ADA Ramp Texture ... Painful.

[MikeHalloran]

See also thread163-39768

I guess it's all settled now, but I'd like to strangle the bureaucrat who sat at a desk and dreamed up the truncated dome 'detectable warning' for visually handicapped people.

My point is that the domes are easily detectable to anyone with a healing bone, by means of the jarring and resultant pain that accrues from traveling over the damn domes in a typical wheelchair.

As happened to me many times over the course of a month last year.

The dome dimensions and spacing seem optimized to make steering between the bumps impossible. Indeed, steering at all is impossible while also attempting to exert enough force to lever one's wheels over the damn multiple speed bumps.

I.e., the domes are optimally designed to completely stop passage of a self-propelled wheelchair, and to exert great pain on the occupant of a typical chair powered by other means.

To whom would I complain, and request that development efforts _and_ _testing_ be resumed?


Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[bridgebuster]

These annoying domes are everywhere it seems. Since it's ADA you would have to contact the US Department of Justice.

 

[Twinkie]

I don't think the truncated domes are required any more under recent ADA revisions.

 

[MikeHalloran]

Thanks.
According to the Guidance document for the 2010 standards,

{
Detectable Warnings. Detectable warnings
provide a distinctively textured surface of
truncated domes. The 1991 Standards at
sections 4.1.3(15), 4.7.7, 4.29.2, 4.29.5,
4.29.6, and 10.3.1(8) require detectable
warnings at curb ramps, hazardous vehicular
areas, reflecting pools, and transit platform
edges. The 2010 Standards at sections
218, 810.5, 705.1, and 705.2 only require
detectable warnings at transit platform edges.
The technical specifications for the diameter
and spacing of the truncated domes have
also been changed. The 2010 Standards
also delete the requirement for the material
used to contrast in resiliency or sound-on-
cane contact from adjoining walking surfaces
at interior locations.
The 2010 Standards apply to detectable
warnings on developed sites. They do not
apply to the public right-of-way. Scoping
for detectable warnings at all locations
other than transit platform edges has
been eliminated from the 2010 Standards.
However, because detectable warnings
have been shown to significantly benefit
individuals with disabilities at transit platform
edges, the 2010 Standards provide scoping
and technical requirements for detectable
warnings at transit platform edges.
}

The accursed bumps are now only required on the edges of transit platforms, as the document claims a significant benefit there. I do not understand the benefit myself, as the damn bumps constitute a tripping hazard, and the last place I'd want a tripping hazard is on the edge of a train/subway/bus/transit platform.

Now we need to find the accursed bureaucrats who were responsible for the original requirement and put them to work removing all the extant bumps that are no longer required. Manually. At their own expense.

Thanks again for the help.




Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[IRstuff]

The truncated domes are not required for curb ramps, though. Section 406 makes no mention of 705.1. The truncated domes are only 0.2 inches tall, and the maximum depth is supposed to be only 24 inches, so that should be no different than many existing floor textures, like the diamond pattern edgings on many existing step edges.

The landings on existing curb ramps are not truncated domes; they're pretty much full domes, so maybe you're referring to those?

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[MikeHalloran]

Indeed, nearly full depth half-domes are pretty much the norm everywhere, and some curb ramps near my house have them newly installed, so I'm guessing a lot of municipalities didn't get the word about the 2010 ADA revisions, or expect them to be reversed.

The red bricks with truncated half-domes are nearly as bad as the near-full domes, from the perspective of a wheelchair.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[IRstuff]

Yeah, I don't get it, since the height of the ADA-specified truncated domes should be just barely perceptible??

The truncated dome specification is unchanged from the 1991 ADA Design Guidelines:

http://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html#Anchor-Appendix-52467[/URL]]4.29.2* Detectable Warnings on Walking Surfaces. Detectable warnings shall consist of raised truncated domes with a diameter of nominal 0.9 in (23 mm), a height of nominal 0.2 in (5 mm) and a center-to-center spacing of nominal 2.35 in (60 mm) and shall contrast visually with adjoining surfaces, either light-on-dark, or dark-on-light.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[Debaser]

The problem is the competeing/conflicting requirements of the various user groups. To be useful for the visually impaired (eg to be detected using a roller cane) they have to have a certain height. However, this can cause problems for people with certain conditions which cause greater sensitivity in their feet. It's a case of you can't do right for doing wrong, but that shouldn't necessarily stop us trying to be more inclusive in our designs.

 

[Twinkie]

Mike, can you post a link for that "article" you pasted?

 

[Twinkie]

Nevermind, didn't realize you had cited it.

 

[TerryScan]

While the 2010 ADA does not call for detectable warnings at curb ramps, the Federal Highway Administration DOES require them in the public right-of-way (notice the exception for public right-of-way in guidance cited above):

http://tinyurl.com/kpvqhcy

 

[MikeHalloran]

Well, crap.
The chance of getting any Federal agency to _stop_ demanding something is approximately zilch.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA