• print page
• close window

Problem

The City wanted to build curb ramps that were compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act while guidelines were not yet finalized.

Background

Curb ramps at an intersection with Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) zones indicated in plan. Source: Building a True Community: Final Report, Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee.

Austin, Texas has an extensive curb ramp program that takes a systematic approach to creating ADA-compliant street crossings. The City’s Americans with Disabilities Office has a full time Public Works and ADA Compliance coordinator, and a multi-million dollar program guided by a citywide ADA Task Force, as well as an ADA Work Group within the Public Works Department.

The “state of the art” in designing curb ramps can be understood by a comparison of Austin’s program with current guidelines and regulations. As many communities actively work towards ADA compliance, new design guidelines, standards, and regulatory processes continue to evolve.

The City of Austin has worked closely as the guidelines have evolved, and the City is continually adapting its designs, not only achieve ADA compliance, but to create the best possible street designs for all modes of transportation.

This case study provides useful background on both Austin’s program and the current “state of the practice” to inform professionals, agencies, and citizens about the available resources and models which can lead to the development of new best practices.

Solution

Austin, Texas has had a proactive curb ramp program since the passage of the ADA. This program was featured in the U.S. Conference of Mayors 1995 report, Implementing the ADA: Case Studies of Exemplary Local Programs. Austin has a population of 500,000, of which 15% are people with disabilities. The city appointed an ADA program manager in 1991 and has 23 additional coordinators in each of the city’s departments, along with a Mayor’s Committee for People with Disabilities. More than 4,000 curb ramps have been installed as part of a multi-year, multi-million dollar program. The program was developed with the following process:

• Held public hearing to solicit input from persons with disabilities.
• Met with transition plan review group to evaluate data and set priorities.
• Scheduled development based on personnel and funds available.
• Developed a map showing highest priority facilities services by walkways.
• Prioritized areas based on map, in descending order radiating from the downtown area.
• Divided the city into 12 sections.
• Gave the highest priority to the downtown areas with the most government buildings and pedestrian activity.
• Determined that the older part of city had higher pedestrian activity than newer areas.
• Identified the need for access along major roadways, especially along major bus routes.
• Assigned the highest priority ramps and routes to facilities to be handled through the building modification program.
• Established a citizen request program to handle specific identified needs.
• Set an initial goal through the Plan to provide ramps at intersections with sidewalks.

While Austin was creating its initial ADA Compliance program, new federal regulations and guidelines were under development. Public rights-of-way are covered by the ADA under Title II, subpart A. The U.S. Access Board initiated a rulemaking process in 1992, which is still in process towards establishing a final version of Section 14: Public Rights of Way. The Access Board initially issued the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) in 1991 (36 CFR 1191, Appendix A). In 1994, the Access Board published an interim final rule in the Federal Register that added several sections to the ADA, including Section 14. The response to the interim final rule clearly indicated a need for substantial education and outreach regarding the application of guidelines in this area. A Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee (PROWAAC) was established in 1999, as a step towards resolving these issues.

Throughout this process, the City of Austin Curb Ramp program worked with the evolving guidelines. Important changes, such as requirements for separate curb ramps for each direction of pedestrian travel, and the provision of detectable warning surfaces required adjustments to both designs and budgets. A recent City of Austin evaluation of the Curb Ramp program identified the following challenges based on their experience in developing ADA compliant street crossings:

• The number of ramps required was updated from 1,500 to more than 6,000 based on an on-the ground survey of the city’s roads.
• Driveways cutting across walkways are included under ADA, but needs for these have not been estimated.
• Existing utilities in the right-of-way create potential costs due to relocation and removal.
• Curb ramp installations can conflict with traditional placements for storm drains.
• Existing sidewalks are in need of maintenance and repair.
• Lack of sidewalks.
• Coordination with other agencies, including Texas DOT, and public transit provider CMTA (Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority).
• Lack of funding resources and an increasing scope of work.
• Meeting compliance deadlines under ADA.
• Very complex logistical coordination of curb ramp work.
• Initial lack of product availability to achieve detectable warnings.
• Agency resistance to change.
• Obtaining high visual contrast between ramps and adjacent surfaces.

