Curb Ramps v. Ramps

Curb Ramps are not Ramps.  Oddly, there seems to be some confusion about this.

To keep it simple, if there is no curb, it’s a ramp.

But to answer all of those questions that go beyond “keeping it simple” print out 50 copies of CurbRampVRamps and glue them liberally to desks throughout your office.

Your coworkers will thank you.

The Problem with Handrail Extensions

This is the start of the world’s most boring graphic novel: HandrailExtensions

If you want an interesting graphic novel, I would recommend, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Moebius: Airtight Garage or The Watchmen.

The Problem with Handrail Extensions by Jeromy Murphy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

You will be replaced by a computer

I tested out a trial copy of the Solibri Model Checker.

“Solibri Model Checker™ is out of the box software solution (Patent Pending) that analyzes Building Information Models for integrity, quality and physical safety.”

It claims to have the ability to check a BIM model for compliance with life safety and accessibility codes.  The ADA/ABA Guidelines are preloaded and the rules can apprently be customized.

The trial comes with an example model and when I ran the check, it did sucessfully identify some violations.  However, it will probably be a while before I can fire my staff and replace them with a CAD Monkey.

The problem is this: No matter how good the software is, if the model is crap, the report is crap, or to put it simply GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

What’s the point of using advanced BIM software if you are providing 2D detail?

If anyone has a not-too-complex BIM model they want me to test out, please contact me.

But it’s for employees only….

There seems to be some confusion on the applicability of the Texas Accessibility Standards and ADA within employee only areas.

First off, just because you are a CEO or a Doctor does not mean that you are superhuman and above the law.  The rules that apply to a Janitor also apply to a fancy-pants CEO or an ivy-league Doctor.

Now then, there is a difference between

Employee Only Areas

…..and

Employee Work Areas

Employee only areas may include work areas but they also include common use areas such as break rooms, locker rooms and toilet facilities that are not made available to the general public.

3.5.21 Common Use.

Refers to those interior and exterior rooms, spaces, or elements that are made available for the use of a restricted group of people (for example, occupants of a homeless shelter, the occupants of an office building, or the guests of such occupants).

Common use areas are required to be made accessible even if they are employee only.

Employee work areas, however, are not required to have accessible elements such as counter-tops, storage, sinks, etc.  Instead, employee work areas shall be designed so that a person with a disability can approach, enter and exit.

4.1.1(3) Areas Used Only by Employees as Work Areas. Areas that are used only as work areas shall be designed and constructed so that individuals with disabilities can approach, enter, and exit the areas. These standards do not require that any areas used only as work areas be constructed to permit maneuvering within the work area or be constructed or equipped (i.e., with racks or shelves) to be accessible.

Believe it or not, I have heard owners and architects make the claim that an area need not be accessible because a person with a disability could not perform the job.  That is for ADA Title I to determine.

There are a few areas where access is not required:

68.30 Exemptions

Raised Areas. Areas raised primarily for purposes of security, life safety, or fire safety, including, but not limited to, observation or lookout galleries, prison guard towers, fire towers, or lifeguard stands;

Single Occupant Structures. Single occupant structures accessed only by passageways below grade or elevated above standard curb height, including but not limited to, toll booths that are accessed only by underground tunnels;

Restricted Occupancy Spaces. Vertical access (elevators and platform lifts) is not required for the second floor of two-story control buildings located within a chemical manufacturing facility where the second floor is restricted to employees and does not contain common areas or employment opportunities not otherwise available in accessible locations within the same building;

Specific Employee Work Areas. Employee work areas, or portions of employee work areas, that are less than 300 square feet (28m²) in area and elevated 7 inches (180 mm) or more above the ground or finish floor where the elevation is essential to the function of the spaces; and dumpster pads/enclosures that are accessed exclusively by employees;

…and Fire Stations

68.104. Elements, Spaces and Accessible Routes at Fire Stations. (New section effective March 1, 2007, 32 TexReg 884)

At fire stations, common use spaces and elements accessed exclusively by fire-fighting personnel or other emergency responders are only required to be adaptable. Additionally, at multi-level fire stations, levels accessed exclusively by fire-fighting personnel are not required to be served by an accessible route. Public spaces and elements within these facilities must comply with all applicable technical standards.

In the case of the poor CEO that is forced to live with an accessible office, there is some good news, her private toilet room is permitted to be adaptable rather than fully accessible.

When are Automatic Door Openers Required?

There is a complaint that the new City Hall in Dickinson, Texas does not have an automatic opener, causing difficulty for some (at least one) user.  Here is the original article:

Handicapped resident complains about new city hall

-

Fire Marshall Hicks is correct that automatic door openers are not required.  Although, door openers are a real convenience, they are not required by the Texas Accessibility Standards or the ADAAG.

However, automatic openers are often installed on doors to address other accessibility issues.

