[PRCo] Re: Dallas
Schneider Fred
fwschneider at comcast.net
Sun Sep 27 17:38:32 EDT 2009
The law was there in the 1960s or 1970s. Initially it applied only
to new construction funded with federal dollars. Thus PATCO, for
example, was initially exempt. The Americans With Disabilities Act
was later extended to all transportation facilities with the
exception of heritage vehicles such as the New Orleans 900 series
cars, the San Francisco cable cars, and, of course, vehicles in
museums. Any museum with any management gray matter will take
whatever steps are reasonably feasible to accommodate passengers ...
if not in all vehicles, at least in certain vehicles, even if the law
doesn't require it. PTM, for example, has several cars into which
wheel chair lifts can be fitted.
The San Francisco cars running on routes J, K, L, M and T have to
already be ADA compliant. However, Muni and SEPTA and a lot of
other agencies found a loop hole. The loop hole in the law says
that the most important stops need to be ADA compliant ... you may
ignore the rest. Well, obviously the most important are downtown.
So you make them compliant. And those in the suburbs where people
life become the least important. That way we don't need to worry
with riders in wheel chairs. If they cannot get on at home, then
they cannot get off downtown!
If you look at the San Francisco Municipal Railway map below, you
will see that most of the suburban stops are considered
unimportant.... All of the subway stops are in the important
category. BART paid for them when the subway opened in 1972.
Balboa Park is a joint station with BART. City College and San
Francisco State University are obviously important stops. Now lets
talk about the neighborhoods where people live ... one in every three
of four stops is handicapped accessible. Window dressing. It it
actually meets the letter of the law. There was a suit back in the
1990s and Muni won ... they did just what they had to do.
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mroutes/documents/T3-Manual_v6na.pdf
Note that the new construction ... the connection between the J and M
line ... all stops are ADA compliant. They had to be. And all
stops on the T line (South Third Street) are ADA compliant. They
had to be.
The F line ... we got bamboozled on that one. It was new
construction using heritage cars so they got away with making it non
ADA compliant.
Sometimes we actually build non-compliant stations which are official
compliant. I have pictures of the "ADA compliant" Port Authority
Transit South Bank light rail station in Pittsburgh. The station
meets all the requirements. Except there is no %#$%^& way you could
negotiate the path leading to it in a wheel chair. You have to be
dropped off by automobile.
I am going to state that I like those low floor cars because you can
at least get a wheel chair on to them from a safety island. That
might be a good way to make a lot of otherwise non-compliant
operations like SEPTA satisfy the law.
Frankly, I'm buying in to being nice to people.
Why am I taking this position? Is it because I might now qualify
for a handicapped license plate on my own car? I do but that isn't
the reason. I seldom use the handicapped sticker ... others need it
a lot more than I do. The reason is the same thing that makes me
smile when Bob Dietrich's daughter told me she likes her job
inspecting bridges. Fabulous. A woman in a non-traditional job.
Bully for her. And the handicapped working. Bully for them too.
You see I had a man who worked for me who had cerebral palsy ...
bright man ... sometimes a tad tempestuous but he did hold an MBA ...
he was really bright and knew how to do his job well. Just because
he couldn't climb a flight of stairs was no reason for him to stay at
home.
Fred S
On Sep 26, 2009, at 8:24 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:
> Mr.Schneider;
>
> This is fascinating; they are actually inserting a low-floor
> section into
> a standard-floor car. It is a shame the original cars are this
> old; I
> understand the concern about longevity of the 'half-breed.'
>
> Some of the transit systems are more efficiently operated than
> others; maybe this is the case with DART and these cars will
> last longer than expected. I understand your reasoning and
> deductions casting doubt about service life.
>
> San Francisco and Boston could do this as well to make the
> cars more ADA accessible; age of current behicles works
> against this possibility. San Francisco has the added problem
> of all high-platform loading in the subway; an ADA passenger
> would need to get from the low-floor to standard-floor section
> when traveling between the subway and surface. Always
> challenges aren't there.
>
>
> Phil
> Without a 'coast' but not a 'cause.'
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Schneider Fred <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 5:00:47 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Dallas
>
> I do not remember who built the original Dallas cars. The low-floor
> center sections are new. They go with the on-going conversion to
> low-level platforms throughout the entire DART system.
