# Ramp, landing and handrails



## tbz (Dec 21, 2011)

Have a client which hired a DP to make the front entry fire egress compliant and ADA.  This is a daycare facility / kids pre-school.

The reason for may post and questions you will see in the pic's below, we have been requested to provide a quote and budget for the handrails for this project.

I will start with that the church owns the property, but rents to a tenant who runs a day/care/pre-school not affilitated with the church.

1.) my first question is that the picture of the bottom of the ramp ends at a landing, which requires curbing for roll off protection, the client has elected to continue the handrails along the landing to act as the curbing, but has requested the handrails stop prior to descending down from the landing to the parking lot.

The lower ramp/walkway from the landing to the parking lot exceeds 1:20, is exactly 36.5" wide and does not have a full slope side cut to the parking drain.

Do you see anything wrong with this layout?  Are foot feelers required in the concrete here or only on public streets curb cuts?  Is this small ramp a curb cut ramp or a traditional ramp requiring handrails?







Next the picture below shows the top of the ramp, but to the right of the ramp are the old handrails which they are not changing, I noted these handrails do not comply with ADA, however it is church property rented out, do the handrails also need to be changed to comply?






I will also take input on any other things you see jumping out at you.

Thanks


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 21, 2011)

I don't believe the lower ramp to the parking lot requires handrails.  There is also another recent accessibility forum post on when DWP are required by ANSI A117.1.  I will see if I can locate that thread and post the link.  I would recommend having that lower ramp meet the correct slope.  I am not sure what site constraints you have, but perhaps the ramp and landing could switch back along the curb (an in-line ramp), prior to the divine statuary, and come to a landing from which to cross the parking lot.

edited response:  landing should be increased for change in direction.


----------



## tbz (Dec 21, 2011)

Papio,

Here is a better site picture the painted crosswalk lines up with the current curb cut.

Main ramp and landings are 60" wide, the lower landing is 75" long from base of ramp to end

The lower ramp is 38" long from landing to parking lot and drops 4"+/-


----------



## tbz (Dec 21, 2011)

Papio,

When you say increase the landing, are you saying move the drain or take the landing past the drain?

To add to this, the ramp was initiated by the fire department for exiting cribs with kids in them out of the building during an emergency.

Thus doing the reno ADA was also added in.

I guess I am looking for responses would you accept this ramp with handrails and not require handrails on lower.

Mark, are you out there?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 21, 2011)

The storm drain grate located next to the termination of the ramp should be addressed since it is in such close proximity to the ramp/curb cut.

Don't have the codes at the moment but I thought you had to have a ramp height of 6" before handrails are required. What is the elevation difference?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 21, 2011)

> I noted these handrails do not comply with ADA, however it is church property rented out, do the handrails also need to be changed to comply?


They "need' to be changed but I don't they are "required" to be changed.

Is the day care a change of use?


----------



## Codegeek (Dec 21, 2011)

tbz said:
			
		

> Mark, are you out there?


I was wondering that myself as I also posted an accessibility question.


----------



## tbz (Dec 21, 2011)

MT,

Thanks forgot all about the 6" trigger requirement.

The one thing that gets me with this design is the storm drain in the parking lot, all the water is heading right for the bottom of the ramp when it rains, I am not sure what the architect was thinking or if it was even a thought.

As to the change in use, this was a school at one point run by the church, I believe it closed and the day/care company rented the facility.  So if private primary school is a change in use to pre-school I don't think so, but then again I am not an expert on defining use groups.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 21, 2011)

1010.7.2 Outdoor conditions.

Outdoor ramps and outdoor approaches to ramps shall be designed so that water will not accumulate on walking surfaces.

Hope it drains well


----------



## Glennman CBO (Dec 21, 2011)

What about the 4" edge protection that is missing along the bottom on the sides of the ramp and landings (2009 IBC section 1010.9)? Handrails are not required on 6" max rise between landings.


----------



## tbz (Dec 21, 2011)

MT,

Thanks for the section

Glenn,

The handrails will continue along the lower landing and over to the top of the lower ramp and will serve as the curb, I don't have my A117.1 handy, somewhere on the desk or bookcase, but are ramps under 6 required to have the curbing?


