Something that really could hold disc golf back...

[Cgkdisc]

It appears that the primary ADA compliance for ball golf is making their cart paths ADA compliant based on the specs dave posted above. Disc golf does not have carts or asphalt paths as standard part of our game. It would seem that unless someone is building a DG course that will have hard surface cart paths for carts, that the only compliance would be making sure access to hole 1 and egress from hole 18 are ADA compliant.

 

[davetherocketguy]

It appears that the primary ADA compliance for ball golf is making their cart paths ADA compliant based on the specs dave posted above. Disc golf does not have carts or asphalt paths as standard part of our game. It would seem that unless someone is building a DG course that will have hard surface cart paths for carts, that the only compliance would be making sure access to hole 1 and egress from hole 18 are ADA compliant.

True but the costs for such access could be signifigant especially on courses that rely solely on donations to be installed. If you've been a part of having a course installed with paved tee-pads how much was that operation? Usually, the number I've seen around here has been $300 for a 5' x 12' pad in a park setting. That's $25 per foot or $2500 per hundred feet. YIKES. If it's hard for the contractor to get the concrete to where it needs to be placed the costs will go up greatly from there. Or, if the hole is hilly and cutting and filling is required to flatten out a path the costs skyrocket. Don't believe me? Go check out what the rental rate is of a backhoe.

300' long hole one? Yeah, that'll be $7500 (or more) thank you very much.

But wait, the ADA says the path does not have to be paved. It just has to to be firm and stable. Not paved? Firm and stable? Riiiiiiiiiigggghhhtt. That "firm and stable" nebulous requirement rules out grass, dirt and 99.9% of the gravels on the market. Soooooo, unless the path is going to be some sort of ungodly expensive wooden boardwalk it has to be paved.

 

[MrFixIt]

But wait, the ADA says the path does not have to be paved. It just has to to be firm and stable. Not paved? Firm and stable? Riiiiiiiiiigggghhhtt. That "firm and stable" nebulous requirement rules out grass, dirt and 99.9% of the gravels on the market. Soooooo, unless the path is going to be some sort of ungodly expensive wooden boardwalk it has to be paved.

Crushed slate is acceptable for ADA applications.

 

[davetherocketguy]

Crushed slate is acceptable for ADA applications.

Well, granted I am speaking out of experience with the local materials we have here in southern Michigan. Crushed slate is really hard to come by here in these parts.

 

[reposado]

True but the costs for such access could be signifigant especially on courses that rely solely on donations to be installed. If you've been a part of having a course installed with paved tee-pads how much was that operation? Usually, the number I've seen around here has been $300 for a 5' x 12' pad in a park setting. That's $25 per foot or $2500 per hundred feet. YIKES. If it's hard for the contractor to get the concrete to where it needs to be placed the costs will go up greatly from there. Or, if the hole is hilly and cutting and filling is required to flatten out a path the costs skyrocket. Don't believe me? Go check out what the rental rate is of a backhoe.

300' long hole one? Yeah, that'll be $7500 (or more) thank you very much.

But wait, the ADA says the path does not have to be paved. It just has to to be firm and stable. Not paved? Firm and stable? Riiiiiiiiiigggghhhtt. That "firm and stable" nebulous requirement rules out grass, dirt and 99.9% of the gravels on the market. Soooooo, unless the path is going to be some sort of ungodly expensive wooden boardwalk it has to be paved.

your point in general is correct but asphalt is much cheaper than cement

 

[davetherocketguy]

your point in general is correct but asphalt is much cheaper than cement

True but...

So what? Material cost it might be a little less but the amount of labor is going to be the same.

An asphalt 5x12 I would guess cost around $200 - $250. Asphalt also requires more base prep than concrete as it needs to be placed on a well compacted gravel base so that savings may be negated. Also, in order to do it correctly a lot of heavy machinery is needed which is not ideal for some applications. With concrete you can get away with bucketing in the concrete on a bobcat while the truck sits in the parking lot and the rest is hand tools. Asphalt really needs to be rolled after placement and should be placed with a paver if you want it to look decent.

Just things to consider...

 

[MrFixIt]

Well, granted I am speaking out of experience with the local materials we have here in southern Michigan. Crushed slate is really hard to come by here in these parts.

I had no idea that crushed slate wasn't available locally in your area.
:doh:
Come to think of it, I wonder where we get it from in my area...:\

 

[Tfire25]

I don't think I've ever used crushed slate. Decomposed granite has worked in the past. I've also had a dirt path meet Ada requirements. There is a stabilizer they use on decomposed granite that works on dirt.

Not only is Dave completely right, he may be under selling it. I've never seen a raz(Ada inspector) use a 4 ft smart level. Around here they bring a 1 ft smart level. If a freaking pebel is on the concrete it can throw you off.

Dave- have you ever seen the 10% with 2% landings work? I never have. If I remember right there has to be hand rails on the 10% sections as well.

Contractors get screwed a lot as well. The architect will draw the plans with sidewalks over 5% longitudal or 2% cross slope and we have to catch it. If we pour it wrong we get screwed. They always put in a little cya note that says " no sidewalks shall exceed either a 5% longitudal slope or a 2% cross slope". It should have an addendum that says "even if I draw it wrong".

