Shared Use Path Accessibility Guidelines, 17064-17070 [2011-7156]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
17064
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
as alerts, airspeed, attitude, altitude and
direction, approach guidance,
windshear guidance, TCAS resolution
advisories, or unusual-attitude recovery
cues.
e. The SVS image and the HUD
symbols, which are spatially referenced
to the pitch scale, outside view, and
image, must be scaled and aligned (i.e.,
conformal) to the external scene. In
addition, the SVS image and the HUD
symbols—when considered singly or in
combination—must not be misleading,
cause pilot confusion, or increase
workload. Airplane attitudes or crosswind conditions may cause certain
symbols (e.g., the zero-pitch line or
flight-path vector) to reach field-of-view
limits, such that they cannot be
positioned conformally with the image
and external scene. In such cases, these
symbols may be displayed but with an
altered appearance that makes the pilot
aware that they are no longer displayed
conformally (for example, ‘‘ghosting’’).
The combined use of symbology and
runway image may not be used for path
monitoring when path symbology is no
longer conformal.
f. A HUD system used to display SVS
images must, if previously certified,
continue to meet all of the requirements
of the original approval.
3. The safety and performance of the
pilot tasks associated with the use of the
pilot-compartment view must not be
degraded by the display of the SVS
image. These tasks include the
following:
a. Detection, accurate identification
and maneuvering, as necessary, to avoid
traffic, terrain, obstacles, and other
flight hazards.
b. Accurate identification and
utilization of visual references required
for every task relevant to the phase of
flight.
4. Appropriate limitations must be
stated in the Operating Limitations
section of the Airplane Flight Manual to
prohibit the use of the SVS for functions
that have not been found to be
acceptable.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March
18, 2011.
K.C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–7147 Filed 3–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
ARCHITECTURAL AND
TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS
COMPLIANCE BOARD
36 CFR Chapter XI
[Docket No. 2011–02]
RIN 3014–AA41
Shared Use Path Accessibility
Guidelines
Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (Access Board) is issuing this
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) to develop
accessibility guidelines for shared use
paths. Shared use paths are designed for
both transportation and recreation
purposes and are used by pedestrians,
bicyclists, skaters, equestrians, and
other users. The guidelines will include
technical provisions for making newly
constructed and altered shared use
paths covered by the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
(ABA) accessible to persons with
disabilities.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
Submit comments by June 27,
2011.
Submit comments by any of
the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Regulations.gov ID for this docket is
ATBCB–2011–0002.
• E-mail: sharedusepathrule@accessboard.gov. Include docket number
2011–02 or RIN number 3014–AA41 in
the subject line of the message.
• Fax: 202–272–0081.
• Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier:
Office of Technical and Informational
Services, U.S. Access Board, 1331 F
Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington,
DC 20004–1111.
All comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peggy H. Greenwell, Office of Technical
and Information Services, Access Board,
1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20004–1111.
Telephone number: 202–272–0017
(voice); 202–272–0082 (TTY). Electronic
mail address: greenwell@accessboard.gov.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board (Access
Board) is responsible for developing
accessibility guidelines to ensure that
new construction and alterations of
facilities subject to the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and the
Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq.) are readily
accessible to and usable by individuals
with disabilities. The ADA applies to
state and local governments, places of
public accommodation, and commercial
facilities. The ABA applies to facilities
designed, built, altered, or leased with
Federal funds.
In separate rulemakings, the Board is
developing accessibility guidelines for
outdoor developed areas, including
trails, and accessibility guidelines for
pedestrian facilities in the public rightof-way, including sidewalks.
The Board issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the
outdoor developed areas accessibility
guidelines, including trails, under the
ABA in 2007. 72 FR 34074 (June 20,
2007). The NPRM was based on a
consensus report containing
recommended accessibility guidelines
for trails and other outdoor elements
from the Board’s Regulatory Negotiation
Committee on Outdoor Developed
Areas. The Board made available for
public review a draft of the final
outdoor developed areas accessibility
guidelines in 2009. The NPRM and draft
of the final outdoor developed areas
accessibility guidelines included
technical provisions for trails.
References in this notice to the ‘‘Trails
Guidelines’’ refer to the 2009 draft of the
final outdoor developed areas
accessibility guidelines (see https://
www.access-board.gov/outdoor/draftfinal.htm).
The Board will issue a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for
pedestrian facilities in the public rightsof-way accessibility guidelines,
including sidewalks, in the summer of
2011. The Board made available for
public review drafts of the proposed
public rights-of-way accessibility
guidelines in 2002 and 2005. The drafts
of the proposed public rights-of-way
accessibility guidelines included
technical provisions for pedestrian
access routes within sidewalks.
References in this notice to the
‘‘Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk
Guidelines’’ refer to the 2005 draft of the
proposed public rights-of-way
accessibility guidelines (see https://
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
www.access-board.gov/prowac/
draft.htm).
Public comments received during
these rulemakings raised questions
about applying the technical provisions
for trails and pedestrian access routes
within sidewalks to shared use paths.
Commenters recommended that the
Board develop specific accessibility
guidelines for shared use paths that
address their unique characteristics. The
Board agrees that shared use paths differ
sufficiently from trails and sidewalks to
warrant specific guidelines for making
them accessible.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Applicability
Like all of the Board’s accessibility
guidelines, the guidelines for shared use
paths will apply to newly constructed
and altered facilities. When the Board’s
final guidelines are adopted by other
Federal agencies authorized to issue
ADA or ABA standards, they will be
enforceable.1 The Board’s guidelines do
not address existing facilities unless the
facilities are included in the scope of an
alteration undertaken at the discretion
of a covered entity. The Department of
Justice has issued separate regulations
on program accessibility for State and
local governments and on barrier
removal for places of public
accommodation owned or operated by
private entities that address existing
facilities that are not altered. 28 CFR
35.150 and 28 CFR 36.304. When the
Department of Justice initiates
rulemaking to adopt the shared use path
accessibility guidelines as accessibility
standards, the Department of Justice
will address how program accessibility
and barrier removal apply to existing
shared use paths that are not altered.
Comments concerning shared use paths
that are not altered should be directed
to the Department of Justice when it
initiates rulemaking to adopt the shared
use path accessibility guidelines as
accessibility standards.
Key Differences Between Shared Use
Paths, Trails, Sidewalks, and
Accessible Routes
Shared use paths are a type of trail
designed to be part of a transportation
system, providing off-road routes for a
variety of users. The primary users of
shared use paths are bicyclists and
pedestrians, including pedestrians using
mobility devices such as manual or
1 The Department of Justice and Department of
Transportation are authorized to issue enforceable
accessibility standards for the ADA. The General
Services Administration, Department of Defense,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
and United States Postal Service are authorized to
issue enforceable accessibility standards for the
ABA.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
motorized wheelchairs. While they may
coincidently provide a recreational
experience, shared use paths differ from
other types of trails with their
transportation focus and serving as a
supplement to on-road bike lanes,
shared roadways, bike boulevards, and
paved shoulders. They may extend or
complement a roadway network. Shared
use path design is similar to roadway
design but on a smaller scale and for
lower speeds. Whether located within a
highway right-of-way, provided along a
riverbank, or established over natural
terrain within an independent right-ofway, shared use paths differ from
sidewalks and trails in that they are
primarily designed for bicyclists and
others for transportation purposes such
as commuting to work.
Trails, on the other hand, are
designed primarily for recreational
purposes. Since they are not designed
with a transportation focus, they are
typically not parallel to a roadway.
Trails are pedestrian routes developed
primarily for outdoor recreational
purposes and do not connect elements,
spaces, or facilities within a site. Trails
are largely designed for pedestrians and
other users to ‘‘experience’’ the outdoors
and may be used by a variety of users,
but they are not designed for
transportation purposes.
Sidewalks are located in a public
right-of-way and typically are parallel to
a roadway. Consequently, sidewalk
grades (running slopes) must be
generally consistent with roadway
grades so that they fit into the right-ofway. Sidewalks are designed for
pedestrians and are not designed for
bicycles or other recreational purposes.
American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Guide on Bicycle Facilities and Shared
Use Paths
The American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) advocates transportationrelated policies and provides technical
services to support states in their efforts
to efficiently and safely move people
and goods. AASHTO develops and
publishes more than 125 volumes of
standards and guidelines that are used
worldwide in the design, construction,
maintenance, operation, and
administration of highways, bridges,
and other transportation facilities.
AASHTO is considered a leading source
of information related to the design and
construction of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities. The Board has worked closely
with AASHTO over the years in
developing accessibility criteria for
pedestrian facilities and shared use
paths. AASHTO developed the ‘‘Guide
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17065
for the Planning, Design, and Operation
of Pedestrian Facilities’’ (July 2004) and
the ‘‘Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities’’ (1999). Although
compliance with these AASHTO
documents is voluntary, many states
adopt these AASHTO documents as
standards.
