Part IV: Appendices

APPENDIX A: PROWAAC Charter, List of Members, Meeting Schedule



1.PURPOSE: This charter establishes the "Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee" (Committee) for the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and the administrative guidelines issued by the General Services Administration's Committee Management Secretariat, 41 C.F.R. Part 101-6.

2.AUTHORITY: The establishment of the Committee is in the public interest and supports the Access Board in performing its duties and responsibilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq.).

3.SPONSOR AND OFFICE SUPPORT: The Committee shall report to the Access Board as its sponsor. Support services shall be provided or arranged by the Access Board.

4.SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES: The Committee shall advise the Access Board on issues related to developing accessibility guidelines for public rights-of-way. The Committee shall act solely in an advisory capacity to the Access Board and shall neither exercise any program management responsibility nor make decisions directly affecting the matters on which it provides advice.

5.DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS: Consistent with the scope and objectives described in paragraph 4 of this charter, the Committee is authorized to make recommendations to the Access Board on the contents and format of the guidelines.

6. MEMBERSHIP: The membership will be balanced in terms of points of view represented, including Federal agencies; traffic engineering organizations; public works agencies; transportation departments; traffic consultants; standard setting organizations; organizations representing the access needs of individuals with disabilities; and other persons affected by the accessibility guidelines. Representatives of each of these interests shall be selected by the Chairperson of the Access Board and appointed as Committee members for the duration of the Committee's existence.

7.SUBCOMMITTEES: The Committee may form subcommittees for any purpose consistent with this charter. The subcommittees shall report to the Committee.

8.CHAIRPERSON: The Chairperson of the Committee shall be appointed by the Chairperson of the Access Board. The Chairperson of any subcommittees shall be appointed by the Chairperson of the Committee.

9.MEETINGS: Meetings shall be held as necessary at the call of the Chairperson of the Committee, with the approval of the designated Federal official. Meetings shall be open to the public and timely notice of each meeting shall be published in the Federal Register. Meetings shall be conducted and records of the proceedings kept, as required by applicable laws and regulations.

10.COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS: The Access Board will not compensate Committee members for their service. Committee members will be responsible for their own expenses for participation in the Committee, except that the Access Board may pay for a member's reasonable travel expenses if the member certifies a lack of adequate financial resources to participate in the Committee and the Access Board determines that the member's participation in the Committee is necessary to assure adequate representation of the various interests potentially affected by the accessibility standards.

11.ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS: The costs for the Committee will not exceed $30,000. No government staff positions are being allocated to the Committee on a full-time basis.

12.DURATION: The Committee will terminate two years from the date of filing this charter with the appropriate Committees of Congress, unless the Committee is renewed or terminated sooner.

May 12, 1999
Board Approval Date

July 7, 1999
GSA Review Date

November 16, 1999
Date Filed with Congress


Name: Janet M. Barlow
Affiliation: Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired

Name: Pamela Boswell
Affiliation: American Public Transportation Association

Name: Don Brandon
Affiliation: State of Alaska

Name: Melanie Brunson
Affiliation: American Council of the Blind

Name: HolLynn d'Lil
Affiliation: TASH

Name: Daniel L. Dawson
Affiliation: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)

Name: Mark Derry
Affiliation: National Council on Independent Living

Name: Betty Dion
Affiliation: Canadian Standards Association

Name: Peggy Pinder Elliott
Affiliation: National Federation of the Blind

Name: John C. Fegan
Affiliation: Federal Highway Administration

Name: Lukas Franck
Affiliation: The Seeing Eye

Name: Elizabeth Hilton
Affiliation: Texas Department of Transportation

Name: Logan Hopper
Affiliation: Disability Rights Education Defense Fund

Name: James de Jong
Affiliation: Disability & Business Technical Assistance Centers

Name: William D. Jordan, Jr.
Affiliation: Californians for Disability Rights

Name: William F. Hecker, Jr.
Affiliation: City of Birmingham

Name: Carmel A. Kang
Affiliation: American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)

Name: Ken Kobetsky
Affiliation: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Name: Laurie Kozisek
Affiliation: Municipality of Anchorage

Name: Carol Peredo Lopez
Affiliation: Paralyzed Veterans of America

Name: Jerry Markesino
Affiliation: Portland Office of Transportation

Name: Michael K. Medeiros
Affiliation: Hawaii State Department of Transportation

Name: Charles J. Nagel
Affiliation: New York State Department of Transportation

Name: Abraham A. Navarro
Affiliation: Los Angeles Department of Public Works

Name: Mark R. Norman
Affiliation: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
(replaced by Daniel L. Dawson, former Alternate, in October, 2000)

Name: Mary O'Connor
Affiliation: American Public Works Association

Name: Deborah A. Ryan
Affiliation: Massachusetts Architectural Access Board

Name: Richard Skaff
Affiliation: San Francisco's Mayor's Office on Disability

Name: Kenneth L. Stewart
Affiliation: Council of Citizens with Low Vision International

Name: Ellen Vanderslice
Affiliation: America Walks

Name: Francine Wai
Affiliation: Hawaii Disability & Communication Access Board

Name: Mark Wales
Affiliation: American Institute of Architects

Name: Bill Wilkinson
Affiliation: National Center for Bicycling & Walking


Name: Patricia Beattie
Affiliation: Council of Citizens with Low Vision International

Name: Julie H. Carroll
Affiliation: Paralyzed Veterans of America

Name: Magan Champaneria
Affiliation: Los Angeles Department of Public Works

Name: Paul J. Church
Affiliation: Disability Rights Education Defense Fund (DREDF)

Name: Charles H. Crawford
Affiliation: American Council of the Blind

Name: Benjamin Gorospe
Affiliation: Hawaii Disability & Communication Access Board

Name: Gina G. Hilberry
Affiliation: American Institute of Architects

Name: Robin Jones
Affiliation: Great Lakes Disability & Business Technical Assistance Centers

Name: Douglas Klotz
Affiliation: America Walks

Name: Scott C. LaBarre
Affiliation: National Federation of the Blind

Name: Barbara McMillen
Affiliation: Federal Highway Administration

Name: Kristin O'Grady
Affiliation: American Public Transportation Association

Name: Michele Ohmes
Affiliation: American Public Works Association

Name: James Scott
Affiliation: City of Birmingham

Name: Rod Wilson
Affiliation: State of Alaska


Name: Patrick D. Cannon
Affiliation: US Access Board

Name: James J. Weisman
Affiliation: US Access Board

Name: Ruth Lusher
Affiliation: US Department of Justice


The Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee met six times, including one teleconference meeting.

