Physical Accessibility

In order for individuals with disabilities to effectively navigate the university’s many facilities, a digital map showing accessible routes, parking, and building features (e.g., entrances, elevators, restrooms, etc.) should be created and made readily available. As the university undergoes construction or other alterations, the map should be promptly updated to show construction or alternate routes when accessible routes and entrances are unavailable. The map should be tested prior to release to ensure compatibility with common assistive technologies.

See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 2, Appendix 1.

For new construction, code requires signage outside of inaccessible entrances directing users to the nearest accessible entrance. This code requirement fails to account for the numerous existing buildings where such direction and guidance is necessary. Accordingly, it is recommended that signage be installed on all buildings at inaccessible entrances with directions to accessible entrances.

See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 3, Appendix 1.

Paratransit Transportation Services offers curb-to-curb transit for students, faculty, and staff with disabilities. While this is an invaluable service, there are currently significant limitations to the number of individuals who can be served, the areas that can access this service, and the time periods when the service can be used. Accordingly, resources should be allocated to Logistics, Transportation, and Parking (“LTP”) to allow Paratransit to expand its weekend and evening hours, provide summer services without using a third-party vendor, and extend its service to individuals residing within one (1) to two (2) miles of the University. In order to meet these needs, it is estimated that LTP would need to create a new transportation facility, procure additional cut-away vans for the Paratransit fleet, and hire additional drivers and dispatchers to support the increase in service.

See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 4, Appendix 1.

The university is engaging in ground-breaking research and testing to develop and deploy connected and automated vehicles (“CAVs”) (i.e., “driverless” vehicles). Presently, such CAVs are currently being used on a “North Loop” route to serve riders on North Campus. These vehicles were initially created without any required accessibility standards beyond those contained in the ADA guidelines. As a result, current CAVs are minimally-accessible. The university consults with an ad hoc committee (MCity’s Autonomous Vehicle Accessibility Internal Group) to provide guidance on accessibility and usability for individuals with disabilities; however, this committee has limited scope and resources.

To address gaps in CAV accessibility, it is recommended that the university educate CAV faculty and staff regarding how to increase access for individuals with disabilities. In addition, the Autonomous Vehicle Accessibility Internal Group should be consulted in a more proactive manner so that CAVs can be made accessible at the outset rather than having to retrofit existing CAVs. Further, resources should be invested to support accessible CAV research opportunities and events. Finally, the university should implement a new policy requiring that any new CAV technologies and deployments meet and address accessibility considerations.

See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 5, Appendix 1.

Presently, the university offers a variety of barrier removal services.

The Grounds Department maintains a list of accessible routes used by self-identified individuals with disabilities and uses this list to prioritize snow and ice removal. However, such services are difficult to locate. To ensure individuals can make use of this service, information on snow and ice removal should be included on a centralized website and made widely available.

For other types of barriers, such as bicycles, mopeds, service and commercial vehicles, Segways, or motorized scooters (including “Bird” and “Spin” scooters), the Department of Public Safety and Security (“DPSS”) or Ann Arbor Police Department (“AAPD”) currently ticket first and then remove the item after 24 to 48 hours. While removal is an eventual possibility, this practice allows barriers to remain in place for a significant period of time, which could have a substantial impact on a disabled student’s equal access to programs and services at the university. To ensure such barriers do not have a lasting impact, the university should implement a new policy allowing for immediate removal of identified barriers. Furthermore, it is recommended that the university communicate further with companies such as Bird and Spin to create a policy requiring users to maintain accessible routes when using their scooters.

See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 6, Appendix 1.

The university strives to comply with the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (“ADAAG”) with all new construction and renovation. While these codes are intended to create accessible spaces, it is widely recognized that meeting these codes does not always ensure equal access to individuals given the wide array of disabilities, assistive devices, or other factors. Accordingly, there is ongoing research being conducted on a national level to determine suggested accessible design practices. It is recommended that the institution implement a new policy permitting the university’s Code Coordinator to review research and pending ADAAG modifications in consultation with the ADA Coordinator in order to determine whether the university should modify its internal building codes prior to any formal legal codification.

For example, the federal government recently adopted a new federal standard requiring that all accessible public entrances include automatic door operation entry. This sub-group recommended that a similar provision be added to the university’s code. Prior to the creation of this report, the university’s Code Committee officially approved this modification. Accordingly, the university’s code is currently under revision to reflect this requirement for new construction and renovations. See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 7, Appendix 1.

As another example, current research suggests that the ADAAG’s turn radius requirements (60 inches) and T-turn dimensions are not sufficient for a significant portion of disabled users. This research further suggests that variations of these codes would increase accessibility. Accordingly, it is recommended that the university’s code be modified to require a 66 inch turning radius and three variations in T-turn dimensions. See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 8, Appendix 1.

