Ramp design - which code applies?

[David Meza]

I'm designed a ramp and I'm pretty limited in my space. I designed my ramp based on CBC 11B-406.3.2. I'm told I actually need a 6' width for my ramp based on 11B-705.1.2.2.2, single entrance/exit point. 406 says I'm good 705 says I'm not, which is it?

https://www.facebook.com/1508170219437274/photos/a.3074460006141613/3074459976141616

 

[Yikes]

Can you provide an illustration or plan of the condition you are describing?


Note that a curb ramp does not always have to be adjacent to a vehicular way. When the upper walkway and a lower, non-vehicular walkway are connected via a curb ramp, no detectable warnings are required, and thus Fig. 11B-406.3.2 should work fine.

When the lower surface is a vehicular way, now you need detectable warnings, and you now look to 11B-705.1.2.2.2.1 to tell you how much bigger the curb ramp needs to be to accommodate the detectable warnings PLUS a 3' wide area that is free of detectable warnings. Make sure you are using the most recent code supplement that went into effect on 7/1/2021, which changed the requirements, and which has exceptions for existing conditions and technically infeasible conditions:
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/errata_central/2019_CA_BldgV1_Supp_July2021.pdf
It includes these new items:






Detectable warnings are a hot mess in California. ADA does not require them to anywhere near the extent that CA does, and most people (including many visually impaired) hate them, and there is anecdotal evidence that they can be difficult for wheelchair users.
Instead of following ADA, California has doubled down and made the resulting vehicle-adjacent ramps even bigger.

 

[Mark K]

The answer will be revealed by reading the code. Section 11B-101 points you to Chapter 1 where it defines when 11B is applicable.

Looking at the adoption table for 11B it appears that !!B is only applicable if the Division os the State Architect is responsible for access compliance enforcement for your building.

 

[David Meza]

Here is my situation.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/342695852904805186/

 

[David Meza]

I've actually modified it using according to exception 1 in 11B-705.1.2.2.2.1

 

[Yikes]

Is there a scenario in which you could shift the detectable warnings 6" to the right, over the area where the curb reduces to 0" height?
That way you get 36" clear width and 24" on the domes, without the domes encroaching into the 18' long load/unload access aisle.
Sorry for my poor sketch, but here's what I mean:

 

[David Meza]

Can you provide an illustration or plan of the condition you are describing?

 

[David Meza]

Is there a scenario in which you could shift the detectable warnings 6" to the right, over the area where the curb reduces to 0" height?
That way you get 36" clear width and 24" on the domes, without the domes encroaching into the 18' long load/unload access aisle.
Sorry for my poor sketch, but here's what I mean:

View attachment 8555

Unfortunately the code specifies that the domes should begin 6"min/8"max from end of sidewalk/gutter/street.

 

[Yikes]

Bummer, you are correct.
That makes minimum width for new conditions 6'-6", and for existing or technically infeasible 5'-6".

Could you do a conventional ramp (handrails, etc.), with a 6' long lower landing with guardrail/handrail, then the detectable warnings after that?
That would help you avoid the width requirements associated with curb ramps.

 

[Yikes]

Like this - and keeping the "curb" at min 6" high until it touches the 4' opening for the detectable warnings.

 

[ADAguy]

Here is my situation.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/342695852904805186/

No grooves, deleted from CBC

 

[Yikes]

Or maybe this:



The key here is that:
1. The optional guard (in blue) creates a barrier between the <5% sloping walkway and the vehicular area, so that portion of the circulation path is not "contiguous" to vehicular traffic (11B-250.1), even as it transitions down to 0" high.
2. This same barrier also makes it so that the curb face is not "adjacent" to the sloping walkway, therefore this is not a "curb ramp". (CBC 202 definition of curb ramp)
3. The sloping walkway qualifies as a "blended transition" per CBC 202: "...similar connection that has a grade of 5 percent or less between a circulation path at the level of sidewalk or walk and the level of a vehicular way." See 11B-250 exc. #1.
4. The level area with the green arrow is at the same elevation level as the vehicular way.
5. 11B--247.1.2.5 requires blended transitions to have detectable warnings per 11B-705.1.1 and 11B-705.1.2.5, which basically says 36" long.

Lastly, note that the specific wording of 11B-705.1.2.2.2.1 is specific to "sidewalk".
"Sidewalk" as defined in CBC 202 is "a surfaced pedestrian way contiguous to a street used by the public".
The Original Poster's diagram does not say that the vehicular way is a public street. If it is a private parking lot, then you may be able to argue that the extra 36" required by 11B-705.1.2.2.2.1 is not applicable.