Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published January 2002

Sidewalk Cross-Slope Design: Analysis of Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities

Abstract

Current and proposed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines offer no specific guidance on acceptable maximum cross slopes where constraints of reconstruction prohibit meeting the 2% maximum cross-slope requirement for new construction. Two types of sidewalk test-section data across a sample of 50 individuals were collected, were combined with an earlier sample of 17 individuals, and were analyzed, with an emphasis on cross slopes. These tests examined heart-rate changes and user perception of discomfort levels, and they relied on a random-effects model and an ordered-probit model, respectively. Model estimates were used to deduce critical or unacceptable cross slopes for critical conditions and critical populations of persons with disabilities. Predicted values for the most severe or constrained cases ranged from 5.5% to 6% cross slope. These cases included 5% primary slope (main grade) and 45-ft-long sections; the sections were traversed by cane, crutch, or brace and manual wheelchair users who were up to 80 years old. When primary slopes were reduced to 0% in the perception estimates, the critical cross slopes for the critical case rose to 6%. For most other persons with disabilities, the critical cross slopes ranged from 6% to 9% or more. These values substantially exceed the ADA accessibility guidelines’ 2% maximum cross-slope standard for public sidewalks.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Taylor D., Kockelman K., Heard L., Taylor B., and Zhao Y. A Review of Methods for Meeting the American with Disabilities Act Sidewalk Cross-Slope Requirement. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, 1999.
2. Kockelman K., Zhao Y., and Blanchard-Zimmerman C. Meeting the Intent of ADA in Sidewalk Cross-Slope Design. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2001, pp. 101–110.
3. Brown J. W., and Redden M. R. A Research Agenda on Science and Technology for the Handicapped. Report 79-9-15. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., 1979.
4. Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee. Building a True Community: Final Report. U.S. Access Board, Washington, D.C., 2001.
5. Accessible Rights-of-Way: A Design Guide. U.S. Access Board, Washington, D.C., 1999.
6. Brubaker C. E., McLaurin C. A., and McClay I. S. Effects of Side Slope on Wheelchair Performance. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1996, pp. 55–57.
7. Accessible Sidewalks: Design Issues for Pedestrians with Disabilities (video). U.S. Access Board, Washington, D.C., 1997.
8. Chesney D. A., and Axelson P. W. Preliminary Test Method for the Determination of Surface Firmness. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1996, pp. 182–187.
9. Kaye H. S., Kang T., and LaPlante M. P. Mobility Device Use in the United States. Disability Statistics Report 14. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department of Education, 2000.
10. 1994 National Health Interview Survey on Disability, Phase I and II. CD-ROM Series 10, No. 8. National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999.
11. McNeil J. M. Current Population Report, Household Economic Studies: Americans With Disabilities: 1994-95. U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997.
12. Russell J. N., Hendershot G. E., and LeClere F. Trends and Differential Use of Assistive Technology Devices: United States, 1994. National Center for Health Statistics, Washington, D.C., 1997.
13. Bails J. H. Project Report on the Field Testing of Australian Standard 1428-1977. Public Buildings Department, Adelaide, 1983.
14. Bails J. H., and Seeger B. R. Ergonomic Design for Physically Disabled Children. South Australian Department of Housing and Con-struction, Adelaide, Australia, 1988.
15. Sanford J. A. A Review of Technical Requirements for Ramps: Final Report. U.S. Access Board, Washington, D.C., 1996.
16. Kockelman K., Heard L., Kweon Y. J., and Rioux T. Sidewalk Cross-Slope Design: Analysis of Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities. Research Report 0-4171. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, 2001.
17. Kirkpatrick B., and Birnbaum B. H. Lessons from the Heart: Individualizing Physical Education with Heart Rate Monitors. Human Kinetics, Champaign, Ill., 1997.
18. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s Resource Manual for Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 3rd ed. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, 1998.
19. Astrand P. O., and Rodahl K. Textbook of Work Physiology. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970.
20. Greene W. H. Econometric Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 2001.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published: January 2002
Issue published: January 2002

Rights and permissions

© 2002 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Kara Kockelman
University of Texas, 6.9 E. Cockrell Jr. Hall, Austin, TX 78712
Lydia Heard
University of Texas, 6.9 E. Cockrell Jr. Hall, Austin, TX 78712
Young-Jun Kweon
University of Texas, 6.9 E. Cockrell Jr. Hall, Austin, TX 78712
Thomas Rioux
University of Texas, 6.102 E. Cockrell Jr. Hall, Austin, TX 78712

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 134

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 7

  1. A Morphological Analysis of Ergonomic Design Reconfigurations for Crut...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Resilience of persons with disabilities to climate induced landslide h...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. Compliance analysis of pedestrian facilities with accessibility requir...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. Pedestrian network repair with spatial optimization models and geocrow...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  5. Review of Pedestrian Level of Service: Perspective in Developing Count...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  6. Physical Strain and Risk during Stroller Locomotion on Cross and Combi...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  7. A micro-level approach to measuring the accessibility of footways for ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub