• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Accessibility for zipline tour/amusement ride

brudgers said:
Or how do you hook the wheelchair to the zipline safely?
Click to expand...
Again, there are many disabilities and don't constrain yourself to thinking only of wheelchairs. A legally blind person could ride a zip line with no equipment to haul around and need to navigate the intermediate elements, and probably lots of other disabilities that I can't think of also.
 
JBI said:
I believe, based on the indicated site constraints, that a strong case could be made for technically infeasable in this instance. If the site would require that much physical alteration it would also be an environmental review nightmare to make it accessible. As far as a Code Section, it has been quoted.

1103.1 Where required. Sites, buildings, structures, facilities,

elements and spaces, temporary or permanent, shall be accessible

to persons with physical disabilities.

1104.2 Within a site. At least one accessible route shall connect

accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements

and accessible spaces that are on the same site.

IMHO, in regard to the quandry, there is a zipline element, followed by an overland element, followed by a zipline element, etc.

How would the wheelchair get from one end to the other?
Click to expand...
Those are the code sections I am basing the requirement for accessibilty. With regards to "technically infeasable", I only find this language in the provisions for existing construction.

The applicants contention, which I don't agree with, is that this is a "challenge course" type activity, certain people will not be able to use it. If you are 600 pounds, you can not go on it.

As Brugers pointed out, it is not likely that our Jurisdiction has adopted the access-board.gov website as a refernced standard, so is it unwise to use the Federal Government's own information, provided as a service to promote compliance with the accessiblity guidelines and statues???

It seems like a good reference, given the reason for creation and the fact it is backed or funded by those tasked with enforcement. Why should I avoid using this as a guide for accessiblity?? Why should I use this guide??

I appreciate everyones input, playing devils advocate, etc....

If I use the letter of the law IBC, they will need to make this entire setup fully accessible. That is scoped in 1103.1. The listed exceptions couldn't be reasonably applied to this situation. The access-board.gov offers very specific guidelines for amusement rides which would seem a much more practical application, and, as put forth by those whose goals are to ensure compilance, a reasonable resource for making decisions such as this.

While the owner/applicant states that a rider would not be allowed to start mid way through the tour, it would be reasonable to surmise that should someone be unable to continue or unwilling to continue, they would be permitted to exit the tour and make their way back to the parking lot. In that context, I am leaning towards making accessible routes to all load and unloading points required.

Assuming they did that for a moment, accessible routes connecting the platforms and towers. Do the towers then need to be accessible?? There is a requirement to climb some sort of ladder to get to the next hook in point. To make ramps or even stairs would require far more effort and resources than the ride would be worth.

Could one reasonably require accessible routes to all the elements, towers and platforms, but not have the towers and platforms themselves be accessible?????
 
Yankee said:
Again, there are many disabilities and don't constrain yourself to thinking only of wheelchairs. A legally blind person could ride a zip line with no equipment to haul around and need to navigate the intermediate elements, and probably lots of other disabilities that I can't think of also.
Click to expand...
Of course there are other disabilities, but the major design issues are largely related to mobility impairments...in other words, blind people can use stairs, high urinals, small stalls, etc..
 
righter101 said:
While the owner/applicant states that a rider would not be allowed to start mid way through the tour, it would be reasonable to surmise that should someone be unable to continue or unwilling to continue, they would be permitted to exit the tour and make their way back to the parking lot.
Click to expand...
You can't exit a roller coaster mid ride.

More or less, a person leaving in mid-ride is being rescued because they are in distress.

righter101 said:
In that context, I am leaning towards making accessible routes to all load and unloading points required.
Click to expand...
Despite being able to cite a specific code requirement, of course. You had already made up your mind.

Your decision should be based on the design presented, not the way you wish things were if only accessboard.gov were incorporated into the code by reference.

All you're doing is fishing for excuses to deny.
 
brudgers said:
You can't exit a roller coaster mid ride. More or less, a person leaving in mid-ride is being rescued because they are in distress.

Despite being able to cite a specific code requirement, of course. You had already made up your mind.

