# Access ramp



## Msradell (Oct 22, 2011)

One of the local governmental entities has built a large curved ramp to access a bridge across the Ohio River that will be used as a pedestrian walkway.  The total curvature of the ramp is about 360° and the total rise is about 25 feet.  The slope of the ramp appears to be within the allowable slope and it's about 8 feet wide so that's not a problem.  The ramp however is continuous with no landings which I believe violates the regulation: 405.6 Rise. The rise for any ramp run shall be 30 inches (760 mm) maximum.  Since they are a government entity they have not gone through the traditional permitting/inspection process.  I've attached a couple of pictures below.Here's an aerial view.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 1092

	

		
			
		

		
	
Here is an end view of the bridge prior to the construction of the ramp.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 1093


View attachment 1600


View attachment 1601


View attachment 1600


View attachment 1601


/monthly_2011_10/572953e40e517_Rampaerial.JPG.796ea3a35c23687c531623e71242530e.JPG

/monthly_2011_10/572953e4100dd_Rampendview.JPG.1d95fac4ea178c979db808680af65a3a.JPG


----------



## mark handler (Oct 22, 2011)

ADAAG

405.6 Rise. The rise for any ramp run shall be 30 inches maximum.

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

405.7.3 Length. The landing clear length shall be 60 inches long minimum.

*So yes, does not comply with ADA*


----------



## mark handler (Oct 22, 2011)

ICC/ANSI A117.1

405.6 Rise. The rise for any ramp run shall be 30 inches maximum.

405.7.3 Length. Landings shall have a clear length of 60 inches minimum.

*So yes, does not comply with ICC/ANSI A117.1*


----------



## Msradell (Oct 22, 2011)

Thanks for confirming my thoughts.  I'm sure some people are not going to be happy hearing for me next week!


----------



## mark handler (Oct 22, 2011)

Msradell said:
			
		

> Thanks for confirming my thoughts.  I'm sure some people are not going to be happy hearing for me next week!


Tell them an elevator is safer and cheaper


----------



## brudgers (Oct 22, 2011)

Looks like it is probably less than 1:20 slope and therefore not a ramp.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 22, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Looks like it is probably less than 1:20 slope and therefore not a ramp.


1:20 or less

25 ft rise

500+ LF


----------



## ICE (Oct 22, 2011)

It looks like about 800' of walkway.


----------



## Msradell (Oct 23, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Tell them an elevator is safer and cheaper


That's my thought exactly, there's at least 25 feet of rise so they probably would need at least 10 landings.  I don't think those could be added to the side of the ramp while respecting the required cross slope angles.  An elevator would probably be cheaper and easier.  They haven't done anything on the other end yet so hopefully they will consider of all the requirements when doing that side.

I estimated about 700 feet so it's somewhere around there.  An awful long ramp!


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Oct 23, 2011)

Take this design to the next step; should all accessible parking spaces be located at the shortest route to the elevator and pedestrian path including additional parking provided at all (public facilities) buildings?

It appears to have more than enough spaces for A117.1 except at the structure on the right side of the aerial photo but are they located correctly in your opinion?


----------



## Msradell (Oct 23, 2011)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> Take this design to the next step; should all accessible parking spaces be located at the shortest route to the elevator and pedestrian path including additional parking provided at all (public facilities) buildings?It appears to have more than enough spaces for A117.1 except at the structure on the right side of the aerial photo but are they located correctly in your opinion?


The parking area on the right was preexisting for another part of the waterfront park.  The one in the middle of the ramp is the one that was added as part of this project.  I do not believe that the handicapped spaces are correctly located but that's actually nothing very unusual!


----------



## brudgers (Oct 23, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Tell them an elevator is safer and cheaper


   Definitely not safer to put people in a small unattended enclosure. Definitely not cheaper to provide 100% uptime with an elevator either.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 23, 2011)

Msradell said:
			
		

> That's my thought exactly, there's at least 25 feet of rise so they probably would need at least 10 landings.  I don't think those could be added to the side of the ramp while respecting the required cross slope angles.  An elevator would probably be cheaper and easier.  They haven't done anything on the other end yet so hopefully they will consider of all the requirements when doing that side.  I estimated about 700 feet so it's somewhere around there.  An awful long ramp!


  Again, it's not a ramp no matter how many times you call it one...but you have to read all of the code.


----------



## Msradell (Oct 23, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Again, it's not a ramp no matter how many times you call it one...but you have to read all of the code.


OK, maybe it's not a ramp is the slope is less than 1:20 but it's certainly not flat.  It would certainly be extremely difficult for the majority of wheelchair users to climb the ramp from bottom to top without resting.  Do they assume somebody will turn sideways to rest?


----------



## ICE (Oct 23, 2011)

Msradell said:
			
		

> OK, maybe it's not a ramp is the slope is less than 1:20 but it's certainly not flat.  It would certainly be extremely difficult for the majority of wheelchair users to climb the ramp from bottom to top without resting.  Do they assume somebody will turn sideways to rest?