December 2nd and 3rd, 1999, in Washington, DC
February 9th to 11th, 2000, in Austin, Texas
May 18th and 19th, 2000, in Washington, DC
August 16th to 18th, 2000, in San Francisco, California
October 18th to 20th, 2000, in Tysons Corner, Virginia
December 19th, 2000, by teleconference

APPENDIX B: Subcommittee Structure and Areas of Responsibility

I. Intersections Subcommittee
Chair: William Hecker

A. Alterations
B. Ramps/Landings: types; blended crossings & raised crossings;
slope/cross slope; grade breaks/warps; orientation; number; lips at curb ramps
C. Curb extensions
D. Curb radius
E. Detectable warnings
F. Islands
G. Cross walks and cross slope
H. Scoping

II. Sidewalks Subcommittee
Chair: Don Brandon

A. Alterations
B. Width/cross slope
C. Bike paths/multi-use paths
D. Clearance envelope: signs/obstructions; projections; vendors; utility poles/fire hydrants; displays, sidewalk uses, events
E. Surfaces: coefficient of friction; vaults, grates, vents; doors; tree grates; railroad crossing gaps; markings and contrast
F. Furnishings: benches/litter cans; drinking fountains; phones; bus shelters and stops; toilets
G. Doorways and walks interface
H. Stairs
I. Routing
J. Scoping

III. Roadway Subcommittee
Chair: Elizabeth Hilton

A. Alterations
B. Driveways
C. Parking/loading facilities
D. Parking meters
E. Bridges/overpasses
F. Underpasses
G. Elevators
H. Shoulders, separation
I. Call boxes
J. Drainage
K. Traffic calming/vertical deflection measures
L. Roundabouts and free right turn lanes
M. Scoping

IV. Signals/Wayfinding Subcommittee
Chair: Lukas Franck

A. Alterations
B. Audible warnings
C. Signals
D. Signal call push buttons
E. Pedestrian signal indications
F. Facility and street lighting
G. Crossing time
H. Emergency vehicles
I. Signage
J. Scoping

Definitions Subcommittee
Chair: Gina Hilberry

A. Definitions

Editorial Subcommittee
Chair: Ellen Vanderslice

A. Report production and coordination

APPENDIX C: Resolution of the Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee Regarding Construction of Sidewalks

WHEREAS, the public is entitled to access to public rights-of-way; and

WHEREAS, many miles of public rights-of-way in the United States have been developed in such a way that only motor vehicular access is provided; and

WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require jurisdictions to provide sidewalks; and

WHEREAS, sidewalks are necessary for access by all;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee recommends to the Access Board, to the US Department of Transportation, and to the US Department of Justice that they cooperate to identify a mechanism to require that, whenever a road is constructed or reconstructed in a public right-of-way in an urbanized area in the United States, sidewalks shall be included.

October 20, 2000

APPENDIX D: Alterations and Project Scope Limits

The work of the committee focused on new construction in the public right-of-way environment. However, it recognized that the majority of work undertaken in the public right-of-way consists of alterations. A major recurring question which was raised by the committee was, "To what extent is a public entity, when undertaking work in the public right-of-way, obligated to undertake additional work beyond the initial scope, to make surrounding areas accessible to people with disabilities?" In other words, what are the limits of a given project? For example, if one curb ramp on one portion of an intersection is altered, to what degree does this trigger modifications on the other corners? As another example, if the sidewalk in the middle of a block is altered, to what extent does a public entity have to modify the sidewalk on the rest of the block? These were constant, but unanswered, questions of the committee. To a large degree, the question reflected a desire of the committee to provide clarification as to how the concepts of "path of travel," "substantial alteration," "primary function area" and "disproportionality" currently found in the ADA buildings and facilities environment would translate into the public right-of-way environment.

The committee did not answer those questions. It is anticipated that answers to those questions will be forthcoming, to some extent, in future work. However, the committee felt that a framework for the future analysis might be presented here for consideration as the discussion unfolds. Future analysis could take place in a variety of ways: by a future committee of the Access Board; the Access Board itself; the US Department of Justice in their subsequent rules relating to title II; or as a separate research project. The committee hoped that additional guidance will be forthcoming soon in order to provide technical support to the planners, designers, administrators, and budget staff of public entities which undertake these projects.

The committee suggested that a reasonable approach to providing guidance on the issue would be to categorize or cluster public rights-of-way projects into groups or levels, each with a progressively higher level of obligation to integrate accessibility provisions into the project and the scope of work. The obligation to create access would be a function of the quantity of the work undertaken, the potential impact on usability to the pedestrian public, and the opportunity to integrate accessibility features into the design. A basic structure for the future analysis might consist of the following approach to categorizing projects:

Level 1 projects would be considered "repair in-kind/in-place." Level 1 projects include maintenance and repair work that generally does not disturb existing elements. In ADAAG, normal maintenance, re-roofing, painting, wallpapering, or changes to mechanical and electrical systems are not alterations unless they affect the usability of building or facility. A similar application of this concept would need to be applied to the public right-of-way, where projects such as ordinary pothole repairs or changes to an overhead traffic camera, would not be considered alterations under this part. Usually, these elements have no corresponding ADAAG application.

Level 2 projects would include those alterations which might be functionally described as "replace in-kind, but with accessible features." Level 2 projects would include those projects where the element affects pedestrian usability, including persons with disabilities. Thus, when the element is fixed, it must be made accessible. When work on such elements is performed, it must meet new construction guidelines to the maximum extent feasible for those items that are located within the limits and/or scope of the project. However, the work does not trigger any additional work in the surrounding vicinity. This is analogous to the concept that "if you touch it, you must fix it," similar to replacing inaccessible hardware in a building. A broken door handle, when replaced, must be replaced with accessible hardware; however, it does not require replacement of the door or changes to any of the surrounding elements. Similarly, if street signage were changed, it would need to comply with the requirements for that element in these guidelines, but not necessarily trigger a requirement to build a new sidewalk where the signage is posted. These types of alterations or repairs will offer some opportunity to replace non-compliant construction with the same element, only with compliant accessible features, without broadening the alteration work to the larger environment.

