1 / 8

ADA Compliance in Maryland

aspen
Télécharger la présentation

ADA Compliance in Maryland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. ADA Compliance in Maryland AASHTO Subcommittee on Design July 2008 ADA compliance in Maryland is comprised of several separate, but coordinated initiatives; Public Outreach, System Inventory, Training, Design compliance, and Construction compliance. I will very briefly review these with you today.ADA compliance in Maryland is comprised of several separate, but coordinated initiatives; Public Outreach, System Inventory, Training, Design compliance, and Construction compliance. I will very briefly review these with you today.

    2. Timeline: In 2002 SHA adopted our first ADA Guidelines, fashioned after the Draft Public Rights-of-Way document published that year and what SHA expected to be formally adopted. This was initiated in response to a number of complaints and a lawsuit that had been filed in Maryland, as well as observations of similar cases across the nation. An ADA Steering was assembled in 2004 with assistance from external stakeholders. An update in late 2005 primarily consisted of a Policy document to apply to capital improvement projects. A dedicated capital fund was created in 2005 to address deficiencies on a statewide basis. Awareness Training sessions were introduced for employees. A Statewide inventory was completed in 2006. All capital projects were required to meet SHA Guidelines prior to advertisement and upon construction completion. Public Outreach begins - meetings are held county by county throughout the state. Developer projects were brought into the compliance process. A field guide for inspection staff was published in 2007. Consultants, contractors and inspectors were provided Technical training throughout 2007. Timeline: In 2002 SHA adopted our first ADA Guidelines, fashioned after the Draft Public Rights-of-Way document published that year and what SHA expected to be formally adopted. This was initiated in response to a number of complaints and a lawsuit that had been filed in Maryland, as well as observations of similar cases across the nation. An ADA Steering was assembled in 2004 with assistance from external stakeholders. An update in late 2005 primarily consisted of a Policy document to apply to capital improvement projects. A dedicated capital fund was created in 2005 to address deficiencies on a statewide basis. Awareness Training sessions were introduced for employees. A Statewide inventory was completed in 2006. All capital projects were required to meet SHA Guidelines prior to advertisement and upon construction completion. Public Outreach begins - meetings are held county by county throughout the state. Developer projects were brought into the compliance process. A field guide for inspection staff was published in 2007. Consultants, contractors and inspectors were provided Technical training throughout 2007.

    3. Sidewalk Requirements Minimum width is 60 Minimum width at pinch points is 36. A design waiver is needed for anything less then 60. Maximum cross-slope 48:1 (2%) Detectable Warnings at all street crossings and signalized entrances If requirements are not met then an approved design waiver must be obtained prior to construction. Highlights of the guidelines. The Guidelines were based in large measure on what we expected the Access Board and Department of Justice to ultimately adopt in the Public Rights-of-Way document.Highlights of the guidelines. The Guidelines were based in large measure on what we expected the Access Board and Department of Justice to ultimately adopt in the Public Rights-of-Way document.

    4. SHAs ADA Classification System Level 1: localized repair in-kind efforts involving no impact to pedestrian functionality. Crack sealing, spot patching, pipe repair, utility repairs qualify as Level 1 activities. No additional ADA work required. Level 2: involves alterations that affect pedestrian usability. Replacement of an existing element requires that new construction guidelines for full ADA compliance be met or a design waiver approved. Resurfacing is considered a Level 2 activity. Construct new ramps where appropriate, reconstruct existing ramps, add DWS. Level 3: New construction or reconstruction projects. Require adherence to the highest standards for pedestrian usability and ADA compliance. A design waiver will be required for any element that does not meet SHAs standards for ADA compliance. These projects would be expected to provide a completely compliant pedestrian route between logical termini, requiring inclusion of some combination of new and reconstructed facilities. 3 project classification Levels are used to determine how extensive the ADA rehabilitation effort on any given project must be. Any roadway improvement project that exceeds repair work must reconstruct certain non-compliant features and ensure that all new facilities are consistent with our standards.3 project classification Levels are used to determine how extensive the ADA rehabilitation effort on any given project must be. Any roadway improvement project that exceeds repair work must reconstruct certain non-compliant features and ensure that all new facilities are consistent with our standards.

    5. Our statewide inventory effort was accomplished over the course of a year. Using GPS technology we were able to log all of our sidewalk mileage and annotate a GIS database with feature locations and deficiencies based upon our Guidelines requirements. This has also been overlaid with pedestrian accident information. Once constructed the GIS database is kept current with design waiver approvals and post- construction compliance inspections for all SHA and developer projects. Initially we found a high rate of faulty construction which necessitated rework and extensive contractor/ inspector training efforts, but this is beginning to smooth out.Our statewide inventory effort was accomplished over the course of a year. Using GPS technology we were able to log all of our sidewalk mileage and annotate a GIS database with feature locations and deficiencies based upon our Guidelines requirements. This has also been overlaid with pedestrian accident information. Once constructed the GIS database is kept current with design waiver approvals and post- construction compliance inspections for all SHA and developer projects. Initially we found a high rate of faulty construction which necessitated rework and extensive contractor/ inspector training efforts, but this is beginning to smooth out.

    6. ADA Compliance at SHA Some examples of what we found cross walks with no opposing ramp and ramps to no-where. To address these types of issues on a prioritized basis, we have a dedicated ADA retrofit fund (approx. $4M annually) which uses area-wide construction contracts to bring segments into compliance. Some examples of what we found cross walks with no opposing ramp and ramps to no-where. To address these types of issues on a prioritized basis, we have a dedicated ADA retrofit fund (approx. $4M annually) which uses area-wide construction contracts to bring segments into compliance.

    7. Summary of Findings 49% of sidewalks are non-compliant <1% of curb ramps are compliant approximately 25% of driveway crossings are compliant 51% of bus stops were non-compliant from an access standpoint 31% of median treatments are non-compliant More than 1,000 miles of sidewalk have been evaluated and mapped statewide. Most common deficiencies included inadequate width, excessive cross- slope, excessive ramp slope, no detectable warnings (DWS) and discontinuity of route. This is a baseline from 2006; we now have an accurate picture of the scope of our challenge. Maintaining and using this data we are able to make informed programming decisions based on measurable improvements. To date, 2 years since these statistics were assembled, we have reached a 54% compliance on sidewalks, about a 10% improvement. More than 1,000 miles of sidewalk have been evaluated and mapped statewide. Most common deficiencies included inadequate width, excessive cross- slope, excessive ramp slope, no detectable warnings (DWS) and discontinuity of route. This is a baseline from 2006; we now have an accurate picture of the scope of our challenge. Maintaining and using this data we are able to make informed programming decisions based on measurable improvements. To date, 2 years since these statistics were assembled, we have reached a 54% compliance on sidewalks, about a 10% improvement.

    8. Questions? Thank you Contact: kmcclelland@sha.state.md.us Questions?Questions?

More Related