Detectable Warning Pads: Wheelchair vs Vision Impaired

[Papio Bldg Dept]

The access board offered a webinar yesterday on PROWAG standards and I was hoping to hear more on detectable warning pads, and there was any research on an alternative design for the truncated domes. Maintenance and usability is a major concern within our jurisdiction, especially for manual wheelchair users. This as big of an issue in PROW cases, as it is in cases covered by ANSI standards. Either way, we have found, through complaints, and in some cases personal experience, that curb ramp slopes greater than 5% are difficult to use, even when assisted, as the front wheels are often re-directed by the domes, resulting in either a change of direction, or loss of momentum. This is particularly the case in diagonal, perpendicular and parallel curb ramps. Is there any further information/research on this topic? Has anyone else had similar experiences with DWP being good for the visual impaired but creating difficulties for manual wheel chair users? Motorized wheel chairs have little difficulty and are only slightly jostled by the domes.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Big Mac]

I am going to have to show my ignorance here. I don't know what PROWAG is. However, I will proceed with one assessment of the provisions from the ICC A117.1, Section 705. First the statement made is that Detectable warning surfaces shall comply with 705. The only type of detectable warnikng detail there is for truncated domes shown in Figure 705.5.

However, if we back track just a bit to the exception in 705.2 it states "In facilities that have both interior and exterior locations, detectable warnings in exterior locations shall not be required to comply with Section 705.4."

Section 705.4 is the section that requires surfaces to differ from adjoining walking surfaces in "resiliency" and/or "sound on cane contact". Now if true that the detectable warning surfaces do not need to meet that standard, then what standard shall apply? It sems to be saying that some type of surface other than truncated domes is permissible.

In Washington State under the UBC, we would usually accept a stamped concrete grid pattern in lieu of truncated domes. From the language in this section, it appears that this appraoch might still be acceptable. What say all of you?

I would be interested in the stanc that other contributors may have on this issue.

 

[mark handler]

I am going to have to show my ignorance here. I don't know what PROWAG is. .

Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)

 

[mtlogcabin]

Trunciated domes are a pain in the :butt in winter climates. You can't shovel them, they ice up easier. They should have warning signs for the non-visually impaired "Slippery When Wet"

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Section 705.4 is the section that requires surfaces to differ from adjoining walking surfaces in "resiliency" and/or "sound on cane contact". Now if true that the detectable warning surfaces do not need to meet that standard, then what standard shall apply? It sems to be saying that some type of surface other than truncated domes is permissible.In Washington State under the UBC, we would usually accept a stamped concrete grid pattern in lieu of truncated domes. From the language in this section, it appears that this appraoch might still be acceptable. What say all of you?

I would be interested in the stanc that other contributors may have on this issue.

That is an interesting position. I am at the point, I just need to block out a day to sit on hold and call the access board. Thanks.

 

[mark handler]

Th Is there any further information/research on this topic?

Detectable Warnings: Synthesis of U.S. and International Practice

http://www.access-board.gov/research/dwsynthesis/dw-synthesis.pdf

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Detectable Warnings: Synthesis of U.S. and International Practicehttp://www.access-board.gov/research/dwsynthesis/dw-synthesis.pdf

Great link Mark. Thanks. This section mostly answers my question, in that there wasn't really a thorough study of the issue for mobility impaired users, and it was simply noted that the issue cited in returned surveys, but never considered. Somthing to think about anyway.

Public reaction seems to have been most positive in locations where

the disability community was involved in the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan and making decisions regarding

the use of detectable warnings.

One question asked about specific instances where truncated domes

have been the cause of pedestrian complaints or problems. Five

locations answered that there was an instance of pedestrian complaint.

One was a mobility impaired individual using a cane, who found the

truncated domes more difficult to traverse. A city ADA coordinator

stated that pedestrians who are mobility impaired find the truncated

domes “just more difficult to manage”. Another stated that there were

complaints from women in high heels, but no injuries.

There were two instances in which legal action was reported in

association with a truncated dome detectable warning. The authors of

this report made extensive phone calls to attempt to document the

details, as noted below.