APPLYING GUIDELINES WHEN CONVENIENT
In these projects the Planners apply guidelines in an arbitrary manner - to suit their purposes. Is the failure to get an easement [on the first project] a reason to bypass ADA regulations, while environmental impact and human impact are not? That is the position, apparently, of those administering the project. The original project was approved, despite the fact that the planners acknowledged, in writing, that 10% did NOT meet ADA guidelines (due to steep slopes.) The same planners who allowed that "exception" are rigidly adhering to "guidelines" in the Extension project, and refusing to consider the discretion they have. Maybe it is an ego thing...
In the First Auburn Trail Project Planners used a great deal of discretion in applying guidelines, and there are numerous "exceptions" from written guidelines. We provide some examples below - one regarding SAFETY,
the other regarding Trail Design Guidelines (ADA and AASHTO). 1. Which is the Safe Trail?
2. When Do the Planners allow Exceptions? In the First Auburn Project, Planners used their discretion in adhering to ADA requirements and other guidelines. In the DOT-approved Trail Design, they authorized a 29% grade along the trail (not close to meeting ADA requirements, or AASHTO guidelines), and stated that 10% of the trail would not meet ADA. In the Auburn Trail Extension Project, planners have refused to consider any exception from guidelines - even for 3000' in a significant environmental area. Discretion regarding ADA, excerpts in quotations from the DOT approved Final Design Report:
"All elements of the project will strive to meet ADA guidelines." "Strive" implies there is discretion.
"A few short segments may be designated as (bicycle) dismount zones due to steep grades." (Image at right shows segment with 13%, 18% and 29% grades.)
These grades are NOT close to meeting ADA standards, or what the Planners refer to as AASHTO.
There are several other examples of these "exceptions" and allowed discretion in the First Auburn Project. In that project there was no public controversy, or known areas of environmental significance.
Why haven't the Project Planners advocated to preserve and recognize one of the Town's most significant environmental areas? Why haven't they even acknowledged its environmental significance?
Why haven't the Project Planners worked in good faith with the Coalition to reach a compromise to protect this area and progress the project?
Additional ADA, AASHTO and safety issues with the original Auburn detours:
For more detailed information on these detours, visit this page. |








Share the Road Signs - There are NO "Share the Road" signs to warn motorists of bicyclists using the road on the Maple Ave segment.