# Purpose of curb ramp wings?



## Yikes (Sep 9, 2019)

Looking for opinions:
1. Why do curb ramps have side wings?  At 10% slope, they are technically too steep for a wheelchair.  Is it just to keep pedestrians from tripping over an abrupt edge?
2.  If the wings do not serve a functional purpose for wheelchairs, then on a public street corner would it be OK to have items such as a flush pull box lid or even an existing power pole or traffic signal pole be located within the wing area?


----------



## JPohling (Sep 9, 2019)

Many curb ramps are done without the wings as just a straight shot with a tapered "step" along the edges.  
I would not have any problem with the lid or pole in the flat section adjacent to the ramp section in this arrangement.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 10, 2019)

A lot of people trip and fall on the curbs created without the flares.
you have that drop off...

Even with flares this is dangerous, who was the rocket scientist on this one...


----------



## Yikes (Sep 10, 2019)

Mark, in the scenario in your photo, would it be acceptable (meet ADA and 11B) to have a utility pole in the wing/flare area?


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 10, 2019)

Grooves are no longer allowed in CA.
Actually it would be better if the flare slope was decreased to <5% to minimize tripping and better assist WC's except the flair may cause an imbalance to a chair when initially transitioning from the flat to the slope.


----------



## my250r11 (Sep 10, 2019)

Good question. We have several in our city that have been redone over the last year or so and they look just like the one you posted or even back up to the 6" and down again for the other direction. Seems to me would make more sense to keep the whole area lowered to prevent tripping or bouncing a tire off of it.




mark handler said:


> A lot of people trip and fall on the curbs created without the flares.
> you have that drop off...
> 
> Even with flares this is dangerous, who was the rocket scientist on this one...


----------



## Yikes (Sep 10, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> Grooves are no longer allowed in CA.



I believe that 11B/ADA 302.3 allows for max 1/2" wide grooves or even openings on accessible ground surfaces.




In fact, for privately funded housing accessibility (CBC 11A), the grooves are actually still required per CBC Fig. 11A-3K :


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 10, 2019)

See 11B-406.5 (et. al.) 2016


----------



## Yikes (Sep 10, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> See 11B-406.5 (et. al.) 2016


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 10, 2019)

What you show is not CBC 11B 2016 ?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 11, 2019)

Grooves are less hazardous than the truncated domes when there is snow and ice on the ground.
You cannot shovel a truncated dome clean to achieve a non slip surface.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 11, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> Grooves are no longer allowed in CA.
> Actually it would be better if the flare slope was decreased to <5% to minimize tripping and better assist WC's except the flair may cause an imbalance to a chair when initially transitioning from the flat to the slope.


Grooves are no longer *Required* in CA 11B. They are not prohibited.
*BUT are still in CA 11A*
*CA 1112A.8 Border*
*All curb ramps shall have a grooved border 12 inches (305 mm) wide at the level surface of the sidewalk along the top and each side approximately 3/4 inch (19 mm) on center. All curb ramps constructed between the face of the curb and the street shall have a grooved border at the level surface of the sidewalk. See Figures 11A-3A through 11A-3K.*


----------



## mark handler (Sep 11, 2019)

Yikes said:


> Mark, in the scenario in your photo, would it be acceptable (meet ADA and 11B) to have a utility pole in the wing/flare area?
> View attachment 5827


I'm going to say yes, there is nothing that I know of that prohibits it.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 11, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> Grooves are less hazardous than the truncated domes when there is snow and ice on the ground.
> You cannot shovel a truncated dome clean to achieve a non slip surface.


But the grooves do not work as well as the truncated domes for the blind.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 11, 2019)

mark handler said:


> But the grooves do not work as well as the truncated domes for the blind.


I agree the truncated domes work better for the blind. Then "there’s Murphy’s Law type unanticipated consequences: “What Can Go Wrong, Will Go Wrong”; and there are perverse effects that result in the opposite of what was intended. "

Slip and falls by perfectly able bodied people due to minimal surface contact between the surface of the shoe and the ground when the truncated domes are  wet or snow and ice builds up between the dome areas.
I have slipped on them and I am aware of how slippery they can be.


----------



## steveray (Sep 11, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> Slip and falls by perfectly able bodied people due to minimal surface contact



Temporarily able bodied.....


----------



## Yikes (Sep 11, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> What you show is not CBC 11B 2016 ?



Everything I showed in post #9 is CBC 11B 2016.  There is nothing in there that prohibits grooves, or even openings per 2016 CBC Fig 11B-302.3.
If you have something different in your copy of CBC 2016, please repost the exact language and specific reference from the 2016 CBC.  Thanks!


----------

