Passenger Trains > Why is passenger rail the only mode that has new ADA requirements

Why doesn't  the airlines and buses also be required to adhere to ADA access rules like passenger rail?
I have utilized Superliner and Viewliner bedroom "H" many times, the attendant provides room service to me, what more do you want?

 

Airlines are covered under separate legislation. Look up the Air Carrier Access Act (49 USC § 41705).

skidroe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why doesn't  the airlines and buses also be
> required to adhere to ADA access rules like
> passenger rail?
> I have utilized Superliner and Viewliner bedroom
> "H" many times, the attendant provides room
> service to me, what more do you want?

Please provide evidence that government sponsored and/or operated buses are not subject to ADA access rules. Additionally, many if not most or all buses used in scheduled public transit (Grayhound, etc) are equipment with wheelchair lifts and tie-downs.

skidroe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why doesn't  the airlines and buses also be
> required to adhere to ADA access rules like
> passenger rail?
> I have utilized Superliner and Viewliner bedroom
> "H" many times, the attendant provides room
> service to me, what more do you want?
>

The GOP thinks rail is a left aligning side show and sees procedural requirements as a mechanism to hobble/destroy it. Democrats either believe in the requirements or don't see their costs. Passenger rail itself is goverment funded so they can't really push back, especially since rail's biggest champions are on the left. Airlines are profitable enough to lobby. Buses are currently so weak that they will just fold their tent at a slight regulatory breeze. Therefore rail and maybe ferries bear he brunt of compliance.  

They have ADA rules, just differing ones.
Wheelchairs cannot run up and down bus aisles, have specific wheelchair spots,  and can't use the restroom in the rear. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/26 08:46 by joemvcnj.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They have ADA rules, just differing ones.
> Wheelchairs cannot run up and down bus aisles,
> have specific wheelchair spots,  and can't use
> the restroom in the rear. 

Yes.  NJ Transit sought a waiver on the all buses must have elevators requirement back in the early 2010s. Offered on call para transit and other options. NOPE. All transit has to be accessible.

In the case of the principal bus type, two sets of two seats each are pushed back to allow door access.  Not all passengers are fully happy to be pushed out of their seats, and not all bus drivers are skilled in using the elevator device, moving the seats, etc.  And not all elevators perform as intended.

skidroe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why doesn't  the airlines and buses also be
> required to adhere to ADA access rules like
> passenger rail?
> I have utilized Superliner and Viewliner bedroom
> "H" many times, the attendant provides room
> service to me, what more do you want?

I think you mean "Why don't the airlines. . ."

AIrlines have split obligations. Terminals are governed under ADA as they are public infrastructure, same would apply to train stations as a corollary. ACAA, on the other hand, covers aircraft and airline services. As a practical example, ACAA would govern on board wheelchairs, the boarding process (aisle chairs/straightbacks), etc. So, yes, the airlines are obligated to comply not only with ADA (via the terminal infrastructure), but also ACAA for the airline/aircraft side. 
 

mbrotzman Wrote:
> The GOP thinks rail is a left aligning side show
> and sees procedural requirements as a mechanism to
> hobble/destroy it. Democrats either believe in the
> requirements or don't see their costs. Passenger
> rail itself is goverment funded so they can't
> really push back, especially since rail's biggest
> champions are on the left. Airlines are profitable
> enough to lobby. Buses are currently so weak that
> they will just fold their tent at a slight
> regulatory breeze. Therefore rail and maybe
> ferries bear he brunt of compliance.  

Nothing can be further from the truth, I can personally speak to the airline side of things. Airlines spend millions and millions each year to achieve compliance with both ADA, and the ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act) which applies specifically to the airline products/services as well as aircraft. As an example, most aircraft now carry an on board, stowable, wheelchair for use by a passenger while enroute. Not only is there cost in acquiring the chair, it also my be FAA certified which involves months (usually 18-24 months) of extensive testing, flammability certification, etc. There must also be provision for where to store it, and secure it in the cabin - that securement must meet the current 16g requirements - so that's more engineering and more testing to achieve certification. On some aircraft, there may be an easy to repurpose location (such as behind a last row of seats and before a monument). However, on others it may require modification to, or, comletely new monuments (e.g., galley, closet, etc.) be installed. Again, more engineering, testing, certification costs and time, along with out of service time for the aircraft to get the modification. A monument change out, assuming it's one-for-one is probably a 48 to 72 hour endeavor, that's lost revenue, let alone consuming a maintenance line that could be used for some other maintenance activity. 

