Texture of ADA Ramps 2

[trafficPro]

Has anyone come up with a suitable way to texture the ramp surface on ADA depressed curbs? The buttons are too difficult to form. We are contemplating grooving. Worried about catching water/ice in winter, or womens high heels any other time. Has anyone tried grooving with a slight downhill slope? What width groove and landing between grooves? Any non-grooved sections on top and bottom of ramp?
Willing to consider any practical solutions.

 

[ACtrafficengr]

Grooves are not approved - you have to use the truncated cone pattern. There are three basic types: stamped into wet concrete, precast tiles, and glue-on plastic. A web search for ADA truncated cone tactile surface should find you some suppliers

 

[trafficPro]

Thanks!!
A review of Internet material still leaves much uncertainty.
Some sources (Caltrans)say tactile surface not needed on curb ramps, some say yes.

Found suppliers of concrete stampers, cast in place tile, and glue on s. Anybody have experience with these and are there reasons to choose one over the other for new ramps, or rehabbing ramps.

 

[ACtrafficengr]

What are the dates on the sites that said no? Until about a year ago, the tactile surface requirement was suspended to give time to research whether the surface caused undue problems for people with mobility handicaps. The suspension was not renewed.

Your best bet is to go to the source:

http://www.access-board.gov/indexes/accessindex.htm,

which says:

4.7.7 Detectable Warnings. A curb ramp shall have a detectable warning complying with 4.29.2. The detectable warning shall extend the full width and depth of the curb ramp.

Section 4.29.2 says:

4.29.2* Detectable Warnings on Walking Surfaces. Detectable warnings shall consist of raised truncated domes with a diameter of nominal 0.9 in (23 mm), a height of nominal 0.2 in (5 mm) and a center-to-center spacing of nominal 2.35 in (60 mm) and shall contrast visually with adjoining surfaces, either light-on-dark, or dark-on-light.

The material used to provide contrast shall be an integral part of the walking surface. Detectable warnings used on interior surfaces shall differ from adjoining walking surfaces in resiliency or sound-on-cane contact.

I don't have any direct experience, but I'd guess the failure mechanism for stamped concrete would be spalling if poorly done, and the precast tiles and glued plastic may come up over time.

 

[MPENN]

News release Jan 30, 2003 - NH DOT is doing a test of ramp material.

They list their site as

http://WWW.NHDOT.COM

mpennengr
RIDOT

 

[GeoPaveTraffic]

Our plan it to install pre-molded tiles to serve as the detectable warning. We have not installed any to date, however, we will be installing about 150 this year. The product that we are proposing to use is Armor Tile,

http://www.armor-tile.com.

We selected this product for new installations because it is embedded in the fresh concrete. Our fist installations should be installed in April.

 

[COLDAVE]

We have looked into the same problem. Several of the cities I work with have elected to use the cast in tiles. The stamp was tried but the texture was not very durable.

The glues ons were also tried but, unless the installation conditions are optimal, the glue lets go during winter snow and ice removal.

I work in southeast Iowa where conditions are very extreme. We work with highs of 110 in the summer to 40 below in the winter.

 

[trafficPro]

Do you know which specific "glue on's" were tried and failed? That seemed to be our best bet for retro fitting, but we have not done any yet.

Interested in any field use results, good or bad. we are NE state with heavy public usage at our sites.
TrafficPro

 

[stadry]

we JUST replaced the tile system on section of the manassas, va, battle street train station,,, these tiles were approx. 12"x12" & had, over 3 years, loosened to form a tripping hazard,,, they were replaced w/the vanguard system ( 5 yr. guarantee ) out of washington,,, as i understand, they now have a licensed installer in va, too - virginia railway express ( vre ) will spend approx. $ 400 K this year to bring their stations into compliance since the moratorium on tactile warnings has expired,,, strongwall also has a system which is in use on n j transit ( strongwall.com ),,, other tile systems ( 3' x 2' ) will be replaced as well,,, the vanguard system is mma whereas the strongwall system is cementitious - no guarantee as i understand on strongwall but its been in use over 7 years in n j - hope this helps

 

[trafficPro]

I have a copy of a Oct 2002 e-mail from Dave Bizuga of NJDOT (sent to me by COTE-L) re NJDOT's experience with Safti-Trax made by COTE-L Industries (201-836 0733) stating that a 2002 survey of 139 curb ramps detectable warning surfaces, placed in 1995, showed 49% were 90 to 100% intact and another 41% were 80 to 90% intact. That is not withstanding a severe blizzard year in 1996. Dave's e mail further states that, "We are in the process of creating a standard spec for curb ramp delineation which uses this product, since FHWA has mandated the use of the domes on all curb ramps."

At the PANYNJ we expect to be using COTE-L's newer product SAFTI-TRAX MAT, with the same adhesion material, and hope for similar results. Have not used other products, so cant comment on them.

Hope my research is of some use to anyone else interested
in the Detectable Warning Surface requirement.

The address I have for Dave Bizuga is David.Bizuga@DOT.STATE.NJ.US TEL 609 530 5273

TrafficPro

 

[SpecCheck]

To "GEOPAVETRAFFIC"...can you tell us how the Armor-Tile installations went in April? And in what part of the country? Am curious about this Armor-Tile system, and wanted to hear your review (as a user). Thanks.

