Please tell me what triggers your requirements for the construction of sidewalk and curb ramps? You may or may not be aware of the following: A. Existing federal ADA law from 28 CFR Part 36, Appendix A is available at the following website: http://www.ada.gov/adastd94.pdf B. Existing federal ADA law does provide for the following exceptions with regard to alterations: 1. Paragraph 4.1.6(1)(J) of Appendix A allows for an ADA exception, referred to as "technically infeasible", when doing an "alteration" if non-compliance is caused by structural or technical reasons. However accessibility shall still be provided to the maximum extent feasible when doing such an "alteration". 2. Paragraph 4.1.6(2) addresses access to an area containing a primary function to ensure the path of travel is accessible to the maximum extent feasible and unless such alterations are disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and scope as determined under criteria established by the Attorney General. 3. Paragraph 4.1.6(3)(a) allows for the steepening of curb ramps, etc when space limitations are encountered during an alteration. C. Changes to the existing federal ADA law regarding public rights of way have been proposed and are now going through public comment. The proposed changes, not yet in effect, are available at the following website: http://www.access-board.gov/rowdraft.htm

Thank you for your response. 1. Our state or county engineering codes and several consent decrees state wide trigger sidewalks or curb ramps. 2. Thank you I am aware of this CFR. My question to you is when does the increase slope cause wheel chair tipping and falling. When you construct outside of the limits of the ADAAG which is based on the ANSI A117.1 1980 accessibility safety code, how do you weigh the risk of having someone using crutches or walkers or wheelchairs, falling or tipping? There are annually 50,000 to 70,000 wheelchair accidents with 75% due to tips and falls (Kirby RL). The ANSI A117.1 1980, has a 25 year proven historical track record of safety. The reason for the development of the standard was to provide a defensable position for the users of the standard. How do you make technical infeasibility usable (safe) to the maximum extent feasible if you go outside the minimum safety standard? How do you protect constituents from liability outside the minimum standard?

Your questions are very challenging! I don't believe you can make technical infeasibility safe if you exceed the minimum safety standards. What can be done is to provide warning or caution signs along with other options such as alternate routes or methods of access. I suspect the standard applied here would be one of reasonable diligence and good judgment, and that the actions taken were reasonable considering the given physical and financial constraints. I guess the moral is "the person who wants to do something finds a way, and the person who doesn't finds an excuse!" J. Tessmer sounds like the person who wants to do something and will find a way!

Gene, Thank you for your response. Has CalTrans done any work in the area of safe highway pedestrian geometric designs? If you know of any resources? I would appreciate some references. I am aware of the FHWA best practices manual and your suggestions on signs and alternative routes is more in line with what I am looking for.