• 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.

Can an accessible route from to building entrance occur in the middle of a driveway?

I've seen an ADA accessible route from the gas pumps with a blue painted hatched route on the driveway to the front doors of a convivence store.

Is that okay?
 
ADAguy said:
not required to be marked.
Click to expand...
Typically...

However, some states do amend. For example, in WA...

2018 IBC 1106.6 Location
Accessible parking spaces shall be located on the shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessible building entrance. In parking facilities that do not serve a particular building, accessible parking spaces shall be located on the shortest route to an accessible pedestrian entrance to the parking facility. Where buildings have multiple accessible entrances with adjacent parking, accessible parking spaces shall be dispersed and located near the accessible entrances. Wherever practical, the accessible route shall not cross lanes of vehicular traffic. Where crossing traffic lanes is necessary, the route shall be designated and marked as a crosswalk.

Exceptions:​
  1. In multilevel parking structures, van-accessible parking spaces are permitted on one level.
  2. Accessible parking spaces shall be permitted to be located in different parking facilities if substantially equivalent or greater accessibility is provided in terms of distance from an accessible entrance or entrances, parking fee and user convenience.
 
Rick18071 said:
Don't know CA codes but 2015 IBC has this:
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.

If it wasn't for the exception a lot of camps back in the woods would have problems.
Click to expand...
2019 CA Building Code 11B-206.2.1 Site Arrival Points
At least one accessible route shall be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces and accessible passenger drop-off and loading zones; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve. Where more than one route is provided, all routes must be accessible.
Exceptions:
  1. Reserved.
  2. 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 pedestrian access.
  3. General circulation paths shall be permitted when located in close proximity to an accessible route.

But, If there is a way to provide that path of travel, even though it does not currently exist, I require them to add the POT.
 
mark handler said:
2019 CA Building Code 11B-206.2.1 Site Arrival Points
At least one accessible route shall be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces and accessible passenger drop-off and loading zones; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve. Where more than one route is provided, all routes must be accessible.
Exceptions:
  1. Reserved.
  2. 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 pedestrian access.
  3. General circulation paths shall be permitted when located in close proximity to an accessible route.

But, If there is a way to provide that path of travel, even though it does not currently exist, I require them to add the POT.
Click to expand...
Can you describe an example of what you’ve required to be added? Has it involved additional paving and grading?
 
Rick18071 said:
I can't see how you make them do that when it's clear that the exception says that it's not required. Your making up your own codes.
Click to expand...
I'm not making up anything
If they can make a path and choose not to, it does not meet the intent or letter of the code.

It is no different from not making a building entry or restrooms accessible, because you claim it will effect the structure.

If it is not infeasible, you do it.
They need to show you, Or the AHJ, how it is not infeasible.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree. In PA the inspectors are not allow to decide if something accessible is not infeasible. We have a state board for that. If the plans only show a vehicular way not providing pedestrian access, then an accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building, just like the exception says. This section does not say an accessible route is required if it is feasible.
 
Rick18071 said:
I can't see how you make them do that when it's clear that the exception says that it's not required. Your making up your own codes.
Click to expand...
If it is possible, it is required

2010 ADASAD 106.5 Technically Infeasible. With respect to an alteration of a building or a facility, something that has little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural conditions would require removing or altering a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame; or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features that are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements.

2010 ADASAD §36.401 Any new construction must be accessible to persons with disabilities, except when it can demonstrate it is structurally impracticable or technically infeasible to fully comply with the requirements of ADA.

2010 ADASAD 202.3 On a Retrofit (Repair or Maintenance), the pedestrian access route shall be made accessible to the maximum extent feasible within the scope of the project.
 
If it is not required when feasible, everyone will design their projects, without access, and say I don't need to, therefore, i won't. defeating the intent of ADA and barrier removal.
Where technical infeasibility is encountered, compliance is still required to the maximum extent technically feasible.
You may encounter issues in meeting slope requirements on existing developed sites located on steep terrain where necessary re-grading and other design solutions are not feasible. you may need a car to get to the buildings But it may be feasible to provide access between buildings, or other amenities.
 
This is very interesting. Even though the ADA is the same all through the states and most go by the IBC it's enforced differently.

We don't enforce ADASAD in PA. We use IBC. The plan reviewer and inspector don't have any wiggle room at all in PA. Compliance to the accessibility codes has to be done to the letter. Any deviations to the code must be appealed through the state accessibility board.The state has auditors that comes out and checks our work. We can loose our cert to inspect if we screw up to much. I only got wrote up twice in 15 years where the plow took out the parking sign before the state auditor did their inspection 2 years after I did the final inspection and when someone moved a microwave to a higher shelf, even though I had a photo of it on the counter.

On the plans above they would only need to comply to an accessible route if they have a walkway to any of these areas otherwise the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing pedestrian access .

One of the worst accessible inspections I had was a hilly scout camp that had rough paths (walkways) through the woods to different facilities (on the same site), some miles apart. I defined the paths to be a pedestrian access. They had to go to the state appeals board to not require these paths to be accessible.

We have a lot of large developments with private roads with no sidewalks in my area. Most of them have community buildings, pools, etc. a mile or so from a public street. Since they are private streets, some are just gravel or dirt, I don't require an accessible route from the street to the facility even if they had a walkway there. If they did have sidewalks all the way to the public street then they would need to be accessible the whole way. What would you require?
 
Enforcement of ADASAD is not based on ICC if ICC items are less than ADASAD mins.
ICC is not a warranty of ADA compliance, only code. ADA is a "law", not a code.
 
ADAguy said:
Enforcement of ADASAD is not based on ICC if ICC items are less than ADASAD mins.
ICC is not a warranty of ADA compliance, only code. ADA is a "law", not a code.
Click to expand...
ADAGuy, I believe that when Rick 18071 was saying "we don't enforce ADA", he meant "we, as building officials in PA, are legally allowed to plan check and enforce only the codes adopted by our jurisdiction, and ADA is not a code adopted by our jurisdiction".
It is up to others besides the building official (e.g. DOJ and the courts) to enforce ADA in PA.
 
Do you respond then to complaints after C of O if a project has not been built to the access requirements of your code?
 
Never had any except from the state accessibility auditors, mostly when the tenants change something after they get the C. O., like hanging a mirror to high over a lavatory or taking down the braille exit signs after a C. O. Then there is no way to respond. All other complaints are from contractors and owners about us enforcing the code before the C O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top