ADA

[Road Guy]

we should move this to the Civil Forum, but the thing about ADA is that there really isn't one "Police Force" like there is for Erosion Control or OSHA, etc. So most jurisdictions have to lean towards the cautious side and over design things.

I do think if you build a project with shoulder work that all the rework should rebuild existing deficient sidewalks/ramps/etc to current standards..

Our planning group tried to tell me I had to upgrade everything within the ROW to current ADA for a locally funded resurfacing project. I asked them to show me that in the law and I would comply, Like most planners they just walked out of the rooms with their heads down.. So we never did that.

2 years ago we had to write a "plan" for how we would get existing non compliant ADA facilities up to spec. I don't recall if some other agency made us do this or if we just did it on our own(doubtful) But I believe some law was passed in Congress that said by a certain date everyone had to have a "plan in place"

so we wrote a plan and created an inventory of known deficient ramps and sidewalks and went to the board and asked for $1 M a year to fix. They gave us $100K a year to fix and bitched about that.. but we had a plan and were "legal"

 

[JMT]

Ptatohed, does your city have someone on staff who is a Certified Access Specialist (CASp)? I haven't ran into a RCE with it yet, so far all of the ones I have met have been Architects.

 

[ptatohed]

As it was explained to me by the county attorney a few years ago, not complying with the Americans with disabilities act is the same thing in federal law as not complying with the civil rights act.

You can get seriously crossways in court for any new construction that doesn't follow it.

I work for a civil consulting company and we do a lot of work for the California State Universities. Over the past ten years some of these campuses have gotten hit with huge lawsuits and they have thrown TONS of money into removing and replacing their paths of travel. On one campus we have redesigned about 80% of the campus POTs and 6 of their 8 parking lots. Millions of dollars in construction because of a few percentages in slope.

The only issue I had was when the California Building Code decided to change their ADA regulations to follow the Federal ADA in the 2013 CBC. That transition made it hard as **** to find where all of the new requirements were placed; and we have found quite a few errors in the text and figures.

J, does this help?

http://www.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/Programs/progAccess/accessmanual.aspx

Also: http://www.laccd.edu/ADA/ADA%20Related%20Documentation/access_manual_rev_11-18-11.pdf

some Federal agency folks wanted to require bringing all ADA ramps up to current standards even on only resurfacing projects. I think that idea died...

We observe this requirement. As far as I know, resurfacing is more than "maintenance" and should constitute R&R of the adjacent non-compliant ramps.

http://www.ada.gov/doj-fhwa-ta.htm

we should move this to the Civil Forum, but the thing about ADA is that there really isn't one "Police Force" like there is for Erosion Control or OSHA, etc. So most jurisdictions have to lean towards the cautious side and over design things.

I do think if you build a project with shoulder work that all the rework should rebuild existing deficient sidewalks/ramps/etc to current standards..

Our planning group tried to tell me I had to upgrade everything within the ROW to current ADA for a locally funded resurfacing project. I asked them to show me that in the law and I would comply, Like most planners they just walked out of the rooms with their heads down.. So we never did that.

2 years ago we had to write a "plan" for how we would get existing non compliant ADA facilities up to spec. I don't recall if some other agency made us do this or if we just did it on our own(doubtful) But I believe some law was passed in Congress that said by a certain date everyone had to have a "plan in place"

so we wrote a plan and created an inventory of known deficient ramps and sidewalks and went to the board and asked for $1 M a year to fix. They gave us $100K a year to fix and bitched about that.. but we had a plan and were "legal"

The reason I placed the thread here is so that we can network ADA requirements with each other. It kind of turned into a gripe-fest as opposed to a true network thread though - lol

Yes, every City/County is required by Federal law to put together what is called an ADA Transition Plan to self inventory their current ramps/sidewalk and to include a schedule to gradually R&R deficient ramps/sidewalks. I don't think there is a drop dead date to upgrade everything in a city yet but continuous progress must be shown.

