout, construction and inspection. Despite 

these efforts, we still sometimes have to tear it out and start again. The tolerances set in 

PROWAG particularly for cross slopes are very difficult to achieve in the world of heavy 

construction. This especially true when a pathway is asphalt. Since asphalt pathways are 

usually constructed by hand not with a paving machine, then rolled, the mat will vary

slightly due to compaction. This often puts the cross slope out of the tolerances at one or 

more locations.

We recommend instead the slope tolerances for ramps and pathways be measured 

at multiple locations within a given distance and averaged. For example, cross slope 

could be measured at four random locations within 20 feet and averaged to check for 

compliance. 

Our second concern is the mandate for pedestrian hybrid beacons at multi lane 

roundabouts. If RCOC is not known to you for the reasons mentioned, perhaps you are 

aware of our involvement in a federal lawsuit regarding accessibility issues at a multilane round about. 

Shortly after opening multilane roundabout at Maple Road and Drake Road in 

West Bloomfield, MI, RCOC were sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

despite the roundabout meeting all of the current ADA standards. Prior to constructing 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 20

the Maple/Drake roundabout, RCOC recognized the challenges of multilane roundabouts, 

and what they pose for pedestrians particularly handicap and blind 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 rapid 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 permanently mounted pedestrian beacons on all four 

legs: one with the hawk and one with the RRFP. RCOC engaged essentially the same 

research team that performed NCHRP 378A. Since our study was part of a lawsuit 

resolution the federal court retained jurisdiction and only very recently was it appropriate 

to release the study. 

I am here today to present the Access Board with the CD of the final report from 

our study. I believe it will also be available on our website but I am not sure it's on there 

yet. That's -- I will give you the address at the end of the conversation today. 

As you will see from the report, both the hawk and rapid flash beacon increased 

driver yielding rates. However, the rates are still far below what we would all like to see. 

I personally have seen drivers several drivers go through the solid red hawk beacon while 

looking up at it (indicating). 

(laughter) 

>> Thomas Blust: Not good. 

I mentioned earlier RCOC's highest priority is for safety for all users of the 

transportation network. Our concern with the pedestrian beacons as tested, is the low 

driver yield rate. The low driver yield rate, especially coupled with pedestrian over 

confidence due to the presence of a pedestrian signal may actually put pedestrians at 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 21

harm's way. It's RCOC's contention that pedestrian safety and accessibility are 

inseparable when crossing streets. 

Though the hawk, and to a lesser extent, the rapid flash beacon showed increase 

in pedestrian safety and accessibility we can and we must find better solutions for 

pedestrian accessibility at multi-lane roundabouts. This will require development and 

study of alternative treatments including options such as the tabletop crosswalks, moving 

the walk away from the circle, evenly placed rumble strips to indicate a car's speed, use 

of PHB's or rapid flash beacons, or possibly some combination of these tools. RCOC is 

concerned if the PROAG is adopted as currently written, the federal requirement of a 

PHB at multilane roundabouts, will stifle the development of alternative treatment which 

may produce better accessibility and safety in multi-lane roundabouts. This is our mutual 

goal. 

We recommend the requirements for the PHB's at multilane roundabouts be 

removed from the PROWAG. It is noted the PROWAG allows for the use of alternative 

signals with FHWA approval. RCOC recommends the language be changed to allow for 

alternative treatments with a simplified approval process in order to facilitate finding the 

best crossing solution. Ladies and gentlemen I thank you for attention and for your 

consideration. I mentioned our study I believe it is or will be available shortly at 

WWW.RCOC web.ORG.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Mr. Blust, thank you very much. That's a very good 

presentation. We certainly look forward to seeing the research again as we talked earlier 

flexibility where we can put it in is important. A question about the first point in terms of 

tolerances. I guess you know the tyranny of the average always comes up in the sense 

that, I know from my corps days, that some cases we had 20 feet of water some cases no 

water. On average 10 feet, but doesn't help you are flooded out or dry. Same thing with 

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

to a percentage in -- in fact, you hit a 5% at one particular location, then they can't move 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 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 you. 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 you are looking at about that much 

cross slope about an inch cross slope from one side to the other. As it rolls, you will get 

slight depressions and dips. If you put the smart level, use the two foot smart level, if 

you put it right on one spot it can show 1.7%. You can move it a foot it will be 2 feet, 

2.3% for example.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Yes.

>> Thomas Blust: So, either we tear out all these little minor spots that are 1.7 or 

1.5% or we set a standard that allows for taking with a maximum let's say whatever 3% 

or whatever. But would allow for several measurements in a given period or distance and 

then averaged out we see we do have essentially an accessible pathway of this.

>> Hans Van Winkle: I think research would help us there. Questions from 

Board members?

>> Phill Jenkins: I have a question Phil Jenkins. Thank you on the report, I was 

look forward to reading it. I was wondering if you had comparative data with right turn 

lane issues compared to roundabout and whether drivers yield better or worse, and if that 

was included in your study.
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 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 slip lanes a little bit, but doesn't do it greatly. 

>> Phill Jenkins: The question is: 

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

>> Thomas Blust: Yes. Right.

>> Phill Jenkins: Okay, Thank you.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Any other questions? 

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

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

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 24

>> Thomas Blust: Should I leave with this -- leave this with whom?

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

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

>> Jesse Hartle: Good morning. My name is Jesse Hartle, I am a government 

program specialist at the national federation of the blind. The national federation of the 

blind has affiliates in all 50 states plus The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and I 

am testifying on behalf of the organization's 50,000 members. While blind people can 

travel independently using a long white cane or guide dog, it still is essential that blind 

people have access to travel information at the same time and at same place as sighted 

people. Although achieving equal access is the goal, current accessibility guidelines 

developed specifically for buildings and facilities cannot always be 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 issues 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 satisfied that 100% of new signals and push buttons 

will be accessible under the proposed guidelines, we still urge the board to require 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 25

consultation with the local blind community before making any decisions regarding 

accessibility. 

First, the local blind community understands what type of accessible features may

be most effective at that particular intersection. 

Second, it's essential that the accessibility features are not demeaning to blind 

people. Advisory R-209 of the NPRM defines accessible pedestrian signals as signals 

that communicate information in a nonvisual format. Such as -- such as audible tones or 

vibro-tactile surfaces. The only nonvisual format actually required in section 4E11 of the 

MUTCD is an audible walk indication which is far too vague 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 

intersection. This is a ridiculous way to achieve accessibility. Chirping bird or any 

audible signal, which on its own, says walk or beeps, that signal only indicates that the 

light has changed. The fall back for a blind person therefore still must listen to the sound 

of the traffic to determine A if somebody is going to run that red light or B if somebody 

is coming up to make a right-hand turn on red. You have to listen to the sound of the 

traffic. You can't just go on an audible sound alone. 

