What should we change?
While specific, as a practitioner in the planning and design of the built environment, I will struggle to implement much of the this section in any consistent way
There are several ‘general statements’ that, when applied, will actually conflict with one another, and a practitioner would be forced into picking ‘one over another’ without guidance, relying on personal preference, rather than a technical standard.
As such, what we are already seeing across Canada, namely, different applications of the same item through interpretation, will continue to proliferate and will lead to differing practices and applications from place to place, negating any attempts by this publication to create a ‘consistent standard.’
I would very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to the technical committee in depth about these items, as they are too numerous to list along with all the potential pitfalls/variants they create. Contact info: Peter.truch@me.com, (778)215-3879.
What should we change it to?
I will cite just one example of conflict, and how it causes issues in a somewhat circular fashion. I don’t necessarily propose a specific solution here, as I believe it should come from a consensus basis from the committee. This situation is specifically referring to outside, on a street corridor at a intersection or road crossing.
A truncated dome tactile pad at a ramp letdown in Canada currently has (covering most situations) three different colours in practice. Most certainly, there are more with ‘one-offs’ that people can point to elsewhere beyond these three.
The three colours that are all, generally speaking, compliant with surface contrast are yellow, safety red, and a rust/dirt red.
The current draft standards do not specify a specific colour, only the contrast. However, there is a clause that suggest the colour should also correspond to the societal implications of meaning. So, is the intent of a truncated dome tactile pad a warning, or to stop before proceeding? This clause is important, as there are technical standards in Canada, in the form of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices in Canada (MUTCDC) produced by others that specify colours for those purposes. (Red means stop, yellow means warning). Hence, this document should specify what the intent is of the purpose of this device, then choose a corresponding colour.
The confusion is furthered when within this standard, it is assumed that a directional wayfinding tactile pad CANNOT be yellow, to avoid confusion with a truncated dome warning tactile pad. This then applies that a truncated dome pad should be yellow, yet, much of central and eastern Canada regions use red or rust as the colour for the tactile.
However, referring back to the MUTCDC, is a directional tactile indicator then not a warning? Or is it something else? Would yellow not be an appropriate colour for such a device? Irrespective, the MUTCDC specifies specific colours for our transportation system (which includes sidewalks and pathways) and should be a considered parallel standard that needs to be followed.
Either way, said devices must provide specific contrast on different surface types and colours, specifically concrete (sidewalks) and asphalt (sometimes sidewalks, walking, paths, and multi-use paths).
Finally, one must also consider the practical implications of what is currently being manufactured versus what could be in the future. Most manufacturers in Canada do not produce a significant variety of colours in each of the truncated dome and directional indicators that offer both the contrast and the durability for our climates.
There are many many more examples like this, regarding positioning, placement, etc. that I have identified within this draft guide that will cause real problems for implementation, and the standard does not provide specificity to one to apply the standard effectively and consistently.
Why should we change it?
As outlined above with one example (I have identified many more), many technical components as outlined within this standard are not specific enough to be applied in a consistent, harmonized way across Canada, and will lead to further divergence in practice across the country. There will not be consistency from region to region, province to province, city to city, even from corner to corner in the same location. This is quite the opposite of this standard to harmonize and meet the needs of all persons.
Again, I would like to speak in more detail with ASC to all of the items I have identified in my review of this draft standard. I believe with some focused discussion and thought, along with conscious decision making, we can dramatically improve this standard to allow for a harmonized approach across Canada.