If those are the closest you can find that it seemed quite obvious that the tower would need to be accessible. Which I was thinking anyway.
Here in Louisville that took an old railroad bridge across the river and made it a walking bridge to go from Indiana to Kentucky. Great project but I did all kinds of shenanigans for accessibility. They built ramps on both sides because the bridge is almost 50 feet above the surrounding area. However, they built a ramp at 4.95% slope so they didn't have to put resting places along the way! It seems that 5% slope is the magic number in which you have to start putting resting places in. By being less than 5% you can just have a continuous ramp for any length you want. I have a power chair so it's not a major problem but with somebody in the manual wheelchair it could be a major obstacle!
Very true but in a case like this when it's done intentionally to avoid having to comply with the ADA it should be illegal! In this case the "walking surface" is over 1000' long! The original plan for the project was to have an elevator to go from grade level to the bridge surface but instead they made the spiral ramp.
While it certainly seems like the 20% rule should apply in this case it seems like the only alternative they are looking at for the rebuild is complete compliance. Maybe it's because they have to spend the 20% (minimum) on ADA improvements and there is nothing else to improve except making the top platform accessible?
