|
|
| Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... (334220) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Nov 5 15:52:16 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by RonInBayside on Sun Nov 5 15:37:14 2006. Metra and LIRR are not comparable in passenger demandI'm not comparing them in terms of system operation. I was making a case on a purely mechanical basis for a wheelchair lift, since the conditions under which the lift would operate on the LIRR would not be significantly different from those on Metra. Indeed, the wheelchair lift could concievably have greater reliability on the LIRR due to its decreased usage owning to the LIRR's high platforms in the electric territory. High platforms aren't just for ADA; they are also far superior to low platforms when dealing with large numbers of people. And I'm not saying don't build high platforms. However, does Yaphank really need a high platform? Does Westhampton? How about Locust Valley? Your one-size-fits-all argument holds no water for stations with low passenger counts such as those. We're not talking about NYP, Jamaica, or even Ronkonkoma here, the number of passengers are likely low enough that they could easily be accomodated by a center mounted low platform level boarding door on the C3s. The LIRR could have saved hundreds of millions of dollars squandered on high platforming lightly used stations if they'd simply ordered their new rolling stock to be ADA compatible at low platforms. That's why you have to pay attention to many aspects of a problem, and not focus on just one. That kind of strategy leads you to the wrong place too often. Right back at you dumbass. That's why you pay attention to the many aspects of a problem, and don't try to make some one-size fits all solution. |
|
|
|