BostonUrbEx wrote:Does anyone know why Fitchburg and Lowell do not have full high level platforms? Fitchburg especially is on a track specifically built for the station -- it is even called the Fitchburg Station Track. In Lowell, tracks 3 and 4 prohibit freights in the passenger station (plus the switches at CPF LO have been spiked to prevent through-movements) and as such are also defacto station tracks. These station aren't terrible old, but despite predating modern ADA law, I don't see much benefit to avoiding a high level. Especially Lowell, which is #3 in ridership for the entire commuter rail system.
Lowell was built in 1983 when the only full-highs that existed on the commuter rail were Malden Ctr. and Oak Grove, which were only built that way to facilitate future Orange Line conversion. That long ago there was no set specification on how to do one, so they more or less made it up as they went along and built Lowell with that weird half-high/half-low. No sense attempting to explain today a design decision that was finalized 10 years before the ADA and a good 8 years before the T's next attempt at a commuter rail full-high. '83 was still deep in dark ages for accessibility design and consistency therein.
Fitchburg's current platform was 2002-construction, which was before the state-level accessibility laws were significantly tightened in '05. Back then there still was wiggle room to opt out of a full-high, unlike now where it's an ironclad requirement except when a freight clearance route offers absolute zero plausible alternatives. I'm guessing re: Fitchburg that they were leery of platform gaps around the curve and opted for the design certainty of mini-high. 3 years later they wouldn't have been able to do that, but Fitchburg was one of the last full-on rebuilds done before the state clamped down. Not sure why they would've been nervous about full-high on that curve, because East Weymouth does it without problems on a much more severe curve. But...they couldn't duck the new law when EW was constructed in '06-07 and had no choice but to take on that challenge.
Might be because Fitchburg is, I think, owned/operated by MART and not the T...so much smaller MART's budget burden may have also played a factor on the decision to go conservative with the platform.
Neither of these terminal stops are going to be priorities until the horrible state of ADA compliance on the Fitchburg, Franklin, inner Haverhill/Reading, and inner Worcester Lines starts getting addressed in giant leaps and bounds multiple station renovation projects at a time. It would simply be irresponsible to shovel more money first at already-compliant stations unless the given station is in some other dire need of repair work that auto-triggers the state law's level boarding mandate by default. Too many totally inaccessible stops still malingering with no accessibility plans whatsoever to jump the gun to secondary priorities like making the Lowell platform dwells +1 better.