A ridiculously awesome edition of the 2012 Texas Accessibility Standards

In my spare time, I do a bit of bookbinding. It helps to keep the voices in my head quiet.

Each year the Accessibility Professionals Association hosts a conference in Austin. Part of the conference includes an auction to raise money for the Jim Boyce Memorial Scholarship.

Last year I made a hardcover edition of the 2010 ADA Standards with a gold-leaf wheelchair on the cover.

This year, I went for something smaller and more useful. A leather-bound “pocket” edition that includes a notepad. You will need big strong pockets to carry this thing, it’s only 4.5×5.75 but it’s 1-1/2″ thick and weighs as much as a cue ball. It’s durable and should be very useful to the lucky winner.

Pocket Edition of the 2012 Texas Accessibility Standards

Effective date of the 2012 Texas Accessibility Standards

The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) recently announced adoption of the 2012 Texas Accessibility Standards. These new Standards are modeled on the 2010 ADA Standards and are mostly identical except for some minor changes.

Unlike the 2010 ADA Standards, TDLR did not allow for a grace period in which compliance is optional. Prior to March 15, 2012 compliance with the 1994 Texas Standards is required. After March 15, 2012 compliance with the 2012 Texas Standards is required.

As we approach the deadline, many architects have been inquiring about specific permit and construction start dates. Here are the specifics from the ADA Standards:

Compliance Date for Title II

If the start date for construction is on or after March 15, 2012, all newly constructed or altered State and local government facilities must comply with the 2010 Standards.  Before that date, the 1991 Standards (without the elevator exemption), the UFAS, or the 2010 Standards may be used for such projects when the start of construction commences on or after September 15, 2010.

Compliance Date for Title III

The compliance date for the 2010 Standards for new construction and alterations is determined by:

• the date the last application for a building permit or permit extension is certified to be complete by a State, county, or local government;
• the date the last application for a building permit or permit extension is received by a State, county, or local government, where the government does not certify the completion of applications; or 
• the start of physical construction or alteration, if no permit is required. 

If that date is on or after March 15, 2012, then new construction and alterations must comply with the 2010 Standards.  If that date is on or after September 15, 2010, and before March 15, 2012, then new construction and alterations must comply with either the 1991 or the 2010 Standards.

The specifics for the 2012 Texas Accessibility Standards are bit different. First, they do not differentiate between Title II and Title III facilities. Secondly, they left off the bit about “if no permit is required”. From the TDLR website:

Compliance with the 2012 TAS will be required on all buildings and facilities subject to Chapter 469.003 when:

• the construction project is registered with the Department on or after March 15, 2012 ; or
• the application for a building permit is issued by a state, county, or local government on or after March 15, 2012; or
• the commencement of construction begins on or after March 15, 2012.

This would mean that even if a project was permitted prior to March 15, 2012, compliance with the new Standards would be required if construction began after March 15, 2012.  BUT DON”T STOP READING.

I submitted a request to Tech Info for clarification. This was their response:

TDLR RESPONSE TO RAS:  The third bullet point addresses projects that are not required to be registered (such as those that have a construction cost of less than $50,000) or those located in municipalities or cities that do not issue building permits.

Therefore, the 3rd bullet point is only applicable when the project is not being permitted.

Do the 2010 ADA Standards require swimming pool lifts?

I got a call from a client who was concerned about a recent mailer from a pool lift manufacturer stating that all bodies of water with greater than 300 linear feet of perimeter are now required to have a pool lift per the new ADA Standards. While there is some truth here, it is quite misleading. As a general rule, you should always be suspicious about regulatory interpretations from a manufacturer that stands to benefit from the regulation.

So, do the 2010 ADA Standards require swimming pool lifts? It depends.

For new construction of a public swimming pool, a pool that is part of a public accommodation (hotel, YMCA, etc.) or other facility that is subject to the ADA, accessible means of entry are required.

242.2 Swimming Pools. At least two accessible means of entry shall be provided for swimming pools. Accessible means of entry shall be swimming pool lifts complying with 1009.2; sloped entries complying with 1009.3; transfer walls complying with 1009.4; transfer systems complying with 1009.5; and pool stairs complying with 1009.6. At least one accessible means of entry provided shall comply with 1009.2 or 1009.3.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. Where a swimming pool has less than 300 linear feet (91 m) of swimming pool wall, no more than one accessible means of entry shall be required provided that the accessible means of entry is a swimming pool lift complying with 1009.2 or sloped entry complying with 1009.3.

2. Wave action pools, leisure rivers, sand bottom pools, and other pools where user access is limited to one area shall not be required to provide more than one accessible means of entry provided that the accessible means of entry is a swimming pool lift complying with 1009.2, a sloped entry complying with 1009.3, or a transfer system complying with 1009.5.

3. Catch pools shall not be required to provide an accessible means of entry provided that the catch pool edge is on an accessible route.

The Guidance on the 2010 ADA Standards provides some clarification on the requirements for existing swimming pools:

“A physical change to a swimming pool which affects or could affect the usability of the pool is considered to be an alteration. Changes to the mechanical and electrical systems, such as filtration and chlorination systems, are not alterations. Exception 2 to section 202.3 permits an altered swimming pool to comply with applicable requirements to the maximum extent feasible if full compliance is technically infeasible. “Technically infeasible” is also defined in section 106.5 of the 2010 Standards.”

An existing swimming pool that is not being altered is not required to be equipped with a lift or other accessible means of entry unless it is considered “readily achievable” to do so.

