ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan
-
Upload
city-of-college-station -
Category
Government & Nonprofit
-
view
1.053 -
download
1
Transcript of ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan
City of College Station
ADA Self-Evaluation andTransition Plan
City Council MeetingOctober 22, 2015
Presentation Outline
• ADA Title II Requirements• ADA Transition Plan Requirements• Project Scope• Self-Evaluation Overview• Facility Improvements Cost Summary• Next Steps
ADA Title II Requirements
• Requires local governments to:– Develop a grievance procedure– Designate someone to oversee Title II compliance
(ADA Coordinator) and make person’s name and phone number available to public
– Perform and retain a self-evaluation for 3 years– Develop a Transition Plan if structural changes are
necessary for achieving program accessibility– Disseminate information to the public informing
them of rights and protections afforded by ADA
ADA Title II Requirements
• Must ensure that individuals with disabilities are not excluded from programs, services, and activities (including pedestrian facilities)
• New construction and altered facilities must be free of architectural and communication barriers
• Does not require that an entire facility be barrier free as long as access to individual programs, activities, and services is provided
Transition Plan Requirements
• Transition Plan must contain the following components:– Designate an ADA Coordinator – Develop / adopt Complaint / Grievance Process– Develop / adopt design standards– Provide notice to public about ADA requirements/
identify public involvement opportunities– Identify barriers to access
• Identify Plan (time and budget) to remove barriers• Monitor progress on implementation of Plan &
reevaluation of schedule
Project Scope
• Established internal ADA Liaison Committee• Held Orientation Meeting• Completed Self-Evaluation Process
– Reviewed programs, activities, services, and Boards & Commissions
– Reviewed design standards– Developed formal grievance policy and procedures– Assessed facilities and infrastructure
• 3 Buildings• 2 Parks• 20 Signalized Intersections• 3 miles of sidewalks corridors and associated curb ramps
Project Scope
• Developed Transition Plan– Conducted public meetings to solicit input from the disability
community – Documented public input– Developed prioritized plan for barrier removal– Established curb ramp schedule– Developed formal documentation
• Conducted Staff Training– Disability Awareness and ADA Overview – Orientation for ADA Liaison Team – Public Rights-of-Way joint training with City of Bryan staff
Self-Evaluation Overview
• Focus Group Meeting– Meeting help on 1/21/15– Attendees included representatives from local
disability organizations
• Public Meeting #1– Meeting held on 5/5/15
• Public Meeting #2– Meeting held on 9/28/15
Self-Evaluation Overview
• Public Input Process – Follow-up Items– Evaluating the need for more Accessible
Pedestrian Signals (APS), especially around Texas A&M University.
– Prioritizing the following locations for new sidewalks requested:
• Tarrow Street/ E. 29th Street• Gaps along Southwest Parkway near Wellborn Road• Gaps on Munson Avenue
Self-Evaluation Overview
• Public Input Process – Follow-up Items– Evaluating the following sidewalk locations
identified for ADA compliance in the next phase of the plan:
• Harvey Mitchell Parkway near Welsh Avenue• Anderson Street from George Bush Drive to Southwest
Parkway• Wellborn Road • Holik Street
Self-Evaluation Overview
• Public Input Process – Follow-up Items– Educating staff on interpretive services the City
should provide for programs and services offered such as Parks and Recreation programs and police and fire interactions in the field.
– Evaluating the use of video phones in public locations such as the library.
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
• Programs, Procedures, and Polices– Staff training needed– Make Staff aware of resources for auxiliary
aides and accommodations– Include updated ADA notice on meeting
agendas– Make available alternate formats of printed
information and inform Staff of how to get them– Include contact information for auxiliary aides
and accommodations for City programs
Self-Evaluation Overview
• Field Investigations
– Extensive photos of site investigations
– Detailed data collection forms
– Data management / GIS based system
Self-Evaluation Overview –Buildings (3)
Self-Evaluation Overview –Parks (2)
Self-Evaluation Overview – Signalized Intersections (20)
Self-Evaluation Overview –Sidewalks (3 miles)
Phase 1 Facility Improvements Approximate Cost Summary
Facility Type Estimated Cost of Improvements
Buildings $82,000
Parks $723,000
Signalized Intersections $1,437,000
Sidewalk Corridors $1,115,000
City Total $3,357,000
Next Steps
• City Council approval and adoption• Develop implementation schedule for
programs, policies, and infrastructure improvements
• Identify funding for implementation and evaluations
• Complete additional evaluation phases
Questions?
