2. www.access-board.gov

3. AASHTO SCOTE June 19 th, 2007 Update: Public Rights-of-Way Rulemaking Scott Windley, PROW Team Leader Dennis Cannon, Transportation Specialist Lois Thibault, Research Coordinator U.S. Access Board

4. New pedestrian guidelines: The Access Board began work on public rights-of-way guidelines (PROWAG) to supplement ADAAG in 1992: ► section 14 (NPRM 2002/IFR 1994); ► sidewalk video and design manual (1997); ► advisory committee (1999); ► PROWAAC report (2001); ► draft PROWAG NoA (June ‘02); ► revised draft PROWAG NoA (November ’05)

5. PROWAG adapts ADAAG, but.... The PROWAG draft adapts ADAAG to the rights-of-way environment. The new guidelines will be a stand-alone document using rights-of-way industry measures and language. Key differences: ► the slope limits of an accessible route are not applied to sidewalks; ► there is no path-of-travel requirement, ► new communications features (DW, APS) are required, and ► metric units lead.

6. Organization of the draft (2): ► Preamble (discussion) --explains decision making; highlights changes --Q&A on alterations ► Text --R1: general --R2: scoping requirements --R3: PROW technical provisions --R4: references to other (building) technical provisions in ADA/ABA-AG ► www.access-board.gov/prowac/draft.htm

7. Table of Contents R1 Application and Administration R2 Scoping Requirements R3 Technical Provisions --Pedestrian access route (PAR) --Alternate circulation path --Curb ramps and blended transitions --Detectable warning surfaces --Pedestrian crossings --Accessible pedestrian signals (APS) --Street furniture --On-street parking --Callboxes R4Supplementary Technical Provisions (from ADA/ABA-AG)

8. PROWAG Key Provisions: A high degree of convenient access is easiest to achieve in new construction NEW CONSTRUCTION: THE ‘CORN FIELD IN KANSAS’

9. PROWAG Key Provisions: In alterations, you may not be able to optimize conditions for every user (follow new construction guidelines to the maximum extent feasible) RESURFACING RECONSTRUCTION ALTERATIONS

10. Next steps in rulemaking: We are currently working with key highway industry stakeholders to develop the data we need to analyze cost/benefit issues for the regulatory assessment: ► AASHTO ► APWA ► FHWA ► ITE ► Tx DOT ► TRB

11. Key cost issues identified: Highway industry stakeholders reviewed the draft guidelines and a 2001 industry cost study of the PROWAAC recommendations over the course of several meetings. By consensus, five cost items were identified as significant: ► detectable warnings (savings from reduced area) ► APS (integration may lower cost) ► tabled intersections ► temporary pedestrian routes ► roundabout signalization

12. PROWAG Detectable Warnings: All ramps and raised crossings must have detectable warnings to provide notice underfoot of the change from a pedestrian to a vehicular route. DWs AT WHITE HOUSERETROFIT PORTLAND, OR

13. PROWAG Detectable Warnings: Blended transitions have a slope of less than 5%. Detectable warnings are provided across the entire transition.

14. PROWAG Detectable warnings are required at medians.

15. PROWAG Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS): When new pedestrian signals are installed, include APS. Audible signal is integrated in pedbutton.

16. PROWAG APS: Provide 30”x48” clear ground space at all controls within reach range. 10” AWAY 48” HIGH

17. APS While we don’t know what is happening everywhere we do know… The State of Maryland has a policy in place to include APS in all new Ped signal installations FHWA encourage the use of the draft in absence of specific PROW standards

18. APS The draft ties installation of APS to: Providing pedestrian signals (in new construction and alterations) It is NOT a retrofit requirement and is NOT tied to the marking of crosswalks. NCHRP 3-62 has helped the signals technical committee develop language for MUTCD which the Access Board will coordinate with for consistancy.

19. PROWAG Tabled Intersections: Where two directions of travel intersect at corners (or where a turn must be made), the PAR must be ‘level’ (2% in both directions) or ‘tabled’. (5% where intersection has no stop control) THIS… ….NOT THIS!

20. PROWAG Temporary PARs: When the PAR is detoured, provide an alternate route; same-side is best, if feasible (MUTCD)

21. PROWAG Temporary PARs: The alternate circulation path needs curb ramps, too

22. PROWAG Roundabouts: Provide pedestrian signals at roundabouts where pedestrian crossings are more than one lane. TWO HEADS MAY BE BETTER THAN THREE (AND RARELY USED…)

23. Signalization of Roundabouts Applies to multi-lane roundabouts We currently do not know what jurisdictions are doing. The Access Board with FHWA are trying to do some experimentation. There is also a NCHRP project (3-78) doing research.

24. Technical assistance coming soon! Technical assistance coming soon! ‘PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR ALTERATIONS IN THE PROW’ TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PROWAAC

25. Board PROW resources: Publications: accessible sidewalks design manual accessible sidewalks videotape synthesis on detectable warnings bulletin on roundabout accessibility curriculum on accessible pedestrian design Research: controllers and APS; APS case studies wayfinding slope effects on manual wheelchairs exterior lighting roundabout signalization

26. Questions…? Scott Windley, PROW Team Leader 202/272-0025 (v) or windley@access-board.gov;windley@access-board.gov Dennis Cannon, Transportation Specialist 202/272-0015 (v) or cannon@access-board.gov;cannon@access-board.gov Lois Thibault, Coordinator of Research 202/272-0023 (v) or thibault@access-board.govthibault@access-board.gov TTY: 202/272-0082; Fax: 202/272-0081