----------



## brudgers (Dec 21, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> They "need' to be changed but I don't they are "required" to be changed. Is the day care a change of use?


  If it falls under ADA Title III, then both Owner and tenant are obligated to remove architectural barriers.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 21, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If it falls under ADA Title III, then both Owner and tenant are obligated to remove architectural barriers.


Is a handrail without extensions a "barrier"?

My thought under the building code, not ADA since we can't enforce it, was the 20% rule would not appy in this case because all the inprovement cost are related to improving accessibility. Therefore how would you require compliant handrails be installed under the I-Codes?


----------



## mark handler (Dec 21, 2011)

tbz said:
			
		

> Mark, are you out there?


Sorry been in airports and airplanes all day.

What code are we dealing with?

The lower ramp is a curb ramp, some codes and the current ADAAG require domes. curb ramps do not need handrails.

Curb ramps that force users to cross storm drain water and inlets present risks to pedestrians and wheelers. The grates covering such inlets can catch the casters of wheelchairs or the tips of canes and walkers, causing falls and injuries. Water at the base of curb ramps can obscure the transition from the ramp to the gutter and cause pedestrians to misjudge the terrain.Puddles at the base of curb ramps can also freeze and cause users to slip. Locating drain inlets uphill from curb ramps will reduce the amount of water that collects at the base.

The upper ramp is a pedestrian ramp. It requires handrails with extentions, you can extend the rails to the curb ramp, but you will still need  extentions

In addition to the rails, you will need a wheel stop along the ramp to prevent wheels, canes and walkers from the edge

There is no way fron the photos to tell if the slope or landings comply


----------



## brudgers (Dec 21, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Is a handrail without extensions a "barrier"?  My thought under the building code, not ADA since we can't enforce it, was the 20% rule would not appy in this case because all the inprovement cost are related to improving accessibility. Therefore how would you require compliant handrails be installed under the I-Codes?


  For an architect, requirements go beyond the building code.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 21, 2011)

Handrails and stairs do not comply

Handrails do not have extensions, handrails are not graspable, the stair tread lip is a trip hazard.

cannot tell if the treads have contrasting stripping

cannot tell from photo is riser and treads comply


----------



## mark handler (Dec 21, 2011)

Whata going on with the hole between the stairs?

Guards......


----------



## tbz (Dec 22, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Whata going on with the hole between the stairs?Guards......


The fall is less than 30" and I believe there was a statue there at one time.


----------



## tbz (Dec 22, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Sorry been in airports and airplanes all day.What code are we dealing with?
> 
> The lower ramp is a curb ramp, some codes and the current ADAAG require domes. curb ramps do not need handrails.
> 
> ...


The main ramp and landings comply with all requirements, the concern I have is with the small ramp at the bottom & the stairs.

Codes (2009 IBC NJ & ANSI A117.1 2003) project also to cover ADA

To recap your notes with my questions:

Ramp

1.) The small ramp is a curb cut ramp (yes)

2.) The small ramp does not need handrails (correct)

3.) The small ramp does require side curbing (yes/no)?

4.) If the handrails are installed on the lower ramp then the handrails are required to extend in to the parking lot with extensions (yes/no)?

Stairs (which are currently not part of the project)

1.) Tread and riser 7 on 12

2.) has 3/4" to 1" lip

3.) does the 2010 ADA require the stairs have contrasting lines at the edge?

4.) The handrails are wrong for more than just the ADA, but, my question is since church owned because it's use is for income to a business, the church's exemption from requirement is removed, correct (yes/no)


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 22, 2011)

tbz said:
			
		

> The main ramp and landings comply with all requirements, the concern I have is with the small ramp at the bottom & the stairs.Codes (2009 IBC NJ & ANSI A117.1 2003) project also to cover ADA


I do not agree that your ramp landings are compliant with ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 405.7.4 for change in direction.  Ramps that change direction at ramp landings shall be sized to provide a turning space complying with Section 304.3.  (Refer to Fig. 405.7(b))  Your landing, at a minimum should be 60 x 60 for a change in direction.



			
				tbz said:
			
		

> To recap your notes with my questions:Ramp
> 
> 1.) The small ramp is a curb cut ramp (yes)
> 
> 2.) The small ramp does not need handrails (correct)


  I agree





			
				tbz said:
			
		

> 3.) The small ramp does require side curbing (yes/no)?


  Not required where flares or maximum grade slope of .5":10" is provided per 405.9 Exception 1 & 3 as well as 405.9.1 for Extended Floor Surface.





			
				tbz said:
			
		

> 4.) If the handrails are installed on the lower ramp then the handrails are required to extend in to the parking lot with extensions (yes/no)?


 406.9 notes that handrails are not required for curb ramps and has no when/where provided statement.  I would say no.  The section also demonstrates an intent to keep as many elements of a curb ramp out of the parking and traffic lanes.





			
				tbz said:
			
		

> Stairs (which are currently not part of the project)1.) Tread and riser 7 on 12
> 
> 2.) has 3/4" to 1" lip





			
				tbz said:
			
		

> 3.) does the 2010 ADA require the stairs have contrasting lines at the edge?


 I am not familiar with this section.  





			
				tbz said:
			
		

> 4.) The handrails are wrong for more than just the ADA, but, my question is since church owned because it's use is for income to a business, the church's exemption from requirement is removed, correct (yes/no)


 I would tend to agree, but I will defer to those with more experience.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 22, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Curb ramps that force users to cross storm drain water and inlets present risks to pedestrians and wheelers. The grates covering such inlets can catch the casters of wheelchairs or the tips of canes and walkers, causing falls and injuries. Water at the base of curb ramps can obscure the transition from the ramp to the gutter and cause pedestrians to misjudge the terrain.Puddles at the base of curb ramps can also freeze and cause users to slip. Locating drain inlets uphill from curb ramps will reduce the amount of water that collects at the base.


TBZ...again, from what I can see, I would recommend either a switch back design where the landing preceeds the statuary/pole (curb-pins would be needed to keep car overhangs from damaging guard rail), however given your site contraints, perhaps extending the landing at the bottom of the pedestrian ramp as a sidewalk until you are well past the storm inlet which would maintain clearance between parked car overhangs and alleviate the drainage issues that Mark mentioned might be a better and more economical solution at this point (this would also allow you to meet the correct running slope on your curb ramp which you currently noted is non-compliant).


----------



## mark handler (Dec 22, 2011)

ADAAG 504.5 Nosings. The radius of curvature at the leading edge of the tread shall be 1/2 inch (13 mm) maximum. *Nosings that project beyond risers shall have the underside of the leading edge curved or beveled.* Risers shall be permitted to slope under the tread at an angle of 30 degrees maximum from vertical. The permitted projection of the nosing shall extend 1 1/2 inches (38 mm) maximum over the tread below.

ADAAG Advisory 504.4 Tread Surface. Consider providing visual contrast on tread nosings, or at the leading edges of treads without nosings, so that stair treads are more visible for people with low vision







504.5 Nosings.

The radius of curvature at the leading edge of the tread shall be ½ inch (13 mm) maximum. Nosings that project beyond risers shall have the underside of the leading edge curved or beveled. Risers shall be permitted to slope under the tread at an angle of 30 degrees maximum from vertical. The permitted projection of the nosing shall be 1½ inches (38 mm) maximum over the tread or floor below. The leading 2 inches (51 mm) of the tread shall have visual contrast of dark-on-light or light-on-dark from the remainder of the tread.

ICC/ANSI A117.1

Nosing dimensions are important to smooth, stable stairway usage. On descent, an excessively beveled nosing can reduce the available tread depth to the extent that this may cause the foot to pitch forward or slide off the tread. On ascent, these criteria minimize the potential for the toe of a shoe to catch and be held by the underside of the tread above (see commentary Figure C504.5).

The intent of the striping is to allow persons with visual impairments to identify the forward edge or each tread and landing. The change from the level walking surface to steps may be a tripping hazard for persons with visual impairments.


----------



## tbz (Dec 22, 2011)

Papio

Both landings are over 60 x 60

The top is 76 x 96


----------



## mark handler (Dec 22, 2011)

ANSI 117.1 405.7 Landings.

Ramps shall have landings at bottom and top of each ramp run. Landings shall comply with Section 405.7.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 22, 2011)

Ramp

3.) The small ramp does require side curbing (yes/no)?

* Yes but can be a part of the railing*

 4.) If the handrails are installed on the lower ramp then the handrails are required to extend in to the parking lot with extensions (yes/no)?

* yes, but can be rotated 90 degress (perpendicular to ramp) for existing ramps...*

Stairs (which are currently not part of the project)

3.) does the 2010 ADA require the stairs have contrasting lines at the edge?

*Required in ANSI 117.1 Advised in ADAAG*

 4.) The handrails are wrong for more than just the ADA, but, my question is since church owned because it's use is for income to a business, the church's exemption from requirement is removed, correct (yes/no)

*Is the daycare run by the Church? If yes, exempt from ADA but not ANSI 117.1 or state access codes.*

*If no, Not exempt from ADA*


----------



## mark handler (Dec 22, 2011)

Ramp

 3.) The small ramp does require side curbing (yes/no)?

Yes but can be a part of the railing

ANSI 117.1  405.9 Edge Protection. Edge protection complying with Section 405.9.1 or 405.9.2 shall be provided on each side of ramp runs and at each side of ramp landings.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 22, 2011)

tbz said:
			
		

> PapioBoth landings are over 60 x 60
> 
> The top is 76 x 96


You stated earlier that the small (curb) ramp was only 36" (+/-) wide.  From your pictures, the longer ramp does not appear much wider, and unless it is 60" wide, you do not have a 60"x60" wide landing for the change in directions between your two ramps.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 22, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Ramp 3.) The small ramp does require side curbing (yes/no)?
> 
> Yes but can be a part of the railing
> 
> ANSI 117.1  405.9 Edge Protection. Edge protection complying with Section 405.9.1 or 405.9.2 shall be provided on each side of ramp runs and at each side of ramp landings.


Mark, 405.9.2 does not come into play if one of the three exceptions in the charging section (405.9) is applicable.  So the answer could be No, a curb or barrier is not required.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 22, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> So the answer could be No, a curb or barrier is not required.


If you look at the three exceptions  they do not apply to this case, based on the photos and comments


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 22, 2011)

...deleted.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 22, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> If you look at the three exceptions  they do not apply to this case, based on the photos and comments


  But they should be considered, especially given that in his case, the curb ramp and landing is non-compliant and will need to be removed and replaced.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 22, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> exceptions for adjacent grade slope determines whether 405.9.2 for curbs/barriers are a requirement.


I know you think you are right, but if you look at the figure provided you will see the extended flairs are not in play in this case.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 22, 2011)

Help understand why some believe the handrails on the existing steps are required to be brought up to current ADA regs.

Assume the original building was constructed prior to ADA and was code compliant at the time.

Stairs are not part of an accessible route. Yes/No

The installation of an ADA compliant ramp is an accessible route and provides the barrier removal requirement for accessing the building. Yes/No

20% rule does not apply since all the work being done is to improve accessibilty and provide an accessible ramp.

What ADA code section is requiring the Architect as Brudgers pointed out and TBZ's concern to go "beyond the code" and address the handrails on the steps?


----------



## tbz (Dec 22, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> You stated earlier that the small (curb) ramp was only 36" (+/-) wide.  From your pictures, the longer ramp does not appear much wider, and unless it is 60" wide, you do not have a 60"x60" wide landing for the change in directions between your two ramps.


I am still on the fence about the lower landing, the main (upper) ramp is exactly 60" wide, the lower landing is 63" long and 60 inches wide.

My understanding is that the 60" x 60" is clear width between guards, walls or curbs, but handrails can reduce the space is this correct or not?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 22, 2011)

tbz said:
			
		

> I am still on the fence about the lower landing, the main (upper) ramp is exactly 60" wide, the lower landing is 63" long and 60 inches wide.My understanding is that the 60" x 60" is clear width between guards, walls or curbs, but handrails can reduce the space is this correct or not?


