Link to story in a alt-weekly Portland-area paper:

http://wweek.com/editorial/3505/11965/

More details, this time with names spelled right:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/r ... 10,1822459

Just for fun, I posted an inane comment on the paper's website to fit in.

Sounds like some of those vigilantes posting there- in particular "kaminski" and "marlene", need to lay off the dark roast Starbucks.

Like any newspaper, you could always see a trend as certain loonies had nothing but time on their hands to write to the editor. It's even easier now with a keyboard...

I would like to play devil's advocate here... The story is far from a complete description of what happened, but...

If they did "throw a lady in a wheel chair off the train" then they may well be in violation of ADA rules... If she found a way to board, and wasn't blocking the access/egress for other boarders... If they didn't try to accommodate her, then they are likely in violation of ADA rules... There are exemptions to prevent being forced to modify the historic character of your museum cars, but that was not covered in the article... if so there would likely need to be a ADA compliant car in the train, which the crew could offer as an alternative.

Where was the crew while her family was carrying her on board??? Do you let people board your train without a trainman manning the steps?

There are ways to handle this well... One local tourist line here uses ramps, the other has portable lifts at each terminal...

Of course, this is a hot button issue in certain communities, so once there is an appearance or story (true or not) of non compliance everyone will pile on...

Martin E. Hansen replied in a post at TrainOrders.com:



The key in this particular instance seems to be that the woman/"victim" is accused of saying that she would abide by the existing regulations and then not doing so. Nobody seems to be challenging--yet--whether the barring of wheelchairs is permissible in this instance.

Our own personal experience with certain "disabled activists" is that many outright refuse any compromise solution short of complete capitulation. Being brought around a back door or side entrance is viewed as "demeaning" or an affront. If the wheelchair is handled through a baggage door or baggage car, that's "undignified" or "treating the differently abled as baggage and not a person."

There are those who criticize the annual Federal cost of Amtrak by the subsidy per passenger. Someday, I would love to hear someone calculate the actual incremental costs of engineering "acceptable" solutions (wheelchair lifts, ramps, or even certain proposed passenger cars retrofitted with hydraulic lifts) at lines like Strasburg, EBT, Whitewater Valley, Sierra, Conway Scenic, WW&F, etc. and divide that by the actual number of users over a decade or two.

Are there any folks out there in Hard Knocks Land that are willing to guess how many wheelchairs, etc. show up at their property these days?

And by the way, I did know of one wheelchaired rail enthusiast who was, as long as I knew him, the most self-driven, determined person I knew with a handicap, totally unwilling to let his handicap inconvenience anyone else if possible--never asking favors, often eschewing the handicapped parking spaces if he felt others would need them more than he.

I think that goes for some rail forums too > : 3

KL

Well, it is.

That was one thing that became abundantly clear after the first round of ADA laws... while the disabled had to go through the serpentine ramp, or around to the back entrance by the dumpsters and thugs... often be buzzed in (not enough security to watch the back entrance)... be escorted (through non-public areas)... wind through the ugly bowels of a building... while their normally-abled friends were able to march right up the front steps as the architect intended the building be experienced.

Then they had to re-find their friends (disabled people often travel with friends, obvious if you think about it). Of course the friends could use the handicap entrance with them, but sometimes building owners didn't like the idea of a crowd tromping through the "accommodation" path. Their plans only bothered to envision ONE person ONE wheelchair, you see.

Yes, it was better than not being able to enter the building AT ALL... but only by about that much :b

Because of this, ADA laws have been toughened so new building design must let the disabled enter the building like normal folk.



Well... it's true some disabled folks can get a bit ketchy... but GOOD GOD, man... can you blame them!!!??? Day in, day out, all they see is grudging semi-compliance with ADA at best, if not brazen non-compliance... and always, sideways glances and general disrespect.

So, ADA situations tend to be tense ones. This can't be helped, you're dealing with a population that has been marginalized unnecessarily. That's pretty maddening, if it's ever happened to you . So don't marginalize them unnecessarily.

The law says you must accommodate if it's "readily achievable". That requires an attitude of "Hmm, let's see, how can we can accommodate you?" It is actually against the law to get officious and say "No, you can't do that". And if you have a policy, it better be written by someone who knows more about ADA than you do.

A great example of stupidity would be telling a wheelchair passenger they can't have their wheelchair on board because you have nowhere to stow it... and they're looking at the space between two unused seats and going "It can go right there!" And you're going "No it can't. That space is only 18" wide, that chair is 30" wide." And then the conversation goes downhill and you end up kicking them off the train. You just violated ADA. Can anyone guess why?

Looking at some of the names on the comments on the wweek.com article, I sense a flamewar coming on.

