American with Disablities Act mandate for high level platforms means costs to provide small town passenger rail to increase by a big margin.

[CandOforprogress2]

 

 

This is in reference to your complaint concerning the level boarding platform planned for Roanoke, Virginia.

 

 

 

 

Complainant’s Allegations

 

 

 

You allege that the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concerning high-level platforms at the proposed station at Roanoke is causing delays of up to 5 years with the station. You allege that this causes undue hardship to people with disabilities because there is no other practical way for individuals with a disability to travel via common carrier.

Law, Regulation and Policy

 

 

 

Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities, including Amtrak, from discriminating against disabled individuals. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, 12132. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits exclusion of a disabled individual, solely because of his disability, from any program or activity receiving federal funds. 29 U.S.C. § 794. The DOT enforces Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and other civil rights statutes as they pertain to transportation, and DOT investigates complaints against recipients of DOT financial assistance. The Department’s recipients include Amtrak.

 

The regulation at 49 C.F.R. §37.42 provides a performance standard for service at platforms constructed or altered after February 1, 2012. The regulation states in relevant part:

 

(a) In addition to meeting the requirements of sections 37.9 and 37.41, an operator of a commuter, intercity, or high-speed rail system must ensure, at stations that are approved for entry into final design or that begin construction or alteration of platforms on or after February 1, 2012, that the following performance standard is met: individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, must have access to all accessible

 

2

 

cars available to passengers without disabilities in each train using the station.

 

(b) For new or altered stations serving commuter, intercity, or high-speed rail lines or systems, in which no track passing through the station and adjacent to platforms is shared with existing freight rail operations, the performance standard of paragraph (a) of this section must be met by providing level-entry boarding to all accessible cars in each train that serves the station.

 

. . .

Decision

 

 

 

For purposes of this decision, the FRA accepts that you are a person with a disability. The proposed platform for Roanoke entered final design after the February 1, 2012, effective date of 49 C.F.R. § 37.42. Because the platform is adjacent to a new track the Department’s regulation requires level boarding.

 

Thank you for sharing your concerns about this matter.

Notice

 

 

 

You should also be aware that no one may intimidate, threaten, coerce, or engage in other discriminatory conduct against anyone because he or she has either taken action or participated in an action to secure rights protected under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. Any individual alleging such harassment or intimidation related to intercity rail transportation may file a complaint with the DOT, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Any complaint to the FRA must be filed within 180 days of the alleged discrimination. You should also note that nothing in this administrative action precludes you from filing this complaint in an appropriate court should you choose to do so.

 

If you any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at either [phone] or toll-free at [phone], extension 36010.

 

Sincerely,

 

Calvin Gibson

 

Director, Office of Civil Rights

 

[CandOforprogress2]

Move to Passenger and Transit? Also they are asking for train long platforms not just one RR car.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Are you suggesting that the Americans With Disabilities Act  be repealed?

[tree68]

Noting that the letter specifies that the high level requirement only seems to apply to new construction (after 2012), I would opine that the impact would be minimal.  

Changing the level of a platform by a couple of feet when building a new station wouldn't be a deal breaker - some retaining wall and fill and maybe a ramp where one might not have been required before.

[K. P. Harrier]

CandOforprogress2 (5-27):

It is unclear if are promoting the glorification of Adolf Hitler and his well-known hate for the handicapped and historic killing them off with his famous T-4 program because they didn’t fit it with his ‘perfect society’ OR you are promoting more Federal money for cities in order to put in more wheelchair ramps for commuter trains (or the opposite), but your post is terribly disjointed and whatever your point is was lost, at least to me.

It would be nice if you could give us a sentence or two of what you were trying to say (and promote).

Deploring Hitler,

K.P.