Yes, that is correct.  From the pictures shown, it appeared to me to be narrower.

How will you be mounting the guards rails (assuming the guards will act as your curb/barrier) to the ramp and are you going to leave the lower curb ramp running slope as is?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 22, 2011)

tbz said:
			
		

> 1.) my first question is that the picture of the bottom of the ramp ends at a landing, which requires curbing for roll off protection, the client has elected to continue the handrails along the landing to act as the curbing, but has requested the handrails stop prior to descending down from the landing to the parking lot.


Being that I misjudged the landing dimensions in the originial photographs, is this a situation where the grade can not be brought up to the edge of the landing and curb ramp to qualify for one of the exceptions in 405.9?



			
				tbz said:
			
		

> The lower ramp/walkway from the landing to the parking lot exceeds 1:20, is exactly 36.5" wide and does not have a full slope side cut to the parking drain.


And this curb ramp has +4" of rise over what length?



			
				tbz said:
			
		

>


----------



## mark handler (Dec 22, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Help understand why some believe the handrails on the existing steps are required to be brought up to current ADA regs.Assume the original building was constructed prior to ADA and was code compliant at the time.
> 
> Stairs are not part of an accessible route. Yes/No
> 
> ...





			
				tbz said:
			
		

> I will also take input on any other things you see jumping out at you.Thanks


*Why,  Because the OP requested  imput*

*Stairs can be a part of an access route. Think canes and walkers .....*

*Not everyone that is disabled needs a ramp, that is why stairs are a part of ANSI117.1 and ADA *


----------



## mark handler (Dec 22, 2011)

tbz said:
			
		

> I am still on the fence about the lower landing, the main (upper) ramp is exactly 60" wide, the lower landing is 63" long and 60 inches wide.My understanding is that the 60" x 60" is clear width between guards, walls or curbs, but handrails can reduce the space is this correct or not?


Handrails can .... but there is nothing in the code that allows the vertical supports in encroach. If the concrete is 60 inches you cannot put the verticals in that 60"


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 22, 2011)

> *Stairs can be a part of an access route. Think canes and walkers .....*


There is no definition that I can find for an accessible route in ANSI.

Every exception to the accessible route requirements are for raised floor areas, mezzanines or other stories.

Stairs can be accessible but that does not make them comp[liant with the accessible route requirements.

ADA

3.5 Definitions.

_Accessible Route._ A continuous unobstructed path connecting all accessible elements and spaces of a building or facility. Interior accessible routes may include corridors, floors, ramps, elevators, lifts, and clear floor space at fixtures. Exterior accessible routes may include parking access aisles, curb ramps, crosswalks at vehicular ways, walks, ramps, and lifts.

A4.9 Stairs.

A4.9.1 Minimum Number. Only interior and exterior stairs connecting levels that are not connected by an elevator, ramp, or other accessible means of vertical access have to comply with 4.9.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 22, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Help understand why some believe the handrails on the existing steps are required to be brought up to current ADA regs. Assume the original building was constructed prior to ADA and was code compliant at the time.


  Because the period for items being grandfathered in to ADA is past...by about 20 years...and ADA Title III requires the ongoing removal of architectural barriers.


----------



## Jim B (Dec 30, 2011)

I don’t know what the NJ Building Code states, but IBC 2009 Chapter 10 *never *references ANSI A117.1-2003 for stair requirements.

Just because ANSI A117.1-2003 has reference to a specific fixture or feature, it is only applicable if referenced from the building code.

The same this with nosing on stair treads. If you read IBC 2009, 1009.4.5, a stair tread may be vertical OR sloped. Nosing is not required. Although IRC 2009 311.7.4.3 does require nosing.

