| |
| Meeting Date: |
July 13, 2006 |
| Subject: |
ADA Advisory Committee Meeting #1 |
| Location: |
Hearing and Speech Agency (HASA), Auditorium |
| Recorder: |
Joe Crider/Jen Reigle |
| Attendees: |
Neil Pedersen, SHA Administrator
Doug Simmons, SHA Deputy Administrator
Linda Singer, SHA Policy
Richard Woo, SHA Policy
Lisa Choplin, SHA Office of Highway Development (OHD)
Norie Calvert, SHA OHD
Troy Parham, SHA Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO)
Karen Shipley, SHA OEO
Scot Morrell, SHA Legal
Craig Borne, Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT)
Rosemarie Morales, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Ben Dubin, Alliance of Disability Commissions
Sharon Maneki, National Federation of the Blind (NFB)
Yvonne Dunkle, Office of Deaf and Hard of Hearing (ODHH)
John Gaver, ODHH
Andrea Buonincontro, Making Choices for Independent Living
Sylvester (Sly) Beiler, ARC of Baltimore
Harriet Levine, Jacobs
Jennifer Reigle, Jacobs
Nelson Castellanos, FHWA
Sandra Talbert-Jackson, FHWA
Hassan Raza,FHWA
Nicki Green, SHA Policy Intern
|
| Members Unable To Attend:
|
Ed Paulis, SHA Office of Traffic and Safety (OOTS)
Diane McComb, Department of Disabilities (DOD)
Marni McNeese, Alliance of Disability Commissions
Elaine Sveen, Maryland School for the Blind
Duane Geruschat, Maryland School for the Blind
Phil Strong, American Council for the Blind (ACB)
Pat Sheehan, ACB
Marian Vessels, Transcen
|
The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the Committee members to each other, establish the Role of the Committee, provide background information on what SHA has accomplished thus far, discuss what SHA is planning for the future pertaining to ADA Public Rights of Way (PROW) and discuss prioritization of deficiencies found during the Self-Evaluation.
Introductions
The meeting began with introductions of Neil Pedersen and Doug Simmons, the Committee co-chairs, and Linda Singer and Harriet Levine, the meeting facilitators. The layout of the facility was explained and the ground rules were established. It was emphasized that this meeting was to discuss broad level initiatives, not location specifics, in order to bring the ADA community together.
The role of the Committee was stated as the following (given in no specific order):
- Provide long-term and broad input into the statewide policy, guidance and field issues regarding access to public rights of way
- Initially provide input into SHA’s Self Evaluation.
- Review and comment on SHA’s approach to the Self Evaluation
Assist in development of prioritization criteria for improvements.
- Review and comment on SHA’s Transition Plan, once the Self Evaluation is complete.
- Assist with issues related to the Transition Plan implementation.
- Help balance the perspectives of people with different disabilities within the PROW context.
Those who are serving on the Committee were asked to do so in order to provide various perspectives and backgrounds that in turn will result in a thorough ADA program at SHA. At this point, Linda asked the group if they thought any other group should be asked to join to the Committee. Several members asked if various interests were represented and other members replied that they were. Sly Beiler suggested that someone represented people with cognitive disabilities be included in the group. Ben Dubin suggested that Maryland Disability Law Center be included. Sandra Talbert-Jackson asked if Baltimore City could be included as well. ODHH recommended that there should be a way to disseminate information through the Committee members to other groups. Linda informed the Committee that SHA would evaluate these recommendations and follow-up via e-mail to the Committee.
Chairman’s Comments
Neil expressed his gratitude to all the Committee members for their participation. He continued to discuss SHA’s commitments to exceed the requirements of full accessibility, to establish a partnership with members of the disabled community, and to continue efforts to meet the needs of the State of Maryland. Neil briefly stated the accomplishments over the past year pertaining to ADA:
- Establishing ADA as an element of SHA’s business plan
Training, both in technical and awareness
- Expanding outreach through a website, Maryland Relay line and dedicated ADA e-mail address and phone line
- Developing a complaint process stressing local resolution
- Establishing an internal steering committee that translates policy into ways of doing business
- Undertaking a comprehensive Self Evaluation of the accessibility relating to Maryland State Highway Administration’s (SHA) public right-of-way (PROW)
- Budgeting money for both the planning/engineering activities and implementation
Neil acknowledged that SHA has not been as responsive as it should have been in the past but is currently working towards changing that, which is part of the reason this Committee was formed.
