Is Access Compliance going too far? Your thoughts 1

[SethWCE]

I know this is more in the realm of Architectural design but in working in the civil engineering field, we design many parking lots and access ways which require accessible features.

I by no means believe that providing accessibility to sites is a bad thing, in fact quite the opposite, I encourage it. What I am concerned about is what accessibility is turning into these days. I am also concerned about those that achieve authoritative postions to govern over the new rules and regualtions. Here is what I mean:

Over the last few years it seems to me that access requirements have become less about creating access for the disabled and more about creating work for government plan checkers and contractors.

As an example, the maximum cross slope of a walkway per our code is 2%. I can't tell you how many walkways we have had to remove and replace that were sloped at 2.1%. There is no disabled person alive that could tell the difference in a 2.0% vs. a 2.1% slope, yet hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent every year by developments in my area to replace these walks. Most of the projects I design are school projects funded by our tax dollars. I recently was told by a state plan reviewer that they are now determine the 2% slope requirement using a 12" smart level. Really, a 12" smart level??! It's so short it will not take into account the diffences in aggregate height in concrete and will not give you a accurate slope reading. But what it will do is register over 2% much more often which im sure just tickles the state inspectors when they get to say "Tear it out fellas!". Who gave them authority to make this a requirement? It says nothing in any code about using a 12" smart level (yet, lol).

Truncated domes are another issue. Millions of dollars have been spent to retrofit curb ramps with truncated domes in my area. In the previous codes, the domes spacing was noted to be 1.67" to 2.35", on center. The new code in 2010 just now says 2.35" on center. I'm now being told by state plan check staff that any domes installed that are 1.67" on center, no longer meet the code. Are you kidding me? The largest manufacturer of truncated domes in my state has this 1.67" spacing. They probably make up 50% to 75% of the domes installed. I assume in the years to come, our tax dollares will be spent retrofitting the 1.67" domes to the 2.35". What a waste of money! Also, If the 2.35" spacing was better, why didnt they know that before the allowed a 1.67" spacing? I dont think code writers understand the implications of changing a code. Lets spend the time to get the code right before we actually make it a code. Or maybe they do and just need to keep contractors in the state working by forcing unecessary improvements to otherwise perfectly accessible sites. (It's also kinda funny because the new federal code makes no mention of domes, so is it all going away soon?)

These are just a few examples, and maybe I'm just venting. I'm just curious if anyone else has these same issues, or feels accessibility is going too far.

 

[Ron]

Seth...you make some good points; however, your comments also point toward believing and jumping through hoops for inspectors without appropriate appeal and technical argument.

Two premises have been paramount in the ADA since it was signed into law in July 1991. Those two premises are technical feasibility and the avoidance of an undue burden. While these apply moreso to barrier removal from existing facilities, they have some application as well to new design.

Accessibility codes, like other building codes and subsets, are often more political in their evolution than either practical or technical.

There's no easy answer to your comments and questions....just don't fold to requirements at face value, particularly based on the interpretation of a field inspector who probably doesn't understand the "why" of the code, just the "how".

 

[BigInch]

Plus if the distinction of acceptablity is not made between 2% and 2.1%, soon it becomes 3% or 5%, there is no control of the requirement, or perhaps the "judement calls" made with a little help of one kind or another. The best and fairest way to implement such things on a global scale is by a simple, rigidly applied uniform criteria that any inspector and/or owner can measure and get a one time black or white answer. Where I am, there is a general access criteria that means "wide stairways" in one case and 1% slope in others. Essentally a regulation that means nothing but payoffs for inspectors to look the other way.

From "BigInch's Extremely simple theory of everything."

 

[civilman72]

I think the standards for ADA access are fair, but the way they are regulated does go too far.

For instance a 2% cross slope should be measured as an average grade across the entire slope of the sidewalk (assuming no obvious humps or dips), not in 12" increments. Aggregate height is one thing that can throw the small measurements off, and I've even witnessed high winds during curing have minor affects on the finish surface. Some common sense needs to be considered.

I also question the applicability of some of the standards. One of the new standards requires a 2% maximum grade in any direction in ADA parking spaces. While this may be desirable for ADA access to/from a vehicle, it is poor design for drainage on an asphalt surface. And where I live and design, safety in these flat areas are a big safety concerns due to ice, which builds up easier in these flat areas. And since the regulation of these standards is so strict, we now purposely design even flatter slopes (5% slope req., we design at 4.8-4.9%) which in these parking areas inevitably leaves numerous small ponding areas.