>
> If I am not making myself totally clear ... they are adding the
> center section, lengthening the trains, and then removing the
> handicapped lifts or high level facilities at the stations because
> now everyone will be able to get on the cars at the middle of the
> train.
>
> I am on DART's e-mail news release list. I've seen the
> announcements. But if you were to ask me when will the conversion
> be 100% completed, I don't know.
>
> This approach is not uncommon. I first saw the Europeans doing the
> same thing ... I think it was in Tallin, Estonia that I first saw low-
> floor center sections being added to cars.
>
> Unfortunately, this approach never has lasted long because the end
> sections of the cars are already old when you do it. The original
> single truck cars that Boston converted to two-bedroom and bath cars
> to make them more labor efficient around the turn on the century
> didn't buy many more years because they were junk to start with.
> Pittsburgh's splice cars 2100 and 2101 didn't last long either
> because they built them out of worn out wooden bodies. DART is
> apparently attempting to prolong the life of 40 cars built in 1996
> and 75 more built in 2001-2002.
>
> To put their age into perspective ... the first cars now are 13 years
> old. That is older than the original 25 Dallas PCC cars were when
> streetcars were abandoned in Dallas in 1956. That's about one year
> less than Vancouver got out of its PCCs. Its the longevity of the
> 600 PCCs that Chicago bought after World War II. We are now at
> 65% of the life of the Brooklyn PCCs or the Pittsburgh 1000s or 1100s.
>
> Granted there are exceptions but in an environment where the federal
> government pays you to throw away equipment and buy new vehicles, I
> would not count on those rebuilds being around for two long.
>
> If you want the details, here is the fact sheet that DART released.
>
> http://www.dart.org/factsheet/slrv/default.asp
>
> On Sep 26, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:
>
>> I don't always understand computers; this was sent
>> 'successfully' early in the AM yet does not appear in my
>> inbox nor sent folders, just the draft. This is a retry; my
>> apologies if this is a second copy.
>>
>>
>>> From: Schneider Fred <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 6:39:22 AM
>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Dallas .... first service to Fair Park ...
>>> enlarge one of those jpeg or tiff photos ... they're great.
>>
>>> I do not know what your point is Phil.
>>
>>> If it is the high level loading in Dallas, forget it.
>>> DART is converting the entire system to
>>> low floor loading.
>>
>> ...so says Mr.Schneider. What do the references
>> from the website say in the form of these Urls?
>>
>> It appears that the bulk of the car is standard floor.
>> It appears that the car is double articulated.
>> It also appears that only the very center section
>> of the car is low floor.
>> It appears that the bulk of the car - each end before
>> the articulation - is standard floor.
>> Thus the system is not low-floor but 25%-low-floor.
>> 2-3-steps very much in evidence.
>> Doors appear to slide into a well.
>>
>> Who manufactures these cars?
>>
>> I like this configuration.
>>
>> http://www.dart.org/images/newsroom/preview/fairparkevening.jpg
>>
>> http://www.dart.org/images/newsroom/greenlineart/preview/
>> supersaturdayboarding.jpg
>>
>> http://www.dart.org/newsroom/greenlinemediakit/images/preview/
>> PorcariDARTTour.jpg
>>
>> http://www.dart.org/newsroom/greenlinemediakit/images/preview/
>> lrtnorthdeepellum.jpg
>>
>> On the other hand Portland is listed as a 70% low-floor
>> car, double articulated. Only the very end of the car over
>> the power truck is standard floor; all the rest of the car is
>> low-floor which including the center section between the
>> articulated joints and beyond the articulation to the
>> power truck.
>>
>>
>>
>> Phil
>> Without a 'coast' but not a 'cause.'
