Docstoc

13-Appendix-C-Four-Case-Studies

Document Sample
13-Appendix-C-Four-Case-Studies Powered By Docstoc
					Finding community opposition where he‟d hoped for support, Ted enlisted the help of a member of the
city‟s Pedestrian Committee who is also a national board member of America Walks (go to
http://americawalks.org/about/partners/ to find a chapter near you).

Appendix C: Four Case Studies

Case Study 1

Ted Loman, a retired TV producer, requested Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) at several crossings
when he moved from Tucson, AZ, to Sandpoint, ID, in 2004. When he lived in Tucson, staff at the
Arizona Rehabilitation Services Administration had provided vocational rehabilitation (VR) support that
included APS at locations he identified. But, Sandpoint, a small city of about 7,500 residents, has no
local disability service providers and its public works agency was not familiar with ADA requirements or
APS technology. In addition, both city and State roadways were involved and Ted found that engineers
were more concerned about the cost implications of retrofitting intersections for his use than about his
rights to use them.

Ted had to research key issues, educate local and State government transportation staff, and take full
responsibility for moving his requests forward. And in spite of his offers of help, when the State
grudgingly installed the APS, they put them in the wrong places and didn‟t adjust them properly. It took
months of meetings, emails and phone calls to get the APS installations corrected.

Finding community opposition where he‟d hoped for support, Ted enlisted the help of a member of the
city‟s Pedestrian Committee who is also a national board member of America Walks (go to
http://americawalks.org/about/partners/ to find a chapter near you) to broaden his advocacy efforts. More
recently, he has involved regional civil rights staff from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in
support of his efforts (for a list of FHWA offices nationwide, see www.fhwa.dot.gov/field.html).

And don‟t get Ted started on overhanging branches, inadequately-protected construction sites,
deteriorated sidewalks or non-existent maintenance and enforcement.

"It‟s become a full-time job just to exercise the rights the law gives me," he said.

Still, he‟s accomplished a great deal. His advice to others?

       educate yourself on the technology AND the law – and use it;
       make opportunities to raise and discuss the issues with local and State officials;
       don‟t let yourself be discouraged by opposition and delay – keep at it;
       involve other advocates who share your objectives so you don‟t get isolated and stereotyped as a
        troublemaker; and
       if community outreach isn‟t effective, try Federal resources.

Recently, Ted wrote a letter to Thomas E. Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the US
Department of Justice. Ted pointed out that the Idaho State FHWA office had informed Idaho DOT that
resurfacing projects of less than 1-1/2 inches in thickness didn‟t need to include curb ramps, advice that
Ted was sure was incorrect. In response, DOJ wrote the FHWA Administrator in Washington, DC to
correct the misinformation. That word will now go out to FHWA offices across the US. Now, when any
resurfacing is done, curb ramps must be included. That‟s quite an accomplishment! Ted is an inspiration
to us, and, we hope, to you as well.

Case Study 2: It takes a village….

Neighbors in a suburb of Kalamazoo, MI, grew concerned when the State DOT proposed to eliminate a
traffic signal on a 4-lane state road through the center of town because it didn‟t meet MDOT warrants for
the installation of a signal (warrants may be based on volume of traffic or pedestrian crossings, accident
record, or other criteria) for a signal. A resident who is blind raised concerns about the removal at a
board meeting of the regional center for independent living, the Disability Network of Southwest Michigan
(DNSM), noting that the nearest other signalized intersections were more than a mile away in either
direction.

The DNSM staff advocate, Paul Ecklund, contacted the US Access Board for information on whether the
ADA might be applicable. Staff pointed him to provisions in title II of the regulation that require
jurisdictions to consider changes in policies and practices where reasonable and necessary for
accessibility. In one of those cases in Concord, NH, a high school student who was blind had sought a
stop sign at a street she crossed on the way to school that did not meet the warrant for a stop sign. A
complaint was filed, and the city agreed to install the sign. Paul followed up, seeking to understand the
principals in that case and in another identified by the Board, to get details about the settlements that
were worked out. Armed with this information, Ecklund then drafted a cover letter and grievance filing to
the Michigan DOT on behalf of the consumer and other residents, asking that the signal be permitted to
remain. A public forum was scheduled with County commissioners and Michigan DOT‟s bicycle-
pedestrian coordinator, Josh DeBruyn, at which the broader community interest in retaining the signal
was also expressed. Ecklund worked hard to arrive at a „friendly‟ solution, involving the newspaper,
residents along the roadway, and the local highway engineer while avoiding friction.