Austin’s experience shows that a coordinated, pro-active approach can result in significant public benefits, even if important guidelines are part of an evolving process. The city successfully involved teams of individuals and organizations across institutional boundaries. To its credit, the City proceeded with the installation of thousands of curb ramps based on the best information available at the time. While early designs may not have included every feature of a “perfect” curb ramp (such as detectable warning surfaces), they provided important benefits to the public.

It is important to note that curb ramps, even if they are not absolutely “state of the art,” are a major positive step towards creating accessible communities. Parents pushing strollers, postal carriers, children riding bicycles, seniors, and many other citizens benefit from curb ramps. Most curb ramp installations can be characterized as “good” design; even if they are less than perfect, they are a significant improvement over the prior condition of not having ramps at all.

Results

Federal policy is often best evaluated in terms of its implementation at the local level. Austin’s experience shows that the seemingly simple task of providing curb ramps requires a detailed understanding of legal requirements, intergovernmental coordination, and technical best practices. Coordinating slopes, drainage, traffic signal operations, utilities, concrete, asphalt, and pavement markings demands a considerable amount of coordination, often involving multiple agencies and interests.

The community has been supportive of the curb ramp program. In a 1999 report, the City of Austin quantified its ramp construction program as follows:

Actual construction costs have averaged $972 per ramp, with a total program cost of $2.25 million, funded by City bonds. A 1999 budget request called for an additional $4 million in program funding.

Source: Building a True Community: Final Report, Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee. This illustration shows many of the features that should be incorporated a curb ramp. However, it does not show detectable warnings, which are an important component.

Ongoing activities of the Austin Curb Ramp program include meetings of the ADA Work Group, disseminating information about Construction Standards for public rights-of-way and the ADA, continuing a Citizen Request Program for curb ramps in the public rights-of-way, and curb ramp construction in compliance with the approved Transition Plan.

One of Austin’s challenges was the implementation of curb ramps while the national ADA regulatory process was still evolving. The difficulty in developing and implementing complete ADA guidelines comes from the intent of accommodating people of all abilities throughout a nation of varied climates and construction conditions. This is part of the process initiated with passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, which is a civil rights statute. The United States Access Board, the U.S. Department of Transportation and other organizations have cooperatively developed a series of vital new documents that address curb ramps as an integral part of street design. Austin’s experience and these new tools help define the continually evolving state of the practice in curb ramp design. The most recent versions of these documents are:

