mark handler
SAWHORSE
You cannot just cut off a portion of maneuvering space, Not here comes the potential for lawsuits, here is the lawsuit.Mech said:
-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
Sidewalk or ramp
- Thread starter RJJ
- Start date
Mech
REGISTERED
I guess I am thinking of the old ADAAG stuff, same thing that RJJ linked to in post 23. ADAAG even identified the 5 ft circle and T-shaped space as areas required to perform a 180 degree turn.
The 2003 A-117.1 commentary identified the 5 ft circle as the area required for the 180 degree turn; but, the commentary is not code (and neither is the 2003 version, at least not in Pennsylvania anymore.)
The 2003 A-117.1 commentary identified the 5 ft circle as the area required for the 180 degree turn; but, the commentary is not code (and neither is the 2003 version, at least not in Pennsylvania anymore.)
RJJ
Co-Founder
Guys I agree with all the comments. I believe in the end the propose side walk will have radius turns and maintain 36" & 1:20 or less rise.
However, I plan to make some calls to L&I our oh so wise State agency. I think the fed is off unless ADA is critical personal. No pun intended. In the many years I have been doing this never had this one. What hangs me up is the 180 reference. I can't find anything that would address the 36" walk and 90degree turns.
Mech: Occupancy load would not cover or reflect an accessible walk. This building is very small to begin with.
I agree with Killitact that I don't want to make up code.
This has been a great discussion. Thanks for your in put and info Mark. I will see if I can get a read form above. Not God but the State.
However, I plan to make some calls to L&I our oh so wise State agency. I think the fed is off unless ADA is critical personal. No pun intended. In the many years I have been doing this never had this one. What hangs me up is the 180 reference. I can't find anything that would address the 36" walk and 90degree turns.
Mech: Occupancy load would not cover or reflect an accessible walk. This building is very small to begin with.
I agree with Killitact that I don't want to make up code.
This has been a great discussion. Thanks for your in put and info Mark. I will see if I can get a read form above. Not God but the State.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Try 403.5.1kilitact said:
mark handler
SAWHORSE
It does not make any sense why you guys fight so hard for certain sections of the code but fight so hard against the accessibility sections
Just remember Bush not Obama made this law.
Just remember Bush not Obama made this law.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
What party? I worked on Nixon presidential campaign. I am an independent you all have no clue.I live in orange county California, one of the most conservative countries in Californiakilitact said:
The "law requires access,"I enforce the "law" and the codes. I understand the intent and the letter of the codes and the law . I am an architect and can thing about what is the best solution for the situation. Many on this board seem to be biases ed when it comes to the accessibility codes but rigid as a board on the other codes, pointing out minor defects in wireing or framing, as a big thing but always trying yo find a exception for the disability codes. Let's just put in two nails rather than the four as called out. Lets just cut the maneuvering corners off the code required turning space....
Last edited by a moderator:
RJJ
Co-Founder
Hey stay nice! I am not happen with the answer I got from L&I. This is the response! If it is a sidewalk 1:20 or less 36" wide a 90 degree turn would be permitted. The 180 rule does not apply. Go figure. My next call will be to ICC. We will see what happens.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Try the DOJ, oh I forgot, they are in the soup line...RJJ said:
mark handler
SAWHORSE
What is the L&I?RJJ said:
Mech
REGISTERED
Labor and Industry
Pennsylvania's L&I enforces the building code among many other laws and regulations.
Mech
REGISTERED
RJJ - I am not sure I understand L&I's comment.
Are they saying two 36" wide paths meeting at a 90 degree angle is allowable for the turn?
To me, the code appears a little ambiguous and lacking. A turning space is the 5 ft circle or the T-shaped turning space. Although the angle of the turn is not specified, I would assume these spaces would accommodate a 360 degree turn.
If a 90 degree turn requires either a 5 ft circle or the T-shaped turning space, is the same 5 ft circle or T-shaped space required at an accessible doorway?
Section 603.2.1 requires a turning space in accessible bathrooms. Sections 402 Accessible Routes, 403 Walking Surfaces, and 404 Doorways do not mention turning space. Well, maybe Section 402 does.
402.2 Components. Accessible routes shall consist of one or more of the following components: Walking surfaces with a slope not steeper than 1:20, doors and doorways, ramps, curb ramps excluding the flared sides, elevators, and platform lifts. All components of an accessible route shall comply with the applicable portions of this standard.
