Impressions of Accessibility at the Park

[lightninlady]

Hi guys! I am working on an assignment for one of my classes on disability, and I've chosen to do an accessibility review on BGW. One aspect of the assignment was that I get information from folks with disabilities on their perception of the park's accessibility, and I figured that some of y'all might have some thoughts on the matter! So if you are disabled, go to the park with someone who is disabled, or even just have opinions on how the park is doing in this regard, drop your input here, whether it is positive or negative!

 

[rswashdc]

BGW is at the bottom of my list when it comes to their accessibility program and the next worst one isn't even close.

2 big issues:
1. Getting your pass basically involves waiting in a huge, slow line at guest services that regularly takes 30-60 minutes. Since the point of the pass is to assist someone who can't wait in line easily, this admin process can be a nightmare just to start.

2. The program involves going to the ride exit, getting a return time, and then coming back. This is a challenge hiking up what are often long exit paths and then doing it a second time when actually riding - Invadr, Loch Ness, the log ride are all terrible for this. You also have to get an attendant to actually give you a return time, which can take awhile if staff is limited, so your overall wait time is higher than waiting the normal line. Other parks use much better systems such as reverse boarding times that simulate the waits without requiring going through the exit twice.

We basically will only visit BGW on light crowd days and limit it to rides that have a short wait, as the program is basically non-functional on busier days. KD, HP, and even SF are way better in their programs and seem like they actually put effort into it.

 

[Rothbury]

I am 73 years old and have been visiting the park since it opened in 1975. It is my home park and the only park I visit. Instead of trashing the park on what they do and don't do, I'll just say that they do the minimum requirements of ADA and no more. Sure, there are some challenges to navigate the park, but it is what it is. I believe for somebody renting a scooter at BGW the cost is something like $80. Up to probably 65 I rode the rides, but medications keep me from doing that now. I wear hearing aids and find the volume levels in the shows almost painfully loud so, we don't go to the shows anymore either. We used to go to the park almost weekly but now we might go once a month. As my wife and I walked through the park yesterday we discussed why we still go. At this point our only objective is to make their 50th anniversary. Next year will be our last. There is no incentive to continue.
On a different note, I'll add that one of the biggest dangers has become the people. There is no courtesy. Yesterday I was kicked and tripped up twice by young children and almost fell down. The collapsible wagon strollers being pulled through the park are becoming a big problem. Watched several times as people were run into, and walkways blocked by people pulling/pushing those wagons. For people with mobility issues, it borders on being dangerous. That's not BGW's fault or concern so I won't elaborate.

 

[Celticdog]

BG has some serious issues which are in violation of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) both the 1990 and 2010 versions. Per the ADA all amenities must be accessible to all persons. It is irrelevant that the park was built prior to both versions. Many court cases have been lost using the argument that it was in compliance when it was built. BG has made changes and upgrades throughout the years nullifying that argument. All it takes is the right lawyer with the right handicapped person to bring a lawsuit.

They currently do not have an ADA accessible pathway from the parking lots to the front gate. The hills exceed the 5% longitudinal slope and the area they have designated as the handicap path has a cross-slope greater than 2%.

Wolf valley exceeds the longitudinal slope of 5% making the eagles and wolves inaccessible per the ADA regulations.

Grimms Landing has no ramps or elevator making the boats inaccessible per the ADA regulations.

Many of the queues do not meet the width requirements and railing placements. This is more prevalent on the older rides.

Contrasting colors and visibility measures are weak at all stairs and rail crossings. This is a requirement for those with visibility impairments.

Many pathways throughout the park do not meet the longitudinal slope of 5%. This is noticeable around Highland Stables and down into Ireland.

There are also other items that may be in violation: bathroom counters set too high, faucets out of reach, hand dryers/paper towels out of reach, food service counter too high. All of those would need to be measured, however to my eye some appear to be at the incorrect height for someone in a wheelchair.

The department of Justice has great resources online: Law, Regulations & Standards

 

[warfelg]

I have a friend constantly in and out of boots and knee braces that puts him in ADA coverage. BGW and HP are the only two parks he refuses to visit when he’s in the boot or on crutches.

While he feels both parks have their positive and negative issues there’s the one part to both parks that he feels cannot be overcome, however he feels BGW has an advantage that HP does not. Both have natural terrains that make navigating parts of the park nearly impossible. At HP he struggles to get up to Kissing Tower Hill, and back to Midway America. @Celticdog covered the issue with BGW. But his ‘happiness’ with BGW lies in there’s at least ways for him to get places with the train and the Skyline which can reduce the need to walk.

