Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Elevators topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel discusses high U.S. elevator costs, code and market changes that could lower barriers to accessible housing
Summary
An informational hearing before the Senate Committee on Housing and Development examined how elevator costs, code requirements and market structure affect the supply of accessible multifamily and low-rise housing. Experts and advocates said U.S. elevator installation and maintenance costs are several times higher than in Western Europe and cited
Lawmakers heard an informational briefing on Aug. 30 about how the cost and regulation of residential elevators affect housing accessibility and the feasibility of building low-rise multifamily housing with elevators.
What experts said: Michael Anderson of Sightline Institute told the committee "The United States has by far the fewest number of elevators per capita among rich countries" and that U.S. elevator installation and operating costs run substantially higher than in peer countries. Steven Smith, executive director of the Center for Building in North America, told the committee a "4 to 6 stop elevator in The U.S. ... will run you about $160 to $180,000," compared with $35,000 to $65,000 for a comparable installation in Europe, and that U.S. elevator cabin sizes and an uncompetitive market both drive up costs.
Builders and developers described practical project consequences. Shane Boland, director of development at Owen Gabbard LLC, said small infill projects generally avoid elevators because upfront and maintenance costs make elevator-served buildings financially infeasible under current standards. Architect and builder Michael "Mike" Stephan of Walsh Construction estimated that for typical U.S. multifamily projects elevators are "running anywhere from $30,000 per floor or per stop to upwards of $50,000 per floor per stop," and suggested that downsizing cab sizes permitted by code could reduce costs by an estimated 25% to 30%.
Advocates and people with lived experience described the access implications. Vandana Shrestha of AARP Oregon and Cassie Wilson of 1000 Friends of Oregon, a disabled renter, testified about demographic trends and personal barriers: older adults and people with disabilities face limited supply of accessible housing and are displaced when multifamily housing lacks elevators. Community Vision's Ellen Hines described modular elevator options and said reduced-cost technologies could make elevators practical in two- and three-story buildings.
Regulators and safety perspectives: Richard Donovan of the Building Codes Division (DCBS) explained that elevator and structural specialty codes are adopted through a multi-step, public rulemaking process and that any code change would go through advisory boards and public review; Claire McGrew of the State Fire Marshal's Office emphasized that fire and life safety and emergency response considerations (including gurney access and stair-evacuation procedures) are central to code changes.
Possible policy levers discussed: witnesses proposed several avenues to lower costs or enable smaller elevators: reviewing U.S. technical standards to allow nonproprietary equipment, revising cabin-size requirements where appropriate, encouraging competition in equipment and service markets, and pursuing code changes through the standard adoption process. Panelists did not present an agreed legislative text; the hearing was informational.
Ending: Committee members thanked panelists and signaled interest in continued conversations that balance affordability, accessibility, and safety.
