Comments to Department of Transportation on ADA NPRM

BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DOCKET OST-2006-23985
TRANSPORTATION FOR
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

COMMENTS OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS

About NARP

NARP is the only national organization speaking for the users of passenger trains and rail transit.  We have worked since 1967 to expand the quality and quantity of passenger rail in the U.S.  Our mission is to work towards a modern, customer-focused national passenger train network that provides a travel choice Americans want.  Our work is supported by approximately 20,000 individual members.

General Comments

NARP supports improving accessibility to transportation for the disabled and, in particular, four basic goals:
A. People who require wheelchairs for mobility should have access to all modes of transportation in a way that is comfortable, safe and convenient, and that adequately addresses those individuals’ need for independence and dignity. 

B. Methods used to accommodate wheelchairs should not cause a reduction in access, convenience, quality or safety by the general public, including passengers and railroad workers.

C. Since rail is the mode of transportation best able to accommodate persons in wheelchairs, regulations regarding wheelchair access will best serve the needs of both disabled persons and the general public if they promote the improvement and expansion of passenger rail transportation.

D. Agencies issuing regulations that impose significant capital and operating costs on others should identify methods for funding such mandates. 
The proposed rules do not satisfy these guidelines.  They would force impractical solutions to problems that are not adequately defined.

NARP joins APTA and Amtrak in urging the Department to withdraw this proposed rulemaking for the reasons listed below.  We think the joint task force suggested by Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink, page 3 of their comments) is a reasonable next step.  We note with approval the similar sentiments expressed by Amtrak:  “Should DOT believe that additional steps [need to] be taken to develop practical ways to improve platform boarding access for persons with disabilities, Amtrak would be pleased to work with appropriate federal government officials, interested representatives of the disability community, and other providers of rail service (commuter operators and freight railroads) to study the relevant issues and develop appropriate proposals.” 

Note also this statement by American Public Transportation Association (APTA, page 8 of their comments):  “The proposals for commuter rail platform accessibility would require significant practical, operational issues as well as greatly expanded costs.  These issues are currently being reviewed in separate efforts undertaken by FTA and the Transportation Research Board.  APTA urges DOT to refrain from integrating the proposals into 49 CFR Part 37 until there has been ample time for both DOT and the regulated community to review the results of these studies and access the impacts of the proposed rules.”

1. Amtrak and commuter rail have a long record of serving disabled passengers well, and have refined boarding techniques for disabled persons to minimize dwell time as a result of implementing ADA regulations.  Passenger rail provides important services vital to those with physical disabilities, including those with wheelchairs, and—especially on Amtrak—those who must travel with bulky medical equipment.  NARP is not aware of passengers who have been denied a train ride where a platform was 8” above the rail (ATR) rather than higher.  Metrolink, for example, says: “Metrolink has a history of providing excellent access to disabled riders, with every one of its stations accessible, not merely a subset of key stations as allowed by the ADA.  Its 13 years of operations demonstrate a history of concern for and attention to the needs of the disabled community” (page 2 of Metrolink comments).  Most other commuter railroads and Amtrak have made similar comments, accurately, or could do so.  Amtrak trains use high level station platforms in many locations, especially in the Northeast Corridor where ridership is high and many facilities are shared with commuter railroads.  The long distance trains serve the disabled primarily by use of station-located lifts. 

2. The “bull-in-a-china-shop” approach of the current NPRM is not the appropriate way either to identify real needs that remain unaddressed, or to mandate further improvements.  We question the need for a national standard when conditions vary dramatically from stations located on freight railroad property with sometimes six departures per week to stations shared with commuter rail operators and many daily trains.

3. The NPRM proposes new and dramatically different interpretations of the 1990 law and 1991 regulations.  These interpretations, among other things, threaten to drive a wedge between freight railroads and passenger operators that would render future system development either cost prohibitive or impractical, and also would drive up operating costs.  This is reflected in many comments in this docket from agencies that fund and/or operate passenger trains. 

4. Amtrak faces a huge challenge in bringing its stations into compliance just with the regulations as previously understood, a challenge exacerbated by its perennial struggle for adequate federal funding.  We also support Amtrak’s earlier call (in its FY07 Grant and Legislative Request released March 14) for “an extension of time to meet the statutory obligation until at least five years after promulgation of final regulations by the Secretary addressing platform requirements.”