A consultation with local blind community will ensure informed judgment for the 

local government in how to appropriately achieve accessibility. Although we ask the 

board to require a local consultation with the blind community, on an intersection by

intersection basis, 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 

pedestrians. 

We also ask the board to revise some of the technical standards. The accessible 

signals should have audible and vibrotactile features that can be activated by the blind 

putting the decision to utilize those features in the hands of the blind pedestrian. 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 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 generally a favorable 

approach for some blind users who use the sound of the traffic to determine when it is 

safe for them to cross. It is also consistent with other devices that have accessibility

features in them for example if you go to the Metro stop, and 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 by a person to use those 

features. 

In addition, we ask the board to modify the technical standards to require that 

when activated the audible features of the signal read the time remaining in the 

pedestrian change interval. And for what particular street it's referring to. 

Under the proposed standards, a signal may visually display 5 seconds as the 

remaining time in the pedestrian change interval but the audible feature would only read 

walk. Not accurately communicating all of the available information. When activated an 

audible pedestrian change interval will ensure the same information is shared at the same 

time. For those who don't know when a blind person comes to an intersection and we are 

not sure how much time is left or we don't know when the light changed, we are trained 

to wait until the next light cycle to ensure that we -- we cross at a safe time. And so, even 

if we come up to an intersection and there is an audible pedestrian signal that's just 

beeping, that doesn't tell you hey you have 25 seconds left before the light changes. So 

you waste a lot of time sitting there when if the information was provided to you, you 

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 you 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 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 together as 

you finalize these guidelines. Thank you very much.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Mr. Hartle, thank you very much, we appreciate those 

comments. I have a question about -- certainly we take your point about consultation at 

the local level, but we are also concerned about uniform standards, because as you know, 

I am not sure it would be helpful to have one standard where an individual trained and 

used to use one system goes to another location and uses a different system. How would 

you reconcile that aspect.

>> Jesse Hartle: I would say there are a lot of things that go into this. The main 

thing to take into this, is I am not from the Baltimore area, I grew up in Louisiana, I think 

if blind people receive proper training, the techniques of cane travel or travel with dog --

they don't change from neighborhood to neighborhood. I think the audible pedestrian 

signals are another piece of information that's available, but you always have to rely as I 

said in my presentation, you always have to fall back to the basics. You have to listen to 

the sound of the traffic to ensure even though the signal is saying one thing it doesn't 

mean the driver is doing another thing. So, I don't think that if different signals are used 

in different places it would be that big of a problem. As long as they provide good 

information. Information that can be used by that blind traveler.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Um-hmm. Okay. Thank you. Other board members? 

Okay. 

>> Scott Windley: Thank you -- next up will be Bill Hecker and after Bill will 

be Kat Taylor. And just note I would encourage you guys to try to keep your comments 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 28

to the 5 to 7 minutes we are getting a little tight on time I will try not to be a time Nazi 

from here on out, but I might get a little tougher.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Yeah, Scott, if you give the speaking members a one 

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

>> Bill Hecker: Mr. Chairman and members of the Access Board, staff thank you 

for the opportunity to offer my comments on the board's new proposed ADA accessibility

guidelines for design construction and alteration of pedestrian facilities in the public right 

of way. My name is Bill Hecker to put into context my opinions that are offered here 

today I am going to share a little bit about my professional experience related to ADA 

compliance and accessibility within the public right of way. I am an architect from 

Birmingham, Alabama and for the past 21 years have focused my practice on 

accessibility in the facility compliance requirements of the ADA and other federal laws 

dealing with accessibility. 

I have been retained as expert witness in ADA litigation by plaintiffs, defendants, 

and the U.S. Department of Justice. My experience with significant ADA public right-ofway issues began in 1997 when I was retained as an expert witness for the city and 

county of Honolulu, which was the first large U.S. city to face ADA litigation 

specifically related to curb ramps and other public rights of way issues.

I was also retained by the California Department of Transportation in the first 

ADA litigation faced by a large state specifically on curb ramp issues. As you may be 

aware, that case resulted in one of the largest ADA financial settlements in history with 

CALTRANS committing to spend 1.1 billion on curb ramps and other accessibility

modifications within the public right of way. 

It was also my great honor to represent the city of Birmingham, Alabama as a 

professional member of the Access Board's public rights-of-way accessibility advisory
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 29

committee. I served as chair of the intersections subcommittee and had an active role in 

the development of recommendations related to accessibility within the public right of 

way for the Access Board. It is from this perspective, that I come here today to 

congratulate 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 the 

board and its staff worked hard to synthesize the sometimes conflicting interest of a 

diverse group of stakeholders. Be it the various disability rights organizations design 

professionals, other federal agencies, and state or local government 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 specific 

scope of a project related to a given alteration in R-202.3. This is a thoughtful 

appropriate approach to defining the ADA design in the public right of way. The 

technical requirements also reflect a truly flexible approach to the concept of accessibility

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 acceptance of the fact that engineers 

really need flexibility in the way sidewalks connect to roadway level pedestrian facilities 

and crossings. This will lead to more site appropriate curb ramp installations and 

ultimately much greater opportunities for people with disabilities to travel independently 

within the network of pedestrian routes within our communities. 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 30

In closing, I have a few comments about specific provisions. Regarding the 

proposed technical requirement for a 5% maximum cross slope within pedestrian street 

crossings at quote pedestrian street crossings without yield or stop control end quote this 

is cited at R-302.6.1. I find the specific language confusing. From the preamble the 

definition of this type of street crossing condition is a crossing quote where there is no 

yield or stop sign or where there is traffic signal that is designed for the green phase, end 

quote. 

I suggest that this definition be modified slightly to read as follows: Quote, 

pedestrian street crossings without yield or stop controls are crossings within a roadway

where the traffic has no yield or stop control. And crossings within a roadway where the 

traffic has a traffic signal that is designed for a green phase, end quote. Regarding the 

proposed scoping provisions 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 benches which include armrests. It seems to me that if arm rests are 

provided at the end of the bench where cleared space is specified, then transferring to the 

bench from the wheelchair would be more challenging. 

Regarding the board's preamble question 18, dealing with the slope limits of 

flared sides perpendicular curb ramps I suggest that the 10% maximum slope be retained 

but that it be evaluated within the context of the adjoining pavement surface slopes. 

Basically the specification would be that the, quote, flared sides of perpendicular curb 

ramps shall have a slope no steeper than 10% relative to the adjoining sidewalk slope end 

quote.
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 31

This would minimize the likelihood of twisted ankles without having to go to 

extreme lengths to grade the curbs at pedestrian crossings which are allowed to have 

cross slopes steeper than 2% per section R-302.6.1. 

Lastly, I notice that there appear to be no provision within the context of newly 

constructed public rights of way facilities that parents the structurally impracticable 

provision of 4.1.1 (5) (A) in the 1991 ADA standards. I anticipate confusion over the

limitations of existing site constraints in new construction projects not just alteration 

projects which are allowed to be accessible to the extent practicable. 

I will note that in the September 2010 title II ADA regulations from the justice 

department the concept of structural impracticability was extended and revised and 

expanded. And I found that it was -- it would be rather beneficial for designers to have in 

the document that they will refer to most frequently, a reference to this particular 

exception in new construction not just the concept of practicability in alteration. And 

with that, I thank you again for the opportunity to speak.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Thank you Mr. Hecker, we look forward to getting your 

written comments to make sure we get the parentheses correct there.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Bill Hecker: Absolutely.

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

you.

>> Bill Hecker: Thank you.

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

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 32

>> Kat Taylor: Good morning. I am Kat Taylor from Equal Rights Center this is 

my colleague Ian Watlington. We have comments to share with you today I am actually 

going to turn my time over to Ian at this time.

>> Ian Watlington: Thank you for yielding the floor.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Ian Watlington: Good morning everyone. I appreciate your time and attention 

this morning. My name is Ian Watlington, and I am the program coordinator for the 

Equal Rights Center disability rights program, and I am here to speak on behalf of the 

Equal Rights Center, ERC's and its members. 

For nearly 30 years the ERC has been fighting discrimination faced by people 

with disabilities with more than 3500 members in every state and The District of 

Columbia, we have increasingly been lending our voice to efforts which are forward 

looking and seek to proactively promote the equal participation of people with disabilities 

in all aspects of life. 

We believe that the adoption of these proposed regulations is a step in the right 

direction. We are here to offer public comment on the proposed regulations in general. 

To specifically address, I think it was question 23 whether the proposed 

guidelines have other qualitative or quantitative benefits. Enjoying equal opportunity in 

one's community requires the ability simply to get from point A to point B. The Equal 

Rights Center disability rights program has on a regular basis been dealing with issues of 

transportation such as taxicab discrimination against people with service dogs and 

operational deficiencies with good old Metro access, the paratransit service of the 

Washington Metropolitan area transit authority, and as part of this transportation system, 

pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way need to be accessible so that people with 

disabilities can actually get to places they need to go. 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 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 quantitative economic advantage to this increased accessibility. Some 

figures estimate around 70% of people with disabilities are currently unemployed or 

under employed. It matters little of their actual still level or desire to work but many of 

them face transportation difficulties. And so, therefore, are unable to work and rely on 

federal benefit programs. 

Likewise, inaccessible pedestrian facilities may curtail the extent to which people 

with disabilities can access local business, medical care, government, 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 and the economy itself.

Nearly every day, ERC receives complaints about lack of access due to narrow 

sidewalks, steep curb cuts or other barriers. People have gotten their scooter stuck, chairs 

stuck between light and utility poles and the edge of the sidewalk. We have also heard 

complaints of buses unable to let down their lifts at the designated bus stops because of 

sidewalk clutter or other -- other obstacles in the way. We realize these regulations don't 

really go to that level, and we may want them to, but we believe that the current 

regulations are a good step. 

Proactive and robust set of regulations would not just affect people with 

disabilities today, but generations of Americans in the future. By the year 2050 some 

statisticians estimate that at least one in three households will have a person with a 

disability. That incredible increase in the disability community will in turn increase the 

demand on transportation systems such as the pedestrian right of ways to be accessible. 

To deal with these issues now we will have a better infrastructure to ensure people with 

disabilities are able to get from point A to point B in the future. 

Again, the ERC applauds the Access Board in what is proposing. We hope as the 

board goes through its process of rulemaking it will keep in mind many tangible and 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 34

intangible benefits for our society when we work towards a more accessible world, and 

not merely get lost in the weeds of the dollars and cents to make these changes. Thank 

you for your time and attention this morning. I am happy to answer any questions.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Thank you both for sharing your thoughts. Questions by

the board members. 

>> Scott Windley: Thank you very much.

>> Ian Watlington: Thank you. 

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

Bentzen. 

>> Janet Barlow: I am Janet Barlow with accessible design for the blind. I am 

representing the environmental access committee of the orientation and mobility division 

of the association for education and rehabilitation of the blind and visually impaired 

known as AER. The orientation and mobility division of AER represents over 1,000 

orientation mobility specialists who teach independent travel skills to persons who are 

blind or visually impaired. 

First, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. And to provide 

more comments on these proposed guidelines. We will submit detailed comments in the 

next few days but I wanted to just discuss a few points with you here today. 

First, we can commend the Access Board for publishing the guidelines. I 

represented AER on the public rights-of-way access advisory committee, I know only too 

well these have been a long time coming. And the amount of work that has been done by 

the staff and board in getting to this point with these guidelines. 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 35

The guidelines for public rights-of-ways are really desperately needed by cities 

states and other jurisdictions and by pedestrians with disabilities. In order to have 

facilities that really consistent and accessible, I urge you to get this rulemaking done as 

soon as possible. 

I hear on a regular basis from orientation mobility specialists around the country

who are dealing with specific access issues with their clients and students who are blind 

or visually impaired. Those requests and concerns fall mainly into four broad categories 

that I would like to talk a little bit about here. 

One is access to signal light intersections; two roundabouts; three would be stair 

markings; and four is construction areas. I will focus on those in the comments today. 

We do have comments on other areas -- that we will present when we submit more 

details. 

On access to signalized intersections we applaud the Access Board for requiring 

accessible pedestrian signals wherever pedestrian signals are installed. It's a critical 

safety issue 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 -- all throughout all throughout the day and can be 

confusing or impossible to determine from the traffic sounds anymore at some types of 

signals and some type of signalization because they relay the traffic presence but some of 

the timing schemes don't coordinate with the traffic in the way that it used to when I 

started out teaching. 

We are concerned about the focus listed for APS installation in alteration 

situations. In R-209.2 it says existing pedestrian signals should comply with R209.1 

when signal 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 years by blind pedestrians. For example, recently in New York City lane 

configurations have been changed, sometimes with islands they have added bike lanes 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 36

and parking on one side of the street separate left turn phases for bicycles. There have 

been no changes at those locations to the pedestrian signal heads or to the traffic signal 

controllers. But they 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 years 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 

alteration -- the changes to those intersections altered the accessibility for pedestrians 

who are blind or visually impaired. 