I’m going to start with this next part is opinion and not fact:
He personally does not begrudge either park for this as the changes to topography would cause more problems for the park (in his opinion) than solve. It would require either complete regrade of areas which would destroy what’s there, or making a narrow transversing path winding up and down the hill which would cause it’s own issues with many switchbacks and the likelihood that able bodied people would use it out of ease, clogging the way for people who need it.

 

[GAcoaster]

There are many things that are still grandfathered in at Busch and many parks. They all play a very careful game of only making a small percentage change when making an upgrade. I've seen Disney do it several times where they can only do so much or they have to make everything ADA compliant to the current standards. To bring everything into full compliance would be financially difficult and require fundamental changes that the parks are not willing to make.

 

[mikes]

There are many things that are still grandfathered in at Busch and many parks. They all play a very careful game of only making a small percentage change when making an upgrade. I've seen Disney do it several times where they can only do so much or they have to make everything ADA compliant to the current standards. To bring everything into full compliance would be financially difficult and require fundamental changes that the parks are not willing to make.

Space mountain is an attraction that sucks for someone on a scooter. I had to push my 200+ brother through the queue on a wheel chair. I got my exercise to say the least

 

[MIKEYT67]

BG has some serious issues which are in violation of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) both the 1990 and 2010 versions. Per the ADA all amenities must be accessible to all persons. It is irrelevant that the park was built prior to both versions. Many court cases have been lost using the argument that it was in compliance when it was built. BG has made changes and upgrades throughout the years nullifying that argument. All it takes is the right lawyer with the right handicapped person to bring a lawsuit.

They currently do not have an ADA accessible pathway from the parking lots to the front gate. The hills exceed the 5% longitudinal slope and the area they have designated as the handicap path has a cross-slope greater than 2%.

Wolf valley exceeds the longitudinal slope of 5% making the eagles and wolves inaccessible per the ADA regulations.

Grimms Landing has no ramps or elevator making the boats inaccessible per the ADA regulations.

Many of the queues do not meet the width requirements and railing placements. This is more prevalent on the older rides.

Contrasting colors and visibility measures are weak at all stairs and rail crossings. This is a requirement for those with visibility impairments.

Many pathways throughout the park do not meet the longitudinal slope of 5%. This is noticeable around Highland Stables and down into Ireland.

There are also other items that may be in violation: bathroom counters set too high, faucets out of reach, hand dryers/paper towels out of reach, food service counter too high. All of those would need to be measured, however to my eye some appear to be at the incorrect height for someone in a wheelchair.

The department of Justice has great resources online: Law, Regulations & Standards

Not 100% sure but I thought I read some where that Grimms Landing was grandfathered ?
This makes me wonder if alot of what you say is alsograndfathered I find it hard to believe after all these years someone hasn't brought this up {it would be all over the news}

 

[Coasternerd]

Long story short: if they brought the aforementioned areas to the codes now (if they weren’t grandfathered) the Grimms landung and wolf valley areas would lose all their character to a bunch of ramps. Trees, gone. Animals, moved. Serenity, gone.

(Yes I say serene—it’s one of the quietest areas of the park)

 

[Celticdog]

Not 100% sure but I thought I read some where that Grimms Landing was grandfathered ?
This makes me wonder if alot of what you say is also grandfathered I find it hard to believe after all these years someone hasn't brought this up {it would be all over the news}

Grandfathering can be applied in a limited capacity. Reasonable accommodations must be provided. BG has amenities that cannot be reached by those with limited mobility. Cost and financial cannot be used as an excuse. Negative impacts to environmentally sensitive areas can be used as an excuse.

BG could put in an elevator or series of elevators down to Grimm's Landing. This would be a reasonable accommodation. Alternatively, the boats could be removed and Grimm's Landing then only becomes a walkaway with warning signs stating it is not ADA compliant. Wolf valley could be modified with an elevated walkway across the swale for sole purpose of wheelchair/handicap usage. Viewing platforms could be placed along the walkaway for the eagles and wolves. BG does a good job of identifying the steep slopes on their maps, however they need to place signs prior to the hills and stairs as a warning.

