Preiser W., Smith K.H. Universal Design Handbook
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
18.2 PUBLIC SPACES, PRIVATE SPACES, PRODUCTS, AND TECHNOLOGIES
In addition to the ADA Standards for Accessible Design, state and local governments could use the
UFAS, ADAAG, or the modified ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003. Many state and local governments adopted
regulations based on federal standards. For example, New Mexico adopted parts of the ADAAG,
ANSI A117.1 (2003), and the UFAS to clarify design issues relating to needs of young students with
profound disabilities, funding sources, and the status of private versus public ownership.*
Meeting the access requirements of students, staff, and visitors with disabilities presents planning
challenges to educational institutions that ultimately result in making a variety of physical improve-
ments. Most educational institutions have more capital needs than can be funded from available
revenue. Allocating large sums to accessibility issues may prevent funding for other projects. Failure
to comply with federal and local accessibility regulations, however, can expose the institution to
litigation, accreditation issues, and compliance problems with state and local building codes.
18.3 ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES FACING
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Educational institutions face many issues when seeking to comply with accessibility requirements.
Issues include the following:
• Status of the existing facility inventory. Educational institutions generally manage a range of
facilities. Many institutions built new facilities in the 1960s and 1970s to accommodate the baby
boomer generation. These facilities were constructed prior to the general integration of acces-
sibility requirements into local building codes. While some of these sites and facilities may be
relatively easy to modify, most require extensive and costly changes.
• Balancing capital needs. Educational institutions must keep investing in their facilities to accom-
modate growing enrollments, meet evolving educational requirements, respond to changing codes,
and renew building systems and sites as they age. There are always more improvements to be
made in educational facilities than funding can match. Since the ADA is a federal mandate that
establishes requirements but provides no money to implement these requirements, accessibility
projects must compete for funding with other capital needs (e.g., new science buildings, roofing,
and renovation of older schools). (See Fig. 18.1.)
• Transition planning. If educational institutions accept federal funding, they are required to develop
a transition plan that identifies how they will comply with federal accessibility laws. The transition
plan identifies program and facility deficiencies and how the institution will rectify the deficiencies.
While institutions face liability risks if they do not comply with the law, the transition plan also pro-
vides the opportunity for an institution to think comprehensively about accessibility requirements
and how they integrate with both long-range educational program and facility needs.
In summary, the questions facing public educational institutions include these:
• What architectural barriers do staff, students, and visitors with disabilities confront while at the
institution?
• Are there means to meet the accessibility intent of the law without physical modifications to facili-
ties, programs, or staffing?
• How can the institution best develop an implementation strategy that balances the capital funding
needs of accessibility compliance and general facility improvement?
*There is a new body of regulations in review currently from the United States Access Board that will replace UFAS entitled
Americans with Disabilities Act and Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines draft 2004 (or ABA regulations) for
federally funded projects. In addition, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a U.S. federal law significantly
updated in 2004 that governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to
children with disabilities. It addresses the educational needs of children with disabilities from birth to the age of 21.
A CAPITAL PLANNING APPROACH TO ADA IMPLEMENTATION IN PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 18.3
18.4 COMPLIANCE PLANNING PROCESS
The authors have assisted a number of school districts and institutions of higher education in accessibil-
ity compliance planning, using a five-step process. A representative committee made up of educators,
administrators, public representatives, and design professionals generally helps to guide the process for
the client. (See Fig. 18.2.)
Step 1. Organize for planning. During this step, existing data are collected and assessed, ques-
tionnaires are distributed, information about the facilities and sites is collected, and schedules are
established. A kickoff meeting is held to introduce all participants, clarify deliverable services,
and discuss the goals, schedule, security requirements, and expectations for the project.
Step 2. Identify target budget for compliance. During this step, the client establishes a target budget
for compliance based on an assessment of the scope of work and availability of funds. For example,
a school district may limit the number of sites for comprehensive modifications to locations where
they provide centralized services for students with disabilities. On the other hand, a university with
open enrollment may choose to make accessible all buildings serving students, staff, or visitors
(educational or administrative).
Step 3. Assess the sites and facilities for needs. A detailed evaluation of each site and facility
is performed during this step. An elementary school usually takes one day, and a secondary school
0%
Growth
Portable
renewal
Small projects
Education/
programmatic
37%
Health/safety
7%
Facility
renewal
33%
Code and ADA
compliance
6%
Educational 17%
support
FIGURE 18.1 This chart shows that addressing accessibility requirements (build-
ing code and ADA) is a relatively small part of a total capital improvement program
of a typical educational institution.
