"While Amtrak ridership as a whole has grown significantly in recent years, the growth in ridership among
passengers with disabilities is significantly higher than the national average. While total Amtrak ridership
grew by 3.5% between FY 2011 and 2012, the total number of passengers who reported disabilities rose
by 16.8% in the same period."
-- Letter, Joseph Boardman to Joseph Biden and John Bohner, p. 6. (Link available on the thread "Amtrak requests $2.1 B for capital projects.)"
A 16.8 per cent increase in Amtrak ridership by people with disabilities suggests that this part of the population has a strong preference for passenger trains. One of the changes in our society in recent years is that public facilities provide far more accommodation to people with disabilities than they used to. And with Amtrak these same people are responding. However, passenger trains in and of themselves have not generally been seen as a way to help or enable some people to travel. Such things as lifts, elevators, extra large sleeping accommodations and handicapped restrooms have been placed there and are now ordinarily on our passenger trains but the trains themselves have not been associated with helping people get around.
But should we revise our thinking about that issue?
Glad that you pointed this out, John, Amtrak is probably the most accessible of all modes of public transport and by being so designed, Amtrak stations, platforms and train cars make it easier for and less apt to cause injury for able bodied passengers. The ramps of Grand Central Terminal are an example of good design which predated any mandate. I do have a real problem with the Superliner cars because they do not allow handicapped persons ready access to lounge cars and dining cars from the lower level because of the narrow & steep stairs. I also note that a Superliner car in a major accident involving smoke/fire, the lower level, "accessible" passengers cannot move to another car without going up that stairway. When I was last on VIA #1, we had several young people suffering from severe "activity disorders" and were not allowed on airplanes or buses, hence their families only way to travel by public transportation is the train. Well designed accessible rail cars make travel so much more possible for significant numbers of our fellow citizens and they should be way out front in defense of rail travel.
Northeaster,
I agree that Amtrak is the most accessible of all forms of public transportation. Joe Boardman has also observed that older people are particularly attracted to Amtrak. I suspect one factor is that as we age we tend to acquire disabilities including mobility impairments. They may not make other kinds of travel impossible but the train is easier. I don't mean this as a criticism of buses because I just don't see that buses have the kind of space trains do. With planes there is the option of first class travel which gives your more room.
Some surfing around on superliners made your point about the narrow stairs clear to me. Whether or not Amtrak could remedy that short of doing away with them I don't know.
John
I wonder just how much of the reported increase is due to better data collection efforts. I suspect at least some of it is, but just how much is unknowable.
John WRBut should we revise our thinking about that issue?
Is there some sort of claim of "equal protection" here?
Except that we don't have uniform access to passenger trains in the US - nor can we. Residents of southern Kansas have access. Residents of SD do not. Why should residents of Kansas get a federal subsidy for train travel while those in SD don't? Should they be asked to move to get access?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndwe don't have uniform access to passenger trains in the US - nor can we. Residents of southern Kansas have access. Residents of SD do not. Why should residents of Kansas get a federal subsidy for train travel while those in SD don't?
Don,
Should Amtrak be considered an entitlement that should be equally available to all citizens?
While we may not be able to afford to provide equal access to Amtrak for all that is not a reason to deny access when we can afford it. It is well established that cities have higher crime rates than suburbs. City dwellers do not have the same access to a safe community suburbanites do. However, no one would suggest we should provide no police protection at all because we cannot provide it equally to all people.
The population of Kansas is 2,885,905. The population of South Dakota is 833,354. Kansas has almost 4 times as many people as South Dakota. It is certainly reasonable to balance the public need for rail transportation against the cost of providing it and decide that Kansas will get it but South Dakota will not.
However, the population of North Dakota is 699,628. So if we can provide 2 daily trains in North Dakota shouldn't we provide similar service in South Dakota. Of course the Empire Builder does not only serve North Dakota; it serves cities east and west of that state. But it does stop at 7 cities in North Dakota so it is not just passing through on its way to more populous places.
If we are to look at Amtrak as an entitlement that is particularly important to people with disabilities then it would seem we should provide rail transportation in South Dakota as well as North Dakota. We could provide a train between Minneapolis and Salt Lake City. Such a train would pass through both South Dakota and Wyoming and provide both with rail service.
Of course if we are going to regard rail transportation as an entitlement no doubt it would require a subsidy and that subsidy may well exceed current average Amtrak subsidies. Certainly as a nation we could afford that subsidy; at the present time Congress does not choose to provide it.
PS. It is not really accurate to say that South Dakotans have no access to passenger trains. South Dakotans simply have to travel farther to gain access to a train.
How many South Dakotans are not within a 2-hour car-ride of an Amtrak station in an adjacent state?
daveklepper How many South Dakotans are not within a 2-hour car-ride of an Amtrak station in an adjacent state?
I'm a South Dakotan, and I'm about a 90 minutes drive to Omaha and the Zephyr. However, I would be very hesistant to leave my car in the vicinity of the Amtrak station for any length of time. Offhand, the solution that comes to me is to put the car in the long term lot at the Omaha airport and cab/bus to the Amtrak station. How much sense does that make?