Doors are required to have level areas on either side of the door to permit a wheelchair, scooter or stroller user to maneuver close enough to the door to turn the lever and pass through.  These maneuvering clearances vary depending on the approach to the door and the type of hardware provided.

Front approach maneuvering clearance at accessible doors.

Although the maneuvering clearance is required to be level (1/4″ per foot maximum slope), construction errors or existing conditions will sometimes result in slopes that exceed the allowable slope.  Rather than jack-hammering out all of the concrete, the owner can install an automatic opener.  The minimum maneuvering clearances are not required at doors that are equipped with openers.

If you install a door opener, the push-button (if provided) is required to be on an acessible route and have a level clear floor space (30″ by48″).  And please don’t place the push-button within the swing of the door.

Contrasting Curb Ramps and Detectable Warnings

To quote the TDLR Technical Memorandum 08-01, “With the intention of harmonizing both State and Federal requirements, the Department issues the following technical clarifications regarding surface texture requirements at curb ramps.”

TM 08-01 then goes on to confuse the issue further by treating differently curb ramps within the public ROW (right of way) and those that are not within the ROW.

From the Texas Accessibility Standards (italics denote a change from the ADAAG):

4.7.4 Surface. Surfaces of curb ramps shall comply with 4.5.

(1) Textures shall consist of exposed crushed stone aggregate, roughened concrete, rubber, raised abrasive strips, or grooves extending the full width and depth of the curb ramp. Surfaces that are raised, etched, or grooved in a way that would allow water to accumulate are prohibited.

(2) For purposes of warning, the full width and depth of curb ramps shall have a light reflective value and texture that significantly contrasts with that of adjoining pedestrian routes.

Contrasting curb ramp on private property.

Per TM 08-01, section 4.7.4(1) & (2) do not apply to curb ramps within the public ROW.  Instead, these curb ramps shall have detectable warnings that comply with section 4.29.2:

4.29.2* Detectable Warnings on Walking Surfaces. Detectable warnings shall consist of raised truncated domes with a diameter of nominal 0.9 in (23 mm), a height of nominal 0.2 in (5 mm) and a center-to-center spacing of nominal 2.35 in (60 mm) and shall contrast visually with adjoining surfaces, either light-on-dark, or dark-on-light.

The material used to provide contrast shall be an integral part of the walking surface. Detectable warnings used on interior surfaces shall differ from adjoining walking surfaces in resiliency or sound-on-cane contact.

The ADAAG(1991) and the revised ADA/ABA Guidelines(2004), do not specify contrast for curb ramps.  The contrast is a requirement for the detectable warnings which are required to be provided on curb ramps.

There is no conflict for curb ramps within the ROW; the contrast is only required on the detectable warnings.  The remainder of the curb ramp may be plain concrete.

If a curb ramp is not located within the ROW, section 4.7.4(2) still applies; the full width and depth of the curb ramp shall contrast with adjoining pedestrian routes even if detectable warnings are not used.

Don’t try too hard to understand it.  This story is not over.

Disabled Access Tax Credit

Did you know that there is a tax credit available for small businesses that remove architectural barriers. That’s a tax CREDIT, not just a deduction, equal to half of the expenditures for eligible accommodations that are above $250.  The maximum credit is $5000.

The following is excerpted from: Center for Disabilities Issues and the Health Professions

The credit is available every year and may be used for a variety of costs such as:

• Sign language interpreters for employees and/or customers who have hearing impairments;
• Readers for employees and/or customers who have visual impairments;
• Purchase of adaptive equipment or the modification of equipment;
• Production of print materials in alternate formats (e.g., Braille, CD, audio tape, large print); and
• Removal of barriers, in buildings and transportation, that prevents a business from being accessible to, or usable by, people with disabilities.

“Most importantly for the purpose of the practitioner, Code Section 44 requires that eligible access expenditures must be reasonable and necessary to comply with the ADA requirements.”

My focus is on the removal of barriers.  For instance, a lawyer could use this tax credit, to build a ramp to the front entry and an accessible toilet room in an existing office space.  But the bigger issue is providing service to individuals with hearing or vision impairments.

A recent Freakonomics article “The Price of Disability Law“, concluded that the added cost of hiring a sign-language interpreter for a patient with a hearing impairment was a disincentive for a doctor to provide services for people with disabilities.  The article also references a lawsuit where a Dr. was ordered to pay $400,000.00 to a deaf patient. The doctor was probably not aware of the tax incentive that could have gone a long way to covering his expenses related to serving this particular patient.

Thanks to www.jenxer.com for reminding me of this tax credit.

It’s not a Flat Earth: Why your curb ramp is too steep.

It happens all the time on inspections.  I’m standing in the August heat trying to explain to a contractor or architect why the 6 foot long curb ramp is too steep.

