Amtrak Station Accessibility

[neroden]

I thought this thing died when Amtrak and Vermont basically said they would axe the Vermonter because it would be financially impossible to build high level platforms at every station.

I think the ADA is about reasonable accommodations. To me, forcing the railroad to build high level platforms at every station, even one a days is extreme overkill.

For better or worse, there was an explicit requirement in the ADA for all "intercity rail stations" (meaning Amtrak) to have fully accessible platforms by a date certain.

Which is odd. Because "public transportation systems" (including every other passenger rail operator in the country) only have to:
(1) upgrade a list of "key stations" which was agreed in advance (except for NYC, I think everyone's finished their key stations, though do tell me if I'm wrong)
(2) make stations ADA-accessible when they build new ones or renovate old ones (this is the general requirement for *all* public buildings).

Apart from key stations, commuter rail operators and urban rail operators are not required to renovate anything, only to make ADA upgrades when they do get around to renovating. I have no idea why there is a special rule in the ADA law forcing all intercity stations to be upgraded by a date certain; perhaps this was the pet project of some Senator.

[neroden]

For better or worse, there was an explicit requirement in the ADA for all "intercity rail stations" (meaning Amtrak) to have fully accessible platforms by a date certain.

Amtrak has convinced the government that a single wheelchair lift from a one-car-long low platform counts as "accessible", just to be clear.... provided the platform is accessible.

[jstolberg]

Station renovation including ADA improvements almost done at Lawrence, KS.
Story and video at http://6lawrence.com/news/local/renovat ... most-done/

[Gilbert B Norman]

The renovation work that has been done at Lawrence is simply one more reason why the LD's, even though they are here to stay, are simply economic hopeless cases.

While of course, and with all due respect to Mr. Dunville's post-graduate Alma Mater, Lawrence is is not 'Jerkwater Junction' (of any stations I've seen, I give that dubious honor to Green River UT), but it nevertheless is a "one a day'. Without making any statement regarding the propriety of such, if the public trough is obligated to spend some $1.5M for every Jerkwater Amtrak has out there to accommodate disabled passengers (isn't "challenged" becoming the new "PC" term?), then I can only see continued and escalating losses from the LD's even if their "elevating' demand continues.

At another topic, Mr. Stolberg is suggesting the feasibility of lengthening the consist of the LD's should the demand continue to escalate. After all, the Auto Train has sixteen passenger cars in the consist and to a host road a slot is a slot. But this station platform matter is of concern.

Even with the improvements, the Chief will still have to make a double stop. Operating and maintaining platforms with all this lighting, security cams, and rumble strips necessary to handle a twenty car train, such as did both Seaboard and Coast Line when they were real "players" in the passenger market, today is simply out of the question. Think of the potential liability if a passenger was some thousand feet away from any Station Employee and a medical or criminal incident occurred. Therefore the Chief will continue to make a double stop at Lawrence (I guess if all Coach passengers could be handled through the most forward Coach and none others, 600ft of platform would allow seven cars - 85 X 7 = 595).

Increasing frequencies to two a day? Over the past forty years the industry has become Kubler-Ross Phase V with regards to the bad deal they made forty years ago and have accepted one a day. But gents, one means one, not two.

[NellieBly]

I confess I haven't been following this issue as closely as I should, given that I work in USDOT's Policy Office, and one of my co-workers is USDOT's advocate for the handicapped (he was born with only vestigal arms and legs, and gets around in a motorized wheelchair).

The original ADA rule prepared by USDOT would have required floor-level platforms as long as the train. I believe there has been some compromise over this. I know our advocate *really* doesn't like wheelchair lifts, nor is he a fan of "high block" platforms that access only one car door.

The eight-inch-with-a-ramp solution works well anywhere Amtrak runs Superliners, California cars, or Talgos. I believe that is now acceptable as long as there are yellow bumpy things on the platform edge. I don't know what the resolution has been with high level platforms, because of the freight clearance issue.

As for the "key stations" requirement, that doesn't concern the platforms themselves, but rather access to them. Key stations must have elevators to get handicapped folks from the street to the platform. This of course isn't really an issue at most Amtrak stations.

My current understanding is that, by some future date, *all* Amtrak stations must provide disabled access to *all* cars on the train from the platform. I'm not sure this doesn't go beyond "reasonable accommodation", but then I'm not a lawyer.

[jstolberg]

This summer I stopped by the Naperville, IL station which was getting a platform replacement.

Here's a picture of the old platform.


In most towns, this would be considered a great concrete platform. It's concrete with a tactile edge, 8 inches above the rail with a canopy. But the contrasting color of the bumpy edge had faded in the sun and the concrete had some large cracks.

Naperville applied for federal funds to replace the platforms.


The FTA sign at the station dropoff shows that your tax dollars are at work.



Here's a view of the new concrete platforms.

A few other features at the Naperville station worth noting:


Bike racks under a canopy to keep them dry and the wheelchair lift. Naperville has two wheelchair lifts (one for each platform).


Covered parking for motorcycles and scooters.


Long ramps to a tunnel under the tracks.


A station identification sign with the name in braille to identify the location to the blind (once they locate the sign).