I feel your frustration. In general, increased (and often unnecesary) government regulations in my life and in my work are a major gripe of mine.

 

[SethWCE]

I completely agree, the codes are fair, its the enforcement thats the issue. We too have changed our design policies to design to 4.8-4.9% on walks, 8.0% (not 8.33%) on ramps and 1.8% on walks so we ensure they dont exceed 2% after construction, or even if the concrete settles a little.

In paking areas, 2% is the maximum slope for ADA but you right, its really the minimum slope asphalt should have for drainage and its longevity, especially in snow and ice prone areas. So its a bit of a quandary.

As another example, walkways in our code state 2% or less in cross slope but under 5% "in the direction of travel", but it has been determined that in "plaza" areas the direction of travel is in all directions, and therefore no greater slope than 2% in any direction (I agree, makes sense). I have a site where we designed a 60' long by 9' wide concrete walk path through a courtyard sloping 1.5% across and 4% in the walking direction. My state reviewer came back and said a walkway larger than 8' wide is considered a plaza and must be no greater than 2% in any direction. Where did that come from? There's no code saying that, Ridiculous. Now I have to spend my time and money to argue with them about it and probably lose and have to re-design.

Everytime I submit plans it seems they have come up with some new way to interpret the codes.

 

[beej67]

So what's the recourse for the design engineer or the owner if an enforcement official gets too froggy?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[SethWCE]

Basically none. There is no real recourse. If its a state project, you can sometimes file a appeal with the state which will go under review and in a few months you will get a determination but there is no guarantee it will be in your favor. If it comes to a local agency (city, county, etc.) there is even less, or no recourse at all. You could call the local news station and explain what is going on but its probably not news worthy so nothing will happen.

So much for a system checks and balances eh?

 

[civilman72]

Sometimes it may not even be an enforcement official. A commercial site I worked on was "checked" by an employee of McDonald's, since they were a potential tenant. From my understanding the contractor and the McDonald's guy got into an argument on how he was measuring the slopes. McDs guy had a 4' triangular level that measured 2% cross slopes and was complaining that there were very small gaps between the bottom of the level and the concrete surface. Luckily (for me and the contractor) they eventually "approved" the site and McDonalds moved in. But had they not, I'm positive the owner of the building would have pursued a lawsuit against both the contractor and my company. It's scary that this could have occurred over something so minor and based on one guy's "unregulated" means of determining compliance.

Creating design standards without also creating standards for the means-and-methods to check compliance with these standards is worthless, but sadly happens all the time. It leaves "us" with no recourse except to try to talk some sense into the guy approving the site. Sadly enough, attorneys are the only beneficiaries (not the disabled people whom these standards are created for).

 

[SethWCE]

Well Said civilman72!

 

[beej67]

Since ADA is a federal deal, is there an activist group or a lobby or something that concerned engineers can go to, to bring up this issue of nebulous and overly restrictive compliance standards? Like the engineering ACLU or something? Would ASCE champion something like that?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[Hoaokapohaku]

I've experienced the exact same problem as Seth in parking lots that involve ADA and an underinformed inspector equipped with a short smart level. The basic problem is that no one, and from my experience, I mean NO ONE reads the whole ADA. It includes both design and construction standards. What usually happens is that the design standards are read first, which specify a restriction on the design of a 2% maximum slope, and no one reads the rest. But that only means that is the maximum slope in a design is 2%, not necessarily in construction. The construction section of the ADA states that the ADA work must be evaluated and tolerances must be applied in the same manner that other similar work must is evaluated. If the specs for the rest of the parking lot allow a 1/2" surface elevation tolerance, the same applies in ADA. If the pavement must be evaluated with a 16' straightedge, that also applies in ADA work. If the other work requires checking with a 1' smart level, then that also applies in ADA work as well but a 1' smart level check cannot be applied.

In federal court cases where this issue has been addressed, the courts have also found that the method of specification enforcement must be the defacto standard of a municipality, not necessary the standard written in the specifications. If the specifications have strict requirements or small tolerances that are routinely not enforced, ADA work cannot be singled out for special enforcement.

 

[Hoaokapohaku]

*but OTHERWISE a 1' smart level check cannot be applied.