ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like1,375 views
The City of College Station conducted an ADA self-evaluation and developed a transition plan to address accessibility issues. The evaluation found many deficiencies across City buildings, parks, intersections, and sidewalks. Specifically, facilities were found to be non-compliant in areas of parking, paths of travel, seating, and restrooms. The plan prioritizes improvements and estimates costs of $3.35 million. Next steps include implementing the schedule, identifying funding, and completing additional evaluations.
ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan
- 1. City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan City Council Meeting October 22, 2015
- 2. Presentation Outline • ADA Title II Requirements • ADA Transition Plan Requirements • Project Scope • Self-Evaluation Overview • Facility Improvements Cost Summary • Next Steps
- 3. ADA Title II Requirements • Requires local governments to: – Develop a grievance procedure – Designate someone to oversee Title II compliance (ADA Coordinator) and make person’s name and phone number available to public – Perform and retain a self-evaluation for 3 years – Develop a Transition Plan if structural changes are necessary for achieving program accessibility – Disseminate information to the public informing them of rights and protections afforded by ADA
- 4. ADA Title II Requirements • Must ensure that individuals with disabilities are not excluded from programs, services, and activities (including pedestrian facilities) • New construction and altered facilities must be free of architectural and communication barriers • Does not require that an entire facility be barrier free as long as access to individual programs, activities, and services is provided
- 5. Transition Plan Requirements • Transition Plan must contain the following components: – Designate an ADA Coordinator – Develop / adopt Complaint / Grievance Process – Develop / adopt design standards – Provide notice to public about ADA requirements/ identify public involvement opportunities – Identify barriers to access • Identify Plan (time and budget) to remove barriers • Monitor progress on implementation of Plan & reevaluation of schedule
- 6. Project Scope • Established internal ADA Liaison Committee • Held Orientation Meeting • Completed Self-Evaluation Process – Reviewed programs, activities, services, and Boards & Commissions – Reviewed design standards – Developed formal grievance policy and procedures – Assessed facilities and infrastructure • 3 Buildings • 2 Parks • 20 Signalized Intersections • 3 miles of sidewalks corridors and associated curb ramps
- 7. Project Scope • Developed Transition Plan – Conducted public meetings to solicit input from the disability community – Documented public input – Developed prioritized plan for barrier removal – Established curb ramp schedule – Developed formal documentation • Conducted Staff Training – Disability Awareness and ADA Overview – Orientation for ADA Liaison Team – Public Rights-of-Way joint training with City of Bryan staff
- 8. Self-Evaluation Overview • Focus Group Meeting – Meeting help on 1/21/15 – Attendees included representatives from local disability organizations • Public Meeting #1 – Meeting held on 5/5/15 • Public Meeting #2 – Meeting held on 9/28/15
- 9. Self-Evaluation Overview • Public Input Process – Follow-up Items – Evaluating the need for more Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS), especially around Texas A&M University. – Prioritizing the following locations for new sidewalks requested: • Tarrow Street/ E. 29th Street • Gaps along Southwest Parkway near Wellborn Road • Gaps on Munson Avenue
- 10. Self-Evaluation Overview • Public Input Process – Follow-up Items – Evaluating the following sidewalk locations identified for ADA compliance in the next phase of the plan: • Harvey Mitchell Parkway near Welsh Avenue • Anderson Street from George Bush Drive to Southwest Parkway • Wellborn Road • Holik Street
- 11. Self-Evaluation Overview • Public Input Process – Follow-up Items – Educating staff on interpretive services the City should provide for programs and services offered such as Parks and Recreation programs and police and fire interactions in the field. – Evaluating the use of video phones in public locations such as the library.
