# Sidewalk or ramp



## RJJ (Oct 9, 2013)

I have a proposed ramp that is 3' wide and make two 90 degree turns. it rises on a continuous bases about 30". The discussion is as follows: Is it a ramp or a side walk.


----------



## cda (Oct 9, 2013)

RAMP. A walking surface that has a running slope steeper than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5-percent slope).


----------



## kilitact (Oct 9, 2013)

Could be either. Need more details to determine which it is


----------



## mjesse (Oct 9, 2013)

If it rises 30" in less than 50', it's a ramp.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 9, 2013)

the beginning elevation is 466 and ends at a landing @ 462.96 = 3.04' Horizontal run is 18 + 23+ 23 = 64'


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 9, 2013)

Is it on an accessible route?


----------



## Frank (Oct 9, 2013)

Then it could be both, each portion has to be evaluated separately for the 1:20 slope limit to be considered a ramp needing handrails both sides.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 9, 2013)

It is the accessible route! They screwed up with the parking lot and built steps into the structure. Elevation were wrong. Now trying to fix a problem.

They plan to grade each side and call it a side walk!

So a second question would be / could you have a sidewalk less than 1:20 continue 200 or 300' and not be a ramp?


----------



## JPohling (Oct 9, 2013)

It could be built to less than 5% and be treated as a walk.


----------



## steveray (Oct 9, 2013)

<1:20 it can be a  walk....>1:20 at any point...ramp.....sloped walking surface can be forever as far as I know....think parking lot drainage....


----------



## mjesse (Oct 9, 2013)

RJJ said:
			
		

> could you have a sidewalk less than 1:20 continue 200 or 300' and not be a ramp?


Yep.

mj

...


----------



## mark handler (Oct 10, 2013)

RJJ said:
			
		

> I have a proposed ramp that is 3' wide and make two 90 degree turns. it rises on a continuous bases about 30". The discussion is as follows: Is it a ramp or a side walk.


*with two 90 degree turns, you will need landings....*






*Ramps also need to be wider than three feet.*


----------



## Msradell (Oct 10, 2013)

RJJ said:
			
		

> So a second question would be / could you have a sidewalk less than 1:20 continue 200 or 300' and not be a ramp?


That can definitely be done.  Here Louisville they just built a 770' long ramp to access a pedestrian bridge across the Ohio River.  They purposely designed it with a 4.95% slope slated to have to make special accommodations for those with handicaps!!  They are now in the process of doing the same thing any Indiana side of the bridge.  I don't know many people in a wheelchair who could climb that!  I also don't know many elderly people who could push a spouse in a wheelchair up that!  Yet they think it's perfectly acceptable to build this way.


----------



## pyrguy (Oct 10, 2013)

Msradell said:
			
		

> That can definitely be done.  Here Louisville they just built a 770' long ramp to access a pedestrian bridge across the Ohio River.  They purposely designed it with a 4.95% slope slated to have to make special accommodations for those with handicaps!!  They are now in the process of doing the same thing any Indiana side of the bridge.  I don't know many people in a wheelchair who could climb that!  I also don't know many elderly people who could push a spouse in a wheelchair up that!  Yet they think it's perfectly acceptable to build this way.


Right and legal do not always have anything to do with each other.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 10, 2013)

Mark I agree with the detail! The question here is they are considering it a sidewalk. So if they can achieve a continuous rise to the door landing 1:20 or Less they could not include the landing area. Thus they could build a 3' x 3' 90 degree turn at two place on the along the sidewalk. Thus no rails, no curb guards etc.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 10, 2013)

RJJ said:
			
		

> Mark I agree with the detail! The question here is they are considering it a sidewalk. So if they can achieve a continuous rise to the door landing 1:20 or Less they could not include the landing area. Thus they could build a 3' x 3' 90 degree turn at two place on the along the sidewalk. Thus no rails, no curb guards etc.


