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 I do not believe there is a code that requires the painted pathway (but of course it is possible I am 'out of date', and also do not know your locally-amended code).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.