So, your assesment, at least in the case of the airline industry in the U.S., is an incorrect one. 

I think the idea of a core ADA compatible passenger train is a workable idea.   If the govt exempted trains from regulations there would be a lot fewer people taking the trains if disabled people could not access them.  You don't only lose the disabled customer, but you lose their caregiver(s). I found with our handcar recreation business that having ADA compliant facilities was good for business. We carried a lot of folks transfering from wheel chairs and walkers onto our handcars and railbikes. If we were there longer we would have made further improvements to better streamline our ADA facilities. 

 

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

longliveSP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> skidroe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why doesn't  the airlines and buses also be
> > required to adhere to ADA access rules like
> > passenger rail?
> > I have utilized Superliner and Viewliner
> bedroom
> > "H" many times, the attendant provides room
> > service to me, what more do you want?
>
> Please provide evidence that government sponsored
> and/or operated buses are not subject to ADA
> access rules. Additionally, many if not most or
> all buses used in scheduled public transit
> (Grayhound, etc) are equipment with wheelchair
> lifts and tie-downs.

Oh please. What evidence do you need. All you have to do is ride on each of them. Amtrak does a FAR better job of accommodating handicapped people than the other modes. The airline bathrooms are so small they don’t even accommodate tall or fat people. Somehow that’s legal. Amtrak is supposed to be a Nirvana for wheelchair users. Expecting that the train should be completely 100% wheelchair accessible is a ridiculous requirement given the limited space. It ends up taking away amenities and space from everybody else on the train. Could you imagine if they ever required that the sleeping car aisles are wheelchair with the entire length of the car. The rooms are already too small. There’s absolutely no room to be given to more aisle space.

Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/26 15:05 by alan2955.

jcoons Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> skidroe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why doesn't  the airlines and buses also be
> > required to adhere to ADA access rules like
> > passenger rail?
> > I have utilized Superliner and Viewliner
> bedroom
> > "H" many times, the attendant provides room
> > service to me, what more do you want?
>
> I think you mean "Why don't the airlines. . ."
>
> AIrlines have split obligations. Terminals are
> governed under ADA as they are public
> infrastructure, same would apply to train stations
> as a corollary. ACAA, on the other hand, covers
> aircraft and airline services. As a practical
> example, ACAA would govern on board wheelchairs,
> the boarding process (aisle chairs/straightbacks),
> etc. So, yes, the airlines are obligated to comply
> not only with ADA (via the terminal
> infrastructure), but also ACAA for the
> airline/aircraft side. 
>  
So you don’t agree that Amtrak already has better accommodations for handicap people than any airline? Show me a fully handicapped accessible bathroom on a domestic airliner and I’ll buy you a steak dinner. I’m 6 foot and 240 pounds and I can barely get in them. The ADA requirements for new train equipment are over the top and impractical.