Long description: This pie chart shows that code and ADA compliance represents
6 percent of the total capital budget of the 90,000-student Albuquerque Public
Schools District in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Other categories are education/
programmatic, 37 percent; health and safety, 7 percent; facility renewal, 33 percent;
and educational support, 17 percent.
18.4 PUBLIC SPACES, PRIVATE SPACES, PRODUCTS, AND TECHNOLOGIES
may require two to four days to evaluate. The time required to evaluate a higher education institution
depends on the number and size of the buildings on campus. Large structures can take up to three
days to assess. Residential structures add another level of complexity, due to issues of access
availability and privacy.
Step 4. Identify projects for compliance. This step identifies specific projects and associated
costs to rectify any accessibility deficiencies. Often, further discussion with district educators is
required to understand the spatial requirements of the educational programs that need to be met
by the proposed solution.
Step 5. Identify strategy to meet needs. During this step, specific guidelines for each aspect of
the project (step 4) are described. Timing of need, ability to accomplish, and potential funding
sources are determined in this step.
18.5 CASE STUDY: NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY
ACCESSIBILITY SURVEY, 2004
Planning Context
An illustrative example of the five-step process described above is the New Mexico State University
accessibility survey. New Mexico State University (NMSU) is a medium-sized state university
located in Las Cruces, New Mexico, with an enrollment of about 17,000 students. The accessibil-
ity survey was limited to its main campus, excluding the surrounding student residence areas and
remote branch campuses. The campus comprised about 88 acres with 156 buildings (average age of
Identify strategy
to meet needs
Identify projects
for compliance
Assess the sites
and facilities for
needs
Identify target
budget for
compliance
Organize for
planning
1
2
3
4
5
FIGURE 18.2 Five-step compliance
planning process diagram.
Long description: This diagram shows
that planning for compliance is a five-
step, sequential process that progresses
through planning organization, compli-
ance budgeting, site and facilities needs
assessment, action identification, and
implementation strategy development.
A CAPITAL PLANNING APPROACH TO ADA IMPLEMENTATION IN PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 18.5
36 years) totaling 2.9 million square feet (see Fig. 18.3). The university desired to update its transi-
tion plan and provide a proactive means to address accessibility obstacles for all university users.
Planning Steps
Step 1. Organize for planning. The university contracted with Architectural Research Consultants,
Inc. (ARC) to conduct a campuswide accessibility survey. The goal was to characterize and esti-
mate the cost to correct all physical accessibility issues for campus buildings and public walks
that can be feasibly addressed. Specific objectives were to
• Identify the noncompliant accessibility features of buildings and site routes.
• Revise the map of existing accessibility pathways.
• Identify, categorize, and prioritize corrections of the noncompliant features.
• Provide a means to track the status of projects or their completion as funding becomes
available.
The university architect and an accessibility oversight committee would use the survey
information.
ARC employed upper-level students from the university’s College of Engineering to conduct
fieldwork. ARC architects provided training, supervision, and quality control. ARC also hired
three students with disabilities (two mobility-impaired and a blind student) to assist in the
FIGURE 18.3 Map of New Mexico State University main campus. The area surveyed for accessibility is outlined in gray.
Long description: This map shows the area of the main New Mexico State University campus that was surveyed for
accessibility (outlined in gray). Within the area, 156 buildings and all the pedestrian pathways were assessed.
18.6 PUBLIC SPACES, PRIVATE SPACES, PRODUCTS, AND TECHNOLOGIES
training, answer questions, and provide advice on how to correct difficult accessibility issues.
The participation of the students proved to be invaluable in securing funding for the study and
for its implementation.
Step 2. Identify target budget for compliance. The university determined that all buildings with
public access, including the exterior pathways between buildings, were to be surveyed for acces-
sibility. This compliance target required identifying all accessibility obstructions that a student,
staff member, or visitor might encounter while entering campus by foot, car, or bus and then
traveling to any office or classroom destination.
Step 3. Assess the sites and facilities for needs. Detailed training materials were prepared, includ-
ing an eight-page ADA checklist modified for a universal design emphasis (see Fig. 18.4). Part
of the student evaluator training incorporated wheelchair “tours” and shadowing wheelchair and
blind students as they moved about the campus. The evaluators assessed each building, taking
extensive field notes and photographs to document problem areas. All accessible routes and the
potential for new pathways were identified. Evaluators used survey equipment to map elevation
changes along exterior pathways to verify acceptable slopes.
FIGURE 18.4 An example of a section of the accessibility evaluation checklists used at NMSU to identify capital improvement needs.