This institution is frequently engaged in construction and renovation projects ranging from the substantial (e.g., the Union renovation) to minor or cosmetic (e.g., carpet replacement). While university buildings may have accessible entrances and routes, construction projects (no matter their scope) may significantly alter or obstruct these features. When projects impact accessible routes, entrances, or features, accessible alternatives should be identified and clearly communicated. For instance, the university should adopt a policy requiring that, as part of any construction project, accessible alternatives must be identified throughout the planning stages of the project. Moreover, these alternatives should be clearly communicated via a web site (such as the central site described in R2.1) and directional signage located strategically throughout the affected area.

See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 9, Appendix 1.

Currently, new construction project plans are sent to the ADA Coordinator to review for accessibility and usability. On occasion, the ADA Coordinator will offer opportunities to review these plans by communicating with members of the Council for Disability Concerns; however, these opportunities have been inconsistent. In order to ensure that disabled individuals are consistently considered and consulted on such projects, a committee should be created that includes individuals with disabilities who can provide guidance and feedback regarding physical accessibility and inclusion. Furthermore, this committee should include individuals who are part of the various spaces across the institution, including the different campuses, Michigan Medicine, or other University properties. This committee should be consulted on an ongoing and regular basis for any new construction projects. See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 10, Appendix 1.

In addition to reviewing plans for accessibility, this committee should review plans for other elements supporting other facets of diversity, equity, and inclusion. For example, new spaces and renovations should consider including spaces such as meditation spaces, privacy rooms (spaces used for lactation or other personal needs), foot washes, gender inclusive restrooms/locker rooms/showers, etc. See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 12, Appendix 1.

Currently, designers are given significant guidance regarding ADAAG code requirements. Although the ADAAG helps increase accessibility, it fails to meet the broader needs of individuals with various disabilities, assistive devices, and needs. Universal Design principles (which often exceed the ADAAG requirements) are intended to create spaces and buildings that are accessible and usable to as many people as possible without needing any accommodation or modification. Educating designers via in-unit trainings so that they incorporate these principles at the outset of architectural projects would ensure broad access, while minimizing delays, ongoing adverse impacts, and additional costs associated with removing barriers for identified occupants.

See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 11, Appendix 1.

As previously mentioned, new buildings and construction must meet current ADAAG codes; however, a significant number of university buildings were created prior to applicable codes (i.e., “legacy” buildings) and are, thus, inaccessible. While the university continues to operate in these spaces (e.g., classrooms, faculty offices, dining options, etc.), often individuals with disabilities are excluded from using such spaces. In order to better assess which buildings are inaccessible, the institution should undertake a university-wide audit of buildings, with a focus on ADAAG compliance and barriers. With this information, the university should then prioritize removing identified barriers or providing individual accommodations.

See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 13, Appendix 1.

The university has created the ADA Fund ($500,000) to remove architectural barriers for identified occupants with disabilities in General Fund buildings or programs. This fund is limited to providing individual accommodations and is rarely used to address general barriers. Accordingly, an additional fund of similar amount should be created with the goal of systematically removing barriers, whether or not an identified occupant is involved. Such a fund would proactively make the university more accessible. See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 14, Appendix 1.

In addition to removing barriers for disabled individuals, modifications should also ensure that all buildings comply with university code requiring that occupants have access to accessible and gender inclusive restrooms located within 500 feet and traversing no more than one floor from their location. See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 15, Appendix 1.

In addition to university buildings, available parking is critical for student access. As with existing buildings, university parking options (i.e., garages, street parking, etc.) may not meet necessary accessibility standards. Accordingly, any new parking construction projects must be reviewed to ensure accessibility and usability. For existing parking, an audit should be conducted to assess whether these options meet ADA standards for location, accessible routes, quantity of accessible spaces, and other accessibility features. Where parking fails to meet these requirements, additional steps should be taken to bring these parking options into compliance.

Furthermore, while the university provides a specific process for seeking a specific parking accommodation (such as a reserved accessible space), this process requires sharing personal medical information. This process should be examined to determine whether such information is truly necessary to grant such accommodations.

See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 16, Appendix 1.

First-year undergraduate students are guaranteed on-campus housing. Other undergraduates are also offered the opportunity to bid for such housing. Additionally, the university provides housing options for graduate and professional students (e.g., Munger, Northwood, Lawyer’s Club). This benefit allows students to have ready access to dining, class, and work spaces and build critical relationships with their peers and others. Accessible housing options must be a priority to ensure that all students have equal access to these benefits. Given the individual nature of disability, housing options should include various combinations of accessible features and accessible rooms should be included in the various types of housing offered. In order to ensure students are able to request such housing options, information about accessible housing should be made widely available and communicated as part of the student’s orientation and admission.

See Physical Accessibility Report, Recommendation 17, Appendix 1.

In addition, there are current efforts by MedLaunch to design and prototype an accessible residence hall room for disabled students. It is recommended that the university support this effort and invest the resources needed to apply any suggested practices gleaned from the MedLaunch project to new residence hall construction projects.