# How do you see this



## tbz (Aug 5, 2013)

Hello everyone,

Been a while but ran in to this when called out to just provide 2 handrails for the change in stair elevation.












1.) thewalkway/ramp is 1" rise in 23" of travel, so it is defined as a walkway not a ramp by the town and drawings.

2.) the problem is they have left us no room for handrail extensions on the stair flight without turning left at the top of the stair flight and running the handrail down the whole side of the walkway and back out to the parking lot.

3.) If we however go and install a handrail on the store side of the walkway there is not enough room to provide a handrail extension at the top of the walkway.

So here in lies my questions.

a.) How do see or interpt the driveway side for handrail extension requirements if the handrail is installed?  Required or since a non-required handrail no extension because of travel conflict?

b.) Is the handrail allowed to turn and descend along the walkway, since it is not a ramp.

Please ask any questions you need to I will try to fill in the blanks..

Thank you

Tom


----------



## Yikes (Aug 5, 2013)

Tom, how about brainstorming an alternative reconfiguration of the flatwork?  For the sake of orientation in this example, I'll say the building in the background is "north".

If you were going south across the crosswalk, when  you get to the top (non)landing, take one step down east, have at least a 3x3 level concrete pad (where the dirt and cone are now), then another step down the 6" high curb to the south.  That way, the two steps are 3' apart and might not technically need a handrail at all...?


----------



## tbz (Aug 5, 2013)

Yikes said:
			
		

> Tom, how about brainstorming an alternative reconfiguration of the flatwork?  For the sake of orientation in this example, I'll say the building in the background is "north".If you were going south across the crosswalk, when  you get to the top (non)landing, take one step down east, have at least a 3x3 level concrete pad (where the dirt and cone are now), then another step down the 6" high curb to the south.  That way, the two steps are 3' apart and might not technically need a handrail at all...?


Thanks Yikes,

I proposed to them that they just extend the top landing out 15" and then re-do the step and they would have no conflict with the handrails.

Something like this:






They are not against possibly adding the additional handrails for safety reasons, but because of the configuration, terminations are an issue.

Thats why I am looking at how the terminations are seen for those areas.

Thanks again Yikes

Looking for input,


----------



## mjesse (Aug 5, 2013)

Will the 15-20" extension into the new asphalt area (Yikes' south) cause a traffic/impact concern?


----------



## tbz (Aug 5, 2013)

Mjesse,

For the record the building is north and the parking lot is south.

This area of the parking lot is pull in spaces, so they are already giving up one space for a walk through area, in the direction of travel, it does not directly open in to traffic like the upper landing does to cross over to the strip mall..

Yikes notation to head east and then south would work however I beleive would require new parking space layout, which I don't think is viable right now because they are looking at adding additional handrails throughout, added safety, rather than re-work the existing concrete work.

I should have posted this planview first, but here is my conflict concern point now.

Also, the left turn at the top of the steps, because its not a ramp, does the expection comply, I say intent to treat walkway like ramp, means ok, but how do others see these 2 areas at the top of the walkway?






So because of traffic flow reasons how does one interp the non-required handrail termination?

Thanks for all the help


----------



## mark handler (Aug 5, 2013)

There appears to be insufficient turning radius on the landing

There appears to be a greater than 2 percent slope in the crosswalk

There appears to be no edge protection for the ramp/sidewalk

Yes the stairs require rails

Yes the “left side” can wrap on the ramp side

The extensions must extend beyond the top and bottom of the stair riser/tread


----------



## tbz (Aug 5, 2013)

Mark,

Thank you for chiming in, but can you take a look at my main question on the non-required handrail terminating before the turn on the upper side.



			
				mark handler said:
			
		

> "There appears to be insufficient turning radius on the landing"
> 
> Question; You note it as a landing however it is only a change in direction on a walkway and is a walkway change in direct considered the same?
> 
> ...


----------



## mark handler (Aug 5, 2013)

I do not know what you mean by"...non-required handrail terminating before the turn on the upper side..."

The steps require handrails, as I previously posted.

Handrails are required at stairways and ramps. In all situations.


----------



## Yikes (Aug 5, 2013)

I think what tbz is saying is, he's voluntarily providing the northernmost handrail, since at <5% it's not technically a "ramp"... we'll call it a sloped walk.

His conundrum is that he DOES want a handrail on the south side of the sloped walk, because it gives him a code-allowed excuse to bend the stair's west handrail extention westward...

but he doesn't want to also be compelled to do a handrail extension on the north side of the sloped walkway.


----------



## tbz (Aug 6, 2013)

Yikes said:
			
		

> I think what tbz is saying is, he's voluntarily providing the northernmost handrail, since at <5% it's not technically a "ramp"... we'll call it a sloped walk.  His conundrum is that he DOES want a handrail on the south side of the sloped walk, because it gives him a code-allowed excuse to bend the stair's west handrail extention westward...
> 
> but he doesn't want to also be compelled to do a handrail extension on the north side of the sloped walkway.


Yikes is correct with my questions with this situation.

1.) Technically there is no ramp and the designer and the town were very specific in making sure it is less than 1:20.

2.) The picture is deceiving because the upper curbing rises more out of the ground than the walkway descends down, giving the illusion of a ramp, but actually not much of a pitch.

3.) So my concern is, if you install the handrail which is not required on the walkway, which you might think is a ramp, but not, is the handrail extension technically a concern, required because there is no ramp per slope definition within ADA or ICC being less than 1:20 and therefore allowed to terminate anywhere along the walkway?

Reason, yes the walkway is slightly pitched and the upper area you are calling a landing, which is the stair landing is level.

4.) With the walkway technically not being a ramp by slope definition, does this remove the exception allowing the left handrail ascending up on the stairs to turn left/west or now must it continue straight/north at the stair landing crossing in front of the walkway?

Again, Yikes is getting my questions that may seem odd but I believe valid ones.

5.) Lastly, with the top being the stair landing and the turning point on a walkway is the 60" turning zone required on a walkway?

Thanks Yikes


----------



## mark handler (Aug 6, 2013)

With that "curb" drop, he "should" if it is not required. someone is going to trip and fall onto the "sloped walk".

Called "risk management" when vs will.


----------



## Msradell (Aug 6, 2013)

Silly idea but my not just get rid of the lower step, put a hand rail along the slope, across the landing and then up the right-hand side as you look at the picture.  This affords everyone to use the sloping sidewalk and solve the problem of how to do the railings for the steps!  I'm not quite sure why they wanted to make sure the ramp was less than 5% and that's not considered a ramp by ADA standards.  Its length is short enough it wouldn't require a landing anyway so there wouldn't be any problems making it a ramp.  As noted by Mark H there has to be sufficient turning area at the top and bottom of the slope to comply with ADA standards for wheelchair access.


----------



## lpiburn (Aug 6, 2013)

I think trying to use the ramp-corner exception defeats the intent of the handrail in this case. In a general sense, handrails are allowed to turn a corner because there is a direction of travel around that corner. In this case there would be no reason to go up the stairs and then down the walk.  The best solution is to extend the steps by one tread as in your first sketch.


----------



## tbz (Dec 22, 2014)

Update on this project:

We refused to install per the contractors request.

They got another company to install the handrail, take a look at this and let me know how it passed inspection?

Thanks

Tom


----------



## steveray (Dec 22, 2014)

Nothing in the code for extensions indicates "in the direction of travel" or anything that would not allow turning that down the sloped walkway but not all the way......I wouldn't encourage it, but it does get some people out of some sticky spots...

1012.6 Handrail extensions.

Handrails shall return to a wall, guard or the walking surface or shall be continuous to the handrail of an adjacent stair flight or ramp run. Where handrails are not continuous between flights, the handrails shall extend horizontally at least 12 inches (305 mm) beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one tread beyond the bottom riser.

Tom....What is the required width of the walkway? I agree it is probably some kind of violation, but I would have to see all of the measurements to verify that the inspector made a mistake....Is this a public way or private property? Does building code even apply?

And unless they were topcoating over the asphalt in the first pic, it looks like they had a riser issue as well...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 22, 2014)

circulation path: An exterior or interior way of passage from one place to another for pedestrians.

307.2 Protrusion Limits.

Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches (685 mm) and not more than 80 inches (2030 mm) above the floor shall protrude 4 inches (100 mm) maximum horizontally into the circulation path.

EXCEPTION: Handrails shall be permitted to protrude 41/2 inches (115 mm) maximum.

Thet handrails have become a protruding object within the circulation path

Required width is a different animal and has nothing to do with objects that protrude into the circulation path.


----------



## tbz (Dec 22, 2014)

Ok, I am not sure if you saw the picture I posted with the previous post or not, the server the pictures sit on went down a short time ago, so you might not be seeing the pictures for your response.

The picture was taken from my car towards the parking lot.  So the mini mall is behind me.  The walkway and stairs are the access to the parking spaces with direct access to the ADA spaces.

The handrail top extensions protrude across the walkway a minimum of 14", scroll to the top of the post to see the area pictures before installation.

It will give a better overview.  Sorry about the picture server going down should be back up in a short time and then that will give you a better look.

If my memory does not fail me I believe the sloped walkway was 42 inches wide.  The picture clearly shows inward project, but the projection is below 27"

Give it a little time for the picture sever to come back.  TOm


----------



## tbz (Dec 23, 2014)

Ok the picture link is working again.

Steveray, So lets say the concrete walkway that goes down to the right to the lower level is 48" wide and the handrail extensions only project 12" in to the walkway path leaving exactly 36" between the vertical line of the handrail extension and the vertical line of the edge of the concrete walkway, with the bottom of the handrail extension being less than 27", that this would comply at the turning point of a walkway to the ADA parking spots in a strip mall?

I am trying to grasp this on many levels, and lets forget it just not a good layout, but does it comply and are the walkways on the travel paths designed and layout for the crossing and direction of those that need to use walkways and ramps, and can't use stairs, this fits compliance?


----------



## tbz (Dec 23, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> circulation path: An exterior or interior way of passage from one place to another for pedestrians.307.2 Protrusion Limits.
> 
> Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches (685 mm) and not more than 80 inches (2030 mm) above the floor shall protrude 4 inches (100 mm) maximum horizontally into the circulation path.
> 
> ...