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
• Facility Compliance and Prioritization– None of the evaluated facilities were fully
compliant– Prioritization schedules developed for each
facility type– Prioritization will aid in developing the
implementation schedule of projects
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
• Building Compliance
Feature Parking Path of Travel
Building Entrance Restrooms Break
RoomDrinking
Fountains
Does Not Exist - - - - 1 0
Non-Compliant 2 4 0 14 1 0
Compliant 5 1 5 16 4 10
% Non-Compliant 28.6% 80.0% 0.0% 46.7% 20.0% 0.0%
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
• Building Priority
Buildings High Medium Low
Municipal Court 23 0 0
Northgate Garage 8 1 0
Utility Customer Service 13 0 1
Total 44 1 1
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
• Park ComplianceFeature Parking Path of
TravelAssembly
Seating Restrooms Picnic Areas Playgrounds
Non-Compliant 7 2 2 10 15 2
Compliant 0 0 0 0 3 1
% Non-Compliant 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 83.3% 66.7%
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
• Park Priority
Parks High Medium Low
Stephen C. Beachy Park 34 20 6
Brian Bachmann Park 21 7 3
Total 55 27 9
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
• Signalized Intersection Compliance– Most common curb ramp issues:
• No color contrast on ramps• Excessive flare cross slopes• Ponding in ramps, landings, or flares• Obstructions in ramps, landings, or flares
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
Curb Ramp Issue Number Evaluated
Number Non-Compliant
Percent Non-Compliant
No color contrast 77 53 68.8%Flare cross slope > 10% 46 29 63.0%Ponding in ramp, landing, or flares 77 45 58.4%Obstruction in ramp, landing, or flares 77 44 57.1%Ramp cross slope > 2% 77 33 42.9%No texture contrast 77 30 39.0%No flush transition to roadway 77 29 37.7%Ramp running slope > 8.3% 77 28 36.4%Landing running slope > 2% 54 19 35.2%Ramp counter slope > 5% 77 27 35.1%Landing cross slope > 2% 54 16 29.6%Ramp width < 48” 77 22 28.6%Curbed sides < 90◦ 31 8 25.8%No landing 77 19 24.7%No ramp where ramp is needed 98 17 17.3%Ramp does not land in crosswalk 77 7 9.1%No 48” crosswalk extension 61 5 8.2%Traversable sides 31 2 6.5%
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
• Signalized Intersection Compliance (cont.)– Most common pedestrian equipment issues:
• No clear floor spaces or no access to clear floor spaces
• Excessive clear floor running and cross slopes• Missing push buttons where push buttons are
needed
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
Push Button Issue Number Evaluated
Number Non-Compliant
Percent Non-Compliant
No clear floor space or no access 57 35 61.4%
Clear floor space running slope > 2% 22 13 59.1%
Clear floor space cross slope > 2% 22 12 54.5%Missing push button where push button is needed 138 53 38.4%
Push button offset from crosswalk > 5’ 57 17 29.8%Missing pedestrian head where pedestrian head is needed 138 28 20.3%
Push button orientation not parallel 57 10 17.5%
Push button height > 48” 57 8 14.0%
Push button offset from curb > 10’ 57 7 12.3%
Push button diameter not 2” 57 7 12.3%
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
• Signalized Intersections
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
Signalized Intersection Priority No. Signalized Intersections
1 (high) -
2 (high) 11
3 (high) -
4 (high) 1
5 (medium) 6
6 (medium) -
7 (medium) -
8 (medium) -
9 (low) -
10 (low) -
11 (low) 1
12 (low) -
13 (low) 1
Total 20
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
• Unsignalized Intersection Compliance– Most common curb ramp issues:
