Sidewalk or ramp

[RJJ]

ok do you have the new?

 

[mark handler]

ok do you have the new?

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/accessibility-links/7290-2010-ada-standards-accessible-design.html

 

[kilitact]

For a 180 degree turn you need 42" inches, are the two 90 degree turns separated?

 

[RJJ]

yes by 20'

 

[mark handler]

For a 180 degree turn you need 42" inches, are the two 90 degree turns separated?

And they still wonder why there are so many lawsuits.....

 

[mark handler]

Look up "turning space"

 

[RJJ]

I am now looking at the 4th revised submittal for this sidewalk / ramp in five days. The elevations keep changing Monday should produce the 5th rendering can't wait to see that one.

Also, Mark thanks for picking up the link was old standards. I missed that in the bombardment of paper being shoved down my throat.

 

[kilitact]

No wonder. Most are for the purpose of making money.

 

[mark handler]

Look up "turning space"

304 Turning Space

304.1 General. A turning space shall comply with Section 304.2 Floor Surface. Floor surfaces of a turning space shall comply with Section 302. Changes in level are not permitted within the turning space.

EXCEPTION: Slopes not steeper than 1 :48 shall be permitted.

304.3 Size. Turning spaces shall comply with Section 304.3.1 or 304.3.2.

304.3.1 Circular Space. The turning space shall be a circular space with a 60-inch (1525 mm) minimum diameter. The turning space shall be permitted to include knee and toe clearance complying

with Section 306. 304.3.2 T-Shaped Space. The turning space shall be a T-shaped space within a 60-inch minimum square, with arms and base 36 inches minimum in width. Each arm of the T shall be clear of obstructions 12 inches minimum in each direction, and the base shall be clear of obstructions 24 inches (610 mm) minimum.

The turning space shall be permitted to include knee and toe clearance complying with Section 306 only at the end of either the base or one arm.

ADDRESS THE 90 TURNS THREE FOOT DOES NOT CUT IT

 

[kilitact]

Look up "turning space"

I have. Perhaps you could show where this would not allow the 36" width on an exterior ramp that has a 90 degree turn..

 

[RJJ]

I agree Mark! The question as of late is if it is a walk do they need to comply when & if they achieve 1:20! I would say yes they still need to comply.

Kilitack: what they are trying to do is a sidewalk that would not be considered a ramp!

 

[kilitact]

I agree Mark! The question as of late is if it is a walk do they need to comply when & if they achieve 1:20! I would say yes they still need to comply.Kilitack: what they are trying to do is a sidewalk that would not be considered a ramp!

Hello, RJJ, I see that I wrote ramp instead of sidewalk, my bad. For a sidewalk I don't know of any code requirement that would prohibit a 36" width even with a 90 degree turn. I think a T turn would work

 

[mark handler]

I have. Perhaps you could show where this would not allow the 36" width on an exterior ramp that has a 90 degree turn..

A T turn might work, but, To build to the minimums is dangerous, working on the "edge" is where the lawsuits come in. Never seen a T used in a "sidewalk"

 

[mark handler]

FOR THOSE IN CALIFORNIA

CBC 2013 11B-403.5.1

3. The clear width for sidewalks and walks shall be 48 inches minimum. When, because of right-of-way restrictions, natural barriers or other existing conditions, the enforcing agency determines that compliance with the 48-inch clear sidewalk width would create an unreasonable hardship, the clear width may be reduced to 36 inches.

 

[fatboy]

It still is a sidewalk by the OP, bad design not withstanding, other than maybe CA, would be allowed.........JMHO

 

[kilitact]

IIB-403.5.2 Clear width at turn. Where the accessible

route makes a 180 degree turn around an element which is

less than 48 inches wide, clear width shall be

42 inches minimum approaching the turn, 48

inches minimum at the turn and 42 inches

minimum leaving the turn.

Exception: Where the clear width at the turn is 60

inches minimum compliance with Section

11 B-403.5.2 shall not be required.

Whats the length that the approaching leg needs to be?

 

[RJJ]

It looks like 60" from the T diagram. Which in the case of the sidewalk less than 1:20 it would be.

 

[mark handler]

IIB-403.5.2 Clear width at turn. Where the accessibleroute makes a 180 degree turn around an element which is

less than 48 inches wide, clear width shall be

42 inches minimum approaching the turn, 48

inches minimum at the turn and 42 inches

minimum leaving the turn.

Exception: Where the clear width at the turn is 60

inches minimum compliance with Section

11 B-403.5.2 shall not be required.

Whats the length that the approaching leg needs to be?

I posted the code that goes into effect in a couple of months....

 

[RJJ]

I believe what gets applied here is the T turning space! As Posted by MK. I have read through all the links and reviewed ICC copy of A117 since on previous posts I was in different offices. Correct me if I am wrong, but the T space would or could be applied to a hallway or space on the inside of a building. Corridors need to be 44" for the most part! If a 90 degree turn was proposed in a hall excluding door access the T under the sect posted could be used. Therefore, the same would apply to an accessible route / even a side walk.

 

[mark handler]

I believe what gets applied here is the T turning space! As Posted by MK. I have read through all the links and reviewed ICC copy of A117 since on previous posts I was in different offices. Correct me if I am wrong, but the T space would or could be applied to a hallway or space on the inside of a building. Corridors need to be 44" for the most part! If a 90 degree turn was proposed in a hall excluding door access the T under the sect posted could be used. Therefore, the same would apply to an accessible route / even a side walk.

"....180 degree turn around an element ..."

 

[RJJ]

Mark this is part of the confusion! 180 degree turn around an element. This is a 90 degree turn. Now it happens twice, but 20' apart! Are you saying that the 180 applies?

 

[mark handler]

Mark this is part of the confusion! 180 degree turn around an element. This is a 90 degree turn. Now it happens twice, but 20' apart! Are you saying that the 180 applies?

I am not saying it does not apply, BUT, What are you defining as the element?

You as the Building Official, could need to make a "finding" for whatever decision you make.

"Could" end up in litigation, when someone ends up rolling "off" the narrow path (turn).

 

[RJJ]

The element would be the 90 degree turn! I understand your points and agree.

 

[Mech]

IMO, a modified T shaped turnaround works. Cut off one side of the tee so you are left with two 36" wide sidewalks joining at 90 degrees. The 36" width may need to be modified to suit the occupant load. This is the bare minimum. As Mark pointed out, one slip off the ramp and here comes the potential for lawsuits.

RJJ - you could call the Federales and ask what to do for the 90 degree turns.