It is the long-term intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that publicly available services along a public street be accessible to people with disabilities via a continuous, unobstructed pedestrian circulation network. When altered, almost all streets, with the exception of rural roads and highways, will be required to provide an accessible side-walk wherever feasible. Existing research and science related to side-walk cross-slope requirements are described in detail. The history and spirit of the ADA are summarized, relevant court decisions are discussed, and key ADA cross-slope–related requirements are identified (along with applicable caveats). Current practices rely on a combination of strict, but limited, physical solutions and some programmatic solutions, about which there is much uncertainty as to how and when they should be applied. Very little existing work considers the effort and other access differences that result from changes in cross slope. Thus, additional research is needed to ensure sound policy regarding user access to transportation facilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Accessible Rights of Way: A Design Manual (Review Draft). U.S. Access Board, Washington, D.C., November1998.
2.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities: State and Local Government Facilities. Interim Final Rule. 59 F.R., 31676. U.S. Access Board, Washington, D.C., 1994.
3.
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities. Final Rule. 28 C.F.R., Part 36, issued at 56 F.R., 35592, 1991. As last amended at 63 F.R., 64836. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., 1998.
4.
Title II Technical Assistance Manual. U.S. Department of Justice, 1992.
5.
Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. Introduction. FED-STD-795. U.S. Access Board, Washington D.C., 1988.
6.
Technical Assistance Letter to Representative Rick Lazio. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C., December13, 1996.
7.
Accessible Sidewalks: Design Issues for Pedestrians with Disabilities (video). U.S. Access Board, Washington D.C., 1997.
8.
KirbyR. L., Ackroyd-StolarzS. A., BrownM. G., KirklandS. A., and MacLeodD. A.Wheelchair-Related Accidents Caused by Tips and Falls Among Noninstitutionalized Users of Manual Propelled Wheel-chairs in Nova Scotia. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol. 73, No. 5, Sept.1994, pp. 319–329.
9.
AxelsonP., KirschbaumJ., and WongK.Access for Everyone: Meeting the ADA. Proc., Pro Bike Pro Walk 98, Bicycle Federation of America, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 181–185.
10.
KockelmanK., ZhaoY., and Blanchard-ZimmermanC.Methods for Meeting the Intent of the ADA in Sidewalk Cross-slope Design. Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, 1999.
11.
ChesneyD. A., and AxelsonP. W.Preliminary Test Method for the Determination of Surface Firmness. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 3, Sept.1996, pp. 182–187.
12.
National Center for Health Statistics. 1990 National Health Interview Survey. Public Health Service, Hyattsville, Md., 1993.
13.
BrubakerC. E.Wheelchair Prescription: An Analysis of Factors that Affect Mobility and Performance. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, Vol. 23, No. 4, Oct.1986, pp. 19–26.
14.
BrubakerC. E., McLaurinC. A., and McClayI. S.Effects of Side Slope on Wheelchair Performance. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, Vol. 23, No. 2, Apr.1986, pp. 55–58.
15.
CooperR. A.Racing Wheelchair Crown Compensation. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, Vol. 26, No. 1, Winter1989, pp. 25–32.
16.
Accessible Buildings for People with Walking and Reaching Disabilities. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 1979.
17.
SanfordJ. A., StoryM. F., and JonesM. L.Accessibility Requirements for Ramp Slope: Results of Human Subjects Testing. RESNA Proceedings, RESNA Press, Arlington, Va., 1996, pp. 455–457.
18.
CanaleI., FeliciF., MarchettiM., and RicciB.Ramp Length/Grade Prescriptions for Wheelchair Dependent Individuals. Paraplegia, Vol. 29, No. 7, Sept.1991, pp. 479–485.
19.
KirbyR. L., McLeanA. D., and EastwoodB. J.Influence of Caster Diameter on the Static and Dynamic Forward Stability of Occupied Wheelchairs. Archive of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation, Vol. 73, No. 1, Jan.1992, pp. 73–77.
20.
GaalR. P., PfaelzerP. F., and HitchhikesR. D.Forward Dynamic Stability Test for Manual Wheelchairs. RESNA Proceedings, RESNA Press, Arlington, Va., 1996, pp. 71–75.
21.
KirbyR. L., DiPersioM., and MacLeodD. A.When Wheelchairs Tip Backwards Beyond Their Stability Limits. RESNA Proceedings, RESNA Press, Arlington, Va., 1996, pp. 73–74.
22.
GueretteP., SanfordJ., JonesM., and StoryM. F.Technical Requirements for Ramps: An Analysis of Current Accessibility Standards and Literature. RESNA Proceedings, RESNA Press, Arlington, Va., 1995, pp. 594–596.
23.
CappozzoA., FeliciF., FiguraF., MarchettiM., and RicciB.Prediction of Ramp Traversability for Wheelchair Dependent Individuals. Paraplegia, Vol. 29, No. 7, Sept.1991, pp. 470–478.
24.
LawrenceB., CooperR., RobertsonR., BoningerM., GonzalezJ., and VanSickleD.Manual Wheelchair Ride Comfort. RESNA Proceedings, RESNA Press, Arlington, Va., 1996, pp. 89–93.
25.
O’ConnorT. J., RobertsonR. N., and CooperR. A.Three-Dimensional Kinematic Analysis of Racing Wheelchair Propulsion. RESNA Proceedings, RESNA Press, Arlington, Va., 1996.
26.
BrubakerC. E., McLaurinC. A., and McClayI. S.The Effect of Mechanical Advantage on Handrim Propulsion Efficiency. Proc., 2nd International Conference on Rehabilitation Engineering, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1984, pp. 15–16.
27.
WoudeL. H., HendrichK. M., VeegerH. E., SchenauG. J., RozendalR. H., GrootG., and HollanderA. P.Manual Wheelchair Propulsion: Effects of Power Output on Physiology and Technique. Medical Science and Sports Exercise, Vol. 20, No. 1, Feb.1988, pp. 70–78.
