Dunkirk NY bid for Amtrak Station

[neroden]

Biden's responsibilites include appointing Amrak Board members when their terms expire. Their's have all expired for a year or more now. He has been in office over a year. It is Buttigieg's and Trottenberg's responsibility to "remind" him as well. Those fish should be big enough to fry. I think they are so mezmorized by Connect US that they forgot.

Well, one of the delays is that Congress had a bill completely reorganizing the Amtrak board (different requirements for the appointments). This bill passed late last year, IIRC. I can see why Biden waited until after it passed to appoint new board members -- but now he REALLY should appoint them, since the current board is now not only expired but illegal!

We have this section of law to deal with at Amtrak:

Title 49 U.S. Code § 24102. Definitions

“(C) long-distance routes of more than 750 miles between endpoints operated by Amtrak as of the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008.

• www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24102
• www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2015-title49/pdf/USCODE-2015-title49-subtitleV-partC-chap241-sec24102.pdf

Amtrak’s likely interpretation: nothing is to be added ad infinitum to the national network from 15 routes of 2008 unless entirely funded by multiple states. So 750 miles means nothing - states pay.

That's not what it says, of course. We can introduce 500 new Chicago-NY trains along as many different routes as we like, with no state funding, according to that provision.

But Amtrak management is historically quite fond of not actually reading the law, as we know.

If it had meant "existing routes" it should have said "long distance routes of more than 750 miles length operated by Amtrak".

It says "long distance routes of more than 750 miles between *endpoints* operated by Amtrak".

If I'm not mistaken, this change was specifically inserted by the supporters of the North Coast Hiawatha, but you see it other applications.

 

[neroden]

The entire platform must be full height to meet the ADA's expectations.

Note that the platform does NOT need to be the full length of the train.

 

[neroden]

Frankly, the only practical thing to do is to move the single main one track space over and build a singe track loop between it and the two other mains with space on one side for a single face platform which is reached via a tunnel fro the headhouse. Reasonable stations cost money. Many rural stations in the US are not reasonable stations but just one step above a stop in the middle of a field.

If you want to simplify it, have the "headhouse" directly underneath the platform and have the entrance on the sidewalk underneath the rail bridges. That is completely legal (and not so far off from Metra and CTA station designs in Chicago).

I can see where the previous center platform was on the Google Maps photo and it actually seems there's room on the bridges for not one but two more tracks (one on each side) though bridges might need upgrading.

I gotta say though, the usual rule applies: BUY THE TRACKS. CSX shouldn't own any tracks; they're not competent to run a railroad.

 

[Anthony V]

It would have been much cheaper to add the stop back then. Now it will cost several million just to get a platform with no services approved.


Because that solution would not pass the latest rules of the ADA.


The entire platform must be full height to meet the ADA's expectations.

If your statement is true, why will the state of California be able to meet the ADA requirements by adding mini high platforms to be used in conjunction with the wheelchair lifts in the new Venture cars that are planned to go into service on the San Joaquins?

 

[PVD]

An existing stop is not the same as a new station.

 

[zephyr17]

If your statement is true, why will the state of California be able to meet the ADA requirements by adding mini high platforms to be used in conjunction with the wheelchair lifts in the new Venture cars that are planned to go into service on the San Joaquins?

Platforms which have been consistent use are grandfathered in.

 

[Amtrak25]

It might be simpler to put in two side platforms, not bother with an elevator for the island platform, but provide ADA with sets of ramps zig-zagging, much like LIRR Forest Hills:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7196821,-73.8447814,153m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

 

[joelkfla]

It might be simpler to put in two side platforms, not bother with an elevator for the island platform, but provide ADA with sets of ramps zig-zagging, much like LIRR Forest Hills:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7196821,-73.8447814,153m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Ramps are a legal alternative, but ones that long are much less friendly than elevators. It takes a lot of effort for a manual wheelchair user to ascend that high on a ramp, and the added distance is troublesome for people who are not in a chair but experience pain while walking.

ETA: In fact, the ramp on the south side of the station appears to be noncompliant with current ADA requirements, on account of curves in the ramp and the lack of a level platform at the switchback. There are plans for construction of elevators to bring the station into compliance.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

I gotta say though, the usual rule applies: BUY THE TRACKS. CSX shouldn't own any tracks; they're not competent to run a railroad.

Do you own any CSX stocks? Having you at shareholders meeting would be interesting.

 

[neroden]

Do you own any CSX stocks? Having you at shareholders meeting would be interesting.

Ha! I used to own CSX (dating back to Chessie System stock, actually), but I sold it when John W Snow sold off SeaLand, the most profitable and fastest-growing part of the business, for far less than it was worth, and started undermaintaining the railroad. That's when I knew CSX was hopelessly mismanaged.