In February 2010, AASHTO made
available draft revisions to the 1999
‘‘Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities.’’ The February 2010 draft is
named the ‘‘Guide for Planning, Design,
and Operation of Bicycle Facilities.’’
References in this notice to the
AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide refer
to the February 2010 draft of the ‘‘Guide
for Guide for Planning, Design, and
Operation of Bicycle Facilities.’’ Chapter
5 of the AASHTO Bicycle Facilities
Guide contains technical provisions for
shared use paths. Chapter 5 applies a
combination of the technical provisions
in Board’s Trails Guidelines and
Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk
Guidelines to shared use paths. The
Board’s rulemaking on shared use paths
is timely given AASHTO’s current plan
to revise its guide for bicycle facilities
and shared use paths. This rulemaking
presents an opportunity for AASHTO
and the Board to coordinate their efforts.
AASHTO and the Board share a
common interest in providing clear and
consistent technical provisions for
designers, owners and operators of
shared use paths. The Board welcomes
this opportunity.
Information Meeting on Shared Use
Paths
On September 13, 2010, the Board
held a public information meeting in
conjunction with the ProWalk/ProBike
2010 Conference convened by the
National Center for Bicycling and
Walking. This was an opportunity for
individuals with disabilities, designers
of shared use paths, and other interested
parties to provide information to assist
the Access Board to consider how best
to approach the development of
accessibility guidelines for shared use
paths. The meeting featured
representatives from the State of
Washington Department of
Transportation, Florida Department of
Transportation, AASHTO, and the
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). Meeting participants
addressed major issues, including how
to define shared use paths and possible
technical provisions. Input from this
meeting is reflected in this notice.
Request for Public Comment
The Board seeks input from the
public, including individuals with
disabilities, and from representatives of
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
17066
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Federal, State, or local governments,
public transportation organizations, and
industry professionals regarding matters
covered in this notice. In particular, the
Board invites comments on the draft
definition of ‘‘shared use path’’ and draft
technical provisions in this document.
Please provide responses to the specific
questions included in the notice and
provide any additional information that
may assist the Board to further refine
the draft definition and technical
provisions.
Shared Use Path Definition
Given the similarity between exterior
pedestrian routes, including shared use
paths, sidewalks, trails, and accessible
routes, it is important to define the term
‘‘shared use path’’ used in this document
in order to minimize any potential
confusion regarding applicable
accessibility criteria.
To accomplish this, the Board has
developed a draft definition for ‘‘shared
use path’’. AASHTO and several city,
state, and Federal agencies have
developed definitions; however,
currently there is no universally
accepted definition. The table below
includes some of those definitions.
Source
Definition: Shared use path
AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide ............................................................
https://design.transportation.org/Documents/
DraftBikeGuideFeb2010.pdf.
A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an
open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or
within an independent right-of-way. Shared use paths may also be
used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other
nonmotorized users.
The term ‘‘shared use path’’ means a multi-use trail or other path,
physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open
space or barrier, either within a highway right-of-way or within an
independent right-of-way, and usable for transportation purposes.
Shared use paths may be used by pedestrians, bicyclists, skaters,
equestrians, and other nonmotorized users.
A facility physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic within the
highway right-of-way or on an exclusive right of way with minimal
crossflow by motor vehicles. Primarily used by pedestrians and
bicyclists, shared use paths are also used by joggers, skaters,
wheelchair users (both nonmotorized and motorized), equestrians,
and other nonmotorized users.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration .....
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/freeways.htm.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
State of Washington, Department of Transportation ...............................
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M22-01.htm.
In related rulemaking, the Board
developed a definition for ‘‘trails’’ in the
Trails Guidelines and will reference the
2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) definition of
‘‘sidewalks’’ in the Pedestrian Access
Route—Sidewalk Guidelines. These
definitions are provided below for
comparison to the above definitions of
‘‘shared use path.’’
Trail. A pedestrian route developed
primarily for outdoor recreational
purposes. A pedestrian route developed
primarily to connect elements, spaces,
or facilities within a site is not a trail.
(Trails Guidelines, Section F106.5)
Sidewalk. That portion of a street
between the curb line, or the lateral line
of a roadway, and the adjacent property
line or on easements of private property
that is paved or improved and intended
for use by pedestrians. (2009 MUTCD
Section 1A.13.192)
Participants attending the information
meeting in September 2010 held in
conjunction with the ProWalk/ProBike
meeting noted the need for a definition
of ‘‘shared use path.’’ They identified the
key characteristics of a shared use path.
The focus on a ‘‘transportation’’ purpose
and ‘‘multi-use’’ were found to be
primary factors distinguishing shared
use paths from sidewalks and trails.
Shared use paths are designed primarily
for bicycles and pedestrians. The Board
has used this input to develop the draft
definition below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
Shared Use Path. A shared use path
is a multi-use path designed for both
transportation and recreation purposes.
Shared use paths typically are separated
from motorized vehicular traffic by an
open space or barrier, either within a
highway right-of-way or within an
independent right-of-way.
Shared use paths are used by
pedestrians and bicyclists, joggers,
skaters, wheelchair users (both
nonmotorized and motorized),
equestrians, and other nonmotorized
users. The draft definition does not
include a list of all the groups that may
use a shared use path. The purpose of
the definition is to clarify when to apply
the scoping and technical provisions for
these paths. Local jurisdictions have
authority to establish permissible uses
on shared use paths. The Department of
Justice (DOJ) ADA regulations require
local jurisdictions to permit individuals
with mobility disabilities to use
manually-operated and power-driven
wheelchairs in any areas open to the
public. See 28 CFR 35.137 (a) as
amended on September 15, 2010 (75 FR
56178). The DOJ ADA regulations
further require local jurisdictions to
establish policies regarding the use of
other power-driven mobility devices by
individuals with mobility disabilities
subject to legitimate safety
requirements. See 28 CFR 35.137 (b) as
amended on September 15, 2010 (75 FR
56178). FHWA has issued similar
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
guidance regarding use of other powerdriven mobility devices by individuals
with mobility disabilities on pedestrian
routes funded with Federal-aid highway
funds. See https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
environment/bikeped/framework.htm.
Question 1. Does the draft definition
of ‘‘shared use path’’ sufficiently
distinguish these paths from trails and
sidewalks? If not, please provide any
recommendations that would strengthen
this distinction.
Draft Technical Provisions for Shared
Use Paths
Based on input at the information
meeting in September 2010 and other
sources, the Board has developed draft
technical provisions for shared use
paths and invites public comment.
Discussion follows each of the draft
technical provisions. For some of the
draft provisions, we have provided
tables showing corresponding
provisions for sidewalks in the
Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk
Guidelines; trails in the Trails
Guidelines; and shared use paths in the
February 2010 draft AASHTO Bicycle
Facilities Guide. The draft technical
provisions establish criteria for the
following components of a shared use
path: surface; changes in level (vertical
alignment and surface discontinuities);
horizontal openings; width; grade and
cross slope; protruding objects; gates
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and barriers; and intersections and curb
ramps.
Question 2. What technical
provisions, if any, should apply where
separate unpaved paths are provided for
equestrian use? Additional information
and guidance on this issue is welcomed.
1. Surface
Surface. The surface of the shared use
path shall be firm, stable, and slip
resistant.
A firm, stable, and slip resistant
surface is necessary for persons with
disabilities using wheeled mobility
devices. Bicyclists with narrow-tired
bicycles and in-line skaters also need a
hard, durable surface. Shared use paths
17067
typically are comprised of asphalt or
concrete and these surfaces are
generally accessible for people with
disabilities. These surfaces perform well
in inclement weather and require
minimal maintenance. Unpaved
surfaces that are firm, stable, and slip
resistant may be used; however, they
may erode over time requiring regular
maintenance.
Provisions
Access Board Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk Guidelines .............
Access Board Trail Guidelines .................................................................
AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide ............................................................
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Surface
Firm, stable, and slip resistant.
Firm and stable.
Hard, durable surface such as asphalt or Portland cement concrete
recommended.
2. Changes in Level
Vertical Alignment. Vertical
alignment shall be planar within curb
ramp runs, blended transitions,
landings, and gutter areas within the
shared use path. Grade breaks shall be
flush. Where the shared use path crosses
rail tracks at grade, the surface of the
shared use path shall be level and flush
with the top of the rail at the outer edges
of the rail. The surface between the rails
shall be aligned with the top of the rail.
Surface Discontinuities. Surface
discontinuities shall not exceed 0.50
inch (13 mm) maximum. Vertical
discontinuities between 0.25 inch (6.4
mm) and 0.5 inch (13 mm) maximum
shall be beveled at 1:2 maximum. The
bevel shall be applied across the entire
level change.