They argue that since the curb is 6 inches high, the ramp need only be 6 foot long to achieve the 1:12 (8.3%) slope permitted by the ADA.  The fact that my electronic level reads a slope of 10.4% is usually ignored in a fit of cognitive dissonance.

So how can it be that a 6 foot long ramp is insufficient for a 6″ curb? 1″ in 12″, right? Nope, because you aren’t trying to get to the top of the curb.  Take a look at this diagram:

Most sidewalks running along buildings (strip shopping centers are a good example) have a slope of 1/4″ per foot to allow for drainage away from the building.  This slope is usually continuous to the curb.  The curb ramp is fighting this 1/4″ per foot rise as it cuts into the sidewalk; for every foot of ramp length, the height increases by 1/4″.  In the example above a 6′ ramp will have a running slope of 10.4% (7-1/2″ rise with a 72″ run).

To comply with the ADAAG, the curb ramp must be 8 foot long to achieve a maximum running slope of 8.3%.  And, no, handrails are not required on curb ramps regardless of the length.

If 8′-0″ is too long, try using a parallel curb ramp that slopes parallel to the curb and doesn’t have to fight the incline.

Flexible Curbs for Accessible Roll-in Showers

The Water Stopper

At the Texas Society of Architects convention in Fort Worth last year I came across an interesting product marketed by Best Bath Systems called the Water Stopper.

The Water Stopper is a 1-3/8″ tall rubber fin that can be installed at the entry to an accessible shower to prevent water from flowing out of the enclosure.  The fin is flexible enough that it is supposed to flatten down to 1/4″ when a wheelchair rolls over it.  It seems like a great solution, but does it comply with the ADAAG?

Roll-in showers are not permitted to have curbs and smaller transfer-type showers are permitted to only have 1/2″ high curbs.  If you are retrofitting a shower or if you have a lousy tile guy, you will likely have water spilling from the shower enclosure and flowing into your bedroom.  This is a common problem.

From the ADAAG (1991) – 4.21.7 Curbs. If provided, curbs in shower stalls 36 in by 36 in (915 mm by 915 mm) shall be no higher than 1/2 in (13 mm). Shower stalls that are 30 in by 60 in (760 mm by 1525 mm) minimum shall not have curbs.

From the revised ADA/ABAAG (2004) – 608.7 Thresholds.  Thresholds in roll-in type shower compartments shall be 1/2 inch (13 mm) high maximum in accordance with 303.  In transfer type shower compartments, thresholds 1/2 inch (13 mm) high maximum shall be beveled, rounded, or vertical. EXCEPTION:  A threshold 2 inches (51 mm) high maximum shall be permitted in transfer type shower compartments in existing facilities where provision of a 1/2 inch (13 mm) high threshold would disturb the structural reinforcement of the floor slab.

My thoughts on the Water Stopper:

• The ADAAG does not prohibit new technologies.  We should always be on the lookout for creative solutions.
• The prohibition on curbs was intended for hard curbs.  The old ADAAG refers to curbs, the revised ADAAG calls them thresholds and is a bit less restrictive, but neither guideline refers to flexible or removable systems.
• The Water Stopper does not seem to limit the function of a wheelchair.  Although I did not perform any scientific studies, I shared the product with several wheelchairs users who had no problems rolling over it.
• The Water Stopper is supposed to be easy to remove (It attaches with a pre-installed glue strip).  The fact that it can be removed isn’t a plus for transient lodging, but in assistive living or within a residential facility where the occupant is more permanent the adaptability is a good thing.
• The only reservation I had was that the 1-3/8″ height could be an issue if individuals trying to transfer into a shower get their foot hung up on the fin, but if the revised ADAAG will permit a 2″ hard curb in existing conditions, then this must not be too much of a problem.  None of the wheelchair users I spoke with had any concern about it.

Best Baths has a verbal interpretation from the Access-Board that the Water Stopper is in the “spirit of the code” [sic] and I would agree with that assessment.

In my opinion, this flexible curb should be accepted as equivalent facilitation.  Let me know what you think.

103 Equivalent Facilitation

Nothing in these requirements prevents the use of designs, products, or technologies as alternatives to those prescribed, provided they result in substantially equivalent or greater accessibility and usability.

Advisory 103 Equivalent Facilitation.  The responsibility for demonstrating equivalent facilitation in the event of a challenge rests with the covered entity. With the exception of transit facilities, which are covered by regulations issued by the Department of Transportation, there is no process for certifying that an alternative design provides equivalent facilitation.

Godzilla vs. Disability Law

I bet you did not know that Godzilla was a civil rights pioneer.  Before President Johnson signed the Architectural Barriers Act in 1968, Godzilla was crushing people with disabilities without prejudice.  Before we had the Fair Housing Act, Godzilla was indiscriminately destroying the homes of people regardless of their abilities, race, religion or familial status.

Click on the little one to get the big one.

A timeline comparing Godzilla Movies and Disability Law