Level 3 projects would include those alterations which might be functionally described as "limited improvement" and probably represent the majority of public works projects, both in quantity and budget. Level 3 projects might be characterized as affecting the equivalent to the "primary function area" in the public right-of-way in addition to impacting "pedestrian usability." Similar to Level 2 projects, when work on such elements is performed, it must meet new construction guidelines to the maximum extent feasible for those items that are located within the limits and/or scope of the project. However, in addition, these alterations would trigger something more to be done beyond the initial scope of work. This is similar to the environment of buildings and facilities, where an alteration to an office, deemed a primary function area, would require that additional expenses be expended to create 'a path of travel' to the altered area, to the extent that the additional expenses are not 'disproportionate' to the original cost of the project. Of course, the key questions are 'when and what changes must be made?' and 'when would the additional work required be 'disproportionate' to the original cost of the project?" In the public right-of-way the committee identified one such situation and required the provision of sidewalk/street transitions at every corner when alterations work includes a sidewalk/street transition at any single corner. The committee did not identify any other construction that might require work outside the limits (or scope) of an alteration project, although the pairing of pedestrian signals at a crossing has some similar parallels.

A full range of projects was outlined, including: those which altered the pavement or geometry of the sidewalk; those which altered the roadway (including or not including alterations to crosswalks or parking spaces, trenching); those which altered existing street fixtures and furnishings; and those which altered pedestrian street crossings. However, no final categorization of the alterations was made. Committee members hope that the above categorization and description of types of projects will form the basis for future discussions.

The identification and clear articulation of those projects which 'trigger' additional work to be done is critical to ensuring that the work done in the public right-of-way provides a seamless navigation system throughout a city, town, or other neighborhood. This is particularly crucial for persons with disabilities, as a patchwork of unconnected and disjointed public works projects can be very frustrating and limiting to a person with a disability trying to negotiate through the exterior space. If the exterior public right of way is construed to be a "program" of state or local government, which has as its function to provide a connecting network of streets, sidewalks, and related amenities, then alterations must not either leave a person with a disability stranded nor require him/her to travel a distance significantly longer than a person without a disability.

APPENDIX E: Research Needs, Recommended Questions and Frontier Issues


X02.1.2.2 Reduced vibration zone.
The committee wished to adopt a standard for the smoothness of thepedestrian access route but was not able to identify suitable technical provisions, such as a measurement of the rolling vibration of pedestrian surfaces. Paved surfaces for vehicles are evaluated according to a roughness index (the IRI) for which there is an American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) measurement protocol that employs a profilometer. The committee encourages research to determine if the IRI could be adapted to the evaluation of pedestrian surfaces. The committee believes that research on the relationship of surface roughness, surface wavelength (amplitude and frequency), and caster and wheel diameter and materials may also be a fruitful area for research. In addition, ASTM standards FF25 and F35 currently being developed for application in Hawaii. The committee recommends review of the Hawaii standard when available for possible incorporation into any new guidelines.

X02.1.6 Surfaces.
The committee recognizes the advantages of requiringpublic sidewalks to have a visually uniform pavement surface that is monochromatic except for uniformly repeating patterns or markings, which are locational, directional, or cautionary, and encourages the development of more specific guidelines in this area. The committee understands that the Access Board and the Construction Specifications Institute will pursue the issue of visual contrast in a joint technical assistance project in 2001 and recommends including guidelines developed from this or other research identified during this project.

X02.1.6.3 Surface gaps at rail crossings.
The committee is concerned that no technology currently exists to ameliorate the flangeway gap where light and heavy rail lines cross pedestrian ways. The committee voted to put a "sunset" provision on these rail crossing provisions for four years after the final rule is adopted, which the committee considered would be an incentive to industry to find a "gap" solution. The Association of American Railroads has proposed a joint industry project for 2001.

X02.1.13 Parking structure exit warnings.
The committee recommends that the Access Board undertake research to determine the specifications for a warning system to alert pedestrians of the approach of a vehicle exiting a parking structure. The system should ensure consistency of interpretation. The committee recommends that the system:

1. Have an alarm that will not be confused with an accessible pedestrian signal;
2. Have an alarm that will not be confused with a heavy vehicle back-up sound;
3. Have an alarm that is volume responsive to ambient sound, 5 dB above ambient noise level, and max of 89dB is suggested as a starting point.

The committee also recommends research on pedestrian sensor systems that can advise the exiting motorist of the presence of approaching pedestrian traffic.

X02.3.8.2 Types of signage
The committee believes that a system of remote audible signage utilizing emitters that can be scanned and read through personal receivers offers the greatest opportunity for making pedestrian information available to people who have vision impairments. Research in the area of accessible signage, geographic information systems, and global positioning systems is encouraged, which may result in the development of other methods of street identification and bus and bus route identification.

X02.3.8.2 Types of signage
While the committee believes that informational and warning signs in the public right of way should be provided in an accessible format, there were concerns regarding methods of making that information readily accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired. Signs at construction barriers were of particular concern to the committee. Research is recommended to determine whether audible and/or tactile signage is appropriate, or what other methods can be used to make informational and warning signs accessible.

X02.3.8.7 Changeable message signs.
Research is needed to determine specifications for changeable message signs that will result in equivalent legibility for readers having visual acuities from 20/20 to 20/200, in outdoor situations. Technical specifications are needed for changeable message signs of different types and colors, in situations in which messages are either static or dynamic, and in situations in which either the viewer or the sign are in motion.

X02.4.2.3 Directionality.
The committee identified a need for additional information and research on the use of tactile cues for directionality that do not rely on the curb ramp direction. A number of possible strategies to provide directional and alignment information to individuals who are blind or visually impaired were considered by the committee. These included tactile guidestrips, directional bar tiles, alignment of the detectable warning, and raised crosswalk lines. Tactile guide strips have been used in some locations in San Diego and San Francisco. These have been constructed of metal, concrete, or plastic and embedded in the street in the center of the crosswalk area. Directional Bar tiles have lozenge shaped raised sections (similar in height to the truncated domes of detectable warnings) intended to be oriented in the direction of travel. These are used in England, Sweden and Japan. Raised crosswalk lines were also suggested, with photos presented of an example using concrete tiles to outline the crosswalk as well as a discussion of the use of thermoplastic markings. However, concerns regarding detectability and maintenance were raised, as well as concerns about the impact of such surfaces on wheelchair users.