 

[ptatohed]

Ptatohed, does your city have someone on staff who is a Certified Access Specialist (CASp)? I haven't ran into a RCE with it yet, so far all of the ones I have met have been Architects.

hmmm... Not that I know of. I know for sure no engineers from Land Dev, Cap Proj, or Transpo..... but it's possible someone from the Building Department might. I don't know a lot about it, what is CASp certification used for?

 

[Road Guy]

Resurfacing is a maintenance activity though..many lawyer hours have been paid to prove that point over the years (I just went through one recently)

 

[JMT]

As it was explained to me by the county attorney a few years ago, not complying with the Americans with disabilities act is the same thing in federal law as not complying with the civil rights act.

You can get seriously crossways in court for any new construction that doesn't follow it.

I work for a civil consulting company and we do a lot of work for the California State Universities. Over the past ten years some of these campuses have gotten hit with huge lawsuits and they have thrown TONS of money into removing and replacing their paths of travel. On one campus we have redesigned about 80% of the campus POTs and 6 of their 8 parking lots. Millions of dollars in construction because of a few percentages in slope.

The only issue I had was when the California Building Code decided to change their ADA regulations to follow the Federal ADA in the 2013 CBC. That transition made it hard as **** to find where all of the new requirements were placed; and we have found quite a few errors in the text and figures.

J, does this help?

http://www.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/Programs/progAccess/accessmanual.aspx

Also: http://www.laccd.edu/ADA/ADA%20Related%20Documentation/access_manual_rev_11-18-11.pdf

I do have those, and did prior to 1/1/13, but those were only semi helpful. A CaldDAG would have been more; helpful except that took over a year to produce after the 2013 CBC became law.

 

[JMT]

some Federal agency folks wanted to require bringing all ADA ramps up to current standards even on only resurfacing projects. I think that idea died...

We observe this requirement. As far as I know, resurfacing is more than "maintenance" and should constitute R&R of the adjacent non-compliant ramps.

http://www.ada.gov/doj-fhwa-ta.htm

I apologize for my ignorance of municipal rules/laws/finances/everything but why does your City 'observe that requirement'? Where does it say you need to R&R adjacent non-compliant anything? Did anyone in the city read the case and the DOT/DOJ 'memo' or did I read them both wrong? My understanding is that there were no curb cuts present (but there were sidewalks) and they resurfaced the road, the courts then mandated them to create curb cuts so the pedestrians could cross the newly resurfaced road. This court case in no way mandated them to upgrade the existing sidewalks, curb cuts and/or driveways (which may or may not have been built to code at the time) to the current code because they resurfaced the road. The DOT/DOJ 'memo' says that you need to provide curb ramps where street level cross walks occur, that's it.

IMHO if your city is observing this 'memo' as a requirement to R&R adjacent non-compliant curb cuts then this is a stretch; why stop at the curb cuts? What about the sidewalks in the PROW from that curb cut to the curb cut 8 miles away that you R&R'd earlier in the year? I am not trying to be argumentative, I really don't understand the logic

 

[JMT]

we should move this to the Civil Forum, but the thing about ADA is that there really isn't one "Police Force" like there is for Erosion Control or OSHA, etc. So most jurisdictions have to lean towards the cautious side and over design things.

I do think if you build a project with shoulder work that all the rework should rebuild existing deficient sidewalks/ramps/etc to current standards..

Our planning group tried to tell me I had to upgrade everything within the ROW to current ADA for a locally funded resurfacing project. I asked them to show me that in the law and I would comply, Like most planners they just walked out of the rooms with their heads down.. So we never did that.