In addition to firm, stable, and slip
resistant surfaces, smooth surfaces are
also necessary for the safe use of
wheeled mobility devices, as well as
bicycles and in-line skaters. The draft
technical provisions allow vertical
changes in level up to 1⁄4 inch without
treatment and other vertical changes in
level from 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch if they are
beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2.
Surfaces with individual units laid out
of plane and those that are heavily
textured, rough, or chamfered, will
greatly increase rolling resistance and
will subject pedestrians who use
wheelchairs, scooters, and rolling
walkers to the stressful (and often
painful) effects of vibration. Surface
discontinuities are also dangerous for
bicyclists and in-line skaters. It is highly
desirable to minimize surface
discontinuities. However, when
discontinuities are unavoidable, they
should be widely separated.
3. Horizontal Openings
Joints and Gratings. Openings shall
not permit passage of a sphere more
than 0.5 inch (13 mm) in diameter.
Elongated openings shall be placed so
that the long dimension is
perpendicular to the dominant direction
of travel.
Flangeway Gaps at Non-Freight Rail
Crossings. Openings for wheel flanges at
pedestrian crossings of non-freight rail
track shall be 2.5 inches (64 mm)
maximum.
Flangeway Gaps at Freight Rail
Crossings. Openings for wheel flanges at
pedestrian crossings of freight rail track
shall be 3 inches (75 mm) maximum.
Surface openings or gaps must be
minimized in order to ensure a smooth
surface on shared-use paths. Utility
covers and drainage grates can be
hazards and, for the safety of all users,
must be treated. Special treatment is
necessary where shared use paths cross
railroad crossings, both freight and nonfreight for the safe passage of wheeled
mobility devices, as well as bicycles and
other users. The AASHTO Bicycle
Facilities Guide recommends that
railroad crossings be smooth and be
designed at an angle between 60 and 90
degrees to the direction of travel in
order to minimize the danger of falls.
The draft technical provisions for
surface gaps in shared use paths are
consistent with the draft provisions in
the Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk
Guidelines. In most cases, the
guidelines will require surface gaps or
openings on shared use paths to be no
wider than 1/2 inch. However, this
specification is not practicable at rail
tracks where gaps must be at least 21⁄2
inches to safely accommodate rail car
wheel flanges. Due to variations in load
and wheel play, the gap must be even
larger (3 inches) to accommodate heavy
freight trains. The Board is aware that
such a gap can trap wheelchair caster
wheels which are prone to turning
sideways against vertical displacements,
even slight ones but is unaware of a way
to resolve this conflict.
4. Width
Width. The clear width of shared use
paths shall be 5 feet (1.5 m) minimum.
The AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide
recommends the paved width for a
shared use path to be 10 feet minimum.
Typically, widths range from 10 to 14
feet with the wider ranges in areas with
high use or when planning for a wider
variety of user groups. In very rare
circumstances, a reduced width of 8 feet
may be used. Wider shared use paths
also are recommended where the path is
used by larger maintenance vehicles; on
steep grades to provide additional
passing area; or through curves to
provide more operating space.
The Board is considering requiring
accessible shared use paths to provide at
least 5 feet minimum width to address
those rare circumstances where the
AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide is not
applied so that sufficient space is
provided for wheelchair turning and to
allow wheelchair users and others to
pass one another.
Width
Provisions
Access Board Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk Guidelines .............
Access Board Trail Guidelines .................................................................
AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide ............................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
4 feet minimum.
3 feet minimum.
10 feet minimum (in rare cases, 8 feet minimum).
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
17068
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
5. Grade and Cross Slope
Grade. The maximum grade of a
shared use path shall be 5 percent.
Exception: Where the shared use path
is contained within a street or highway
border, its grade shall not exceed the
general grade established for the
adjacent street or highway.
Individuals with disabilities using
wheeled mobility devices generally
need less steep slopes in order to
conserve energy and to better maintain
control of the wheeled mobility device.
For these reasons, the Board is
considering a 5 percent maximum grade
on newly constructed and altered
shared paths that are not contained
within a street or highway border. The
AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide
recommends that grades greater than 5
percent are undesirable for a variety of
reasons. Bicyclists may find ascents
over-taxing and descents uncomfortable
where speed is likely to build. Steep
grades affect the safety of all users,
particularly where multiple types of
users are on the path at the same time.
For example, pedestrians with
disabilities may have difficulty avoiding
faster moving bicycles. More
importantly, however, pedestrians with
disabilities are likely to experience
greater difficulty traveling on steeper
slopes than others.
Grade (running slope)
Provisions
Access Board Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk Guidelines ........................
Where pedestrian access route within a sidewalk is contained
within a street or highway border, its grade shall not exceed the
general grade established for the adjacent street or highway.
Access Board Trail Guidelines ............................................................................
Running Slope of Trail Segment
Steeper than
Maximum Length of
Segment
But not steeper
than
1:20
1:12
200 feet (61 m).
1:12
1:10
30 feet (9 m).
1:10
1:8
10 feet (3050 mm).
* No more than 30 percent of the total length of a trail shall
have a running slope steeper than 1:12.
AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide ........................................................................
Question 3. Are there conditions
where a 5 percent maximum grade
cannot be achieved on a newly
constructed shared use path? If so, the
Board is interested in a description of
the specific conditions that might
prevent compliance. The Board will
consider providing additional
exceptions where it may be difficult or
impossible to meet the 5 percent
maximum grade.
Question 4. Should the Board provide
guidance on how to address steeper
segments of shared use paths when they
cannot be avoided? For example, would
providing space for bicyclists or
wheelchair users to move off of the
shared use path in order to avoid
conflict with other traffic be helpful?
Grades greater than 5 percent are undesirable.
Where the shared use path is
contained within a street or highway
border, the grade may not exceed the
general grade established for the
adjacent street or highway. This is
consistent with the grade provisions for
sidewalks.
Question 5. What would be
considered a sufficient separation
between a shared use path and a
roadway, or outside border of a
roadway, where it may not be necessary
for the shared use path to follow the
grade of the roadway?
Cross Slope. The maximum cross
slope shall be 2 percent.
Excessive cross slope (exceeding 2
percent) is a major barrier to travel along
shared use paths for individuals using
wheeled mobility devices and can
significantly impede forward progress
on an uphill slope and compromise
control and balance in downhill travel
and on turns. Cross slope also
negatively affects pedestrians who have
braces or lower-limb prostheses and
may use walkers or crutches, and those
with gait, balance, and stamina
impairments. Energy that might
otherwise be used in forward travel
must be expended to resist the
perpendicular force of a cross slope
along a route of travel. The AASHTO
Bicycle Facilities Guide recommends a
one percent cross slope, particularly at
turns where bicyclists tend to lean to
one side while turning. A one percent
cross slope also provides sufficient
slope to convey surface drainage in most
situations.
Provisions
Access Board Pedestrian Access Route—Sidewalk Guidelines .............
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Cross Slope
The cross slope of the pedestrian access route within a sidewalk shall
be 2 percent maximum.
Where the surface is concrete, asphalt, or boards, the cross slope shall
not be steeper than 2 percent.
Where the surface is other than concrete, asphalt, or boards, the cross
slope shall not be steeper than 5 percent.
1 percent recommended where possible.
Access Board Trail Guidelines .................................................................
AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide ............................................................
Question 6. Are there conditions
where cross slope steeper than 2 percent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
is necessary in new construction? If so,
the Board is interested in a description
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of these specific conditions and
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
recommendations for appropriate
allowances.
6. Protruding Objects
Protruding Objects. Protruding objects
along or overhanging any portion of the
shared use path shall not reduce the
clear width of the shared use paths.
Protrusion Limits. Objects with
leading edges more than 27 inches (685
mm) and not more than 80 inches (2 m)
above the finish surface or ground shall
not protrude more than 4 inches (100
mm) horizontally into shared use paths.
Post-Mounted Objects. Where objects
are mounted on free-standing posts or
pylons and the objects are 27 inches
(685 mm) minimum and 80 inches
(2030 mm) maximum above the finish
surface or ground, the objects shall not
overhang shared use paths more than 4
inches (100 mm) beyond the post or
pylon base measured 6 inches (150 mm)
minimum above the finish surface or
ground. Where a sign or other
obstruction is mounted between posts or
pylons and the clear distance between
the posts or pylons is greater than 12
inches (305 mm) the lowest edge of sign
or obstruction shall be 27 inches (685
mm) maximum or 80 inches (2 m)
minimum above the finish surface or
ground.
