Is "Accessible Stair" an oxymoron?

[steveray]

Not it!.....But I do appreciate the line of reasoning....I think because the below sections talk about "access from" and "enclosure" the doors are assumed in a stair enclosure and manuvering therefore required...

1007.2 Continuity and components.

Each required accessible means of egress shall be continuous to a public way and shall consist of one or more of the following components:

1. Accessible routes complying with Section 1104.

2. Stairways within exit enclosures complying with Sections 1007.3 and 1019.1.

1007.3 Enclosed exit stairways.

An enclosed exit stairway, to be considered part of an accessible means of egress, shall have a clear width of 48 inches (1219 mm) minimum between handrails and shall either incorporate an area of refuge within an enlarged floor-level landing or shall be accessed from either an area of refuge complying with Section 1007.6 or a horizontal exit.

 

[nealderidder]

Not it!.....But I do appreciate the line of reasoning....I think because the below sections talk about "access from" and "enclosure" the doors are assumed in a stair enclosure and manuvering therefore required...1007.2 Continuity and components.

Each required accessible means of egress shall be continuous to a public way and shall consist of one or more of the following components:

1. Accessible routes complying with Section 1104.

2. Stairways within exit enclosures complying with Sections 1007.3 and 1019.1.

1007.3 Enclosed exit stairways.

An enclosed exit stairway, to be considered part of an accessible means of egress, shall have a clear width of 48 inches (1219 mm) minimum between handrails and shall either incorporate an area of refuge within an enlarged floor-level landing or shall be accessed from either an area of refuge complying with Section 1007.6 or a horizontal exit.

Hmmm... I've read this several times and I'm not sure I get what you're saying. I agree that an enclosed stairway will of course have doors. You made a leap from "enclosure will have doors" to "doors must therefore meet maneuvering clearances" that I'm not following.

You would agree, I think, that not all doors must meet A117.1 maneuvering clearances, correct? So what doors must meet A117.1 clearances? I say only those doors on an Accessible Route (401.1-402.2 of A117.1). If we can agree on that the next question is, are stairs in an exit enclosure part of an Accessible Route - to that I say no!

My point here is that AMOE does not equal Accessible Route.

 

[steveray]

I believe 1104.3 covers this best...if something is required to be accessible (MOE) then an AR is required.....

1103.1 Where required.

Buildings and structures, temporary or permanent, *****including their associated sites and facilities*****, shall be accessible to persons with physical disabilities.

1103.2 General exceptions.

Sites, buildings, facilities and elements shall be exempt from this chapter to the *******extent specified in this section.

1103.2.1 Specific requirements.

Accessibility is not required in buildings and facilities, or portions thereof, to the extent permitted by Sections 1104 through 1110.

1103.2.2 Existing buildings.

Existing buildings shall comply with Section 3409.

1103.2.3 Employee work areas.

Spaces and elements within employee work areas shall only be required to comply with Sections 907.9.1.2, 1007 and 1104.3.1 and shall be designed and constructed so that individuals with disabilities can approach, enter and exit the work area. Work areas, or portions of work areas, that are less than 150 square feet (14 m2) in area and elevated 7 inches (178 mm) or more above the ground or finish floor where the elevation is essential to the function of the space shall be exempt from all requirements.

1104.3 Connected spaces.

When a building, or portion of a building, is required to be accessible, an accessible route shall be provided to each portion of the building

1104.2 Within a site.

At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements

1104.4 Multilevel buildings and facilities.

At least one accessible route shall connect each accessible level, including mezzanines, in multilevel buildings and facilities.

 

[Codegeek]

My point here is that AMOE does not equal Accessible Route.

On occasion, this is correct. For example, if an elevator does not have standby power, it can only serve as part of the Accessible Route, not the AMOE. In this example given, the elevator does provide both. As far as the stairs, in reading through the 2009 IBC Commentary, an accessible route is to provide for someone to get to all accessible areas of a building. Once someone gets into the space, they must also be able to evacuate in an emergency. This may or may not be the same route. My parents both have difficulty in maneuvering stairs. One can go up them without problems and the other one can go down them without problems. But neither can use the stairs in both directions without difficultly. For one of them, the elevator would have to serve as the AMOE but the stairs could serve as their accessible route. For the other, the elevator would have to serve as their accessible route and the stairs could serve as their AMOE. If the stair is their accessible route (or anyone's accessible route), then it may also have to provide the same maneuvering clearances if used as an AMOE.

