Safety and traffic flow. There's been a number of times I've been trying to cross there when no employee was there, thought the coast was clear, then someone came up way to fast. Additionally if they don't need to constantly stop traffic there they can get into the lots faster and create less of a backup.
Tram Road Walking Path Addition
- Thread starter bgw enthusiasts
- Start date
BG needs tread very carefully with this pathway. It does not meet ADA requirements. It is a walking surface and may not be intended for wheelchairs, however that does not remove the responsibility to construct it in accordance with the ADA requirements. The cross-slope should not be steeper than 2%. The gutter pan is 8%. The pathway must be a minimum of 5' wide. The ends neck down to less than that. The curb and gutter at the end should be modified to eliminate the 8% cross-slope on the gutter pan and flatten it to the 5% as defined within the ADA requirements. The end is very much an irregular surface that should be made more uniform for those with mobility issues and for those with visual impairments. The ADA regulations do not only apply to those in wheelchairs, they also apply to people with ambulatory, visual, and hearing issues. All it will take is the right lawyer and the right plaintiff to bring a lawsuit.
My understanding is BGW's insurance said they needed a crossing guard for when it's in use which was why the gate was installed so that they could close it off when not in use. I personally have seen guests climb over the gate or fence when closed and make there way up there which is certainly dangerous on multiple levels.
Does that come in to play as long as the handicap parking area isn’t served by this walking path? I don’t know I’m just asking out of curiosity my self.
Actually I don't believe that would be an issue in this case since BGW could argue they are in compliance by having both handicap parking in the upper lot and having the trams available for those that are inpaired in the lower. Those to options would like be see as appropriate accommodations.
Wouldn't that require them to operate trams daily?
That is the gray area. There have been many businesses who thought they were in compliance and provided reasonable accommodations, but they ended up losing lawsuits. The argument could be made that the pathway is not safe, because the gutter pan is not considered a walking surface. The cross-slope is too steep, the curb could present a tripping hazard and the width from edge of gutter to the fence is less than the minimum required. There is also minimum lighting requirement. Does BG maintaining a minimum 0.50 footcandles for the entire length of the path? I don't know.
What happens on days without trams? Is BG endangering guests with such a narrow accessway? It would be less of an issue with a wider walkway.
Not necessarily. The ADA applies to all public accessible areas. Which means any areas accessible to someone without any disability must also be available to those with disabilities.
This could get very sticky for BG, because the Rhine River Cruise is not accessible to those in wheelchairs. BG has made no accommodations to get any handicap access down to the Rhine.
I oversaw a project on a place with a hill like to the Rhine, and like this parking, and both times I’ve seen ADA compliance not need to be followed. There’s always an area of reasonability to it. For example with the Rhine, there’s no reasonable way to creat a ramp with the correct incline to get there and the only thing you could end up doing is building an elevator for a lack of a better term.
As for the parking walkway, does the old path still exist? They could argue that because that still exists it’s ADA complaint. They could just use the entire tramway when the trams are in use.
Last thing I’ll say is based on @bgw enthusiasts third picture and the curb cutout to likely make an ADA path, are we sure this is the final product of this? There might still be work to be done.
Also random ADA compliance story that @horsesboy ’s post made me think of. I took someone with a temp handicap placard to BGW and the HCP spaces were full. They sent us to the England lot not the lower lots. I believe that may be why they can get around some ADA compliance with other lots.
As for the parking walkway, does the old path still exist? They could argue that because that still exists it’s ADA complaint. They could just use the entire tramway when the trams are in use.
Last thing I’ll say is based on @bgw enthusiasts third picture and the curb cutout to likely make an ADA path, are we sure this is the final product of this? There might still be work to be done.
Also random ADA compliance story that @horsesboy ’s post made me think of. I took someone with a temp handicap placard to BGW and the HCP spaces were full. They sent us to the England lot not the lower lots. I believe that may be why they can get around some ADA compliance with other lots.
Last edited:
I have a hard time believing PRKS/BGW wouldn't have mitigated such lawsuits in their design work, but here we are.
IIRC, ADA doesn't have a grandfathering clause in it, right?
It does, but I've seen businesses and shopping centers lose lawsuits even though they had been built in accordance with the ADA regs from 1992 and prior. I've had clients that had to completely redesign parking and access to be in compliance with the current regs. The regs do have statements about reasonable accommodations and existing sites/retrofits, however it may all play out differently in a court of law.
I know in Virginia there was a lawsuit against the lottery for compliance issues with some convenience stores, nevermind lottery is only a product sold in such stores. IIRC, the lottery lost, and basically had to assist in providing funding to stores named in the suit to bring them to to compliance. Ever since, they won't sell products in non-ADA compliant stores.
I have a really hard time believing the park would win against any ADA compliancy lawsuit with the tram path like it is now based on these photos. Best course of action would be to wall it all off until it's fully complete and compliant.
To the point about gutters - I wonder what kind of nightmare it might be to change their stormwater runoff planning, assuming there's not much wiggle room to change grading without also changing runoff flows?
I have a really hard time believing the park would win against any ADA compliancy lawsuit with the tram path like it is now based on these photos. Best course of action would be to wall it all off until it's fully complete and compliant.
To the point about gutters - I wonder what kind of nightmare it might be to change their stormwater runoff planning, assuming there's not much wiggle room to change grading without also changing runoff flows?
I have certain feeling about some of that ADA stuff that I won’t go into because it makes me sound cold hearted. And I worked on the public side, supposed to defend ADA compliance.
Pretty big nightmare. To the point that likely the easiest fix is to make a “boardwalk” like path over that as the material and labor might sound like it costs more but it likely wouldn’t. Then again that might have some type of ADA compliance issues.
If your thought was too create a raised platform as a walkway, they could easily make it compliant as it won't matter what the grading is underneath as long as the supports can prop it up easily enough.
I have an idea: don’t make people walk along a tram path that exists because before 2020 it was considered too far to expect guests to hike.
The old path exist but has stairs so it's definitely not ADA compliant.
As for the project being complete it's definitely still a work in progress and not currently in use.
New traffic guards now are needed for the one-way path across the bridge. With radio's to talk through dispatch
This project seems like a complete and total failure. It's ugly, cuts down tram capacity, and requires another two employee just to run. Total waste of money.