Connor Webb
@connorwebb.bsky.social
MD-PhD student by day, active transportation and transit advocate by night. North Westwood NC Board member and Transportation Committee chair.
Santa Monica, CA
Santa Monica, CA
Q&A3: “Public entities should not structure the scope of work to avoid ADA obligations to provide curb ramps when resurfacing a roadway… resurfacing only between crosswalks may be regarded as an attempt to circumvent a public entity’s obligation under the ADA…”
December 8, 2025 at 6:58 PM
Q&A3: “Public entities should not structure the scope of work to avoid ADA obligations to provide curb ramps when resurfacing a roadway… resurfacing only between crosswalks may be regarded as an attempt to circumvent a public entity’s obligation under the ADA…”
Of note, it is explicitly illegal to do this according to the DOJ/DOT joint technical guidance Q&A. And as soon as a crosswalk is touched, the curb ramp requirement still applies.
2013 DOJ/DOT technical guidance: archive.ada.gov/doj-fhwa-ta....
Follow up Q&A: archive.ada.gov/doj-fhwa-ta-...
2013 DOJ/DOT technical guidance: archive.ada.gov/doj-fhwa-ta....
Follow up Q&A: archive.ada.gov/doj-fhwa-ta-...
DOJ/DOT on Requirements to Provide Curb Ramps when Streets, Roads, or Highways are Altered through Resurfacing
The ADA Home Page provides access to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations for businesses and State and local governments, technical assistance materials, ADA Standards for Accessible Desi...
archive.ada.gov
December 8, 2025 at 6:30 PM
Of note, it is explicitly illegal to do this according to the DOJ/DOT joint technical guidance Q&A. And as soon as a crosswalk is touched, the curb ramp requirement still applies.
2013 DOJ/DOT technical guidance: archive.ada.gov/doj-fhwa-ta....
Follow up Q&A: archive.ada.gov/doj-fhwa-ta-...
2013 DOJ/DOT technical guidance: archive.ada.gov/doj-fhwa-ta....
Follow up Q&A: archive.ada.gov/doj-fhwa-ta-...
I agree if feds don't approve an alternative plan at mixed-traffic stations, then that would definitely preempt CPUC and they will issue a ruling. But until then, CPUC was very careful in their wording of "this regulatory requirement is preempted in this instance by federal requirements"
October 15, 2025 at 5:40 AM
I agree if feds don't approve an alternative plan at mixed-traffic stations, then that would definitely preempt CPUC and they will issue a ruling. But until then, CPUC was very careful in their wording of "this regulatory requirement is preempted in this instance by federal requirements"
Caltrain must've gotten approval from feds to use mini-highs on public track, and were even building mini-highs into early 2025. As another example, metrolink newly-built Burbank airport station to 8" ATR while these 49 CFR 37.42 was in effect, on publicly-owned track shared with freight
October 15, 2025 at 5:38 AM
Caltrain must've gotten approval from feds to use mini-highs on public track, and were even building mini-highs into early 2025. As another example, metrolink newly-built Burbank airport station to 8" ATR while these 49 CFR 37.42 was in effect, on publicly-owned track shared with freight
In the SBCTA case there is no freight, and therefore ADA preempted by requiring level platforms (it specifically says "preempted in this instance"). With freight, ADA would not preempt because ADA requirements could be met while still complying with 26-D, so an exemption would still be needed
October 15, 2025 at 4:41 AM
In the SBCTA case there is no freight, and therefore ADA preempted by requiring level platforms (it specifically says "preempted in this instance"). With freight, ADA would not preempt because ADA requirements could be met while still complying with 26-D, so an exemption would still be needed
Clearly not true. For example, none of caltrain's or metrolinks platform mods on public track since this requirement have included level boarding (so they meet (b) via (c) and got approved as in (d).
October 15, 2025 at 4:40 AM
Clearly not true. For example, none of caltrain's or metrolinks platform mods on public track since this requirement have included level boarding (so they meet (b) via (c) and got approved as in (d).
Paragraph (b) and (c) seem fairly clear to me
October 15, 2025 at 4:13 AM
Paragraph (b) and (c) seem fairly clear to me
The ADA only requires boarding from level platforms for stations that do not share track with existing freight, like Arrow. For mixed traffic, the requirement is only 8" platforms and provisions to allow accessible boarding (lifts, mini-highs, etc), so I think CPUC would still need to approve
October 15, 2025 at 4:03 AM
The ADA only requires boarding from level platforms for stations that do not share track with existing freight, like Arrow. For mixed traffic, the requirement is only 8" platforms and provisions to allow accessible boarding (lifts, mini-highs, etc), so I think CPUC would still need to approve
I got a very different impression from the DOT study. Their point seemed to be that there is a conflict, but imperfect mitigations exist.
October 15, 2025 at 4:00 AM
I got a very different impression from the DOT study. Their point seemed to be that there is a conflict, but imperfect mitigations exist.