MT, Are you saying the handrail extensions which descend down below 27" are a protruding object in to the walkway path?  Or are you saying as long as the required width is maintained because the extension is lower than 27" it's fine?

I understand the written code, just not understanding how wide the required width of a walkway is in the IBC and ADAAG to allow the extensions to cross in to a turn in a pedestrian walkway like this.

Is it 36", 42" or 48" or is there no requirement for walkways?

Tom


----------



## steveray (Dec 23, 2014)

MT...this is the one I usually cite...

    1003.3.3 Horizontal projections. Structural elements, fixtures or furnishings shall not project horizontally from either side more than 4 inches (102 mm) over any walking surface between the heights of 27 inches (686 mm) and 80 inches (2032 mm) above the walking surface.

Exception: Handrails are permitted to protrude 41/2 inches (114 mm) from the wall.

My take is if you have your required "clear width" (if that even applies to this sloped floor) and you can meet the protrusion requirements by getting below 27", you are good....DISCLAIMER: I am not seeing this in person!... 

If it were a jog in a corridor, how would it be different? Or a bumpout for a drinking fountain outside or the required width?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 23, 2014)

Don't confuse circulation path as being the same as required width

A protruding object is in a circulation path which is the total width provided for access or exiting.

Looking at the latest picture the handrail extension on the right side of the picture appears to protrude into the circulation path of the walkway going to the right. If the minimum width is maintained between the handrail extension and the walkway curb then simply bring the handrail extension down to within 27 inches or less from the walking surface.

I agree it is a very poor design

Looking at the original picture and the final one they could have easily moved the steps into the access aisle and created a better design


----------



## tbz (Dec 23, 2014)

steveray said:
			
		

> MT...this is the one I usually cite...    1003.3.3 Horizontal projections. Structural elements, fixtures or furnishings shall not project horizontally from either side more than 4 inches (102 mm) over any walking surface between the heights of 27 inches (686 mm) and 80 inches (2032 mm) above the walking surface.
> 
> Exception: Handrails are permitted to protrude 41/2 inches (114 mm) from the wall.
> 
> ...


Steveray,

Ok just to make myself even more confused.  Does the IBC even cover pathways within a parking lot or is that left to A117.1 and ADAAG?


----------



## steveray (Dec 23, 2014)

Tom....IBC MOE ends at a public way....I do not know who governs a parking lot or what design guide to use....If it is across the (public)street from the building and there is no building on it, I have no jurisdiction....


----------



## tbz (Dec 23, 2014)

steveray said:
			
		

> Tom....IBC MOE ends at a public way....I do not know who governs a parking lot or what design guide to use....If it is across the (public)street from the building and there is no building on it, I have no jurisdiction....


Steveray, this is a shopping plaza, not a street crossing the link below will show you an skyview you can't miss the crossing to the Handicap Parking spots.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hillsborough+Township,+NJ/@40.4985897,-74.6448813,203m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c3eec1198696c7:0x3dea3e3a67fd1f36


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 23, 2014)

tbz said:
			
		

> Steveray,Ok just to make myself even more confused.  Does the IBC even cover pathways within a parking lot or is that left to A117.1 and ADAAG?


Yes it is covered under the IBC

1101.1 Scope.

The provisions of this chapter shall control the design and construction of facilities for accessibility to physically disabled persons.

1101.2 Design.

Buildings and facilities shall be designed and constructed to be accessible in accordance with this code and ICC A117.1.

FACILITY. All or any portion of buildings, structures, site improvements, elements and pedestrian or vehicular routes located on a site.


----------



## ICE (Dec 23, 2014)

The roof looks like it needs help.


----------



## steveray (Dec 23, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> The roof looks like it needs help.


They all look that way around here.....

Tom...yes I would have jurisdiction over what you show...Use "accessible parking"...it's nicer...

Exemptions from permit....

6. Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above adjacent grade, and not over any basement or story below and are not part of an accessible route.

And this is why I was asking about the site or public way and other details that make it an issue or not....

SECTION 1104 ACCESSIBLE ROUTE

1104.1 Site arrival points. Accessible routes within the site shall be provided from public transportation stops; accessible parking; accessible passenger loading zones; and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance served.

Exception: Other than in buildings or facilities containing or serving Type B units, an accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing for pedestrian access.

1104.2 Within a site. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements and accessible spaces ******** that are on the same site.*****

Exception: An accessible route is not required between accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements and accessible spaces that have, as the only means of access between them, a vehicular way not providing for pedestrian access.


----------



## ADAguy (Dec 30, 2014)

Excellent analysis and responses crew and Happy holidays too.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 30, 2014)

The exceptions do not REQUIRE the accessible route to be installed. However when an accessible route is provided it has to comply with the code requirements.


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 30, 2014)

1104.1 Site arrival points. Accessible routes within the site shall be provided from public transportation stops; accessible parking; accessible passenger loading zones; and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance served.

Exception: Other than in buildings or facilities containing or serving Type B units, an accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing for pedestrian access.


----------

