Find YOUR path
ASCENT
Accessibility Scales for Characterizing Easy Natural Trails
A Trail Rating System for People with Disabilities
In brief, what is ASCENT?
The Accessibility Scales for Characterizing Easy Natural Trails is a system for rating natural trails tailored to the needs of people with disabilities just starting out
-
ASCENT is based upon those trail characteristics that federal standards has identified as important to people with disabilities
-
ASCENT is developed to initially focus on the easiest kinds of natural surface (e.g., dirt and grass) trails that someone with a disability might first explore, to expand later to include more challenging trails
-
ASCENT defines the specific terms and thresholds that people can use when reviewing trails to capture whether these might be useable by people with disabilities
-
ASCENT separates out the Effort required to complete a trail (that everyone experiences) from the many forms of Stress that people with disabilities might experience and that varies depending on the nature of their disability
-
ASCENT is a key tool for people with disabilities who want to begin can be considered together with other factors (Goals, Comfort, Supports, and Conditions) to plan a successful walk all year-round
-
ASCENT also helps park managers identify trails they might easily improve to become more useable by more people, and regional leaders set priorities to improve access across a county or state
-
People with disabilities like Margot have different levels of skills and confidence, depending on their particular disability.
-
Our fitness, skills, and confidence can grow with experience.
-
We look for trails not only based on our fitness, skills, and experience, but also on our goals.
​​​
We therefore need a trail rating system that allows people with disabilities to choose a path or trail based on our own particular level of fitness, skills, and confidence, so that we can set and meet goals to increase these.
​​
How does ASENT work with Accessibility Standards
I reference Universal Access (UA) standards across this site when describing all Shared Use Paths and Universal Access (UA) Trails. These are based on the summary provided in Trails for All People (see right), with specific page references. These guidelines review issues related to accessibility on these paths and trails.
​The summaries offered below are intended to quickly orient users to general principles. Readers are encouraged to review the manual while those seeking to build Shared Use Paths or UA trails MUST rely on experienced trail designers and builders.
​​​​
​​​​These ratings reference the specific features and thresholds captured in the UA standards: Combined Running Grade, Cross-Grade, Width, Surface, and Obstacles. Path or trails rated as
-
A+ exceeds these standards
-
A meets these standards
-
A- falls just short of these standards
-
B fails to meet these standards
-
C clearly fails to meet these standards
​​​​​​​
We need a system specific to people with disabilities because existing rating systems do not work for them
Some rating systems span a very wide range of difficulty, and do not offer finer distinctions important to those with mobility challenges. ​Other rating systems not only span a very wide range of lengths, but they also confound length (Effort) and difficulty (Stress).
-
In the 5 point system described by the National Park Service, Level 5 includes hikes 5-8 miles long with steep inclines that would be "challenging for an unconditioned person".
-
The system used in Australia's parks (see right) also addresses whether wayfinding skills may be needed.
​​
Other ratings like those adopted by Pennsylvania (p. 12) and pictured to the right include more descriptors relevant to those with mobility challenges but may still be too vague.
​​​​
Many systems also ignore the kinds of paths found in local parks, which can be so helpful for people with disabilities who just want to Get Moving.
​
Our Trail Rating System for People with Disabilities
I honed the model integrating Effort/Fitness and Stress/Skills, and then setting Goals to build Confidence when teaching Margot how to ski​​​​
Helps to Build the Fitness, Skills, and Confidence needed to reach our Goals
My approach to trail rating is based on 3 principles
-
People with disabilities like Margot have different levels of skills and confidence, depending on their particular disability.
-
Our fitness, skills, and confidence can grow with experience.
-
We look for trails not only based on our fitness, skills, and experience, but also on our goals.
​​
We therefore need a trail rating system that allows people with disabilities to choose a path or trail based on our own particular level of fitness, skills, and confidence, so that we can set and meet goals to increase these.
​​
Fitness and Trail Effort
The level of fitness required to complete a walk - the Effort - is determined by the length of the walk, and the Combined Running Grades (e.g., slopes) they encounter.​​
​​
Effort is based on the length of the trail and the types of slopes encountered, and so is easier to reliably predict
-
A trail that is twice as long probably takes twice the amount of effort to complete.
-
Trails may also require increased effort depending on the length of the sloped section(s) AND the significance of grades, though the specific increase in effort required is surprisingly hard to assess
-
This relationship between the trail effort and the level of fitness required is likely true regardless of a person's disability.
-
We can confidently set goals to increase fitness by choosing trails based on their length and (to a less degree) on the types of grades they encounter​.
​
The specific criteria for different ratings of Combined Running Grade are detailed elsewhere
​
Helps to Build the Fitness, Skills, and Confidence needed to reach our Goals
​​​​
We know that Margot will take longer to walk the Oversee Farm Trail compared to a flat path of the same length, because of the grades
Margot will not want to hike if her feet are wet, so this stream crossing on the Lower Octararo Trail at Glenroy Preserve becomes a barrier
Features / Barriers, Trail Stress, and Skills
The Stress we experience or Barriers we encounter while walking a path depend on the skills we need to navigate its Cross-Grades, Width, Surface, and Obstacles. These determine whether a path or trail is accessible or inaccessible, given our particular disability.
​​​​​
A Trail Barrier is a feature that a person with a disability cannot overcome (or only with great difficulty)
-
Example: A wheelchair user faced with stairs. ​​
-
Barriers prevent a person from continuing their walk.​
​​​
A Trail Stressor is a feature that a person with a disability finds difficult to navigate​​
-
Example: A 3" high rock that a person with low vision must take care to step around.
-
Stressors make a walk less comfortable, and enough stressors may make a walk so uncomfortable that someone with a disability does not complete it or never return to it.
​​​​​
Whereas the relationship between Effort/Fitness and Length/Running Grade is likely similar for many of those with and without disabilities, the experience of Trail Stress varies greatly from one person to another, depending upon on the nature of the person's disability.​​​
-
This system includes separate ratings (detailed elsewhere) for each of the features referenced in the UA standards (Cross-Grade, Width, Surface, and Obstacles)
-
This allows each person to choose a trail just right for them
​By characterizing some trail features as stressors, and the skills needed to navigate them, we begin to see how some people with disabilities may set goals to build their skills and thus access trails that are technically inaccessible (e.g., exceed UA standards).
Margot can navigate rocks and roots, like these on Flint Hill Preserve, but finds them stressful, slowing her down and lengthening her walk.
Width is a simple, reliable, and meaningful rating for a device like this adaptive stroller. The gaps between trees on the Whitley Farm Loop is never less than 32", ensuring that Margot can just squeeze through.
Simple, reliable, and meaningful ratings
help people with disabilities become more confident in choosing a trail that is just right for them.
​​
This rating system is anchored in features recognized as important to people with disabilities (e.g., Running & Cross-Grades, Width, Surface, and Obstacles).
-
Most of the features referenced here are are also simple and reliable - e.g., we can readily agree on the trail's width
-
The standard for accessibility here is meaningful - e.g., an A Rating is consistent with UA Standards, and is the baseline recognized as facilitating access for all users. ​
​​
Ratings guide the development of goals supporting incremental improvement for people with disabilities
​​​​
-
Goals related to fitness (Get Moving and Get Fit) requires choosing paths that are longer and/or have more challenging Combined Running Grades but with Stress rated A- or better.
-
A goal of Building Skills requires choosing trails with increasing levels of Trail Stress (from A to A- to B) in specific features of interest.
-
The thresholds for increasing levels of Trail Stress are selected to help people with disabilities take their first steps in natural trails
​​​​​
By setting goals and working gradually towards them, Margot can become more comfortable on more trails, increasing access to special places
Other Sources of Confusion
Trail builders must comply with federal accessibility standards only "to the extent practicable"
In practice, this means that Multi-Use and Walking Paths are permitted to exceed allowable grades because of the terrain, like in the example listed below. When only local or private funds to build these paths and trails have no obligation to adhere to accessibility standards. In practice, the high cost of multi-use paths means that states, counties, and municipalities must rely on federal dollars (including pass-through grants to states and counties), and so they must strive to comply with these standards.​
​
CASE STUDY The descent from Alapocas Drive into Brandywine Park in the westernmost section of the Northern Delaware Greenway includes more than 160' of difficult downhill grades (up to 20%) that would make this uncomfortable for many cyclists and all but the most experienced wheelchair users. You can see this in the grades to the left, with each dot marking a 10' section, and dark blue indicating difficult downhill grades. Like many shared use paths, no resting intervals are provided.
A trail meeting accessibility standards is not always an easy one
A trail does not have to be uniformly flat to meet UA standards. A path with Running Grades rated as A can have uphill section of any length as long as these do not exceed 5%. It can have uphill sections of 5-8.33% for up to 30', and uphill sections of 8.33-10% for up to 10'. And it can have any number of these as long as there are resting intervals in between. These can all increase Trail Effort.
​
Even a path with Running Grades rated as A+ can require effort! This beautiful 600' boardwalk section of the Jack Markell Trail complies with standards for shared use paths because it never exceeds a 5% grade. Nonetheless, its length would make it difficult - and potentially stressful - for less experienced or fit users.
​​
