I'm not sure how this might affect tourist/excursion/museum operators but it's probably something worth remembering.MikeA federal judge in Philadelphia ruled Friday that Amtrak can charge groups of wheelchair users extra to ride in the same car together. A disabled persons group had sued, claiming Amtrak's policy violated the Americans With Disabilities Act, after they were told that they could ride together on a train but some would have to pay $200 more than the normal ticket price for the cost of removing seats.The judge said that under federal law Amtrak must have one space to park a wheelchair and one space to store an unoccupied chair on passenger coaches, and Amtrak can charge extra for anything more.An Amtrak spokesperson said (not an exact quote) the charge for the removal of seats applies not just to wheelchair users, and if passengers want to throw a party on a train and seats have to be removed, they would be charged as well. (story covered in much greater detail in the Washington Post and at Trains Magazine's website.)

As one who has handled ticket sales in a tourist atmosphere for over 16 years, I can appreciate the predicament that Amtrak encountered. I have been caught between the eternal "rock and a hard-place" on many occasions when dealing with the handicapped. The ADA act was enacted with good intentions, and we all know that the road to heaven and h___ is paved with them. It was especialy difficult in our operations, as we basically "hired out" our operation to different organizations and towns, each having a different set of logistics. I personally used to take it on my own to "scout" these locations and destinations to actually see what problems they would impose, such as parking, handicaped access, rest-rooms, places to eat, etc. Once I found out what they were, I figured I had the information needed to handle just about every type of situation and questions that may arise. Some people will ask you outright what kind of facilities you have and detail their situation to you. Most people who are bringing handicapped persons are forthright and some common sense answers in the same forthright manner will put them at ease. If you give the impression that the last thing you want to do is turn people away, you will have little or no problem. But there are people out there with an agenda, and on one occasion in particular I could sense that we were being "set-up". And it was true, but thankfully, one of our cars was set-up in accordance to the ADA guidelines. ( Even though we didn't know the car would be in the consist until the weeeknd of the excursion). On that occasion we were summarliy subject to an impromptu examination by some of these people. As a non-profit venture with no permanent facilities, I particularly thought we were unfairly set on, but it was over and done with and we still maintain our operations. I'm sure there are situations that may be impossible to handle, but we eventually took the adage that we could accomodate anyone, and if they would show up, we would get them on, and this always seemed to work.

While I understand Amtrak's position here I have two problems with the decision as reported in the newspapers. As I have only read the press accounts, not the decision itself I do not know if these problems were addressed.The first is that in a political atmosphere where Amtrak needs all the political help it can get it allowed this to escalate to a point where they may well alienate a significant group of customers. I think Customer Service ought to be able to do a better job than that.The second has to do with the interpretation of the requirements of the ADA. While the judge was correct in his finding that Amtrak can charge extra for special services, I am not entirely convinced that the argument specifically applies here. As long as the travelers in question were a group requesting an unusual accommodation a surcharge on the group's travel may well be appropriate. This sounds like it may also be a situation where the surcharge issue has been presented at least in part as "Which of the wheelchair passengers will we charge extra for?" not the accommodation of a group as a group. They cannot do that. They cannot pick and choose which wheelchair passenger is going to be discriminated against. I believe that if the individuals involved had all shown up at 30th Street as individuals with reservations and valid transportation Amtrak would have had to find a way to accommodate them. The option would have been to pick X-many of the wheelchair patrons and say, "You can't go 'cause you're disabled." and we can make a fairly accurate guess how that would have turned out. I am also willing to bet that by the time the group returned to Union Station for the trip home that Amtrak would have sorted it out and they would have been traveling together not as a group that had requested the special accommodation but for “crew convenience and safety”.GME

I think you are misinterpreting the situation. From reading what was cited, it appears that Amtrak was perfectly willing to transport ALL the wheelchair bound passengers; one per car. The handicapped passengers, however, insisted they ride together in the same car, which would have required removing the seats and installing wheelchair restraints. It sounds to me like the judge's ruling says the former is reasonable accommodation, while the later would be considered a special service.

While I don't think anyone here is anti-ADA, it has been mentioned several times recently that there are apparently some individuals/groups (including lawyers) who have an agenda that may include monetary gain from testing the ADA laws. I really don't think that most well-meaning, non-profit educational organizations should have to contend with this, and don't think it is wrong to expose it to the public, especially if your group has made a decent attempt to accomodate handicapped persons. The media is always interested in controversy, and allowing a well spoken person to tell your side of the story should be warranted here.

I am not certain that any of the corridor trains would normally be able to handle that many wheelchairs even at one per car. The problem that I have is that, based on the press reports, it appears that certain individuals were being singled out for a surcharge based on the fact of disability. The quote from the Post is:If this had been presented as a special accommodation for a group, as opposed to certain individuals being singled out for a higher fare I would have no problem at all with the decision.Newspapers are not the best place to learn the law. If the decision is on PACER I will post either it or a synopsis later today (I hope) as I think it will impact on tourist operations. (Totally Inappropriate Personal Note - The young lady (my Granddaughter) who has been clerking for me for the last few years while she was in law school received her JD two weeks ago yesterday and, having become formally engaged to her long-time (off and on since nursery school) boyfriend the previous Sunday, waited a whole three more days to marry him and as far as I know they are on a sailboat somewhere off of Lower California. That means I have to do all the research work myself!)GME

I have finally read the decision and I disagree with it in so far as it appears to allow for a quota system based on disability and it could well be overturned on that basis. We have not gotten to a perfect answer yet (and may never) but this is just one more step along the way.What was not made clear in the press was that Amtrak did remove the seats without charge while reserving the right to seek reimbursement. Interestingly enough, the Court denied Amtrak’s motion for reimbursement. Unless somebody has a question on relating this to a tourist line that is really as far as I care to go with an analysis in this forum. GMEhttp://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0735P.pdf

Assuming that this is indeed the case, and that this group actually measures, say, five or more, I smell something fishy.If one had a group of people with wheelchairs, it probably would have been more cost-effective for a group of five or fifty to charter a specially-equipped bus or van, or even an actual private rail car in the case of a large group, to carry out this trip. As accommodating a soul as I am, if I had been with Amtrak's charter department, I might have even offered the option of arranging such a charter on behalf of these individuals, just because it would have been more cost-effective than modifying half an Amfleet car for a day.Forgive my cynicism, but this smells like someone doing their best to push the envelope and milk the ADA for all they can.(One group I deal with recently chartered two vans for a group of ten wheelchair users for a day-long junket totaling about the same distance as NY-Washington round-trip, for about $20 per person.)

I do not believe that that is the case here. According to the actual filings, Amtrak had provided the accommodation sought without a surcharge for a decade before changing the policy and the plaintiffs had spent two years trying to resolve the issue with Amtrak before filing suit.GME