# Beacon Hill group files suit to stop disabled ramps



## mark handler (Aug 13, 2014)

Beacon Hill group files suit to stop disabled ramps

Group says city’s plan harms character

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08/12/beacon-hill-group-suing-city-over-handicap-ramps/Ar2sC25mW49BN5G7hRXcWM/story.html

By David Abel and Travis Andersen  | GLOBE STAFF   AUGUST 13, 2014

After years of fighting efforts to install concrete handicapped- accessible ramps throughout Beacon Hill, the neighborhood’s civic association filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the city, contending that Mayor Martin J. Walsh’s recent announcement that he would begin the long-delayed work violated state law and jeopardizes the area’s “unique and irreplaceable historic nature.”

“The plaintiffs seek to prohibit the City [of Boston] from reconstructing or altering the sidewalks and streetscape in the historic district using historically inappropriate materials and designs,” the Beacon Hill Civic Association said in the complaint filed in Suffolk Superior Court.

The lawsuit was brought on the same day that city workers began installing the first of more than 250 ramps designed to make it easier for people with disabilities to navigate the neighborhood.

“At this time we intend to continue moving forward with the work as planned,” said Kate Norton, a spokeswoman for Walsh.

She said the city had yet to receive the lawsuit.

Keeta Gilmore, who chairs the civic association’s board of directors, said by phone that Walsh has circumvented the process for making changes to the sidewalks.

She said her organization has looked at ramps in historic districts across the country, and that there are “lots of wonderful ideas” being applied elsewhere.

“We are confident that we have taken all of the appropriate steps to ensure public safety,” she said.

In the lawsuit, the civic association rejected the city’s contention that the planned sidewalk changes are necessary to comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.

“The city purports to be undertaking this work to increase accessibility in the historic district to persons with disabilities under the ADA by removing existing brick sidewalk accessibility ramps at the intersections in the historic district and replacing them with poured concrete sidewalk ramps and plastic warning panels,” the complaint stated.

“However, the majority of the sidewalks at the intersections in the historic district are already accessible to persons with disabilities. More fundamentally, increased accessibility for persons with disabilities and preservation of the character of the historic district are mutually compatible.”

In addition, the city has failed to obtain the required approval from the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission, Massachusetts Historical Commission, and the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, according to the lawsuit.

Over the past year, Beacon Hill residents have suggested other building options, including granite ramps instead of concrete.

City officials believe granite ramps would be too expensive to be used on such a broad scale, given that concrete pedestrian ramps already cost the city on average about $6,000 apiece.

In December, the architectural commission, which the state Legislature established in 1955 to preserve the neighborhood’s historical integrity, used its authority to block a compromise plan that would have brought the neighborhood into compliance with the disabilities act.

Last month, the city’s Inspectional Services Department determined that the neighborhood’s ramps and intersections were unsafe and should be upgraded as soon as possible.

In a tense meeting with residents shortly afterward, Walsh said that determination allowed him to bypass the architectural commission.

But in the lawsuit filed Tuesday, the association challenged the validity of the inspectional services assessment and warned of dire consequences if the city bypasses state-mandated approval processes to move forward with its current plan. “The historic district will suffer palpable and irreparable diminution of its historic character,” the suit states.

The association also said, in a statement, that ensuring that the neighborhood is accessible and compliant with the disability act is “our top priority,” adding that they support improvements with “historically appropriate materials.”

Globe correspondent Jeremy C. Fox contributed to this report. David Abel can be reached at david.abel@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @davabel. Travis Andersen can be reached at travis.andersen@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @TAGlobe.


----------



## steveray (Aug 13, 2014)

Maybe the association should kick in the difference......


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 14, 2014)

Ever seen the slate ramps in DC? Talk about slippery.


----------



## fireguy (Aug 14, 2014)

First step is to split the Beacon Hill Group in small groups.

one group gets walkers, one group gets wheel chairs, one group gets crutches, one group gets to wear ear plugs and one group gets blindfolded.  They all get directions to meet 2 blocks away.  At that place, they all trade and head to the next meeting place 2 more blocks away.  They keep this up until all have experienced disabilities.  Then they meet again and discuss what they are going to do about the handicapped, shoot them or make things easier for the handicapped.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 14, 2014)

*Beacon Hill Civic Association (BHCA) position:*



•	ADA Compliance and Historic Preservation -- Let's Do It Right

http://www.bhcivic.org/index.htm

Beacon Hill Civic Association (BHCA) position:

o	We have always supported accessibility on Beacon Hill.

o	We have always supported improvements to our ramps and bringing into compliance with the current ADA standards including the addition of the dimpled tactile pad.

o	We have never disagreed with the size, shape or the number of ramps on Beacon Hill.

o	The only issue we have with the City’s proposal is the materials (concrete and plastic).

What is the BHCA is recommending?

