I have a project where the most practical path of travel to the public sidewalk is to walk behind the parking spaces within the vehicular path, see attachment. Please note that this is an existing building and parking lot that is undergoing a major interior remodel. The plans examiner is referencing that this is not permitted per CBC section 1133B.8. Does anyone have any suggestions to support the proposed path of travel?




Last edited {1}
Original Post
Paint is not an effective barrier for cars backing up.

Seperation is always the best practice.
It appears one of my employees posted this without changing the signature line. I was in a Michael Gibbens seminar and he said this was acceptable but I realize though he is an authority on accessibility, he is not a code official though highly respected. I told my employee to post this question, it forgot to mention that small detail. I like to give plan reviewers something they can hang their hat on and not just Gibbens says so. I don't know where the paint idea came from, per the San Diego study, paint is a waste of money and gives folks a false secruity so I would not have suggested it.
The plans examiner has raised a valid issue but may be off a bit in "not permitted". Given the exact language, you can cross or adjoin a vehicular way if you have the detectable warning band(s). I don't recommend the layout shown due to insurance and liability exposure.

Without dimensions on the site plan, it is difficult to determine how much you have to work with. I recommend trying to squeeze a 4ft walk along plan top of the parking lot. May require moving the plan bottom spaces a bit to maintain backup clearances. The trees appear to be the smallest and best positioned at plan top compared to plan bottom.

In any case, a difficult problem.
wayne, we did a lot of these before the ada/title 24. so when it comes to updating and remodeling these buildings, you will see more and more of these.

MG has been consistent in his opinion, and i have not seen anything that would dispute that (granted, i've missed the latest Title 24 edition). no, it is not the best solution, but if there is no room for a 48" wide accessible walk, then you may have no other option.

we did the detectable bands when crossing a parking lot in an existing facility being updated for chp. nobody was happy with that solution. sorry, i have nothing to offer to help. good luck!
It is! looking out my window, it is a bright sunny day, ocean looks calm. in a couple more hours, i'll be on the beach with a "soda" in hand to watch the sunset. it is very good! Smile

happy new year to you as well! keep warm over there! hope things really pick up for you over there this year!

I have a plan reviewer demanding we paint a POT in a parking lot and I now cannot find the study that San Diego did saying this is a bad idea.  Anyone have access to that study or know where I can get it from?  Thanks all

There is no code language that would require that.  Sometimes the insurance companies like to see it.  I have not seen the report you are referring too.

We discussed this during the last ANSI sessions for a very long time. Painted pathways are not detectable for people who are functionally blind, and detectable warning surfaces are inappropriate, other than right at the no-curb entrances to vehicular ways. Gene Lozano at the California Council of the Blind tells me there are two or three types of tactile marking surfaces that are cane detectable. I can try to find his email, which was a while ago, or ask him again. Having a separate walkway is always best, if it is possible. 

Over the years this topic has reared it's head several times.  I do not believe there is a code that requires the painted pathway (but of course it is possible I am 'out of date', and also do not know your locally-amended code). 


Studies in past (I'm sorry I can't point to one specifically right now) have shown that painted pathways  are a negative.  They give pedestrians the false impression that they are in a protected zone, and so the pay less attention to the cars that are circulating in the parking/drive areas.  This applies not only to those with disabilities, but to the public at large. 


On that basis, and if the code does not require them, calling for painted pathway could even result in a claim of professional negligence (if someone was injured), even if there is little merit to that claim. The argument would be that a) it's not required, b) it is hazardous c) the hazardous feature increased the likelihood of injury, and d) the designer knew or should have known about a) b) and c).


The 'direct' way to approach this is to simply ask the plans examiner to show you where, in the code (either Federal/ADA, state or locally adopted) it is required.  The official must provide you with a specific code section that supports his/her position.  If not, you can politely thank him/her for the advice but decline to conform.  If there is still resistance, then your next stops are the BO, the local jurisdiction's city manager, city attorney, etc., in turn.


Most designers do not like to 'take issue' with things a plan examiner asks for, for a variety of reasons...  but the rules are clear.  Without a direct citation to a code section the BO is not in a position to 'demand' anything.

If the code states:

Accessible parking space locations shall not require persons using them to travel behind parking spaces other than their own. CBC 11B-502.7.1

By logic It will a hard sale to allow a POT across several vehicle parking spaces

 And as Jim stated:

If a walk crosses or adjoins a vehicular way, and the walking surfaces are not separated by curbs, railings, or other elements between the pedestrian areas and vehicular areas, the boundary between the areas shall be defined by a continuous detectable warning which is 36 inches wide. (1133B.8.5)

As to MG's ongoing comments in his book, read his justifications. They are his opinions, have made him a lot of money and denied access to a lot of people. He does not support best practices, the right thing to do or performance guidelines; if it ain't prescriptively spelled out then it is not necessary. Defense counsels continue to retain him to reduce damage awards. Sorry for rambling.


Just do it right the first time and avoid grief down the line. As to existing conditions, do as the ADA says: do what you can at minimal cost but be prepared to defend yourself as many suer's don't have code books.  

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.