The draft technical provisions for
protruding objects are derived from the
Board’s ADA and ABA Accessibility
Guidelines and Pedestrian Access
Route—Sidewalk Guidelines. The
provisions addresses objects that may
project into shared use paths in a
manner hazardous to people with vision
impairments. Any protrusion on a
shared use path is considered hazardous
for all users, including individuals with
disabilities. These technical provisions
would apply to the full width of the
shared use path. Objects mounted on
walls or posts with leading edges above
the standard sweep of canes (27 inches)
and below the standard head room
clearance (80 inches) would be limited
to a 4 inch protrusion.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
7. Gates and Barriers
Clear Width. Where gates or other
barriers are provided, openings in gates
and barriers shall provide a clear width
of 32 inches (815 mm) minimum.
Gate Hardware. Gate hardware shall
be operable with one hand and shall not
require tight grasping, pinching, or
twisting of the wrist. The force required
to activate operable parts shall be 5
pounds (22.2 N) maximum. Operable
parts of such hardware shall be 34
inches (865 mm) minimum and 48
inches (1220 mm) maximum above the
finish surface or ground.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
The draft technical provisions for
gates and barriers are based on the
Board’s ADA and ABA Accessibility
Guidelines and Trails Guidelines. Gates
or barriers often are wider than 32
inches to allow for the safe passage of
bicycles and other authorized users of
shared use paths. The Board is
proposing to require a 32 inch minimum
clearance to address the rare
circumstance where gate or barrier
openings are deliberately narrow and
could restrict access by wheelchair
users unless a minimum width applies.
A 32 inch wide clear opening provides
the minimum clearance necessary to
allow passage of an occupied
wheelchair or other mobility device.
The operation and location provisions
for gate hardware are necessary to
ensure that individuals with disabilities
can operate the hardware.
8. Intersections and Curb Ramps
Curb Ramps and Blended Transitions
Curb Ramps. Curb ramps shall have a
running slope that cuts through or is
built up to the curb at right angles or
meets the gutter grade break at right
angles.
Running Slope. The running slope of
curb ramps shall be 5 percent minimum
and 8.3 percent maximum but shall not
require the ramp length to exceed 15 ft.
(4.5 m).
Cross Slope. The cross slope of a curb
ramp at intersections shall be 2 percent
maximum. The cross slope of a curb
ramp at midblock crossings shall be
permitted to be equal to the street or
highway grade.
Landing. A landing 4 feet (1.2 m)
minimum by 4 feet (1.2 m) minimum
shall be provided at the top of the curb
ramp and shall be permitted to overlap
other landings and clear space. The
running and cross slope of a curb ramp
at midblock crossings shall be permitted
to be equal to the street or highway
grade.
Blended Transitions. Where blended
transitions are provided, the running
slope shall be 5 percent maximum and
cross slope shall be 2 percent maximum.
Common Technical Provisions for Curb
Ramps and Blended Transitions
Width. The clear width of blended
transitions and curb ramps, excluding
flares, shall be at least as wide as the
shared use path.
Detectable Warning Surfaces.
Detectable warning surfaces shall be
provided where a shared use path
connects to or crosses a roadway or
railway crossing.
Grade Breaks. Grade breaks at the top
and bottom of curb ramps shall be
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17069
perpendicular to the direction of the
ramp run. At least one end of the bottom
grade break shall be at the back of curb.
Grade breaks shall not be permitted on
the surface of curb ramps, blended
transitions, landings, and gutter areas
within the shared use path. Surface
slopes that meet at grade breaks shall be
flush.
Counter Slopes. The counter slope of
the gutter or street at the foot of a curb
ramp, landing, or blended transition
shall be 5 percent maximum.
Clear Space. Beyond the curb face, a
clear space of 4 feet (1.2 m) minimum
by 4 feet. (1.2 m) minimum shall be
provided within the width of the
crossing.
Detectable Warning Surfaces
Truncated Domes. Detectable warning
surfaces shall consist of truncated
domes aligned in a square or radial grid
pattern.
Dome Size. Truncated domes in
detectable warning surfaces shall have a
base diameter of 0.9 inch (23 mm)
minimum to 1.4 inches (36 mm)
maximum, a top diameter of 50 percent
of the base diameter minimum to 65
percent of the base diameter maximum,
and a height of 0.2 inch (5 mm).
Dome Spacing. Truncated domes in a
detectable warning surface shall have a
center-to-center spacing of 1.6 inches
(41 mm) minimum and 2.4 inches (61
mm) maximum, and a base-to-base
spacing of 0.65 inches (17 mm)
minimum, measured between the most
adjacent domes.
Contrast. Detectable warning surfaces
shall contrast visually with adjacent
gutter, street or highway, or shared use
path surfaces, either light-on-dark or
dark-on-light.
Size. Detectable warning surfaces
shall extend 24 inches (610 mm)
minimum in the direction of travel and
the full width of the curb ramp or the
blended transition.
Location and Alignment of Detectable
Warning Surfaces
Curb Ramps. Where both ends of the
bottom grade break are 5.0 feet (1.5 m)
or less from the back of curb, the
detectable warning surfaces shall be
located on the ramp surface at the
bottom grade break. Where either end of
the bottom grade break is more than 5.0
feet (1.5 m) from the back of curb, the
detectable warning surfaces shall be
located on the lower landing.
Blended Transitions. The detectable
warning surfaces shall be located on the
blended transition at the back of curb.
Rail Crossings. The detectable
warning surfaces shall be located so that
the edge nearest the rail crossing is 6
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
17070
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
feet (1.8 m) minimum and 15 feet (4.6
m) maximum from the centerline of the
nearest rail. The rows of truncated
domes in a detectable warning surface
shall be aligned to be parallel with the
direction of pedestrian travel.
Treatment of elevation changes, such
as at curbs, and controlling cross slope
are key factors in ensuring accessibility,
particularly where shared use paths and
roadways intersect. The draft technical
provisions for curb ramps, blended
transitions, and detectable warnings are
based on the Board’s Pedestrian Access
Route—Sidewalk Guidelines. In general,
the draft provisions for shared use paths
require the following.
• The opening of a shared use path at
a roadway must be at least as wide as
the shared use path itself;
• A curb ramp or blended transition
must be provided, and must be the full
width of the shared use path;
• The running slope of the curb ramp
must not exceed 8.3 percent and
blended transition must not exceed
5 percent;
• The cross slope must be the same as
the running slope of the roadway at
midblock crossings; and
• Where the shared use path crosses
a roadway or railway, detectable
warnings must be provided the full
width of the curb ramp or blended
transition for a depth of 2 feet.
Markings at crossings of shared use
paths and roadways must also comply
with the provisions of Part 3—Markings
of the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD).
The Board has limited the
requirement for detectable warnings to
locations where a shared use path
crosses a roadway or a railway. The
Board has not included a requirement
for detectable warnings where shared
use paths cross other paths or
pedestrian facilities. Where pedestrians
and bicyclists share a pathway,
established bicycle and pedestrian
‘‘rules of the road’’ should provide
sufficient guidance for safe use.
Question 7. Is there a need to provide
additional warnings or information to
bicyclists regarding potential conflicts
with other shared use paths users,
including pedestrians with disabilities?
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
9. Other Issues
Overlap of Trails, Sidewalks, and
Shared Use Paths
In some locations, a shared use path
may be part of a sidewalk, or part of a
trail. Guidance is needed to clarify
which set of guidelines should be
applied where there is overlap since the
technical provisions are different in
some areas. For example, Pedestrian
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
Access Route—Sidewalk Guidelines
permit the grade to follow the slope of
the roadway and Trails Guidelines
specify a maximum grade. The Board is
interested in suggestions for ways to
treat areas of shared use paths that
overlap sidewalks and trails that will
provide an acceptable level of
accessibility while taking into
consideration any unique conditions or
situations that may occur where these
routes overlap.
Question 8. What technical provisions
should apply where the shared use path
overlaps a trail or sidewalk?
Shared Use Path Connections
The draft technical provisions in this
ANPRM apply to the newly constructed
and altered shared use paths. Shared
use paths may be constructed over many
miles and connected with other
pedestrian routes, creating a network for
transportation purposes. The Board is
interested in more information
regarding connections between shared
use paths and other parts of a
transportation network.
Question 9. Are different technical
provisions needed when applying the
draft technical provisions for shared use
paths that ‘‘connect’’ shared use paths
together or with other pedestrian routes
(e.g., sidewalks, trails, accessible
routes)? If so, please provide any
additional information or
recommendations.
Where should the accessibility
guidelines for shared use paths be
located?
The Board is considering including
the accessibility guidelines for shared
use paths in the same document as the
accessibility guidelines for pedestrian
facilities in the public right-of-way.
State and local government departments
of transportation appear to be the
principal entities that design and
construct shared use paths since these
facilities are an extension of the
transportation network, and having the
accessibility guidelines for shared use
paths in the same document as
pedestrian facilities in the public rightof-way appears to be a logical choice. In
addition, many of the draft technical
provisions for shared use paths (i.e.,
intersection and curb ramps/blended
transitions, detectable warning surfaces,
4 inch limit on post-mounted
protruding objects (signs), and rail
flangeway gaps) are the same as those in
draft guidelines for pedestrian facilities
in the public-right-of-way.