Wheel chairs have brakes for breaks.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 23, 2011)

Msradell said:
			
		

> OK, maybe it's not a ramp is the slope is less than 1:20 but it's certainly not flat.  It would certainly be extremely difficult for the majority of wheelchair users to climb the ramp from bottom to top without resting.  Do they assume somebody will turn sideways to rest?


   I don't know, why don't you ask them?


----------



## fireguy (Oct 23, 2011)

You need a ramp at the bottom, so the skaterboarders can get enough air to clear the big trucks on the roadway.


----------



## TJacobs (Oct 24, 2011)

Take a SmartLevel and check the ramp for slope...


----------



## jim baird (Oct 24, 2011)

If less slope than 1:20 it is not a ramp, it is a sidewalk, and as such is "street legal".  Brudgers has it right.


----------



## High Desert (Oct 24, 2011)

jim baird said:
			
		

> If less slope than 1:20 it is not a ramp, it is a sidewalk, and as such is "street legal".  Brudgers has it right.


Jim and brudgers are right

1:20 or less in slope can go on for eternity and not require landings. You can only require landings when it exceeds 1:20 and it becomes a ramp.


----------



## imhotep (Oct 24, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> 1:20 or less25 ft rise
> 
> 500+ LF


Where does this come from?


----------



## mark handler (Oct 24, 2011)

imhotep said:
			
		

> Where does this come from?


1:20 or less>>>>> Definition of a ramp>>>>Code and ADAAG

 25 ft rise>>>>>>OP

 500+ LF>>>>>>Estimate of Ramp at 1:20


----------



## alora (Oct 24, 2011)

imhotep said:
			
		

> Where does this come from?


1:20 = 25':500'

If the path is longer, then the slope is less than 1:20.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 24, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> 1:20 = 25':500'If the path is longer, then the slope is less than 1:20.


Yes        .


----------



## gbhammer (Oct 24, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> 1:20 = 25':500'If the path is longer, then the slope is less than 1:20.


The walk at that length should be less than 1:20 if they maintain the run at the same rate of rise throughout the walk. The question is, do they?


----------



## mark handler (Oct 24, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> The walk at that length should be less than 1:20 if they maintain the run at the same rate of rise throughout the walk. The question is, do they?


A walk with multiple slopes, as long as they are all less than 1:20, is still a walk and not a ramp and is not code violation.


----------



## gbhammer (Oct 24, 2011)

My point was that if the ramp is exactly 500' long then there is no room for error, and even at 700' they may not have maitained the rise at 1:20 throughout. It should be checked.


----------



## imhotep (Oct 24, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> 1:20 or less>>>>> Definition of a ramp>>>>Code and ADAAG 25 ft rise>>>>>>OP
> 
> 500+ LF>>>>>>Estimate of Ramp at 1:20


Nitwit me I thought you were asserting that for slopes of 1:20 or less there is a maximum 25' rise and 500 LF run.


----------



## jim baird (Oct 25, 2011)

BTW IMHO the aerial layout looks like they "went to lengths" to minimize the slope with the area they had to work with.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Oct 25, 2011)

I have never heard of a "notta" ramp before.  Not sure a "notta" ramp is addressed in the ADA or A117.1 and I can't find a definition.  Whatever it is, It doesn't need landings as HD, JB and Brudgers so wonderfully pointed out.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 25, 2011)

jim baird said:
			
		

> BTW IMHO the aerial layout looks like they "went to lengths" to minimize the slope with the area they had to work with.


   It still looks like they face an uphill battle.


----------



## pmarx (Nov 8, 2011)

Yeah but on the plus side the skateboarders should love it.


----------



## martinpgrant (Nov 9, 2011)

High Desert said:
			
		

> Jim and brudgers are right1:20 or less in slope can go on for eternity and not require landings. You can only require landings when it exceeds 1:20 and it becomes a ramp.


In CA, have to have a 5-ft level at intervals of 400-ft max on any walks with continuous gradients (even if not a ramp). Not sure if this is in Federal ADA or your local codes, but you may want to double check. (CA code reference is 1133B.7.5.)


----------



## mark handler (Nov 9, 2011)

martinpgrant said:
			
		

> In CA, have to have a 5-ft level at intervals of 400-ft max on any walks with continuous gradients (even if not a ramp). Not sure if this is in Federal ADA or your local codes, but you may want to double check. (CA code reference is 1133B.7.5.)


Martin,

That is just a CA thing, not in the 2010 ADAAG, Ansi 117.1 or the IBC

 and the proposed project is not in CA


----------



## martinpgrant (Nov 9, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Martin, That is just a CA thing, not in the 2010 ADAAG, Ansi 117.1 or the IBC
> 
> and the proposed project is not in CA


Thanks - currently studying for CASp so need all the info I can get on ADA discussions right now!


----------