In keeping with the historic character of Beacon Hill, the BHCA supports the use ofwire-cut bricks for the ramps and Architectural cast concrete pavers for the detectable warning pad. This is not an unreasonable request. The US access board has said that properly laid brick is just as ADA compliant as poured concrete and scientific studies comparing wire-cut brick surfaces to concrete have found that wire-cut brick provides a smoother surface for wheelchair users. Also ADA compliant is the use of the Architectural cast concrete pavers instead of plastic for the warning pads. These pavers can be made in any color and can be made with the same audible echo as the plastic pads. An additional benefit is they are 1/3 the cost of the plastic pads and possibly have a longer lifespan, as many of the plastic pads installed last year have already needed replacement. So if maintenance and cost are an issue then there is a distinct advantage to the pavers.

The BHCA has never put the importance of the historic guidelines over importance of accessibility and safety. And in this case, there is no conflict between the ADA guidelines and the preservation guidelines - we can satisfy both. The point is not only that we can – we should. Boston is a diverse city from the high-tech innovation district to the birthplace of our nation – all within walking distance. Visitors come from all over the world to see what downtown Boston has to offer and the commerce generated is good for all of Boston.

Beacon Hill is the oldest of Boston’s historic neighborhoods. And while it is subject, like the other downtown historic districts, to the preservation guidelines of the City’s Architectural commission, unlike the other historic districts it is also under the jurisdiction of the National Park Services as a National Historic Landmark. In 1922 the residents of Beacon Hill formed the Beacon Hill Civic Association after joining together to prevent the city from replacing the brick sidewalks with poured concrete. And after 92 years, protecting the historic character of Beacon Hill remains our mission.


----------



## TheCommish (Aug 14, 2014)

How about bricked stamped and colored concrete, keeps the brick look, is cheaper than dealing with individual bricks,  better surface than bricks and cost should be reasonable


----------



## mark handler (Aug 14, 2014)




----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 14, 2014)

Plastic yellow dot mats are an eyesore, and a blight on humanity. They fail with regularity. When they have to be replaced, they never match the color of the surrounding existing mats.

They are an insult to taste and aesthetics. Just because people do not want them does not mean they hate handicappers.

Pavers are an all-around better solution, and when installed properly are as permanent as can be expected. They even have yellow ones that have a more subdued color that won't burn your retinas out by looking at them.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 14, 2014)

Visual contrast between the detectable warning and sidewalk surfaces is very important to some visually impaired


----------



## ICE (Aug 14, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Visual contrast between the detectable warning and sidewalk surfaces is very important to some visually impaired


If that is what they see, they should be asking for help.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 14, 2014)

> Last month, the city’s Inspectional Services Department determined that the neighborhood’s ramps and intersections were unsafe and should be upgraded as soon as possible


There is a difference between un-safe and not meeting accessibility requirements.


----------



## JPohling (Aug 14, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> If that is what they see, they should be asking for help.


That is precisely the point.  With that level of contrast it is detectable and they DO NOT HAVE TO ASK FOR HELP!


----------



## JPohling (Aug 14, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Plastic yellow dot mats are an eyesore, and a blight on humanity. They fail with regularity. When they have to be replaced, they never match the color of the surrounding existing mats.They are an insult to taste and aesthetics. Just because people do not want them does not mean they hate handicappers.
> 
> Pavers are an all-around better solution, and when installed properly are as permanent as can be expected. They even have yellow ones that have a more subdued color that won't burn your retinas out by looking at them.
> 
> Brent.


California specifically requires Federal Yellow


----------



## mark handler (Aug 14, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> California specifically requires Federal Yellow


Exception: Detectable warning surfaces at curb ramps, islands or cut-through medians shall not be required to comply with Section 11B-705.1.1.5.(Federal Yellow)

if there were a bank, and they wanted, red or blue, I would not object, as long as it is contrasting to the adjacent surfaces


----------



## ICE (Aug 14, 2014)

Yellow is a DOT requirement. Train stations and airports, etc.


----------



## JPohling (Aug 15, 2014)

Mark,  Good catch...............not sure why I didnt see that?  What is your take on a zero curb sidewalk parallel and adjacent to a vehicular way.  Is that somehow a "curb ramp"? and can be contrasting but not fed yellow nor have the resiliency requirement?  ie.  contrasting concrete pavers?


----------



## mark handler (Aug 15, 2014)

As I stated, i would allow different colors

As long as it contrasted the adjacent surface.

Black DW would not work at a AC DRIVE but would in a concrete walk

Thats why there is a contrast formula in the CBC


----------



## conarb (Aug 15, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> As I stated, i would allow different colorsAs long as it contrasted the adjacent surface.
> 
> Black DW would not work at a AC DRIVE but would in a concrete walk
> 
> Thats why there is a contrast formula in the CBC


So this is totally at the discretion of the BO?


----------



## ICE (Aug 15, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> contrasting concrete pavers?








Those are camouflage concrete pavers.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 15, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> Those are camouflage concrete pavers.


Yes they are, brick won't last. They are to soft


----------



## JPohling (Aug 15, 2014)

I personally love the individual stainless steel dots but they are labor/cost intensive.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 15, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> I personally love the individual stainless steel dots but they are labor/cost intensive.


Not your money, Banks are where the money is.......


