Although most of the ADAAG subsections state that the maximum running or
cross-slope at an intersection is 2%, Subsection R301.4.2 Street or Highway
Grade states, " Where the walkway of a pedestrian access route [sidewalk to
laypersons] is contained within a street or highway border, its grade shall not
exceed the general grade established for the adjacent street or highway." This
shows an understanding that the world outside of the Beltway is not flat and
some parts of the country have roads and streets with greater than a 2%
longitudinal grade.

Unfortunately, the ADAAG still calls for a maximum 2% cross- and longitudinal
slope for crosswalks and raised crossings at intersections. The national
standard for roadway design, "A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets", published by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) also addresses this issue. It pointedly
prohibits the "tabling" of roadways at intersections because research shows
that vehicles become airborne at these locations at anything other than very
low speeds. This comment was made to the U.S. Access Board by AASHTO and a
number of states during the comment period on the original ADAAG in the public
rights-of-way in 2002. I know this because I wrote the 32 pages of comments
submitted by the State of Arizona...many of the comments were in support of the
subsections as they were written. Some were not.

I hope the U.S. Departments of Justice and Transportation acknowledge the
consequences of poor engineering and revise the guidelines prior to final
approval and implementation of the ADAAG.

The answer to your question depends on what regulations the entity is operating
under and the type of project. [1] The Access Board and the FHWA have
encouraged early, voluntary adoption of the PROWAG to allow public agencies to
take advantage of standards that are more conducive to the public
right-of-way. Otherwise, ADAAG is the prevailing (enforceable) standard by
default and the more restrictive standards for buildings and sites are
applicable. [2] There are generally no exceptions allowed for new
construction; for alterations there are technical infeasibility or maximum
extent feasible exceptions depending on which regulations are in play. At
Nevada DOT we have seperate standard drawing for new construction and
alterations to avoid this type of conflict; with curb ramps there is no "one
size fits all" solution. I would also venture to say that it would be unlikely
that I would approve an maximum extent feasible exception to a curb ramp that
had un-level landings unless the project were in mountainous terrain (we have
adopted PROWAG). There are many ways to acheive small level areas such as with
the use of retaining walls.

I should have framed my original question better with the following: Title II.
Transition Plan. Alteration of city curb ramps that are adjacent to curb for
linear pedestrian travel. No buildings abut the sidewalk. No mountainous
terrain. No extreme geometrics. PROWAG not adopted. Under these field
conditions, if a locale perhaps misconstrues the State language and grants
itself an 'exception' to the prevailing Standard and the work results in ramps
that exceed 2% cross slope on landings and runs, 1)What should happen next? and
2)Whose oversight should make it happen?

Here's what I think. Under ADAAG the following exceptions apply to new
construction and alterations respectively:

In new construction, a person or entity is not required to meet fully the
requirements of these guidelines where that person or entity can demonstrate
that it is structurally impracticable to do so. Full compliance will be
considered structurally impracticable only in those rare circumstances when the
unique characteristics of terrain prevent the incorporation of accessibility
features. If full compliance with the requirements of these guidelines is
structurally impracticable, a person or entity shall comply with the
requirements to the extent it is not structurally impracticable. Any portion of
the building or facility which can be made accessible shall comply to the
extent that it is not structurally impracticable. In alteration work, if
compliance is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide
accessibility to the maximum extent feasible. Any elements or features of the
building or facility that are being altered and can be made accessible shall be
made accessible within the scope of the alteration. Technically infeasible
means, with respect to an alteration of a building or a facility, that it has
little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural conditions
would require removing or altering a load-bearing member which is an essential
part of the structural frame; or because other existing physical or site
constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features
which are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements for new
construction and which are necessary to provide accessibility.

It is my understanding that the head of the organization must make these
determinations, so if its a City then the Mayor, or the mayor's designee, makes
these calls. If such a determination has been made (this typically requires a
formal, predefined process) then it has legal standing and would probably need
to be challenged in the courts, unless the Department of Justice has a means
for determining and dealing with obvious abuse of this exception. If you are a
state overseeing a sub-recipient, then you are obligated to ensure that your
sub-recipients are compliant with Section 504 of the Rehab Act and the ADA. In
this case, if you think the entity is non-compliant (and from the information
you supplied it seems that they are, intentionally) you can start the process
of denying further state and federal assistance to that entity. You also have
the option of filing a formal complaint with the USDOT or the USDOJ regardless
of whether the entity is a sub-recipient of yours or not.

My best advice is to find out who the ADA coordinator and the risk manager of
the Title II entity is and work this out with them. The State's language does
not supercede the federal law and regulations so a local entity that is
thinking they can use State standards that are less accessible than the federal
requirements is mistaken. It does work the other way, however; if a State
requires greater accessibility than the federal requirements, the State's
requirements will prevail.