Are detectable warnings (raised truncated domes) required on curb ramps?
This question is asked of me more often than any other. According to published reports, more than 80% of calls to the U.S. Access Board come from architects inquiring if truncated domes are required on curb ramps. The answer: Yes.
Technically.
According to the Federal Highway Transportation Administration, “Truncated domes are the standard design requirement for detectable warnings for determining the boundary between the sidewalk and street by people with visual disabilities.”
The U.S. Access Board develops the minimum design standards for complying with the ADA. The Department of Transportation is a designated agency responsible for enforcing the standards and implementing regulations under Title II of the ADA (State and Local Government Services) for highways and other roadways. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the enforcement authority for overseeing pedestrian discrimination issues under the Title II implementing regulations. And the Department of Justice (DOJ) is the lead agency that oversees compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA-1990).
All of these agencies are in agreement that, according to current guidelines, truncated domes are (technically) required on all curb ramps.
HISTORY
Detectable warnings were originally required in 1991 by the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessible Guideline (ADAAG) for three areas: hazardous vehicular ways, transit platform edges, and curb ramps. A suspension was immediately placed on requiring detectable warnings at curb ramps and hazardous vehicular ways (but not for transit platform edges). The reason for the suspension was to conduct research on the performance of their detectability. The DOJ continued the suspension through July 26, 2001, which allowed 10 years for conducting research. The research determined that other designs used in place of truncated domes such as grooves, striations, and exposed aggregate, were not detectable in the sidewalk and roadway environment because of the similarities to other surface textures and defects. Truncated domes have a unique design that can be detected underfoot and with a cane, and other surfaces are not considered equivalent and therefore do not comply with the ADA requirements.
The DOJ had the option of allowing the suspension to expire on July 26, 2001 or publish a Federal Register Notice to continue the suspension. They decided to let the suspension expire. Consequently, since July 26, 2001 detectable warnings are again required.
WHAT IS A DETECTABLE WARNING?
A detectable warning is “A standardized surface feature built in or applied to walking surfaces or other elements to warn of hazards on a circulation path.” It is a unique and standardized feature, intended to function much like a stop sign and to alert pedestrians who are visually impaired to the presence of a hazard in the line of travel.
The original ADA design standard for truncated domes is found in ADAAG (4.29.2). After the research was conducted, a new design recommendation was made for the dimension and placement of the domes on curb ramps. Both FHWA and the U.S. Access Board are encouraging the use of the new design over the original, although technically there has been no legal change in the requirements.
THE RUB
But if it were that simple, we would all be breathing a bit easier. In talking about the current requirements, I’ve used the word “technically” several times, and if you have inquired about truncated domes on curb ramps lately you have probably been given a number of conflicting answers. Here’s why.
The feds have been working on a revised version of the ADAAG, known as ADAAG-R or the ADA/ABA Accessibility Guidelines for nearly a decade, publishing their initial draft almost five years ago. Since then, these new guidelines have navigated the entire legislative review and public comment process and are now in their final form. On the eve of the Bush administration’s departure, the DOJ was actually directed to take the last step in the process to officially replace the current ADAAG standards with the new ADAAG-R. The incoming administration however, put a halt to the directive in order to review it themselves, as is common for all new administrations. And so it sits, somewhere in the line of priorities after things like the resolving the conflict in the Middle East, stimulating the economy, reigning-in the swine flu etc. When will it be officially adopted? Nobody really knows.
But here is the rub: unlike the current ADAAG guidelines or the new DOT (and TXDot) requirements for curb ramps in the public right of way, the new ADAAG-R guidelines require NO detectable warnings on curb ramps!. No grooves. No exposed aggregate. NO TRUNCATED DOMES! In fact, the only requirement is that the surface be accessible, meaning smooth, stable and slip-resistant. Click here to review these new guidelines.
In public rights of way and along highways, a new set of guidelines for Accessible Public Rights of Way requires truncated domes along the bottom two feet of curb ramps, or along the intersection of streets or roads and landings shared by double-sided curb ramps. The standards also require that detectable warning surfaces contrast visually with adjacent gutter, street or highway, or walkway surfaces, either light-on-dark or dark-on-light (R304.1.3 Contrast).
It is no wonder that the feds have not aggressively enforced the now un-suspended requirement for detectable warnings on curb ramps that are on private property or are not in the public right of way. Or why TDLR has not emphatically required truncated domes on these curb ramps either. In fact, with the feds in limbo, it is entirely understandable that the Architectural Barriers division at TDLR is a bit ambiguous about the issue. While they have explicitly required truncated domes on curb ramps in the public right of way (according to Administrative Rule 68.102 and TAS 2.2), I suspect they will wait until the feds adopt new standards before taking a definitive position on curb ramps outside the public right of way.
THE FINAL WORD
Here are my personal thoughts about curb ramps not in the public right of way. The Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS) still require that surfaces of curb ramps not in public rights of way have both a texture that significantly contrasts, and a light-reflective value (color) that significantly contrasts with that of adjoining surfaces. You can’t go wrong if you place truncated domes on the surface of these ramps, but if you do so you must place them on the entire ramp surface, not just the bottom two feet. And don’t forget that the surface must have a contrasting color.
Alternatively, you can continue to use grooves or other methods that meet the tactile and color requirements for contrast (although you might have to double-check with TDLR to make sure these work). I assume that TDLR still accepts the grooves outlined in Technical Memo TM 99-15, even though the configuration is no longer mandatory or enforceable. TM 99-15 has been superseded by TM 08-01.
Finally, while you’re contemplating all of this, you might not want to hold your breath. Eventually the feds will end the stalemate, triggering similar changes in the TAS, and we will all be able to collectively breath a sigh of relief! But until then, we’ll continue to be in limbo.