Another reason for the Committee to be formed was to get input into the development of the prioritization criteria for the Transition Plan. The Transition Plan will be a schedule prioritizing the identified deficiencies found during the Self Evaluation. Due to the extensive SHA roadway network and the lack of unlimited funds, addressing the deficiencies will have to occur over a period of years. Therefore SHA needs to determine when each deficiency will be addressed and the prioritization criteria will help determine this schedule.
Background
Linda gave the Committee the ADA dedicated e-mail address (ADA@sha.state.md.us) and dedicated phone line (410.545.0370).
Self-Evaluation Action Plan
Harriet explained the Self Evaluation as a comprehensive approach of evaluating the current condition of accessibility compliance within the SHA PROW network. The Self Evaluation Action Plan is developed and consists of two parts:
- Conduct a county-by-county field survey to examine existing conditions and document deficiencies
- Obtain public input through public meetings after the field survey is completed
The first part of the Action Plan is occurring currently and should be completed by the end of October for the entire State of Maryland. The field survey consists of a survey crew documenting accessibility deficiencies based on ADAAG guidelines, which include such items as curb cuts and ramps, sidewalks, gaps, crosswalks, and detectable warnings. Once the field work is complete, all the existing decencies documented will be compiled in a database and can be presented in graphic form showing an aerial map of the location of interest with deficiencies highlighted in red and areas of compliance in green. The database can also be presented in tabular format relaying the same information.
The second part if the Action Plan is in the process of being scheduled with public meetings being scheduled county-by-county as the self-evaluation is complete. SHA anticipates asking the local County Commissions on Disability to help plan and sponsor the meetings.
Ben informed everyone that the Alliance of Disability Commissions only consists of 12 or 13 of the 23 counties in Maryland. This will have a slight impact on the way the public meetings will be held since it was originally thought that individual County Commissions would help host meetings.
The results of both the field work and the public’s input will be documented in the Self Evaluation report, which will be considered a living document until all counties are complete. This report will be available to the public and will be located in the SHA Title II Coordinator’s office at SHA’s headquarters.
Public Involvement
Linda informed the Committee that SHA will be posting their ADA website within the next couple weeks, which will be fully compliant. She asked permission to post all the Committee Members names and affiliations on the site. All Committee members present gave their consent. SHA will follow up with members not present prior to publishing the Committee membership list.
Transition Action Plan and Prioritization Criteria
The results of the Self Evaluation will be addressed in the Transition Plan, which will prioritize the alterations needed over a period of time (years). This Plan will identify methods used to make PROW accessible and develop the schedule to do so. The results of the methodology used, prioritization and schedule will be compiled into a formal report that will be a living document until the scheduled alterations are completed. This document will be available to the public and will be located in the SHA Title II Coordinator’s office at SHA’s headquarters with the Self Evaluation Report.
Some guidance on prioritization comes for the regulations which state that priority needs to be given to the following:
-
State and local government offices and facilities
- public transportation
- places of public accommodation
- employers
- and walkways serving other areas
At this point Harriet opened the floor to the Committee members to express what other areas should be given priority. An open brainstorming session followed resulting in the following list (in no particular order):
-
State/Local government facilities
- Mass transit
- Major employers
Emergency evacuation routes (communications)
- Hospitals
Universities
Areas around disability support services
- Group homes
Shopping areas
Emergency signals – at intersections have some sort of warning through the traffic lights that an emergency vehicle is approaching
- Population/Density – be careful when discussing the number of people in one location since people travel and are mobile
- Public input
Major tourist attractions
- Other recreations areas (stadiums) and tourist attractions
- Senior centers
Rest areas – phones and their accessibility (TTY)
- Check CalTrans, Tennessee and other states’ best practices
- Places of worship
- Highway signs that advertise food, lodging and gas – are these places fully accessible?