1. Building a True Community: Final Report, Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee, January 10, 2001, U.S. Architectural & Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111, www.access-board.gov.
2. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part I of II: Review of Existing Guidelines and Practices, U.S. Department of Transportation Publication No.: FHWA-HEP-99-006, July 1999. Available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/publications.htm#Design
3. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide, U.S. Department of Transportation, Publication No.: FHWA-EP-01-027, September 2001. Available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/publications.htm#Design
Document 3, The Best Practices Design Guide, provides an excellent overview of the state of the practice in curb ramp design with Table 7-1, which includes the following BEST PRACTICE/Rationale:
1. PROVIDE A LEVEL MANEUVERING AREA OR LAND-ING AT THE TOP OF THE RAMP. Landings are critical to allow wheelchair users space to maneuver on or off of the ramp. Furthermore, people who are continuing along the sidewalk will not have to negotiate a surface with a changing grade or cross slope.
2. CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE BOTTOM OF THE CURB RAMP AND THE STREET WITH A DETECTABLE WARNING. Without a detectable warning, people with vision impairments may not be able to identify the boundary between the sidewalk and the street.
3. DESIGN RAMP GRADES THAT ARE PERPENDICULAR TO THE CURB. Assistive devices for mobility are unstable if one side of the device is lower than the other or if the full base of support (e.g. all four wheels on a wheelchair) are not in contact with the surface. This commonly occurs when the bottom of a curb ramp is not perpendicular to the curb.
4. PLACE THE CURB RAMP WITHIN THE MARKED CROSSWALK AREA. Pedestrians outside of the marked crosswalk are less likely to be seen by drivers because they are not in the expected location.
5. AVOID CHANGES OF GRADE THAT EXCEED 11 PERCENT OVER A 610mm (24 in) INTERVAL. Severe or sudden grade changes may not provide sufficient clearance for the frame of a wheelchair, causing the user to tip forward or backward.
6. DESIGN RAMPS THAT DON’T REQUIRE TURNING OR MANEUVERING ON THE RAMP SURFACE. Maneuvering on a steep grade can be very hazardous for people with mobility impairments.
7. PROVIDE A CURB RAMP GRADE THAT CAN BE EASILY DISTINGUISHED FROM SURROUNDING TERRAIN: OTHERWISE, USE DETECTABLE WARNINGS. Gradual slopes make it difficult for people with vision impairments to detect the presence of a curb ramp.
8. DESIGN THE RAMP WITH A GRADE OF 7.1 +/- 1.2 PERCENT. (DO NOT EXCEED 8.33 PERCENT OR 1:12) Shallow grades are difficult for people with vision impairments to detect but steep grades are difficult for those using adaptive devices for mobility.
9. DESIGN THE RAMP AND GUTTER WTH A CROSS SLOPE OF 2.0 PERCENT. Ramps should have minimal cross slope so users do not have to negotiate a steep grade and cross slope simultaneously.
10. PROVIDE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF WATER OR DEBRIS ON OR AT THE BOTTOM OF THE RAMP. Water, ice or debris accumulation will decrease the slip resistance of the curb ramp surface.
11. TRANSITIONS FROM RAMPS TO GUTTER AND STREETS SHOULD BE FLUSH AND FREE OF LEVEL CHANGES. Maneuvering over any vertical rise such as lips and defects can cause wheelchair users to propel forward when wheels hit this barrier.
12. ALIGN THE CURB RAMP WITH THE CROSSWALK, SO THERE IS A STRAIGHT PATH OF TRAVEL FROM THE TOP OF THE RAMP TO THE CENTER OF THE ROADWAY TO THE CURB RAMP ON THE OTHER SIDE. People using wheelchairs often build up momentum in the crosswalk to get up the curb ramp. This alignment may also be useful for people with vision impairments.
13. PROVIDE CLEARLY DEFINED AND EASILY IDENTIFIED EDGES OR TRANSITION ON BOTH SIDES OF THE RAMP TO CONTRAST WITH SIDEWALK. Clearly defined edges assist users with vision impairments to identify the presence of the ramp when it is approached from the side.

These concepts are consistent with the experience many communities have in developing successful curb ramp programs. In the Summary to her 1999 Urban Symposium presentation, Dolores Gonzales summarized both Austin’s perspective on these issues (and a point of view likely to be representative of similar efforts nationwide), as follows:

• Much work remains before our roadways will be fully accessible.
• Technological solutions specifically targeted for persons with disabilities could help defray costly and complicated concrete solutions.
• Continuing education of the public and building professionals are needed for effective implementation of the ADA.

Contact

Dolores Gonzales, ADA Coordinator
City of Austin Department of Public Works and Transportation
Municipal Building, Fifth at Colorado
P.O. Box 1088
Austin, TX 78767
Phone: (512) 499-3256
Fax: (512) 499-3278
E-mail: dolores.gonzales@ci.austin.tx.us

References

Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act: Case Studies of Local Programs, The United States Conference of Mayors, April 1995.

Public Works and ADA Compliance, presentation at the Urban Symposium, Dallas Texas, June 29, 1999, Dolores Gonzales, City of Austin Americans With Disabilities Office.

U.S. Architectural & Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111, www.access-board.gov.

• print page
• close window