In addition there are some changes that may take place in retiming signals to 

improve vehicular operations that may make intersections inaccessible to pedestrians who 

are blind. I am not sure exactly what is meant by the term "software is altered" in R209.2. Does that mean when they change the programming or put in new software? 

Signal retiming is not typically a construction or renovation operation. A series of 

software programming changes may not take place at the actual intersection. They are 

often done at a traffic management center downtown. And it can change the timing and 

phasing of a signal. The signal retiming may take only a few minutes there may be no 

evidence to the public or to a pedestrian who is blind that signal has been changed. And 

that it's operating in a different manner than it had previously. 

We urge a broader requirement for APS installation considering the impact of 

signal timing changes and some types of geometric design changes as well as pedestrian 

signal push button installation currently included. 

In general, in considering this question of APS installation, I would like to briefly 

discuss the costs listed for APS installation. Listed at $3600 per intersection a little 

perspective.

>> Scott Windley: Janet, you have one minute
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 37

>> Janet Barlow: Oh, I do, okay. Well, keeping us tight on time now. Just to

quickly quote from national traffic signal timing report card. They say that optimizing 

signal timing is a low cost approach to reducing congestion. That cost is 2500 to 3100 

per signal per update recommended every three to five years. That's -- that's a low cost 

modification. Your $3600 for accessible signals is a low cost modification in the typical 

funding issues of some of the intersections and costs for intersection construction. So, I

know many consumers who are blind and waited more than a year for the APS to 

installed or had their request refused just because this costs too much. I do want you to 

look at what costs are in the typical transportation budget. 

To go to the other things, I want to talk about roundabouts I urge you to require 

that roundabouts be accessible there are a great number being built in the U.S.

Our members around the country are concerned or having people who are blind 

unable to cross intersections close to their home. There may be other types of 

modifications that can provide access besides the signals, but I urge you to require 

accessibility at roundabouts and equivalent facilitation, whatever. 

And stair markings -- our members are particularly dismayed to find the 

requirement for contrasting edge strip on stairs was dropped. There was no comment or 

notice of that in the preamble; it had been in the PROWAG requirements in draft 407.4 

and we are quite dismayed to see that. It's a feature many people with low vision want 

and need. 

And finally construction areas as I mentioned in, well I didn't mention in 

discussing APS, but I will. I am concerned -- we are concerned about the change to just 

referencing the MUTCD. In many cases the language in part 6 of the MUTCD on 

temporary traffic controls uses the term should rather than shall. So it does not always 

require barriers in places we feel they may be necessary or accessible paths. We believe 

we need minimum standards requiring appropriate barriers and guidance in the Access 

Board rule. 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 38

In our detailed comments which 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 lots and shared streets. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak to you today.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Good. Thank you. We look forward to getting your 

written comments you have a question on the left from Gary?

>> Gary Talbot: Thank you very much Mr. Chair. Gary Talbot public member. 

You stated that the stair markings had been removed from a previous version. Do you 

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

>> Janet Barlow: the 2005 PROWAG had a --

>> Gary Talbot: Thank you very much.

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

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

>> Hans Van Winkle: Chris.

>> Chris Hart: Do we have research to back up the stair marking issue, because I 

share your concern but I am mindful of how we justify.

>> Janet Barlow: I believe there has been research, I don't have it right here there 

has been research on it not much as I would like to see. But there would be some --
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 39

>> Chris Hart: Perhaps the research is overseas.

>> Janet Barlow: It may be.

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

>> Billie Bentzen: Good morning I am Dr. Billie-Louise - or Beezy - Bentzen, 

director of research at accessible design for the blind. We are a small firm that has been a 

major player in research on making the built environment more accessible to people who 

are blind or who have low vision. Much of our research is reflected in 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 independently. 

I hold two other positions that are relevant to discussion. PROWAG: I am active 

member of ANSI A117 the committee on accessibility and participated in the 

development of the A117.1 standards in 2003 and 2008 representing AER the 

organization for which Janet just spoke. I am also a member of the signal's technical 

committee of the national committee on uniform traffic control devices and participated 

in the NUCCD standards for traffic control devices since about 1998. So, I am very

familiar with 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 tremendous 

amount of work that has brought us to this day. The lack of guidelines and standards for 

making public rights-of-way accessible to people who are visually impaired has been a 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 40

frequently cited reason for jurisdictions not to install accessible pedestrian 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 facilities using public transit. This 

places the costly burden on jurisdictions to provide paratransit for these citizens. The per 

person cost of a one-way paratransit ride in New York City January 2010 was $66. And 

the annual budget for New York City paratransit was $451 million. The cost to New 

York City was therefore approximately $30,000 a year for transporting one person with a 

disability to and from work every day. It costs a lot less to make street crossings 

accessible. 

Before the advent of modern intersections people who were blind or visually

impaired could cross most intersections with confidence. Signalized intersections 

functioned on a fixed-time basis didn't have dedicated turning intervals. Pedestrians who 

are visually impaired could anticipate 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 beside 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 signal timing as well as complex geometry and varying traffic volumes 

mean there is often no steady stream of vehicular traffic from which pedestrians who are 

blind can establish the location and direction of the crosswalk and stay within it as they

cross. 

The advent of unsignalized turn lanes and roundabouts means that many people 

visually impaired can no longer walk to stores, transit stops and other destinations to 

which they used to be able to travel independently confidently and in safety. This results 

in a lack of fitness and obesity resulting in unnecessary high costs of healthcare as well as 

paratransit. 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 41

And research by Barlow and Bensen and other colleagues in three cities around 

the country, it was demonstrated that when crossing at unfamiliar signalized intersections 

without accessible signals, experienced blind pedestrians failed to begin crossing within 

the walk interval on 51% of crossings. The mean delay in starting to cross after the onset 

of the correct interval was 6.4 seconds. This means that in the absence of accessible 

pedestrian signals it frequently occurs that crossings by blind pedestrians result in 

conflicts with perpendicular traffic and resulting delay in vehicular flow. In this same 

research, on 38% of crossings participants did not begin crossing within crosswalks and 

on 34% of crossings they completed their crossings outside of the crosswalk. Sometimes 

on the diagonally opposite corner having crossed the intersection diagonally, sometimes 

in the presence of fast moving left turning traffic that was responding to a left-turn arrow 

which means the drivers had no reason to expect there would be a pedestrian in their path 

of travel. 

In research of the same intersections after the installation of accessible signals 

there were marked improvements in all of these statistics. Reduction in the cost of delays 

and pedestrian and vehicular crashes were not calculated into the regulatory assessment 

as far as I can see.

