Trains.com

FRA ADA Mandate for high level platforms for Commuter Rail will cost $$$$$$$

1935 views
7 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 1,568 posts
FRA ADA Mandate for high level platforms for Commuter Rail will cost $$$$$$$
Posted by CandOforprogress2 on Tuesday, May 31, 2016 2:57 PM

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 (202) 493-6010 or toll-free at (877) 536-8368, extension 36010.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Calvin Gibson

 

 

 

Director, Office of Civil Rights

 

  • Member since
    November 2011
  • 509 posts
Posted by V.Payne on Tuesday, May 31, 2016 8:50 PM

So is the arguement that requiring the level platforms prolonged a situation where no reasonable access to accesible transportation existed for a longer time.

Somehow, I don't think the OCR is going to see the irony in the statement. It really is odd to me that motorcoaches get free passes on the level boarding question, or even don't have enforcement actions and lawsuits against them for operating from a curb, but then again that isn't a terminal, so no lengthy plan review. 

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 1,568 posts
Posted by CandOforprogress2 on Wednesday, June 1, 2016 3:00 PM

 Yes...This requirement means that building new stations will take longer and more money..Ronoake had to add 2 Million to there station budget for there extention of the Lynchburg Trains.

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 376 posts
Posted by GERALD L MCFARLANE JR on Thursday, June 2, 2016 3:19 PM

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.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,977 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Thursday, June 2, 2016 4:19 PM

It also makes no sense at all to put high-levels where Superliners and similar (California, bi-level commuter) are the primary equipment.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 1,568 posts
Posted by CandOforprogress2 on Friday, June 3, 2016 2:25 PM

GERALD L MCFARLANE JR

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.

 

Yes because only 1 or 2 doors are open anyway in a 7 car train. The Conducter and his assintant have to control access as per Homeland security rules. This is not Congress doing this this is some midleval burearcrat flexing her loins at the FRA Civil Rights Division.

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 376 posts
Posted by GERALD L MCFARLANE JR on Friday, June 3, 2016 5:33 PM

CandOforprogress2

 

 
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR

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.

 

 

 

Yes because only 1 or 2 doors are open anyway in a 7 car train. The Conducter and his assintant have to control access as per Homeland security rules. This is not Congress doing this this is some midleval burearcrat flexing her loins at the FRA Civil Rights Division. 

You do realize that the access to all cars is written into the original law, don't you?  Therefore it is Congress(the people that wrote the law in the first place) that would need to change it to only needing access to a certain amount of cars and not all of them, it's called an amendment to the original legislation.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 1,568 posts
Posted by CandOforprogress2 on Saturday, June 4, 2016 1:44 PM

Will work on that ASAP after my legislater gets home after running for president

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy