As constructive criticism only:

You may be moving heaven and earth trying to accommodate the handicapped, but the attitude that has come through all the responses I have seen thus far, save for maybe the last one, is that of antagonism and "no can do." What's needed, instead, is a conciliatory tone of "we're trying, believe me, we're trying, just look at what all we're up against, though......" Being "tricked" or "punked" by one handicapped person might heat the discussion a bit, but is irrelevant to the situation if someone else wheels up--and they almost assuredly will.

There's a REASON that some people are the mechanical staff, some people are the information experts, and some people are the PR people. In a great many cases, it's best that they not overlap or do each other's work.

I'm still concerned about the above policy. Codes of Federal Regulations are not laws, and Title 41 of them doesn't seem to have anything to do with A.D.A. except possibly for government buildings. Other posts have cited 42 United States Code, which may have the proper Law in it. I am worried that using the standards for complying with the law to ban a particular method of access demonstrates a hostile view of the public.
Will you apply the above regulation to people whose disability renders them so unable to use a wheel chair that they MUST be carried everywhere, like small children? If you do, you will turn away a lot of families. If you do not, then you are also open to a suit for age discrimination!
What will you do about someone who tries to call your bluff and offers to pay for 2 extra tickets so there will be room to stow the wheelchair?

I do not wish harm to your organization, and offer these comments in the spirit of hoping to help you successfully resolve part of a bad public relations and possible legal problem, and help other museums avoid this trap.

Mt Rainier Scenic did exactly that... They built a couple of bathrooms, including one fully ADA compliant in one end of a baggage car. The layout on that end has the aisle shift to one side, it's like aisleway at the kitchen in a dining car, or a sleeper.

We built a ramp and load all passenger through the baggage car. It's also our gift and concession car. It's purely a coincidence that in order to get to the open car (our most popular car) you have to walk through the concession and snackbar area. ;)

Response to the car has been extremely positive. You would not believe how many people are surprised and please to see a "real bathroom" with plenty of room, a nice toilet and a sink. It may not be something to make a foamer's heart beat faster, but for a lot of our regular customers it's a great improvement!

It's an operational improvement too. Loading is quick, easy, and much safer. No more trips and falls on those steep stairways, especially during the wet weather that is all too common around here.

As to the comment about the Code of Regulations not having the force of law that is incorrect. When a law is passed by congress and signed by the prez it often gives a particular federal agency or department the authority to implement regulations to enforce the law. These regs do have the force of law. Can they be challenged in Court, yes.
Tom Cox

I'm sorry, I was splitting the hair that the regulations with the force of a law should still be cited as regulations, and are not the same as the actual law passed by Congress. If the train organization is slightly loose with those legal terms, what other changes could they have made in the authority they are relying on to ban wheel chairs and carrying of passengers?

The only thing I can say for sure on this topic is the railway museum where I was a past volunter was not in any way shape or form ADA compliant. However it also contained only historic stuctures and historic railway equipment. Now the grounds were accessible in a wheelchair but that was about it. No bathrooms so that wasn't an issue. The other thing I am familiar with is the NHRS 2008 convention in Ft Worth where all materials contained disclosures that some of the events and they were listed would be operate with non-compliant ADA equipment.

I'm not sure I agree with banning wheelchairs, because if you are running under an ADA exenption for your equipment, then it becomes only a safety issue. My opinion is that the lady in question has an agenda but they probably should have let her family carry her on and put her in a seat. If you're running exempt exempt euipment then you do not have to comply. This comes from looking at the issue for one time trips for the NRHS if I was asked the question about a regular tourist railroad I would want to revisit the issue.

Same reason as ORHF not accommodating wheelchairs. Neither ORHF nor the theater is required to. So if you don't mind, let's try out a metaphor here.

American tradition would say "if they won't accommodate you, accommodate yourselves!" Now I've heard of a scheme where a mobile device is loaded with subtitles for a first-run movie. You have to sync it up with the movie, but then it knows exactly when to pop up "Noooo! Not the bore worms!" so you can enjoy the film.

Let's say the deaf community has got this working real nice and it's getting popular. One day, you go to your Portland theater, and find a big sign:


What a calamity! Not only is the theater not willing to make some changes to help you -- they are going out of their way to thwart you from helping yourself! You corner the owner and he says "Like the sign says. Worse, if we let you use your devices, then under ADA we must buy such a device for every deaf person and modify our theaters. It would cost millions."

Which is complete bull, by the way.

You inquire with staff, and you find out - the owner recently got into a confrontation with a group of deaf people using this, and he had no idea it was an assistive device. And he's the sort of guy who, once he makes a mistake, can't admit it, and will go to ANY length to justify his actions. He's contrived some "principle of the thing", and will never relent.

Of course the OTHER principle, the ADA principle, only calls for "readily achievable". That is resolved as simply as telling the deaf patrons to sit in the last row when using their devices. Bada-bing, ADA compliant. Cost: $0.

We deal with this a lot... and it's not a) going away, or b) getting easier.

The last 'snag' we hit at the state level was having a 'coach class' and a 'first class' where the ADA-accessible car was NOT first class; i.e. not the equipment but the SERVICE was no longer accessible, and if you are publicly-funded in anyway that's the click of a land mine. But, we got the railroad and the responsible historic preservation agency together to see what we could do with the 'first class' car for ADA access, and I think we got a compromise that everybody can live with. I think. Nobody will get turned away and the historic car doesn't get wrecked either.