X02.4.7 Cross slope and warp.
Research is needed to indicate what maximum warp condition can be tolerated without causing a tipping hazard for pedestrians using wheelchairs, electric scooters, walkers or other mobility aids. Research is also recommended to develop design alternatives to minimize the adverse effect on wheelchair travel of surfaces that are warped.

X02.4.7 Cross slope and warp.
Research is needed to develop design alternatives to minimize the adverse effect on wheelchair travel due to surfaces that contain grade breaks.

X02.5.1.5 Accessible Pedestrian Signals: Locator tone.
A variety of tones are currently utilized as locator tones. The above specifications describe the repetition rate of the tone, however the exact nature of the tone is not specified. Research is recommended to determine the most localizable tone in the presence of traffic sounds.

X02.5.2.2 Accessible Pedestrian Signals: Required Features.
A variety of tones, speech messages, or melodies are currently utilized to indicate the walk interval. Research is recommended to determine the most localizable tone in the presence of traffic sounds. The committee felt there was enough information to provide basic specifications for the walk interval tones. Research now being conducted by the National Institutes on Health on accessible pedestrian signals will compare usability of overhead and push button mounted speakers for orientation and alignment and provide additional information regarding the use of tones, speech messages, or alternating signals for localization.

X02.5.3.2 Mid-block crosswalks.
The committee had a lengthy discussion about how best to notify blind and visually impaired pedestrians of the availability of a mid-block crosswalk, and consensus was to require a push button with a locator tone at mid-block unsignalized crosswalks. The button is to initiate a speech message notifying the user of the unsignalized condition. At unsignalized crosswalks the committee determined that a guidance surface is preferable to a locator tone. However, at this time, the information necessary to fully specify the texture, placement, material, contrast or other characteristics of guidance surfaces is not available. As this research is completed, a transition from an audible system to a detectable surface may be appropriate.

X02.5.7.3(E) Detectable warning: Contrast
The committee encourages the transportation industry to broaden its testing of color and contrast of typical construction materials and to include pedestrians with vision impairments in the development of standards. Work performed at The Lighthouse in New York City and research by Bentzen et al. 1994 can provide a useful basis for future research.

X02.6.6.2 Vertical and horizontal deflection devices: Location.
The committee recommends that the Access Board establish a research priority in its next budget/research cycle to study the effects of vertical and horizontal deflections which are used as traffic calming measures to determine the impact on persons with disabilities, especially spinal cord injuries or other neurological conditions, as passengers in motor vehicles (including paratransit and public transportation vehicles).

X03.3 Warnings and signage.
The committee recommends that the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) support research and development necessary to develop and include in MUTCD guidance on audible and/or Braille systems and devices approved for accessible signage indicating temporary closure of public sidewalks.


X02.3.3 Public telephones.
The committee heard comments that the function of the text telephone (TTY), when placed on the wheelchair-accessible telephone, may be problematic for two reasons. First, the installation of the lowered phone may interfere with the ability of a wheelchair user to make a forward approach to the phone with appropriate knee space; second, the use of the TTY by a standing person is ergonomically inappropriate, requiring bending or stooping while typing. Thus, the committee recommends that the Access Board ask a question whether an exception should be allowed for the TTY features to be placed on a higher phone when multiple phones are provided and that the Access Board seek input from users regarding the most usable location for the TTY features to be provided.

X02.5.9 Roundabouts.
The committee distinguished between a roundabout (typically a larger, total intersection design) and a neighborhood traffic circle (typically a small circle installed within the confines of an existing intersection). The committee limited its recommendations to roundabouts, since those traffic configurations appear to be the most complex and provide the most difficulty for pedestrians with disabilities to cross. However, the committee recommends that the Board ask a question inquiring whether the same mobility problems that are present at large roundabouts also pose similar problems at smaller neighborhood traffic circles.

X02.6.6.2 Vertical and horizontal deflection devices: Location.
The committee recommends that the Board ask a question in the proposed rule about knowledge of any existing research in the area of problems with vertical deflection devices with respect to effects on passengers in vehicles and effects low-floor transit vehicles.


X02.1.9 Elevators and lifts.
The committee discussed the fact that larger wheelchairs and electric scooters are used more frequently in the outdoor environment and that the clear ground space of 32 inches by 48 inches provided in proposed ADAAG Section 408 may not accommodate these larger mobility aids. In some sections, such as for the approach to push buttons, the committee recommended a larger clear ground space. The committee suggests future work to establish a uniform recommendation on these dimensions for outdoor environments.

X02.2.4 Reduced vertical clearance.
The committee agreed that elements that protrude into public sidewalks below head height would be more detectable by cane to a broader range of pedestrians with vision impairments if the leading edge were lower than the maximum 27 inches above the ground currently specified in ADAAG. Comments of pedestrians who have vision impairments indicate that projecting elements mounted on walls and/or poles, and railings with their leading edges higher than 15 inches are not regularly detectable in cane travel by persons of varying stature and travel technique. However, pedestrians who use wheelchairs require a minimum height of 27 inches above the ground to provide knee room at drinking fountains, telephones, and other pedestrian features that are commonly mounted to project from walls and poles on or along the public sidewalk; in fact, users of larger chairs or electric scooters may require even more height for knee room. The committee believes that there are design solutions to meet these conflicting constraints, and recommends that the Access Board continue to work on this issue.

X02.3.1.3 Clear floor or ground space and related provisions.
The committee discussed the fact that larger wheelchairs and electric scooters are used more frequently in the outdoor environment and that the clear ground space of 32 inches by 48 inches provided in proposed ADAAG Section 305 is a leftover standard developed for returning veterans may not accommodate these larger mobility aids. Members felt it is not an appropriate standard for the ADA which embraces the rights of the entire disability population. In some sections of this report, such as for the approach to push buttons, the committee recommended a larger clear ground space. The committee suggests future work to establish a uniform recommendation on these dimensions for outdoor environments.

X02.3.4.1 Public toilet facilities, general (F) Operable parts and dispensers.
The reach ranges specified in proposed ADAAG Section 308 (referenced by Section 309) accommodate people in wheelchairs who have the upper body abilities necessary to raise their arms over their shoulders or move their upper arms away from their body. These reach ranges do not accommodate people with limited upper body abilities. The vast majority of people can reach between 40 and 42 inches. Some committee members felt that the highest operable parts of accessible controls and dispensers should be between 40 and 42 inches above the finished floor. The committee did make such a recommendation for push buttons and parking meter controls, but did not extend to the controls for toilet facilities in the public right -of-way. The committee suggests future work to establish a uniform recommendation on reach ranges that accommodate a broader range of persons with disabilities.

