Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSidewalk Materials - Recommendations for Lexington Center, 2006 oto Sidewalk Materials - Recommendations for Lexington Center May 15, 2006 Prepared By: Lexington Commission on Disability Addressed To: ❖ Lexington Board of Selectmen ❖ Lexington Design Advisory Committee ❖ Lexington Center Committee ❖ Sidewalk Committee ❖ Department of Public Works Introduction: Sidewalks serve as pathways that connect us with our town resources, our market places, our places of employment, and our businesses. The materials chosen for sidewalk construction are of crucial concern to our citizens and visitors with disabilities. Uneven surfaces are hazardous for everyone, but especially for the elderly, those in wheelchairs, those with walking problems, and people pushing strollers. Everyone needs to be able to traverse safely so that seamless inclusion and participation for all regardless of disability is a given, not just a presumption. The Commission on Disability is charged with the duty to provide the Town of Lexington with technical advice concerning how to meet the needs of its disabled citizens. A comparison of some of the issues and concerns about different construction materials for sidewalks follows so that informed decisions can be carefully made that ensure public safety, which surely must be the first and foremost consideration. The report from the Lexington Design Advisory Committee is part of this review as well as discussions with other town committees and disability experts. The following report covers three areas: 1.) public safety; 2.) concerns about costs including proper installation, ongoing preservation, maintenance and replacement; and, 3.) direct responses to the report from the Lexington Design Advisory Committee. Public Safety Concerns for People with Disabilities: Concrete sidewalks along the south side of Massachusetts Avenue are in need of repair and have become quite hazardous to pedestrians. In order to discuss access for the disabled, we need to examine needs and access factors, including even surfaces, slip resistance, vibration, and rolling resistance. A permanent or transient disability can happen to anyone at any point in his or her life. The number of disabled citizens is estimated at being 20%, and approximately 85% of the population will be considered disabled at some point in their lives. Individuals with mobility impairments include those who use wheelchairs, crutches, canes, walkers, orthotics, and prosthetic limbs. Characteristics common to people with mobility limitations include substantially altered space requirements to accommodate special assistive devices, difficulty negotiating soft surfaces, and difficulty negotiating surfaces that are not level. The biggest problems sited by the United States Department of Transportation for the disabled population are buckled bricks and cracks in the sidewalk and pathway surfaces. Further, when a pedestrian or wheelchair user crosses a surface that is not firm or stable, energy that would otherwise be used to move forward deforms or displaces the surface instead. Bricks increase the amount of work needed for mobility and bricks have inherent changes in level, which can create tripping hazards. One eighth of an inch is enough to cause a fall. Conventional brick sidewalks are very unfriendly for mobility challenged, wheelchair users, and also elderly citizens and those pushing strollers. In well- documented studies, too much vibration over the uneven bricks causes increased pain, spasticity, incontinence, and headaches in some wheelchair users. One wheelchair user described to Boston Center for Independent Living that the vibration from the bricks shakes his hand off the electric control for his wheelchair and he then must wait for a passerby to assist him and is motionless without help. The visually impaired have great difficulty navigating brick sidewalks. According to the Massachusetts Commission for the Blind, the inherent uneven quality of the bricks means that the cane tapping does not always pick up all the irregularities. There is also more wear and tear on the canes. The safety of individuals with special visual needs is enhanced when adjacent surfacing materials that make different sounds when tapped by a cane are present to be used as navigation cues (U.S. Access Board, 1985). Examples of materials with contrasting sound properties include concrete sidewalks with bricks along the sides or paving tiles next to rubberized raised tactile surfaces. The Town of Lexington Commission on Disability concludes that construction materials other than bricks must be considered. City hall pavers are the conventional type of brick used in historic towns and this type of brick is completely non-viable vis-à-vis individuals with movement and mobility impairments. Fortunately, there are other well-documented choices for sidewalk systems and materials for the disabled. One such system is concrete in the middle with bricks along the sides, in what is called the utility or finishing strips. Other town committees have rejected this, saying it was not good for the visually impaired, yet, as stated above, our research has showed us that the color contrast and the different noises that adjacent surfaces make when tapped with a cane are useful way-finding cues for the visually impaired. We also learned from that Perkins School is quite satisfied with yet a different approach, using colored concrete and that that is their first choice. The US Access Board has stated that: "individual paving units, bricks, and other textured materials are examples of surfaces that are undesirable in the