Level Boarding Station Platforms

As some of you might know there has been a push of late by the ADA board (Federal handicapped access guaranteer) to bring level boarding to intercity rail. The two platform heights would be 15" and 48" above the rail. The Great American Stations Foundation perhaps best describes the Platform Mandate.

Some see it as a giant unfunded mandate that singles out rail. After all when did you last see a motorcoach or airliner with a handicapped accessible bathrooms and aisle access though both operate on Federally funded infrastructure with degrees of maintenance forgiveness.

Others see it as the end of operation over investor owned railroads as they might be open to lawsuits for not aligning the track geometry with a level platform under the overly tight guidelines.

Others see it as a needed improvement to come at any cost.

Does anybody have any information on how this is shaking out for ongoing station renovations?

I was in St. Louis a few weeks ago and I was surprised that the new, state of the art intermodal station doesn't have a single high level platform. High level platforms(or mini-highs) whould be beneficial for this station since most of the trains operate with horizon equipment(ex. texas eagle).

Wouldn't it be easier to keep portable, shallow ramps on all Superliners, and provide stations with movable platforms or hydraulic lifts for high-level equipment? Amtrak won't be able to get away with not following the ADA for that much longer, and its next cars will need to take that into consideration, but portable wheelchair lift equipment shouldn't be too difficult to provide for every train.

Although I'm a big advocate of level boarding for services such as subway and commuter rail where dwell times must be kept to a minimum, I can't see how this is going to benefit anyone except a very small minority. For intercity services the time saved with level boarding wouldn't add up to more than minutes over routes which take many hours. That leaves a small number of handicapped as the primary beneficiaries. While providing mobility to these people is certainly a nice thing, at some point we must weigh the costs of doing so versus the benefits. Besides, it's not like someone in a wheelchair wouldn't be helped boarding an Amtrak train now.

Great points that are reasonable. But the aim is to require level platforms everywhere and only other options on a "case by case bais" what will Amtrak do at stations like St. Louis, Chicago, and Washington that have both Superliner, Amfleet, and Horizon equipment? The Federal board has given a 2010 deadline and for those not familiar with ADA design of buildings there is little wiggle room for common sense.

Maybe Amtrak adequately "serves" wheelchair riders by holding up the train to give each of them individual one-on-one attention to get them aboard and debarked. What about those who do not have a wheelchair, yet can't climb stairs?

Also, peak-travel travels would be smoother for everyone if each two-minute stop didn't swell to ten minutes on routes where the crew opens only one door at wrong-height stations.

Isn't this going to cause a problem, as most of Amtrak is over rails owned by the freight operators?

I recall reading somewhere that there was a minimum clearance that precluded high or mini high platforms at any platform that was along a freight line?

1. The freight cariers are totally opposed to this.
2. The ADA people's answwer to the carriers is gauntlet tracks- who pays? They don't care.
3. Many stations have street crossings very close by and higher platforms will simply not work with gaps for the streets.
4. Its already holding up a number of station improvement projects.
5. These people will spend somone elses money (yours) all day. Wait until you run into some of their advocacy groups and lawyers (all very healthy, by the way) as I have. $$ out the door in bucket loads.

Sorry- but this topic riles me up.

Sorry- but this topic riles me up.

Disabled access to transport is a requirement all over the world - at least in modern industrial countries. All stations and trains in Britain at the very least have a wheel chair ramp, either on the platform or on the train. All modern buses are designed to allow wheel chairs to get through the door, usually without driver assistance.

george matthews wrote:Disabled access to transport is a requirement all over the world - at least in modern industrial countries.

And reasonable access is one thing, but imposing burdensome costs on an industry is quite different. Note that many Amtrak stations that have low level platforms already have wheelchair lifts readily available, and those that don't generally have little patronage. Government regulators in the US -- and I suspect in the UK too -- are unelected and unanswerable to the taxpayers who ultimately have to bear the costs of their whims. Politicians go along to please special interest groups and the rest of us pay the bills, or it just gets tacked onto the national debt that will blow up someday.

Amtrak is already struggling for sufficient funding. Anything that arbitrarily increases its costs to benefit only a tiny fraction of potential passengers is, in my opinion, a bad thing.

mtuandrew wrote:Wouldn't it be easier to keep portable, shallow ramps on all Superliners, and provide stations with movable platforms or hydraulic lifts for high-level equipment? Amtrak won't be able to get away with not following the ADA for that much longer, and its next cars will need to take that into consideration, but portable wheelchair lift equipment shouldn't be too difficult to provide for every train.

Existing "key stations" in rapid rail, commuter rail, and light rail systems must be accessible By July 26, 1993. Extensions may be granted up to July 26, 2010 (commuter rail) and July 26, 2020 (rapid and light rail) for stations needing extraordinarily expensive structural changes.) Amtrak and commuter rail passenger cars must comply with MGRAD provisions for rail cars to the extent that they are in effect at the time the design of the cars is substantially completed, if final regulations have not been issued.

http://www.kidstogether.org/leg_ada.htm

We are also working to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and our 2009 budget includes $68.5 million for that effort. ADA compliance is going to be a significant challenge, and Amtrak is seeking an extension of the current compliance deadline of July 26, 2010, because, even if we had the regulatory guidance and resources to comply, it would still be impossible to achieve compliance by that date. Amtrak is fully focused on making its service accessible, and we are pursuing compliance under the terms of the ADA, but we will need additional time to accomplish that. New rules proposed nearly two years ago by the DOT would materially change the standards for compliance under the Act with respect to station platformlevel requirements, would add millions of dollars to the compliance cost, and would deprive that aspect of compliance of any clarity and certainty. Even under the current law, Amtrak will need more time and more resources to achieve full ADA compliance.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Ih ... cd=8&gl=us

On five of my six station stops between Winnemucca, NV and Grand Junction, CO, five do not have an elevated platform. Grand Junction, CO, Green River, Ut, Helper, UT, Elko, NV, and Winnemucca, NV.

Yes, this is one of the most worrisome development for me on the radar. A democratically controlled congress will not back down from the provisions but the road-warrior types will just cite any spending as a greater subsidy despite the fact that intercity buses and aircraft will not be required to comply with anything nearly as substantial as this proposal.

HokieNav wrote:I recall reading somewhere that there was a minimum clearance that precluded high or mini high platforms at any platform that was along a freight line?

People say that, and maybe it's true in this state or that state-- but somebody cited such a law in New York, where freight passes high platforms daily. Dunno how often freight passes high platforms in New Jersey, but it used to be daily, when GM Linden was alive. Any examples elsewhere?

I'm very much in favor of the ADA and I have no problem with someone making reasonable accommodations.

The key word is reasonable. I don't think it's reasonable to require Amtrak to build high level platforms at every station.

HokieNav wrote:I recall reading somewhere that there was a minimum clearance that precluded high or mini high platforms at any platform that was along a freight line?

Mr Hokie (VPI Student or Alum?), by mini high platforms, I presume you mean platforms the height of those found throughout Continental Europe?