# When can I call it "curb ramp" instead of a "ramp"?



## Yikes (Jan 16, 2015)

I have a client (a city in California) that wants to retrofit its existing, very small council chambers with a 6" raised dias (platform) for councilpersons.

A 1:12 conventional ramp is just too big for the space (further explanation below).

An alternative would be if I could use a "curb ramp", which CBC 202 defines as "A sloping pedestrian way, intended for pedestrian traffic, which provides access between a walk or sidewalk and a surface located above or below an adjacent curb face. "

QUESTION:  Can I just call it a "curb ramp" instead, and build it as per CBC (and ADA) 11B-406.2, without providing side flares?

Is there any requirement that a Curb Ramp must be outdoors, or must be related to cars and traffic, or roadways?

Detailed comparison of options:

a) A 1:12 conventional ramp (CBC 11B-405) will be 6' long x 4' wide, but the top landing must be 5'x5' wide and the total length including landings is 6+6+5 = 17' long.

b) A 1:19.9 non-ramp must be 44" wide x 10'+ long.  This sloped area is too long to function in the room, which has rolling chairs nearby on the dias.

c) A 1:12 perpendicular curb ramp (CBC  11B-406.2) will be 6' long, with top and bottom landings 4' wide x 4' long, total length 14'.  The 4' wide landing (instead of 5' in option (a) above works for this space.


----------



## steveray (Jan 16, 2015)

I wouldn't let you call it a curb ramp unless there was a curb...and a sidewalk....But I would look for exceptions in Ch 11 or wherever you CA folks go...


----------



## jdfruit (Jan 16, 2015)

Yikes; here are the CBC definitions

202: CURB RAMP. A sloping pedestrian way, intended for pedestrian traffic, which provides access between a walk or sidewalk and a surface located above or below an adjacent curb face.

202: SIDEWALK. A surfaced pedestrian way contiguous to a street used by the public. (As differentiated from the definition of “Walk”.)

202: WALK. [DSA-AC] An exterior prepared surface for pedestrian use, including pedestrian areas such as plazas and courts. (As differentiated from the definition of “Sidewalk”.)

For a design solution in a constricted space; consider a lift, it is allowed for this work scope condition.

11B-206.7 Platform lifts. ... Platform lifts shall be permitted as a component of an accessible route in an existing building or facility.

There are quite a few manufacturers and types available, some that are "disappearing" and look like a step set when not in use.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 16, 2015)

I don't know what CA uses but ANSI A 117.1 Table 405.2 permits a slope of 1:10 for a max 6" rise and a 1:8 for a max 3' rise due to space limitations in existing buildings.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 16, 2015)

Thanks, jdfruit.  I forgot to look up the CBC 202 definition of "walk", which clearly limits it to exterior conditions.

This raises another question: what about all the curb ramps I've seen inside parking garages?  Was that an improper application of code?

Question about platform lifts:  do they have to be permanent, or can the city purchase a portable lift and keep it on-site in a nearby storage closet?

The only people who use the dias are the city councilpersons and the city attorney, so they will know and schedule well in advance if the maintenance staff need to bring it out prior to the meeting.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 16, 2015)

mtlog cabin, this is a renovation installing a new platform in the existing building, so we have to deal with the 1:12 limitation.  The buildign is not old enough to be historic or utilize such alternative codes.


----------



## jdfruit (Jan 16, 2015)

Yikes

Open parking garages are kinda sorta like you know, outside? Well until the AHJ realizes the curb ramp is inside a building structure.

Recommend a permanent installation; I have seen too many portables forgotten or lost in the last 20 years. During a transition plan update for a City found the lift got sold from City to County (I think the old City maintenance chief got hired by the County).

BTW; haven't found a portable that meets the code requirements that is really portable.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 16, 2015)

Yikes said:
			
		

> mtlog cabin, this is a renovation installing a new platform in the existing building, so we have to deal with the 1:12 limitation.  The buildign is not old enough to be historic or utilize such alternative codes.


Does not need to be historic only existing

405.2 Slope.

Ramp runs shall have a running slope not steeper than 1:12.

EXCEPTION: In existing buildings or facilities, ramps shall be permitted to have slopes steeper than 1:12 complying with Table 405.2 where such slopes are necessary due to space limitations.


----------



## jdfruit (Jan 16, 2015)

CA has amended the ADA in a few areas, mostly because the prior codes going back to 1982 (the start of "handicap" code requirements in CA) had some specifics that were deemed to provide greater access. 405.2 in CA doesn't recognize the exception.

11B-405.2 Slope. Ramp runs shall have a running slope not steeper than 1:12.

Exception: Reserved.

Advisory 11B-405.2 Slope. To accommodate the widest range of users, provide ramps with the least possible running slope and, wherever possible, accompany ramps with stairs for use by those individuals for whom distance presents a greater barrier than steps, e.g., people with heart disease or limited stamina.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 16, 2015)

Glad I don't work or live in CA. Seems to be more restrictive then the rest of the country.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 17, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Glad I don't work or live in CA. Seems to be more restrictive then the rest of the country.


That's why we are the most populas state in the nation, becase everyone hates living here. And  with all the over regulation California is*Once Again the*World's*8 th*Largest Economy.

I agree with jim, there is no CA exception. There are nice lifts out there now.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jan 17, 2015)

Think about how great California would be WITHOUT the over-regulation. We might not be stuck at 8th.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 17, 2015)

Yikes said:
			
		

> I have a client (a city in California) that wants to retrofit its existing, very small council chambers with a 6" raised dias (platform) for councilpersons.A 1:12 conventional ramp is just too big for the space (further explanation below).
> 
> An alternative would be if I could use a "curb ramp", which CBC 202 defines as "A sloping pedestrian way, intended for pedestrian traffic, which provides access between a walk or sidewalk and a surface located above or below an adjacent curb face. "
> 
> ...


Remember this vid posted last year.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 17, 2015)

mark handler said:
			
		

> That's why we are the most populas state in the nation, becase everyone hates living here. And  with all the over regulation California is*Once Again the*World's*8 th*Largest Economy.


 Do a Google search and you will find out you are loosing numbers in the middle class. I hear CA has a lot of variable things that make it attractive to a wide variety of people to entice them to come, How many stay versus how many have to leave after a few years. Large welfare programs become un-sustainable when the middle class numbers leave. As for the 8th largest economy I believe you are near the edge for bankruptcy and was looking to the rest of us to bail you out a while back.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jan 17, 2015)

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21595005-california-has-won-breathing-space-under-jerry-brown-now-he-should-tackle-taxes-debt-and-red

When you over regulate, you create enclaves of wealth, and huge amounts of poor.

Brent.


----------



## ICE (Jan 17, 2015)

I deleted the *"**Words, some with lots of letters and stuff.**"*

Because it was an ugly truth.  Too ugly for a building code forum.  I'll leave it as Brent says.... It's big brother's fault.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jan 17, 2015)

ICE said:
			
		

> *Words, some with lots of letters and stuff.*


http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16082&p=140071#post140071

Brent.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 19, 2015)

I know we are straying a bit from the original topic, but I do wish there were some studies that could indicate or quantify what % of persons with disabilities have been adversely affected by  a slope steeper than 1:12 in existing buildings.  One does wonder how people in the other 49 states manage.


----------