pedestrian access route because of the vibration that they cause...they may, however, be used in the portions of the public sidewalk that do not contain the pedestrian access route". This too indicates that brushed concrete with decorative brick sides would be a reasonable alternative. Concerns about Costs: The Commission needs more cost comparison data and feels this must be a factor and a priority in future discussions. The estimated cost differential between installing concrete versus brick is approximately $35 per square yard versus $165 per square yard. For wire cut brick this may be higher. Our Commission believes that relative cost must be carefully examined and clearly stated. It is our understanding that the initial installation cost of brick sidewalks is substantially more than that for concrete sidewalks. Even if the surface of brick sidewalks can be shown to be at least equal to that presented by other media, we reason that a high initial cost could unduly delay the regular maintenance, replacement or repair of the many damaged sections of sidewalk throughout the town while yielding only short stretches of new or rebuilt sidewalks. Future repair costs must be considered at the outset when evaluating sidewalk systems. Bricks fired for outdoor pavers must be hard fired to reduce their tendency to absorb moisture. Hard fired bricks work better but are more expensive and become slippery over time. We are mindful of the fact that brick sidewalks must be laid with more attention to detail. We note that there can be no salvaging of an improper grade line by varying the thickness of the bituminous layer, for instance. Too thin a layer causes the bricks to sink, while too thick a layer causes the bricks to crack. Adaptive Environments, experts in the field of access modifications and technical specifications, mounted a camera onto a wheelchair to look at the relative vibration, rolling resistance, and slip resistance on different surfaces. Our Commission viewed this video and arrived at the same conclusion as Adaptive Environments - that the only economically sound alternative is brushed concrete. This is because the economic requirements of wire cut brick are exorbitant due to the need for twice annual maintenance. Why do we need twice annual maintenance? In our climate, winter causes bricks to become displaced from ice action, necessitating springtime repair to remove and reset any affected bricks. Over the summer, water can scour the sand used for the brick setting bed and any loss of material there leads to disruption in the overall smoothness of the brick surface. If twice-yearly maintenance is not funded, then the bricks will shift, resulting in gaps and tripping hazards and the possibility of liability suits. The most common observed defect in brick pavers is vertical displacement, creating uneven surfaces. This happens due to shifting sand beneath the bricks, from freezing, thawing and lifting from tree roots. The Boston Center for Independent Living and the Neighborhood Access Group in Boston were recently successful in winning a complaint to the Architectural Access Board (AAB) that recently constructed sidewalks on Huntington Avenue violated the access guidelines. These newly constructed sidewalks were measured to be over the 3% limit for unevenness and therefore must be replaced. The reasons given by the activist groups, which were validated by the AAB, were that "sidewalks jolt wheelchair users, trip people with vision disabilities, and make the ride miserable and undoable for babies or toddlers in strollers". This court decision will require costly reconstruction. We know that Lexington would want to avoid such a costly mistake especially given its current economical situation. Further, we know that Lexington is committed to the health and well-being of its citizens and will carefully make the decision based on the right thing to do. The Commission further believes that relative cost must be carefully examined and clearly stated. It is our understanding that the initial installation cost of brick sidewalks is substantially more than that for concrete sidewalks. An initial cost that is too steep would delay the replacement or repair of other damaged town sidewalks while resulting in only short stretches of new or rebuilt sidewalks. We also encourage Lexington to take a larger and longer range vision. Whatever material is chosen now will set the standards for new and replaced sidewalks in the future so we need to be able to commit to a choice that we are prepared to finance for each subsequent future request. The Commission on Disability believes that the Town must have a commitment to the following: • Proper installation, using advice from disabled groups, DAC, DPW and other experts • Proper maintenance including the maintenance of trees which often cause heaving of pavement slabs or displacement of bricks • The development of clear specifications so that any mistakes by the installers will result in replacement at no cost to the town • A clear set of standards by which the success of the project may be judged and which can become part of the specifications to which the installers work. Response to the Report from the Lexington Design Advisory Committee: The Design Advisory Committee discusses their opinion that brick pavers on asphalt and concrete base are the preferred surface, suggesting that twice annual maintenance is not necessary, citing as their example Emery Park. We believe that Emery Park is not a perfect example, since city hall pavers were used there rather than the wire cut brick. Although there has been no noticeable settling of the bricks in the roughly