Depends on many site conditions.  And three feet is not sufficient in almost all conditions


----------



## RJJ (Oct 10, 2013)

Mark I agree! If it is a sidewalk then game is over!


----------



## mark handler (Oct 10, 2013)

RJJ said:
			
		

> Mark I agree! If it is a sidewalk then game is over!


Three feet is still too narrow for a sidewalk,  is there a drop off?


----------



## Frank (Oct 10, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Three feet is still too narrow for a sidewalk,  is there a drop off?


As a practical matter it is narrow, but if not a ramp it meets code minimums.  If not a ramp the adjacent drop off can be 30 inches before guards are required.  For a ramp curbs are required between 1/2 and 30 inches and guards if over 30 inches.  For ramp minimum width is 36 inches clear between handrails and between curbs or edge guards.

A117.1 403.5 gives a minimum width of 36 inches for accessible route and 403.5.2 requires a 60 inch by 60 inch passing space or T intersection every 200 feet


----------



## RJJ (Oct 10, 2013)

Mark they plan to grade to the walk. Don't know what the slope will be. I agree with Frank that 36" for an accessible route is fine.


----------



## Mech (Oct 11, 2013)

> Mark they plan to grade to the walk. Don't know what the slope will be.


Just a reminder: For guardrail determination, the 30" vertical distance to adjacent grade can be anywhere within 36" horizontally of the walking surface.

ANSI A.117-1 2003 (not sure about the latest version or ADA) allows a 6 inch ramp rise without handrails.  I do not see anything that restricts the use of several 6 inch ramp rises if they are separated by 1:20 walking surfaces.


----------



## Msradell (Oct 11, 2013)

pyrguy said:
			
		

> Right and legal do not always have anything to do with each other.


I certainly agree with that!  I went several rounds with the Waterfront Development Board about this project.  Especially after their original plans showed an elevator to the to the top and that was cut because of budget concerns.  They sent me a copy of the drawings and a copy of a letter from the federal DOT saying it was legal!  Not sure how the DOT can make a determination but...  If anybody would like to see a copy of the drawings send me a PM.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 11, 2013)

Department of Justice ADA Title III Regulation 28 CFR Part 36 (1991) Mark if you look at 4.3.3 fig 7 &7b it appears that 3' is permitted.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 11, 2013)

Old standards...where there is a turn, clear width needs to be 42" min.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 11, 2013)

ok do you have the new?


----------



## mark handler (Oct 11, 2013)

RJJ said:
			
		

> ok do you have the new?


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


----------



## kilitact (Oct 11, 2013)

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


----------



## RJJ (Oct 11, 2013)

yes by 20'


----------



## mark handler (Oct 12, 2013)

kilitact said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 12, 2013)

Look up "turning space"


----------



## RJJ (Oct 12, 2013)

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 (Oct 12, 2013)

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


----------



## mark handler (Oct 12, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 12, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 12, 2013)

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 (Oct 12, 2013)

RJJ said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 12, 2013)

kilitact said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 13, 2013)

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 (Oct 13, 2013)

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


----------



## kilitact (Oct 13, 2013)

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 (Oct 13, 2013)

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


----------



## mark handler (Oct 13, 2013)

kilitact said:
			
		

> 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
> 
> ...


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


----------



## RJJ (Oct 13, 2013)

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 (Oct 13, 2013)

RJJ said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 14, 2013)

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 (Oct 14, 2013)

RJJ said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 14, 2013)

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


----------



## Mech (Oct 14, 2013)

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.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 14, 2013)

Mech said:
			
		

> 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.


You cannot just cut off a portion of maneuvering space, Not here comes the potential for lawsuits, here is the lawsuit.


----------



## Mech (Oct 14, 2013)

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.)


----------



## kilitact (Oct 14, 2013)

We're looking at whats required by code. If we start looking at what needs to be in place to prevent lawsuites building has we know it would come to a halt. Consider guardrails on any surface above the ground.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 14, 2013)

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.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 14, 2013)

kilitact said:
			
		

> 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
> 
> ...