By far the bigger issue for travel times is the removal of station bypass tracks for express service in the Central Valley after phase 1. They will have to eliminate most express service, and there’s no chance any remaining express will run close to 220 next to platforms
August 23, 2025 at 9:07 PM
By far the bigger issue for travel times is the removal of station bypass tracks for express service in the Central Valley after phase 1. They will have to eliminate most express service, and there’s no chance any remaining express will run close to 220 next to platforms
On the NEC, Amtrak specifies 24'6" normal contact-wire height. And double-stack already operates in the US under wires in multiple places. For example, CSX runs double stack under SEPTA wires on the West Trenton Line youtu.be/T0aIe-ZfUN8?...
CSX & SEPTA Neshaminy Falls Action!
YouTube video by Trenton Line Railfan
youtu.be
August 6, 2025 at 6:58 AM
On the NEC, Amtrak specifies 24'6" normal contact-wire height. And double-stack already operates in the US under wires in multiple places. For example, CSX runs double stack under SEPTA wires on the West Trenton Line youtu.be/T0aIe-ZfUN8?...
I think AB2503 would take care of that portion since it stays within existing ROW
July 3, 2025 at 1:08 AM
I think AB2503 would take care of that portion since it stays within existing ROW
I would need to check the RSA for each resource but for example, the "station planning, land use, and development" RSA already includes the most likely station areas (I think it would be where the industry freight spur is being closed if not at the current metrolink location)
July 2, 2025 at 11:05 PM
I would need to check the RSA for each resource but for example, the "station planning, land use, and development" RSA already includes the most likely station areas (I think it would be where the industry freight spur is being closed if not at the current metrolink location)
Normally yes, but it doesn’t require new impacts to be assessed if it stays within the RSAs, so it could now be exempt if they choose a compliant location
July 2, 2025 at 11:03 PM
Normally yes, but it doesn’t require new impacts to be assessed if it stays within the RSAs, so it could now be exempt if they choose a compliant location
I think in this case they did actually study impacts to Burbank Metrolink station, since modifications were required, including parking, pedestrian bridges, bikeways etc. So my initial take is that they are likely covered. It was also studied as an HSR station in the 2005 statewide EIR I believe?
July 2, 2025 at 12:42 AM
I think in this case they did actually study impacts to Burbank Metrolink station, since modifications were required, including parking, pedestrian bridges, bikeways etc. So my initial take is that they are likely covered. It was also studied as an HSR station in the 2005 statewide EIR I believe?
No, because widening is wasteful and does not benefit drivers, while being actively harmful to the community. Providing robust alternatives to driving benefits everyone.
June 25, 2025 at 6:10 PM
No, because widening is wasteful and does not benefit drivers, while being actively harmful to the community. Providing robust alternatives to driving benefits everyone.
If there’s one person who stands out, it’s @controller.lacity.gov
He was perfect for the Controller role, and is already doing what you outlined. I think his time there has prepared him well enough for Mayor without spending so much time in LA gov that we lose him to the dysfunction and status quo
He was perfect for the Controller role, and is already doing what you outlined. I think his time there has prepared him well enough for Mayor without spending so much time in LA gov that we lose him to the dysfunction and status quo
June 25, 2025 at 6:06 PM
If there’s one person who stands out, it’s @controller.lacity.gov
He was perfect for the Controller role, and is already doing what you outlined. I think his time there has prepared him well enough for Mayor without spending so much time in LA gov that we lose him to the dysfunction and status quo
He was perfect for the Controller role, and is already doing what you outlined. I think his time there has prepared him well enough for Mayor without spending so much time in LA gov that we lose him to the dysfunction and status quo
Thanks to you + transit allies in the CA leg. for making this happen (and Gov. Newsom for being amenable). Now moving forward, we still have work to do to ensure ATP funding is boosted to make up for the retained cuts, and ensure no state funds are used for harmful highway widening projects
June 25, 2025 at 5:55 PM
Thanks to you + transit allies in the CA leg. for making this happen (and Gov. Newsom for being amenable). Now moving forward, we still have work to do to ensure ATP funding is boosted to make up for the retained cuts, and ensure no state funds are used for harmful highway widening projects
And originally shamelessly stolen from @stano.bsky.social for westwood
June 10, 2025 at 2:17 AM
And originally shamelessly stolen from @stano.bsky.social for westwood
Reposted by Connor Webb
Look at the difference between NorCal and SoCal.
In the Bay, out of the 11 Senators repping urban areas, 8 voted yes.
In LA County, out of 13 Senators only 4 voted yes.
The LA delegation is killing housing bills.
In the Bay, out of the 11 Senators repping urban areas, 8 voted yes.
In LA County, out of 13 Senators only 4 voted yes.
The LA delegation is killing housing bills.
June 4, 2025 at 1:21 PM
Look at the difference between NorCal and SoCal.
In the Bay, out of the 11 Senators repping urban areas, 8 voted yes.
In LA County, out of 13 Senators only 4 voted yes.
The LA delegation is killing housing bills.
In the Bay, out of the 11 Senators repping urban areas, 8 voted yes.
In LA County, out of 13 Senators only 4 voted yes.
The LA delegation is killing housing bills.