Kokua Line
Kokua Line
Keaahala Road complies
with disability dimensionsQuestion: There is a road widening project at Keaahala Road next to the Kaneohe District Park. I noticed what I think is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by the Department of Transportation. There is a utility pole and guide-wire support in the middle of a wheelchair ramp.
Under ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) 4.7.3, it states: "The minimum clear width of a ramp shall be 36 inches (915 mm)." Many engineers go beyond the minimum ramp width of 36 inches with a 44-inch width if space is available. They know people sometimes need a little extra space.
Who in DOT is in charge of ADA compliance to allow this to happen? Why do we put utility poles in the middle of our sidewalks when we could put them outside the concrete? Sidewalks are for people, not utility poles. In my home town of San Diego, I have never seen CALTRANS build sidewalks with utility poles in the middle. Why can't Hawaii be as efficient and give the sidewalks to the people, not the utility companies?
Answer: Vincent Llorin, the ADA coordinator for the DOT's Highways Division, said there are the required 32-inch and 36-inch width passageway on the sidewalk, even though it may not look like it.
He pointed to the ADAAG's rule 4.2.1 on wheelchair passage, which states that "the minimum clear width for single wheelchair passage shall be 32 inches at a point and 36 inches continuously."
After we passed on your complaint and photos to him, Llorin said measurements were retaken and "it was confirmed that the wheelchair passage width complied with ADAAG."
We also checked with the state Disability and Communication Access Board, which reviews such projects. It found that the Keaahala Road sidewalk design was "OK," according to Francine Wai, the board's executive director.
Many people do not realize that, in designing a pathway, the width can be reduced to 32 inches at the point of an obstacle, she said. This is to accommodate such things as telephone poles and fire hydrants.
However, that 32-inch section can't be longer than two feet at any given point, Wai said.
"Often times to the naked eye, that (width) looks insufficient because sidewalks usually are wider than 36 inches," as is the case of the Keaahala Road sidewalk, she said.
However, there were seven areas where the DOT submitted "technical infeasibility statements," in which it said it couldn't fully comply with ADA standards.
But none of those instances had to do with the width of passage of the sidewalk. Instead, they all involved the "flare on the curb or the level landing at the top of the curb ramp," Wai said.
She explained there is an ADA provision that says, in a project like Keaahala Road, the rule is to comply to "the maximum extent feasible" when full compliance is not possible when dealing with an existing roadway.
In cases like that, there may not be enough right of way, or the existing road may be so steep that the sidewalk may have a grade that's steeper than what's allowed.
"So there is leeway in an existing alteration," Wai said. Engineers then are required to explain why there cannot be full compliance.
While the Keaahala Road project may not be "a perfect one in terms of hitting new construction requirements," that "doesn't mean it's non-compliant," she said.
As for utility poles being in the middle of the sidewalk, Wai said since this was a street widening project, "the poles were already there" and a decision was made not to move them.
While it might look "stupid" to have a pole in the middle of the sidewalk, that again doesn't mean the sidewalk is non-compliant with ADA standards.
"The bottom line is that a design can comply, but that doesn't mean that it's a good design, a pretty design or the smartest thing to do," she said.
It also might look more jarring because the sidewalk is actually wider than 36 inches, she said. If the sidewalk had been narrower, the pole would have been closer to one edge, so "it wouldn't look so stupid."
Q: What stops a parking company from towing cars out of the lot? My boyfriend parked his car in a BTV Parking Services lot on Ward Avenue and paid the correct $3 amount in the correct parking stall slot at the pay box, but when he came back five hours later his car was gone. BTV Parking stated they didn't find any money in the slot and therefore towed the car.
How do you know who's right? BTV doesn't provide a receipt. When we talked to a woman at BTV Parking, she said, "It's your word against ours." We had to disrupt our afternoon, go to the tow lot and pay a $112.50 towing fee. Where's the justice?
A: At this point, both the Office of Consumer Protection (OCP) and BTV Parking advise taking the matter to Small Claims Court.
Richard Jones, operations manager for BTV Parking, said his company subcontracts the monitoring of the lot to a towing company.
"I'm not going to sit here and try and tell that (the system) is 100 percent sure, that there's 100 percent guarantee," he said. Sometimes mistakes are made, he said.
When BTV receives a complaint like yours, it has someone look into the situation and "make sure that it was OK."
He pointed out that the tow company, "by law," is required to take a photo of the box "to show there is no money in the box."
The tow company has to offer some proof, Jones said, so it doesn't come down to a matter of one person's word against the other's.
The natural progression in a dispute like this is to take the tow company to Small Claims Court, Jones said. "And if (customers) are not happy with that, then they take me to Small Claims Court and I have to take pictures of my location with the signage and everything and I've never lost."
Jones said he wishes there were another way to monitor lot usage and he realizes customers' frustration when cars are towed.
But in the past, when the wheels of cars simply were immobilized "to impound" them in a case of nonpayment, police would always make the company take the locks off.
"The police were telling us the only way to enforce this is to tow the cars," he said. "So we're stuck between a rock and a hard place."
If you want to pursue the matter further with BTV, call Jones at 955-7223.
Meanwhile, an OCP spokesman says that unless it can be established that there is a pattern of disputed towing against consumers -- "which would indicate a problem" -- there is no catalyst for enforcing any consumer protection law in this case.
In the absence of any violation of state law, it boils down to a civil dispute, in which case OCP advises going to Small Claims Court.
(Call 538-5151 on how to file a claim and what's required in Small Claims Court. Generally, the court will hear claims of up to $3,500 or residential landlord-tenant security deposits of any amount. Attorneys are not needed. There is a $35 nonrefundable fee for filing a claim.)
If you wish to file a complaint with the state for alleged unfair business practice, call OCP at 586-2636
|
Useful phone numbers
Got a question or complaint?
Call 529-4773, fax 529-4750, or write to Kokua Line,
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 500 Ala Moana Blvd., No. 7-210,
Honolulu 96813. As many as possible will be answered.
E-mail to kokualine@starbulletin.com