2 years ago we had to write a "plan" for how we would get existing non compliant ADA facilities up to spec. I don't recall if some other agency made us do this or if we just did it on our own(doubtful) But I believe some law was passed in Congress that said by a certain date everyone had to have a "plan in place"

so we wrote a plan and created an inventory of known deficient ramps and sidewalks and went to the board and asked for $1 M a year to fix. They gave us $100K a year to fix and bitched about that.. but we had a plan and were "legal"

The reason I placed the thread here is so that we can network ADA requirements with each other. It kind of turned into a gripe-fest as opposed to a true network thread though - lol

Yes, every City/County is required by Federal law to put together what is called an ADA Transition Plan to self inventory their current ramps/sidewalk and to include a schedule to gradually R&R deficient ramps/sidewalks. I don't think there is a drop dead date to upgrade everything in a city yet but continuous progress must be shown.

Again IMHO, and this isn't my specialty, so please correct me if I am wrong; Every city/county is required to do this if they WANT to be eligible for transportation funding. There is no Federal law mandating this; the federal government can not tell a city or county to upgrade their sidewalks 'or else'. The "FHWA does not have ADA oversight responsibilities for projects outside of the public right-of-way that do not use Federal surface transportation program funds" (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/ada_sect504qa.cfm#q10). I know very little about the ADA Transition Plan but I believe the best example is the national maximum speed law of the mid 70s and federal funding.

 

[Road Guy]

Well that's how they get you, since everyone who pays gas taxes doesn't only drive on state roads , the way they "give" money back to the locals is through these traps where they require many conditions Just to give you back tax money that is yours anyway..similar to ADA, they "federalize" local taxes and require lots of other expensive and unesseray things like, NEPA, uniform act, etc...

Every jurisdiction will be different and depending on how many lawsuits they have been through usually dictates how conservative they are with some of these loosely defined regulations.

 

[JMT]

Not cool, glad I am not in the business of procuring those funds.

 

[ptatohed]

Resurfacing is a maintenance activity though..many lawyer hours have been paid to prove that point over the years (I just went through one recently)

Well, the DOJ and FHWA disagrees with this. We redo any substandard ramps when we resurface ("alter") the street crossing between ramps.

some Federal agency folks wanted to require bringing all ADA ramps up to current standards even on only resurfacing projects. I think that idea died...

We observe this requirement. As far as I know, resurfacing is more than "maintenance" and should constitute R&R of the adjacent non-compliant ramps.

http://www.ada.gov/doj-fhwa-ta.htm

I apologize for my ignorance of municipal rules/laws/finances/everything but why does your City 'observe that requirement'? Where does it say you need to R&R adjacent non-compliant anything? Did anyone in the city read the case and the DOT/DOJ 'memo' or did I read them both wrong? My understanding is that there were no curb cuts present (but there were sidewalks) and they resurfaced the road, the courts then mandated them to create curb cuts so the pedestrians could cross the newly resurfaced road. This court case in no way mandated them to upgrade the existing sidewalks, curb cuts and/or driveways (which may or may not have been built to code at the time) to the current code because they resurfaced the road. The DOT/DOJ 'memo' says that you need to provide curb ramps where street level cross walks occur, that's it.

IMHO if your city is observing this 'memo' as a requirement to R&R adjacent non-compliant curb cuts then this is a stretch; why stop at the curb cuts? What about the sidewalks in the PROW from that curb cut to the curb cut 8 miles away that you R&R'd earlier in the year? I am not trying to be argumentative, I really don't understand the logic

Well, you saw the very first sentence of the memo, right? "Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that state and local governments ensure that persons with disabilities have access to the pedestrian routes in the public right of way." Thus, as part of our commitment to adhering to Title II, we made a promise in our transition plan to (eventually) bring all substandard ramps up to current standards. We're not trying to avoid putting in replacement ramps. If we were, then maybe by reading this memo to the letter, we could "get out of it". But, just because a ramp exists, and maybe, per this memo's exact wording, we could leave the ramp, what if the ramp is dilapidated? Why leave a barrier? We replace it.

we should move this to the Civil Forum, but the thing about ADA is that there really isn't one "Police Force" like there is for Erosion Control or OSHA, etc. So most jurisdictions have to lean towards the cautious side and over design things.

