Van parking signage

[Sifu]

I received a plan with a notation for a "universal" parking space, which is an ADAAG term. The dimensions for this are permitted for van spaces by ANSI (required as the base design). No problem with the space itself. The question though, is the use of van-accessible signage. The ADAAG permits the signage to be omitted with this universal design. The ANSI isn't as clear. If the IBC scopes the van accessible space I feel like it is also scoping the van accessible signage. I realize the van signage is intended to be informative, not restrictive (right out of the commentary), so would one sign type, without specific van-accessible designator be acceptable to you as long as every space was the 11'/5' aisle?

 

[Yikes]

I realize the van signage is intended to be informative, not restrictive (right out of the commentary), so would one sign type, without specific van-accessible designator be acceptable to you as long as every space was the 11'/5' aisle?

You are correct that "Van Accessible" does not mean "Van Only". So what's the downside of installing a sign that says "Van Accessible"?

 

[Msradell]

You are correct that "Van Accessible" does not mean "Van Only". So what's the downside of installing a sign that says "Van Accessible"?

Your post really hits a sore spot for us. Van accessible parking spots are normally the ones closest to the building and thus everybody parks in them leaving no van spaces available for those of us with vans who needs the wider space to use our ramps.

 

[Yikes]

Your post really hits a sore spot for us. Van accessible parking spots are normally the ones closest to the building and thus everybody parks in them leaving no van spaces available for those of us with vans who needs the wider space to use our ramps.

I hear you, it's a sore spot, but it would seem that your sore spot is not with the code, but with how fellow drivers with accessible placards on their vehicles decide to utilize the available spaces.
I am just stating what the code allows. For parking lots of 1-25 spaces, only one accessible stall is required, and that stall must be a designated van stall (ADAS Table 208.2, 208.4). I've known people who used wheelchairs but owned a car instead of a van - - you wouldn't deny them the opportunity to park in the only accessible stall just because they aren't van owners, correct?

The alternative in post #1 (the "universal space") was to not have a "van accessible" sign at all. Removing that signage doesn't provide you more van access.

 

[Sifu]

This is an attempt at only having a single type of sign, and saving the few dollars they would need to spend on a van sign. My thinking is that the sign is not restrictive, it doesn't say "no cars". But just because it it is informative, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be there to inform. The ANSI standard has no permissions for this "universal space" to not have a van sign. It does say that signs that mark van spaces shall have a sign that that says "van accessible". I think the ANSI standard intends that at least the required number of van spaces be marked for vans. This project is well over 10 million dollars, I can sleep if I ask for a couple extra bucks to "inform" the drivers. The facility has two lots, each are provided with the required number of accessible spaces. Only one van space would be required for the total number. Worst case is that they use some sense and provide one van space in each lot. They would have to pay for two small signs.

From the ADAAG annex (may be an old edition, not sure if there is a newer one)

"Universal" Parking Space Design. An alternative
to the provision of a percentage of spaces with a
wide aisle, and the associated need to include
additional signage, is the use of what has been
called the "universal" parking space design.
Under this design, all accessible spaces are 132 in
(3350 mm) wide with a 60 in (1525 mm) access
aisle (see Fig. A5(b)). One advantage to this design
is that no additional signage is needed because all
spaces can accommodate a van with a
side-mounted lift or ramp. Also, there is no
competition between cars and vans for spaces
since all spaces can accommodate either.
Furthermore, the wider space permits vehicles to
park to one side or the other within the 132 in
(3350 mm) space to allow persons to exit and
enter the vehicle on either the driver or passenger
side, although, in some cases, this would require
exiting or entering without a marked access aisle.

 

[Sifu]

Then again, looking at the configuration, the spaces are grouped in 2's, at each accessible entrance. Maybe there is no benefit to the signs.

 

[steveray]

I'm not sure that we have to mark ours "van"

(Amd) 1106.6 Van spaces. For every six or fraction of six accessible parking spaces, at least one shall be
a van-accessible parking space. Each public parking garage or terminal shall have a minimum of two vanaccessible
parking spaces complying with this section.
Exception: In Group U private garages that serve R-2 and R-3 occupancies, van-accessible spaces
shall be permitted to have vehicular routes, entrances, parking spaces and access aisles with a minimum
vertical clearance of 7 feet (2134 mm).

(Amd) 1112.1 Signs. Required accessible elements shall be identified by the International Symbol of
Accessibility at the following locations:
1. Accessible parking spaces as required by Section 1106. Pursuant to subsection (h) of section 14-
253a of the Connecticut General Statutes, such spaces shall be designated by above-grade signs
with white lettering against a blue background and shall bear the words “RESERVED Parking
Permit Required” and “Violators will be fined” in addition to the International Symbol of
Accessibility. When such a sign is replaced, repaired or erected, it shall indicate the minimum fine
for a violation of subsection (l) of section 14-253a of the Connecticut General Statutes. Such
indicator may be in the form of a notice affixed to such sign. Newly installed signs shall be 60
inches (1525 mm) minimum above the floor or ground of the parking space, measured to the bottom
of the sign.

 

[e hilton]

This is an attempt at only having a single type of sign, and saving the few dollars they would need to spend on a van sign.

I don’t think cost is an issue. Both signs should cost the same, unless they meet the requirement by adding a second sign below the first one.

 

[Sifu]

If they don't put them in, a van can be served by any of them. If they do put them in, a van can be served by any of them. If they don't will a van driver get lost looking for a sign? If they do, will an ambulatory driver park remotely even if a van space is open? So first, is there harm from one or the other? second is there a legal issue for one or the other. I am thinking no to both questions.

 

[Paul Sweet]

"This is an attempt at only having a single type of sign, and saving the few dollars they would need to spend on a van sign."

I think the extra asphalt for the wider spaces would cost them more than the signs.

 

[Sifu]

FYI. Just listened to a webinar from the ADA on parking. This question came up. The ADA rep said that the van signs are always required and there is no exception. They said the old standard had the "advisory" exception but that was discontinued.