Greetings,

I have a question for all of the museum groups out there.

Have any of your groups ever leased any passenger cars to common carrier railroads for excursion service? If so, did the cars have to be modified for compliance with the American's with Disabilities Act?

Also were there any issues with your non-profit status 501(C)3?

Thanks in advance.
Bruce Pierce


brucepierce@frankelectro.com

As to the 501(c)(3) remember not all income is tax exempt and you can have unrelated business income so check with your tax advisor to see if your organization is going to have any problems with rental income when it comes time to fill out the Form 990


tcox@parknet.pmh.org

> Greetings,

> I have a question for all of the museum
> groups out there.

> Have any of your groups ever leased any
> passenger cars to common carrier railroads
> for excursion service? If so, did the cars
> have to be modified for compliance with the
> American's with Disabilities Act?

No, per se, because the federal rules are designed for commuter and Amtrak; however, the trip operator may be liable to an activist local situation if they did not dilligently try to make "reasonalbe equivalent accomodation".

In other words, the FRA and FTA have covered commuter and Amtrak with guidance and regulations, (such as the one car per train rule), and the train is not a building, but being a public accomodation is wide open to legal interpretations. We already do have an interpretation that any coach built by a defunct carbuilder does not have to have extensive structural re-engineering to accomodate (read move collision posts to make doors wider).

It is best to cover ones fanny, as an operator, to make at least some effort at equivalent accomodation.

Steve

> Also were there any issues with your
> non-profit status 501(C)3?

> Thanks in advance.
> Bruce Pierce


SZuidervee@aol.com

I believe we have much more than an interpertation. I believe that the ADA legislation specifically exempts passenger cars which were built by builders who are no longer in existance.

The provisions of the ADA and the structuring of the "old car exemption" was one of the more significant accomplishments of AAPRCO.



v-scarpitti@att.net

> I believe we have much more than an
> interpertation. I believe that the ADA
> legislation specifically exempts passenger
> cars which were built by builders who are no
> longer in existance.

> The provisions of the ADA and the
> structuring of the "old car
> exemption" was one of the more
> significant accomplishments of AAPRCO.

This brings up another question in my mind. Does a car that was built in the 1940s (Heavy Weight) have to meet ADA standards? There doesn't seem to be much room for modifying the car without gutting one (if not both) ends to get the needed isle spacing for ADA regulations.


zhilton@sbcglobal.net

> This brings up another question in my mind.
> Does a car that was built in the 1940s
> (Heavy Weight) have to meet ADA standards?

In general, no, for the reason Bennett was explaining. Here is the exact text of the Historic Rail Car exemption AAPRCO won, from the ADA statute:

"c) Historical or Antiquated Cars.--

(1) Exception.--To the extent that compliance with subsection (b)(2)(C)

or (b)(7) would significantly alter the historic or antiquated character

of a historical or antiquated rail passenger car, or a rail station

served exclusively by such cars, or would result in violation of any

rule, regulation, standard, or order issued by the Secretary of

Transportation under the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, such

compliance shall not be required.

(2) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term "historical or

antiquated rail passenger car" means a rail passenger car--

(A) which is not less than 30 years old at the time of its use for

transporting individuals;

(B) the manufacturer of which is no longer in the business of

manufacturing rail passenger cars; and

(C) which--

(i) has a consequential association with events or persons

significant to the past; or

(ii) embodies, or is being restored to embody, the distinctive

characteristics of a type of rail passenger car used in the past,

or to represent a time period which has passed."

eledbetter@rypn.org

Bennett and Eric have basically confirmed my premise: Obsolete equipment is exempt from modification, and if the FRA already has a safety rule, ADA cannot trump it. This was recently upheld in Maryland by Administrative Law Judges in a case involving 8 points.

However, while the individual equipment may be exempt from ADA, the overall operation may still be subject to "reasonable accomodation". Unless the operation is a totally, by invitation only private club, an operation could be sued for accomodation . ADA, kinda like railroad FELA, works on the basis that one has to sue to get relief, particularly in those areas of public accomodation that are not specifically addressed in regulations.

Steve Zuiderveen

SZuidervee@aol.com

> However, while the individual equipment may
> be exempt from ADA, the overall operation
> may still be subject to "reasonable
> accomodation".

And even if not legally held to "reasonable accomodation," railroad museums and tourist operations will do well to make every possible effort to accommodate the growing number of handicapped and disabled customers. The key word here is "customers." They are our best advertisers, and they will remember the kindness and extra effort it may take to help them enjoy our venues. They will tell their friends.

A more selfish way to look at this; some of us will need adaptation later (or sooner) in life if we are to continue our activities as preservationists. Chopping bigger doors into old coaches is not and never was an answer. Creative thinking and proactive planning will provide the answers.

Think outside the boxcar.

that other Chattanooga website
mail@steamvalley.com