X02.3.8.8 Audible signs.
Currently, there is a need to provide a uniform protocol for communication of information by RIAS so that:

1. Users will not be required to carry more than one receiver (one for each wayfinding application) to acquire basic wayfinding information;
2. Users will be able to use the same receiver in any location (within or between cities) so that the wayfinding environment is "seamless";
3. Manufacturers will be able to design basic functionality around a single communication protocol. Additional enhancements would be permitted.
4. Manufacturers and users will be able to take the protocol specifications to national and international standards groups. Registering the protocol would help provide a clear channel (free from interference from competing communication technologies and interfering signals from other electronic devices and systems).
5. Protocol must be coordinated with existing assistive listening device systems to ensure simultaneous systems operation without disruption.

X02.4.14 Curb type.
The committee discussed and wishes to add the following proposal to the list of frontier issues: to aid in the protection of all pedestrians at intersection corners, and to make the intersection geometry more cane detectable, the committee suggests that where rolled or "rollover" curb sections are proposed in new construction, a transition be provided from the rolled curb section to a barrier or vertical curb section of at least the same height and running the entire return of the curb return, and within 10 feet of the edge of each curb ramp (excluding flares) or the flush street transition.

General The committee recommends a scale model of an area, perhaps three blocks by three blocks, with some variation in terrain, in which a variety of the curb ramp types and configurations discussed in this report can be rendered and studied in three dimensions to ensure that the recommendations in this report achieve the effect that the committee intended.

Appendix F: Selected Abbreviations and Acronyms Found in this Report

AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act

ADAAG: ADA Accessibility Guidelines

APS: accessible pedestrian signal

ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials

CMS: changeable message sign

dB: decibel, measure of loudness

DOT: Department of Transportation

DOJ: Department of Justice

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration

HCO: hearing carryover

Hz: Hertz, measure of frequency

ITE: Institute of Transportation Engineers

kHz: kiloHertz, measure of frequency

LCD: liquid crystal display

LED: light-emitting diode

LPI: leading pedestrian interval

m: meter (metric measure of length)

mm: millimeter (metric measure of length)

N: Newton (metric measure of force)

NCUTCD: National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NPRM: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

PAR: pedestrian access route

PROWAAC: Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee

RIAS: remote infrared audible signs

VMS: variable message sign

VCO: voice carryover

Appendix G:  Minority Report  from the National Federation of the Blind
Submitted by
Peggy Pinder Elliott and Scott C. LaBarre


This minority report is based on the majority report published by the Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee. This report identifies sections of the majority report that the National Federation of the Blind finds objectionable. Our text identifies the particular section by its designation in the majority report and then provides alternative language. Following the alternate language is a section discussing why the Federation finds the majority's draft objectionable.
In general the National Federation of the Blind believes that blind and visually impaired people can and do function successfully in the built environment. Therefore it is not necessary to rebuild or restructure the existing environment dramatically. The Federation acknowledges, however, that there are circumstances in the built environment which do not permit blind and visually impaired individuals to use non-visual techniques efficiently. In such circumstances it is prudent to provide additional non-visual cues.


X02.5.2.1 General. Accessible Pedestrian Signals may be provided when the following conditions are present:

(A) Pedestrian timing is affected by push button activation,
(B) timing includes a lead pedestrian interval, or
(C) where there is a fixed time signal with pedestrian signal indication information presented. In this instance, a push button may be provided that delivers the same information in an accessible format.

Discussion: The majority report states that APS's "shall" be required in the above-identified circumstances. This standard is far too broad and approaches the underlying issue in the wrong manner. The majority's standard relies upon the type of signal being used as opposed to the type of intersection.
The primary technique that people who are blind or visually impaired use to cross streets at signalized locations is to initiate their crossing when they hear the traffic alongside them begin to move, corresponding to the onset of the green light. This technique is effective in the vast majority of situations, since the built environment provides sufficient non-visual cues to permit proficient use of the technique. The effectiveness of this technique can be reduced by several factors including increasingly quiet cars, right turn on red (which masks the beginning of the through phase), complex signal operations, and wide streets. Further, low traffic volumes may make it difficult for pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired to discern signal changes. The increasing use of actuated signals, at which the pedestrian must push a button and cross during the pedestrian phase, requires blind pedestrians to locate the pedestrian pushbutton and to cross only at the proper time during that phase. These changes in signalization affect the complexity of intersections and may make it necessary to provide the pedestrian signal information in an accessible format. In responding to a request for an accessible pedestrian signal at an existing intersection, traffic engineers and other officials should first examine the overall safety of the intersection for all pedestrians. For example, a lead left rather than a lag left turn may make it much more difficult for a blind or visually impaired pedestrian to use non-visual techniques at an intersection. Improving the safety for all pedestrians will often provide the blind or visually impaired pedestrian with safe and efficient access.

Additionally, engineers may find it useful to work closely with the blind pedestrian(s) who will be using the intersection, local organizations of the blind, local organizations providing rehabilitation or other services to the blind, and orientation and mobility specialists.

The alternative language permits a much more flexible standard and is far more manageable. The majority's standard requires APS's at a large number of intersections where blind and visually impaired pedestrians already operate successfully and where there is no need for additional non-visual cues. The decision to install an APS is by its very nature an intersection by intersection decision. It is also of great importance for traffic engineers to consult the local blind community and seek its input about whether a given intersection or intersections require an APS. The alternative language provides local communities with the greatest degree of flexibility.

X02.5.2.2 Required Features. Where accessible pedestrian signals are provided, they shall comply with the following requirements.

Note: This section of the minority report proposes changes only to Paragraphs B and C and does not alter any other part of Section X02.5.2.2.

(B) When indicating the walk interval, the accessible pedestrian signal shall deliver the indication in vibrotactile format.

Discussion: The majority report calls for APS's to deliver information in both audible and vibrotactile formats. As referenced earlier, the most important non-visual cue is the sound of the traffic as it flows through the intersection. Consequently, APS's which emit tones designed to be louder than the ambient background noise have the undesired effect of masking the sound of traffic. If the APS unit is located adjacent to the curb ramp, it is easy for a blind person to feel the vibrotactile information transmitted. This solution does not emit unnecessary noise into the environment and also gives the blind or visually impaired pedestrian the information about when the signal has changed.