----------



## mark handler (Sep 5, 2014)

Beacon Hill activist seeks handicap ramps’ replacement

Urges state to redo them to meet neighborhood’s standards

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/09/02/beaconhill/dhGSqJdnrmd2y0YEG8hWUO/story.html

By David Abel  | GLOBE STAFF   SEPTEMBER 03, 2014







An outspoken board member of the Beacon Hill Civic Association has threatened top state officials that failure to replace newly installed handicap ramps near one of the nation’s busiest hospitals could result in “action to remove the ramps as violating the Beacon Hill Historic District guidelines.”

The demand was included in a volley of e-mails that board member Robert Whitney sent over the summer to Secretary Richard Davey of the state Department of Transportation, in which he urged the agency to rip up the new concrete ramps with plastic tactile strips in Charles Circle and replace them with “materials that are appropriate” to Beacon Hill.

“DOT should be using more historically appropriate materials,” he wrote.

Whitney’s missives came shortly before the civic association filed a lawsuit this month against the city for installing more than 250 similar handicap ramps throughout the neighborhood, claiming they failed to preserve the area’s Colonial charm.

But this time, with state officials refusing to replace the ramps that assist the blind and disabled and cost thousands of dollars, civic association officials are distancing themselves from their board member. The ramps are located about a block from Massachusetts General Hospital.

When asked about an e-mail that Whitney wrote in June, telling Davey that the civic association would likely vote “on a course of action” to remove the ramps, she said: “I can say we have not discussed any action with regards to the ramp. ... We have taken no action.”

But she added: “I can’t say what could happen.”

In a telephone interview, Davey was adamant that the ramps would remain. “We’re not redoing the work — period,” he said.

Whitney urged Davey to rectify “the mistake” by using significantly more expensive granite for tactile warning strips and wire-cut brick for the ramps.

“The use of granite as the material for the tactile warning panel would fit in well in the Beacon Hill historic district, as there already is a lot of granite in use there,” he wrote.

State officials bridled at the notion they should replace the completed ramps and said they received explicit approval for the materials from the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission, which the state Legislature established in 1955 to preserve the neighborhood’s historic integrity.

“We’ve expended what I will guess is thousands of dollars [of] taxpayer money on an approach approved by the [Architectural Commission] that improves the area for the disabled community and pedestrians,” Davey wrote to Whitney. “What is being asked is that we tear out perfectly good work for what many folks, outside of [beacon Hill], may see as purely aesthetics.”

Department officials said it cost about $3,000 to install the ramps in Charles Circle and would cost an estimated $22,500 to remove them and replace them with wire-cut brick. They were not sure how much it would cost to replace the plastic warning strips with granite but said it would likely cost “a lot more.”

Davey said the department already compromised with local residents, changing the typically yellow tactile strips — considered to provide the best contrast for the blind — with red strips meant to match the neighborhood’s brick sidewalks.

He noted the state was seeking to comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act after disabled residents sued the department a decade ago.

“We’ve learned the hard way when they said we weren’t doing enough to make our transportation system accessible,” he said. “The ramps are really a quality-of-life issue for folks who are disabled.”

In a letter sent to Whitney last week, Frank DePaola, administrator of the Department of Transportation’s Highway Division, said the Architectural Commission approved the project and materials in the summer of 2012. The work is part of the $250 million project to renovate the dilapidated Longfellow Bridge.

“MassDOT’s contractor was not mistaken in its use of cement concrete for the sidewalk ramps but was simply executing a design that had been reviewed and approved,” DePaola wrote.

Davey added that the ramps beside the John Jeffries House do not serve “a theoretical challenge in that area.”

“It’s next to Boston’s largest hospital,” he said. “It’s hardly inconceivable that handicap-accessible ramps in that area are critical.”

Whitney did not return calls for comment. But in an e-mail this week he insisted he sent the e-mail to Davey in a “personal capacity.”

“I understand that the [Department of Transportation] has now explained in a letter that their contractor’s work re[garding] the ramp was previously discussed with the [Architectural Commission] and all is in order with them,” he wrote to the Globe.

In a statement, Gilmore called the ramps “a unique situation” because some are only partially located in the historic district.

The civic association “has consistently supported increased accessibility in Beacon Hill that is in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, while also preserving the historic district with historically appropriate materials,” she said.

Along Charles Circle this week, pedestrians using the new ramps said they had a hard time understanding how they could be controversial.

Pushing her 3-month-old son in a stroller, Tara Mazanec said the wide concrete ramps, set off from the brick sidewalk, make it easier to see where to cross in a complicated intersection.

“People are complaining about this?” asked Mazanec, 37, of Cambridge. “Don’t they have anything better to do?”


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 5, 2014)

Somebody is just being a d!ck now. The ramps are in. They are not yellow. They cost a metric *****load in the first place.

Now just let it be a go back to being a overzealous busybody on something else.

Brent.


----------



## Msradell (Sep 7, 2014)

If the Beacon Hill group wants them redone with granite, let them go ahead and do it!  The government shouldn't be forced to spend more money than needed to complete the required modifications.  Even if the intersection hasn't yet been done with concrete the cost to do it with granite in the first place but probably be twice the cost of doing it conventionally.


----------

