Transcript 2008 McClelland - AASHTO - Subcommittee on Design

ADA Compliance in Maryland
AASHTO Subcommittee on Design
July 2008
By: Kirk McClelland, P.E.
Maryland SHA
2002 – 1st Guidelines published
2004 – ADA Steering Committee
2005 - Policy creation,
Updated Guidelines issued
Awareness training &
dedicated funding established
2006 – Statewide Inventory,
Public outreach meetings begin
2007 – Private development
compliance,
Public outreach &
Technical training
ADA Compliance at SHA
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.
SHA’s 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 SHA’s 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.
ADA Compliance at SHA
ADA Compliance at SHA
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 noncompliant
Questions?
Thank you
Contact: [email protected]