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

>> Billie Bensen: ADB commends Access Board for requiring the installation of 

APS in new construction and alterations where there are pedestrian signals, however we 

are concerned that the technical requirements have been deleted. The needs of people 

who are blind or visually 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 considered in determining 

whether to install APS. It doesn't require APS - so the two are conflicting there. 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 42

The language requiring placement of pedestrian push buttons in relation to the 

crosswalks and curb ramps is guidance rather than standard. In new construction 

appropriate location of push buttons should be required as location of that APS sound is 

critical to correct interpretation of the crossing that's indicated by that sound. 

ABD principles worked collaboratively and worked well with members of the 

naitonal committee on uniform traffic control devices and the federal highway MUTCD 

team, but these groups are not charged with writing minimum standards for accessibility. 

Rather than removing all specifications from R-307 we encourage the Access 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 vibrotactile 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 channelized 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 

Carolina: on almost 10% of attempted crossings by blind participants, they resulted in 

interventions by the O&M specialists because drivers could not have stopped in time to 

avoid a collision. 

I thank you for the opportunity to present these concerns. You will have some 

extensive written comments from us with documentation of research sources. Thank you.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Ms. Bensen, thank you we will accept the written 

testimony. The source of your research and conclusions was what again? You mentioned 

some. 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 43

>> Billie Bensen: Many sources.

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

>> Billie Bensen: It will be included in my extensive written comments but not 

this brief draft; yes all the research will be documented. 

>> Hans Van Winkle: Okay. Questions from the other members?

Thank you very much.

>> Scott Windley: Jim Vale. And then Patrick Wojahn; hopefully I didn't totally

butcher that last name, up next. 

>> Hans Van Winkle: Good Morning. 

>> Jim Vale: Good morning. My name is Jim Vale I am the director of the 

Veterans benefits program for Vietnam Veterans in America. The Vietnam Veterans was 

founded in 1978, it is the only national Veterans organization congressionally chartered, 

exclusively dedicated to Vietnam Veterans and their families. 

A little bit about myself, I am also visually impaired I am legally blind for about 

10 years. I have been through the VA blind rehab program. I served on the sound transit 

citizens accessibility advisory committee in Seattle Washington and Arizona governor's 

council for blindness and visual impairment. I have a degree in blind rehab teaching. 

And I have also been a blind pedestrian struck in a crosswalk by a vehicle. 

I would like to share with you statistics, some Veterans statistics. There are a lot 

of living veterans today according to the 2010 national census - 22.6 million. 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 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 age our vision gets worse. The VA estimates 

there is approximately 1 million Veterans with some form of vision loss. The Rand 

corporation estimates there's over 320,000 Veterans with traumatic brain injury and a 

third of them have some form of vision loss. We have a lot of visually impaired Veterans 

here in the United States. 

I would like to share with you issues from my own perspective. I notice the -

back in 2000 the ASME 17.1 required that the striping on the escalator was on the front 

of the 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. 

When I come out of the senate building, all I see is marble I don't see individual 

steps. So, when that tread line was moved to the back it's made it harder for people like 

myself to travel down the escalator. 

It's also a problem here in the DC Metro area where so many escalators are 

undergoing maintenance and they're out of service for weeks, to months at a time, and 

we're having to travel escalators without the striping on the edge of the step. 

And I urge the committee to consider relocating that tread line to the front of the 

step. 

Now, I understand a lot of escalators are made of steel there is issue of 

maintenance; there are escalators in shopping malls, it looks like they are made of plastic 

and they have molding different colors. The molding on the back of the step is yellow to 

comply with standard. That could be, they could mold the front of the step and still be in 

compliance with the standard back in 2002. But I would argue look at ways of moving 

the tread line back to the front of the step. 

Other issues, from Seattle, sound transit's done a great job with tactile markings 

on the edge of train platforms. When I travel down to Portland, I noticed on the Portland 

MAX, it's not yellow but black. That's a problem at night. I can't see the edge of the 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 45

platform, I can feel the tactile markings but I can't actually see the platform. I would like 

there to be a standard as far as color in the platform edge, in Seattle, it's usually yellow, 

Portland is black. King County Metro in seattle at their bus bays, at the north gate they

paint it white. Now at Tacoma at Pearce Transit, they paint it red. There is 

inconsistency I would like that to be made standardized to perhaps maybe yellow but the 

brightest color. 

Also as far as issues with curb ramps - when I went through blind rehab I was 

taught to align myself with the wheelchair ramp to make it across the intersections. A lot 

of cities cut corners they put the ramp in the middle that makes it hard to orient myself as 

far as with the crosswalk. There should be one ramp per crosswalk instead of one for two 

crosswalks. 

I am in favor of the vibrating arrows for the crosswalk signals because that 

benefits not only visually impaired but hearing impaired persons and they can feel the 

vibrating arrow. From my own experience in Montgomery County they use audible 

system, it announces the name of the street you were trying to cross. When you have 

about 10 or 15 seconds left that audible stop now crossing Collesville road it stops then 

you have 15 seconds to cross the street. There is still -- there is still a beeping behind that 

but you know when the name of the street stops, you know you only have 15 seconds left. 

That might be a possible solution. 

Also, another issue is the poor lighting in DC Metro stations especially Metro 

center and the Chinatown station it's too dark. Those stations need to be the lighting 

needs to be improved. Also, the -- trying to cross as a pedestrian trying to cross railroad 

tracks: when I was in Kent, WA, you have a crosswalk and then you have a track, and 

you have to watch out for being hit by the gate when the gate comes down. There should 

be standards as far as pedestrian crossings at railroad tracks.

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

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 46

>> Jim Vale: Okay. This concludes my remarks. I ask again that you consider 

moving the tread marks and the escalator back to the front of the stairs. This concludes 

my remarks and I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.

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

>> Gary Talbot: Thank you. Gary Talbot, public member. Just so I am clear 

with your comments, it would be the nosing issue for you; the contrast nosing is--you 

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

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

>> Gary Talbot: But would it apply to both stairs and escalators? I thought you 

had said on one case you came out of a building looked down at the stairs.

>> Jim Vale: Yes, oh. Yes, at the senate building it's white marble and I couldn't 

see it. If there was a visible tread mark that would help alleviate that problem.

>> Gary Talbot: Thank you very much.

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

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

>> Patrick Wojahn: Thank you. Good morning Mr. chairperson, distinguished 

members of the Access Board.
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 47

>> Hans Van Winkle: Good morning.