I recall back when ANSI A117.1-1998 referred to horizontal handrail extensions at the bottom of stairs. In my area of my state it seemed that they always being called out; but they were *never *required!  Check the scoping of the IBC before you require ANSI A117.1 standards.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 30, 2011)

Jim B said:
			
		

> I don’t know what the NJ Building Code states, but IBC 2009 Chapter 10 *never *references ANSI A117.1-2003 for stair requirements.


Maybe I missed the boat (mine is still a 2006 model), and if so, I am okay with it, but doesn't Section 1007 (1007.2 Continuity and Components) say that means of egress shall comply with Section 1104?  Granted there are some exceptions, but part of 1104 compliance is also governed by the charging/scoping Section in 1101.2, which specifically states that buildings and facilities shall be constructed as accessible in accordance with this Chapter and ANSI A117.1.  IMHO, that says if that exit stairway is required to be accessible by Chapters 10 or  11, then that stairway shall comply with ANSI A117.1...just because that is what Chapter 11 requires.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 30, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> There is no definition that I can find for an accessible route in ANSI.


I don't use the ANSI or ADA to define accessible route requirements, rather I use Chapter 11 in the 2006 IBC.  Chapter 11 defines 'accessible route' as a continuous, unobstructed, path that complies with this chapter.  "This chapter" says that path shall be constructed as accessible in accordance with this code and ANSI.   Does an accessible means of egress in a vertical exit enclosure/exit stairway not have to comply with ANSI?


----------



## mark handler (Dec 30, 2011)

Jim B said:
			
		

> I don’t know what the NJ Building Code states, but IBC 2009 Chapter 10 *never *references ANSI A117.1-2003 for stair requirements.Just because ANSI A117.1-2003 has reference to a specific fixture or feature, it is only applicable if referenced from the building code.
> 
> The same this with nosing on stair treads. If you read IBC 2009, 1009.4.5, a stair tread may be vertical OR sloped. Nosing is not required. Although IRC 2009 311.7.4.3 does require nosing.
> 
> I recall back when ANSI A117.1-1998 referred to horizontal handrail extensions at the bottom of stairs. In my area of my state it seemed that they always being called out; but they were *never *required!  Check the scoping of the IBC before you require ANSI A117.1 standards.


ICC/ANSI A117.1-03 Referenced reference in *2006 IBC *code number Title section number .....

406.2.2, 907.9.1.4,1007.6.5,

1010.1, 1010.6.5, 1010.9, 1011.3, 1101.2, 1102.1, 1103.2.14,

1106.7, 1107.2, 1108.2.2, 1109.1, 1109.2, 1109.2.1.1, 1109.2.2, 1109.3,

1109.4, 1109.8, 3001.3, 3409.6, 3409.8.2, 3409.8.3

ICC/ANSI A117.1-03 Referenced reference in *2009 IBC *code number Title section number .....

406.2.2,907.5.2.3.4, 1007.9, 1010.1, 1010.6.5,

1010.9,1011.3,1022.8,1101.2,1102.1,1104.4,1106.7,1107.2,

1108.2.2,1108.2.3,1108.4.1.1,1108.4.1.2, 1108.4.1.4, 1108.4.1.5, 1109.1,

1109.2, 1109.2.1.1, 1109.2.2, 1109.2.3, 1109.3, 1109.4, 1109.8, 1109.13,

2902.4,3001.3,3008.13.1,3008.13.2,3411.6,3411.8.2, 3411.8.3, E101.2, E104.2,

E104.2.1, E104.3, E104.3.4, E105.1, E105.2.1, E105.2.2, E105.3, E105.4, E105.6,

E106.2, E106.3, E106.4, E106.4.9, E106.5, E107.2, E107.3, E108.3, E108.4, E109.2.1,

E109.2.2.1, E109.2.2.2, E109.2.2.3, E109.2.3, E109.2.5, E109.2.6, E109.2.8, E110.2, E110.4


----------



## Jim B (Dec 31, 2011)

The following is based on IBC 2009 and ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003:


As noted with 1007.2, accessible means of egress shall comply with 1104. 

1104 tells you where an accessible route is required, *not *how to provide it.