(C) Where there is an accessible pedestrian signal controlled by a pedestrian push button, there shall be a locator tone complying with X02.5.1.5 only when the push-button associated with the APS is not within ten feet of the top of the curb ramp for which the APS provides information.

Discussion: The majority report requires a locator tone wherever an APS is present. If the blind or visually impaired pedestrian can expect to find the push button in a standard location close to the curb ramp, there is no need for a locator tone. Locator tones are by definition designed to operate at a level louder than the surrounding environment. Because the majority has chosen a frequency of 880 hz, such locator tones will affect a blind or visually impaired person's ability to listen to important cues such as the sound of traffic flowing through the intersection. Most blind or visually impaired travelers would agree that the ability to hear traffic clearly is the most important non-visual technique used while crossing intersections. Interfering with the sound of traffic poses a great safety risk and outweighs the benefit of making it easier to find the push button.

X02.5.6.2 Detectable Warnings. Curb ramps at medians and refuge islands, and where medians and refuge islands are cut through level with the street at crosswalks, shall have detectable warnings complying with [proposed ADAAG] 705 and X02.5.7.

Discussion: When detectable warnings for medians or islands are considered, detectable warnings should be placed only pursuant to the standard set forth in the following section.

X02.5.7 Detectable warnings.
X02.5.7.1 General. Where required, detectable warnings shall comply with X02.5.7.
X02.5.7.2 Application. Detectable warnings shall be provided only at the bottom two feet of curb ramps having a slope of 1:15 or less.

Discussion: Curb ramps which slope at 1:15 or less are virtually flat. Therefore it can be difficult for a blind or visually impaired pedestrian to locate the end of the curb ramp and the beginning of the street. Detectable warnings in these flat locations will provide the blind or visually impaired pedestrian with a definitive cue about where the sidewalk ends and the intersection begins. Ramps with a slope greater than 1:15 are readily detectable with non-visual techniques used by blind and visually impaired pedestrians.

Appendix H: Minority Report on What to Call the "Accessible Route"
Submitted by HolLynn D'Lil


Minority Report Recommendation: The route within the public right of way designed to insure that the public right of way is readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities should be called the "Universal Access Corridor."

Rationale: The argument for using the word "pedestrian" and the phrase "Pedestrian Access Route" is that "pedestrian" is a traditional term understood by professionals in the building industry and that it is not necessary to change the term in order to include people who use wheelchairs in the user group denoted by the word.

It is the very traditions that the word "pedestrian" represents that is objectionable. Since there has been a public right of way, it has been designed for use by people on foot. Tradition has never served the public with mobility disabilities. Only through the passage of law have the needs of people with mobility disabilities been inserted into the traditional building concepts that govern the public right of way. That insertion into building tradition has not come easily. It has come about only through vast personal sacrifice on the part of many disability activists.

To say to those activists that, of course, the word "pedestrian" includes them begs the question, then, of why the passage of a federal mandate was necessary. These recommended guidelines represent a profound change in the way the public environment will be built. To continue the use of the antiquated term "pedestrian" to describe the new environment that will for the first time recognize the needs of all of the public is to risk a continuation of the same mind set that excluded people with disabilities for centuries.

At best, people with disabilities will always be an after thought, if the term "Pedestrian Access Route" is used. In spite of the new definition for "pedestrian" that the Committee is proposing, "pedestrian" will not signify in the minds of most people that it is a term that includes people with disabilities. Even members of the Public Right of Way Access Advisory Committee find it necessary to spell out that the term "pedestrian" includes people with disabilities. (In the paragraph in the introduction which discusses the use of the term "pedestrian access route," the author felt it necessary to state that the word "pedestrian" includes people with disabilities. The statement reads, "Pedestrians, including persons with disabilities, are much more likely to travel side-by-side or in groups in the public right-of-way.") It is obvious that the word "pedestrian" is not adequate or appropriate to describe the route designed to be accessible for people with disabilities, if it is necessary even within the PROWAAC Report to point out that the term "pedestrian" includes people with disabilities.

Exclusion of people with disabilities is too ingrained in the word "pedestrian." It is only by embracing a new term, a universal term, that we can change the traditions embodied by the word "pedestrian." With a new term, we can signal a new era and a new tradition of designing the public right of way to include use by people with disabilities, not as an afterthought, but as a deliberate act of inclusion.

We have replaced our antiquated and damaging labels such as "handicapped," "crippled and "Incurables" with the phrase "people with disabilities." We did so because we recognized the power of language and how people are damaged by negative, misleading and inadequate labels. Let us now replace "Pedestrian Access Route" with the phrase "Universal Access Corridor" to describe the new accessible public right of way and the phrases "universal access corridor users" or "users of the universal access corridor" to identify the entire user group. We are building a whole new public environment and we need the right tools for the job.

Appendix I: Minority Report on the Corridor of Accessible Travel
Submitted by Don Brandon


The Sidewalk Subcommittee final report outlines several phrases used to describe the area required to be accessible in the public right-of-way (PROW). Many phrases and the one the committee voted on via the Internet use or incorporate the word pedestrian. It is my opinion that we are not at all concerned with pedestrians but we are concerned with the area needed to travel in the PROW using many forms of travel. Wayfinding is the phrase used for a person who is blind and traveling along a hallway or in the PROW. A wheelchair user pushes a manual chair or initiates power in a motorized chair to travel down a hallway or in the PROW and able-bodied people ambulate down a hallway or in a PROW.

All of the above users need a "space" within the PROW to effectively safely travel. This "space" needed could be best pictured by comparing it to a corridor of accessible travel (C.A.T.). This corridor is:

80 inches high with no protruding objects greater than 4 inches, 60 inches wide Vibration free 48 inches of the 60 inches Free of utility covers and grates with in 48 of the 60 inches Free of abrupt changes in level of more 1/4 inch or beveled to 1/2 and inch Needed to travel with in sidewalks, across intersections, across driveways, over overpasses, bridges etc.

In the PROW you have a C.A.T. or you don't have a C.A.T. We don't need to use phrases that engineers know. Competing interests and lack of familiarity with the functional needs for accessibility at a personal level make these issues a lesser priority. Engineering language will not assist the engineer in his design because similar language requires a slow down in the processing of information in designing the PROW. If an engineer knows he needs a sidewalk he will put one in. If he knows he needs a Corridor of Accessible Travel within his sidewalk design he will ensure that one is available. Separating versus combining concepts allows for 2 dimensional thinkers to remain in their "comfort zone" and at the same time communicate the concept of the "space" needed within the sidewalk to make it accessible.