Your decision should be based on the design presented, not the way you wish things were if only accessboard.gov were incorporated into the code by reference.

All you're doing is fishing for excuses to deny.
Click to expand...
I don't have my mind already made up and I am not "fishing for excuses to deny". I am trying to enforce the building code and not violate any federal civil rights that have been granted to disabled people.

I would agree with the "mid ride" exiting. That is why I put this up for discussion, to hear all points of view.

Can we make this really simple Brugers, tell me what you would do. What level of accessibilty would you require?? That might be eaiser for me to get your point of view rather than have you assume, incorrectly, things about my motives and intent.

I think your point about mid ride exiting is very valid and worth considering. I don't have my mind already made up. I am trying to make it up now and I am willing to listen to every point of view.

The applicant is on one end of the spectrum, basically wanting to make nothing accessible and just offer this ride to only fit, fully ablebodied persons. I find this unacceptable.

The buidlng code states that all sites and elements within the site must be accessible. This seems quite cut and dry. It would be in most applications.

I believe, reasonably, that this is one of those grey areas in the code.

WWBD??

What would brugers do??
 
One other note about leaving the ride mid way through, it may not necessairly be distress. Some people may be perfectly ok with flying through the forest canopy on zip lines, 50 feet off the ground. What happens when they get off at the tower, climb down, and realize that the next segement of the zipline goes over a lake?? They were unaware of this and have a real fear of being above the water. No way are they going to continue. They are not needing to be rescued, they just can not continue. The reasons for not continuing are not always distress.

As far as not being able to "exit a roller coaster mid ride", Brugers, you are absolutely correct. This, however is not a roller coaster. It is unique.
 
Imagine if there were spiders. A person might be afraid of spiders.

Imagine if there were foreigners. A person might be afraid of foreigners.

Lake, spiders, foreigners. The person is leaving because they are in distress.

I take that back. No person is actually leaving. We are just imagining they are.

If we stick to reality, then we approve the plans or find an actual specific section of code.
 
This discussion makes me appreciate international vacations all the more..

canopybig.jpg


I enjoy traveling outside the U.S. and participating in all the "unsafe" and "un-accessible" activities.

My wife and I always get a laugh saying "We'd never allow this back home!"

Although, here is one in Branson, MO. that doesn't look very accessible http://www.bransonzipline.com/photoGallery.cfm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Modification letter

Here is what I ended up with for the modification request. Feedback is appreciated. Applicant information has been omitted.

October 20, 2010

To: (****)

Re: Modification request dated October 11th, 2010

Permit # TPN (****)

I have received your request to modify some of the accessibility requirements as they pertain to the “Zip Line Tour” constructed under the permit listed above.

Discussion:

This permit was issued under the 2006 International Building Code and the tour was classified as an “A5” occupancy, the designation given to amusement rides. Your submitted letter confirms this project is indeed an amusement ride, based on definitions found in the WAC.

The accessibility requirements are scoped in Chapter 11 of the 2006 IBC, specifically:

1103.1 Where required. Sites, buildings, structures, facilities,

elements and spaces, temporary or permanent, shall be accessible

to persons with physical disabilities.

1104.2 Within a site. At least one accessible route shall connect

accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements

and accessible spaces that are on the same site.

These sections have listed exceptions to the accessibility requirements; however, none of the listed exemptions could be reasonably applied to this project.

Using the United States Access Board (www.access-board.gov), a federal agency whose function is to provide technical guidance on accessible design and enforcement of accessibility standards, we find a section on amusement rides.

The USAB offers the following guidelines for accessibility:

Exceptions

There are four types of rides that are not covered by the guidelines. However, other ADA requirements still apply. The four types are: (1 thru 3 omitted)

• #4 Rides that do not have seats must only provide an accessible route to the load and unload areas and a turning space in the load and unload area.

Conclusion:

The loading and unloading for each segment of the ride is considered an “accessible element”, and as required by IBC 1104.2, shall be provided with an accessible route.