The final solution was a collegial one: the state DOT retained the signal as being a „reasonable‟ use in
that location. By coordinating efforts with the broader community, Paul Ecklund was able to craft an
agreement that highway engineers could support without requiring formal legal action.

Case Study 3: Strength in numbers…

In 2007, the City and County of San Francisco announced an agreement to install accessible pedestrian
signals (APS) at key city intersections. The agreement, in the form of a legal settlement, was the
culmination of a lengthy process known as a Structured Negotiation. Pioneered by lawyers Lainey
Feingold and Linda Dardarian, the technique harnessed the interests of several claimants: the California
Council of the Blind, the San Francisco-based Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, the
Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, and blind advocate Damien Pickering.

The process began with a letter to the city outlining the access issue, the legal basis in civil rights law for
the claimants‟ request, and some suggested approaches to a solution. The city agreed to engage in the
formal process of a Structured Negotiation in which participants collaborate on a settlement satisfactory to
all parties. The legally-binding settlement agreement that was announced in July 2007, stipulated that the
City would commit 1.6 million dollars over the next two and a half years to install APS at 80 intersections.
Further, the agreement provided that the City would seek additional funding for more installations
(Federal stimulus funds have now been received for several additional intersections) and would develop a
policy for San Francisco residents to request accessible pedestrian signals at other crossings. Technical
specifications for APS, a checklist for prioritizing requests for new APS, and details of a maintenance
program were also included.

At the announcement of the program‟s receipt in March 2010 of stimulus funds to support additional APS
installations, Jessie Lorenz, Associate Director of the Independent Living Resource Center in San
Francisco noted: “San Francisco‟s APS program is the gold standard that other municipalities are
emulating. The success of the program is based in large part on the unwavering commitment of the
California Council of the Blind, the LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, and the SFMTA.
Collaboration between these organizations has turned San Francisco into one of the most visitable cities
in the country for individuals who are blind.”

Case Study 4: Slow and steady wins the race…

Early in his tenure as President of the American Council of the Blind of Maryland, Al Pietrolungo worked
with Chapter members to identify 30 locations in the State where accessible pedestrians signals (APS)
were needed to provide audible WALK indications at intersections. Baltimore City had installed APS in
the late 1990s in response to Chapter effort there, but Individual requests in other parts of the State had
gone unanswered. But Al was determined.

In letter after letter, Al submitted documentation of the requests to the Maryland State Highway
Administration (MSHA), asking for action.

MSHA staffers reported that they were „studying‟ the requests and would respond soon. They argued
that, as there were no Federal standards for APS, they could not be provided.

Every 60 days, Al would write another letter citing ADA and Rehabilitation Act provisions requiring that
pedestrians be accommodated when necessary for accessibility. A year passed without any APS
installations or formal reply. The Chapter considered. Should they wait for planned new Federal
standards or move forward themselves with a formal complaint? The Chapter was determined to be
proactive and in 2002, submitted a complaint alleging discrimination to the Office of Civil Rights of the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), an agency of the US Department of Transportation that
provides much of the funding for roadway construction -- funding that obligates its recipients to accessible
design and construction. “By failing to say „yes‟, Pietrolungo noted, MSHA was denying blind residents
the information they needed to cross streets safely.”

FHWA‟s Baltimore Division investigated, meeting with complainants and the MSHA. And finally, in July
2005, FHWA notified Al of its finding that, by failing to install requested APS, the Maryland State Highway
Administration had violated the ADA requirement that „aids, benefits, or services provided to individuals
with disabilities must be as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the
same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as those provided to others‟. FHWA indicated
that they would seek a negotiated agreement with MSHA that would establish a 10-year program to
retrofit existing signalized intersections with APS and install new APS whenever an intersection was
newly-provided with pedestrian signals.

In October of 2005, Neil Pederson, the administrator of MSHA was invited to address the statewide ACB
convention. He made a commitment to install APS at 1,250 traffic-controlled intersections by 2015. In
addition, Pedersen agreed to convene a panel to consider sidewalk construction, lighting, and the
installation of accessible bus shelters throughout the state.

That work continues. MSHA‟s required report for the last quarter of 2009 notes the installation of 30 new
APS, for a current total of 424. Almost 450 intersections are in design for APS, with 165 requests
pending. In addition, almost 30,000 linear feet of new sidewalk have been poured, 125 construction staff
trained, a facility access review completed, new bus stops constructed, and transition planning prioritized.
Quite a change from 2002….

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:10/15/2011
language:English
pages:3
suiqizheng suiqizheng http://
About