Accessible Parking & route question

[Tim Mailloux]

Working on a new middle school in CT, the building code is the 2015 IBC with state amendments and the accessibility code is 2009 ANSI A117.1.


Under our current design all of the school parking, associated handicap parking and accessible routes are located at the front of the school. Behind and off to the side of the school we are also building some new athletic fields (baseball & soccer). These fields will be used by the students during school for PE class, and will be used by the community after school and on the weekends for town sports programs and public use. We have to provide convenience parking adjacent to the athletic fields and we have also provide handicap parking there as well. The school is also built into a hillside, the front or main parking lot is accessible to level 2 of the school, while athletic fields and associated convince parking are approximately 14 feet lower and accessible to level 1 of the school.


My civil engineer is telling me that an accessible route needs to be provided from the lower athletic parking lot to the upper school parking lot and has proposed a very elaborate and expensive ramp system to make this happen. Is this required? We have provided an accessible route from the lower athletic field handicap parking to the level 1 of the school, but I cannot find anything in the code that requires the two parking lots be accessible to one another

 

[mtlogcabin]

If you do not put a pedestrian walkway between the two levels then you are not required to provide an accessible route between the two levels. If you do put in a pedestrian walkway then it will need to be accessible.

1104.1 Site arrival points.
Accessible routes within the site shall be provided from public transportation stops; accessible parking; accessible passenger loading zones; and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance served.

Exception: Other than in buildings or facilities containing or serving Type B units, an accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing for pedestrian access.

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.

Exception: An accessible route is not required between accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements and accessible spaces that have, as the only means of access between them, a vehicular way not providing for pedestrian access.

 

[steveray]

Here is where I get quickly, and I believe your civil is correct....

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.
Exceptions:
1. An accessible route is not required between accessible
buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements
and accessible spaces that have, as the only
means of access between them, a vehicular way not
providing for pedestrian access.
2. An accessible route to recreational facilities shall
only be required to the extent specified in Section
1110.

1110.1 General. Recreational facilities shall be provided
with accessible features in accordance with Sections 1110.2
through 1110.4.

1110.4 Recreational facilities. Recreational facilities shall
be accessible and shall be on an accessible route to the extent
specified in this section.

1110.4.1 Area of sport activity. Each area of sport activity
shall be on an accessible route and shall not be required
to be accessible except as provided for in Sections
1110.4.2 through 1110.4.14.

1110.4.4 Court sports. In court sports, at least one accessible
route shall directly connect both sides of the court.

Expanding, MT is correct that if you deny EVERYONE access, you might be good....

 

[Tim Mailloux]

If you do not put a pedestrian walkway between the two levels then you are not required to provide an accessible route between the two levels. If you do put in a pedestrian walkway then it will need to be accessible.
.

If we removed the proposed accessible ramps between the two lots, than we would only have a vehicular way connecting them and no accessible route will be required per the exception.

Thanks!

 

[Tim Mailloux]

Here is where I get quickly, and I believe your civil is correct....

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.
Exceptions:
1. An accessible route is not required between accessible
buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements
and accessible spaces that have, as the only
means of access between them, a vehicular way not
providing for pedestrian access.
2. An accessible route to recreational facilities shall
only be required to the extent specified in Section
1110.

1110.1 General. Recreational facilities shall be provided
with accessible features in accordance with Sections 1110.2
through 1110.4.

1110.4 Recreational facilities. Recreational facilities shall
be accessible and shall be on an accessible route to the extent
specified in this section.

1110.4.1 Area of sport activity. Each area of sport activity
shall be on an accessible route and shall not be required
to be accessible except as provided for in Sections
1110.4.2 through 1110.4.14.

1110.4.4 Court sports. In court sports, at least one accessible
route shall directly connect both sides of the court.

Expanding, MT is correct that if you deny EVERYONE access, you might be good....

The lower Athletic field parking has accessible parking AND an accessible route to the lower level of the school. The upper school lot has accessible parking and an accessible route to the upper level of the school. Per the exception to 1104.2 as long as the two lots are only connected by vehicle access (no sidewalks) than the two lots do not need an accessible connection between them.

 

[steveray]

Misunderstood that the access (or lack of) was from the lot at the front of the school to the other lot...I thought you were talking about the fields.....Play through...

 

[mtlogcabin]

Now to add to the discussion what if you installed a "Bike Path" between the 2 levels?
Our public works has a standard for constructing a sidewalk (concrete minimum 3 ft wide) and a Bike Path (asphalt minimum 8 feet wide). If it is a Bike Path as part of the Bike Trail System we do not require it to meet accessibility requirements.

 

[steveray]

I would be stretched to call a bike a vehicle.....But the bottom line there is if someone is going to walk there, it is not only vehicular access, and the lawsuit will follow, so be careful....

 

[mtlogcabin]

You can't stop some one from walking or jogging on a bike trail/path, However there are plenty of ordinances the prohibit riding a bike on a sidewalk/pedestrian path.

 

[ADAguy]

Consider alternate methods and means as we did for a similar condition. You can use an accessible/roll-on golf cart to ferry people between the lots.

 

[Yikes]

It is not at all a stretch to call a bike a "vehicle". The point of referencing a vehicle is simply to say "other than pedestrian access".
To put it another way: if you have a path that provides pedestrian access, then you must also provide wheelchair access. If your path is not intended for pedestrians, then it is not necessary that wheelchair access be provided on that same path.

mtlogcabin, one could simply paint "bikes only" on the pathway pavement, to signal the design intent. If someone decides to walk on that path anyway, that's their problem for violating the design intent. I see people walk up driveways all the time, even though a separate walkway was provided.

(Reminded of an old joke, I think by Steven Wright: why do people drive on "parkways", and park on "driveways"?)

 

[ADAguy]

"bikes only" cannot be read by the visually impaired.
ADA has a specific exemption for use of a vehicular way in lieu of a sidewalk for wheelchairs where no separate path is provided.
That doesn't mean that the drive aisle must then comply with cross and running slope requirements if no path is provided.
This is an ongoing issue with gas stations whose service bays are converted to min-marts. Sites are typically tight, lacking room for a separate path.