Question 10. Should the accessibility
guidelines for shared use paths be
included in the same document as the
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
accessibility guidelines for pedestrian
facilities in the public right-of-way?
Question 11. Are there other issues
that need to be addressed by the
accessibility guidelines for shared use
paths? If so, please provide specific
information on any additional areas that
should be addressed in the guidelines.
Regulatory Process Matters
The Board will prepare regulatory
assessments required by Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563, and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act as a part of a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), the next step in this
rulemaking.
Question 12. The Board requests
commenters to provide information for
the regulatory assessments, including:
• Number of existing and planned
shared-use paths at the state or national
level;
• Number of shared-use paths
constructed each year (on average)
within your jurisdiction;
• Typical cost for a new shared-use
path on a per-mile basis;
• Sources of funding for the
construction of shared-use paths (e.g.,
Federal highway funds, other Federal
grant programs, state funds, local
funds);
• The extent to which the AASHTO
Bicycle Facilities Guide, or other design
guides and standards are used for
shared use paths;
• Whether any of the draft technical
provisions would result in additional
costs for design work, materials,
earthmoving, retaining structures, or
other items compared to current
construction practices or design guides
and standards currently followed;
• What, if any, unintended
consequences (positive or negative)
could result from an agency adopting
the guidelines, and
• What impacts will the draft
technical provisions have on small
entities and are there alternatives that
would minimize those impacts?
Nancy Starnes,
Chair, Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board.
[FR Doc. 2011–7156 Filed 3–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150–01–P
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17064-17070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7156]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
36 CFR Chapter XI
[Docket No. 2011-02]
RIN 3014-AA41
Shared Use Path Accessibility Guidelines
AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
(Access Board) is issuing this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) to develop accessibility guidelines for shared use paths.
Shared use paths are designed for both transportation and recreation
purposes and are used by pedestrians, bicyclists, skaters, equestrians,
and other users. The guidelines will include technical provisions for
making newly constructed and altered shared use paths covered by the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Architectural
Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA) accessible to persons with disabilities.
DATES: Submit comments by June 27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Regulations.gov ID for
this docket is ATBCB-2011-0002.
E-mail: board.gov">sharedusepathrule@access-board.gov. Include docket
number 2011-02 or RIN number 3014-AA41 in the subject line of the
message.
Fax: 202-272-0081.
Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of Technical and
Informational Services, U.S. Access Board, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite
1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.
All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy H. Greenwell, Office of
Technical and Information Services, Access Board, 1331 F Street, NW.,
Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number: 202-272-0017
(voice); 202-272-0082 (TTY). Electronic mail address: board.gov">greenwell@access-board.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
(Access Board) is responsible for developing accessibility guidelines
to ensure that new construction and alterations of facilities subject
to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101
et seq.) and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
4151 et seq.) are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities. The ADA applies to state and local governments, places of
public accommodation, and commercial facilities. The ABA applies to
facilities designed, built, altered, or leased with Federal funds.
In separate rulemakings, the Board is developing accessibility
guidelines for outdoor developed areas, including trails, and
accessibility guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the public right-
of-way, including sidewalks.
The Board issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the
outdoor developed areas accessibility guidelines, including trails,
under the ABA in 2007. 72 FR 34074 (June 20, 2007). The NPRM was based
on a consensus report containing recommended accessibility guidelines
for trails and other outdoor elements from the Board's Regulatory
Negotiation Committee on Outdoor Developed Areas. The Board made
available for public review a draft of the final outdoor developed
areas accessibility guidelines in 2009. The NPRM and draft of the final
outdoor developed areas accessibility guidelines included technical
provisions for trails. References in this notice to the ``Trails
Guidelines'' refer to the 2009 draft of the final outdoor developed
areas accessibility guidelines (see https://www.access-board.gov/outdoor/draft-final.htm).
The Board will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for
pedestrian facilities in the public rights-of-way accessibility
guidelines, including sidewalks, in the summer of 2011. The Board made
available for public review drafts of the proposed public rights-of-way
accessibility guidelines in 2002 and 2005. The drafts of the proposed
public rights-of-way accessibility guidelines included technical
provisions for pedestrian access routes within sidewalks. References in
this notice to the ``Pedestrian Access Route--Sidewalk Guidelines''
refer to the 2005 draft of the proposed public rights-of-way
accessibility guidelines (see https://
[[Page 17065]]
www.access-board.gov/prowac/draft.htm).
Public comments received during these rulemakings raised questions
about applying the technical provisions for trails and pedestrian
access routes within sidewalks to shared use paths. Commenters
recommended that the Board develop specific accessibility guidelines
for shared use paths that address their unique characteristics. The
Board agrees that shared use paths differ sufficiently from trails and
sidewalks to warrant specific guidelines for making them accessible.
Applicability
Like all of the Board's accessibility guidelines, the guidelines
for shared use paths will apply to newly constructed and altered
facilities. When the Board's final guidelines are adopted by other
Federal agencies authorized to issue ADA or ABA standards, they will be
enforceable.\1\ The Board's guidelines do not address existing
facilities unless the facilities are included in the scope of an
alteration undertaken at the discretion of a covered entity. The
Department of Justice has issued separate regulations on program
accessibility for State and local governments and on barrier removal
for places of public accommodation owned or operated by private
entities that address existing facilities that are not altered. 28 CFR
35.150 and 28 CFR 36.304. When the Department of Justice initiates
rulemaking to adopt the shared use path accessibility guidelines as
accessibility standards, the Department of Justice will address how
program accessibility and barrier removal apply to existing shared use
paths that are not altered. Comments concerning shared use paths that
are not altered should be directed to the Department of Justice when it
initiates rulemaking to adopt the shared use path accessibility
guidelines as accessibility standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department of Justice and Department of Transportation
are authorized to issue enforceable accessibility standards for the
ADA. The General Services Administration, Department of Defense,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and United States
Postal Service are authorized to issue enforceable accessibility
standards for the ABA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Differences Between Shared Use Paths, Trails, Sidewalks, and
Accessible Routes
Shared use paths are a type of trail designed to be part of a
transportation system, providing off-road routes for a variety of
users. The primary users of shared use paths are bicyclists and
pedestrians, including pedestrians using mobility devices such as
manual or motorized wheelchairs. While they may coincidently provide a
recreational experience, shared use paths differ from other types of
trails with their transportation focus and serving as a supplement to
on-road bike lanes, shared roadways, bike boulevards, and paved
shoulders. They may extend or complement a roadway network. Shared use
path design is similar to roadway design but on a smaller scale and for
lower speeds. Whether located within a highway right-of-way, provided
along a riverbank, or established over natural terrain within an
independent right-of-way, shared use paths differ from sidewalks and
trails in that they are primarily designed for bicyclists and others
for transportation purposes such as commuting to work.
Trails, on the other hand, are designed primarily for recreational
purposes. Since they are not designed with a transportation focus, they
are typically not parallel to a roadway. Trails are pedestrian routes
developed primarily for outdoor recreational purposes and do not
connect elements, spaces, or facilities within a site. Trails are
largely designed for pedestrians and other users to ``experience'' the
outdoors and may be used by a variety of users, but they are not
designed for transportation purposes.
Sidewalks are located in a public right-of-way and typically are
parallel to a roadway. Consequently, sidewalk grades (running slopes)
must be generally consistent with roadway grades so that they fit into
the right-of-way. Sidewalks are designed for pedestrians and are not
designed for bicycles or other recreational purposes.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Guide on Bicycle Facilities and Shared Use Paths
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) advocates transportation-related policies and
provides technical services to support states in their efforts to
efficiently and safely move people and goods. AASHTO develops and
publishes more than 125 volumes of standards and guidelines that are
used worldwide in the design, construction, maintenance, operation, and
administration of highways, bridges, and other transportation
facilities. AASHTO is considered a leading source of information
related to the design and construction of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities. The Board has worked closely with AASHTO over the years in
developing accessibility criteria for pedestrian facilities and shared
use paths. AASHTO developed the ``Guide for the Planning, Design, and
Operation of Pedestrian Facilities'' (July 2004) and the ``Guide for
the Development of Bicycle Facilities'' (1999). Although compliance
with these AASHTO documents is voluntary, many states adopt these
AASHTO documents as standards.
In February 2010, AASHTO made available draft revisions to the 1999
``Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.'' The February 2010
draft is named the ``Guide for Planning, Design, and Operation of
Bicycle Facilities.'' References in this notice to the AASHTO Bicycle
Facilities Guide refer to the February 2010 draft of the ``Guide for
Guide for Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle Facilities.''