We do not have to envision pedestrians or define or redefine "our" concept of pedestrian. We have a Corridor of Accessible Travel; we don't care if you're a pedestrian, a way finder, a wheelchair user, a bicyclist, a mother with a stroller, a teenager with a skate board, or riding on horseback.

A C.A.T. is a spatial concept, not a brick and mortar substance. As a spatial concept it requires brick and mortar to be utilized in such a way that it allows everyone the opportunity to use the PROW. A C.A.T. Is a simplistic application of what is needed for everyone to effectively use the PROW when not in a vehicle. A C.A.T. has depth, volume, height, width, and surface considerations. This is quite different than the basic concept of a sidewalk or intersection.

APPENDIX J: Minority Reports
Submitted by: William D. Jordan, Jr.

TOPIC A: 70 percent contrast of curb ramps to surroundings
TOPIC B: 11 percent maximum combined curb ramp slope and gutter counter slope.
TOPIC C: Detectable warnings on curb ramps.
TOPIC D: Scoping for accessible phones.

TOPIC A: 70 percent contrast of curb ramps to surroundings
RECOMMENDATION: Curb ramps be required to have a 33 percent contrast to the sidewalk they serve (not the gutter or street where they terminate).

RATIONALE: A 70 percent contrast is not realistically attainable in concrete, the most common material for curb ramps and sidewalks, without extreme pigmenting of both elements. Such extreme pigmenting weakens the concrete (most municipalities require the use of a high strength, "City Mix" concrete that would be degraded by high levels of doping), and is costly ("unduly burdensome"). A distinct contrast is warranted to aid persons with low vision, but to expect good enforcement, a requirement must be reasonably attainable.

Contrast is a poorly understood term. Often one reads "color contrast," which, in fact, are two terms.Color is the spectral frequency of the light in question; whereas, contrast is the differential intensity of two lights, usually lights reflected off two adjoining surfaces. Contrast is measured as the difference in light absorption exhibited by two adjoining surfaces and usually referenced to "the gray scale." A 70 percent differential is a very high differential; one that is reasonable and attainable where materials and their hue can be controlled, such as in signage. It is quiteunreasonable to extrapolate such a requirement and apply it to a concrete sidewalks and embedded curb ramps. A 33 percent contrast can be attained by pigmenting only the curb ramp material and leaving the sidewalk its natural medium gray. Natural concrete is a medium gray that has approximately 50 percent contrast with jet black and stark white, both of which are theoretical, and neither of which are truly attainable. Obviously, then, it is beyond impossible to produce a surface that has a 70 percent contrast to natural concrete.

Safety Yellow actually offers only about a 20 percent contrast (often less) against natural gray concrete. Pigmenting to a near black color usually offers a far better contrast.

[Editor's note: two illustrations, a color photograph of tiles in yellow, tan and black and a gray-scaled photograph of the same tiles, were attached to the original minority report but have not been included here due to reproduction constraints.]

TOPIC B: 11 percent maximum combined curb ramp slope and gutter counter slope.
RECOMMENDATION: No requirement. The 8.33 percent limit on curb ramp slope combined with the 5 percent limit on gutter counter slope is quite adequate to produce a completely safe transition.

RATIONALE: It is true that many curb ramps and gutter returns have historically formed a "V" transition which is very dangerous to persons in wheelchairs. Richard Skaff of our committee broke both legs when he crashed at the bottom of such a combination. However, these conditions have not been caused by insufficient regulation; they are caused by errant construction and negligent enforcement. These "crash pits" are the result of curb ramps and gutter counter slopes that greatly exceed the required maximums. Imposing unnecessary requirements, especially requirements that are numerically inconsistent with the existing, proven requirements, does little more than promote disrespect for and disregard for the exiting needed requirements.

Wheelchairs that are particularly vulnerable to this type of crash hazard are those whose foot peddle plates are low to the ground and extend longer distances forward of the front a caster axles. A nearly worst-case wheelchair was selected for a trigonometric study which demonstrated that the combined crash angle would be just under 27 percent. Calculation of the combined angle that would assure at least 1 inch of clearance under the foot paddle at all times resulted in a measurement of 19 percent. To require a combined angle of 11 percent, which is less than the sum of the two allowable slopes (8.33 percent + 5 percent = 13.33 percent) is unnecessarily restrictive and will promote rebellious, non-compliant, dangerous curb ramps.


SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: One of the most hazardous and hidden barriers that might be present in streets is the drainage swale or gutter at the bottom of a curb cut. It is "hidden" by the fact that everyone is accustomed to seeing it without thinking of its potential hazard. It is a hazard because of the geometry of a wheelchair and its intolerance to significant changes in the plane of the rolling surface. A person may bottom out their foot paddles suddenly and unexpectedly with the result that their chair suddenly stops and they are propelled forward out of the chair. This often results in broken legs. People that have been non-weightbearing for a number of years will predictably have osteoporosis and be particularly vulnerable. I and many, many people I know have broken legs this way. With the reduced circulation in non-active limbs, healing takes much, much longerÉoften close to a year. If the person is experienced enough to recognize the hazard and tries crossing the swale very cautiously they will merely come to a stop when the chair bottoms out, and experience it as a barrier.

ADAAG states in its section on curb ramps, "Transitions from ramps to walks, gutters or streets shall be flush and free of abrupt changes. Maximum slopes of adjoining gutters, road surface immediately adjacent to the curb ramp, or accessible route shall not exceed 1:20."

To my knowledge, there isn't even typical wheelchair dimensions from which one could infer limiting dimensions. Therefore, I have prepared this little study using dimensions taken from my own chair which is fairly typical, but among the more vulnerable to this type of occurrence. What makes it so is the fact that it has 5" caster wheels, foot paddles closer to the ground to insure knee clearance under normal tables and desks. It has a horizontal distance from the center of the drive wheel to the center of the caster wheel of 15.5 inches. The horizontal distance from the center of the caster to the lowest point of the foot paddle is 7 inches. The height of this point off a level floor is 2 inches. The foot paddle is 6 inches long and the leading bottom edge is 3 5/8 inches off the floor.

