I find it is saddening to see these juvenile antics, on what is suppose to be a forum for professional discussion about railroad preservation. If you want to call people names using offensive terms do it somewhere else as this is not the place for it.

At my firm we are constantly designing curb ramps, sidewalks, and landings to meet ADA compliance. I find it interesting that ADA requires 1/4" max difference in elevation for thresholds, different sections of sidewalk, etc. I'm not aware of too many sidewalks that don't settle over time and go out of compliance, but no one ever worries about it until there's a complaint. We recently designed a fast food restaurant, and the contractor didn't construct the sidewalks or curb ramps correctly so that they were just barely over maximum slope and cross slope. An ADA advocate measured the walks at some point and sued the restaurant chain and the contractor had to reconstruct them. We have also had a client that has built dozens of apartment complexes; a percentage of the units are required to be ADA accessible. Several ADA advocate groups have paid for college students to rent a unit to gain access, and then have measured the unit for clearances, etc. The client was sued to correct several toilets with inadequate clearance on one side of about 1/2". That's what happens when a unit is designed with minimum clearances and the plumber is setting the flange before drywall. They have now started designing the units with additional clearance so they have some flexibility. This may seem like slightly off-topic, but you could run into similar problems with your facility. Make sure that your new construction meets ADA compliance.

I just got back from a few days in Luxembourg on business. It was interesting to see the mix of what was accessible and what was not. Clearly, whatever guidelines they have, buildings hundreds of years old are not forced into compliance.

I also enjoyed seeing signs around very steep paths and sidewalks, including those leading to cliffs (and great railfanning spots... next time...) that pretty much said by going down the trail, you accept responsibility for whatever happens. Man, do I wish we had that kind of sensibility here!

Rob

Do the ADA rules apply to buildings on the historic registers?

Later!
Mr. Ed

I thought those comments were aimed at me. That is why I got upset.

OK, at the risk of wishing I hadn't asked, what would make an individual with a physical disability less desireable as a paying customer than one with a developmental disorder? What would make either less desireable than one with no disabilities? If you prick them do they not bleed? Is their cash less green?

And yes, it was aimed at the individual with no grasp of spelling or syntax. Cheap shot but I have little patience with some forms of willful ignorance (and just a little more with the clueless kind it would seem).

To recap: Boomers have more disposable income and are getting older and less physically able by the minute. Make REASONABLE accomodations to make them (and others with varying degrees of ability) welcome customers and prosper more as a result.

dave

You're not getting the picture. The buildings **ARE ALREADY** in compliance.

If here, they would also be in compliance with ADA.

"Accessible" and "in compliance" are not the same thing. In compliance means you obey the law. The law does NOT require existing buildings to be accessible. Not in Luxembourg and not here.

The "historic building" aspect of things is barely a footnote. Needless to say, both countries agree hacking up historic buildings to make them accessible isn't even stupid.

Government must meet a higher standard for public offices. If they are located in a historic building, they face a catch-22. They must make the building accessible, but they can't butcher it. Often the cheapest play is "move the office to a modern building".


Yup. And they don't require accessibility. Here:

"Like Sec.36.405, this section permits deference to the national interest in preserving significant historic structures. Barrier removal would not be considered "readily achievable'' if it would threaten or destroy the historic significance of a building or facility that is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.), or is designated as historic under State or local law." http://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html

Got it! They actually are citing Appendix A to 28 CFR 35.150(b)(1). Findable here
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... ain_02.tpl
Scroll down to "Appendix", click that. It's very long. Search the word "carrying". Or find a header of "Historic Preservation Programs", and then go up (backward) two paragraphs.

Looks like an admonishment against the government itself -- warning government agents that they can't select a non-accessible site, stick government employees at each barrier and have them carry the disabled over. It explicitly forbids this as an alternative to a wheelchair lift. However it does authorize the government to man-carry people in a truly exceptional situation (they cite an oceanographic research vessel as an example.)

The "section 504" they mention is this:
http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?Fus ... tent&ID=15

robertmacdowell

Rob,

All due respect, but I think you misunderstood my statement. I merely said I was in an old city where what was made accessible vs. what wasn't was interesting.

Rob

You're right, your meaning was clear enough and I shouldn't have jumped all over you.

But you did confuse "compliant" and "accessible". Perhaps incidentally. But I chose to use that as a jumping off point, because it seems to me that very confusion is at the heart of many people's misunderstanding of ADA. This misunderstanding causes very serious problems. It makes people fear and loathe the law, which only deepens their resolve to refuse to understand the law, which leads them to either fall short of the law (and get in legal trouble) -- or out of ignorance exceed the law's requirements, like picking up a Sawzall.