>> Patrick Wojahn: Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning 

regarding the proposed accessibility guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the public rightof-way. My name is Patrick Wojahn, my name is often mistaken, don't worry about it. I

serve as a public policy analyst with the national disability rights network. I am 

testifying here today in my capacity as a co-chair of the consortium for citizens with 

disabilities transportation task force. 

The CCD is a coalition of over 100 national consumer service provider and 

professional organizations 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 advocacy for paratransit programs and accessibility to all modes of 

transportation. The task force also advocates for increased support for those 

transportation resources that people with disabilities most frequently rely on such adds 

public transportation and accessibility in public rights-of-way. 

The national disability rights network is the national membership organization for 

the 57 federally mandated protection and advocacy and client assistance programs which 

advocate for people with disabilities to receive 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 communities and people with disabilities in the 

regional planning process. The access for all committee is submitting testimony on the 

proposed accessibility guidelines under separate cover.
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 48

The CCD transportation task force believes accessible public rights-of-way are 

critical for community integration and to serve the day-to-day needs of people with 

disabilities. People with disabilities typically rely on the ability to traverse public rights 

of way to access both public and private transportation to get to their jobs to go shopping 

to visit friends and family and to live. Obstacles to accessibility help contribute to the 

abysmal unemployment rate for people with disabilities and prevent them from being 

integrated as full members of the American community. The CCD 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-ofway. 

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

ways towards promoting rights-of-way accessibility. Many protection and advocacy

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

and 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 Pennsylvania 

in Robertson versus city of Mathewsport, and culler versus the city of Lancaster, have 

been engaged in class action lawsuits based on the failure of local governments to 

provide sufficient curb ramps. The proposed accessibility guidelines go a long way

towards ensuring that local and state governments follow accessibility principles when 

renovating existing rights-of-way or constructing new ones. The guidelines incorporate 

consideration of every public right of way that a person might confront, from public 

sidewalks to crosswalks and slope streets to overpass and roundabouts. 

We appreciate the hard work and effort that has gone into developing the 

proposed guidelines. Many of these standards will help ensure people with disabilities 

are better able to travel over rights-of-way. 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 49

Specifically as more and more local governments install roundabouts as a method 

to discourage speeding by automobiles, the provisions require pedestrian activated 

signals at multiple lane crosswalks and this will increase likelihood people with 

disabilities will able to safely navigate these. 

The requirements for detectable warning surfaces strike an appropriate balance 

between the needs of pedestrians with visual impairment and the needs of wheelchair 

riders. 

The guidelines provide appropriate guidance regarding the surface of access 

routes to ensure wheelchair riders are not hindered by slippery, rocky or bumpy surfaces. 

These guidelines improve standards for accessible pedestrian signals to help 

ensure that the signals may be understood by pedestrians with visual impairment. 

The task force is however concerned about some guidelines in the proposal that 

could be stronger. For example, although the guidelines address safety and accessibility

for multi-lane approach and exit lanes at roundabouts there is no provision ensuring 

safety at single lane approach and exit lanes at roundabouts. Although the guidelines 

require minimum crossing time of 3.5 feet per second a recently review of studies by the 

AAA foundation 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 today 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 you. Members of the board questions 

or comments.
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 50

>> Scott Windley: Okay. Thank you next up Shawn after that is Angela Stone. 

>> Shawn Lawrence: Good morning, Mr. Chairman members of the Access 

Board, my name is Shawn Lawrence, and I'm a community action specialist at a 

disability resource center located in Fredericksburg Virginia. We are a Center for 

Independent Living and like our other 16 sister organizations in Virginia and 500 others 

throughout the United States, the term center for independent living means consumer 

controlled community based cross disability nonresidential private nonprofit agency

designed and operated in local community for individuals with disabilities and provides 

an array of independent living services. Our core services are independent living skills 

training, peer counseling, advocacy, and information and referral. 

I want to comment on the proposed access guidelines 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 million Americans, about in one in five U.S. 

residents reporting some level of disability in the year 2005. We can be assured that that 

number has and will increase in the coming years. Right of way is a term first used to 

describe the right to travel unhindered. 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 for 

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 variety of methods to reduce motorized traffic volume and or speed. The goal is to 

enhance safety, especially for pedestrians. 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 51

Ironically, many of the physical measures used to promote traffic calming such as 

roundabouts, traffic circles, and islands can make it more difficult or confusing for 

pedestrians with disabilities to safely cross the street. 

There are two guidelines I would like to focus 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 in 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 approximately 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. Pedestrian activated signals 

can be used to stop traffic only when needed. Attention to surrounding structures and 

landscape features can minimize noise that interferes with the ability to of pedestrians 

relying on the hearing to make judgments about travel conditions. Signage, as an 

example, yield to pedestrians, can encourage motorists to stop for individuals waiting to 

go cross. I want to encourage you to pass the guidelines which will help millions of 

disabled Americans to function safely as they navigate our streets. thank you very much.

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

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 52

>> Regina Blye: Thank you, Mr. chair. Regina Blye, public member. I know 

this is beyond the scope of the four services that you provide at your CIL, do you 

participate in travel training, if so do you cover any of the guidelines in the training?

>> Shawn Lawrence: Well, funny you should mention that we are getting ready

to do, we have an adult advocacy group at our center, called the A-team which is most of 

the members that came up here with me today. We are getting ready to do a street survey

that was put together by the I think it was AAA. They put the street survey together. We 

are going to go around the City Fredericksburg and different neighborhoods and assess 

the streets and conditions that we just got thorugh talking about. As far as training goes. 

We have had some training, I myself personally am not really qualified 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. My name is Matt McCollough. I'm 

very familiar with the Fredericksburg area because my parents live in Stafford, Virginia 

which is just north of it. And I realize that Fredericksburg is growing at a great speed 

with its population. I am starting to realize that there is a gap of modernization within the 

city where -- where closer to Mary Washington University it's very modernized, but you 

pull away from the historic district, per se, it's much -- there is such a discrepancy of the 

path of travel and how the sidewalks are made up and stuff like that. What would you --

what would you propose for the Access Board in terms of trying to address this growing 

concern that there may be a gap between how cities are addressing the growing 

population that they should be even across the board in terms of the path of travel from 

the sidewalks and what have you. What would you recommend how we may address that 

across the board?
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 53

>> Shawn Lawrence: That's a very good question. Ironically I am a member of 

the city planning commission.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Shawn Lawrence: Sorry about that.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Shawn Lawrence: And we are trying to address that -- those concerns in our 

comprehensive plan. Which we just finished 2007 version and we are getting ready to 

have the five-year review of that coming up in the spring. Fredricksburg as you know 

especially the area that you just mentioned about Mary Washington which our office is 

maybe about two blocks from Mary Washington. By James Monroe High School it's an 

old city. Very historic city, I will put it that way. A lot of the problems especially 