My attitude about all this changed dramatically when my own mother was confined into a wheelchair, and removing a leg didn't remove her love of trains, or being with her grandkids on them. She didn't want to be a PITA, either, but how I appreciated those regional operations that could deal with it without blinking an eye.

We've done all kinds of odd provisions on restroom redesigns, access, even aircraft-style transfer chairs with state cooperation, but the ultimate test is still to get a 'friendly' disabled person to evaluate you, seriously, not just evaluate with the required tape measure. You can still make people feel like a baggage cart, not a customer, if your staff senses that they wish 'those people' would not show up.

For a smaller, and possibly less-well-known operation, I really have to tip my hat to the Oil Creek and Titusville. All Lackawanna MU cars, with an RPO. The RPO is the designated 'accessible' car with side doors and a big restroom, but they still have high platforms and ramps everywhere. Even the open car has a drop-down side ramp. I've seen that operation host a charter excursion from the local Veterans Hospital, where it seems like the wheelchairs and walkers well outnumbered the mobile folks, some even with nurses with them, and I remember one with an IV, but he was still greatly enjoying himself!!! The GM told me that not only wasn't it a problem but this was a 'target market' - they were one of the few fully accessible attractions for nursing homes and the like and they saw it as a market opportunity, just like school trips.
See for yourself, they LEAD with this:
http://octrr.clarion.edu/index.htm

Imagine that. To me, that's the ultimate evolution in thought. There's where your demographics may be headed, sounds like we need to get there with them.

Folks,

ADA is here to stay; just be glad that you do not live in an area like San Francisco that has people who make their living with ADA suits.

We have one individual here who we paid a consults fee to when we did an up grade of the museum building recently. And what the heck the new elevator to the second exhibit floor will be useful for baby carrages, and for the rest of us Baby Boomers the knees are not getting any younger.

we have an 1886 sailing ship that we are working on to install a lift to get the people to a below decks exhibit. Lucky for us it fits in a hatch which goes to all the areas.

At my railway museum I am trying to get a viewing ramp built to view heavyweight cars; it is an ADA compliant way to see the cars. Since it is over 50 years old it does not have to be available. But the smart move for any museum is to try to deal with mobility issues as the visitor population ages there will be more of them all the time.

Ted Miles

I know of my own client that got around the bulkhead/corridor clearance issue with a transfer chair, but I was surprised to Google and find out that both the Austin Steam Train and Napa Valley Wine train show essentially the same tactic. Without apologies.

Both these guys have great language on their web page explaining the predicament around vintage railroads, equipment, and accessibility. I'm not a lawyer, more of a PR guy, and rather than cite specific federal regulations they say the same thing - in english, and make the point rather nicely in my opinion. If there is anybody out there from these organizations, I salute them!

Austin Steam Train: http://www.austinsteamtrain.org/sched.h ... nformation

Napa: http://winetrain.com/faq

How did the event go this year? Were there any more ADA-related troubles?

The ADA is one of the worst legacies of the Bush 41, who signed it in 1991. It was pushed by the bar association and is based upon a wholly unrealistic view of the constitution that provides for federal oversight of everything-and the touching stories are delivered by people being used by the bar to advance its collective economic interest.

In my experience,99% of disabled (that's the right word, having had juvenile epilepsy, I wasn't "differently abled", I was disabled and I know that because as soon as military recruiters heard that; they told me I was ineligible for military service. Additionally, until I got it through my thick head that I needed to take my Dilantin as prescribed, not when I felt like it; my doctor wouldn't sign off on my driver's license.) are the best of passengers, they are appreciative of the fact that special efforts are being made on their behalf.

There will however, be that group that wants to use their impediment as a cudgel; if they have to suffer, why then will you.

The whole thing cries out for (repeated) jury nullification.

Codes of Federal Regulations are not laws, and Title 41 of them doesn't seem to have anything to do with A.D.A. except possibly for government buildings.

They may not technically be laws, but regulations, but you can still get in a heap of trouble not following them. The FRA exists to ensure compliance with a big chunk of 49 CFR.

Also, don't try this line of logic with the IRS, e.g., telling them that Treasury Regulations aren't laws. The way it works with tax law (and I'll bet a lot of other areas) is that the Congress passes a noble sounding piece of legislation that contains a lot of sections that say sonmething like "the Secretary shall prescribe regulations to.." and then they run to the camera to take credit for passing some noble law. Then they generally move on to prostitute themselves to some other cause and simply don't concern themselves with details when the enforcement agency runs with the ball. At least in the area of taxes; the regulations have the force and effect of law, unless Congress overides the "specialists" (FILE THAT UNDER RARELY) who do the heavy lifting of putting meat on the bones of their noble public laws.

Given the above, I think he's made a good case that he is. Let's cut him some slack, and not refuse to allow him to post like all us undisabled people with computers.

dave

I might have some luck telling the IRS that the "law" in 49 CFR has no authority about which version of Form 1040 Individual Income Tax Return I can choose to file. Since the train ride used the wrong citation, and technically, the wrong word to describe it, I wondered what else was wrong with their reasoning. If they had cited the proper Law or Regulation, I would have ignored the technicality of what they called it.