A leading elevator safety expert has highlighted how drastically different building codes across states are creating dangerous inconsistencies in elevator safety standards, with some jurisdictions operating under decades-old regulations.
“Pennsylvania has not adopted a new code in 25 years, so all the elevators installed in Pennsylvania are under the 2000 code,” says Michael Walsh, Vice President of STO Building Group, highlighting how regulatory stagnation threatens public safety. This revelation comes as the industry grapples with rapidly advancing technology operating under outdated guidelines.
The Cross-Border Code Crisis
The problem becomes particularly acute for developers and building owners operating across state lines. “If I’m working in Pennsylvania under the 2000 code, and I just cross over into New Jersey, New Jersey is under the 2019 code,”Walsh explains. This regulatory patchwork creates confusion and potential safety gaps.
Walsh points out that these inconsistencies can lead to costly mistakes when architects and developers fail to account for different jurisdictional requirements. “It’s happened too often, where design architects are building an elevator to a code that is no longer in force, and the locality has adopted a newer code,” he says.
The Standards Battle
As a member of four American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) committees that write elevator safety codes, Walsh provides unique insight into the complex process of updating standards. “In these code meetings, you’ve got manufacturing who is trying to get their product to get through the code, and then you’ve got labor and industry, and there’s a lot of fighting that goes on back and forth,”he reveals.
This tension between innovation and safety creates additional challenges. “Not every manufacturer is thinking about safety. They’re thinking about, how can we get our product to market,” Walsh notes.
The Cost of Delay
Pennsylvania’s situation illustrates the broader problem of delayed code adoption. Walsh describes how in 2019, a legislative committee vetted over 18,000 code changes to adopt the 2016 standards. “We went through all the public hearings in Pennsylvania. It sits, still sits waiting for signature,”he says, highlighting how even when updates are ready, political inertia can prevent implementation.
Building Group’s Response
Walsh’s firm addresses these challenges by conducting thorough code research for every project location. “The first thing that I always do is my code research to understand what building code we’re under,” he explains, whether it’s the ICC, IBC, or local variants.
This diligence helps prevent costly mistakes and ensures compliance across jurisdictions. However, Walsh argues that a more standardized approach to code adoption would better serve public safety.