- 12. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings • Programs, Procedures, and Polices – Staff training needed – Make Staff aware of resources for auxiliary aides and accommodations – Include updated ADA notice on meeting agendas – Make available alternate formats of printed information and inform Staff of how to get them – Include contact information for auxiliary aides and accommodations for City programs
- 13. Self-Evaluation Overview • Field Investigations – Extensive photos of site investigations – Detailed data collection forms – Data management / GIS based system
- 15. Self-Evaluation Overview – Parks (2)
- 16. Self-Evaluation Overview – Signalized Intersections (20)
- 17. Self-Evaluation Overview – Sidewalks (3 miles)
- 18. Phase 1 Facility Improvements Approximate Cost Summary Facility Type Estimated Cost of Improvements Buildings $82,000 Parks $723,000 Signalized Intersections $1,437,000 Sidewalk Corridors $1,115,000 City Total $3,357,000
- 19. Next Steps • City Council approval and adoption • Develop implementation schedule for programs, policies, and infrastructure improvements • Identify funding for implementation and evaluations • Complete additional evaluation phases
- 20. Questions?
- 21. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings • Facility Compliance and Prioritization – None of the evaluated facilities were fully compliant – Prioritization schedules developed for each facility type – Prioritization will aid in developing the implementation schedule of projects
- 22. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings • Building Compliance Feature Parking Path of Travel Building Entrance Restrooms Break Room Drinking Fountains Does Not Exist - - - - 1 0 Non-Compliant 2 4 0 14 1 0 Compliant 5 1 5 16 4 10 % Non- Compliant 28.6% 80.0% 0.0% 46.7% 20.0% 0.0%
- 23. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings • Building Priority Buildings High Medium Low Municipal Court 23 0 0 Northgate Garage 8 1 0 Utility Customer Service 13 0 1 Total 44 1 1
- 24. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings • Park Compliance Feature Parking Path of Travel Assembly Seating Restrooms Picnic Areas Playgrounds Non-Compliant 7 2 2 10 15 2 Compliant 0 0 0 0 3 1 % Non- Compliant 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 83.3% 66.7%
- 25. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings • Park Priority Parks High Medium Low Stephen C. Beachy Park 34 20 6 Brian Bachmann Park 21 7 3 Total 55 27 9
- 26. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings • Signalized Intersection Compliance – Most common curb ramp issues: • No color contrast on ramps • Excessive flare cross slopes • Ponding in ramps, landings, or flares • Obstructions in ramps, landings, or flares
- 27. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings Curb Ramp Issue Number Evaluated Number Non-Compliant Percent Non-Compliant No color contrast 77 53 68.8% Flare cross slope > 10% 46 29 63.0% Ponding in ramp, landing, or flares 77 45 58.4% Obstruction in ramp, landing, or flares 77 44 57.1% Ramp cross slope > 2% 77 33 42.9% No texture contrast 77 30 39.0% No flush transition to roadway 77 29 37.7% Ramp running slope > 8.3% 77 28 36.4% Landing running slope > 2% 54 19 35.2% Ramp counter slope > 5% 77 27 35.1% Landing cross slope > 2% 54 16 29.6% Ramp width < 48” 77 22 28.6% Curbed sides < 90◦ 31 8 25.8% No landing 77 19 24.7% No ramp where ramp is needed 98 17 17.3% Ramp does not land in crosswalk 77 7 9.1% No 48” crosswalk extension 61 5 8.2% Traversable sides 31 2 6.5%
- 28. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings • Signalized Intersection Compliance (cont.) – Most common pedestrian equipment issues: • No clear floor spaces or no access to clear floor spaces • Excessive clear floor running and cross slopes • Missing push buttons where push buttons are needed
- 29. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings Push Button Issue Number Evaluated Number Non-Compliant Percent Non-Compliant No clear floor space or no access 57 35 61.4% Clear floor space running slope > 2% 22 13 59.1% Clear floor space cross slope > 2% 22 12 54.5% Missing push button where push button is needed 138 53 38.4% Push button offset from crosswalk > 5’ 57 17 29.8% Missing pedestrian head where pedestrian head is needed 138 28 20.3% Push button orientation not parallel 57 10 17.5% Push button height > 48” 57 8 14.0% Push button offset from curb > 10’ 57 7 12.3% Push button diameter not 2” 57 7 12.3%
