Find YOUR path
ASCENT - Rationale
Our rating system that allows people with disabilities to choose the best path or trail tailored to their individual abilities and goals for better health and quality of life,.
Builds on Federal Standards defining Universal Access Trails and Shared Use Paths. Read more.
Supports planning at the individual, organization, and regional level. Read more.
Focuses on easier natural trails, those that people with disabilities might first use to connect with nature. Read more.
Uses simple, reliable, and meaningful ratings we will validate through research. Read more.
Separates Effort from Stress to help people with disabilities get fit on paved paths before trying natural trails. Read more.
Addresses limitations of other rating systems that just do not work for people with disabilities. Read more.
Check out the Overview of the ASCENT Rating System HERE.
Builds on Federal 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. Text offered below and elsewhere on the site is 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.
Read the Trails for All People manual HERE
Focuses on easier natural trails to helps people with disabilities begin to improve their health & quality of life
ASCENT is developed primarily to help people with disabilities build from first experiences walking paved paths to then begin to explore easy natural (e.g., dirt and grass) trails. Why? Because such trails
-
Can eventually help people with disabilities become more confident on a broader range of trails
-
Are more likely than paved paths to connect people with disabilities to more beautiful natural places that increase the quality of life
-
Can often be found in many more places, making them easier to access to meet daily exercise goals
-
Can be created at a fraction of the cost of paved paths, significant increasing overall capacity with much more modest investments.
For every mile of paved path, we believe there are 2-3 miles of natural trails that could be made more useable to people with disabilities, with minor improvements
Separates Trail Effort from Trail Stress to help people with disabilities begin by building their fitness
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
Read more about Trail Effort HERE
The level of fitness required to complete a walk - the Trail Effort - is determined by the
-
Length of the walk, and
-
Any medium to long slopes (Running Grades) users encounter (ratings are detailed elsewhere)
Why focus separately on Trail Effort?
-
It can be reliably predicted (e.g., a trail that is twice as long likely takes twice the effort to complete).
-
It probably does not vary as much in people with disabilities (e.g., a trail that is twice as long will be twice as hard for anyone regardless of 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 Running Grades.
Walks on paved paths are a great way for people with disabilities to
-
Improve their physical health, by setting goals to Get Moving and Get Fit, and to
-
Prepare them for their first walks on natural trails that can begin to connect them with more beautiful places that improve their quality of life.
Defines specific barriers and stressors that people with disabilities experience on natural trails
Trail Stress is the discomfort we experience or barriers we encounter while walking a natural trail. The amount of stress depends our capacity and confidence to navigate specific features that vary significantly across trails - e.g., Cross-Grades, Width, Surface, Obstacles, and short steep Running Grades.
-
Our capacity will vary depending on the nature of our disability, and the strength and skills we have developed to compensate
-
Our confidence will depend on the positive experiences we have had walking similar trails
A Trail Barrier is a feature that a person with a disability cannot overcome, or only with great difficulty (see right)
-
Example: A wheelchair user faced with stairs.
-
Barriers prevent a person from continuing their walk.
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
Margot can navigate rocks and roots, like these on Flint Hill Preserve. But these obstacles (rated A-) increase her stress and slow her down.
A Trail Stressor is a feature that a person with a disability finds difficult but not impossible to navigate (see left)
-
Example: 3" high rocks that a person with low vision is worried about stepping around.
-
Stressors make a walk less comfortable; enough may make a walk so uncomfortable that someone with a disability does not complete it or never returns to it.
By characterizing some trail features as stressors, and by recognizing the strength and skills needed to navigate them, we begin to see how some people with disabilities may set goals to build their capacity to walk trails that are technically inaccessible (e.g., exceed UA standards).
Read more about Trail Stress HERE
Supports planning
ASCENT can support planning at the individual, organization, and regional level. For example, ASCENT can support individual planning by helping each person to find the trail just right for them
-
Separate ratings for each feature (Cross- & Running Grade, Width, Surface, and Obstacles), help each person identify which feature(s) they find stressful
-
Carefully graded stress levels - A, B, C, and D - within each feature help each person choose a difficulty level that matches their current capacity and confidence
Read more about planning HERE
Trails in Stateline Woods vary in terms of types and levels of stress, allowing Margot to choose one that can build her capacity without too much stress
Uses simple, reliable, and meaningful ratings that will be validated through research
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 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, the baseline recognized as facilitating access for all users.
Through my experience helping to develop manuals for other popular scales in the field of Autism used by countless researchers and clinicians around the world, I know how to design rating scales that can be widely and reliably adopted.
Read more about Trail Effort HERE
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.
Addresses limitations of other rating systems
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.
Addresses 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 full 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 users with disabilities who are less experienced or less fit.