A portable defibrillator in case of cardiac arrest.


Three separate ticket counters (one for Amtrak, one for Metra, and one between with a lower counter level for those in wheelchairs).

[David Benton]

I am very curious as to how a blind person is supposed to get to a station , and not know which station it is , without finding this sign ?

[neroden]

My personal opinion is that the proposed "platform as long as the train" rule was ridiculous for intercity trains. What would be much more valuable for intercity trains would be to design the *cars* so that people in wheelchairs could always travel between cars... which eliminates the need for direct platform access to every car, given that there will be quite a long time between stops on an intercity train. The main problem faced by a person in a wheelchair on an intercity train is inability to move between cars. This is quite different from the problems faced by a person in a wheelchair on a commuter train (why would he move between cars?). I think the USDOT's original proposed rule was written by people who had never ridden on an intercity train. The train car designs should be the focus here, rather than requiring massive platforms.

On the other hand, platforms at approximately the same level as the train interior, with flat plates for bridging any gap or minor height difference, are *far* preferable to wheelchair lifts. I really hope that can be resolved. Many of the low-level stations served by the single-level fleet are on passengers-come-first lines already (everything in Vermont, the state-owned line in North Carolina, Chicago Union Station, the tracks owned by FLDOT), or have room for separate platform tracks (Buffalo), so it seems like conversion to high-level platforms would be wise in these areas.

[electricron]

On the other hand, platforms at approximately the same level as the train interior, with flat plates for bridging any gap or minor height difference, are *far* preferable to wheelchair lifts. I really hope that can be resolved. Many of the low-level stations served by the single-level fleet are on passengers-come-first lines already (everything in Vermont, the state-owned line in North Carolina, Chicago Union Station, the tracks owned by FLDOT), or have room for separate platform tracks (Buffalo), so it seems like conversion to high-level platforms would be wise in these areas.

Chicago's Union Station also serves Superliner and Talgo equipment with low floor entrances. Fixing all the platforms in Chicago to serve single level high floor trains better means they serve Superliner and Talgo equipment worse.

And while there are rail lines across the country that serve passenger trains first, they also serve freight trains. You're NCRR example seems true - but NCRR makes far more more money from freight fees which helps subsidize their passenger trains. It would be a poor decision to chase freight trains off their corridor by building incompatible tall passenger platforms.

There are light rail lines, with no need at all to accommodate freight trains, in the US with low level platforms using high floor light rail trains. They use high blocks to embark and disembark wheelchair using passengers. It's alright to suggest your own opinion, but each and every passenger train operator needs to make their own decision. And I'm suggesting that legislating just one way to implement train access nationally does not and will never work....

[Patrick Boylan]

I am very curious as to how a blind person is supposed to get to a station , and not know which station it is , without finding this sign ?

I sympathize with your first blush feeling, I often jump to similar conclusions. Think a bit further: if they got a taxi, or ride from a less than competent friend, or had just disembarked from a train, a braille sign would help them confirm they're at the right station.

[MattW]

On the other hand, platforms at approximately the same level as the train interior, with flat plates for bridging any gap or minor height difference, are *far* preferable to wheelchair lifts. I really hope that can be resolved. Many of the low-level stations served by the single-level fleet are on passengers-come-first lines already (everything in Vermont, the state-owned line in North Carolina, Chicago Union Station, the tracks owned by FLDOT), or have room for separate platform tracks (Buffalo), so it seems like conversion to high-level platforms would be wise in these areas.

Chicago's Union Station also serves Superliner and Talgo equipment with low floor entrances. Fixing all the platforms in Chicago to serve single level high floor trains better means they serve Superliner and Talgo equipment worse.

And while there are rail lines across the country that serve passenger trains first, they also serve freight trains. You're NCRR example seems true - but NCRR makes far more more money from freight fees which helps subsidize their passenger trains. It would be a poor decision to chase freight trains off their corridor by building incompatible tall passenger platforms.

There are light rail lines, with no need at all to accommodate freight trains, in the US with low level platforms using high floor light rail trains. They use high blocks to embark and disembark wheelchair using passengers. It's alright to suggest your own opinion, but each and every passenger train operator needs to make their own decision. And I'm suggesting that legislating just one way to implement train access nationally does not and will never work....

Actually a good compromise here might be to have 18 inch high platforms at Chicago Union Station. That'd provide level boarding on Superliners, and only require a 30 inch lift to the floors of the single level equipment. Not saying it'd solve the problem completely, but it'd certainly help.

[David Benton]

True ,but then they have to find the sign .I'm thinking maybe the guide dogs are trained to lead them to a sign on demand .d

[David Benton]

According to yahoo answers the signs are always a certain height and at a certain distance from an entranceway . That makes a lot more sense .

[Greg Moore]

True ,but then they have to find the sign .I'm thinking maybe the guide dogs are trained to lead them to a sign on demand .d

As mentioned, locations tend to be standardized. That said, there was a blind guy that hiked the Appalachian Trail a few years back. Other hikers commented that apparently his dog would stop from time to time and look around until it saw a white blaze and then lead him on again.

Seeing eye dogs are pretty smart.

[David Benton]

The little fella in my avatar would argue all dogs are pretty smart .