Disability Awareness Day

In honor of the anniversary of the ADA, go check out these proposed guidelines for Public Rights-of-Way:

http://www.access-board.gov/news/row-nprm.htm

Draft 2012 Texas Accessibility Standards

A draft of the 2012 Texas Accessibility Standards, based on the 2010 ADA Standards, is now available for viewing here: http://www.license.state.tx.us/ab/TAS%202012%20Draft.pdf

Srsly? Jerk.

Houston, TX

HB 2658 to eliminate the Architectural Barriers Act

Update 03.29.2011: The bill has been referred to the Government Efficiency & Reform Committee. This committee is meeting this coming Thursday, but HB 2658 is not the agenda.

———-

On March 24, representatives of the Coalition of Texans with Disabilities, ADAPT of Texas and other interested parties met with Representative Lavender to discuss HB 2658.

The bill can be read here: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB2658

This Bill would do away with TDLR Architectural Barriers and the Registered Accessibility Specialist program.

Check back for more updates.

Dimensional Tolerance Guidelines from the US Access Board

Previously on the ArchBarrierBlog, I shocked the industry by writing about dimensional tolerances: New Accessibility Standards, Part 2: Dimensions

Now, the Access-Board has released a new report titled “Initiative on Dimensional Tolerances in Construction Dimensional Tolerances for Surface” and prepared by the amazing David Kent Ballast, author of noir thrillers such as the ARE Review Manual.

Personally, I credit Mr. Ballast for helping me to pass the ARE on my first attempt.

SPOILER ALERT: If you are a hardcore fan of technical documents , stop reading now.

Although, I haven’t read the whole document cover to cover here is the spoiler:

1.2 Suggested tolerances

1.2.1 Walks and other non – ramp surfaces. When overall running slope for walks is measured according to Section 1.1.3 a recommended tolerance for running slope is +1%. When overall cross slope for sidewalks is measured according to 1.1.4 a recommended tolerance for cross slope is +0.5%.

1.2.2 When flatness of running slope for an accessible surface other than a ramp is measured according to Section 1.1.5 no more than 20% (rounded to the nearest whole number) of the measurements should exceed ±1/4 in. in 10 ft (±6 mm in 3 m). When flatness of cross slope for an accessible surface other than a ramp is measured according to Section 1.1.6 at least 80% (rounded to the nearest whole number) of the measurements should not exceed a 2% slope. The remaining measurements should not exceed a 2.5% slope.

1.2.3 Landings. Both measurements of ramp landings as described in Section 1.1.15 should not exceed a plus tolerance of 0.5%.

1.2.4 When local horizontal discontinuities and vertical alignments are measured according to Section 1.1.9 a recommended tolerance is ±1/8 in. (3 mm).

1.2.5 Ramps. When overall running slope and cross slope for accessible ramps are measured according to Sections 1.1.11 a recommended tolerance for these slopes is +0.5%.

In the ideal case, planning for a 7.5% running slope allows for construction inaccuracies while still maintaining the required 1:12 slope. However, when a design slope of 1:12 is indicated a tolerance of +0.5% is reasonable.

Many accessibility experts consider a 2% cross slope to be the maximum. However, there is conflicting research concerning the need to have a 2% maximum cross slope and that the actual maximum depends on user type (wheelchair, walker, cane, etc.), length of travel, and other variables. It seems reasonable to allow a +0.5% tolerance for ramp slopes and cross slopes.

1.2.6 When local variations (flatness) in running slope of ramps are measured according to 1.1.13 at least 80% (rounded to the nearest whole number) of the measurements should not exceed an 8.3% slope. The remaining measurements should not exceed a 10% slope.

Allowing a small percentage of localized slopes to exceed 8.3% is based on the allowable slopes in ADA/ABA – AG (2004) for existing buildings of 1:8 (12.5%) for maximum rises of 3 inches and 1:10 (10%) for maximum rises of 6 inches. The 1980 ANSI A117 standard also allowed this with the additional provision that an existing ramp slope of up to 1:8 could have a maximum run of 2 feet (0.6 m). Allowing 20% of local variations to slope up to 10% seems reasonable for a distance of one foot. This would mean that localized dips and high points in a 2 – foot distance would be about ¼ in. (6 mm) or a little less.

1.2.7 When local variations (flatness) for cross slope of ramps are measured according to 1.1.14 at least 80% (rounded to the nearest whole number) should not exceed a 2% slope. The remaining measurements should not exceed a 2.5% cross slope. When four or fewer measurements are made, only one should not exceed a 2.5% cross slope, while the others should not exceed a 2% slope

1.2.8 Exterior stairs, cast – in – place. When cast – in – place exterior stairs are measured according to Section 1.1.17 the requirements of the local building code shall govern tolerances.

California (Building Code) here I come!

Normally, I answer questions on this blog, but today I am drudging my way through the accessibility portions, chapters 11A & B, of the California Building Code and I have a few questions:

1. Why did they write this in the first place?
2. What’s with the seemingly random paragraph justification? Is this code, commentary or just good advice?
3. Is it just me or is there unnecessary repetition? For example, 1133B.5.4.4 requires that ramp landings extend 24″ past the strike edge of any door for exterior ramps, but this is an unnecessary requirement since it is covered under the maneuvering clearance requirements for doors.

Sometimes I wonder if the folks in California forget that there is an entire country to the east of them. It’s not always necessary to reinvent the wheel, especially if all you can come up with is an oval.

Conversation with an ADA Expert

What kind of person makes these videos? ADA humor, really?

YouTube Video: The ADA Expert

By the way, this is entirely a work of fiction.  Any similarity to persons living or dead (including Zombie Frank Lloyd Wright) is merely coincidental.