Section 404 Doors and Doorways, specifically the subsections of 404.2.3 Maneuvering Clearances at Doors, indicates that maneuvering clearances less than the turning space requirements of section 304 are adequate to perform a 90 degree turn through a doorway. There is no mention of turning spaces complying with section 304. Was section 304 forgotten, intentionally not mentioned, or covered by section 402.2 (above)?
Links to A117.1-2009
Chapter 4 - Accessible Routes
Chapter 6 - Plumbing Elements and Facilities
Consider the following doorway scenarios:
Fig. 404.2.3.2 (g) appears to allow an occupant to travel down a path, provided it has a 42" wide maneuvering clearance for a distance 24" from the latch side, and make a 90 degree turn through a door opening. The door opening minimum width is 32". To me, this indicates the maneuvering space required to make a 90 degree turn is less than a 5 ft circle or T-shaped turning space. If this door is located at the very end of a hallway, neither the circle nor the T-shape space would fit. Would this door be not accessible? Should I be providing the circle or T-shape at every accessible door requiring a hinge side or latch side approach?
Fig. 404.2.3.2 (f) appears to allow an occupant to travel down a 48" wide path and make a 90 degree turn. The maneuvering space shown will not accommodate a 5 ft circle or the 12" far side branch from the T-shape.
404.2.3.4 Doorways without Doors. Doorways without doors that are less than 36 inches in width shall have maneuvering clearances complying with Table 404.2.3.4
Chapter 4 - Accessible Routes
Fig. 404.2.3.4 illustrates the requirements from the table. One of the two sketches requires a 42" rectangle to make a 90 degree turn; it does not account for the circle or T-shape. If the circle or T-shape is required for a 90 degree turn, why is that not shown in the figure or specified that it is required, similar to the way Section 603.2 requires it for accessible bathrooms and toilet rooms? Or again, does section 402.2 (above) include the turning space requirement? :banghd
Note that 404.2.3.4 (above) is for doorways without doors that are less than 36 inches. The code does not have a separate section for doorways without doors that are 36 inches or greater. I would reason the maneuvering clearance is different for doorway openings 36" and larger, otherwise there would not be a separate section for doorways less than 36".
Are they saying two 36" wide paths meeting at a 90 degree angle is allowable for the turn?
To me, the code appears a little ambiguous and lacking. A turning space is the 5 ft circle or the T-shaped turning space. Although the angle of the turn is not specified, I would assume these spaces would accommodate a 360 degree turn.
If a 90 degree turn requires either a 5 ft circle or the T-shaped turning space, is the same 5 ft circle or T-shaped space required at an accessible doorway?
Section 603.2.1 requires a turning space in accessible bathrooms. Sections 402 Accessible Routes, 403 Walking Surfaces, and 404 Doorways do not mention turning space. Well, maybe Section 402 does.
402.2 Components. Accessible routes shall consist of one or more of the following components: Walking surfaces with a slope not steeper than 1:20, doors and doorways, ramps, curb ramps excluding the flared sides, elevators, and platform lifts. All components of an accessible route shall comply with the applicable portions of this standard.
Section 404 Doors and Doorways, specifically the subsections of 404.2.3 Maneuvering Clearances at Doors, indicates that maneuvering clearances less than the turning space requirements of section 304 are adequate to perform a 90 degree turn through a doorway. There is no mention of turning spaces complying with section 304. Was section 304 forgotten, intentionally not mentioned, or covered by section 402.2 (above)?
Links to A117.1-2009
Chapter 4 - Accessible Routes
Chapter 6 - Plumbing Elements and Facilities
Consider the following doorway scenarios:
Fig. 404.2.3.2 (g) appears to allow an occupant to travel down a path, provided it has a 42" wide maneuvering clearance for a distance 24" from the latch side, and make a 90 degree turn through a door opening. The door opening minimum width is 32". To me, this indicates the maneuvering space required to make a 90 degree turn is less than a 5 ft circle or T-shaped turning space. If this door is located at the very end of a hallway, neither the circle nor the T-shape space would fit. Would this door be not accessible? Should I be providing the circle or T-shape at every accessible door requiring a hinge side or latch side approach?