5. Commuter railroads—like the rest of the surface transportation industry—also must be mindful of estimates that the Highway Trust Fund will go into negative balance in 2009.  On July 27, speaking to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, Laura Ziff of the Secretary’s office said “in order to reverse the negative trend by 2010, we would need to cut half the program,” presumably meaning a 50% cut in federal highway and transit spending.  Obviously, a run-up in oil prices while we continue to rely on a per-gallon tax could force spending cuts even sooner.  Such cuts would also hurt Amtrak, which shares many tracks and facilities with commuter railroads.

6. Many stations have multiple types of equipment with different floor heights operating to the same platform.  Some Northern California stations, for example, currently have up to three different floor heights ranging from 18” to 51” ATR.  These are “regularly scheduled” differences, but Amtrak and possibly other carriers need flexibility to use various types of equipment in unusual circumstances when there is a shortage of the normal equipment, for example, “to maintain service in the wake of accidents” (Amtrak’s statement).  Last winter, Amtrak’s Lake Shore Limited made a round-trip using Superliner cars; the problem with the high-level platform at Syracuse was solved only by using a nearby, low-level platform placed there for emergency access to the main freight track.

It seems impractical to attempt a national standard for varying railcars, needed freight train station platform clearance where joint service occurs, or where host freight railroads prohibit anything other than low-level platforms. 

NPRM IS A MAJOR AND EXPENSIVE CHANGE OF DIRECTION

NPRM is wrong to state that it merely “clarifies the Department’s existing requirements concerning new commuter and intercity rail platforms…These proposals do not represent significant departures from existing regulations and policy and are not expected to have noteworthy cost impacts on regulated parties.”

The proposals represent significant departures from existing regulations and policy, and from general practice over the past 15 years, including that approved by federal officials.  There certainly would be “noteworthy cost impacts,” probably including killing some projects that would greatly enhance the mobility of both the general public and the disabled. 

Metrolink says (immediately following the passage quoted in the first numbered paragraph above):  “In addition, [Metrolink] has relied on favorable reports issued throughout [its 13 years of operations] following inspections of its ADA compliance by FTA personnel.”  See also page 8 of Metrolink’s comments:  “Most all of the foregoing constitutes substantial departures from the current regulations, at tremendous cost.”

We take seriously Metrolink’s statement (page 2 of comments) that “compliance with the proposed regulation will lead ultimately to a reduction in transportation alternatives for both the disabled and the general population, due to the need to spend scarce resources to effect compliance with a rule that experience on the Metrolink system has demonstrated is not necessary to ensure that the disabled community has reasonable and reasonably integrated access to the commuter rail transportation it provides.”

Likewise, we are greatly concerned by Alaska Railroad Corporation’s similar comments, most of which we believe also have application in the Lower 48:  “The proposals for car level boarding will have a profound effect on the ARRCs ability to provide and expand our essential passenger service.  The ARRC provides passenger service to many small communities with low ridership volumes.  In some cases, we serve areas with no highway access.  Imposition of regulations mandating car level access could force the ARRC to abandon service to these areas, and certainly will curtail our ongoing expansion of passenger services.”

Any attempt to enforce “full length level boarding” with bridge plates for persons in wheelchairs would dramatically increase the costs of providing rail service.  This proposal seems particularly unreasonable because:
• Many stations lack full length platforms at any height; 
• Many stations have infrequent service and/or very low traffic volumes; and
• Trains can make multiple stops where essential.

Moreover, the proposal to mandate full-train length platforms would dramatically increase costs for station modifications, when current needs for boarding disabled persons are currently being met.  This solution seems impractical, particularly where train service is limited.

SAFETY ISSUES

In this matter, as in most aspects of life, balancing considerations must be carefully factored.  With regard to gauntlet tracks, or special platform tracks (other than those required to enhance line capacity), DOT appears to ignore the safety basis for railroads’ desire to minimize the number of facing point switches.  Every such switch carries with it a derailment potential.  This potential exists independent of, and in addition to, the possibility that the switch might on occasion be inadvertently set to divert an intended mainline move (perhaps traveling at high speed) onto the gauntlet or station track.