Let me say this about ADA. I do not believe it asks any more than
- Making any accommodation which is readily achievable
- Build all new designs with consideration and respect for the disabled.
No reasonable person can possibly think that's asking too much.

Now a lot of things get blamed on ADA that aren't really. One of those comments said something about the cockpit of the Spruce Goose is closed to visitors because of ADA-- that cannot possibly be true, because the ADA law doesn't do that. We can guess what's really going on - management is worried about wear & tear, and some docent changed the story because he's a government hater, conspiracy theorist or some sort of hater (I really doubt anyone actually hates the disabled)... and these false tales perpetuate themselves, until we have the "ADA myth" of "oppressive government regulation".

I know of a museum that was forced to re-grade a path on their property "because of ADA". Again not true -- the local city inspector had simply tacked this on as a condition of a permit for something distantly related. It's real common for inspectors to do this, they are "petty tyrants" wielding their tiny bureaucratic power. And of course it's completely illegal abuse of power, but what you are you going to do? Fight city hall? You just want your project done. So you knuckle under. My point is, this has absolutely nothing to do with ADA, and if he wasn't squeezing you on ADA, he'd be squeezing you somewhere else, "because he can".

ADA is a good idea. ADA frees millions of people to actually participate in society who would've formerly been shut-ins. Some of them come to our museums. I hope we take care of them as best we can, it's all anyone expects.

I have no idea what the facts are behind the Spruce Goose antidote, but I am curious about how you arrive at your conclusion. You seem to be saying that the ADA law does not permit them to close a business or part of a business if it is not ADA compliant. I’ll take your word for that, but is it not possible that a business owner would voluntarily close access to a display because it is too expensive or impractical to make it ADA compliant? And if that were the case, would it not be accurate to say, “the cockpit of the Spruce Goose is closed to visitors because of the ADA” ?

I do not see any evidence that the decision to close the cockpit of the Spruce Goose was hate based as you suggest.

Trust me, as someone who technically qualifies as "differently abled" himself, I can see the VERY worthy intentions behind the ADA. And there's no excuse for a major operation such as the Grand Canyon, Durango & Silverton, Valley RR, etc. not making serious efforts towards the goals. There will be more people in wheelchairs and walkers as the Baby Boomers age.

But let's take a couple not-so-hypothetical examples.

Short-Line Railroad happens to be run by a couple of rail enthusiasts, who keep a stash of nice coaches and a business car or two. Town along the line wants to offer a few excursions for their sesquicentennial. Okay, fine--but who pays for the ADA accommodations? Is it deemed safe? What if the only answers are renting/buying a wheelchair lift or building a temporary ramp (there go the festival profits), and the passenger still has to board the baggage car? That is, IF such a patron shows up? (In the recent example I saw firsthand, the baggage car was equipped with old sofas and parlor chairs and free drinks and snacks not available to the regular riders, with rails at the open baggage doors for picture windows--double duty as a crew car and a "first class car". And the chap I saw in a wheelchair may well have been a railroad retiree.)

Railroad Museum has to shut down for rebuilding/renovation of the hall. In their wisdom, the museum moves much of the rolling stock across town to a freight shed, which just happens to have high-level platform islands all over the place, easing disabled access (but ruining classic photo ops, of course). But now the dilemma arises: when they move back to the old hall, as much as they have improved access, it's not TOTAL access. Even if you rotate the displays between the buildings, it's an invitation to a suit by one of the perpetually-displeased.

All of a sudden, places like the Ohio Central and Reading & Northern getting out of passenger carrying makes a lot more sense, doesn't it? (And yes, I'm aware the R&N is back at it with 425.)

The Oregon incident was a special-occasion event, not a routine event, and as such I could probably agree that the cost-benefit math of this dilemma works out the way they apparently say--I hope their stuff is historic enough that they don't have to take a Sawzall to a passenger car.

One last thought: note that in this case, there was a preservation group operating over another railroad acting as a gracious host. Could you now understand how and why, the next time this group wants a favor, they might be turned down by the railroad? Who needs this kind of "bad publicity," even as much as it might be flamed at their own website? It's not even the group's fault--trouble apparently came looking for them--but this is the environment that brings about blanket rejections and obscene liability coverage demands.

From what I've seen, what has to happen mainly depends on the enforcement authorities in you area, or certain activists for ADA compliance.

Not related to trains, but as an example, the company I worked for had to expand their quality control laboratory. The only available space in the plant area to do so, was to add a second story to the existing lab building. The only access to the second floor was by an outside stairway on each end of the building. This was deemed ok by the authorities. But, the restrooms on the new second floor had to be ADA wheelchair compliant! It didn't make any difference that there was no way a person in a wheel chair could get to the second floor, but the restrooms had to be able to accommodate that person.

