Sidewalk Cross-Slope Design: Analysis of Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities

Current and proposed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines offer no specific guidance on acceptable maximum cross slopes where constraints of reconstruction prohibit meeting the 2% maximum cross-slope requirement for new construction. Two types of sidewalk test-section data across a sample of 50 individuals were collected, were combined with an earlier sample of 17 individuals, and were analyzed, with an emphasis on cross slopes. These tests examined heart-rate changes and user perception of discomfort levels, and they relied on a random-effects model and an ordered-probit model, respectively. Model estimates were used to deduce critical or unacceptable cross slopes for critical conditions and critical populations of persons with disabilities. Predicted values for the most severe or constrained cases ranged from 5.5% to 6% cross slope. These cases included 5% primary slope (main grade) and 45-ft-long sections; the sections were traversed by cane, crutch, or brace and manual wheelchair users who were up to 80 years old. When primary slopes were reduced to 0% in the perception estimates, the critical cross slopes for the critical case rose to 6%. For most other persons with disabilities, the critical cross slopes ranged from 6% to 9% or more. These values substantially exceed the ADA accessibility guidelines’ 2% maximum cross-slope standard for public sidewalks.

[1]  M. Laplante,et al.  MOBILITY DEVICE USE IN THE UNITED STATES: DISABILITY STATISTICS REPORT , 2000 .

[2]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  PACT: an experiment in integrating concurrent engineering systems , 1993, Computer.

[3]  C E Brubaker,et al.  Effects of side slope on wheelchair performance. , 1986, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[4]  Wayne Allen,et al.  The MCC CAD framework methodology management system , 1991, 28th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference.

[5]  D A Chesney,et al.  Preliminary test method for the determination of surface firmness. , 1996, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[6]  Tae-Gyung Kang,et al.  Mobility Device Use in the United States , 2003 .

[7]  Martin S. Feather,et al.  Representation and Presentation of Requirements Knowledge , 1992, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[8]  Victor Lesser,et al.  The GRAPPLE Plan Formalism , 1987 .

[9]  Ramps and rails. , 1991, BMJ.

[10]  J. Roitman,et al.  ACSM's Resource Manual for Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription , 1998 .

[11]  J. Russell,et al.  Trends and differential use of assistive technology devices: United States, 1994. , 1997, Advance data.

[12]  Brubaker Ce,et al.  Effects of side slope on wheelchair performance. , 1986 .

[13]  Robert Balzer,et al.  Kestrel Institute: REPORT ON A KNOWLEDGE-BASED SOFTWARE ASSISTANT , 1986 .

[14]  Louis I. Steinberg,et al.  Use of Feedback to Control Redesign , 1991, IntCAD.

[15]  C Blanchard-Zimmerman,et al.  Meeting the intent of ADA in sidewalk cross-slope design. , 2001, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[16]  P. Åstrand,et al.  Textbook of Work Physiology , 1970 .