# Accessible  Parking  Spaces & Accessible  Routes



## north star (Oct 3, 2019)

*> * > * >*

I have an existing facility that will be adding additional
Parking Spaces, to include additional ADA \ Accessible
Parking Spaces........The total number of Accessible
Parking Spaces (5) will be located nearest to the
Accessible entrance in to the facility.

When constructed, all 5 Pkg. Spaces will require the
vehicle occupants to travel \ navigate behind their vehicles
to an Accessible Ramp at the sidewalk.......This travel
route will require encroachment in to the vehicle travel lane.

*QUESTION # 1:* Is the travel route behind the vehicles
"required" to be clearly marked as part of the Accessible route
to the bldg. entrance ?
*QUESTION # 2:*  If "Yes" to Question # 1, what are the
dimensions of the Accessible route & what Code section or
sections are applicable ?

Thanks for any input !

*< * < * <*


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 3, 2019)

No, no requirement, drive aisles where their is no direct pedestrian POT are allowed to be used for transitioning from the vehicle to the bldg. entrance. Make sure the drivers side on vans is not up against a wall or planted area for ease in exiting the vehicle. Marking of walkways, though not required, is a property owners decision and may help to calm traffic.


----------



## north star (Oct 3, 2019)

*< * < * < **

ADAguy,

Thanks for your reply !

So that I am clear on your reply, ...you are saying
that even though all 5 Pkg. Spaces will require the
vehicle occupants to exit their vehicles, travel
behind all 5 spaces & encroach in to a vehicle travel
lane to an to an Access Ramp "down the way",
that there are no requirements for marking \ creating
a clearly defined \ marked Accessible route ?
The planned new Access Ramp will not be located
within the grouping of the 5 Pkg. Spaces, rather it
is planned to be constructed at the end of a new
sidewalk.

To me, this sure seems counter-intuitive to all of
the other ADA \ Accessibility requirements.

Thanks !

*> * > * >*


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 3, 2019)

Yes, but not required by ADA, a best practice, the right thing to do (maybe) but what then of passengers without vision?
Reconsider your layout if possible so that a safe POT occurs in front of the spaces?
Also, what id a van has a rear ramp vs a side, not addressed in ADA (they came later)


----------



## north star (Oct 3, 2019)

*> + > + >*

O.K., ...Much Thanks for your replies !  

*< + < + <*


----------



## JPohling (Oct 3, 2019)

I am not sure where you are located but in California you would not be able to locate the spaces such that a disabled person would need to travel behind any car other than their own.  11B-502.7.1.   There is no code requirement to stripe the path, only the access aisle at the parking space.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 4, 2019)

*2010 ADASAD Advisory 502.3 Access Aisle.* Accessible routes must connect parking spaces to accessible entrances. *In parking facilities where the accessible route must cross vehicular traffic lanes, marked crossings enhance pedestrian safety, particularly for people using wheelchairs and other mobility aids. Where possible, it is preferable that the accessible route not pass behind parked vehicles.*


----------



## MtnArch (Oct 4, 2019)

Here's the actual verbiage from the CBC that JPohling mentioned:

*11B-502.7.1 Arrangement*

Parking spaces and access aisles shall be designed so that persons using them are not required to travel behind parking spaces other than to pass behind the parking space in which they parked.


----------



## north star (Oct 4, 2019)

*& = & = &*

Once again, I am reviewing plans for a military facility.
California regulations & standards will not be applicable.

While "Best Practices & Advisories" could be recommended,
I would need specific codes \ standards sections in order for
me to include them in my Comments to Military Leadership
& the RDP's........The "Best Practices & Advisories" would go
unheeded, as it would cause a VERY untimely delay in the
bidding, and could possibly cause a re-design to increase
the vehicle travel lane width "in question".

Thanks to all for your replies !   

*& = & = &*


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 7, 2019)

Ok, in your case, ADASAD, ANSI or ICC do not call for nor require marking of POT's in parking lots or anywhere else.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 7, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> Ok, in your case, ADASAD, ANSI or ICC do not call for nor require marking of POT's in parking lots or anywhere else.


You are right, not required, *But, Recommended *in the 2010 ADASAD Advisory, and I have dealt with an insurance company, because of *risk management*, require it of their client.

*Remember, code is MINIMUM.*


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 7, 2019)

MH, his issue unlike ours is that his a T-II issue, not a T-III. 
It would appear that the military wants the T's crossed and the I's dotted.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 7, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> MH, his issue unlike ours is that his a T-II issue, not a T-III.
> It would appear that the military wants the T's crossed and the I's dotted.


*2015 Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Standards 
SAME AS WITH THE ADASAD
Advisory 502.3 Access Aisle.* Accessible routes must connect parking spaces to accessible entrances. *In parking facilities where the accessible route must cross vehicular traffic lanes, marked crossings enhance pedestrian safety, particularly for people using wheelchairs and other mobility aids. Where possible, it is preferable that the accessible route not pass behind parked vehicles.*

*Advisable NOT REQUIRED*


----------



## Yikes (Oct 7, 2019)

Slightly off-topic, and specific to California - -  while California prohibits a parking POT from passing behind another parked car:
1.  There is nothing in 11B-502.7.1 that states how far behind is "behind enough" to be safe.  Is 50 feet enough? 10 feet?  I've had some AHJ's say that it has to be at least equal to the back-out space required by their local planning code.
2.  Interestingly, there is no prohibition for the POT_ from the public right-of-way_ (or any other POT) to travel behind a parked car.  The only prohibition is for an accessible parking stall's POT to travel behind another parking stall.
I saw a project where the POT from an accessible apartment to the accessible swimming pool went through the drive aisle, directly behind the parked cars.  There was nothing in the California code that prohibited this.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 7, 2019)

Nor in ADASAD which it is based on.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 8, 2019)

Yikes said:


> There was nothing in the California code that prohibited this.


Remember; *Code establishes the minimum requirements*, if a safer route is available or possible, the Owner and Designer can be sued.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 8, 2019)

as always in the event of an accident, "it depends" on many things. (ie: the Ghost fire in Oakland - in spite of all the failure to comply it appears that they may be getting off!!!????)


----------