Chapter 5 of the AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide contains technical
provisions for shared use paths. Chapter 5 applies a combination of the
technical provisions in Board's Trails Guidelines and Pedestrian Access
Route--Sidewalk Guidelines to shared use paths. The Board's rulemaking
on shared use paths is timely given AASHTO's current plan to revise its
guide for bicycle facilities and shared use paths. This rulemaking
presents an opportunity for AASHTO and the Board to coordinate their
efforts. AASHTO and the Board share a common interest in providing
clear and consistent technical provisions for designers, owners and
operators of shared use paths. The Board welcomes this opportunity.
Information Meeting on Shared Use Paths
On September 13, 2010, the Board held a public information meeting
in conjunction with the ProWalk/ProBike 2010 Conference convened by the
National Center for Bicycling and Walking. This was an opportunity for
individuals with disabilities, designers of shared use paths, and other
interested parties to provide information to assist the Access Board to
consider how best to approach the development of accessibility
guidelines for shared use paths. The meeting featured representatives
from the State of Washington Department of Transportation, Florida
Department of Transportation, AASHTO, and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Meeting participants addressed major issues,
including how to define shared use paths and possible technical
provisions. Input from this meeting is reflected in this notice.
Request for Public Comment
The Board seeks input from the public, including individuals with
disabilities, and from representatives of
[[Page 17066]]
Federal, State, or local governments, public transportation
organizations, and industry professionals regarding matters covered in
this notice. In particular, the Board invites comments on the draft
definition of ``shared use path'' and draft technical provisions in
this document. Please provide responses to the specific questions
included in the notice and provide any additional information that may
assist the Board to further refine the draft definition and technical
provisions.
Shared Use Path Definition
Given the similarity between exterior pedestrian routes, including
shared use paths, sidewalks, trails, and accessible routes, it is
important to define the term ``shared use path'' used in this document
in order to minimize any potential confusion regarding applicable
accessibility criteria.
To accomplish this, the Board has developed a draft definition for
``shared use path''. AASHTO and several city, state, and Federal
agencies have developed definitions; however, currently there is no
universally accepted definition. The table below includes some of those
definitions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Definition: Shared use path
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide........ A bikeway physically separated
https://design.transportation.org/ from motorized vehicular
Documents/DraftBikeGuideFeb2010.pdf.. traffic by an open space or
barrier and either within the
highway right-of-way or within
an independent right-of-way.
Shared use paths may also be
used by pedestrians, skaters,
wheelchair users, joggers, and
other nonmotorized users.
U.S. Department of Transportation, The term ``shared use path''
Federal Highway Administration. means a multi-use trail or
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ other path, physically
bikeped/freeways.htm.. separated from motorized
vehicular traffic by an open
space or barrier, either
within a highway right-of-way
or within an independent right-
of-way, and usable for
transportation purposes.
Shared use paths may be used
by pedestrians, bicyclists,
skaters, equestrians, and
other nonmotorized users.
State of Washington, Department of A facility physically separated
Transportation. from motorized vehicular
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/ traffic within the highway
Manuals/M22-01.htm.. right-of-way or on an
exclusive right of way with
minimal crossflow by motor
vehicles. Primarily used by
pedestrians and bicyclists,
shared use paths are also used
by joggers, skaters,
wheelchair users (both
nonmotorized and motorized),
equestrians, and other
nonmotorized users.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In related rulemaking, the Board developed a definition for
``trails'' in the Trails Guidelines and will reference the 2009 Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) definition of ``sidewalks''
in the Pedestrian Access Route--Sidewalk Guidelines. These definitions
are provided below for comparison to the above definitions of ``shared
use path.''
Trail. A pedestrian route developed primarily for outdoor
recreational purposes. A pedestrian route developed primarily to
connect elements, spaces, or facilities within a site is not a trail.
(Trails Guidelines, Section F106.5)
Sidewalk. That portion of a street between the curb line, or the
lateral line of a roadway, and the adjacent property line or on
easements of private property that is paved or improved and intended
for use by pedestrians. (2009 MUTCD Section 1A.13.192)
Participants attending the information meeting in September 2010
held in conjunction with the ProWalk/ProBike meeting noted the need for
a definition of ``shared use path.'' They identified the key
characteristics of a shared use path. The focus on a ``transportation''
purpose and ``multi-use'' were found to be primary factors
distinguishing shared use paths from sidewalks and trails. Shared use
paths are designed primarily for bicycles and pedestrians. The Board
has used this input to develop the draft definition below.
Shared Use Path. A shared use path is a multi-use path designed for
both transportation and recreation purposes. Shared use paths typically
are separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or
barrier, either within a highway right-of-way or within an independent
right-of-way.
Shared use paths are used by pedestrians and bicyclists, joggers,
skaters, wheelchair users (both nonmotorized and motorized),
equestrians, and other nonmotorized users. The draft definition does
not include a list of all the groups that may use a shared use path.
The purpose of the definition is to clarify when to apply the scoping
and technical provisions for these paths. Local jurisdictions have
authority to establish permissible uses on shared use paths. The
Department of Justice (DOJ) ADA regulations require local jurisdictions
to permit individuals with mobility disabilities to use manually-
operated and power-driven wheelchairs in any areas open to the public.
See 28 CFR 35.137 (a) as amended on September 15, 2010 (75 FR 56178).
The DOJ ADA regulations further require local jurisdictions to
establish policies regarding the use of other power-driven mobility
devices by individuals with mobility disabilities subject to legitimate
safety requirements. See 28 CFR 35.137 (b) as amended on September 15,
2010 (75 FR 56178). FHWA has issued similar guidance regarding use of
other power-driven mobility devices by individuals with mobility
disabilities on pedestrian routes funded with Federal-aid highway
funds. See https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/framework.htm.
Question 1. Does the draft definition of ``shared use path''
sufficiently distinguish these paths from trails and sidewalks? If not,
please provide any recommendations that would strengthen this
distinction.
Draft Technical Provisions for Shared Use Paths
Based on input at the information meeting in September 2010 and
other sources, the Board has developed draft technical provisions for
shared use paths and invites public comment. Discussion follows each of
the draft technical provisions. For some of the draft provisions, we
have provided tables showing corresponding provisions for sidewalks in
the Pedestrian Access Route--Sidewalk Guidelines; trails in the Trails
Guidelines; and shared use paths in the February 2010 draft AASHTO
Bicycle Facilities Guide. The draft technical provisions establish
criteria for the following components of a shared use path: surface;
changes in level (vertical alignment and surface discontinuities);
horizontal openings; width; grade and cross slope; protruding objects;
gates
[[Page 17067]]
and barriers; and intersections and curb ramps.
Question 2. What technical provisions, if any, should apply where
separate unpaved paths are provided for equestrian use? Additional
information and guidance on this issue is welcomed.
1. Surface
Surface. The surface of the shared use path shall be firm, stable,
and slip resistant.
A firm, stable, and slip resistant surface is necessary for persons
with disabilities using wheeled mobility devices. Bicyclists with
narrow-tired bicycles and in-line skaters also need a hard, durable
surface. Shared use paths typically are comprised of asphalt or
concrete and these surfaces are generally accessible for people with
disabilities. These surfaces perform well in inclement weather and
require minimal maintenance. Unpaved surfaces that are firm, stable,
and slip resistant may be used; however, they may erode over time
requiring regular maintenance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access Board Pedestrian Access Route-- Firm, stable, and slip
Sidewalk Guidelines. resistant.
Access Board Trail Guidelines.......... Firm and stable.
AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide........ Hard, durable surface such as
asphalt or Portland cement
concrete recommended.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Changes in Level
Vertical Alignment. Vertical alignment shall be planar within curb
ramp runs, blended transitions, landings, and gutter areas within the
shared use path. Grade breaks shall be flush. Where the shared use path
crosses rail tracks at grade, the surface of the shared use path shall
be level and flush with the top of the rail at the outer edges of the
rail. The surface between the rails shall be aligned with the top of
the rail.
Surface Discontinuities. Surface discontinuities shall not exceed
0.50 inch (13 mm) maximum. Vertical discontinuities between 0.25 inch
(6.4 mm) and 0.5 inch (13 mm) maximum shall be beveled at 1:2 maximum.
The bevel shall be applied across the entire level change.
In addition to firm, stable, and slip resistant surfaces, smooth
surfaces are also necessary for the safe use of wheeled mobility
devices, as well as bicycles and in-line skaters. The draft technical
provisions allow vertical changes in level up to \1/4\ inch without
treatment and other vertical changes in level from \1/4\ to \1/2\ inch
if they are beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2. Surfaces with
individual units laid out of plane and those that are heavily textured,
rough, or chamfered, will greatly increase rolling resistance and will
subject pedestrians who use wheelchairs, scooters, and rolling walkers
to the stressful (and often painful) effects of vibration. Surface
discontinuities are also dangerous for bicyclists and in-line skaters.
It is highly desirable to minimize surface discontinuities. However,
when discontinuities are unavoidable, they should be widely separated.
3. Horizontal Openings
Joints and Gratings. Openings shall not permit passage of a sphere
more than 0.5 inch (13 mm) in diameter. Elongated openings shall be
placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the dominant
direction of travel.
Flangeway Gaps at Non-Freight Rail Crossings. Openings for wheel
flanges at pedestrian crossings of non-freight rail track shall be 2.5
inches (64 mm) maximum.
Flangeway Gaps at Freight Rail Crossings. Openings for wheel
flanges at pedestrian crossings of freight rail track shall be 3 inches
(75 mm) maximum.
Surface openings or gaps must be minimized in order to ensure a
smooth surface on shared-use paths. Utility covers and drainage grates
can be hazards and, for the safety of all users, must be treated.
Special treatment is necessary where shared use paths cross railroad
crossings, both freight and non-freight for the safe passage of wheeled
mobility devices, as well as bicycles and other users. The AASHTO
Bicycle Facilities Guide recommends that railroad crossings be smooth
and be designed at an angle between 60 and 90 degrees to the direction
of travel in order to minimize the danger of falls.
The draft technical provisions for surface gaps in shared use paths
are consistent with the draft provisions in the Pedestrian Access
Route--Sidewalk Guidelines. In most cases, the guidelines will require
surface gaps or openings on shared use paths to be no wider than 1/2
inch. However, this specification is not practicable at rail tracks
where gaps must be at least 2\1/2\ inches to safely accommodate rail
car wheel flanges. Due to variations in load and wheel play, the gap
must be even larger (3 inches) to accommodate heavy freight trains. The
Board is aware that such a gap can trap wheelchair caster wheels which
are prone to turning sideways against vertical displacements, even
slight ones but is unaware of a way to resolve this conflict.
4. Width
Width. The clear width of shared use paths shall be 5 feet (1.5 m)
minimum.
The AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide recommends the paved width for
a shared use path to be 10 feet minimum. Typically, widths range from
10 to 14 feet with the wider ranges in areas with high use or when
planning for a wider variety of user groups. In very rare
circumstances, a reduced width of 8 feet may be used. Wider shared use
paths also are recommended where the path is used by larger maintenance
vehicles; on steep grades to provide additional passing area; or
through curves to provide more operating space.
The Board is considering requiring accessible shared use paths to
provide at least 5 feet minimum width to address those rare
circumstances where the AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide is not applied
so that sufficient space is provided for wheelchair turning and to
allow wheelchair users and others to pass one another.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Width Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access Board Pedestrian Access Route-- 4 feet minimum.
Sidewalk Guidelines.
Access Board Trail Guidelines.......... 3 feet minimum.
AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide........ 10 feet minimum (in rare cases,
8 feet minimum).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17068]]
5. Grade and Cross Slope
Grade. The maximum grade of a shared use path shall be 5 percent.
Exception: Where the shared use path is contained within a street
or highway border, its grade shall not exceed the general grade
established for the adjacent street or highway.
Individuals with disabilities using wheeled mobility devices
generally need less steep slopes in order to conserve energy and to
better maintain control of the wheeled mobility device. For these
reasons, the Board is considering a 5 percent maximum grade on newly
constructed and altered shared paths that are not contained within a
street or highway border. The AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide
recommends that grades greater than 5 percent are undesirable for a
variety of reasons. Bicyclists may find ascents over-taxing and
descents uncomfortable where speed is likely to build. Steep grades
affect the safety of all users, particularly where multiple types of
users are on the path at the same time. For example, pedestrians with
disabilities may have difficulty avoiding faster moving bicycles. More
importantly, however, pedestrians with disabilities are likely to
experience greater difficulty traveling on steeper slopes than others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade (running slope) Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access Board Pedestrian Access Route-- Where pedestrian access route within a sidewalk is contained within a
Sidewalk Guidelines. street or highway border, its grade shall not exceed the general grade
established for the adjacent street or highway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access Board Trail Guidelines........ Running Slope of Trail Segment Maximum Length of
Segment
--------------------------------------
Steeper than But not steeper
than
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1:20 1:12 200 feet (61 m).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1:12 1:10 30 feet (9 m).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1:10 1:8 10 feet (3050 mm).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No more than 30 percent of the total length of a trail shall have a
running slope steeper than 1:12.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide...... Grades greater than 5 percent are undesirable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. Are there conditions where a 5 percent maximum grade
cannot be achieved on a newly constructed shared use path? If so, the
Board is interested in a description of the specific conditions that
might prevent compliance. The Board will consider providing additional
exceptions where it may be difficult or impossible to meet the 5
percent maximum grade.
Question 4. Should the Board provide guidance on how to address
steeper segments of shared use paths when they cannot be avoided? For
example, would providing space for bicyclists or wheelchair users to
move off of the shared use path in order to avoid conflict with other
traffic be helpful?
Where the shared use path is contained within a street or highway
border, the grade may not exceed the general grade established for the
adjacent street or highway. This is consistent with the grade
provisions for sidewalks.
Question 5. What would be considered a sufficient separation
between a shared use path and a roadway, or outside border of a
roadway, where it may not be necessary for the shared use path to
follow the grade of the roadway?
Cross Slope. The maximum cross slope shall be 2 percent.
Excessive cross slope (exceeding 2 percent) is a major barrier to
travel along shared use paths for individuals using wheeled mobility
devices and can significantly impede forward progress on an uphill
slope and compromise control and balance in downhill travel and on
turns. Cross slope also negatively affects pedestrians who have braces
or lower-limb prostheses and may use walkers or crutches, and those
with gait, balance, and stamina impairments. Energy that might
otherwise be used in forward travel must be expended to resist the
perpendicular force of a cross slope along a route of travel. The
AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide recommends a one percent cross slope,
particularly at turns where bicyclists tend to lean to one side while
turning. A one percent cross slope also provides sufficient slope to
convey surface drainage in most situations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Slope Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access Board Pedestrian Access Route-- The cross slope of the
Sidewalk Guidelines. pedestrian access route within
a sidewalk shall be 2 percent
maximum.
Access Board Trail Guidelines.......... Where the surface is concrete,
asphalt, or boards, the cross
slope shall not be steeper
than 2 percent.
Where the surface is other than
concrete, asphalt, or boards,
the cross slope shall not be
steeper than 5 percent.
AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide........ 1 percent recommended where
possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 6. Are there conditions where cross slope steeper than 2
percent is necessary in new construction? If so, the Board is
interested in a description of these specific conditions and
[[Page 17069]]
recommendations for appropriate allowances.
6. Protruding Objects
Protruding Objects. Protruding objects along or overhanging any
portion of the shared use path shall not reduce the clear width of the
shared use paths.
Protrusion Limits. Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches
(685 mm) and not more than 80 inches (2 m) above the finish surface or
ground shall not protrude more than 4 inches (100 mm) horizontally into
shared use paths.
Post-Mounted Objects. Where objects are mounted on free-standing
posts or pylons and the objects are 27 inches (685 mm) minimum and 80
inches (2030 mm) maximum above the finish surface or ground, the
objects shall not overhang shared use paths more than 4 inches (100 mm)
beyond the post or pylon base measured 6 inches (150 mm) minimum above
the finish surface or ground. Where a sign or other obstruction is
mounted between posts or pylons and the clear distance between the
posts or pylons is greater than 12 inches (305 mm) the lowest edge of
sign or obstruction shall be 27 inches (685 mm) maximum or 80 inches (2
m) minimum above the finish surface or ground.
The draft technical provisions for protruding objects are derived
from the Board's ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines and Pedestrian
Access Route--Sidewalk Guidelines. The provisions addresses objects
that may project into shared use paths in a manner hazardous to people
with vision impairments. Any protrusion on a shared use path is
considered hazardous for all users, including individuals with
disabilities. These technical provisions would apply to the full width
of the shared use path. Objects mounted on walls or posts with leading
edges above the standard sweep of canes (27 inches) and below the
standard head room clearance (80 inches) would be limited to a 4 inch
protrusion.
7. Gates and Barriers
Clear Width. Where gates or other barriers are provided, openings
in gates and barriers shall provide a clear width of 32 inches (815 mm)
minimum.
Gate Hardware. Gate hardware shall be operable with one hand and
shall not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist.
The force required to activate operable parts shall be 5 pounds (22.2
N) maximum. Operable parts of such hardware shall be 34 inches (865 mm)
minimum and 48 inches (1220 mm) maximum above the finish surface or
ground.
The draft technical provisions for gates and barriers are based on
the Board's ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines and Trails Guidelines.