Try 403.5.1


----------



## mark handler (Oct 14, 2013)

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.


----------



## kilitact (Oct 15, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> 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 sectionsJust remember Bush not Obama made this law.


You enforce codes along party lines? Enforce the codes.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 15, 2013)

kilitact said:
			
		

> You enforce codes along party lines? Enforce the codes.


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 California

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....


----------



## RJJ (Oct 15, 2013)

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 (Oct 15, 2013)

RJJ said:
			
		

> 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.


Try the DOJ, oh I forgot, they are in the soup line...


----------



## mark handler (Oct 15, 2013)

RJJ said:
			
		

> 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.


What is the L&I?


----------



## Mech (Oct 15, 2013)

> What is the L&I?


Labor and Industry

Pennsylvania's L&I enforces the building code among many other laws and regulations.


----------



## Mech (Oct 16, 2013)

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".


----------



## RJJ (Oct 16, 2013)

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.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 16, 2013)

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.


----------



## Mech (Oct 16, 2013)

After pondering my own posting above, I would think the intersection should be larger than 36"x36".  But by how much?


----------



## RJJ (Oct 16, 2013)

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 (Oct 16, 2013)

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.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 16, 2013)

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 (Oct 17, 2013)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> 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.


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.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 17, 2013)

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 (Oct 17, 2013)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> 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.


Hmmm. Wonder how they do it at home.

Brent.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Oct 17, 2013)

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.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 17, 2013)

Paul: I agree. and yes it is not good design. It seems to meet the very very minimum of the code.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 17, 2013)

Agaim I say, 36" landing is not enough for a WC to turn 90 degrees in, ramp or not.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 17, 2013)

And we wonder why there are so many non-accessible buildings built since ADA became law

Just blame it on the powers above.....in this case L&I

non-accessible is non-accessible


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Oct 17, 2013)

RJJ said:
			
		

> Paul: I agree. and yes it is not good design. It seems to meet the very very minimum of the code.


So it is fine, yes?

Brent


----------



## Mech (Oct 17, 2013)

Mark / ADAguy

Are you saying a 5 ft circle or T-shape turning space is required for all pathway widths or only certain pathway widths (OP asked about 36" wide pathway)?  Assume this is NOT for a ramp.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 17, 2013)

Mech said:
			
		

> Mark / ADAguyAre you saying a 5 ft circle or T-shape turning space is required for all pathway widths or only certain pathway widths (OP asked about 36" wide pathway)?  Assume this is NOT for a ramp.


3 ft wide is a bare minimum. to skirt the code through minimums cause problems.

When a wheeler "falls" of the sidewalk there will be a lawsuit. if there is a dropoff with this "sidewalk" you will be wondering why you will be reading it in the paper...


----------



## Msradell (Oct 18, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> 3 ft wide is a bare minimum. to skirt the code through minimums cause problems.


the image On the right clearly demonstrates that it's possible for a wheelchair to make a 90 degree turn from a 36" wide sidewalk to a 36" wide sidewalk without having additional space at the corner.  More space only required when doing a 180 degree corner.  Not saying that it is good but it can be done.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 18, 2013)

Mech: You are right that this application from revision is not a ramp. That was the first argument. Although the whole access is changing the second proposal was a 3' wide side walk with 2 90 degree turns that would not exceed 1:20. Thus it is a side walk. The accessible route does not exceed 200' so no call for anything for turn around.

Paul is correct along with L&I that it meets the minimum accessible standards. Any Massdriver that should answer your question.

Now that being said, it would be poor design, but it appears to be with in code. So if called to make a decision I would have to approve the design. I have made some suggestion to the builder for consideration that will improve his plan. I can only mandate what is code.

Looks to me that a code revision is need for real world application.


----------



## JPohling (Oct 18, 2013)

I never have to consider this question as I have never done a walk less than 48" wide.


----------

