This topic is an extension of the one on boxcars as supplemental exhibit space.

I certainly don't wish to be insensitive to persons with disabilities, but why is it that we have to be so scared of lawsuits that we think we have to build ramps for every blessed display! And no, I don't need to be flamed about how a single lawsuit can shut down a museum, but it seems the fear factor is a bit out of hand!

If a disabled person (and for this discussion I intend the term to mean only someone with physical disabilities that prohibit them from being able to use steps, not necessarily wheelchair-bound) visits a museum where a locomotive cab is open to the public but cannot accommodate a wheelchair, much less the motorized scooters and powered wheelchairs many folks have these days, is that museum open to a lawsuit if only steps are present? There is no requirement to modify an historic piece of equipment to make it ADA compliant, but does the presence of exhibits inside said car or locomotive mean you must do so or risk a lawsuit? It may seem a silly question, but what constitutes an "exhibit" where ADA applies?

If you have photos and lanterns and such in a caboose; if you have an old passenger car open to the public as a "walk-through exhibit"; if you have labels on the controls in a locomotive cab, it sounds like you are at risk of a lawsuit unless a disabled person can pass through as easily as a person with no disabilities! That's just not possible in most cases.

ADA compliance can mean a huge, permanent or realistically immobile ramp structure. For example, at the local "heritage" museum the Exec. Dir. mandated an ADA ramp for the baggage car with a model railroad exhibit inside. Prior to repositioning and restoration of the car's exterior a non-compliant 1980's vintage ramp was in place. In order to reach the entry floor height of the side door, and starting from passenger platform height (6-9 inches above top of rail), the ramp is huge. If stretched out straight, including appropriately spaced landings, it would be almost as long as the 75 ft. car. Due to door arrangement the ramp was built to double back on itself. This configuration blocks more than half the available width of the passenger platform. The ramp extends on to another landing at the platform of the coupled caboose. The caboose platform has not been modified. From there the ramp drops back down to the passenger platform. Visually, the ramp obliterates the platform-side view of the cars.

The original platform shed support bases were left in place, so they are now trip hazards. As a result of these and the walkway constriction caused by the width of the ramp, the platform is blocked and everyone has to go up and down the ramp whether they want to or not. A ramp from ground height up to the floor height of a standard boxcar would have to be at least that same size...close to twice the length of a 40-ft boxcar and having to extend past one car end to achieve the needed height at a central door.

There is no real substitute for the experience of being able to pass through a passenger car, a caboose or a locomotive cab, but to what extent are we required to make such an experience possible for disabled persons. Ramps are visually (and photographically) obtrusive and can inhibit the ability of some museums to easily move rail equipment and reconfigure their displays. Full-length elevated platforms are no better except that equipment mobility is made easier, but how many small museums can afford that expense? Are huge ramps or full-length platforms our only options for "compliance"?

So, do we have to decide between having a given piece of equipment visible only from the exterior at ground level as a display unto itself, or change the visual character of the piece by erecting a monstrosity of a ramp or platform and considering only what's inside as the "exhibit"? Is there a legally acceptable middle ground?

In the eyes of 99.8% of the world, including even many of the "differently abled," most certainly. In the eyes of those looking to sue any even minimal non-compliance of the most rigid interpretation of ADA, no.

The former will work with you. The latter will sue your socks off. As with politicians, sports fans, and the like, the few "bad apples" ruin things for the greater masses.

This has been rehashed ad nauseaum in this forum in the past. Do a search for "ADA" and review.

And should be rehashed and discussed again. This is a real issue of real importance, unless you would rather talk about whether CB&Q steamers or Pennsy decapods should be restored to operation (yawn).

At the risk of blowing chunks of dinner all over your computer screen, you should avoid reading this. I post this only for those without the metaphorical stomach flu that is ADA discussion. This is a gray area to many, has evolved since it's adoption, and is open to a variety of interpretations based on many circumstances.

As an architect, I have worked on adaptive re-use projects on historic buildings, which fall under more scrutiny than historic railroad equipment. Additionally, our museum is in the planning phase of an accessibility improvement project. If I have ADA concerns, I'm fortunate to know an attorney I can consult with that specializes in defending facility owners from ADA lawsuits.

If you have the opportunity to address ADA concerns, I would focus on the site and facilities. Improve pathways so disabled guests can view your equipment from the outside.

If you have a inaccessible piece of equipment with interior displays, there still are several exceptions the ADA provides that come into play. First of all, if the equipment is still on it's wheels it is just that - equipment, not a facility. In that case, the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities should not even apply. Even in new construction the ADA allows for some spaces to be inaccessible as long as equivalent facilitation is provided in an accessible area. So as long as you have some kind of accessible display space as well, you will be fine. As a matter of good practice, I would advise against putting the gift shop, video presentation room, etc. in an inaccessible display if it is practical to do otherwise.