[wanswheel]

Senate legislation, which the House must yet agree to, says, “not less than $50,000,000 shall be made available to bring Amtrak-served facilities and stations into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

Senate appropriations committee report says,

"ADA Compliance.—The Committee continues to believe that compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] is essential to ensuring that all people have equal access to transportation services. Amtrak reports that it has some degree of ADA responsibility at 365 stations, that it has provided mobile lifts at the 97 stations that have less than 7,500 riders annually, and that approximately 190 of the remaining 268 stations will need some type of set-back level boarding solution. Many of the platforms in these stations are owned by freight railroads and reconciling the requirements of existing freight traffic with the needs of passengers is a complex challenge. The Committee encourages Amtrak to use its funds to address compliance requirements that are the responsibility of other parties at the stations it serves where the work involved is not more than 10 percent of the cost of all ADA compliance work at that station, and where doing so would expedite completion of its compliance efforts and be a more efficient use of resources than compelling those parties to act. With the level of funding recommended by the Committee, Amtrak intends to advance construction at a total of 50 stations and intends to advance planning and design requirements for another 99 stations. By the end of the fiscal year 2016, Amtrak expects to complete work on a total of 60 stations."

[CandOforprogress2]

We have a unfunded mandate that will make it harder for small towns who pay for station facilities after 2015 when the teeth of this policy change took effect at the hand of a unelected bureaucrat. For a number of years the hand cranked wheelchair lift worked just fine. In my op having a Wheelchair lift on the side of the passenger car as used on Greyhound and MCI coaches may make more sence see- https://www.flickr.com/photos/95851032@N07/16905852970

[M636C]

In Western Australia the need is met by a short high level platform that matches the entrances on two adjacent cars. The cars have ramps that extend under control of the conductor. There is a compliant approach ramp that extends around two sides of the platform away from the track. These are known locally as "Landings".

Where larger trains are run, other passengers can use steps at other vestibules in the cars that extend from the car (with handrails each side). Full length high level platforms are provided at the terminals in Perth and Kalgoorlie.

M636C

[GERALD L MCFARLANE JR]

The problem is not with granting the same access to travel options for those that fall under the ADA, the problem is granting them access to every available car that regular passengers have access too.  It's not a slight towards those with ADA requirements to only give them access to a portion of the rail cars in a train, after all, once they're onboard, they have access to the entire train, should they wish to excercise that access.  That is the major problem with the way it was granted, short-sightedness on the part of politicans, as usual.

[NorthWest]

M636C

In Western Australia the need is met by a short high level platform that matches the entrances on two adjacent cars. The cars have ramps that extend under control of the conductor. There is a compliant approach ramp that extends around two sides of the platform away from the track. These are known locally as "Landings".

The US nomenclature for similar things is "mini-highs".

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

High level platforms also benefit the non-disabled, such as me and my wife when wheeling our heavy (50 lbs.) suitcases on board.  Try doing that from ground (rail) level up the end stairway of a SEPTA commuter car when it's on a pretty superelevated curve leaning the other way (Roslyn station), as compared to any station with the high-level platforms.  Or moms with kids in strollers, or a little old lady with her rolling shopping cart, or someone who wants to take his bike on board to another stop, etc. 

As is often the case - and sometimes takes a while to be evident - accomodations intended primarily for the disabled can also benefit the rest of us.  Just wait until you have an injury or illness that forces you to use crutches, a cane, a walker, or a wheelchair, even temporarily.  As someone once said, it's not that those people are disabled, it's that the rest of us are only temporarily 'abled'.

To follow-up on another comment:  Your ("CandOfor progress2") claim that the high-level platforms* cost a lot more is bogus.  There is not even a single word about cost or price in the quote in your Original Post.  Back it up by providing some hard data such as actual construction bids or prices before you make such a claim.  You can't do it.

- Paul North.

*EDIT: For new construction, the added cost is minimal, and often provides a benefit such as above-ground space underneath that can be used for utilities, storage, etc.  For renovations of existing stations, the added cost will indeed be much more than new - the specifics vary at each location depending on the situation and total scope of the project, of course.  But unless a 'stand-alone' project, the added cost can be minimized by good planning and design to integrate the high-level platform in with all of the other work. - PDN.

[Deggesty]

Another difficulty: this spring, I was taking a train from Fredericksburg, Va., to Washington. My cousin and her husband (who live in King George) were with me, to see me off. It is well that they were on the platform when the train came in--for it did not come in on the track which everybody else, and we, expected it to. As soon as it was seen that the train was on the other track, there was a mass exodus to the street level and up to the other platform. If my cousin had not hastened with the crowd, and told the conductor that I was coming, I would have missed the train, for I could not move as fast with my walker as everyone else could move.

It should not take a dictum from above that the waiting passengers should be told if the DS has had to put an oncoming train on a track other than the one it is expected to be using. I did tell my cousin of how the dispatchers on one road confused passengers waiting to go to work soon after the road had installed CTC. Those directors of traffic enjoyed playing with the real thing, sending trains from one track to another because they could.

The Fredericksburg station is unstaffed.

[billio]

Regarding the title of this thread, another way to look at it, besides inflicting more cost on small towns that desire to retain passenger service is this:

To play in the game -- in this case, to reatin passenger service -- you have to ante up.  No ante means no place at the table.  By my thinking, the re are too many tank towns which receive passenger service and thus, require a stop by a long distance train.  Revenue contribution to Amtrak from such stops is negligible, so why even have 'em?  If a town wants service, fine, ante up.  Otherwise, it gets withdrawn.

(Of course, what the tank towns will do when faced with this choice is apply for some grant for the bucks to install the high platforms, and after a couple of obligatory years of the application and approval (a guaranteed rubber stamp) process, the platforms will be erected with, hopefully, cost overruns that don't exceed the initial grant amout sought by more than a factor of 2. 

[schlimm]

Given that he (C&O) had already posted this non-factual trolling on the Passenger Forum, it should be obvious to all (from the name and style) that this is once again the infamous Raymond in his latest version.

[tree68]

schlimm

...(from the name and style)...

At least the title isn't in all caps...

[tomikawaTT]

Since the nearest place with passenger service is a couple of hours of high speed driving from my retirement home, I am simply observing with interest.

In Japan, ALL platforms are at car-floor level.  There's no such thing as a vestibule with steps on any Japanese passenger car, from Shinkansen down to a seasonal narrow (2'6") gauge tourist carrier that still uses link-and-pin couplers.  Don't really know why, but it almost certainly wasn't done to accommodate the disabled.  It does enable quick loading and unloading of all classes of passengers.

Chuck (Las Vegas resident non-gambler)

[mudchicken]

Almost a year ago, Amtrak was soliciting engineering proposals for a passenger ramp/ lift system at every flag and passenger stop in Colorado. I haven't seen any construction activity yet.

Not sure how you call this a totally unfunded mandate. (maybe underfunded? CBO and Congress have a way of losing contact with reality, but...)

[GERALD L MCFARLANE JR]

I don't think anyone is advocating repeal of the ADA, I do however advocate changing it to a more common sense approach when it comes to something like this.  So, what that tells me is that Congress needs to redo the law so it doesn't mandate access to all cars, instead of just a few, which is what it should have been in the first place.  Once again, a lack of common sense, but what do you expect from politicians.

[schlimm]

tree68

 

 

schlimm

...(from the name and style)...

 

 

At least the title isn't in all caps...

 

With the current moderators, as the old song says, "Anything goes!"

[CandOforprogress2]

$4.3 Million for a flag stop in Holyoke Mass that according to the Vermont Rail Comission averages 1.5 passengers a day. Holyoke has 2 colleges nearby and 10,000 people and is on the re:reroute of the Vermonter/Montrealer. PVTA also serves the town with a spiderweb of routes see- http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/08/holyoke_celebrates_return_of_p.html and Peter Pan has a stop near the mall.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

$4.3 million appears to be the total cost of the station - no 'break-out' stated of any added cost for a high-level platform vs. a low-level one, or even that any part of the high-level platform was only because of the ADA Act. 

Pretty hard to have any passengers at all without a platform or station.  Let's see what the passenger count is after a year or two of service.

- Paul North.