Caroline Street, Princess Anne Street, you know the two streets I am talking about. Their 

designs, accessibility was just not a concern when those designs were made. Trying to 

retrofit them and with the city population too getting older, now I have been very blessed 

to be put in a position where I have seen some of the plans that Mary Washington 

foundation is planning for the city. And for the area that you just got through 

mentioning. But you are talking even a good economy, you are talking 15 years or more 

down the road. The question becomes what can we do between then and between now 

and then to correct some of those things. It's very hard. It's very hard. Because like I say

you are dealing with historic town. And people are very hesitant to want to change where 

George Washington lived, they are hesitant to want to change where trolley cars and 

things go up and down the street. So, hopefully being on the planning commission as 

things begin to get built and when you guys be making new guidelines so as they are 

being built, because in Fredericksburg there is no place to go. Just like New York you 

just have to tear down and rebuild right where you are. Because Stafford and 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 54

Spotsylvania have room to grow out; but Fredricksburg? that's it. As you tear down and 

rebuild I pray that you pass guidelines that will be able to address those concerns.

>> Mathew McCollough: Thank you, sir.

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

>> Shawn Lawrence: Thank you very much.

>> Scott Windley: Next up will be, Angela Stone, after that will be Jean Tessmer 

via the phone.

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

that Shawn just mentioned, I would like to talk to you today about some concerns 

regarding the accessible pedestrian push buttons. I am concerned that people like me 

may not be able to reach 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 said, that 

cars may not yield to the pedestrian signal. That was very concerning to me. Because I 

don't want my independence to be compromised because I am concerned for safety. 

Also, as he mentioned for the blind, for the blind and visually impaired I do agree there 

needs to be some type of audible device that can not only tell you when to cross but 

maybe to tell you in intervals how many seconds that you have to cross so that someone 

visually impaired doesn't have to wait for the next cycle to cross. I thank you for your 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 55

time and consideration and I appreciate anything that you could do to make people's lives 

with disabilities like mine a little bit easier. Thank you.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Miss Stone, thank you. We will take that to heart any 

questions by the board? Thank you very much.

>> Scott Windley: Thank you.

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

>> Scott Windley: Jean Tessmer is on the phone, after her will be Dayna 

Whitmer who is also hopefully on the phone. So, Jean?

>> Jean Tessmer: Okay. 

>> Hans Van Winkle: Just a second, we are checking the audio. Could you start 

talking and we will turn up the volume.

>> Jean Tessmer: How is that?

>> Hans Van Winkle: Little more. We -- can you hear me now.

>> That's very good, yes

>> Okay.
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 56

>> Hans Van Winkle: Go ahead. Go morning.

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

>> Hans Van Winkle: Well where are you?

>> Jean Tessmer: I am in Hawaii.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Ah, okay.

 (LAUGHTER) 

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

>> Jean tessmer: ALOHA to all of you too. Thank you for this opportunity. My

name is Jean Tessmer, I've been qualified by GSA as a consultant to federal agencies. I

helped developed the design focus accessibility.

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

>> Jean Tessmer: Yes.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Or get off the speaker phone might also help we have good 

volume, but you are breaking up so it's a little hard to hear. Speak slower and start off 

again

>> Jean Tessmer: Okay. I have -- I am also using a headset, I thought you could 

hear me speak. 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 57

>> Hans Van Winkle: I think we just lost you. Can you hear us?

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

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

>> Jean Tessmer: No, I am not.

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

>> Jean Tessmer: Okay. My name is jean. I have been qualified by GSA as a

barrier free consultant to federal agencies. I am involved in the development for the 

design buffers and tolerances for acceptance accessible features at federal states issue 

(inaudible). I hold construction design licenses in the state of Hawaii and have 20 years 

of applied design construction and acceptance of accessible projects. (inaudible). I also 

commend the efforts of the committee for (inaudible) giving me the opportunity for 

individual disability I appreciate all of your hard work. Okay. Let's start with page 6 at 

the top of the page at the Architectural Barriers Act: My concerns is --

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

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

>> Hans Van Winkle: Yes, you are. If you could speak directly into that, we can 

hear you okay. Once you start talking you fade away. Speak slowly and right into the 

mouthpiece and we will be able to hear you.

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

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 58

>> That's much better

>> 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 profile education. Each time a 

grant is let, the education needs to incorporate and require self evaluations that are 

reviewed for compliance before receipt of any dollars. and incorporate (inaudible) into 

the design before construction. (inaudible) being 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 exterior surfaces because generally speaking, 

you need to compensate for some more covering. If we don't compensate those 

(inaudible) traditionally will be (inaudible). Additionally the allowance plus 1.3% passfail maximum which incorporates specified the 6th level be added. Whether the 

application of (inaudible) specification instructions of the (inaudible) submittal. Training 

on construction methods that build compliance and clear uniform inspection methods 

based on historically reliable research shall be included. The application of the previous 

combined procedures has resulted in close to 98% repeated compliance accessible 

surfaces and components for over a 12-year period. The aforementioned combined 

surfaces (inaudible) successfully applied concrete asphalt and raised (inaudible) in 

Hawaii and California. (inaudible).
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 59

R-105-5 -- I'm sorry period 5. Insert the word practicable and insert the meaning 

which means that you -- that unique characteristics presents incorporations of 

accessibility features in a facility in such a case that new construction requirements apply. 

Except where the entity can demonstrate to the office of inspector general of Department 

of Transportation and the Department of Justice that it is structurally impracticable to 

meet those requirements. This exception is very narrow and should not be used in cases 

of merely hilly terrain. The department expects that it will be used in only rare and 

unusual circumstances. My concern is that the word impracticable without specifying 

what it means and without setting these limits to the scope will add to confusion and also 

end perpetuating nonaccessible design construction. Page 64. R (inaudible) add an 

advisory note on impractical means and go back to referring to R105.5.

R-202.3.3 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 R105.5. In addition, alternate routes not a part of the right of way can be considered as a 

secondary parallel route. Okay. Now, I have photos for R-208 detectable warning 

surfaces. (inaudible). Those being (inaudible).

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

>> Jean Tessmer: You have no visuals.

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

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 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 tested 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 bodied 

mobility impaired individuals should not be underestimated. Doctor said it would have 

been better to fall on flat concrete as the dome pushed into the forehead like a hammer 

hitting to cause traumatic brain injury. Small children fall frequently on walkways I 

would hate to see what would happen to them. Blind individuals that I know and have 

friendship,the ramps are facing in the wrong direction any way, not in line with the 

crosswalk and they can't find or search for the small patch of the detectable warning. 