Drew Meek
Great Plains Transportation Museum
Wichita, Kansas

One of the foremost deficiencies of our museums is the lack of visitor-friendly exhibits to contextualize and interpret our rail equipment-focused collections. Interpretation is a key program for a history museum. While I am not an attorney, nor do I possess specific expertise on the subject of the ADA, I believe it violates the spirit, if not the letter of the law, to create exhibits that are not accessible to all visitors. The exceptions for historic rail cars exist to prevent requiring alterations that would damage their historic integrity. Ramps, lifts, and platforms adjacent to boxcars will do nothing to the car's integrity, so I can not see how any exception could be claimed. Exhibits could be provided within a non-accessible car, but my interpretation of the ADA suggests that it would be prudent to provide "equivalent" exhibits that are accessible; otherwise, it may be better to avoid providing exhibits in inaccessible locations. Some museums have offered video feeds from inaccessible locations, such as from the top of a lighthouse, or from within the cab of SP 4294 at CSRM.

Nit-picking opportunistic litigants aside, the point of all of this is to ensure that the disabled are able to have an experience that is reasonably equivalent to that provided to the able bodied. I am constantly frustrated by the atrocities that have been committed in the pursuit of this otherwise noble goal, but it is the right thing to do, and it is the law.

Also, good designers can often come up with solutions that are far better than the awful scenario described above.

Accessability has become a critical part of any plans my family makes now. If you can't provide a reasonable amount of it, you don't get our business. Not everybody has a choice as to whether or not to climb platform steps, but people in wheelchairs do have a choice as to whether or not to spend money in your facility.

Stephen, you don't have an accessability problem, you have a management, design and excution problem. We've known how to accomodate wheelchairs in railroad cars efficiently now for a couple decades. Inefficient methods are not the only ones that can be used, and things on wheels can go where it is convenient to prevent obstacles.

Common sense isn't common - and based on a lot of current election year propaganda, not alwayus sensible either. Until you have to deal with negotiating wheelchairs through retail stores - who presumably have a vested interest in allowing customers to get ahold of their products - you never would question why they are determined to block aisles with freestanding displays, or to purposely restock shelves during business hours, all of which confound with unnecessary problems. Table placement in restaurants and restroom design aren't hard to do well and accessably and there's a lot of documentation out there to guide you.

It isn't rocket science. Rent a power chair and drive it through your place as if you were a handicapped visitor. Deficiencies will become very obvious. Solutions are less obvious, but if you don't box yourself in with status quo ideas about potential solutions, you can figure out how to make everybody welcome without destroying history in the process.

dave

This might be a good place to point out what IRM has done to display the interior of passenger cars. Many years ago it was realized that you simply can't have tens of thousands of people per year trooping through the cars in your collection; even if everyone is on their best behavior, the foot traffic is still going to destroy the carpets and floors, and we won't even bring up those who are not on their best behavior (or are over indulgent of their bratty kids). The solution has been to illuminate the interiors of certain cars, and elevate the walkways so people can see in the windows.

IRM's standard carbarn building has evolved into a four track configuration with a nominal sixty foot width; this seems to give the most bang for the buck. The track centers work out to about 15', leaving appx. 4'-6" clear between the cars. This is just enough room to build elevated walkways that bring people's eyes to the level of the windows. Note this is still somewhat lower than floor level in the cars. The walkways have ramps at the ends, and so are accessible to wheel chairs and mobility scooters. The have continuous railings which serve to:

1. Keep pepole from falling between the cars.
2. Keep children from falling between the platform and the car side.
3. Keep people from falling off the platform should a car not be on the adjacent track for whatever reason.

The standard height railings are slightly lower than the average window sill, so don't intrude in the view, and the lower rail serves as a continuous step for smaller children to step up and see into the cars. Here is the best photo I could find with a quick search:

Edit: Rats, the software won't fetch an image off the IRM web site, so I'll have to post the links.

http://www.irm.org/gallery/CGW99/aac

The walkways run the length of the appx. 250' building in the aisles between tracks 1&2, and 3&4, leaving the center aisle clear to access the doors and under body of the cars on the center two tracks to install and maintain the lighting equipment. At the far end of the building the walkways ramp down to floor level, where signs direct people to cross the center two tracks and continue the tour on the other walkway. Yes, the walkways are a bit narrow, and signage attempts to encourage a one way traffic flow (fat chance!)

Here are some additional photos of some of the car interior displays:

http://www.irm.org/gallery/NN10/aak

http://www.irm.org/gallery/ATSF1534/aax

http://www.irm.org/gallery/ATSF1534/aal

Because people don't know the law, so it becomes a bogeyman.

It's a real mess. We're trying to make America vastly more accessible, AND, we're trying to do it at negligible cost. These things are seemingly mutually exclusive, and yet, they must both be done together because only that is fair. It's a challenge.


You mean like...


NOT LIKELY. That's not how the ADA law works (Title III, I mean). It does not allow money damages, except for attorney's fees at court discretion, and the wind is blowing strong against that, due in part to certain high-profile abuses relating to state laws which allow more generous legal fees.

One of the things that changed was the Supreme court Buckhannon case. Suppose you get sued for ADA, and you comply with the lawsuit's intentions before the suit resolves. Previously, lower courts said "The lawsuit was the catalyst to you doing that, so it's like a lawsuit win and attorney fees apply."w Now, you're off the hook.
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publication ... theory.htm

Another is a commonly held view by judges that lawyers shouldn't get legal fees if they didn't give the business a sporting chance to comply first. The lawyers respond: "Hey, if I notice him before I sue, he'll fix the problem, and then I can't sue! Which means I can't get paid." In other words, they deliberately ambush small businesses to get more money. Judges do not like that. There's a philosophy which says all parties must do everything possible to mitigate damages (reduce infringement and legal costs), and this is the opposite of that - making trouble to keep their business model alive.

OK, so the lawyers went over to the more generous state laws, in the states which foolishly pre-empted Federal law with an option for generous legal fees. States such as California, Hawaii, Illinois and Florida. There have been notorious serial litigations by certain litigant-attorney teams. The courts aren't very happy about it. The 9th Circuit (Hubbard v. Sobreck) said states CAN'T pre-empt Federal law disallowing attorney fees"... and then California (Jankey v. Sung Koo Lee) said "Oh yes we can pre-empt, but, attorney's fees rules are double-edged, so a plaintiff who demands them is also at peril for them." They have also been willing to declare both the litigants and their attorneys vexatious, and bar them from filing cases (which for an attorney, has gotta hurt.) Read the rationale behind the sanctions against Molski.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1128246.html
Note the bit about 400 defendants settling.

So it doesn't happen except in certain states with defective state law, and the judicial system is getting fed up with it.


The doctrine at work is "readily achievable" (relative to your organization's ability to afford). In other words, spending $10,000 to create access may be readily achievable for the California State Railroad Museum but not for the Mad River & NKP. And that is OK. That is ADA compliance.

Unfortunately what tends to control the outcome of lawsuits is not the facts of the case, but people's emotional responses to being sued. Many act like an animal caught in a trap, and act frantically and often stupidly and deal themselves an injustice. Aggressive plaintiffs understand this "deer in the headlights" phenomenon, and exploit it mercilessly. Look at Molski. He mind-fracked FOUR HUNDRED people into settlements before one of them actually just showed up in court and asked the judge for the obvious - to declare him a vexatious litigant. What were the other 400 afraid of?

The legal system is ENTIRELY self-serve. I have seen judges look a defendant in the eye and say "I'll dismiss you with sanctions if you ask me to." You have to ask for yourself, because the judge CANNOT give it to you unless you do.

What would your organization do? Would you even investigate to see what the facts of the complaint actually were? Many would not. They'd just wring their hands and try to settle. 400 did not, in the above example - that's how ignorant people are about ADA.


ADA applies absolutely everywhere. However ADA also exempts a ton of stuff, because creating access for those places is unreasonable and will never happen.

In that situation, aside from "Am I doing what is readily achievable", I'd look for issues relating to - does the scope of work qualify it as a renovation? Do the historic equipment rules give you exemption? How much money is involved, both in the project and in your organization? Are you in one of the "hell states"?

For those who weren't around here in 2005, review this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12889

As an update, I haven't seen the individual(s) in question for several years, since a public meeting with a public transit agency where one came to condemn as inadequate a whole rash of measures taken by said agency to accommodate the "differently-abled" (I have vague recollections of his use of the words "balderdash" and "bull----"). The agency reps listened politely, then basically ignored him and moved on to the next agenda item.

What's the fellow's name, or uniquely identifiable keywords about his cases? Punch it into Google Scholar and see if any publishable case law shows up. That's how I found the folks I mentioned.

Speaking of that, I noticed one of the Molski cases cited a "Bird v. Lewis" case. Bird is none other than the person who was "thrown from the holiday train" last year. I'd say the group got lucky that Bird isn't the "sue for money" type.