Parking space access aisle marking

[Yankee Chronicler]

I'm reviewing plans for an alteration to an existing building (original construction 2012) and I'm not sure the accessible parking ever met the code. The access aisles aren't marked by a series of diagonal lines filling the aisle space. Instead, the aisle space is bordered on all four sides, and just has a single 'X' painted from corner to corner. I've never seen anything like this before, so I'm not sure it meets code.

ADAS:

502.3.3 Marking. Access aisles shall be marked so as to discourage parking in them.

Advisory 502.3.3 Marking. The method and color of marking are not specified by these requirements but may be addressed by State or local laws or regulations. Because these requirements permit the van access aisle to be as wide as a parking space, it is important that the aisle be clearly marked.

A117.1-2017:

502.4.4 Marking. Access aisles shall be marked so as to
discourage parking in them. Where access aisles are
marked with lines, the width measurements of access
aisles and adjacent parking spaces shall be made from the
centerline of the markings.

IBC (Amended by state upon adoption):

1106.2.1 Automobile accessible parking spaces. Pursuant
to subsection (h) of section 14-253a of the
Connecticut General Statutes, parking spaces for passenger
motor vehicles designated for persons who are blind
and persons with disabilities shall be as near as possible
to a building entrance or walkway and shall be 15 feet
wide, including 5 feet of cross hatch.

1106.6.1 Van accessible parking spaces. Pursuant to
subsection (h) of section 14-253a of the Connecticut
General Statutes, parking spaces for passenger vans
designated for persons who are blind and persons with
disabilities shall be as near as possible to a building
entrance or walkway and shall be 16 feet wide, including
8 feet of cross hatch.

To my surprise, I found that the unamended ICC 2021 IBC doesn't include anything regarding access aisles. I guess the ICC intent is to leave that entirely to A117.1

The question I'm wrestling with is whether or not a simple 'X' through the aisle portion of an accessible parking space complies with my state's code for marking of the access aisles.

xx

xx

 

[walker.t]

The question I'm wrestling with is whether or not a simple 'X' through the aisle portion of an accessible parking space complies with my state's code for marking of the access aisles.

In my opinion an X is not a cross hatch.

As for the term “cross hatch,” I always thought that “cross hatch” was two sets of parallel lines rotated 90° to each other and a “hatch” is just one set of lines. I doubt that whoever decided to use “cross hatch” in the provisions you cited was thinking that much about it. I’ve never seen a “cross hatch” in an access aisle that I can remember, only a single set of parallel lines. I just checked a couple of parking lots on Google Maps, one used diagonal lines, the other ran the lines parallel to the flow of traffic.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

As an architect, I agree -- diagonal lines in one direction is "hatching," but not "cross hatching." Nonetheless, except for this one building all I have ever seen, in this state or anywhere else, is unidirectional hatching.

I'm pretty much of the opinion that the 'X' isn't what our legislature had in mind when they wrote "cross hatch," but I'm not sure that's the hill I want to die on. On the other hand, if the altered space won't be made 100% accessible and they want to use the 20% cost exception, restriping those aisles could add to the 20% without necessitating any redesign of the interior.

 

[steveray]

As an architect, I agree -- diagonal lines in one direction is "hatching," but not "cross hatching." Nonetheless, except for this one building all I have ever seen, in this state or anywhere else, is unidirectional hatching.

I'm pretty much of the opinion that the 'X' isn't what our legislature had in mind when they wrote "cross hatch," but I'm not sure that's the hill I want to die on. On the other hand, if the altered space won't be made 100% accessible and they want to use the 20% cost exception, restriping those aisles could add to the 20% without necessitating any redesign of the interior.

Good thought process…call OSBI and see if they will answer? I agree that i believe I have only ever seen “hatching”….

 

[JPohling]

Yankee, At least in CA parking is pretty far down the priority list of accessibility improvements to spend that 20% 11B 202.4. The hatching of the access aisle is also clearly specified in terms of color/contrast and spacing

 

[Paul Sweet]

ANSI A117.1 and ADASAD just say "Access aisles shall be marked so as to discourage parking in them." ADASAD adds an advisory that leaves the method and color of the marking up to the states. All the illustrations I've seen have a halftone fill in the access aisle.

I wonder if they thought "cross-hatching" meant hatching across the entire space.

CADD hatching may be lines or patterns in one or both directions, depending on the material it represents. Otherwise brick or iron would be "hatched" and CMU would be "cross-hatched".

 

[steveray]

Yankee, At least in CA parking is pretty far down the priority list of accessibility improvements to spend that 20% 11B 202.4. The hatching of the access aisle is also clearly specified in terms of color/contrast and spacing

View attachment 15320

Not in CT/ ICC land....They can do whatever they want...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Yankee, At least in CA parking is pretty far down the priority list of accessibility improvements to spend that 20% 11B 202.4. The hatching of the access aisle is also clearly specified in terms of color/contrast and spacing

View attachment 15320

This list of priorities (and remember, "should" is not mandatory language) comes from the Access Board but it's not found in the IBC or A1171.1, and I don't think it's in the ADAS.