I am 15 minutes away from non-stop air service to O'Hare. Alternatively, I can drive to Chicago quicker than Amtrak makes the trip from Omaha.
Yes, I have ridden a couple Amtrak trains as a tourist in the past year and will do so again this summer. However, Amtrak does not begin to meet my needs for basic transportation.
John WRShould Amtrak be considered an entitlement that should be equally available to all citizens?
If you are making the argument that Amtrak trains are indispensable to the handicapped as a matter of "equal protection", then, yes.
John WRThe population of Kansas is 2,885,905. The population of South Dakota is 833,354. Kansas has almost 4 times as many people as South Dakota. It is certainly reasonable to balance the public need for rail transportation against the cost of providing it and decide that Kansas will get it but South Dakota will not.
Take out Topeka - KC and there rest of Kansas looks a lot like SD. The largest city in SD, Rapid City, is no where near an Amtrak route.
John WRIf we are to look at Amtrak as an entitlement that is particularly important to people with disabilities then it would seem we should provide rail transportation in South Dakota as well as North Dakota. We could provide a train between Minneapolis and Salt Lake City. Such a train would pass through both South Dakota and Wyoming and provide both with rail service.
A route within 50 miles of every citizen? 100? What would be the standard? That's a lot of new track.... and equipment. At what cost? Why not a bus (An MCI 4500 with a wheelchair lift for example)? Or create some intercity para transit?
John WROf course if we are going to regard rail transportation as an entitlement no doubt it would require a subsidy and that subsidy may well exceed current average Amtrak subsidies. Certainly as a nation we could afford that subsidy; at the present time Congress does not choose to provide it.
Why don't we just apply the existing subsidy where it would do the most good.
Why are we always looking for justification for the Amtrak status-quo? What if you took the money it kept to keep the SW Chief alive and applied it to NY - Scranton - Binghamton or NY - Allentown - Reading - Harrisburg, or DC - Raleigh - Charlotte - Atlanta? More bang for the buck. Certainly more handicapped with access to rail service.
oltmannd Why don't we just apply the existing subsidy where it would do the most good. Why are we always looking for justification for the Amtrak status-quo? What if you took the money it kept to keep the SW Chief alive and applied it to NY - Scranton - Binghamton or NY - Allentown - Reading - Harrisburg, or DC - Raleigh - Charlotte - Atlanta? More bang for the buck. Certainly more handicapped with access to rail service.
Because, Don, the status quo advocates' goal seems to be to preserve the heritage of the long distance trains of 60+ years ago, sort of a living museum. For example, once the SW Chief leaves metro LA, it doesn't hit a major metro area until Albuquerque (900,000), which is 900 miles/ 16 hours away, and then Kansas City (~2 mil) another 900 mile / 20 hour journey. If John WR and henry6 are serious about providing usable transportation (not land cruises) for the most people, including the handicapped, then they should be advocating for 300-500 mile (depending on speed) corridors serving major metro areas such as those you mention and others. A major problem with the legacy routes is they were based on the population distributions of 100 or more years ago, so they fail to take into account where US growth has occurred, even since 1970.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
AND THUS DENY THE ELDERLLY AND HANDICAPPED ACCESS TO THE CONTINENTAL USA
daveklepper AND THUS DENY THE ELDERLLY AND HANDICAPPED ACCESS TO THE CONTINENTAL USA
How, so? It might deny them their preferred mode of travel, there are other ways to travel other than rail. How would a handicapped person from NYC visit Mount Rushmore or Yellowstone now? There is no rail service. Hasn't been for 40+ years.
Greyhound handles disabled customers, for example, as do most airlines.
The point here is that we are starting with the premise that we want the existing LD trains to continue and then we go hunting around for justification (handicapped, Amish, energy, civil rights, keeping up with the Jones, etc.) instead starting with reasons behind the justifications and asking how to best achieve those goals. We are losing the argument AND the war.
schlimmFor example, once the SW Chief leaves metro LA, it doesn't hit a major metro area until Albuquerque (900,000), which is 900 miles/ 16 hours away, and then Kansas City (~2 mil) another 900 mile / 20 hour journey.
Worse yet, you can't reasonably use the train for a weekend visit to the Grand Canyon from LA. The train is still on it's 1940's businessman's schedule. We are we trying SO HARD to defend the seemingly indefensible?
oltmanndThe point here is that we are starting with the premise that we want the existing LD trains to continue and then we go hunting around for justification (handicapped, Amish, energy, civil rights,
Add to your list the elderly, which seems to be the group on here with the most clamor for perpetuating a service (LD routes) that was on the way out 60+ years ago.
Forty to sixty years ago this sweet ol' world was a very different place, if one looks at the US census data and the population projections, the population pyramid looked like a triangle with very few people 85+ at the top and lots of little ones at the bottom. By 2050, the shape is more like a rectangle with almost as many 85+ as all other population cohorts! If you think you are in trouble when driving behind an older driver, just wait a few years and you will be overwhelmed. In my first comment, I mentioned some children aboard the Canadian who were not allowed to fly or take a bus because their aliment caused them to constantly move about, often with unexpected jerks and starts, this is just one of many reasons persons with disabilities and older persons need to move around when traveling. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember all the nea sayers who said this nation could not "afford" to make buildings, sidewalks, schools, trains, etc., accessible to all. Well, it took a few years but now it is commonly accepted that accessibility is the rule. Today, the US seems able to "afford" 2.8 Billion dollars to refuel/refurbish just 1 aircraft carrier: its all a matter of choice!
northeaster Forty to sixty years ago this sweet ol' world was a very different place, if one looks at the US census data and the population projections, the population pyramid looked like a triangle with very few people 85+ at the top and lots of little ones at the bottom. By 2050, the shape is more like a rectangle with almost as many 85+ as all other population cohorts! If you think you are in trouble when driving behind an older driver, just wait a few years and you will be overwhelmed. In my first comment, I mentioned some children aboard the Canadian who were not allowed to fly or take a bus because their aliment caused them to constantly move about, often with unexpected jerks and starts, this is just one of many reasons persons with disabilities and older persons need to move around when traveling. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember all the nea sayers who said this nation could not "afford" to make buildings, sidewalks, schools, trains, etc., accessible to all. Well, it took a few years but now it is commonly accepted that accessibility is the rule. Today, the US seems able to "afford" 2.8 Billion dollars to refuel/refurbish just 1 aircraft carrier: its all a matter of choice!
313,847,465 (July 2012 est.)
0-14 years: 20% 15-24 years: 13.8% 25-54 years: 40.6% 55-64 years: 12.1% 65 years up: 13.5%
As to the need to accommodate children with what you call "activity disorder" are you referring to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or possibly motor dyspraxia? I will simply inform you that the level of hyperactive behavior in even extremely severe cases of ADHD can be managed for flights with medication.
In any case, the ADA does not require the government to provide transportation for everyone. It simply states, quite rightly, that transportation that exists must be accessible to most people with recognized disabilities. ADHD and aerophobia would not qualify.
The ADA and EEOC regulations do not list all of the "specific conditions that constitute impairments both because of the difficulty of ensuring comprehensiveness and because new disorders might develop in the future."Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Americans with Disabilities Act Handbook § 3.2 (2d ed. 1991). However, examples of covered physical and mental impairments were included in the legislative history of the ADA: orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental retardation, emotional illness, specific learning disabilities, drug addiction and alcoholism and HIV infection. Id. (citing House Labor Report at 51; House Judiciary Report at 28). Serious impairments such as cancer and multiple sclerosis, however, have been held not to be disabilities.
An impairment under the ADA must be a physiological or mental disorder. Tough calls like stress and depression are "conditions that may or may not be considered impairments, depending on whether these conditions result from a documented physiological or mental disorder" or whether they result from job or personal life pressures. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Technical Assistance Manual for the Americans With Disabilities Act, at II-3.
daveklepperHow many South Dakotans are not within a 2-hour car-ride of an Amtrak station in an adjacent state?
I don't know that and have no easy way of finding out. Wikipedia shows that most South Dakotans live along the eastern border of their state. As far as I can see the closest Amtrak stations would be Fargo, ND. St. Paul, MN or Omaha, NE.
Entitlement and disability: I suspect that for some disabled people Amtrak is the most convenient way to travel. It may be the only way they can travel. And I did explore the idea of Amtrak as an entitlement. However, as a society we have never accepted the idea that that people should be entitled to passenger rail service and I don't think we are prepared to do that now.
Taking Topeka out of Kansas to compare it to South Dakota: Why would we do that? If we are going to compare the populations of two states I can't see that we should ignore part of the population in one of them. However, the Topeka metropolitan area has about 224,000 people. Even if we did remove that population from our consideration Kansas would still have a much larger population than South Dakota and it would not change the conclusion that the larger population is a reason to have a rail line in Kansas but not in South Dakota.
A rail route within 50 or 100 miles of every citizen: I agree with you that such a solution would be expensive. And I don't think we are prepared to even consider spending that kind of money.
Where the subsidy would do the most good: You keep coming back to the idea that if trains are to be about moving people we should look at the system and figure out how to provide the most usable transportation for our money which we do not do now. I agree with you about that point. I think the issue is how do we get there. You believe Amtrak can get there on its own. That is where we part company. I think Congress would have to do it.
Justifying the Amtrak status quo. You certainly do not justify the Amtrak status quo. You call the status quo "lines on a map." I don't really want to justify the status quo but I don't want to loose what we have either. A better system would be great; until that day comes we will have to do with what we have.
northeasterBy 2050, the shape is more like a rectangle with almost as many 85+ as all other population cohorts! If you think you are in trouble when driving behind an older driver, just wait a few years and you will be overwhelmed.
To add to your point, one benefit of Amtrak now is that is provides an alternative for people who perhaps really should not be driving. I am in that group. Of course, in 2050 a person who is 48 today will be 85. Many of us who post here will be part of the rectangular population pyramid you describe for 2050.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.