I do think if you build a project with shoulder work that all the rework should rebuild existing deficient sidewalks/ramps/etc to current standards..

Our planning group tried to tell me I had to upgrade everything within the ROW to current ADA for a locally funded resurfacing project. I asked them to show me that in the law and I would comply, Like most planners they just walked out of the rooms with their heads down.. So we never did that.

2 years ago we had to write a "plan" for how we would get existing non compliant ADA facilities up to spec. I don't recall if some other agency made us do this or if we just did it on our own(doubtful) But I believe some law was passed in Congress that said by a certain date everyone had to have a "plan in place"

so we wrote a plan and created an inventory of known deficient ramps and sidewalks and went to the board and asked for $1 M a year to fix. They gave us $100K a year to fix and bitched about that.. but we had a plan and were "legal"

The reason I placed the thread here is so that we can network ADA requirements with each other. It kind of turned into a gripe-fest as opposed to a true network thread though - lol

Yes, every City/County is required by Federal law to put together what is called an ADA Transition Plan to self inventory their current ramps/sidewalk and to include a schedule to gradually R&R deficient ramps/sidewalks. I don't think there is a drop dead date to upgrade everything in a city yet but continuous progress must be shown.

Again IMHO, and this isn't my specialty, so please correct me if I am wrong; Every city/county is required to do this if they WANT to be eligible for transportation funding. There is no Federal law mandating this; the federal government can not tell a city or county to upgrade their sidewalks 'or else'. The "FHWA does not have ADA oversight responsibilities for projects outside of the public right-of-way that do not use Federal surface transportation program funds" (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/ada_sect504qa.cfm#q10). I know very little about the ADA Transition Plan but I believe the best example is the national maximum speed law of the mid 70s and federal funding.

Again, I'll copy and paste the first sentence again. "Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that state and local governments ensure that persons with disabilities have access to the pedestrian routes in the public right of way."

Just a small copy and paste from our ADA Trans Plan's intro:

Title II: State and Local Government (Public Services) - Title II covers all activities of State and local governments regardless of the government entity's size or receipt of Federal funding. Title II requires that State and local governments give people with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from all of their programs, services, and activities, such as public meetings, employment, recreation programs, aging, health and human services programs, libraries, museums, and special events. State and local governments are required to follow specific architectural standards in the new construction and alteration of their buildings and facilities. They also must relocate programs or otherwise provide access in inaccessible older buildings, and communicate effectively with people who have hearing, vision, or speech disabilities. Public entities are not required to take actions that would result in undue financial and administrative burdens. They are required to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination, unless they can demonstrate that doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity being provided. A Transition Plan is intended to outline the methods by which physical or structural changes will be made to effect the non-discrimination policies described in Title II. It is under this title that this Public Right of Way Access ADA Transition Plan is prepared.

 

[Road Guy]

You know I think a lot of States get around it by using State Funds for Resurfacing now that I read the DOJ's memo (Which I utterly think is BS) Resurfacing is very expensive maintenance! I don't have anything against the ADA law, but I don't think that transportation funds, which are already too little as it is, need to be further watered down. I.E. gas tax money should go towards road and bridge construction & maintenance and not sidewalks, wheelchair ramps, bike paths, etc. Note that what I am saying is they (non road improvements like ADA ramps) should be funded out of other sources of money and not the federal / state gas tax simply because they are on the right of way. Maybe we need to increase the tax on sneakers, bikes, and wheelchairs!

Here is a recent court case where a State Judge told a County that Resurfacing was in fact maintenance (The County was trying to say that resurfacing was more than maintenance and was closer to construction) The County lost the case, maybe I need to send them the DOJ memo? http://www.bocofirm.org/uploads/3/3/3/3/3333754/2014-07-27_order_re__rule_106a4_complaint_authority_issue.pdf