#NewtownPA's Problematic ADA Diagonal Curb Ramps

 

Prior to approving the traffic signal permit at N. Sycamore St. & Silo Drive, The township was notified in August, 2024, that PennDOT is seeking additional information regarding the ADA compliant curb ramps (see below). Note that the current ADA ramps at this intersection are “diagonal ramps,” which allow access to 2 crosswalks. Although diagonal ramps eliminate the need for two separate ramps, this design actually requires two actions for the user: (1) step out onto the street at a forward diagonal angle, and then (2) change directions to actually cross in the direction they need to go. For wheelchair users and someone pushing a baby stroller, increased danger exists since they must extend into moving traffic much farther than a standing person (source: “Diagonal Curb Ramps Are Not the Best Solution”).

A month later (September 2024), supervisors were told that PennDOT is requiring RVE – the township engineering company – to submit additional supplemental information that, according to the Township Manager, is “above & beyond the requirements for a Signal Permit.”

This was not anticipated considering these are not State Routes that require Highway Occupancy Permits and they typically don’t comment on the ramp design for local roads. However, considering the history at this intersection (see "North Sycamore Street Pedestrian Safety Timeline"), it seems like they don’t want to approve the traffic signal permit without this information. 

RVE is concerned that this will open us up to more comments from PennDOT on the design of the ramps. The issue is that the existing diagonal ramp is not the preferred design (see above), but RVE has made it clear to PennDOT that relocating ramps and crosswalks would increase the cost dramatically and would not fit within the ARLE (Automated Red Light Enforcement) grant funding (read "#NewtownPA Township To Get More Than $300,000 For Pedestrian Safety"). [See more about ARLE funding below.] Consequently, we are unsure at this time how much longer it will take to obtain the traffic signal permit at this intersection.

Clear Space

I did some research to learn more about ADA Ramp requirements and found the following at the Kentucky Transportation Center Website.

The main issue is “Clear Space,” which is defined by KTC: At the bottom of perpendicular curb ramps, provide a minimum clear space of 4-feet by 4-feet within the width of the pedestrian street crossing, but entirely outside of the parallel vehicle travel lanes. (R304.5.5) “A” in image below is current situation at Silo Drive.

Minimums

According to the U.S. Access Board, “If curb ramps are placed diagonally at an intersection, it is important that clear space 48″ long minimum is available at the bottom that is outside active vehicle traffic lanes and is located within marked crossings, where provided. A segment of curb at least 24″ long beyond flares must be provided on both sides of curb ramps with side flares within marked crossings. This curb segment provides an orienting cue at crossings for people with vision impairments.” 

Current Conditions at Silo Dr

Meanwhile, here’s what’s at Silo Drive – clearly not enough clear space:

Apparently, the current ramps are not compliant with ADA guidelines and it appears that the RVE plan does not correct this and to do so would increase the cost dramatically according to the engineers.

NOTE: Perpendicular curb ramps are preferred over diagonal curb ramps. Unless the radius is large enough, it can be difficult to locate the clear space at the bottom of diagonal curb ramps that is outside active traffic lanes. The orientation also can mislead people with vision impairments who use curb slopes as a cue to crossings.

ARLE Funding Issue

Whether diagonal or perpendicular, the cost of correcting this is an issue. The funding for this project AND the Tara Blvd mid-block crosswalk upgrade project comes primarily from a $326,931 ARLE (Automated Red Light Enforcement) grant (read more about that here).

Even without this fix, the township has received construction bids that are significantly higher that the grant amount. However, the ARLE grant contract may allow for additional funds. I draw your attention to paragraphs 10(g): “Excess Costs” and 10(h): “Additional Extra Work.”

Let’s just focus on reimbursement, which is mentioned in para 10(h): “PennDOT will not reimburse the Sponsor for additional of extra work done or materials if not specifically provided for in the approved plans and specifications, unless PennDOT has issued prior written approval of the additional or extra work or materials.” (My emphasis)

This seems to say to me that we can do the ADA ramps according to PennDOT’s instructions and get REIMBURSEMENT FROM PENNDOT for the additional expense AS LONG AS PENNDOT ISSUES PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL.

That was the point I was trying to make at the September 25, 2024 BOS meeting:

Given that we can get reimbursed from PennDOT for the ADA ramps upgrade, why wouldn’t we do it? I for one would like Newtown Township to lead the way in ensuring it’s crosswalks are compliant with the latest ADA specifications.

Posted on 28 Sep 2024, 10:09 - Category: Public Safety