And, in our area, we've had an activist lawyer who just goes around looking for people to sue for lack of ADA compliance. We have a small town in our back-country that is an old mining town. Steep streets, with very few sidewalks, buildings over 100 years old, etc. This guy goes out there and looks for non-compliant businesses, and sues them. Even though the business owners have said they have made "reasonable" efforts to modify their old buildings.

We have a wheelchair lift for our train, and we use a car that had been gutted by a previous owner. He had also cut a large door in the side. So, we have and area in one end of that car that doesn't have any seats, that will accommodate wheelchairs.
For our trips to Mexico, however, we state on our reservation site that Mexico does not generally have ADA compliant places, and we don't recommend that trip for people in wheelchairs. So far, we haven't had any problems.

You can take your word on it, Ron... that's not what I said. I said the ADA law doesn't require them to make the Spruce Goose cockpit handicap accessible, same as it doesn't require museums to make Birneys or steam engine cabs handicap accessible. Know any museums that have had to abandon their "engineer for an hour" program because locomotive cabs aren't accessible? Of course not, lol! That would be stupid.

Don't get me wrong, if a museum wants to go to extremes to make that happen, it's absolutely allowable and major bonus points if they do. But I believe the framers of the ADA would be sad to hear about historic fabric cut up to create wheelchair accessibility. The intention of ADA has always been "historic fabric > accessibility".


A business owner could >SAY< that. But since he never had an obligation to make it ADA accessible, he'd be "mistaken".

He might not be "mistaken" if he said "You know, having thought about it, since handicapped people cannot access the cockpit, we've decided not to show it to anyone." But that has absolutely nothing to do with ADA.

He might also not be "mistaken" if he said "Our zoning inspector thinks there's an ADA issue with letting anyone in the cab since it's not accessible; I don't know enough about the ADA law to argue with him, and/or we can't afford to fight the guy". However that is not how the anecdote was packaged. At best we don't have the whole story.

Folks,
We too have a manual wheel chair lift and do our best to accomdate folks on board who need it. We even use the lift to help folks on board who may not still be able
to climb the stairs but do not require a wheelchair. So we try our best to help out
but we also tell folks that we do not have a lift at our layover point before our
return. We do bring wheelchairs on board if the folks want them and place them
in between the reversed seats so not to get in the way. This as to not block an
exit. We have to tell folks to do the same with baby strollers as some are as big
as Cadillacs, that to store them.
I do have a question as to where common sense starts and ends. We are now
discussing wheel chairs. Well when do we start discussing when folks give up the
wheelchairs and begin using the electric scooters. Will folks be wanting that
these larger items as well be placed in the same catagory as the wheelchair?
Again common sense...........
I do agree that folks that are disabled for whatever reason should be given
the same opportunity to enjoy an event as I too may need to take advantage
of the same help someday. I am dismayed though as to how the large city that
I live in had to spend millions of dollars to place ADA handicapped sidewalk
in of which the taxpayers had to cough up, and yet I see almost all wheelchairs
and scooters using the street and not the sidewalks where the money was spent.
I would think that there is more to the story than just was the reporter wrote
and only those there will know what it is. It may have been a safety issue that
may have caused for more to get injured if an accident occurs.
Personally I do not see spending thousands of dollars to upgrade equipment
that is perhaps 100 years old to accomodate what some "may" bring in more
revenue as our baby boomers come of age. By then we will have to make sure
that all eqipment is again retrofitted to accodate scooters.
I may be wrong, but much of these laws now and in the the future may be
dictated by what medicare defines as such with wheelchairs and who gets what.
But I see more and more of these scooters coming at you.
To go on a different tangent, how will public transportation handle scooters
as I do not think that most regional rail and buses are set up for them either,
but then again many public dollars are given to them and this may not be
the case for this holiday train and its equipment. Do they get public grants?

Sorry for the long post..................

AC Transit (Oakland, CA) handles powered wheelchairs and scooters on their buses. If it will fit on the lift it can ride. They advise scooter riders to ride in a regular seat if possible. They will also fit wheelchairs with straps to aid in securing them.

http://www2.actransit.org/pdf/securement.pdf

I visited a northeastern tourist railroad this summer and witnessed train crew members assisting family members and caregivers lifting four wheelchair-bound people from ground level up onto the platforms on the coaches, while right next to me stood a battery-powered wheelchair lift that hadn't been used in some time, to judge from the rust and dust on it. When the train returned to the station, the same folks lifted the wheelchairs back to ground level. This particular railroad has two combines. One had a snackbar area set up in the baggage section. I don't know about the second car since it was parked in the weeds near the engine shed. I wonder how the activists would have viewed that scene?