Do handrail extensions make wider ramp landings useless?

[Yikes]

See the image below from CBC Fig 11B-405.7, where the state of California has required wider top and intermediate landings at ramps as compared to 2010 ADAS. 've shown the handrails in red.
11B-405.8 and 505 also require minimum 12" handrail extensions, which are really at least 15" when you bend the handrail for a return.
So does this inherently conflict with the wider landing requirement, creating inaccessible landing areas shown in yellow below?

 

[Paul Sweet]

You're probably OK if the ramp is offset to the outside of the walk. The rail can make a 90 degree turn at the inside corner.

 

[arwat23]

11B-505.3 requires that handrails be continuous between ramp runs. 11B-505.10, exception 1, removes the requirement for handrail extensions at intermediate landings on the inside turn. For the intermediate landing, the highlighted areas are still usable since the handrail can just jog around it following the outline of the landing (like this from the Access Board's website).

 

[Yikes]

OK, good, that works for the intermediate landing - - but what about the top landing where the handrail is required to go in the direction of travel, and cannot turn 90 degrees?

 

[arwat23]

OK, good, that works for the intermediate landing - - but what about the top landing where the handrail is required to go in the direction of travel, and cannot turn 90 degrees?

It doesn't seem to conflict with what's required by code. 11B-505.10.1 allows the handrail to return to the landing surface, so it can be within the required landing area.

There's 11B-505.10 exception 3, which only applies to existing conditions, but might help in some situations.

Depending on the area adjacent to the landing, yes, that may essentially be wasted space that no one will ever reasonably stand in. Still, it doesn't appear, to me, to be a conflict in code.

 

[Jean Tessmer-HI]

OK, good, that works for the intermediate landing - - but what about the top landing where the handrail is required to go in the direction of travel, and cannot turn 90 degrees?
View attachment 13332

Hi Yikes - is the landing a part of an accessible route? If it is and the extension (s) are projecting into the route, you can fold the extension (s) back to prevent having objects protruding into the route clearance more than 4 inches.

 

[Yikes]

Hi Yikes - is the landing a part of an accessible route? If it is and the extension (s) are projecting into the route, you can fold the extension (s) back to prevent having objects protruding into the route clearance more than 4 inches.

Under California CBC 11B-505.10 exc. #3, the fold-back is limited to 90 degrees and is only allowed in existing facilities under a subjective judgment regarding potential hazard:

 

[tbz]

OK, good, that works for the intermediate landing - - but what about the top landing where the handrail is required to go in the direction of travel, and cannot turn 90 degrees?
View attachment 13332

Yikes,

Not sure that CA actually thought it through, but landing sizes to me are useless for width.

The only 2 things that count are,

1. Minimum clear turning radius
2. Minimum clear walkout top and bottom

Thus, if you need to turn at the top, middle or bottom then design for 60-inches clear of everything, I use a 60-inch diameter cylinder 80 inches high. Once you layout the minimum pathway, per say, then build out your handrails, guards, walls and foundation structure for the walking surface.

The way they designate the size of the landings now by a minimum, provides what I believe is bad instructions for designers who need to allocate for the handrails properly and other protruding objects.

As to a minimum walkout distance in the direction of travel why do you need to specify one?

If you just require a 60-inch turning around radius at the top and bottom to reverse travel as the requirement, again clear of everything, aren't you covered?

If you think 60-inches is too small, then may be the newer 67-inch might be your cup of tea.

The whole minimum size of landings for ramps is just the wrong way to get what everyone really wants IMO.

Regards - Tom

 

[arwat23]

The only 2 things that count are,

1. Minimum clear turning radius
2. Minimum clear walkout top and bottom

California disagrees (because we can never make things too simple here). I do agree that a lot of the stuff that gets added to CBC isn't always fully thought out or has language that is confusing. A lot of changes proposed for the 2025 CBC are simply clarifications.

If you just require a 60-inch turning around radius at the top and bottom to reverse travel as the requirement, again clear of everything, aren't you covered?

If you think 60-inches is too small, then may be the newer 67-inch might be your cup of tea.

The whole minimum size of landings for ramps is just the wrong way to get what everyone really wants IMO.

Not in CA. We added additional requirements to middle and top landings. See CBC 11B-405.7.

We also don't use the newer 67" measurement for anything as far as I've seen. We don't adopt ICC A117.1 or IBC Ch11. We adopt (and are restricted by law to using) the 2010 ADAS + some amendments to comply with additional state laws. We literally cannot adopt stricter requirements unless we alter a few laws here. It can be a mess, and sometimes unnecessarily confusing...

Edit: To clarify, I do agree. Some of these changes don't make a ton of sense. However, they probably exist for a reason. DSA doesn't often make amendment without a reason, even if that reason isn't clear to us.

 

[mark handler]

If it does not interfere with the wheelchair turning "cone", i typically will (and have) allowed it

 

[Yikes]

The hard part bout the cone is that I need to simultaneously solve both for wheelchair clearance and cane detection.