- This program will be looked into and will be followed up on prior to the next meeting.
Harriet thanked everyone for their comments. All of the suggestions will be used to formulate the prioritization criteria to be used in the development of the Transition Plan. She said that the next major challenge will be to manage the database compiled from the field survey of the Self Evaluation.
Next Meeting / Follow-Up Items
Linda thanked everyone again for participating in the Committee and the meeting tonight. She also said that she hopes everyone is committed to returning at the next meeting, which though originally planned to follow a quarterly cycle will be set for sometime in late September in order to discuss the Self Evaluation public meetings.
The time and location of the meeting was discussed and all the members were satisfied with the meeting location. The time also seemed to fit well for everyone though the suggestion was made that there be an allotted 30 minutes to eat prior to the meeting. Therefore the next meeting will be located at the HASA facility with dinner at 5:00pm and the meeting starting at 5:30. The date has not been set but will be sent to everyone via e-mail once established.
For the next meeting, all handouts will be sent to everyone prior to the meeting via e-mail in a Word format since everyone agreed that would be the best way to distribute information.
Yvonne suggested that for the next meeting, the Committee members bring a list of groups under their umbrella or with whom they communicate with regularly. This will help get information out to more organizations and individuals. Linda and Harriet agreed this was a good idea.
Tentative discussion items for the next meeting include:
- APS
- Communication avenues
- Self Evaluation public meetings
Neil again thanked everyone for their participation and commented that the Committee is off to a great start.
Action Items
This section summarizes action items from the meeting and reports on any information gathered subsequent to the meeting. Indented italized sections are the responses to the action items.
Consider expanding membership to include groups representing people with cognitive disorders, the Maryland Disability Law Center, and Baltimore City.
It was decided that SHA would be pleased to work with the City of Baltimore and provide general input and guidance on ADA compliance, however, it would not be appropriate to include them on the Committee since no other local municipality (City or County) is on the Committee. The City will be more than welcome to attend meetings. Other membership suggestions are still under review.
Have Advisory Committee members accompany field crews on the self-evaluation surveys.
Subsequent to the meeting, SHA staff discussed the possibility of having Committee members perform a field survey with SHA staff on a segment of roadway already completed. This would allow SHA to compare those deficiencies identified by the Committee members with those identified in the technical field survey. Sly also brought this idea up during the meeting and it was agreed that this could be done through SHA.
Have Committee members bring the lists of the network of other organizations that they coordinate with on a regular basis to expand public outreach for the ADA program.
Committee members will be asked to bring this information to the next meeting.
Compile APS specifications and distribute to Committee members.
Ed Paulis is currently looking into compiling a description of the APS used in Maryland. This will be distributed to the Committee prior to the next meeting.
Contact the Committee members that were not in attendance to determine if they are comfortable with the names being included on the SHA ADA webpage.
Jen Reigle will follow up prior to posting membership list.
Look into Statewide Logo Program regarding gas/lodging/food establishments that advertise on highway signs to determine if they are fully accessible.
Harriet Levine spoke to Don Ruth at OOTS about the Specific Services Signing Program (logo program). Based on state law, the current program does require that businesses participating in State and local laws. Don mentioned that OOTS is working to update the materials and that ADA compliance will be added to the brochure and application form.
In terms of monitoring, when an initial application comes in, it is forwarded to the Districts. District staff field check the information on the form including accessibility, this includes ramps, restrooms, etc. but am not sure of what they are requiring for public telephones and will follow up to get more information.
As for the Authority, MdTA should be following the same regulations and requirements. Harriet is following up with Roxane Mukai to determine when and how they field verify the locations for accessibility.
Gather information from California, Texas, Florida and other states on their prioritization criteria.
SHA is collecting this data and will use it to further inform the development of our plan.
|