Posted from iPhone

jcoons Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mbrotzman Wrote:
> > The GOP thinks rail is a left aligning side
> show
> > and sees procedural requirements as a mechanism
> to
> > hobble/destroy it. Democrats either believe in
> the
> > requirements or don't see their costs.
> Passenger
> > rail itself is goverment funded so they can't
> > really push back, especially since rail's
> biggest
> > champions are on the left. Airlines are
> profitable
> > enough to lobby. Buses are currently so weak
> that
> > they will just fold their tent at a slight
> > regulatory breeze. Therefore rail and maybe
> > ferries bear he brunt of compliance.  
>
> Nothing can be further from the truth, I can
> personally speak to the airline side of things.
> Airlines spend millions and millions each year to
> achieve compliance with both ADA, and the ACAA
> (Air Carrier Access Act) which applies
> specifically to the airline products/services as
> well as aircraft. As an example, most aircraft now
> carry an on board, stowable, wheelchair for use by
> a passenger while enroute. Not only is there cost
> in acquiring the chair, it also my be FAA
> certified which involves months (usually 18-24
> months) of extensive testing, flammability
> certification, etc. There must also be provision
> for where to store it, and secure it in the cabin
> - that securement must meet the current 16g
> requirements - so that's more engineering and more
> testing to achieve certification. On some
> aircraft, there may be an easy to repurpose
> location (such as behind a last row of seats and
> before a monument). However, on others it may
> require modification to, or, comletely new
> monuments (e.g., galley, closet, etc.) be
> installed. Again, more engineering, testing,
> certification costs and time, along with out of
> service time for the aircraft to get the
> modification. A monument change out, assuming it's
> one-for-one is probably a 48 to 72 hour endeavor,
> that's lost revenue, let alone consuming a
> maintenance line that could be used for some other
> maintenance activity. 
>
> So, your assesment, at least in the case of the
> airline industry in the U.S., is an incorrect
> one. 

Me thinks you grossly exaggerate. Every airliner I’ve ever been on including a one month old 737 Max had ridiculously small bathroom entrances and space inside of them. There is no way in hell they are accessible to disabled people.

Posted from iPhone

longliveSP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> skidroe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why doesn't  the airlines and buses also be
> > required to adhere to ADA access rules like
> > passenger rail?
> > I have utilized Superliner and Viewliner
> bedroom
> > "H" many times, the attendant provides room
> > service to me, what more do you want?
>
> Please provide evidence that government sponsored
> and/or operated buses are not subject to ADA
> access rules. Additionally, many if not most or
> all buses used in scheduled public transit
> (Grayhound, etc) are equipment with wheelchair
> lifts and tie-downs.

Yes, they have a wheelchair lift and a space where a wheelchair but that’s where it ends. You can’t roam the aisles. And I’ve never seen a bus where the bathroom would be wheelchair accessible. They’re always in the far back. The wheelchair lift is usually in the middle. Amtrak is a far better job in their current form, accommodating handicapped people. I don’t see any need for the hysteria over further requirements that are impractical given the limited space. Amtrak has by far the biggest restrooms of any public transportation mode. They have power doors on the restrooms on newer cars. Airlines and buses have none of that.

Posted from iPhone

alan2955 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jcoons Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > mbrotzman Wrote:
> > > The GOP thinks rail is a left aligning side
> > show
> > > and sees procedural requirements as a
> mechanism
> > to
> > > hobble/destroy it. Democrats either believe
> in
> > the
> > > requirements or don't see their costs.
> > Passenger
> > > rail itself is goverment funded so they can't
> > > really push back, especially since rail's
> > biggest
> > > champions are on the left. Airlines are
> > profitable
> > > enough to lobby. Buses are currently so weak
> > that
> > > they will just fold their tent at a slight
> > > regulatory breeze. Therefore rail and maybe
> > > ferries bear he brunt of compliance.  
> >
> > Nothing can be further from the truth, I can
> > personally speak to the airline side of things.
> > Airlines spend millions and millions each year
> to
> > achieve compliance with both ADA, and the ACAA
> > (Air Carrier Access Act) which applies
> > specifically to the airline products/services
> as
> > well as aircraft. As an example, most aircraft
> now
> > carry an on board, stowable, wheelchair for use
> by
> > a passenger while enroute. Not only is there
> cost
> > in acquiring the chair, it also my be FAA
> > certified which involves months (usually 18-24
> > months) of extensive testing, flammability
> > certification, etc. There must also be
> provision
> > for where to store it, and secure it in the
> cabin
> > - that securement must meet the current 16g
> > requirements - so that's more engineering and
> more
> > testing to achieve certification. On some
> > aircraft, there may be an easy to repurpose
> > location (such as behind a last row of seats
> and
> > before a monument). However, on others it may
> > require modification to, or, comletely new
> > monuments (e.g., galley, closet, etc.) be
> > installed. Again, more engineering, testing,
> > certification costs and time, along with out of
> > service time for the aircraft to get the
> > modification. A monument change out, assuming
> it's
> > one-for-one is probably a 48 to 72 hour
> endeavor,
> > that's lost revenue, let alone consuming a
> > maintenance line that could be used for some
> other
> > maintenance activity. 
> >
> > So, your assesment, at least in the case of the
> > airline industry in the U.S., is an incorrect
> > one. 
>
> Me thinks you grossly exaggerate. Every airliner
> I’ve ever been on including a one month old 737
> Max had ridiculously small bathroom entrances and
> space inside of them. There is no way in hell they
> are accessible to disabled people.
>
> Posted from iPhone