They say they could step off the curb like anyone else one of these days. Page 68R209.1.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Miss Tessmer, for one we are out of time for the second 

point is that we are having a great deal of difficulty hearing and understanding what you 

have to say. Do you -- is there testimony written up could you send it to us

>> Jean Tessmer: Yes, it is.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Why don't we suggest that. Because one, we want to make 

sure we incorporate your thoughts and comments into your deliberations and we want to 

make sure we get it right. If you could send it to us we could make sure that we accept 

that -- your comments

>> Scott Windley: we have received comments from her, if she has any

additional comments she should let us know. 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 61

>> Jean Tessmer: Yes, I have this testimony I have not submitted.

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

>> Jean Tessmer: Well, I have this entire testimony which covered the entire new 

rights-of-way regulations.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Okay. Well, let's do that. If you make sure we have 

everything we will make sure that we pass it to all of the board members for our 

deliberations.

>> Jean Tessmer: Okay.

>> Hans Van Winkle: All right. Well, thank you we appreciate you getting up 

early we hope you have a wonderful day in Hawaii.

>> Jean Tessmer: Thank you, very much.

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

>> Dayna Whitmer: Hello?

>> Scott Windley: Yes.

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

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 62

>> Hans Van Winkle: We can hear you well, good volume, if you make sure you 

speak slowly

>> Dayna Whitmer: Okay. I will try. My name is Dayna I am testifying as an 

individual. And I certainly don't have the expertise of the previous speakers but I can 

appreciate all of their efforts to make communities safer for every one.

I wanted to speak to you about one aspect of the public right of way that's not 

been addressed at all in the guidelines of the proposed rules.

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

you could --

>> Dayna Whitmer: Okay. As you work to ensure the safety of the people with 

various physical disabilities please remember those individuals with hidden disabilities 

are more vulnerable to (inaudible).

>> Hans Van Winkle: Okay. We have broken up totally we can understand 

nothing at this point is there anything you could do technically you start off fine and fade 

out are you moving the mouthpiece?

>> Dayna Whitmer: No, I am not.

>> It's our end.

>> It sounds like we are having technical difficulty.

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

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 63

>> Hans Van Winkle: Is it possible to give us written comments.

>> Dayna Whitmer: I can certainly do that.

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

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

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

>> Dayna Whitmer: ROSEMARIE does.

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

>> Hans Van Winkle: Okay. Yes give us your -- do you have the number?

>> Rose Marie Bunales: I have it.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Okay. Rose has your number hang up we will call you 

back and see if we can do -- if we can do better

>> Dayna Whitmer: Thank you.

>> Dayna Whitmer: Hello?

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

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 64

>> Dayna Whitmer: Yes, I can.

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

>> Dayna Whitmer: Okay.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Speak slowly.

>> Dayna Whitmer: Start the beginning.

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

>> Dayna Whitmer: Okay. My name is Dayna, I am testifying as an individual. 

I do not have the experience of previous speakers to appreciate their efforts to make 

communities safer for every one. I want to speak to you about one aspect of --

(inaudible)

>> Hans Van Winkle: 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 make sure we get your testimony. 

Let's cut this off at this point. And if you would provide the written testimony we will 

make sure we take it under consideration.
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 65

>> Dayna Whitmer: Great. Thank you.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Thank you very much.

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

>> Hans Van Winkle: Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak 

at this point. I think we are --

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

We can take a few more minutes to -- if anybody wants to testify.

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

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

members testify -- no I am just joking.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Bill Hecker: We demand it.

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

>> David Capozzi: He can only call in.

 (LAUGHTER)

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

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 66

>> Dennis Cannon: Thank you.

>> My name is Dennis cannon. I am a consultant with synergy LLC. Now. And 

I wanted to make one comment about something that happens with respect to 

roundabouts. I am sure you are going to get comments from the folks who are the people 

who designed roundabouts and have been pushing them around. I think they have lots of 

advantages for lots of reasons in terms of safety. But I have been following -- I used to 

be the board representative on the task force from TRB on roundabouts I have been 

involved in some of the roundabout committees in the institute of transportation 

engineers. I followed the listserv which is basically an information source for lots of 

people on roundabouts. I wanted to point out that the vast majority of people on that 

listserv do not take accessibility seriously. And some of them treat it with contempt. So, 

what you will see is a lot of comments about oh, we can't possibly put signals on 

roundabouts primarily because they don't understand the issue on multi-lane roundabouts 

which is the multiple threat problem. That is, the vehicle stops in the first lane, to let you 

cross, and then the vehicle comes by in the second lane. If there is a bus and maybe some 

of you have seen the video that was done by Von Inman of FHWA, a bus stops for a 

blind person totally blocking the view of the car in the second lane, and the cars in the 

second lane comes zipping past, and even when the bus tries to maneuver its way to 

block that lane, there are still cars coming past. The purpose of a signal in a multi-lane 

situation is to stop the cars from that happening. Now, the blind person of course can't 

make eye contact with the driver. And can't really tell in most cases when the vehicle is 

simply slowing down to yield. They sort of wait until they are sure it's stopped before 

they cross. A lot of blind people don't step off the curb right away. They wait until the 

car stops. Lots of vehicles will simply speed back up assuming he or she isn't actually

going to cross. If a vehicle like a bus or SUV or a van stops in the first lane, for the blind 

-- for a sighted person you simply walk out in front of that vehicle and peer around to see 

if the cars had stopped. Not only can't the blind person do that, but the concern in the 
US Access Board Public Hearing

Public Rights-of-Way Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Washington, DC

Unofficial Transcripts

Wednesday, November 9, 2011Page 67

wheelchair when I roll out in front of that van, my feet and knees are in the opposite lane 

before I could look around the van to see if the car is coming. It's worse for someone in a 

scooter, because the scooter may be half way into the other lane before the person can 

actually look around the vehicle to see whether somebody is coming. So, I think you 

need to be careful and take with a grain of salt the comments I am sure you are going to 

get bombarded with from a lot of the people who are pushing roundabouts. As I said I 

think roundabouts are great in many ways as long as they are accessible thank you.

>> Hans Van Winkle: Dennis, thank you. Any questions from the members of 

the board? Dennis, thank you very much. Glad to have you back. Okay. I think that's it. 

Seeing no other members that wish to testify we certainly thank all of you that took the 

time and effort to give us your comments. Again, I will restate my earlier comments we 

are excited about the progress we look forward to incorporate your comments thoughts 

and suggestions to the extent to which you have them in writing make sure you give those 

to us and thank you for your participation and thank you to the board for good questions. 

David? We start again at 1:30 today. Thank you.

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

(Recess taken.)