Long description: This exhibit shows part of the first page of an eight-page checklist form for assessing accessibility needs. The form
includes detailed questions about elements and spaces, and areas to record answers to yes/no questions, quantity if applicable, and notes.
A CAPITAL PLANNING APPROACH TO ADA IMPLEMENTATION IN PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 18.7
Step 4. Identify projects for compliance. Based on the field evaluation, about $16 million of capi-
tal improvement projects (CIPs) were identified and entered into a web-based computer database.
The CIPs were recommendations for correcting deficiencies as well as for adding accessibility
features to sites and buildings to comply with ADA requirements. Some of projects resulting
from surveying the exterior pathways involved
• Replacing damaged walks
• Replacing walkways with excessive slopes
• Installing new walks, curbs, and gutters where none existed previously
• Installing shoreline strips as required for guiding canes
• Removing and relocating protruding objects and architectural barriers including parking
meters, landscaping and light poles, and installation of wheel bumpers for car overhangs
Projects resulting from the assessment of interiors included modifying restrooms, door clearances,
hardware, ramps, counters, signage, etc. (see Fig. 18.5).
Each CIP was coded to identify the category and type of work. Site and floor plans were marked
to locate noncompliant features and were then drafted into AutoCad for ongoing reference. In addi-
tion, accessibility capital improvement projects were coded for three different accessibility factors:
priority of building use, level of demand for action by students with disabilities, and level of dif-
ficulty to achieve accessibility objectives (see Fig. 18.6).
Priority of Building Use. This accessibility factor considers the intensity and type of use of the building.
• Priority1 buildings have intense use and significant student occupancy. Barrier issues include
resolving access into the building, to specific programs or services offered, and to restrooms or
other building services.
• Priority 2 buildings have lower use and occupancy, but exhibit a major concern for research and
specific service.
• Priority 3 buildings are newer or recently remodeled; they comply with ADA regulations and need
few modifications.
• Priority 4 buildings may be replaced within the next five-year period. Buildings used largely for
storage or service activities are included in this priority level.
Demand for Action Level. This accessibility factor considers the urgency of the improvement
based on the following criteria:
• Low: projects with no immediate demand or need and where alternatives to improvements may
exist (e.g., providing a second entry into a building with an easily accessed primary entry)
• Medium: projects with a moderate demand or need (e.g., ramps that do not have proper slopes or
have handrails only on one side)
• High: projects with some degree of health or safety issue with the highest degree of demand (e.g.,
difficult-to-use elevators, lack of areas of refuge, or lack of accessible restrooms)
Level of Difficulty to Achieve Accessibility Objectives. This accessibility factor considers the cost
of achieving the accessibility objective and distinguishes between those projects that are readily
affordable and those that entail great difficulty and substantial costs (see Fig. 18.7).
• Difficulty level 1: Work is readily achievable and is easy to accomplish under normal construction
conditions and costs.
• Difficulty level 2: Work is more difficult to achieve and has a higher cost, often requiring special
equipment or major structural or HVAC changes.
• Difficulty level 3: Work is difficult to achieve and has a high cost.
FIGURE 18.5 Example of floor plan identifying the location of noncompliant features and their project numbers.
Long description: This floor plan identifies accessibility needs in Goddard Hall, one of the main office buildings at New Mexico State University. The locations of specific projects
such as doorway modifications are outlined and labeled with capital improvement project numbers. Descriptions of the project needs and costs are discussed elsewhere.
18.8
A CAPITAL PLANNING APPROACH TO ADA IMPLEMENTATION IN PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 18.9
Step 5. Identify strategy to meet needs. The university oversight committee reviewed the compli-
ance needs and adopted a strategy that incrementally makes accessibility improvements to target
buildings and establishes a process by which all users of the university community can petition
to resolve immediate accessibility obstacles.
NMSU’s accessibility capital plan was developed considering priority of building use, demand
for action, and level of difficulty. This strategy created a list of most needed projects with the greatest
student impact and completed all but the most difficult and costly.
FIGURE 18.6 Capital improvement project coding scheme.
Long description: This illustration shows the project coding scheme where each accessibility deficiency is coded with
a unique number comprised of its building ID number, project number, category, type of project (type 1: interior or
exterior; type 2: building system that the project impacts), priority, difficulty, and level of demand for action.
FIGURE 18.7 Illustration of three levels of project difficulty to correct an accessibility problem.
Long description: This diagram illustrates and lists three levels of difficulty for a project, from readily
achievable (not difficult to implement, low-cost, in-house labor and relatively quick), to more difficult
to achieve (medium cost, skilled labor, no major alterations, not quick), to difficult to achieve (high cost,
highly skilled labor, major alterations, not quick).