What we have encountered on other commercial, retail and business sites is that regardless of when it was constructed, the site must be brought into compliance with the current version of the ADA regulations. This exact scenario played out at The Shops at Innsbrook and Colonial Downs Race Track. Both tried to fight the lawsuit and both lost.

Someone may have brought attention to the ADA issues in the past, however that does not necessarily remove liability/responsibility from BG to bring things into compliance. We are starting to see a renewed round of formal complaints against businesses.

 

[MIKEYT67]

Grandfathering can be applied in a limited capacity. Reasonable accommodations must be provided. BG has amenities that cannot be reached by those with limited mobility. Cost and financial cannot be used as an excuse. Negative impacts to environmentally sensitive areas can be used as an excuse.

BG could put in an elevator or series of elevators down to Grimm's Landing. This would be a reasonable accommodation. Alternatively, the boats could be removed and Grimm's Landing then only becomes a walkaway with warning signs stating it is not ADA compliant. Wolf valley could be modified with an elevated walkway across the swale for sole purpose of wheelchair/handicap usage. Viewing platforms could be placed along the walkaway for the eagles and wolves. BG does a good job of identifying the steep slopes on their maps, however they need to place signs prior to the hills and stairs as a warning.

What we have encountered on other commercial, retail and business sites is that regardless of when it was constructed, the site must be brought into compliance with the current version of the ADA regulations. This exact scenario played out at The Shops at Innsbrook and Colonial Downs Race Track. Both tried to fight the lawsuit and both lost.

Someone may have brought attention to the ADA issues in the past, however that does not necessarily remove liability/responsibility from BG to bring things into compliance. We are starting to see a renewed round of formal complaints against businesses.

ot sure what exactly you are trying to accomplish
Is it spend 10's of millions of dollars to help a minority of people or closrse the park?

 

[RollyCoaster]

Busch Gardens Williamsburg is the only park I’ve been to where they basically make you feel like shit for even using a pass. I’ve heard workers under their breath shit talking people I was with just because of the fact they were in a wheelchair and were holding up the line.

Busch Gardens:
People in a wheelchair are still PEOPLE

Having all guests stare at you while you “cut the line” without an announcement, is embarrassing. Your ADA operator should be going to the row you are sitting in and explaining privately what is going on; that specific group of people at that gate should be instructed to stay there when the gates open, and everyone should be able to board the train together, so that the ADA guest isn’t being stared at by everyone.

Universal does this very thing i mentioned above and it’s fluent and professional. It also doesn’t slow down operations.

Basically, I just hate the unprofessional training staff and the park have on ADA guests. They are people that want to be treated like people, not a handicapped person 24/7. The current process allows everybody to ride the attractions, but ADA guests “hold everything up” and the current process at times promotes bullying.

 

[Celticdog]

ot sure what exactly you are trying to accomplish
Is it spend 10's of millions of dollars to help a minority of people or closrse the park?

The ADA regulations were created to ensure that those with physical and intellectual disabilities are treated fairly and are able to access and enjoy all the same amenities as an able bodied person. Anything less is discrimination.

 

[warfelg]

As someone that’s worked at golf courses and have seen my fair share of ADA lawsuits come and go (actually my PGA class right now deals with ADA and the golf course), often times in the territory of terrain, there’s a clause of reasonable expectation. Which is likely what Wolf Valley and Grimm’s Landing fall under and why they’ve never done any of the accommodations brought up.

There’s honestly no reason then why BGW continues to have that, because I find it hard to believe that the accessibility of those two areas have gone unchallenged.

 

[BGWfan]

I am not a lawyer, but I do find this interesting especially in terms of existing infrastructure that would require significant modifications for accessibility.

If I've found the correct law, we're looking at 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(2)(iv)&(v) which applies regardless of age of infrastructure (there are other laws that address when you are making a change to existing infrastructure or new construction). This essentially states that failure to remove structural architectural barriers is discriminatory unless you can demonstrate that removing the barrier is not "readily achievable" AND that providing alternative methods of access are not "readily achievable."

The definition of "readily achievable" means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense taking into consideration the scale and financial resources and operational impact of the business/facility in question. This (per usual) leaves a legal gray area where each specific situation can be separately litigated. That builds a history of case law to help guide what might constitute readily achievable, but each situation could still be considered on its on own merits and businesses are left using their own judgement to determine the level of accommodations required. Obviously, in some cases, a bad faith reading of the law (or ignorance of it) would lead to the minimum level of accessibility added.

