New Bedford Service

Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Postby CRail » Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:18 am

Why is it that there can be short high but not a long high with freight? Whats the difference unless there is a curve.
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
User avatar
CRail
 
Posts: 2122
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 8:27 am
Location: Eastie

Postby Cotuit » Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:42 am

SnoozerZ49 wrote:Here is my question. Do all commuter rail expansions have to include full ADA compliant platforms the entire length of the station platform? While mini high level platforms are helpful the costs associated with full length platforms help contribute to the astronomical cost estimates for commuter rail projects. The days of experimental service with paved platforms seems to be over. The majority is held hostage again by a vocal minority interest. Please correct me if you think I am wrong.


I wouldn't call ADA compliance being held 'hostage' by a vocal minority interest.
Cotuit
 

Postby TomNelligan » Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:47 am

I think that Mr. Snoozer did a pretty good job of summing up the political mess that besets all transit development these days. The most obvious example is the way NIMBY objection has delayed and greatly increased the cost of the Greenbush restoration, but any proposal for any fixed right-of-way transit project will bring out the local howlers. As for ADA requirements, the fact is that they add a lot of money to the cost of any new transit line while benefitting only a very, very small percentage of potential riders. Just because Congress passes a law doesn't mean that it always makes economic sense.
TomNelligan
 
Posts: 3180
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:43 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Postby SnoozerZ49 » Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:47 pm

I know that the MBTA isn't known to b a very flexible organization when it ocoms to innovation but let me ask this question to you?

Do you think the preliminary introduction of service to New Bedford and Fall River could be assisted by the use of a transfer point? Are commuter rail passengers totally against the idea of having to cross platform transfer? I know it is done on the MetroNorth and Long Island Railroads.

One last question, I'm a life long North Shore person so I can't tell Norwood from Norwell! Could Fall River Trains be run to Attleboro with a transfer? Is it to far? Is it to long a trip? Just wonderingif a DMU shuttle could handle the job?
SnoozerZ49
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:25 am

Postby Cotuit » Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:28 pm

TomNelligan wrote:As for ADA requirements, the fact is that they add a lot of money to the cost of any new transit line while benefitting only a very, very small percentage of potential riders. Just because Congress passes a law doesn't mean that it always makes economic sense.


Should we ask wheelchair bound people to stay in their homes and be quiet because we don't feel like expending any capital for them to be part of our society? Sometimes things don't make economic sense, but they do make moral sense.
Cotuit
 

Postby SnoozerZ49 » Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:47 pm

Please, the rhetoric is deafening, no one is saying that those that travel with a handicap should be denied public transportation, the point that is being made is that all taxpayers must foot the bill for the project. If it requires a full length high level platform versus a "mini" high level platform we all pay more, even if a handicapped passenger never uses the station. In addition the ADA requirements automatically raise the costs associated with inagurating any service.

As an example I believe the reopening of Worcester Union Station was delayed because the organizations promoting handicapped access would not agree with a mini high level platform. As a result Union Station was forced to construct a longer high level platform. Everyone was deprived of the use of the station because one group would not accept a perfectly reasonable boarding arrangement.
SnoozerZ49
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:25 am

Postby TomNelligan » Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:08 pm

"Should we ask wheelchair bound people to stay in their homes and be quiet because we don't feel like expending any capital for them to be part of our society? Sometimes things don't make economic sense, but they do make moral sense."

I can respect your opinion, Mr. Cotuit, but as a taxpayer facing the same economic squeezes as many others these days, I also want my state and Federal tax money spent where it produces the most benefit for the most people. What constitutes the proper level of expenditure for ANY project that benefits a narrow constituency will always be a matter of opinion.
TomNelligan
 
Posts: 3180
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:43 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Postby Cotuit » Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:47 am

Does no one but a wheelchair passenger benefit from a high level platform? The highlevel platforms don't facilitate boarding for all passengers? Faster boarding that increases the speed of service.

If Worcester station had been designed properly to begin with, there would have been no need for anyone to 'hold up' the process. A central city station should certainly have highlevel platforms, not to have them is ridiculous. Mini platforms are fine out in the sticks, and no one seems to be fighting that.
Cotuit
 

Postby Cotuit » Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:49 am

TomNelligan wrote:I can respect your opinion, Mr. Cotuit, but as a taxpayer facing the same economic squeezes as many others these days, I also want my state and Federal tax money spent where it produces the most benefit for the most people. What constitutes the proper level of expenditure for ANY project that benefits a narrow constituency will always be a matter of opinion.