Gates or barriers often are wider than 32 inches to allow for the safe
passage of bicycles and other authorized users of shared use paths. The
Board is proposing to require a 32 inch minimum clearance to address
the rare circumstance where gate or barrier openings are deliberately
narrow and could restrict access by wheelchair users unless a minimum
width applies. A 32 inch wide clear opening provides the minimum
clearance necessary to allow passage of an occupied wheelchair or other
mobility device. The operation and location provisions for gate
hardware are necessary to ensure that individuals with disabilities can
operate the hardware.
8. Intersections and Curb Ramps
Curb Ramps and Blended Transitions
Curb Ramps. Curb ramps shall have a running slope that cuts through
or is built up to the curb at right angles or meets the gutter grade
break at right angles.
Running Slope. The running slope of curb ramps shall be 5 percent
minimum and 8.3 percent maximum but shall not require the ramp length
to exceed 15 ft. (4.5 m).
Cross Slope. The cross slope of a curb ramp at intersections shall
be 2 percent maximum. The cross slope of a curb ramp at midblock
crossings shall be permitted to be equal to the street or highway
grade.
Landing. A landing 4 feet (1.2 m) minimum by 4 feet (1.2 m) minimum
shall be provided at the top of the curb ramp and shall be permitted to
overlap other landings and clear space. The running and cross slope of
a curb ramp at midblock crossings shall be permitted to be equal to the
street or highway grade.
Blended Transitions. Where blended transitions are provided, the
running slope shall be 5 percent maximum and cross slope shall be 2
percent maximum.
Common Technical Provisions for Curb Ramps and Blended Transitions
Width. The clear width of blended transitions and curb ramps,
excluding flares, shall be at least as wide as the shared use path.
Detectable Warning Surfaces. Detectable warning surfaces shall be
provided where a shared use path connects to or crosses a roadway or
railway crossing.
Grade Breaks. Grade breaks at the top and bottom of curb ramps
shall be perpendicular to the direction of the ramp run. At least one
end of the bottom grade break shall be at the back of curb. Grade
breaks shall not be permitted on the surface of curb ramps, blended
transitions, landings, and gutter areas within the shared use path.
Surface slopes that meet at grade breaks shall be flush.
Counter Slopes. The counter slope of the gutter or street at the
foot of a curb ramp, landing, or blended transition shall be 5 percent
maximum.
Clear Space. Beyond the curb face, a clear space of 4 feet (1.2 m)
minimum by 4 feet. (1.2 m) minimum shall be provided within the width
of the crossing.
Detectable Warning Surfaces
Truncated Domes. Detectable warning surfaces shall consist of
truncated domes aligned in a square or radial grid pattern.
Dome Size. Truncated domes in detectable warning surfaces shall
have a base diameter of 0.9 inch (23 mm) minimum to 1.4 inches (36 mm)
maximum, a top diameter of 50 percent of the base diameter minimum to
65 percent of the base diameter maximum, and a height of 0.2 inch (5
mm).
Dome Spacing. Truncated domes in a detectable warning surface shall
have a center-to-center spacing of 1.6 inches (41 mm) minimum and 2.4
inches (61 mm) maximum, and a base-to-base spacing of 0.65 inches (17
mm) minimum, measured between the most adjacent domes.
Contrast. Detectable warning surfaces shall contrast visually with
adjacent gutter, street or highway, or shared use path surfaces, either
light-on-dark or dark-on-light.
Size. Detectable warning surfaces shall extend 24 inches (610 mm)
minimum in the direction of travel and the full width of the curb ramp
or the blended transition.
Location and Alignment of Detectable Warning Surfaces
Curb Ramps. Where both ends of the bottom grade break are 5.0 feet
(1.5 m) or less from the back of curb, the detectable warning surfaces
shall be located on the ramp surface at the bottom grade break. Where
either end of the bottom grade break is more than 5.0 feet (1.5 m) from
the back of curb, the detectable warning surfaces shall be located on
the lower landing.
Blended Transitions. The detectable warning surfaces shall be
located on the blended transition at the back of curb.
Rail Crossings. The detectable warning surfaces shall be located so
that the edge nearest the rail crossing is 6
[[Page 17070]]
feet (1.8 m) minimum and 15 feet (4.6 m) maximum from the centerline of
the nearest rail. The rows of truncated domes in a detectable warning
surface shall be aligned to be parallel with the direction of
pedestrian travel.
Treatment of elevation changes, such as at curbs, and controlling
cross slope are key factors in ensuring accessibility, particularly
where shared use paths and roadways intersect. The draft technical
provisions for curb ramps, blended transitions, and detectable warnings
are based on the Board's Pedestrian Access Route--Sidewalk Guidelines.
In general, the draft provisions for shared use paths require the
following.
The opening of a shared use path at a roadway must be at
least as wide as the shared use path itself;
A curb ramp or blended transition must be provided, and
must be the full width of the shared use path;
The running slope of the curb ramp must not exceed 8.3
percent and blended transition must not exceed 5 percent;
The cross slope must be the same as the running slope of
the roadway at midblock crossings; and
Where the shared use path crosses a roadway or railway,
detectable warnings must be provided the full width of the curb ramp or
blended transition for a depth of 2 feet.
Markings at crossings of shared use paths and roadways must also
comply with the provisions of Part 3--Markings of the 2009 Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
The Board has limited the requirement for detectable warnings to
locations where a shared use path crosses a roadway or a railway. The
Board has not included a requirement for detectable warnings where
shared use paths cross other paths or pedestrian facilities. Where
pedestrians and bicyclists share a pathway, established bicycle and
pedestrian ``rules of the road'' should provide sufficient guidance for
safe use.
Question 7. Is there a need to provide additional warnings or
information to bicyclists regarding potential conflicts with other
shared use paths users, including pedestrians with disabilities?
9. Other Issues
Overlap of Trails, Sidewalks, and Shared Use Paths
In some locations, a shared use path may be part of a sidewalk, or
part of a trail. Guidance is needed to clarify which set of guidelines
should be applied where there is overlap since the technical provisions
are different in some areas. For example, Pedestrian Access Route--
Sidewalk Guidelines permit the grade to follow the slope of the roadway
and Trails Guidelines specify a maximum grade. The Board is interested
in suggestions for ways to treat areas of shared use paths that overlap
sidewalks and trails that will provide an acceptable level of
accessibility while taking into consideration any unique conditions or
situations that may occur where these routes overlap.
Question 8. What technical provisions should apply where the shared
use path overlaps a trail or sidewalk?
Shared Use Path Connections
The draft technical provisions in this ANPRM apply to the newly
constructed and altered shared use paths. Shared use paths may be
constructed over many miles and connected with other pedestrian routes,
creating a network for transportation purposes. The Board is interested
in more information regarding connections between shared use paths and
other parts of a transportation network.
Question 9. Are different technical provisions needed when applying
the draft technical provisions for shared use paths that ``connect''
shared use paths together or with other pedestrian routes (e.g.,
sidewalks, trails, accessible routes)? If so, please provide any
additional information or recommendations.
Where should the accessibility guidelines for shared use paths be
located?
The Board is considering including the accessibility guidelines for
shared use paths in the same document as the accessibility guidelines
for pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way. State and local
government departments of transportation appear to be the principal
entities that design and construct shared use paths since these
facilities are an extension of the transportation network, and having
the accessibility guidelines for shared use paths in the same document
as pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way appears to be a
logical choice. In addition, many of the draft technical provisions for
shared use paths (i.e., intersection and curb ramps/blended
transitions, detectable warning surfaces, 4 inch limit on post-mounted
protruding objects (signs), and rail flangeway gaps) are the same as
those in draft guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the public-
right-of-way.
Question 10. Should the accessibility guidelines for shared use
paths be included in the same document as the accessibility guidelines
for pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way?
Question 11. Are there other issues that need to be addressed by
the accessibility guidelines for shared use paths? If so, please
provide specific information on any additional areas that should be
addressed in the guidelines.
Regulatory Process Matters
The Board will prepare regulatory assessments required by Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act as a part of
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the next step in this
rulemaking.
Question 12. The Board requests commenters to provide information
for the regulatory assessments, including:
Number of existing and planned shared-use paths at the
state or national level;
Number of shared-use paths constructed each year (on
average) within your jurisdiction;
Typical cost for a new shared-use path on a per-mile
basis;
Sources of funding for the construction of shared-use
paths (e.g., Federal highway funds, other Federal grant programs, state
funds, local funds);
The extent to which the AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide,
or other design guides and standards are used for shared use paths;
Whether any of the draft technical provisions would result
in additional costs for design work, materials, earthmoving, retaining
structures, or other items compared to current construction practices
or design guides and standards currently followed;
What, if any, unintended consequences (positive or
negative) could result from an agency adopting the guidelines, and
What impacts will the draft technical provisions have on
small entities and are there alternatives that would minimize those
impacts?
Nancy Starnes,
Chair, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
[FR Doc. 2011-7156 Filed 3-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