This is a real world, practical concern.  The consequences of a derailment include deaths and/or injuries, and cessation of service—including to disabled people—for the length of time it takes to restore the line to service and work through the congestion resulting from freight trains backed up while the line was out of service.

This is not an excuse conjured up by railroaders trying to keep their lives simple; their own practices of minimizing facing-point switches in situations unrelated to passenger stations is consistent with their position here.

Switches also can malfunction and thereby paralyze the railroad.  Similar considerations apply to retractable platforms edges, which have the potential to be set wrong and to freeze up or otherwise not operate properly.  As the Association of American Railroads notes (their comments, page 8), “If they are not retracted when a freight train passes through a station, there could be fatal consequences.  Or a wide load might collide with the platform and send pieces of the platform airborne, where they might strike waiting passengers.”

Switches and retractable platforms—even if allowed by the freight railroads—also are expensive, and thus would take a toll on the ability to start new service and expand existing services.

Ambulatory passengers:  The NPRM holds out the prospect of a wider gap—10 inches—between platform and train.  This may increase risks for the general public, and especially for those who are mobility impaired (for example, using walkers) and sensory impaired.  We join with others who question rationale for the six-foot setback requirement regarding platform obstructions (including mini-high platforms).

Rail Workers:  With an 8 inch ATR platform, a rail worker can step, jump or roll out of the way of an oncoming train.  That is not the case with a 15 inch ATR platform, which has no room under it, while jumping quickly up to the platform surface (about two feet) also is problematic. 

CONSTRUCTION

We are all familiar with the temporary inconvenience associated with construction projects, but the disabled as a practical matter could suffer extreme hardship during construction intended for their ultimate benefit, so it is important that construction on behalf of the disabled be limited to projects whose merits on their behalf and practicality for the system are both clear.

IMPACT ON NEW SERVICES

Implementing the NPRM proposals would deprive all travelers—including the disabled—of convenient transportation by simply pricing a rail stop out of reach of many communities.  The places most likely to be affected are smaller towns with the fewest public transportation alternatives, which will affect the disabled most severely.  [In St. Louis, ADA did not kill the long-overdue, new station, but may have delayed it, and certainly reduced its capacity.  The required 15” platforms forced elimination of a planned crossover that would have permitted two trains on one platform at the same time.  Again, different types of equipment use St. Louis station.]

This is a real issue now for Lyons, NY, New Buffalo, MI, Normal, IL, and other communities which are struggling to provide new facilities in the face of big ADA costs.  Lyons currently has no service.  At New Buffalo, the goal is to replace service by a single, daily, Chicago-Grand Rapids round-trip with two daily Chicago-Detroit round-trips.  Trains magazine reported that because of ADA-related delays at New Buffalo, passengers continue to board from a “…gravel-strewn, below-the-rail platform” (July Trains, page 26).

Normal currently has service but, as noted in comments in this docket, has completed preliminary design for an intermodal transportation center and believes “the proposed rail modification…would …cause harm to efforts to provide easy intermodal transfers from Amtrak to local buses for our disabled and non-disabled population.”

New pressure from DOT has brought some new station openings to a virtual stand-still.  The few exceptions apparently involve ignorance by station project managers of what DOT now thinks its regulations require and/or by DOT of what is going on. 

We understand that, in theory, a railroad could be charged with a violation of civil rights law.  However, such a charge whether sustained or not, would poison the railroad industry’s attitude towards passenger rail, particularly if onerous, unproductive ADA requirements are adopted.  The railroads—who own most of the route miles at issue rights-of-way—would find various ways to make it difficult to add new service and new routes going forward.  There is already enough tension between railroads and future passenger services; this NPRM has the potential to be the deal-killer.

CONCLUSION

The NPRM would impose impractical and unaffordable requirements that would reduce not increase accessibility to rail transportation for BOTH Americans with disabilities and the general public.  We urge USDOT to withdraw this rulemaking and pursue the suggested task force concept before promulgating new requirements.

—Ross B. Capon, Executive Director
National Association of Railroad Passengers