MNRR ADA Compliance and Disabled/Handicapped Access

This is a non-story. The current time table clearly states what stations are wheel chair accessable. Only 6 of 12 are.

I recently had someone in a wheelchair show up to Manitou Station to board the train. He was with a few others that wanted to try to lift him on to the train. For the liability of all involved, it did not happen as it's not an ADA accessable station.

truck6018 wrote:This is a non-story. The current time table clearly states what stations are wheel chair accessable. Only 6 of 12 are.

I recently had someone in a wheelchair show up to Manitou Station to board the train. He was with a few others that wanted to try to lift him on to the train. For the liability of all involved, it did not happen as it's not an ADA accessable station.

That sounds pretty comical.

Mini-high ramp would be the cheap solution, but even NJT has stopped building mini-highs (as of 2006).

Depends on how much above-and-beyond the state-level accessibility regs are. In Massachusetts all transit accessibility has to follow the rules of the MA Architectural Board, which passed regs in 2005 that significantly stiffened the state's standards over the national standards. It's now verboten to build commuter rail mini-highs anywhere there isn't an outright high-and-wide freight preemption and physical impossibility of building a passing track, in which the Board can be petitioned for an exemption. Everything else must be full-high...and the Board is very, very stingy about where it grants exemptions. Also, certain scope of regular repair/enhancements ends up triggering the mandate to make a station fully accessible...so there's only so much fluffing around the edges possible before the T is on the hook for a full-on accessibility upgrade. It's tough to fund things under regs that invasive, but it does keep them honest at closing their accessibility gaps systemwide so the Board ends up accomplishing its mission statement.

I doubt NY or NJ have stiffened their laws as severely as MA has, but if Port Jervis' station layout were located in MA the platform being on the yard turnout and not the freight main would mandate a full-high here, and they literally wouldn't be able to do anything stopgap except making it fully accessible with a full-high + ramps.

The point is not that the MTA is not claiming its Ada compliant, it's that there is a growing number of people wanting the agency to accommodate the public's needs.

ok wanting is good, but so far MTA is complying with the law , and since a lot of work is to be done in port Jervis I would suggest to hold your horses.

I guess the MTA is living up to its acronym: Might Take Awhile...

Sorry, i couldn't resist

you should ! really you should !!

Looks like the uprising worked.

There is a lot of talk about attractions being built up there for that station to build on, but I'm not sure how people would actually get to them and I don't think MTA has any plans to increase service west of Middletown.

If they could find a way to get people from the station, I guess they have a chance at a decent bump in ridership, especially off peak.

http://midhudsonnews.com/News/2018/Febr ... Feb18.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WOH may be MN's "Step child" in name only,NJT runs and Dispatches the line from Hoboken,maintains the WOH fleet and supplies the Crews.
What MN station "improvements " that are needed may be hung up the various town's zoning laws and what NJT lets MN do service expansion wise.
What Christie did to NJT $$$$ wise has come back to haunt them,and will effect MN's WOH operations for some time to come.
That's what makes any investment in WOH services a "questionable expense" right now.
It took a state senator to get the $$$$ needed to rebuild that Platform,wonder what it will take to build a yard near Middletown?

What with NJT getting somewhat "slipshod" at M of E matters,When will MN build a running repair shop for WOH equipment?

Whenever it is that MTA finishes this new yard and sidings on the Southern Tier, hopefully Christie is a distant bitter memory by then. Theoretically if they pay for it, they should be able to run whatever they want. They say the completion date is 5 years out, but in reality, probably quite a bit more. Not sure where exactly this new PJ station will be built, but I thought they weren't allowed to put high levels along the Southern Tier.

The fact that there won't be much additional service west of Middletown shouldn't have anything to do with the new station in PJ being built. It is much needed and has been for decades. Anything west of Middletown is considered no mans land for Pt. Jervis Line commuters heading to NYC, Hoboken, and Jersey City. In fact, even commuting from Middletown to points east takes a while.

SecaucusJunction wrote: Not sure where exactly this new PJ station will be built, but I thought they weren't allowed to put high levels along the Southern Tier.

Why not high level platforms? Ramsey Rt 17 is the high platform furthest to the west and will be the one limiting wide freight (so will Ridgewood and a few others to the east). Unless there is a freight customer west of Ramsey that receives wide loads, what difference do any high level platforms on the Southern Tier make? And then there is always the option of gauntlet tracks.

Anywhere in NJ is NJT owned tracks. I thought it was stated that NS would not allow high levels on the tracks they owned... not that it would really matter since NS runs very minimal traffic and they would have to pass the other platforms to get there anyway. I think it's safe to say that gauntlet tracks would probably never be needed in our lifetime.

From the state line to just west of Port Jervis is MN Leased,NS owned Southern Tier,so MN is somewhat "hamstrung" by NS as landlord.