• 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

Common path leads to parallel paths?

G

gnarkill283

Registered User
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
107
Location
New York
I have a parking garage on the 2nd floor of a building. The common path to get to 2 means of egress has to be less than 50 feet. I am wondering if those 2 means of egress can just run parallel to each other on either side of the driveway 20 feet apart like in this image: https://ibb.co/BjhJyGj
 
Does this link work? egress The garage meets requirements to be open meaning more than 50% of its walls are open (there are floors above). The paths lead to separate stair cases
 
I would suspect it does. I just do performing arts theatres and perfectly fine for parallel CPET from seat in center of front row, up each aisle, through a left and right door, across lobby, and out two separate doors to public way.
 
Unless NY is different the ICC allows 100 ft
TABLE 1006.2.1
SPACES WITH ONE EXIT OR EXIT ACCESS DOORWAY
Footnote
f. The length of common path of egress travel distance in a Group S-2 open parking garage shall be not more than 100 feet.
 
Rick18071 said:
Can anyone tell me how far apart two means of egress need to be in the same space so they aren't a common path?
Click to expand...
It is not the MOE that require separation. The CPET is defined as "That portion of exit access travel distance measured from the most remote point of each room, area or space to that point where the occupants have separate and distinct access to two exits or exit access doorways." It is a matter of convergence. If two people run side-by-side (or even 20-ft apart) but both reach the same exit access doorway, then they also share a CPET. To get away from CPET, imagine that those same two people head in opposite directions (for separate exit access doors) and each uses a separate MOE that does not come back together.
 
Another way to think of this, is if there were a car on fire at the top of the ramp. Both routes shown by the OP's image could be compromised.

Like the dead end corridor example from my preceding post, a second route (thus alleviating the CPET) is required.
 
I am imagining a scenario I recently had, which proposed a wing of a parking garage, with opposing rows of cars very similar to this drawing. On one floor they had an exit at the end of each wing, and one in the middle. On a different level, they eliminated the exit on one end due to site constraints and ended up with a CPET problem traveling to the center exit. If that is similar here but they are trying to say an occupant could run along parallel to each other and be considered as two separate common paths then I would say no. But maybe if the second path was parallel to, but >1/3 the diagonal they could be considered, but that takes some elasticity. Not something I have considered before but in the project I did they could never do it, and I suspect this may be the same. Not not enough info to tell. I don't want to put words in any mouths but that may be the gist of the question from Rick.
 
Sifu said:
I am imagining a scenario I recently had, which proposed a wing of a parking garage, with opposing rows of cars very similar to this drawing. On one floor they had an exit at the end of each wing, and one in the middle. On a different level, they eliminated the exit on one end due to site constraints and ended up with a CPET problem traveling to the center exit. If that is similar here but they are trying to say an occupant could run along parallel to each other and be considered as two separate common paths then I would say no. But maybe if the second path was parallel to, but >1/3 the diagonal they could be considered, but that takes some elasticity. Not something I have considered before but in the project I did they could never do it, and I suspect this may be the same. Not not enough info to tell. I don't want to put words in any mouths but that may be the gist of the question from Rick.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you saw the OP's image. It is the first conditioned that you postulated and said no to...

1646173694884.png
 
I think you are right but based on the dashed lines indicating a continuation to the direction of egress I can't tell for sure, unless they are just showing the same condition from beside the opposing space. However even if it did I don't think this particular path could be used as a MOE.
 
He wasn't clear if this is level or part of the vehicle ramp from one floor to the next. If it is then
406.4.3 Ramps.
Vehicle ramps shall not be considered as required exits unless pedestrian facilities are provided. Vehicle ramps that are utilized for vertical circulation as well as for parking shall not exceed a slope of 1:15 (6.67 percent).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top