 

[ADAguy]

Thanks for the images MH

 

[Yikes]

I was once told that the reason for 12" clear strike side on the PUSH side of a door was for people who could stand/walk, but were too frail to both turn the handle and push against the force of a door closer. The 12" gives them enough room to center their body on the handle, and simply lean into it, rather than using their arm leverage. Is this is true, then (a) yes it helps make the stair accessible, and (b) I wish they would allow a panic bar alternative to the 12" clearance.

 

[Dennis]

Are these accessible--- couldn't resist

 

[mark handler]

I was once told that the reason for 12" clear strike side on the PUSH side of a door was for people who could stand/walk, but were too frail to both turn the handle and push against the force of a door closer. The 12" gives them enough room to center their body on the handle, and simply lean into it, rather than using their arm leverage. Is this is true, then (a) yes it helps make the stair accessible, and (b) I wish they would allow a panic bar alternative to the 12" clearance.

Anyone that may have a weak side. Meaning someone that may need to use the "opposite" hand to open the door

 

[mark handler]

Are these accessible--- couldn't resist

Does not meet chapter 10, no guards

 

[JBI]

If you want to know 'why', take a look at the Commentary. It is not the Code, but does explain the 'why' in many cases.

We won't always agree with what is required/not permitted, and there is a means to address what we believe is a bad requirement/provision in the Code but until the Code is changed our job is to administer and enforce the Code as written, not as we'd prefer it to read.

That an individual doesn't understand 'why' does not negate the requirement.

I think several members have provided ample explanation as to 'why' the space is required.

Rather than being flip about it, try accepting the combined wisdom and experience of those who took the time to sharte their wealth of knowledge and experience with you?

JMHO

 

[JBI]

"An AMOE has a very different purpose and since it can include a stairway it obviously isn't required to be an Accessible Route"

A leap of faith? Or simply flawed logic? An 'accessible means of egress' must necessarily be 'accessible' therefore the accessibility requirements must necessarily be met.

 

[mtlogcabin]

nealderidder

I can follow your logic and could even reach the same conclusion but I would be wrong because of the intent and the order in which the codes which various code sections have been adopted.

AMOE did not come into the codes till way after the door clearance requirements.

When the door clearance requirements came into the codes there where no exceptions to providing wheelchair spaces in a stairwell in a sprinkled building and it was a trade off for getting sprinklers in more buildings

Look at the ADA which you are required to design to

206.5 Doors, Doorways, and Gates. Doors, doorways, and gates providing user passage shall be provided in accordance with 206.5.

206.5.1 Entrances.

Each entrance to a building or facility required to comply with 206.4 shall have at least one door, doorway, or gate complying with 404.



206.5.2 Rooms and Spaces.

Within a building or facility, at least one door, doorway, or gate serving each room or space complying with these requirements shall comply with 404.



404.2.4 Maneuvering Clearances.

Minimum maneuvering clearances at doors and gates shall comply with 404.2.4. Maneuvering clearances shall extend the full width of the doorway and the required latch side or hinge side clearance.

 

[nealderidder]

If you want to know 'why', take a look at the Commentary. It is not the Code, but does explain the 'why' in many cases. We won't always agree with what is required/not permitted, and there is a means to address what we believe is a bad requirement/provision in the Code but until the Code is changed our job is to administer and enforce the Code as written, not as we'd prefer it to read.

That an individual doesn't understand 'why' does not negate the requirement.

I think several members have provided ample explanation as to 'why' the space is required.

Rather than being flip about it, try accepting the combined wisdom and experience of those who took the time to sharte their wealth of knowledge and experience with you?

JMHO

Wasn't trying to be "flip", sorry if it came across that way. I'm humbly seeking the wise council of the most generous members of this board, that is all.

 

[nealderidder]

"An AMOE has a very different purpose and since it can include a stairway it obviously isn't required to be an Accessible Route"A leap of faith? Or simply flawed logic? An 'accessible means of egress' must necessarily be 'accessible' therefore the accessibility requirements must necessarily be met.

Don't see the flaw in the logic. I'm saying an AMOE is not the same as an Accessible Route. Pretty sure that is correct.