 

[davetherocketguy]

I don't think I've ever used crushed slate. Decomposed granite has worked in the past. I've also had a dirt path meet Ada requirements. There is a stabilizer they use on decomposed granite that works on dirt.

Not only is Dave completely right, he may be under selling it. I've never seen a raz(Ada inspector) use a 4 ft smart level. Around here they bring a 1 ft smart level. If a freaking pebel is on the concrete it can throw you off.

Dave- have you ever seen the 10% with 2% landings work? I never have. If I remember right there has to be hand rails on the 10% sections as well.

Contractors get screwed a lot as well. The architect will draw the plans with sidewalks over 5% longitudal or 2% cross slope and we have to catch it. If we pour it wrong we get screwed. They always put in a little cya note that says " no sidewalks shall exceed either a 5% longitudal slope or a 2% cross slope". It should have an addendum that says "even if I draw it wrong".

Oh lawdy...they use a short smart level on a gravel path? That's just cruel.

I think area 51 really exists and aliens really did land there. Why? I think all the aliens that landed there all became architects.

Personally, I've never seen 10% slopes used on any project I've worked on and now that you mentioned hand rails I know why haha. Every project I've been on the max running slope was always 8.33% which is easy to figure because it's 1"/12". I just work on roadways and the adjacent walks. Usually the design called for 5% or less and if you could get it below 5% that worked out best so the landing areas are eliminated. When I've needed the 2% landing areas I've always managed to get crews to build correctly. The key is getting them to use a smart level and tell them to shoot for 1% to 1.5% which is barely enough to get the water to sheet off and it gives you some padding in case they don't finish it perfectly. Sometimes it's almost easier to pour the landing area first and match the connecting walk to it assuming you have someone smart enough to do the calcs and can shoot the elevations in correctly.

Also, something else people are not realizing and I just thought of with Tfires post is in order to install these ADA compliant walks we might be required to hire either a licensed engineer or architect to have these walks designed in some communities.

Kiss another $5000 (or more) bye bye.

Some of us may have to hire a licensed design pro anyways regardless if it's required. Why? Take a look at your average dg hole. Now, go through and calculate the volume of dirt that needs to be moved in order to match ADA standards. Go on, do it. Not easy is it? Guess what, to get a good price - or sometimes any price at all - from a contractor you're going to need to know how many CYD needs to be hauled out/in especially if the hole is hilly. Which means a topographic survey, CAD drawings, calcs, etc. etc.

MrFixit...It's all a matter of local geology. Here in the heart of the midwest we are blessed with sometimes hundreds of feet of glacial deposits which means producing gravels for concrete or asphalt are pretty cost effective as a lot of it is riverbed gravels from the melting glaciers. What bedrock that is exposed is usually limestone. The closest deposits of shale that I am aware of I think are in the upper peninsula of Michigan and I do not believe are in substantial enough quantities to warrant producing for a path. South of the Ohio river there are no known glacial deposits (at least not like we have here) so bedrock is far more accessible. That means in your local rock quarries are probably mining this stuff in large quantities making it cost effective for paths. Shale is pretty common stuff.

 

[Tfire25]

I think there are certain rules next to a roadway that allow for steeper grades and less landings. The reason the 10% with 2% landings don't work in a park is because with how long the landings have to be it equals out to a straight 5% longitudal slope.

My company only builds parks. They range from 20 mil sports complexes to 1 mil city parks. On the bigger jobs the plans are 2 to 3 inches thick. I've built treehouses, countless buildings, ball fields, lake overlooks, ampitheaters, and miles of trail amongst other things. All that being said, the hardest part of my job is making the paths and handicap ramps legal.

I'm going to take one course and show how much it would cost to make it legal. Z-boaz in ft worth.
Hole 2- the path up hill would have to to reach from the top of the hill back 200 ft past the t-box. At least 50,000$
Hole 4 downhill path 30,000$
Hole 6 uphill path 20,000$
Hole 9 would be impossible unless you brought in thousands of cy of dirt.
The two bridges to cross the creek would be a combined 300,000$ or more.
The walkways between holes and throughout the entire course would be about the same.
It would be damn near 1.2 million on that one course.

 

[davetherocketguy]

Sounds like you would have A LOT more experience with ADA specs in a park setting than I do. :thmbup: As I said earlier, it's just been city streets where I've encountered ADA requirements.

Everyone see the dollar amounts above? Yeah, that's what we are facing folks and that is why I am a little freaked out about this whole issue. Even if it's just one hole we have to make ADA compliant it will be a royal PITA. You think fundraising for 18 baskets is bad? Hahaha just wait...

 

[WhiteyBear]

Sounds like you would have A LOT more experience with ADA specs in a park setting than I do. :thmbup: As I said earlier, it's just been city streets where I've encountered ADA requirements.

Everyone see the dollar amounts above? Yeah, that's what we are facing folks and that is why I am a little freaked out about this whole issue. Even if it's just one hole we have to make ADA compliant it will be a royal PITA. You think fundraising for 18 baskets is bad? Hahaha just wait...