Calculations: To understand these calculations, it will be helpful to refer to the attached figure. In the figure I show the wheelchair elements place is relative positions on a maximum slope curb cut with the caster wheel at the base where the street starts to rise. The street plane ascends at 10.5 percent, the slope calculated to make contact with the under side of the foot paddle. The calculation is shown.

To calculate what I considered a margin of safety, I assumed I wanted to miss crashing by at least an inch. That calculation is also shown. The impact point was calculated to be 2.41 inches above dead level. Deducting the one-inch clearance leaves 1.41 inches of allowable rise. Using the dimensions of my chair, this calculates to be the result of a 6.2 degree up angle, which is equivalent to a 10.8 percent slope, or having a 1.3 inches rise every foot.

If there were a lip at the bottom of the curb cut (as previously required in California), impact would occur much sooner. To follow this you must understand that the lowest point pivots around the axle of the rear wheel as the caster wheel moves downward. By observation you can see its movement is greater than that of the caster, because it is farther from the pivot axis. In fact the movement is 1.84 times as great than the caster.

Conclusion: From these calculations, I conclude and advise that the gutter return slope be limited to no more than 10 percent or 1.2 inches in 12 inches. It certainly wouldn't hurt to undercut this limit to allow for field variances. Furthermore, it was determined long before any of us that a 1:12 slope is the maximum most wheelchair users can reliably ascend without flipping over backward, and without becoming exhausted in an unreasonably short distance. Therefore, it seems logical and proper to limit the climb up the crown of the road to a 1:12 slope. This would appear to ensure safety.

TOPIC C: Detectable warnings on curb ramps.
RECOMMENDATION: Require detectable warnings on the bottom two feet of curb ramps having a slope of 1:15 or less. Such warnings to consist of an array of partial domes arranged in a uniform pattern with the domes in-line with the prevailing direction of pedestrian travel. The domes shall be semi-spherical 1-inch diameter segments standing 0.2 inches high and placed on 3-inch centers. The array shall be of a material which contrasts with the surrounding surfaces by at least 33 percent and is at least as slip resistant as troweled concrete. Other materials surfaces may be textured to insure this level of slip resistance.

Curb ramps which have a slope greater than 1:15 (but equal to or less than 1:12) shall have a similarly sized and positioned section of ramp that contrasts in an identical manner with the surrounding surfaces. This contrasting pad must be as slip resistant as trowel concrete.

RATIONALE: After receiving totally conflicting input from the National Federation of the Blind and the National Council of the Blind, and after observing many transit platforms that are part of the Washington Metro system which lack detectable warnings, one is not totally convinced there is a real need for detectable warnings on curb ramps. Yet, working on the assumption that some percentage of blind and severely vision impaired travelers will be aided and protected by detectable warnings, this recommendation is crafted to accommodate this need, while not imposing as great a burden on travelers using mobility aids as would be imposed by the design of truncated domes defined in the current edition of ADAAG. The notion which states that design is inconsequential to persons in wheelchairs and others needing mobility aids is absolutely FALSE! Truncated domes are particularly burdensome to persons in wheelchairs when placed on curb ramps where they greatly increase to rolling resistance, and thus the energy required to ascend the ramp. This is particularly fatiguing to elderly persons.

Additionally, some wheelchair travelers have neurological and arthritic conditions that produce severe pain when jarred by the vibrations produced when rolling over such a bumpy surface.

About seven years ago, the State of California introduced the concept of requiring truncated domes on all but the steepest curb ramps. That has proven to be an approach which gives protection to blind travels while offering a reduced burden to wheelchair travelers.

At least two studies, and common sense, have demonstrated that domes placed in line with the path of travel statistically pose less of a burden to persons in wheelchairs, while having no adverse effect on delectability. Dr. Beezy Bentzen reported to members of the Committee that other studies indicated that domes placed on centers greater that the currently required 2.35 inches are actually more detectable. Simple observation illustrates that increasing the spacing of the domes creates greater level areas between and greater statistical chance for wheelchair wheels to avoid the bumpy domes. Studies done in Sacramento demonstrated that round domes, rather than truncated domes offered less rolling resistance, and less bumpiness to wheelchair users while not degrading their delectability. This is consistent with a report by Dr. Bentzen that the more "pointy" the domes, the more detectable they are. Much of this knowledge has been gained in the last ten years since the current ADAAG specification was established. It would seem negligent and blindly one-minded to not apply this knowledge at this timely juncture of requiring detectable warnings on curb ramps.


TOPIC D: Scoping for accessible phones.
RECOMMENDATION: Require all new telephones installed later than four years after the effective date of these regulations to accommodate both short and tall people, by providing dual keypads such that, when mounted, one will be below 48 inches and one will be above 60 inches, OR provide the keypad on the handset.

RATIONALE: There is no way to predict, at any given time, the stature of the next person needing the use of a public telephone. That person may be a person in a wheelchair, a person of short stature, a tall person with a bad back, or a person with very poor vision who has put their face right up to the keypad to discern the numbers. Every time a public telephone doesn't accommodate the needs of that particular individual, he or she has been the victim of discrimination. Clearly, the technology exists right now to implement either of the proposed solutions to this dilemma; it would merely take a relatively simple tooling change. It is, in fact, criminal that it has not been done before now. It is time to place a time limit on the continuance of such inexcusable discrimination.

APPENDIX K: Minority Report Regarding Surface Gaps at Rail Crossings
Submitted by the American Public Transportation Association

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) was pleased to participate in the development of the accessibility guidelines for public rights-of-way published by the Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee (PROWAAC); however, our commuter rail members have specific concerns that prompt us to file this minority report on one aspect of the guidelines. APTA represents major commuter railroads that both construct and operate over pedestrian crossings.

While PROWAAC made several changes in response to our comments in its published report, APTA remains specifically concerned about proposed guidelines for pedestrian crossings across railroad trackage addressed under X02.1.6.3.

First, we want to reiterate that both commuter rail cars and freight rail cars need the 3-inch maximum gap. Anything less for commuter rail cars would result in serious safety issues, as it would for freight rail cars.

Second, APTA supports PROWAAC's recommendation of phasing in a prohibition on gaps four years after the revisions to the accessibility guidelines are adopted so long as a feasible solution is adopted and approved by the US Department of Transportation within that time frame.

APTA's concern is shared by all the nation's railroads. Indeed, APTA has been asked by the Association of American Railroads (AAR), a nonprofit trade association representing major freight railroads, to let you know that AAR strongly endorses APTA's position in this regard.