In New York, we specify 24 inches in the direction of travel, full width of the curb ramp. See attached link (page 107) for more info. www.access-board.gov/prowac/commrept/PROWreport.pdf

The correct answer is a 2 foot by the width of the sidewalk( 4 ft - 5ft - 6ft ect). I understand California uses 3 ft .

The direction we received from USDOT is to use 24" measured perpendicular from the curb line at the back of curb and the full width of the curb ramp. The domes 'should' line up with the direction of travel if feasible.

I agree with the earlier postings on this. The warning fields are to extend the full width of the ramp and 2 feet in depth in the direction of travel. This is interpreted by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation upon discussions with the Access Board to be the area that matches the curb cut. The department in not placing warning fields on the taper or transitions at the curb and ramp interface. WisDOT's detailed drawings are available online at www.dot.wisconsin.gov/business/engrserv/construction-library.htm and are contained within the 8D series of drawings of the Facilities Development Manual (FDM). Pete Kemp
WisDOT

Detectable warnings (truncated domes) are a two-foot strip running the full width of the ramp (and 6-8 inches up from the curb/gutter). This is the minimum & maximum. In addition, they must provide for a 70% color contrast from the surrounding area (sidewalk/pathway/roadway). In addition, truncated domes must provide for a 70% color contrast from the surrounding area (sidewalk/pathway/roadway), and are required at both ends of a cut-through island (something that is frequently overlooked).

I am glad to see reinforcement of the contrast requirement. NYSDOT has continued to enforce this on all of our product approvals. However, the 70% contrast guidance comes from the current enforceable ADAAG and there does not appear to be similar definitive guidance in either the new ADAAG or the Draft ROW Guidelines. Will the 70% contrast reqirement be continued? And if so how will that be communicated?

There is no 70% contrast "requirement" and never has been. The 70% value comes from the Appendix to the enforcable ADAAG and is not a part of the specification. It comes from an old Board research project on interior signage where lighting levels are relatively uniform. Attempting to apply it to outdoor installations has been a continuing source of confusion and we wish we had not included in the Appendix. Without a specific measurement protocol, the number is meaningless. Until such a protocol is developed and validated, if ever, we will not specify a particular value; instead, the requirement is for contrast to be light-against-dark or dark-against light.

The currently enforcable ADAAG specifies that the detectable warning is to span the width and length of the ramp, not including flares. However, a 24 inch minimu strip at the bottom, the full width, has been determined to be "equivalent facilitation" by FHWA under ADAAG 2.2. This is the current specification recommended by the Access Board in its draft rights-of-way guidelines. FHWA says the draft is the recommended "state of the practice" for rights-of-way.

Officially California still has a full depth by full width requirement for certain curb ramps (those with slopes between 5% and 6.6%; no DW required for 6.7% to 8.3%; 36" deep if slope is less than 5%). The Division of the State Architect (DSA) has issued an IR, accepting 36" depth of DW for all curb ramps (regardless of slope) for projects under the state's jurisdiction. DSA has approved state compliance for Caltrans standard plans A88-A and –B, showing 36" depth. Both plans were also deemed to be in compliance with the ADA by DOT/FHWA. One question that remains though, is the full depth and full width requirement of the DOJ's ADA Standard section 4.7.7 for projects within property lines (as opposed to the Public Right-of-Way). Here FHWA's finding of equivalent facilitation (per 2.2) does not apply, because Title II and Title III on-site projects are under DOJ's, not DOT's jurisdiction. I'm not even sure how the PRoW enforcement ended up in FHWA's lap, since regular street intersections are covered in 28 CFR 35+36, not 49 CFR 37. Anyone? Jurgen

As you may know Subpart G of Title II ADA gives USDOT responsibility for "all programs, services, and regulatory activities relating to transportation, including highways...."(28 CFR § 35.190 (b)(8)). As the operating administration of USDOT with responsibility for roads and highways, FHWA has jurisdiction over public entities (state and local governments and their agencies) that are responsible for planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of roads, highways and pedestrian facilities in the right-of-way. FHWA also had jurisdiction under USDOT Section 504 Rehabilitation Act regulations 49 CFR 27, which generally prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability by any entity that receives Federal Financial Assistance from FHWA, which of course includes Federal aid for highway construction projects.. Two ways FHWA does get directly involved with ADA/504 is through project oversight (when we provide Federal-aid for a project with pedestrian facilities) and the receipt and investigation of ADA/Section 504 complaints, many of which are referred to us from the USDOJ. A third way is the general program oversight provided to us under both Subpart G of Title II ADA and Section 504 of State DOTs and other government entities responsible for roads and pedestrian facilities in the ROW. On the other hand 49 CFR 37 generally covers transit facilities, which is the responsibility of our sister operating administration, the Federal Transit Administration. Besides the general Section 504 provisions, Section 504 at 49 CFR § 27.75 ("Federal Highway Administration – highways") also has specific provisions for curb ramps (must be installed when Federal-aid is used to construct crosswalks) highway rest area facilities on Interstates, and pedestrian over/underpasses constructed with FHWA funds. Bob

Bob: Thank you for your thorough answer. When looking at Title II's Subpart G, I don't see DOT's jurisdiction over regular city or county streets (e.g. a residential cul-de-sac), just "highways". So is there an MOU or similar agreement between your Department and the AG's office stating that PRoW issues are your responsibility? Jurgen

A third way is the general program oversight provided to us under both Subpart
G of Title II ADA and Section 504 of State DOTs and other government entities
responsible for roads and pedestrian facilities in the ROW.

DOES IT MATTER IF A STATE/LOCAL JURISDICITION RECEIVES FED. FUNDS FOR FHWA TO
HAVE OVERSIGHT? DOES FHWA HAVE OVERALL 'GENERAL OVERSIGHT' EVEN WITHOUT FED.
FUNDS?

Thanks- Ben

In addition to ADA coverage, rights-of-way are covered by Section 504. As a
result of the Civil Rights Restoration Act, the entire program is covered if
any part received federal funds, including pass-throygh funds from the State.
See www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4720-6.htm for a thorough
discussion.