Despite the scale of United Parks, I could see them making the argument that accessibility or alternate accommodations for Wolf Valley / Grimm's' Landing are not "readily achievable" given the complex topography of those areas and likely high expense to do so. Other offenses are less defensible it would seem. But to my understanding, the only way for the determination to be officially made is for someone to sue and the case to decide; there is not a regulatory body reviewing existing infrastructure as opposed to new construction/modifications.

 

[warfelg]

I am not a lawyer, but I do find this interesting especially in terms of existing infrastructure that would require significant modifications for accessibility.

If I've found the correct law, we're looking at 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(2)(iv)&(v) which applies regardless of age of infrastructure (there are other laws that address when you are making a change to existing infrastructure or new construction). This essentially states that failure to remove structural architectural barriers is discriminatory unless you can demonstrate that removing the barrier is not "readily achievable" AND that providing alternative methods of access are not "readily achievable."

The definition of "readily achievable" means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense taking into consideration the scale and financial resources and operational impact of the business/facility in question. This (per usual) leaves a legal gray area where each specific situation can be separately litigated. That builds a history of case law to help guide what might constitute readily achievable, but each situation could still be considered on its on own merits and businesses are left using their own judgement to determine the level of accommodations required. Obviously, in some cases, a bad faith reading of the law (or ignorance of it) would lead to the minimum level of accessibility added.

Despite the scale of United Parks, I could see them making the argument that accessibility or alternate accommodations for Wolf Valley / Grimm's' Landing are not "readily achievable" given the complex topography of those areas and likely high expense to do so. Other offenses are less defensible it would seem. But to my understanding, the only way for the determination to be officially made is for someone to sue and the case to decide; there is not a regulatory body reviewing existing infrastructure as opposed to new construction/modifications.

The “readily achievable” clause it why generally something wont happen.

Think of the example of an elevator to Grimm’s landing. That wouldn’t be that simple because the downslope begins before the actual spot. So that means building a bridge or walks to where the elevator would start. Also means building a foundation for the elevator structure, which means impact of waste water management as well as other environmental impacts. The best way to do this would be to go through LOD, remove a bunch of those trees, expand the decking of the landing below.

If I remember the area around Wolf Valley correctly, this would mean losing the eagle enclosure, moving backstage for Abbey Theater, likely more modification to the Valley, modifications to Pet Shenanigans theater, along with removal of much of the foliage in the area.

To give an example, here’s an overhead of a course I used to work at that someone filed an ADA suit against for “inaccessible” areas (This is Penn State mind you getting hit with this):



The area’s in yellow have significant slops of 10%+ grades. It was a parent from a visiting team with an all terrain wheel chair who couldn’t use one of our carts because of the lack of proper seatbelts. The chair could not make it up these slopes because the base was too small. He ended up losing because (1) removing the obstacle wasn’t achievable because it required something like 100 tonnes of dirt to be moved in each circle and (2) there’s no alternative way to guarantee access to this spot. It was determined that making these alterations not only changed the natural terrain in unnatural ways, it’s operational scale (12 months) and financial impact ($300,000) were considered “unnecessary financial burdens” to the university.

 

[rswashdc]

BGW is at the bottom of my list when it comes to their accessibility program and the next worst one isn't even close.

2 big issues:
1. Getting your pass basically involves waiting in a huge, slow line at guest services that regularly takes 30-60 minutes. Since the point of the pass is to assist someone who can't wait in line easily, this admin process can be a nightmare just to start.

2. The program involves going to the ride exit, getting a return time, and then coming back. This is a challenge hiking up what are often long exit paths and then doing it a second time when actually riding - Invadr, Loch Ness, the log ride are all terrible for this. You also have to get an attendant to actually give you a return time, which can take awhile if staff is limited, so your overall wait time is higher than waiting the normal line. Other parks use much better systems such as reverse boarding times that simulate the waits without requiring going through the exit twice.

We basically will only visit BGW on light crowd days and limit it to rides that have a short wait, as the program is basically non-functional on busier days. KD, HP, and even SF are way better in their programs and seem like they actually put effort into it.

To add a data point here, it took over 20 minutes to get an accessibility pass on what was a rather light attendance day due to lousy weather. Guest services just doesn't work at BGW with some guest issues taking 10-15 minutes of one staff members time.