Ramp and Stairs to a residential main entry (egress door).

[gbfredly]

R311, R311.4, R311.8 requires either a complying ramp or complying stairway to deal with grade changes from the Egress door to the Public Way.
What about if you have a complying stair, can an additional secondary ramp have a 1:8 slope since it is not required?

My thinking is that 99.9% of the time the stairs will be used. However, adding a ramp would be nice for someone visiting in a wheelchair.
This would probably require the use someone pushing a wheelchair, rather than a solo effort.
I am not willing to allocate the space required for a 1:12 ramp, that seems overkill and ruins my front entry court.

Is this argument sound in your opinion?
The alternative is I get rid of the ramp altogether, but that does not help anyone in a wheel chair.

Thank you,
GB

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I don't think you analysis is valid. R311.8 says:

Where required by this code or provided, ramps shall comply with this section.

So the ramp doesn't have to be required for section R311.8 to apply. If you provide a ramp, you have to follow R311.8

That said, we now need to determine what the allowable ramp gradients are.

R311.8.1 Maximum slope. Ramps serving the egress
door required by Section R311.2 shall have a slope of not
more than 1 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (8.3-
percent slope).
Other ramps shall have a slope of not more than 1 unit
vertical in 8 units horizontal (12.5 percent).

Your question specifically said the ramp serves the egress door. Therefore, since the ramp will be "provided" (see R311.8), it cannot be steeper than 1:12.

For what it's worth, a maximum slope of 1:12 for wheelchair use was not chosen by accident. It really is about the steepest ramp a wheelchair user can comfortably negotiate without assistance, and many wheelchair users will require assistance even at 1:12.

If you are not willing to allocate the space required for a compliant ramp, then don't install ("provide") the ramp.

 

[gbfredly]

For the sake of discussion, why are ramps of 1:8 allowed at every other door, except the egress door.
Actually 1:8 is also allowed at the egress door if you can document a space limitation.

The ramp proposed is a secondary access, no one is required to use it.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The IRC Commentary doesn't explain why. It just adds a bit to the requirement:

This section requires ramps that serve the one egress
door required by Section R311.2 to have a maximum
slope of 1 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (8.3 percent),
unless it is technically infeasible to do so. For
ramps serving other exterior doors or located within
the dwelling unit, or where it is technically infeasible for
a ramp serving the required egress door to have a
slope of 1:12, the code requires maximum slope of 1
unit vertical in 8 units horizontal (12.5 percent). A 1:12
slope can sometimes be difficult to achieve and
absorbs much more space than may be necessary.
For example, additions to older homes sometimes
have new basements at a deeper level and the owner
may wish to make the transition by ramp. Media rooms
are often designed to have sloping floors with ramps
serving the seating, and again the 1:12 slope is problematic.
This proposal gives some relief for those situations
where accessibility may not be an issue. This
also is consistent with IBC Section 1012.2, which
allows a 1:8 slope for pedestrian ramps not used as a
means of egress.

Since the 1:12 slope applies only to the required egress door, I have to assume that it's because steeper ramps are more difficult to traverse. The requirement, based on where it's placed in the code, isn't about access but about egress. I'd say the code writers want to ensure that in an emergency, those who would have difficulty using a stair will have a ramp they can use.

Does it really matter why the requirement is there? It's there. Does your jurisdiction have provision to request a modification?

 

[Jean Tessmer-HI]

R311, R311.4, R311.8 requires either a complying ramp or complying stairway to deal with grade changes from the Egress door to the Public Way.
What about if you have a complying stair, can an additional secondary ramp have a 1:8 slope since it is not required?

My thinking is that 99.9% of the time the stairs will be used. However, adding a ramp would be nice for someone visiting in a wheelchair.
This would probably require the use someone pushing a wheelchair, rather than a solo effort.
I am not willing to allocate the space required for a 1:12 ramp, that seems overkill and ruins my front entry court.

Is this argument sound in your opinion?
The alternative is I get rid of the ramp altogether, but that does not help anyone in a wheel chair.

Thank you,
GB

If your dwelling is covered by the Fair Housing Act Guidelines (four or more dwelling units in one cluster), all ground floor units will be covered by the FHAG and need to meet the accessibility requirements of the FHAG. The exterior entry/egress will be required to follow FHAG and the ANSI A117.1 1986 at minimum. The ANSI does allow (only for construction existing sites, buildings, and facilities) 1:8 slope for a maximum 3" vertical rise with maximum 2' run.
The Fair Housing Act Guidelines is a federal law applied like the ADA is to facilities and element open to or used by the public. If all the ground floor units have accessible entries connected to an accessible route, parking, and cross walks then you do not need to worry.

 

[gbfredly]

If your dwelling is covered by the Fair Housing Act Guidelines (four or more dwelling units in one cluster), all ground floor units will be covered by the FHAG and need to meet the accessibility requirements of the FHAG. The exterior entry/egress will be required to follow FHAG and the ANSI A117.1 1986 at minimum. The ANSI does allow (only for construction existing sites, buildings, and facilities) 1:8 slope for a maximum 3" vertical rise with maximum 2' run.
The Fair Housing Act Guidelines is a federal law applied like the ADA is to facilities and element open to or used by the public. If all the ground floor units have accessible entries connected to an accessible route, parking, and cross walks then you do not need to worry.

Thanks for your response, however, this project is a single family house.
ADA and Fair Housing Act do not apply.

 

[gbfredly]

My proposal seems sound, in my mind:
1. The ramp is not required. The egress function is satisfied by the stairs alone for the IRC.
2. 1:8 ramps are allowed in the code at every other door in a house. They are also allowed in there is a difficult grade situation in the front yard egress.
3. This secondary element (not required) can help Accessible visitation more than it's removal.
4. FYI we do not get ice/snow in my location and the front yard is gated so that strangers will not access the ramp without our knowledge.

Maybe I will just have to ask for a Modification, as suggested by Yankee Chronicler.