• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Accessible "code blue" stations in parking lots?

Y

Yikes

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
3,972
Location
Southern California
I have a client that wants to install "code blue" (CB) security call stations in a large surface parking lot at an existing hospital facility.
The accessible stalls are located closest to the building entrances, and there is a CB on an accessible path, but in the rest of of the parking lot the CB's will be installed in planters and other non-mobility accessible areas.
Is this acceptable per CBC-11B and ADA?
I've looked at CBC/ADAS 217, and as far as I can tell it addresses "public closed circuit telephones" and "courtesy telephones". This is not a section 907 fire emergency communication system.
 
Whether it meets code or not it sounds like a poor idea. I see wheel chair lifts parked far away from the accessible stalls. There’s plenty of people that have limited mobility yet don’t have a parking pass.

I had a similar installation at a college. The parking lots were peppered with emergency buttons. They were in your face accessible and a surprising amount of them. Hit the button and the police were there in moments.....for the protection of women. They were referred to as rape stations. That's kinda sad when you think about it.
 
Last edited:
Based on the following I do believe they should be accessible

2016 CBC 11B-708 Two-way communication systems
2016 CBC 11B-708.1 General
Two-way communication systems shall comply with Section 11B-708.
11B-708.2 Audible and visual indicators The system shall provide both audible and visual signals.

2010 ADASAD 708 Two-Way Communication Systems
708.1 General. Two-way communication systems shall comply with 708.
Advisory 708.1 General. Devices that do not require handsets are easier to use by people who have a limited reach.
708.2 Audible and Visual Indicators. The system shall provide both audible and visual signals.
 
Mark, it there anything that would address whether they are all required to be on an accessible path?

ICE, I agree it's sad, and even sadder to think of the "adding insult to injury" when someone in a wheelchair in a remote corner of the lot gets attacked and they can't reach the closest code blue station because it was in a landscape peninsula. Nonetheless, the hospital has a parking shortage, and has already reduced the # of spaces to create more accessible stalls.
 
I would say, those on an accessible POT.
I cannot see the need, if not on an accessible path.
But they need to place some on the POT.
 
2018 IBC
SECTION E102
DEFINITIONS
E102.1 General. The following words and terms shall, for
the purposes of this appendix, have the meanings shown
herein. Refer to Chapter 2 of this code for general definitions.
CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEPHONE. A telephone with a
dedicated line such as a house phone, courtesy phone or
phone that must be used to gain entrance to a facility.

E106.1 General. Where coin-operated public pay telephones,
coinless public pay telephones, public closed-circuit telephones,
courtesy phones or other types of public telephones
are provided, accessible public telephones shall be provided
in accordance with Sections E106.2 through E106.5 for each
type of public telephone provided. For purposes of this section,
a bank of telephones shall be considered to consist of
two or more adjacent telephones.
 
It would seem that similar to doors (which are useable by all) that each of these would/should also be accessible as each is remotely located from each other.
 
ADAguy, good thoughts, but applying that door/entrance logic to other site components, shouldn't each (100%) of the parking lot's stalls themselves also be accessible, and remotely located? That's where I get stuck.

Over the weekend I took a different approach than before: I started to think of the Code Blue not merely as a "telephone", but rather instead as a type of parking "amenity".
For example, we generally agree that under the concept of equivalent facilitation, if regular stalls are available in both covered/shaded and uncovered/open-to-the-sky, then accessible stalls should also be available with a shade/shelter amenity.
Put another way, in a parking lot with both sunny and shaded stalls for all users, not every shaded stall has to be accessible; but some accessible stalls do need to be shaded.

Similarly, the Code Blue is also another type of parking amenity, providing enhanced safety/security for those who are parking close to it.
Therefore, providing an accessible Code Blue station on the accessible P.O.T. is analogous to providing the shade amenity.

Under the equivalent facilitation principle:
In a lot that has many Code Blue Stations, every accessible stall should be located close to an accessible Code Blue station; but not every (non-accessible) stall that is close to a Code Blue station needs that station to be accessible.
 
Unlike a an accessible parking stall, the code blues are intended for use by every body, all doors must be access be to and useable by all, simmilarly the code blues (if provided) must comply with reach ranges & accessible controls no matter where located. Vehicular ways serve dual purposes as pedestrian walkways and vehicle drive aisles. Placement may be dispursed equidistant from each other to allow for shorter distances to arrive at. I take it the lot is well lit?
 
A Code Blue is an amenity until you need it....then it becomes a necessity.
 
Yikes said:
ADAguy, good thoughts, but applying that door/entrance logic to other site components, shouldn't each (100%) of the parking lot's stalls themselves also be accessible, and remotely located? That's where I get stuck.

Over the weekend I took a different approach than before: I started to think of the Code Blue not merely as a "telephone", but rather instead as a type of parking "amenity".
For example, we generally agree that under the concept of equivalent facilitation, if regular stalls are available in both covered/shaded and uncovered/open-to-the-sky, then accessible stalls should also be available with a shade/shelter amenity.
Put another way, in a parking lot with both sunny and shaded stalls for all users, not every shaded stall has to be accessible; but some accessible stalls do need to be shaded.
https://www.sauditourguide.com
Similarly, the Code Blue is also another type of parking amenity, providing enhanced safety/security for those who are parking close to it.
Therefore, providing an accessible Code Blue station on the accessible P.O.T. is analogous to providing the shade amenity.

Under the equivalent facilitation principle:
In a lot that has many Code Blue Stations, every accessible stall should be located close to an accessible Code Blue station; but not every (non-accessible) stall that is close to a Code Blue station needs that station to be accessible.
Click to expand...
think you know all doors don't need to be accessible
 
Consider that passengers with with inabilities (not necessarily mobility limitations) may be waiting to be picked up by drivers who aren't disabled, at all hours of the day.
If provided Code Blues should be equally dispersed throughout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top