ADA Justice Department settlement

eolesen wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:19 am Reality check -- it's far cheaper to put $2M into a fund every couple years to pay out "non-compliance" lawsuits than it is to update those stations.

Such is highly unethical behavior and grounds for firing the decision maker and perhaps others whom carry out the order. Under certain circumstances it would also constitute a criminal offense.

It's an unfunded mandate. Good luck going after the cities that own these stations for criminal offenses.

eolesen wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 2:49 am It's an unfunded mandate. Good luck going after the cities that own these stations for criminal offenses.

Congress decided to use the stick instead of the carrot to implement this law. Fail to accommodate, expect lawsuits and fines.
Eventually, the companies will come to the conclusion that it is better to spend the money on platforms and ramps than on payouts to unhappy customers.

Arborwayfan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:10 pmDon't the regs require new stations to have level boarding to all cars, instead of just one or a few mini-highs or lifts?

At smaller stations they tend to only permit boarding or exit (by anyone) via one or two doors that they staff. That was particularly true when they had low level platforms and needed to fold down the stairs and then hand less muscular passengers their luggage.

Seems like what they've done for those is build high level platforms, often wooden, that interface with two or three cars and have a wheelchair ramp up their back. They still restrict boarding to the staffed doors so the fact that they're shorter doesn't matter.

What's crummy in winter though are the ones in "restored service" locations just next to an historic station that became a private business during years of no service, so you end up waiting out in the cold.

But the ramps seem widely popular, since rolling luggage is.

The mini-high ramps are part of the "one car per train"' reasonable access rule. To date, only MBTA, SEPTA
and NJT (Hoboken Division) use them. The same rule grandfathered CTA's 2200s provided they ran in
mixed trains with newer 2600s.

Now for an oddball: SEPTA's Delaware Valley College station, not even a mini-high, but a high platform for a
single door only.

The mini-high ramps are part of the "one car per train"' reasonable access rule. To date, only MBTA, SEPTA and NJT (Hoboken Division) use them.

Nonetheless there are Amtrak platforms constructed in the past few years which are only 2 cars long if even that.

Typically for something like the Vermonter, while all doors open at major stations like NYP and NHV at smaller ones they only open as many doors as they have crew members to staff and they seem to really want to monitor boarding. So only platforming 2 doors doesn't really change anything regardless if one is walking or rolling.

For a busier commuter railroad serving a major city, only having access at one car would be a quite different story than it is for Amtrak. And for something like the Hartford line that was starting to get some state-supported commuter service, those trains (both the Amtrak shuttle and state DOT versions) are only 2 or 3 cars long anyway.

One of the busiest commuter networks (Metra) effectively only has wheelchair access in the cab car. Other cars have lifts, but only the lifts and seating in the cab cars seem to ever be used.

Trinity Railway Express (DFW) uses what I think you're describing as mini-high ramps. They're at one end of the platform and can do the 18" boarding for a Bombardier car, or trap level on the RDC's that they used for the first 20 years of operation (not sure if they are still used in regular service or not -- they'd been selling some off to other agencies). It's a viable alternative to a platform lift and relatively low cost/maintenance free.

Old Saybrook being on the list really surprised me given its relatively new (well, within the past 20 years) complete rebuild compared to other stops.

It is certainly big egg on their face for not having all stations compliant by July *2010*. We are officially 10 1/2 years past that point. And now they’ll have to pay out settlement claims and spend money to upgrade the remaining non-ADA stations. If they had done so in the first place they would have saved a few bucks and some bad PR.

NH2060 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:51 amOld Saybrook being on the list really surprised me given its relatively new (well, within the past 20 years) complete rebuild compared to other stops.

Having tracked down the complaint https://www.ada.gov/amtrak_comp.html it seems that only in a few cases is it about lack of high level platforms. Rather a lot of it is about parking lots, routes from there into buildings, buildings to platforms. And some is platform cross-slope, surface, and maintenance issues, both for wheelchairs and also edge/obstruction warnings for the visually impaired.

But it's a mystery what specific issues in Old Saybrook would be:

CT Examiner asked the Department of Justice and Amtrak why Old Saybrook is listed as one of the eligible stations despite not being listed in the complaint, and why New London is not listed as an eligible station even though it was listed in the complaint. Neither immediately responded on Friday.

Anyway, optimistically speaking its less about a need for large construction projects or needing to invent chair lifts that unfold out of nowhere, and more about getting the details right and staying current on maintenance.

Though I imagine there are places where something seemingly minor like a slope will actually be hard to correct.

Problem with building high level platforms is that if height clearance allows, Amtrak may want to run Superliner style equipment as a substitute that requires low boarding. This happened to me once on the Lake Shore Limited and when it stopped in Syracuse (a newish station), they had to spot a Superliner car perfectly on a depressed section of the otherwise high level platform and board everyone through a single door.

I thought when they built a new station for St Louis (which routinely sees both types of equipment) they should have put both high level and low level platforms in place, but they made them all low level.

I'm sure when they did St. Louis, they were thinking the next order of cars for the Midwest was going to be BiLevel so everything through there would need a low platform.