They are, and in compliance with the law. 

However as of this July at least one on board on larger planes will be required to be bigger. 

In the Seattle and Tacoma areas, Sound Transit uses intercity bus models (MCIs, I believe), for some of its ST Express freeway bus runs. I've heard that the drivers hate them because of their complicated ADA arrangement, which requires drivers to fold and slide a number of middle seats forward and backward on one side of the bus to create room for wheelchairs. The buses have side lifts to get the wheelchairs and their occupants on and off through a special side entrance.

alan2955 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jcoons Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > skidroe Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Why doesn't  the airlines and buses also be
> > > required to adhere to ADA access rules like
> > > passenger rail?
> > > I have utilized Superliner and Viewliner
> > bedroom
> > > "H" many times, the attendant provides room
> > > service to me, what more do you want?
> >
> > I think you mean "Why don't the airlines. . ."
> >
> > AIrlines have split obligations. Terminals are
> > governed under ADA as they are public
> > infrastructure, same would apply to train
> stations
> > as a corollary. ACAA, on the other hand, covers
> > aircraft and airline services. As a practical
> > example, ACAA would govern on board
> wheelchairs,
> > the boarding process (aisle
> chairs/straightbacks),
> > etc. So, yes, the airlines are obligated to
> comply
> > not only with ADA (via the terminal
> > infrastructure), but also ACAA for the
> > airline/aircraft side. 
> >  
> So you don’t agree that Amtrak already has
> better accommodations for handicap people than any
> airline? Show me a fully handicapped accessible
> bathroom on a domestic airliner and I’ll buy you
> a steak dinner. I’m 6 foot and 240 pounds and I
> can barely get in them. The ADA requirements for
> new train equipment are over the top and
> impractical.

I never said that, nor was that the point of my response above. The OP was opinining as to why are airlines (and bus lines) are not held to ADA requirements. My answer was to explain that airlines are to the extent that ADA applies. And, that airlines must also comply with ACAA. None of this was rendering opinion as to the (in)adequacy of handicap accomodations on Amtrak. There is rulemaking that is coming in to effect that will mandate larger lavatories on airliners over 125 seats, however the implementation date is somwehere out about 10 or so years. I'll take a ribeye medium rare. 