1102 defines that this accessible route complies with this chapter

1101.2 then states that “nut and bolt” will come from ANSI A117.1-2003

As Mark has noted, IBC 2009 is referenced in Chapter 10 in these sections only: 1007.9, 1010.1, 1010.6.5, 1010.9,1011.3,1022.8. *None *of these sections are in regards to stairways or nosing

ANSI A117.1-2003 does provide a guideline for what an accessible route is:

_ANSI A117.1-2003, 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._

As per this ANSI section, there is no reference to stairs as part of an accessible route, only walking surfaces, doors, doorways, ramp, curb ramps, elevators and platform lifts. This section then goes further to state that the components of “accessible routes” shall comply with the applicable portion of this standard.

I cannot see where stairs are required to be part of an accessible routes. What am I missing?


----------



## mark handler (Dec 31, 2011)

An accessible route does not include stairs, steps, or escalators.

Never have but There are more disabilities than wheelchair type users. That is why we have the Areas of Rescue Assistance. There are still accessibility requirements for "non accessible route" elements.

The ANSI 117.1 stair requirements benefit people who have difficulty walking or using stairs, some states have adopted all the 117.1 requirements, and if owners want to avoid lawsuits they will follow the 117.1 or ADAAG stair requirements


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jan 3, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> An accessible route does not include stairs, steps, or escalators.Never have but There are more disabilities than wheelchair type users. That is why we have the Areas of Rescue Assistance. There are still accessibility requirements for "non accessible route" elements.
> 
> The ANSI 117.1 stair requirements benefit people who have difficulty walking or using stairs, some states have adopted all the 117.1 requirements, and if owners want to avoid lawsuits they will follow the 117.1 or ADAAG stair requirements


Good morning Mark.  I think I woke up on the confused side of the bed again.  Please help with the logic.  If a stairway is not part of an accessible route, and 1104.4 exempts the accessible route connection between floors, then second floor still has to provide accessible routes per chapter 11 (i.e., door approach clearances, reach ranges, toilet facilities, etc.), but may omit connections such as lifts, ramps and elevators?  It strikes me as the same logic which says, if you don't have an accessible entrance, what good is an accessible toilet.

Thanks again for any clarification, your insight is always much appreciated and indelible.


----------



## Jim B (Jan 3, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept,

I know that you have asked this question of Mark:

But there are exceptions under IBC 2009; 1104 for providing accessible routes to non-grade level floors.

Keep in mind that these exceptions are only for accessible routes, not other features or fixtures specified in Chapter 11 unless specified. The concept is that an accessible route (ramps, sloped surfaces) tends to benefit wheelchair users while a person may have a visual or hearing impairment or may be on crutches and may still navigate stairs.

Also in the future, there may be an addition that will drive accessible routes to these levels; if so, the features and fixtures are already accessible.

Also, as per my previous posts, if your jurisdiction has adopted the I-Codes and the reference standards that the IBC may refer to, then the stairs that you have questioned do not need to meet ANSI A117.1-2003 requirements since IBC Chapter 10 *never *references ANSI A117.1-2003 for stairs.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jan 3, 2012)

Jim B said:
			
		

> Papio Bldg Dept,I know that you have asked this question of Mark:
> 
> But there are exceptions under IBC 2009; 1104 for providing accessible routes to non-grade level floors.
> 
> ...


Thanks Jim.  I appreciate your patience, however, I still find it illogical (and yes I follow the line of code in what is referenced and not referenced) that the accessibility standards are applied to everything but the stairs, especially, in multi-level exemptions.  As Mark said, there are other forms of disabilities to which the ANSI standards are designed to aide.  I will sleep on it I guess, and hopefully when I wake up tomorrow morning eureka, I will have reconciled how a 3,000 SF, 2nd Floor, Non-Medical B Occupancy, is permitted to have a means of egress component that does not meet the specifications of the ANSI A117.1 (only a 48" width minimum and an area of refuge as required) because it is not considered an accessible route component and is not referenced in Chapter 10.  If not, maybe I will ask the dentist for an extra shot of novicaine to take the edge off what seems to me a code loop-hole/over-sight.