four years they have been in place, there is both the initial unevenness of the brick and the subsequent chipping along the edges of the bricks to contend with, which makes this area very undesirable to disabled individuals, and clearly unacceptable over time. The DAC report sites a study done in Pittsburgh discussing brick accessibility. The flaw inherent in this study is its comparison of the best and most expensive installation process for wire cut bricks that is way above normal construction standards due to cost. Adaptive Environment, experts in the field, made conclusions about wire cut bricks as being economically not feasible due to maintenance and installation costs, and essentially recommended the brushed concrete instead for those reasons. The conclusion from Adaptive Environments seems to have been misinterpreted in the DAC report. The other reason that the DAC does not recommend the brushed concrete with brick sides is that they feel this would be poor for visually impaired — "changing material color/texture in the same plane suggests a level change which is hazardous for the visually impaired". Our research has revealed that just the opposite is true. In fact, the Massachusetts Commission for the Blind believes that this surface might be superior since the two different textures make different sounds when tapped with a cane. The DAC questions the reasons and the costs of twice annual maintenance and the Commission on Disability can provide the why but also shares the question of what is the cost. We clearly need more cost data. The DAC report also talks about the aesthetics of bricks and how important is it is for the Center to be a lively place for all. This is where the true problem lies — bricks do not welcome all. The issue of brick sidewalks in Boston has led the disabled community to say that the city is essentially declaring itself off limits in many places to people with disabilities. We believe that Lexington wants to be welcoming to everyone. We believe that Lexington needs to embrace both the spirit and the letter of the ADA standards through promotion of community and program inclusion through example, by action and according to the law. Conclusions and recommendations: The Commission on Disability feels that we need more hard data from everyone. We need to hear from the Tree Committee since tree roots should be part of our design specifications. We need to have more people come forward to help guide the discussion. But our biggest arguments come from those with disabilities who know firsthand that bricks are dangerous, that they present serious concerns, that they don't enjoy them, that they vibrate too much, that they cause pain, and that they impinge on their rights to full access. We need town committees, city planners, public works departments and preservation groups to respect and really listen to the objections. Brick accents should be fine. Aesthetic considerations should never be more important than public safety. We need to keep in mind that despite the current lack of enforceable standards for public sidewalks and trails, public and private entities who design and construct sidewalks and trails are still obligated under the ADA to make them accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. The Commission on Disability in concert with disability advisory groups and resources find the following sidewalk surfaces unacceptable due to posing undue hazard and safety risks for citizens with disability and impairment, as: ❖ Unacceptable is the use of brick paver on rigid base, such as brick which is wire cut (color/mix to be determined), without hand tight installation with stone dust, without a bi-annual maintenance program and without using sub-surfaces as outlined by resources as Adaptive Environments and approved by the Commission of Disability ❖ Most unacceptable is the use of city hall pavers. This is the worst brick surface for persons with disabilities. Under no circumstances would we wish to see brick with city hall pavers as the final layer. The Commission on Disability does not have enough information—cost data is clearly lacking, for instance—but with what we have been given, we prefer the following surfaces in the order listed: ❖ Brushed concrete with brick borders • Brushed concrete with no borders ❖ Third and last choice, brick that is wire cut but only with very specific sub- surfaces and funding for bi-annual maintenance It should be further noted that all surfaces must include very specific sub- surfaces that are carefully reviewed in terms of technical specifications due to preventative maintenance concerns. The Commission on Disability knows that this statement clarifies our position and we will move towards a solution that provides a safe and inclusive environment for individuals with disabilities in the Town of Lexington. Respectfully submitted, Victoria C. Buckley, MS, OTR, Lic. Chair, Lexington Commission on Disability Sources: ❖ Adaptive Environments ❖ American with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) ❖ Boston Center for Independent Living ❖ Cambridge Commission on Disability ❖ Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (AAB) ❖ Massachusetts Commission for the Blind ❖ Neighborhood Access Group ❖ "Sidewalk Design Recommendations for Lexington Center", Lexington Design Advisory Committee, 5/5/06 draft ❖ University of Pittsburgh Research "Evaluation of Selected Sidewalk Pavement Surfaces" ❖ US Access Board, "Building a True Community: Final Report of the Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee", Section Xo2.1.6.1 Advisory ❖ US Department of Transportation ❖ US Federal Highway Administration