I seriously doubt it will come to that.

Again, I challenge any club/city to actually create one course that fully meets ADA requirements, even just nine holes. Invite all the disabled persons you can find, even get Wounded Warriors and paralympians out there. Guarantee you that you would get tons more publicity that you would expect.

It's called going around asking for help, get the community involved, tell them your plans and vision and see which businesses would help. It's also called prison labor, which is common for park labor.

Stop thinking that we have to get millions of dollars for one course, ask for pro bono work, it never hurts to just ask.

 

[WhiteyBear]

Something else I envisioned, is to use a course like Emporia Country Club, and invite all disabled/wounded veterans, firefighters, law enforcement, and have a free tournament just for them. Provide lunch and trophies.

Have local DGers caddy for them, and drive a cart if that is needed. Something to give back and let them know that we not only appreciate them, but would love for them to participate in our game as well.

Yeah, this is a cost, and yes this can be funded through normal means anyways. Just need help of those who want to give back to those that are in the service(s).

It would speak volumes to that community, believe me, being involved in that community all my life I know how special it is when you offer them something they can't normally do.

 

[davetherocketguy]

I seriously doubt it will come to that.

Again, I challenge any club/city to actually create one course that fully meets ADA requirements, even just nine holes. Invite all the disabled persons you can find, even get Wounded Warriors and paralympians out there. Guarantee you that you would get tons more publicity that you would expect.

It's called going around asking for help, get the community involved, tell them your plans and vision and see which businesses would help. It's also called prison labor, which is common for park labor.

Stop thinking that we have to get millions of dollars for one course, ask for pro bono work, it never hurts to just ask.

Cool. You can show us how it's done then.

 

[WhiteyBear]

Cool. You can show us how it's done then.

I would absolutely love to do that. I already put a proposal in for one place, and I'm hoping to make a reality of the tournament happen in the next 2 years.

As far as the course is concerned, I already have on in mind that wouldn't take too much more to be "finished" Would be interesting to see what could happen then.

 

[DG_Before_Breakfast]

Sounds like NIMBYs grasping for dubious legal reasons to avoid the course being put in.

 

[Tfire25]

Whitey, I'm not saying to ignore disabled people. I'm saying that to accommodate them would really hurt the sport depending on how far the Ada will take it.

I'm not against making a three hole loop on courses but to make an entire course accessible would take away from the game. One course in a metroplex would be not be acceptable to the Ada. It will have to be on a course by course baisis.

 

[davetherocketguy]

I would absolutely love to do that. I already put a proposal in for one place, and I'm hoping to make a reality of the tournament happen in the next 2 years.

As far as the course is concerned, I already have on in mind that wouldn't take too much more to be "finished" Would be interesting to see what could happen then.

If you have a flat course and a community support with copious amounts of $$ to give then it becomes far more feasible so if that's the case for you count your blessings. Not all of us are so fortunate to have such a combination. My guess is that in most situations it's a much bigger hill to climb than that - more like Mount Everest.

Sounds like NIMBYs grasping for dubious legal reasons to avoid the course being put in.

What?

Not sure what you are getting at here. If you are implying that I am against installation of ADA compliant courses then you are smoking the good stuff. My concern is over cost and the fact that this community doesn't seem to care that if ADA requirements are applied to all new DG courses it could severely stunt or nearly eliminate new course growth. If it's challenging raising the funds for a new course now multiply the difficultly times at least 3 and...good luck.

IMHO if the government is going to apply onerous regulations then they need to step up to the plate and contribute but given the current political climate - that ain't happening. The Feds are kinda stupid like that.

 

[WhiteyBear]

If you have a flat course and a community support with copious amounts of $$ to give then it becomes far more feasible so if that's the case for you count your blessings. Not all of us are so fortunate to have such a combination. My guess is that in most situations it's a much bigger hill to climb than that - more like Mount Everest.

There are two that I know of, Riverside Park and Centennial Park. Centenniel was a park that had paved running trails in open space, with a little creek running through it. Perfect and flat. Person in a wheelchair could go the entire length of the course on the trail.....getting around on the grass is a different story, although an outdoor powerchair fixes that problem.

The DG course was raised with 100% city funding, zero club money, and to this day the club has spent 0 money on it. Individuals chip in with work days, and help raise money for benches and pads. It's a supreme rarity, but proves it can be done.

 

[DG_Before_Breakfast]

What?

Not sure what you are getting at here. If you are implying that I am against installation of ADA compliant courses then you are smoking the good stuff. My concern is over cost and the fact that this community doesn't seem to care that if ADA requirements are applied to all new DG courses it could severely stunt or nearly eliminate new course growth. If it's challenging raising the funds for a new course now multiply the difficultly times at least 3 and...good luck.

IMHO if the government is going to apply onerous regulations then they need to step up to the plate and contribute but given the current political climate - that ain't happening. The Feds are kinda stupid like that.

No, it just sounds like someone decided to research an off-the-wall legalistic path to avoid the course going in. I'm all for courses being accessible if it is reasonable. But obviously this sport involves hiking around in the woods, so that isn't going to work for some disabled persons.