Thanks for clarifying that. I misunderstood your statement; “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.” I took you to mean that what the law does not do is close the goose. But since the law does not even apply to the Spruce Goose, as you mention, I agree there must be some other explanation for closing it.

Let me just reiterate what was said about ADA. It was set in place to give people with a disability the same chance as people without. However, buildings and such before ADA were "grandfathered" in. So, trolleys, old rail cars, etc, were grandfathered in if they were built before ADA. Unfortunately, many lawyers have twisted the original intent of ADA to make it say what they want it to say and forcing changes to be made. A transit company must comply with the ADA, however, a museum is different. Rail museums are different from most museums as most museums do not allow their visitors on their artifacts. The museum buildings must be accessible, however, the artifacts following with the mission should not be. After speaking with a law professor familiar with both ADA and historic preservation, he was saying that while someone could sue a museum over not being ADA compliant, the museum would have a lot of ground to stand on as long as the mission stated that one of its primary goals was to preserve equipment and restore it to the time period while it was in service. Unfortunately society is at a point where it all comes down to how much money you have and who you want to sue. Yes, ADA is important, but to what extent? I have a friend who is bound to a wheelchair and he would rather ride in the baggage compartment, then have a piece of history modified in order to accommodate him in a passenger compartment.

As yet one more example, which I have cited before:

The B&O Museum supposedly for years escaped having to modify its buildings for ADA because of their historic nature.

Once the roundhouse roof caved in under the weight of snow a few years ago, out with the mangled girders went THAT excuse. So, along with the repairs to the building and equipment came the mandated need for the modifications needed for ADA compliance.

Depending on who you talk to, the ADA issues 1) closed down both the research library and the model railroad (the latter historic in its own right) upstairs, and/or 2) added substantially to the mandated repair/renovation costs prior to being able to reopen--a cost overrun not covered by insurance.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely think the improvements--including an island platform for passengers--make the museum a better place. I'd just like to know who paid for these unfunded mandates. (And, frankly, when I see my admission ticket which is now 50% more expensive than before the collapse, I think I know.)

I have written on this topic here before, and have been reluctant to do so again. In fact, most of what I am posting here is lifted verbatim from an earlier thread. Some people need to accept that the ADA is with us to stay, and learn to deal with it. It is also important to realize that the ADA is not just for wheelchairs. It is for people with mobility problems, hearing loss, blindness, broken limbs, arthritis, etc. The ADA affects how we design bathrooms, stairs, ramps, light switches, public phones, hallways, and just about EVERYTHING.

Nothing is exempt from "ADA." It is true that some amount of grandfathering applies, and there are different requirements for historic structures, but they are not exempt. They have to meet a different, more permissive set of standards. A railcar, such as an old wood interurban that could not be modified to ADA standards without destroying its integrity does not have to be modified, but the institution that operates such a car is required to provide an accessible alternate experience such as another accessible car, or an audio-visual program that provides the same educational benefit. If you ran a lighthouse museum, you would have to provide something to disabled visitors that attempted to recreate the experience of of visiting the top if that option was available to able-bodied visitors. Any educational program such as delivered by an onboard docent, must be available to all of your disabled visitors. CSRM has had the cab of their AC-12 open to the public for a number of years. They have erected a code-compliant stair to access the cab door, which of course, is too narrow for a wheelchair. Therefore, they have provided a camera in the cab and monitor at the base of the stair so that a disabled visitor can view live video of the docent in the cab. I am not sure if a speaker is set up to allow two-way communication.

If the building or equipment is not "historic" there is no excuse for not providing all of the ramps, handrails, tactile warning strips, audio assistive devices, strobe lights, and braille that any other enterprise is required to provide. Almost nothing younger than 50 years old will be seen as historic based upon standards for the National Register. Commuter cars from the 1960s would probably have to be modified.

Museums need to be careful about this stuff, because ADA is enforced through civil lawsuits where plaintiffs seek damages for the violation of their civil-rights. Any disabled individual can file if your group has failed to follow ADA guidelines. Please look at how the ADA is handled at historic buildings and museums. There are numerous online resources on this topic.

I think most of them would say... "Sigh... typical..."

But success, it's all good. I'm rather quite sure a person in a wheelchair would rather have an adventure overcoming the poor accessibility of historic equipment, than be told by some uptight stuffed-shirt they can't ride.


The "readily achievable" test factors in the financial wherewithal of the organization.



Nobody. You don't do them. Title II doesn't really fit well a one-time excursion run by a city, so you'd be better off structuring it so it's a private outfit doing the run. That way Title III applies, and all the usual exemptions apply under 12184(c).


I'm fairly sure many museums provide better-than-ADA accommodation simply because they *want* to. They deserve a gold star; hell, they deserve a foundation grant.


If you're smart enough to foresee that, then you're also smart enough to close off those high-level platforms, or close the exhibit for the duration. Problem solved.

As far as nuisance lawsuits, that has nothing to do with ADA. They could find 1000 other things to bring a nuisance lawsuit on, all much more profitable since ADA doesn't allow money damages. (some states do.)

But remember, that's how the ADA law is set up. It may be lame, but the government doesn't enforce the "readily achievable" part of the law, they don't have agents visiting every business and suggesting "Move this display over 3 inches, don't put your cleaning bucket in the hall before the bathroom". That's left to interested individuals, who can bring these toothless "fix it" lawsuits, and the most money they can get is legal fees (if they're right about the fix being readily achievable.)


The law is crystal clear on the point of modifying historic cars. 42 USC 12184(c)(1). 12148(b)(2). 12142(c)(2).

However it would be a serious mistake to think this exempted the operator from ADA entirely. For instance 12182(b)(2) most certainly applies. You must always do the best that is "readily achievable" to accommodate the disabled.


Yeah, that's a great example of how the able-bodied think.

And it makes for a great Jay Leno joke. But think about it, it was exactly the right thing to do. Some disabled people can walk but have extremely limited stamina, they can get up a stairway but can't walk around all day. Others will claw their way up those stairs. Both would appreciate a wheelchair once they're up there. Or, the lab might find a superstar recruit worth putting in a wheelchair lift for. Future construction might provide the opportunity to connect that floor to a lift or ramp. Retrofitting a bathroom to ADA is expensive - it's not "readily achievable". But when you're building a new bathroom, it IS readily achievable - it costs virtually nothing to put fixtures and walls in a slightly different place to comply with ADA. So you see where that's the smart play, even if the floor is not accessible yet.

This is the "readily achievable" doctrine working properly.



It's not a question of "reasonable", but one of "readily achievable". That's fairly well defined and the law is being revised to make it clearer.

You're painting a picture of small businesses sued out of existence, and while that might happen, it wouldn't be the federal ADA law (might be a state law). Yes, ADA does allow private action; in fact that's how it's enforced. But the private action amounts to a "fix-it ticket", the most money damages allowable (in most states) are reasonable legal fees. If you promptly fix the problem on first hearing of it, that shouldn't be much.


Hmm, it sounds like there's a difference of opinion. I'd need to know more.


42 USC 12184(c)(1). 12148(b)(2). 12142(c)(2). If a car is 30 years old; builder no longer making railcars; and represents the past... then it is exempt. Boeing LRVs and BART cars qualify.

The instructions for wheelchair straps in South Eastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority buses also tell how to fasten them to scooters, in 2 languages! Some ads in "Mass Transit" magazine have also touted this feature. So, you may not have to totally custom design your scooter accommodations.

The woman put up a video of the incident
http://www.disabilityresourceexchange.c ... iday-train

Me thinks the Video is well done. Sure makes the folks who couldn't figure out how to accommodate her look very petty/stupid! Hope they've learned a lesson for the future??

IMHO- Ross Rowland

nm

There are groups that will sent someone who needs accomodation out to specifically create an incident. Not saying that this group intended to create an incident but it does happen and reading her quote, where she posted the video, coupled what someone said earlier about being able to board when the ticket was purchased makes this lawyer think she intended to push the envelope.

I would like to hear what the people who are with the 4449 have to say but since they seem to post at the exclusive pay to play TrainOrders I won't hold my breath.

It was probably their choice not to insure against that possibility. TYBR has an "operation of law" rider on its building insurance policy to cover additional costs necessary to improve a covered building damaged by a covered loss to comply with modern laws. Maryland insurance law may be different.

RCD, the video does not represent all the facts. Here's a release regarding wheelchair accessibility:

HOLIDAY EXPRESS

AND PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

The Holiday Express is run by the Oregon Rail Heritage Foundation. ORHF appreciates the patronage of all people who come to see and ride the Holiday Express.

The Holiday Express consists of a unique collection of historic railroad passenger equipment. This equipment was designed and built in a past generation before the advent of technology that accommodates people with special needs. While we strive to make the train safe and available for as many people as possible, including people with special needs, there is one category that we unfortunately cannot accommodate.

These historic rail passenger cars were not designed to carry wheelchairs safely or to allow the passage of wheelchairs safely between the cars. This is a moving train that was built with no safe means of transporting passengers in wheelchairs. When Congress adopted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Congress recognized the limitations of such railroad passenger equipment and expressly exempted trains of this type from complying with the ADA.

Our volunteers have been trained to inform anyone who wishes to ride the train in a wheelchair that we cannot accommodate that request due to issues of safety. All persons with special needs who can board the train themselves using our staircase and can occupy a standard passenger seat are more than welcome to ride the Holiday Express. Under Federal law carrying an individual with a disability is considered ineffective and, therefore, an unacceptable method for achieving accessibility. For this reason, we cannot allow people with special needs to be carried on board the train. 41 C.F.R. Pt. 35.

Once again, we thank you for your patronage of the Holiday Express and your understanding of the limitations that are inherent with historic rail equipment of this type.

I am well aware of all the stuff that was said by the 4449 folks, working myself with historic railroad equipment I know it is sometimes imposable to accommodate everyone but, and here is the big but, she said she was willing to be transferred into a seat and leave her wheelchair behind. So have the wheelchair lifted into the train have her brought to a seat have family put her in the seat take wheel chair off train and be done with it.

Cannot be done. Everyone boards the baggage car, then walks through the train to reach the lounge and coaches. Wheelchair won't fit in the 22" wide walkways at the end of each car/vestibule. Cannot carry someone in a wheelchair up stairs either, huge liability issue.