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>>>> From: Schneider Fred <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>>>> To: Skip Gatermann <biker4 at sbcglobal.net>
>>>> Cc: Mike Schreiber <m11h16s45 at aol.com>; Michael Greene
>>>> <michael_t_greene at yahoo.com>; Matt Dawn <mwntrolley at aol.com>;
>>>> Conrad Misek <crmisek at aol.com>; Joe Bux <baybridgecondo3 at aol.com>;
>>>> Frank Pfuhler <PFUHLER at MSN.COM>; E Casey <ecasey9631 at aol.com>; Vic
>>>> Gordon <lipizzansvt2 at aol.com>; David Dillard <jwne at temple.edu>;
>>>> John Sikorskie <sparkyberadi at aol.com>; Jim Greller
>>>> <jcgreller at hcia.org>; Randy Gluckman <randygluck1 at aol.com>; Bob
>>>> Vogel <chuchubob at yahoo.com>; Bradley Clark <bhc1 at aol.com>; Mary
>>>> O'Brien <maryobrien at charter.net>; Jimmy Boylan XX
>>>> <jamesboylan at compuserve.com>; Bill Armstrong <wja1933 at juno.com>;
>>>> Richard Panse <brtpcc at mac.com>; Alex Vaughn
>>>> <alexlvaughn at yahoo.com>; Brad Noyes <nozze4 at att.net>; Bill
>>>> Mangahas <newkirk at optonline.net>; JJ Earl <dukeoq at aol.com>; Joseph
>>>> Frank <nycmodeltransit at webtv.net>; Jack Rush XX <rush123 at cox.net>;
>>>> Mark Goldfeder <frgs4evr at aol.com>; Andrew Chalfen
>>>> <chalfen at pobox.upenn.edu>; Michael Rambo Jr <mrambojr at yahoo.com>;
>>>> Ted
>>> Eickmann <twe2431 at sbcglobal.net>; Bill Paulus
>>> <studedude43 at hotmail.com>; Muench <cemuench2 at comcast.net>; Bruce
>>> Bente <bbente at bellsouth.net>; Raleigh Dadamo <dadamor at aol.com>;
>>> David Horwitz <air2619 at aol.com>; David Pirmann
>>> <pirmann at quuxuum.org>; Neil Carlson <ndc10169 at webtv.net>; Chris
>>> Gatermann <cgatermann at yahoo.com>; Robert Arce <r516169 at yahoo.com>;
>>> KELVIN WILKE <kwilke4 at sbcglobal.net>; Raymond Crapo Jr
>>> <raycrapo at prodigy.net>; Carlos Mercado <cmercado at rochester.rr.com>;
>>> Merill Resnick <mhr62 at aol.com>; Jack May <jack.may at americomm.net>;
>>> Lewis Hitch <lewis.hitch at verizon.net>; Michael Richmond
>>> <neosho_wildcat_graduate_2007 at yahoo.com>; Thurston Clark
>>> <trolleydude1 at yahoo.com>; Edward Havens <edhavens at cox.net>; Jeff
>>> Marinoff <jeffmarinoff at yahoo.com>; Harry Pinsker <hp1944 at aol.com>;
>>>> Joseph Eid <jeidj at comcast.net>; Scott Becker <sbecker at pa-
>>> trolley.org>; William Young <wbyoung at mindspring.com>; Russ Jackson
>>>> <rejmhj at netzero.net>; C. K. Leverett
>>>> <cleverett at comcast.net>; Charles Greene
>>>> <charles.greene99 at gmail.com>; Ronald Kupin <ronkup at hotmail.com>;
>>>> Nate Gerstein <atsnate at comcast.net>; Melvin Bernero
>>>> <mbernero at prodigy.net>; Favorite Daugher <cue37 at charter.net>;
>>>> George Boucher <berasltm18 at sbcglobal.net>; Rich Parente
>>>> <urr316 at optonline.net>; Evan Jennings <evan at tmny.org>; Harold Golk
>>>> <haroldgolk at comcast.net>; Matthew Mummert <mlmummert at comcast.net>;
>>>> Bob Paradise <rjp500 at snet.net>; Bill Volkmer
>>>> <bvolkmer at bellsouth.net>; Andrew Sisk <asisk at sbcglobal.net>;
>>>> Charlie Dennis <cdennis220 at aol.com>; Herald Wind
>>>> <hlwind384 at comcast.net>; Bill Myers <TrolleyBill77 at cs.com>; Tom
>>>> Gatermann <tgatermann at gmail.com>; Edward Davis
>>> <biged_IRT5543 at bresnan.net>
>>>> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 1:10:57 PM
>>>> Subject: [PRCo] Dallas .... first service to Fair Park ... enlarge
>>>> one of those jpeg or tiff photos ... they're great.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dart.org/newsroom/greenlinemediakit/default.asp#images
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:38 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.dart.org/riding/accessibility.asp#rail
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil
>>> Without a 'coast' but not a 'cause.'
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the Pittsburgh-railways
mailing list