18.10 PUBLIC SPACES, PRIVATE SPACES, PRODUCTS, AND TECHNOLOGIES
• Fifty-four percent of the projects are related to priority 1 buildings, or buildings that have high use
and occupancy by students.
• Fifty-nine percent of the projects are classified as high demand; i.e., they pose health or safety
concerns to persons with disabilities, especially those in wheelchairs.
• Of the projects 26 percent are readily achievable (level 1), 33 percent are more difficult to achieve
(level 2), and 41 percent will require some structural or significant site alteration (level 3).
The information collected was documented and made accessible via a web-based computer applica-
tion, spreadsheet, and two-volume written document. The university plans to incorporate accessibility
survey results into its ongoing capital program, making improvements as campus buildings and sites
are modernized.
In addition to an accessibility capital plan, the Office of the University Architect established a
flexible process whereby all members of the educational community—students, parents, staff, and
visitors—can petition the committee with any accessibility issue that they believe exists. The staff
investigates all petitions on a case-by-case basis. The investigation considers all potential physical
and nonphysical solutions to the issue at hand and makes a final recommendation to the full com-
mittee for action.
18.6 CONCLUSION
The planning process described in this chapter serves to inform participants of the need for universal
design and how the built environment can be a positive force to integrate all members of the com-
munity. Universal design principles seek optimal solutions for all users.
The authors believe that universal design is taking a more central role in accessibility compliance
planning among educational institutions. As universal design solutions are implemented, educational
institutions will serve to change the perceptions and expectations of what is good design for the next
generation.
Accessibility compliance requires careful planning, with active communication between district
or university staff and the building users, to ensure accurate data are presented. The authors’ experi-
ences show that accessibility planning can be integrated with other capital planning activities in a
systematic and equitable way. By establishing priorities and targeting achievable goals, educational
institutions can transition toward compliance, stay within their capital improvement budget, and
make the most effective use of resources. Through establishment of a systematic planning process,
accessibility compliance considerations become a fundamental element in facility programming.
Furthermore, evaluation activities of the district become a driving force toward universal design
awareness, acceptance, and implementation.
18.7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Petronis, J. P., “Strategic Asset Management: An Expanded Role for Facility Programmers,” in Professional
Practice in Facility Programming, Wolfgang F. E. Preiser (ed.), New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993.
CHAPTER 19
UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN
MASS TRANSPORTATION
Edward Steinfeld
19.1 INTRODUCTION
Everyone who uses a mass transportation system stands to benefit from universal design. Thus,
everyone shares in the investment, not just people with disabilities. This chapter describes how mass
transportation can facilitate convenience and safety for all, including people with disabilities, elderly
people, and many others who are often “handicapped” by conventional design. In today’s global
economy, a convenient, safe, and effective mass transportation system is an essential aspect of social
sustainability. This chapter focuses on a few key topics regarding mass transportation, including:
terminal design, information resources, loading vehicles, and vehicle design.
19.2 TERMINAL DESIGN
Way-finding in large, complex terminals, such as central bus and train stations, multimodal stations,
multilevel transit stations, and large airports, can be difficult. Linear, ring, or island plans introduce fewer
decision points, make it easier for a passenger to find his or her destination, and reduce the impact of
making a wrong decision when compared to complex treelike or mazelike plans. Terminal halls with
good visibility of all destinations, as in traditional train stations, and designs that break up large terminals
into several smaller terminals linked together by a major pathway,are also easier to navigate.
Travel distance within terminals can be a barrier for use by all passengers. Some prototypical
terminal designs are more compact than others, e.g., those with clusters of gates compared to those
that spread the gates out in long fingers. Mechanical transportation is often needed within terminals.
These systems need to be designed for universal access. Rapid transit links should provide some
seating for people who have limitations in balance or low stamina; the use of the links has to be eas-
ily understood by people with sensory limitations and those who do not speak the local language;
and the links need markings to ensure priority access for people with disabilities and elderly people.
Moving walkways should be wide enough to safely accommodate a wheelchair or walking aid user;
and walkways should provide a safe transition at each end to accommodate people with walking
difficulties or people with visual impairments.
Although electric courtesy carts and trams are beneficial for many people with disabilities, they
can also cause hazards to pedestrians sharing the same path. Equally, crowds of pedestrians can
thwart the efficiency of carts. People with hearing impairments are not able to hear them, even when
they have annoying warning signals. Moreover, there are many wheelchair users who cannot stand and
19.1