- 30. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings • Signalized Intersections
- 31. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings Signalized Intersection Priority No. Signalized Intersections 1 (high) - 2 (high) 11 3 (high) - 4 (high) 1 5 (medium) 6 6 (medium) - 7 (medium) - 8 (medium) - 9 (low) - 10 (low) - 11 (low) 1 12 (low) - 13 (low) 1 Total 20
- 32. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings • Unsignalized Intersection Compliance – Most common curb ramp issues: • Excessive landing cross slopes • Excessive ramp cross slopes • Non compliant curbed sides • No color contrast on ramps
- 33. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings Curb Ramp Issue Number Evaluated Number Non-Compliant Percent Non-Compliant Landing cross slope > 2% 82 44 53.7% Ramp cross slope > 2% 84 45 53.6% Curbed sides < 90◦ 66 34 51.5% No color contrast 84 38 45.2% Ramp width < 48” 84 38 45.2% Flare cross slope > 10% 18 8 44.4% No flush transition to roadway 84 30 35.7% Landing running slope > 2% 82 20 24.4% No texture contrast 84 19 22.6% Obstruction in ramp, landing, or flares 84 15 17.9% Ponding in ramp, landing, or flares 84 15 17.9% Ramp running slope > 8.3% 84 15 17.9% Ramp counter slope > 5% 84 12 14.3% No ramp where ramp is needed 115 5 4.3% Ramp does not land in crosswalk 84 3 3.6% No landing 84 2 2.4% Traversable sides 66 1 1.5% No 48” crosswalk extension 82 0 0.0%
- 34. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings • Unsignalized Intersection Priority
- 35. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings Unsignalized Intersection Priority No. Unsignalized Intersections 1 (high) - 2 (high) 18 3 (high) - 4 (high) - 5 (medium) 11 6 (medium) - 7 (medium) - 8 (medium) - 9 (low) 7 10 (low) - 11 (low) - 12 (low) - 13 (low) 1 Total 37
- 36. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings • Sidewalk Corridor Compliance – Most common sidewalk issues • Excessive sidewalk cross slopes • Vertical discontinuities causing excessive level changes • Excessive driveway and cross street cross slopes • Permanent and temporary obstructions
- 37. Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings Line Type Length (miles) by Priority 1 (high) 2 (medium) 3 (low) Compliant Total Sidewalk Line 0.56 0.78 0.09 0.75 2.18 Sidewalk Issues (including missing sidewalk) 0.26 0.04 - - 0.30 Driveways 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.22 Cross Streets - 0.02 0.09 0.21 0.31 Total 0.92 0.89 0.23 0.98 3.01 • Sidewalk Corridor Priority
- 38. Sample Issues – Buildings/Parking • Ramps constructed with cross slope greater than 2% • Vertical clearance reduced to less than 98” at van accessible parking spaces • Sidewalks with running slopes greater than 5% and not constructed as ramps
- 39. Sample Issues – Parks • Parking – Accessible parking spaces do not meet minimum size standards – Excessive slopes at curb ramps serving accessible parking spaces • Non compliant concession counters • No accessible restrooms at ball fields or pool house
- 40. Sample Issues – Intersections • Missing or non-compliant clear floor space for pedestrian pushbuttons • Missing color truncated domes on ramps • Excessive flare cross slope • Ponding in ramp, landing, or flares
- 41. Sample Pushbutton Issues Non-compliant Pushbutton Clear Floor Space Location: Northwest corner of Southwest Pkwy and Glade St Location: Northeast corner of Holleman Dr and Dartmouth St
- 42. Sample Ramp Issues Missing Color Truncated Domes Location: Southeast corner of Holleman Dr and Anderson St
- 43. Sample Ramp Issues Excessive Flare Cross Slope Location: Southeast corner of Southwest Pkwy and Welsh Ave
- 44. Sample Ramp Issues Ponding in Ramp, Landing, or Flares Location: Southwest corner of Rock Prairie Rd and Welsh Ave
- 45. Sample Issues – Sidewalks • Excessive cross slopes • Vertical discontinuities that caused excessive level changes – Includes cracking, sinking, and heaving • Excessive driveway and cross street cross slopes • Permanent and temporary obstructions
- 46. Sample Sidewalk Issues Sinking and Excessive Cross Slope
- 47. Sample Sidewalk Issues Heaving and Cracking
- 48. Sample Sidewalk Issues Permanent Obstructions
- 49. Sample Sidewalk Issues Temporary Obstruction