Using the IBC and the USAB guidelines for amusement rides, an accessible route to the load and unload areas and a turning space in the load and unload areas shall be provided. Your request for modification is hereby denied.

The proposed “Zip Line Tour” will require the following items for compliance:

1) Complete and submit a revised site plan showing what is actually being built (per inspector request dated 8-16-10)

2) Provide details (on revised drawings) showing accessible routes to be provided between load and unload areas of the ride. If a zip line terminates in a location that requires walking, hiking, or otherwise traversing the site, an accessible route will be required between the unloading (termination of one segment) and the loading (start of the next segment).

3) The towers, ramps, ladders, and other elements necessary for the zip line will require an accessible route to them as well as the turning space as noted in the USAB guidelines.

4) Technical specifications and provisions for “accessible route”, “turning space”, “accessible parking”, and all other accessible elements of this project shall be constructed in accordance with the ANSI A117.1-2003 Standard for Accessibility.

5) Previously noted accessible elements, including but not limited to accessible parking and accessible restroom facilities, shall continue to be required.

6) Upon completion of all elements of the permit, contact (****) County for an inspection to verify compliance. All work will be subject to inspection, approval and possible correction.

7) Prior to inspection, a copy of the operation manual for the facility shall be provided to (****) County for review.

Sincerely,

John (****)

Deputy Building Official, (****) County

(****)
 
What if there were spiders AND it was a roller coaster???? Lions and tigers and bears OH MY! Ben, you're killing me...

righter, good letter with appropriate Code sections provided. Too bad you don't have a Board of Review to bring this to...
 
If the zip-line starting point is raised to a higher level above grade I would use these exceptions:

1104.4 At lest one accessible route shall connect each accessible level, including mezzanines, in multilevel buildings and facilities.

Exceptions:

1. less than 3,000 ft. located above or below accessible levels.

2. Levels that do not contain accessible elements or other spaces as determined by sections 1107 or 1108 are not r required to be served by an accessible route from an accessible level.

1107 deals with dwellings and sleeping units

1108 deals with assembly, self-service storage, and judicial facilities.
 
I think their rock climbing wall analogy seems reasonable, based on 1109.14.4.5 which does not require accessibility for raised diving platforms.

It seems a zipline platform could also be considered like a raised diving platform.

However, because the code does not specifically address it, maybe you are waiting for your applicant to make that statement, which you could approve, rather than giving them the design approach.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ADAAG

"The scoping and technical provisions of the guidelines were developed to address common amusement rides. There will be other amusement attractions that have unique designs and features which are not adequately addressed by the guidelines. In those situations, the guidelines are to be applied to the extent possible."

Question: using the scoping provisions of the IBC Ch. 11, what would you require to be accessible. I have a no brainer of the parking, accessible restrooms at the parking lot, accessible path to the start of the ride... beyond that??[/QUOTE]Nothing
Click to expand...
 
You guys are not helping.

The goal was to find reasons to disallow it, not to follow Milton's Rule.
 
Would anyone make ski slopes, lifts, and T-bars accessable?

Did a zip-line myself. You had to walk half way up a ski slope to the platform at the start. Since there was no parking, public transportation stop, passsenger loading zone, public street or sidewalk (1104.1) on the ski slope there was nothing to run an accessible route from.
 
Rick18071 said:
Would anyone make ski slopes, lifts, and T-bars accessable?Did a zip-line myself. You had to walk half way up a ski slope to the platform at the start. Since there was no parking, public transportation stop, passsenger loading zone, public street or sidewalk (1104.1) on the ski slope there was nothing to run an accessible route from.
Click to expand...
http://www.beneficialdesigns.com/skiaccess/skiaccess.html#ADAski
 
Max slope for accessible skiing is 1:12 with a landing every 30 feet...

...and at each change in direction.
 
Rick18071 said:
Yankee - I don't enforce civil right laws like ADA, only building codes (IBC and ANCI 117.1)
Click to expand...
That wasn't the question, the question was "Would anyone make ski slopes, lifts, and T-bars accessable?". That's the question I answered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top