 

[GeoPaveTraffic]

I have had concrete contractors install about 150 of these tiles this year. The installation is easy, takes about 15 minutes to install the tile once rest of the ramp is struck off and floated. If you are installing the tiles in corner ramps, the geometry can get tough, however, if you set the ramp up properly, they work fine.

The ramps were installed in Chesterfield, Missouri (a suburb of St. Louis).

 

[JonJulnes]

Okay, I just joined this thread...so...I'm going to respond to each one in sequence.

First off, thank you for the kind comments about Vanguard products. My response is not about Vanguard products. We're very proud of them, as we designed them based on the absolute, and consistant failure of every other product out there as pertaining to "detectable warnings".

The short version is, we were/are a local (Seattle) company that was asked to install detectable warnings (prior to the suspension in 1994...released in July 2001). Our frustration was that everything that was available....turned out to have any number of flaws (peeling, chipping, fading....ad nauseum).

Today we are a national company providing non skid (not "slip resistant&quot detectable warning products in every state, through licensed applicators (see "stadry" comments above).

This remains true today.

That is the end of my "Vanguard is better" speech.

Now, on to the comments...in sequence:

trafficPro:

"The Buttons"...are required (ADAAG 4.29.2 is the law...other options simply don't exist)....and there IS an easier way (one in which I'm not allowed on this forum to promote...however...I suspect you can find me).

Your concerns about womens heels are valid....that is only ONE of the issues with grooves.

Aside from the fact that grooves are not detectable....they hold water...grow moss...it's simply a bad move.

Moreover...it won't meet any standard of detectability.

Remember...the ADA states clearly....any exterior ramp that is designed, built or formed such that it "holds or retains water" is unnacceptable (as per ADAAG)...ergo...any surface texture that does so...is verbotten.

LTAPPJim:

He is correct (see above). By the way...the list of detectable warning suppliers can be found at "

http://www.access-board.gov/"

trafficPro:

Keep in mind...DOT/FHWA has/have made clear...the only acceptable "texture" is truncated domes (kinda like Ford when he said in the early 1900's..."you can have any color you want...so long as it's black&quot..in short...the only acceptable texture for "detectable warnings" is....truncated domes.

Cincinnati has stated that stamped truncated domes won't fly (and are not acceptable)...they have also alluded to that "glue down" tiles are also not acceptable. New Mexico has rigorously stated similar sections...as have several other states.

Injection molded tiles just don't work.

Truncated domes ("detectable warnings&quot are now required on public and private ramps....full width and depth on ramps, 36 inches on "Hazardous vehicular ways", and 24 inches on DOT/FHWA sites (cities/municipalities, etc.).

Be aware...the Federal Access Board has stated...through "Equivalent Facilitation"...the 24 inch standard is acceptable (in lieu of all other standards)...but further..they have stated that they do not have the authority to mandate same....DOJ does.

DOJ has told me verbally that they would (and do) approve this design change as equivalent to all previous (4.29.2) designs.

They won't however put it in writing.

Safe bet: Full width and depth on ramps, 36 inches on hazardous vehicular ways.

If, however, you want to serve the blind and visually impaired community well....use 24 inches (see PROWAAC re: "vibratory zone&quot. "Equivalent Facilitation" allows this. (It is also preferred by all agencies).

GeoPaveTraffic:

See me. I have photos of this product fading in less than 16 months (in Seattle...kinda rainy there)...and once fade begins..it's exponential.

COLDDAVE:

I have what you need.

trafficPro:

They all fail. I wish I could tell you otherwise...but...they simply don't work.

I have a better plan.

(See comments above re: Virginia rail from "stadry&quot.

trafficPro:

COTE-L....I like this product....I actually like it a lot...however, the April 6, 2002 Draft final from the federal access board states that you cannot paint detectable warnings to cause them to meet the visual contrast.

COTE-L's surface coloring is not a paint...but it's not "integral" as required. This causes the surface to need recoating on an ongoing basis. The ADA states (I'll paraphrase since I don't have the docs in front of me) that "all ADA installations MUST be maintained in 'as installed condition'".....clearly....no one wants a system that requires the city of.....or the county of.....to have to schedule maint.

(I know of a system wherein which this is not required....and...if you email me...I'll tell you what it is).

There ya have it...thanks for allowing me to comment.

 

[noslip]

I represent the Canadian distributor of Cotel's SAFTI-TRAX Detectable Warning System for the blind and visually impaired. This truncated warning system has been specified by the US government and many DOT's for use on curb ramps.

http://www.jamsafety.com

 

[ronko]

Might want to check Top Mark, manufactured by Flint Trading,

http://www.flinttrading.com

. It's thermoplastic - quick and easy for retrofit. For new work, somebody is making pre-cast colored concrete panels, but can't remember name off-hand....

 

[noslip]

Go to

http://www.jamsafety.com

to see the SAFTI-TRAX Detectable Warning System for the Visually Impaired. It is currently recommended by the US government for curb ramp delineation and other hazardous pedestrian areas.

 

[sg1962]

I represent ADA Solutions out of Boston. We manufacture and distribute the highest quality product on the market today for ADA-compliant detectable warning truncated domes.

See us at

http://www.ADATiles.com

We produce products for both fresh pour concrete, as well as a flush mount product for retrofitting previously completed projects.