alan2955 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jcoons Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > mbrotzman Wrote:
> > > The GOP thinks rail is a left aligning side
> > show
> > > and sees procedural requirements as a
> mechanism
> > to
> > > hobble/destroy it. Democrats either believe
> in
> > the
> > > requirements or don't see their costs.
> > Passenger
> > > rail itself is goverment funded so they can't
> > > really push back, especially since rail's
> > biggest
> > > champions are on the left. Airlines are
> > profitable
> > > enough to lobby. Buses are currently so weak
> > that
> > > they will just fold their tent at a slight
> > > regulatory breeze. Therefore rail and maybe
> > > ferries bear he brunt of compliance.  
> >
> > Nothing can be further from the truth, I can
> > personally speak to the airline side of things.
> > Airlines spend millions and millions each year
> to
> > achieve compliance with both ADA, and the ACAA
> > (Air Carrier Access Act) which applies
> > specifically to the airline products/services
> as
> > well as aircraft. As an example, most aircraft
> now
> > carry an on board, stowable, wheelchair for use
> by
> > a passenger while enroute. Not only is there
> cost
> > in acquiring the chair, it also my be FAA
> > certified which involves months (usually 18-24
> > months) of extensive testing, flammability
> > certification, etc. There must also be
> provision
> > for where to store it, and secure it in the
> cabin
> > - that securement must meet the current 16g
> > requirements - so that's more engineering and
> more
> > testing to achieve certification. On some
> > aircraft, there may be an easy to repurpose
> > location (such as behind a last row of seats
> and
> > before a monument). However, on others it may
> > require modification to, or, comletely new
> > monuments (e.g., galley, closet, etc.) be
> > installed. Again, more engineering, testing,
> > certification costs and time, along with out of
> > service time for the aircraft to get the
> > modification. A monument change out, assuming
> it's
> > one-for-one is probably a 48 to 72 hour
> endeavor,
> > that's lost revenue, let alone consuming a
> > maintenance line that could be used for some
> other
> > maintenance activity. 
> >
> > So, your assesment, at least in the case of the
> > airline industry in the U.S., is an incorrect
> > one. 
>
> Me thinks you grossly exaggerate. Every airliner
> I’ve ever been on including a one month old 737
> Max had ridiculously small bathroom entrances and
> space inside of them. There is no way in hell they
> are accessible to disabled people.

My friend, I spent 33 years in the airline business, half of it in station operations leadership, the other half in customer experience and product development. I'm intimately familiar with the regulatory, design capabilities/limitations, and implementation logistics. Among many things, this included addressing how, where, and with what we would be able to comply with the requirements for an onboard wheelchair. U.S. Carriers are operating in compliance with current regulatory frameworks. Is it adquate for someone of size? I think we both know that answer, and that is being addressed in legislation that is now a final rule as I mentioned in my other post responding to you. 

 

I don't understand why they must do away with the efficiency of the bilevel car.  Elevators are not practical which is why no builder responded.  You'd need two for safety plus battery backups.  

But if ADA is now interpreted (by whom I don't know) to mean HC must have access to all amenities like lounge and dining cars I don't think that means they must have access to every part of the train.  So a future generation could include some sort of Superliner 3s but these bilevels would be coaches and sleepers only.  That segment ends with a transition car.  Then new single level lounge, and diner and then either a single level coach and sleeper OR maybe a coach / sleeper combine.  Handicapped passengers are accommodated there but it's also available to others.  HC is no longer confined and has full access to the the amenities like anyone else.  I think this is a reasonable compromise.

 

filmteknik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't understand why they must do away with the
> efficiency of the bilevel car.  Elevators are not
> practical which is why no builder responded.
>  You'd need two for safety plus battery backups.
>  
>
> But if ADA is now interpreted (by whom I don't
> know) to mean HC must have access to all amenities
> like lounge and dining cars I don't think that
> means they must have access to every part of the
> train.  So a future generation could include some
> sort of Superliner 3s but these bilevels would be
> coaches and sleepers only.  That segment ends
> with a transition car.  Then new single level
> lounge, and diner and then either a single level
> coach and sleeper OR maybe a coach / sleeper
> combine.  Handicapped passengers are accommodated
> there but it's also available to others.  HC is
> no longer confined and has full access to the the
> amenities like anyone else.  I think this is a
> reasonable compromise.

I agree - good compromise and stil meeets ADA regs. 

NPRocky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the Seattle and Tacoma areas, Sound Transit
> uses intercity bus models (MCIs, I believe), for
> some of its ST Express freeway bus runs. I've
> heard that the drivers hate them because of their
> complicated ADA arrangement, which requires
> drivers to fold and slide a number of middle seats
> forward and backward on one side of the bus to
> create room for wheelchairs. The buses have side
> lifts to get the wheelchairs and their occupants
> on and off through a special side entrance.

That seems to be the industry standard for addressing the ADA opportunity.  Maintaining the lifting device, doors, floor tracks for slliding seats etc is an ongoing challenge