----------



## imhotep (Jan 3, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Thanks Jim.  I appreciate your patience, however, I still find it illogical (and yes I follow the line of code in what is referenced and not referenced) that the accessibility standards are applied to everything but the stairs, especially, in multi-level exemptions.  As Mark said, there are other forms of disabilities to which the ANSI standards are designed to aide.  I will sleep on it I guess, and hopefully when I wake up tomorrow morning eureka, I will have reconciled how a 3,000 SF, 2nd Floor, Non-Medical B Occupancy, is permitted to have a means of egress component that does not meet the specifications of the ANSI A117.1 (only a 48" width minimum and an area of refuge as required) because it is not considered an accessible route component and is not referenced in Chapter 10.  If not, maybe I will ask the dentist for an extra shot of novicaine to take the edge off what seems to me a code loop-hole/over-sight.


Section 1007.3 addresses accessible means of egress stairways.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 3, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Good morning Mark.  I think I woke up on the confused side of the bed again.  Please help with the logic.  If a stairway is not part of an accessible route, and 1104.4 exempts the accessible route connection between floors, then second floor still has to provide accessible routes per chapter 11 (i.e., door approach clearances, reach ranges, toilet facilities, etc.), but may omit connections such as lifts, ramps and elevators?  It strikes me as the same logic which says, if you don't have an accessible entrance, what good is an accessible toilet.Thanks again for any clarification, your insight is always much appreciated and indelible.


Accessible toilet facilities, door approach clearances, reach ranges, and other features are not just for the wheelchair users.

Yes. the IBC Chapter 10 never references ANSI A117.1-2003 for stairs. Stairs are not a part of an Accessible Route in any of the codes or standards.

ADAAG Accessible Route.

A continuous unobstructed path connecting all accessible elements and spaces of a building or facility. Interior accessible routes may include corridors, floors, ramps, elevators, lifts, and clear floor space at fixtures. Exterior accessible routes may include parking access aisles, curb ramps, crosswalks at vehicular ways, walks, ramps, and lifts.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 3, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> I still find it illogical


  The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience... The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.]


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jan 4, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience... The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.]


thanks for the link, but you left out my favorite, and more telling, part brudgers..."The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, and even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a good deal more to do than syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed."

I guess I still feel/believe (my own personal prejudice if you will) that if occupants (non-wheelchair occupants) with disabilities are going to use stairs, then the stairs should adhere to the accessibility standards...for stairs.  I also feel/believe that as it is only my opinion, and not the codes/laws adopted, I will not enforce that section/standard in the A117.1, as I am not charged to by the IBC.

If that section of ANSI stair code could talk I would ask it, 'what would you say you do here?'


----------



## mark handler (Jan 4, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience... The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.]


Bad Link...


----------



## gbhammer (Jan 4, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience... The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.]


 "At the end of the day when you're all alone in the dark,

              the only thing that counts... is this: the Law.

              And you will be alone when you swear to uphold these ideals."

Quote From a Great Movie staring a Great Actor. lol:lol:


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jan 4, 2012)

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jan 4, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> "At the end of the day when you're all alone in the dark,              the only thing that counts... is this: the Law.
> 
> And you will be alone when you swear to uphold these ideals."
> 
> Quote From a Great Movie staring a Great Actor. lol:lol:


A dredd-ful quote by a less than adroit actor.


----------



## gbhammer (Jan 4, 2012)

What are you talking about he is a great comedic actor.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jan 4, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> What are you talking about he is a great comedic actor.


Sly Stallone?  He was funny in Deathrace 2000, but I guess I stand alone.


----------



## gbhammer (Jan 4, 2012)

Hm I thought that was a dramatic role, you know as a kid back then I thought that movie was real somewhere.

All in all he has made so many roles into a joke that he has to be a comedian.

I like watching his films, and chuckling.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 4, 2012)

> If that section of ANSI stair code could talk I would ask it, 'what would you say you do here?'


The minor differences between ANSI A117 and the IBC Chapter 10 could almost be covered under "construction tolerances" ( max nosing radius comes to mind) major differences will be worked out in future code adoptions.


----------