More people drive than ride trains, by that logic we should be focusing our spending on highways, since that will benefit the most people.
Cotuit
 

Postby Ken W2KB » Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:10 pm

>>>Why is it that there can be short high but not a long high with freight? Whats the difference unless there is a curve.<<<

A high level platform has to be closer to minimize the gap between it and the train doors. A mini designed for only one door area can have a larger gap and the crew equipped with a bridge plate to allow for safe passenger access.
~Ken :: Fairmont ex-UP/MP C436 MT-14M1 :: Cessna 177B Cardinal N16019
Black River Railroad Historical Trust :: My Personal Site
User avatar
Ken W2KB
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:27 pm
Location: Lebanon Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey & Tiverton, RI USA

Postby Ron Newman » Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:43 pm

I'd like to see the regulations changed so that a transit authority can flexibly decide to temporarily or experimentally add stops without worrying about ADA. If the stop is made permanent (let's say, it stays open for 5 years) then it should be made ADA-compatible.
Ron Newman
 
Posts: 2772
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:04 pm
Location: Davis Square, Somerville, MA

Postby apodino » Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:57 pm

Robert Paniagua wrote:Here is my question. Do all commuter rail expansions have to include full ADA compliant platforms the entire length of the station platform? While mini high level platforms are helpful the costs associated with full length platforms help contribute to the astronomical cost estimates for commuter rail projects. The days of experimental service with paved platforms seems to be over. The majority is held hostage again by a vocal minority interest. Please correct me if you think I am wrong.

Not necessarily, actually. It all depends on freight train traffic, for example, the new Stations in the Worcester Line all had to be a mini-ADA platform because of long freight trains while the Old Colony Lines are all full-length high platforms since there isn't that much freight traffic.


I have debated this topic endlessly on this forum. The plans for FR/NB are for all stations to be full length high platforms, including a rebuilt Stoughton Station which would be built in the current location of where the trains layover. The only exception may be Canton Center, which was to be double tracked and get a new platform but I haven't seen the plans for that. The T's policy is for all new stations to be full length High Level platforms according to a T document that I read. Hence, not only the old colony stations were high level, but also Newburyport, Rowley, and Anderson as well. In the case of the new stations past worcester, that particular line is designated by CSX as a wide load line, meaning if full length highs are built, the trains CSX runs may not have clearance to clear them. So CSX told the T that they had to do it the other way on this line, for freight clearances. Hence the new design, with the high platform on the swing arm, where the edge can be swung out, and being foam rubber, can easily be replaced if it is knocked out.

IMHO, Full Length highs are easier, since these lines can be operated with the power doors you see on Old Colony. Thus the conductors can take care of boarding much quicker, and don't have to leave doors and traps open the whole way, which you see quite too frequently on the other lines. Plus, its much easier to step right onto the train, than ascecnd the stairs.
Rich "Dino" Martin
A one time happy rider of Arborway and the old Washington St. El.
apodino
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:32 pm
Location: Appleton, WI

Postby pdxstreetcar » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:16 pm

The surface part of SF Muni's metro lines are mostly standard old-style streetcar stops but at the major stops and about every 5 stops there are wheelchair ramps. Seems to me to be a pretty good solution.

In Portland on the streetcar, the entire system is ADA accessible, the stops are all curb extensions which come out to the travel lane so that the lowfloor streetcars can put their ramps out and be level with the platform. This can require rather extensive construction since the track and low floor platforms have to be at a certain height but quite a few wheelchair passengers use the streetcar. MAX Light rail is the same. All of the older high floor Bombardier cars from 1986 are coupled with a low floor car. You will no longer see a 1986 Bombardier car alone or as a double 1986 car train. When the low floor cars were added to the fleet in 1998 TriMet eliminated all wheelchair lifts on the light rail system and the bus fleet is in the process of becoming an all low floor fleet as older buses get retired.
pdxstreetcar
 

Postby apodino » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:38 pm

pdxstreetcar wrote:The surface part of SF Muni's metro lines are mostly standard old-style streetcar stops but at the major stops and about every 5 stops there are wheelchair ramps. Seems to me to be a pretty good solution.


I rode Muni a few months ago. The Muni uses Breda vehicles that have automatic traps. Which means they operate at high level platforms in the subway, but on the surface the traps can be opened and boarded at low lever, like our green line.

Would have been a great solution to the ADA problem, but you would have had to rebuild all underground stations to high level platforms and stuff like that. Then again, reliable Breda vehicles (an oxymoron) would have solved that too.
Rich "Dino" Martin
A one time happy rider of Arborway and the old Washington St. El.
apodino
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:32 pm
Location: Appleton, WI

Previous

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests