|
|
| Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... (334290) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread
|
Next in Thread ]
|
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Nov 5 18:06:06 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Nov 5 16:24:11 2006. On a road which had the misfortune of being caught within the PRR and NYC's non-standard standards when it came to platform height then it is perhaps inevitable that a conservative management will choose to eventually make all platforms high. However, on systems which were blessed with a uniform platform height, or which are starting from scratch a low platform is likely preferable. A Bombardier Bilevel Coach loading at a low platform is not any slower than a high platform multilevel car with quarter point doors (such as the LIRR C3) boarding from a high platform. All that matters is that the boarding is level, with a minimal difference between platform and car height. Sure 30 years ago those systems with low platforms were at a disadvantage relative to the high platform systems and everyone had to use the dreaded trap step to board and allight, but the advent of the UDTC Bilevels for GO changed that. The Bombardier Bilevel offers nearly level boarding at a minimum height platform, but some improvement for a truely level boarding car from a platform around 12 inches above the railhead is still needed.The big challenge for the East Coast, IMHO, is building a car which can platform at both high and low platform stations and achieve ADA compatibility at both. We're going to have a glut of increasingly mobility limited commuters as the baby boom ages but refuses to (or is incapable of) retiring. Most likely this glut of people for whom the steps of a trap are a nearly impossible impediment to riding a train will come sooner than we could effectively build high platforms for the entire NYC commuter system. As such I do not think the conservative course of high platforming which northeast railroads have followed to this point is an effective solution to even their near-term accessibility problems. We need a car which either is capable of level boarding at both high and low platforms for NJT, SEPTA, MARC, and MBTA. Leave high platforming for stations with passenger flows that would overload say a single entrance low platform door, and concentrate accessibility work on the railcar level rather than the infrastructure level. The LIRR dropped the ball with the C3s, but the massive monetary backing of NYS and the MTA made up for it by installing the needed high platforms. SEPTA, MARC, NJT, and the T aren't so fortunate to have those kind of resources. Admittedly SEPTA has thusfar dropped the ball with the Silverliner Vs by ignoring a potential need for a wheelchair lift, they're at least not making the situation worse. |
|
|
|
