Printed from the blog of Lori Greene, AHC/CDC, CCPR, FDAI
Email:, Blog: or

Jun 28 2016

Guide to the ADA Standards – Chapter 5

Category: AccessibilityLori @ 12:34 am Comments (2)

us-access-board-smallThe United States Access Board has been slowly but surely building an online guide to the ADA.  Chapter 5 – General Site and Building Elements, is now available.  Although Chapter 5 doesn’t really apply to doors and hardware, this chapter of the guide may be helpful to architects, end users, and other iDigHardware readers who are responsible for designing or maintaining these building elements.

Entrances, doors, and gates are covered in Chapter 4 of the ADA Standards, and the online guide is available for that chapter as well.  Chapters 1-3 are also complete, and guidance for Chapters 6-10 will be available online when they are ready.

If you missed my post on the guide for Chapter 4, there were some interesting interpretations about doors and hardware, which I listed in this blog post.

Previous Post: | Next Post:

2 Responses to “Guide to the ADA Standards – Chapter 5”

  1. Jim Jennings says:

    Lori, This comment is not specifically pertinent to today’s post, but the subject reminded me to ask a question. In a recent conversation with the project manager responsible for most Oregon State DMV remodels, he said that they are moving away from their typical 36″ openings, whether single or double leafs, and changing to 42″ or 48″. Apparently some DMV customers complained that their specialty wheel chairs could not fit through the 32(+)” clear openings. When ODOT asked the state Attorney General’s office about ADA compliance the response was “better safe than sorry” and they should plan on accommodating the larger wheel chairs. So far they are only addressing the doors used by the public, not those in employee areas. Are you aware of this coming up in any other locales?

    • Lori says:

      Hi Jim –

      I saw a code change proposal about changing the minimum clear opening width to accommodate larger wheelchairs, so I knew this was an issue. The code change proposal failed, but there may be some local jurisdictions or facilities that require larger openings. I haven’t seen adoption of this officially anywhere.

      – Lori

Leave a Reply