• Excessive landing cross slopes• Excessive ramp cross slopes• Non compliant curbed sides• No color contrast on ramps
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
Curb Ramp Issue Number Evaluated
Number Non-Compliant
Percent Non-Compliant
Landing cross slope > 2% 82 44 53.7%
Ramp cross slope > 2% 84 45 53.6%
Curbed sides < 90◦ 66 34 51.5%
No color contrast 84 38 45.2%
Ramp width < 48” 84 38 45.2%
Flare cross slope > 10% 18 8 44.4%
No flush transition to roadway 84 30 35.7%
Landing running slope > 2% 82 20 24.4%
No texture contrast 84 19 22.6%
Obstruction in ramp, landing, or flares 84 15 17.9%
Ponding in ramp, landing, or flares 84 15 17.9%
Ramp running slope > 8.3% 84 15 17.9%
Ramp counter slope > 5% 84 12 14.3%
No ramp where ramp is needed 115 5 4.3%
Ramp does not land in crosswalk 84 3 3.6%
No landing 84 2 2.4%
Traversable sides 66 1 1.5%
No 48” crosswalk extension 82 0 0.0%
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
• Unsignalized Intersection Priority
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
Unsignalized IntersectionPriority
No. Unsignalized Intersections
1 (high) -
2 (high) 18
3 (high) -
4 (high) -
5 (medium) 11
6 (medium) -
7 (medium) -
8 (medium) -
9 (low) 7
10 (low) -
11 (low) -
12 (low) -
13 (low) 1
Total 37
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
• Sidewalk Corridor Compliance– Most common sidewalk issues
• Excessive sidewalk cross slopes• Vertical discontinuities causing excessive level
changes• Excessive driveway and cross street cross slopes• Permanent and temporary obstructions
Self-Evaluation andSummary of Findings
Line TypeLength (miles) by Priority
1 (high) 2 (medium) 3 (low) Compliant Total
Sidewalk Line 0.56 0.78 0.09 0.75 2.18
Sidewalk Issues (including missing
sidewalk)0.26 0.04 - - 0.30
Driveways 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.22
Cross Streets - 0.02 0.09 0.21 0.31
Total 0.92 0.89 0.23 0.98 3.01
• Sidewalk Corridor Priority
Sample Issues –Buildings/Parking
• Ramps constructed with cross slope greater than 2%
• Vertical clearance reduced to less than 98” at van accessible parking spaces
• Sidewalks with running slopes greater than 5% and not constructed as ramps
Sample Issues – Parks
• Parking– Accessible parking spaces do not meet
minimum size standards– Excessive slopes at curb ramps serving
accessible parking spaces• Non compliant concession counters• No accessible restrooms at ball fields or
pool house
Sample Issues – Intersections
• Missing or non-compliant clear floor space for pedestrian pushbuttons
• Missing color truncated domes on ramps• Excessive flare cross slope• Ponding in ramp, landing, or flares
Sample Pushbutton IssuesNon-compliant Pushbutton Clear Floor Space
Location: Northwest corner of Southwest Pkwy and Glade St
Location: Northeast corner of Holleman Drand Dartmouth St
Sample Ramp IssuesMissing Color Truncated Domes
Location: Southeast corner of Holleman Dr and Anderson St
Sample Ramp IssuesExcessive Flare Cross Slope
Location: Southeast corner of Southwest Pkwy and Welsh Ave
Sample Ramp IssuesPonding in Ramp, Landing, or Flares
Location: Southwest corner of Rock Prairie Rd and Welsh Ave
Sample Issues – Sidewalks
• Excessive cross slopes• Vertical discontinuities that caused
excessive level changes– Includes cracking, sinking, and heaving
• Excessive driveway and cross street cross slopes
• Permanent and temporary obstructions
Sample Sidewalk IssuesSinking and Excessive Cross Slope
Sample Sidewalk IssuesHeaving and Cracking
Sample Sidewalk IssuesPermanent Obstructions
Sample Sidewalk IssuesTemporary Obstruction