jcepler1 wrote:Hawaiitiki wrote:Will these new stations be receiving full high level platforms since they are new builds? I (and a number of others on this forum) were under the impression that a new station like Norfolk was legally bound to have that, but that was obviously not the case. http://aweinclusive.com/wp-content/uplo ... -rail1.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If they're honestly looking to save time wherever possible, high levels are no brainers. Norfolks didn't really matter time-wise since its a terminal station ala Hoboken.
High level platforms are a requirement under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It has nothing to do with time savings, just an added bonus.
Nofolk did not require high level platforms because it was designed before the deadline mentioned in the law.
The presence of freight trains is also a factor in building high level platforms. Many freights will not allow them, due to clearance issues.
Most Amtrak one-a-day stops (like the others currently on the Vermonter) have wheelchair lifts the crews manipulate to achieve ADA compliance at completely low platforms (so long as the station egresses don't require stairs). On the Downeaster where there's well more than a round trip per day and here on the Conn River where commuter rail is realistically a short/mid-term prospect they build the full accessible platforms. Per the MBTA's station specs which MassDOT is following here it's always a full-high platform, 6' wide to the nearest obstruction (overhangs, garbage cans, signage, etc.) for side platforms and 12' wide for islands (i.e. 6 ft. unobstructed on each side to the center signage, overhang supports, etc.). On lines designated a wide freight clearance route where there is no room for passing tracks it is OK to construct a low platform with those dimensions and a single-car mini-high with collapsible platform edge. Collapsible edges aren't allowed on full-length full-highs because even if they were tangent the lateral movement on a wide freight would smack parts of the platform even if the edges were retracted. Generally speaking they avoid gauntlets unless absolutely positively unavoidable because of the slightly higher derailment risk. Gauntlets work better around islands where the derailing train falls away from the platform instead of risking tipping over and smacking the opposite platform.
In this case they're all just single side platforms with freight passing tracks, and the likely commuter rail and intercity traffic over the next 20 years is not likely to top out anywhere near dense enough to require 2 platforms, so it's fully OK to build full-highs. Even if the rest of the line gets infill double-track for higher traffic the passenger trains would still cross over and pull to one side for these few widely-spaced stations and any other potential infills on the route.
NECR territory might be a more interesting case in how they handle this if service increases render the wheelchair lifts too cumbersome and construction of full-accessible platforms is required. They might have to do mini-highs w/collapsible edges instead of full-highs at the stops where there isn't room for a passing track.