Fig. 404.2.3.2 (f) appears to allow an occupant to travel down a 48" wide path and make a 90 degree turn. The maneuvering space shown will not accommodate a 5 ft circle or the 12" far side branch from the T-shape.
404.2.3.4 Doorways without Doors. Doorways without doors that are less than 36 inches in width shall have maneuvering clearances complying with Table 404.2.3.4
Chapter 4 - Accessible Routes
Fig. 404.2.3.4 illustrates the requirements from the table. One of the two sketches requires a 42" rectangle to make a 90 degree turn; it does not account for the circle or T-shape. If the circle or T-shape is required for a 90 degree turn, why is that not shown in the figure or specified that it is required, similar to the way Section 603.2 requires it for accessible bathrooms and toilet rooms? Or again, does section 402.2 (above) include the turning space requirement? :banghd
Note that 404.2.3.4 (above) is for doorways without doors that are less than 36 inches. The code does not have a separate section for doorways without doors that are 36 inches or greater. I would reason the maneuvering clearance is different for doorway openings 36" and larger, otherwise there would not be a separate section for doorways less than 36".
RJJ
Co-Founder
Mech: That is the basic response! This seems to fall in the gray. I am going to go further on this issue to try and get some real clarification. If I can figure out how to post the original plan and revisions I will. The plan is now being revised for a fifth time and I believe it will dot all the eyes and t's. The 90's have been removed and some cross slope issues that existed are being corrected, so the original OP has been changed.
However, the side walk 1:20 @ 36" is not totally clear.
However, the side walk 1:20 @ 36" is not totally clear.
RJJ
Co-Founder
Mark: Mech said L&I is the state that is correct. The DO J is off for now. I believe this question needs some real addressing from them.
I am also going to run it pass ICC.
I am also going to run it pass ICC.
Mech
REGISTERED
After pondering my own posting above, I would think the intersection should be larger than 36"x36". But by how much?
RJJ
Co-Founder
I agree! It looks like the code does not address this clearly. Thus my original OP which changed to a sidewalk. I am going to get some more feed back from ICC.
Mech
REGISTERED
I would love to see an official response (an addendum) giving a definitive answer, regardless of the required size.
Can anyone get feed back from ICC or only members? I would like to know how far a wheelchair bound person can be expected to back up before a turn around space is required. Think of a restroom layout with a row of stalls and the accessible stall at the end.
Can anyone get feed back from ICC or only members? I would like to know how far a wheelchair bound person can be expected to back up before a turn around space is required. Think of a restroom layout with a row of stalls and the accessible stall at the end.
ADAguy
REGISTERED
Get serious, a wheelchair can't do a 90 degree turn in a 3' square. 60" x 60" min. Even if you insist on usinga 36" sidewalk.
Msradell
SAWHORSE
That's not necessarily true. I can do it quite easily in my front-wheel-drive power wheelchair. Can't do a 360 but a 90 is not a problem. Not saying that's what code requires but it is possible.ADAguy said:
RJJ
Co-Founder
Mech: I am going to run this issue up the Flag Pole at ICC and see! I will try to get to someone today if time permits.
MASSDRIVER
REGISTERED
Hmmm. Wonder how they do it at home.ADAguy said:
Brent.
Paul Sweet
SAWHORSE
Post #5 ("the beginning elevation is 466 and ends at a landing @ 462.96 = 3.04' Horizontal run is 18 + 23+ 23 = 64' ") established that this is a sidewalk, and not a ramp, as long as the slope is constant. In that case, 3' x 3' landings meet the code. They aren't necessarily good design.
If one or more of the runs exceeds 1:20 slope, that makes that part of it a ramp. It would be possible to have a 5 foot landing, then a 3' x 3' right angle turn beyond the landing, then another 5' landing before starting the ramp again. However, it would be a lot easier to just provide the 5' x 5' landing the code requires ,if it is a ramp.
If one or more of the runs exceeds 1:20 slope, that makes that part of it a ramp. It would be possible to have a 5 foot landing, then a 3' x 3' right angle turn beyond the landing, then another 5' landing before starting the ramp again. However, it would be a lot easier to just provide the 5' x 5' landing the code requires ,if it is a ramp.
RJJ
Co-Founder
Paul: I agree. and yes it is not good design. It seems to meet the very very minimum of the code.