|
|
| Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... (334315) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Nov 5 18:33:37 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by WillD on Sun Nov 5 18:06:06 2006. "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."That is very true. "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" False statement. The stations are already there. There may well be further stations built but unless brand new routes are designed or old ones reactivated, the number of stations added will be fairly small. In Boston, by contrast, you recently had a whole railroad reborn (the Old Colony branches). LIRR's expansion now consists of East Side Access to Grand Central (under construction now), and (possibly??) a new tunnel into Lower Manhattan sometime in future. Is the LIC line likely to be reactivated (ie Penny Bridge, Glendale, Haberman etc.)? Probably not. If the third rail project gets done then stations will have to be redone. Given the crowds at many of these stations at rush hour and third-rail usage, there's no point in even thinking about low platforms. Sowhat does that leave you with? What new line in the LIRR system is going to have low platforms? 90% of the stations are already ADA compliant (unlike the subway); you have some in Queens or near Queens that are not. "We need a car which either is capable of level boarding at both high and low platforms for NJT, SEPTA, MARC, and MBTA." That would help railroads share rolling stock when needed, and it's a nice idea. I would (politically) support the development of such a car. Good thinking on your part. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|