It's my understanding that refurbished "historic" vehicles are exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Kenosha, WI is using "remanufactured" PCCs. Did they have to comply with ADA? Is "remanufactured" the same as "refurbished"?<br>



wbaoffice@ameritech.net

We were faced with this situation over a decade ago when Charlkotte Trolley didn't yet exist but we were planning for operation. Cutting into the side of car 85 was definitely not to be considered. It was brought to our attention at that time that we didn't have to comply not because of the historic nature of the car (total basket case chicken coop rebuild) but because the proposed route was paralleled by a bus line that had accessible vehicles provided we didn't charge more than the busses. I do not know if this will help or if that situation is still realistic. <p>We are overcoming this in Savannah by using a car with a big wide side door as originally designed - Melbourne Tramways W5. <p>Dave<br>



lathro19@idt.net

There is a specific exception in the ADA that resulted from an intense lobbying effort by AAPRCO. If I recall the details it went something like this: Railroad Passenger Cars of ,I believe some predetermined age, manufactured by companies no longer in the business of manufacturing RR cars were exempt from compliance.<p>It is in the Act.<p>Sorry the memory isn't better, but there is a specific provision.<br>



blevin@engr.psu.edu

My memory is fuzzy because it's been a long time since I read the ADA text. But, it I remember right, the AARPCO inserted item speaks to cars used in intercity service. It appears that neither TRAIN nor ARM were aware of the legislation as it was being written.<p>A number of people feel that historic railroad vehicles should be considered in the same way that the ADA addresses historic buildings.<p>One thing to understand about the ADA is that a large part of it is concerned with local and commuter transportation. This is because the disabled community had been trying for years to get the local transit agencies and commute authorities and DOT to provide access to disabled riders. When they could not get it done administratively they went the legislative route.<br><br>



bnorden@gateway.net

From 49CRF 37.107, here is the regulation:<p>Steve Zuiderveen<p><p> TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION<br> <br> Subtitle A--Office of the Secretary of Transportation<br> <br>PART 37--TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES (ADA)--Table of Contents<br> <br> Subpart E--Acquisition of Accessible Vehicles By Private Entities<br> <br>Sec. 37.107 Acquisition of passenger rail cars by private entities primarily engaged in the business of transporting people.<p> (a) A private entity which is primarily engaged in the business of <br>transporting people and whose operations affect commerce, which makes a <br>solicitation after February 25, 1992, to purchase or lease a new rail <br>passenger car to be used in providing specified public transportation, <br>shall ensure that the car is readily accessible to, and usable by, <br>individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use <br>wheelchairs. The accessibility standards in part 38 of this title which <br>apply depend upon the type of service in which the car will be used.<br> (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a private <br>entity which is primarily engaged in transporting people and whose <br>operations affect commerce, which remanufactures a rail passenger car to <br>be used in providing specified public transportation to extend its <br>useful life for ten years or more, or purchases or leases such a <br>remanufactured rail car, shall ensure that the rail car, to the maximum <br>extent feasible, is made readily accessible to and usable by individuals <br>with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs. For <br>purposes of this paragraph, it shall be considered feasible to <br>remanufacture a rail passenger car to be readily accessible to and <br>usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use <br>wheelchairs, unless an engineering analysis demonstrates that doing so <br>would have a significant adverse effect on the structural integrity of <br>the car.<br> (c) Compliance with paragraph (b) of this section is not required to <br>the extent that it would significantly alter the historic or antiquated <br>character of a historic or antiquated rail passenger car, or a rail <br>station served exclusively by such cars, or would result in the <br>violation of any rule, regulation, standard or order issued by the <br>Secretary under the Federal Railroad<p>[[Page 367]]<p>Safety Act of 1970. For purposes of this section, a historic or <br>antiquated rail passenger car means a rail passenger car--<br> (1) Which is not less than 30 years old at the time of its use for <br>transporting individuals;<br> (2) The manufacturer of which is no longer in the business of <br>manufacturing rail passenger cars; and<br> (3) Which--<br> (i) Has a consequential association with events or persons <br>significant to the past; or<br> (ii) Embodies, or is being restored to embody, the distinctive <br>characteristics of a type of rail passenger car used in the past, or to <br>represent a time period which has passed.<p><p><br><br>



SZuidervee@aol.com

Thank you for posting the significant sections of the act for us.<p>Brian Norden<br>



bnorden@gateway.net

Have any of these sections ever been tested in court?<p>I ask because so many other provisions of the ADA have been turned on their ear by judges and juries.<p>I shudder to think what would happen if these sections were the basis of a suit for denied access (say, for example, to a dome car) which was won by the plaintiff. Not only would the offending railroad be out a ton of bucks and others become instant targets for trolling plaintiff lawyers, but a huge amount of trouist/scenic/excursion railroad equipment would be forced out of service or would have to have extensive, expensive and very visible modifications made.<br>

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it appears to say only that<p>(a) new cars have to be accessible,<p>(b) remanufactured cars have to be accessible,<p>(c) making a remanufactured car accessible can be avoided if it damages the historic integrity of the car.<p>I don't see anything that requires you to remanufacture existing cars - it just says that IF YOU DO, you must make it accessible. So as long as that dome car isn't remanufactured, you're fine.<p>And even if it is, there are so many fuzzballs to hide behind in that section you can justify almost anything. "To the maximum extent feasible" and "significantly alter" are phrases that lawyers can build a house on ;-) <p>Then there's section 3iii - embodying distinctive characteristics or representing a time period. That's a big boulder to hide behind.<p>I'd venture the prediction that cars over 30 years old are safe. The downside to that is that soon that category will include purple-and-red-carpet-on-the-wall era Amtrak interiors . . . <p>JAC<br>

According to the ADA laws<p>1. yes if it's a new line, it must be accessable.<p>2. if it's a line extension, that must be accessable.<p>3. You must have a "plan" in place that will be implimented at some date, no later than 2010 ( as I recall) <p>4. Rolling stock must be modified to allow accessability, or a "plan" that might allow, say, every other service car to be accessable. The law says that all vehicles are to be made accessable, even down to vehicles donated to transit properties. (It's all very interesting reading !)<p><br>5. I cannot say what Kenosha is doing or not, But I believe they have lift attached to the front of the car.<p>6. The Municipal Railway in San Franscisco operates a handfull of PCC, Milan (Italy) cars and varies older cars (dating back to 1910 or so) and they are all accessable. (along with the other 130 + light rail cars )<p>7. San Jose, Ca, I believe they accomidate with the every other car situation.<p>8. I don't know what the MBTA is doing with thier rehabbed PCC cars for ADA accessability, but I'd be interested to know.<p> <br><br>



Pacifica@dnai.com