Note: The output shown below is from the Communication Access 

Realtime Translation (CART) system used in the On-Board 

Circulation and Seating Subcommittee meeting #12 and is 

generally unedited. The CART system was used to provide an 

accommodation to persons with hearing loss and persons who are 

deaf, and was streamed in real-time and available to the public on 

the internet during the meeting. 

UNITED STATES ACCESS BOARD

RAIL VEHICLES ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ON-BOARD CIRCULATION AND SEATING SUBCOMMITTEE 

MEETING #12 TELECONFERENCE

JANUARY 15, 2015

CART Operator: Beverly Early

>> PAUL BEATTY: Let me do the introductions, and we 

will turn it over to Blair. Good afternoon, this is Paul Beatty, 

welcome to the 12th meeting of the on-board circulation and 

seating subcommittee. As you know, since anyone may 

participate in subcommittee suggestions no time of public 

comment has been scheduled during this two-hour call. 

The CART chat box is available. So, we will be able to 

monitor it for those participants who are only using CART to 

participate and who desire to raise a question or make a 

statement, please make it in the chat box and we will 

communicate to the subcommittee chair your question or 

your statement. Please remember to give your name when 
speaking. And as a reminder, you have no other 

subcommittee meetings scheduled so at this point, the next 

meeting that you will get together will be the full committee 

meeting February 26 and 27 here in DC.

I am going to turn the call over to the subcommittee 

chair Blair Slaughter. Blair take it away.

>> Blair: All right Paul, thank you very much. And you 

know for some strange reason I thought we had one more 

meeting after this. And that -- I apologize for that 

confusion on my part. I assume everyone has got the 

materials off the website. The agenda, the matrix and the 

latest update to the vertical access.

I do not have the agenda in front of me because Ken 

Shiotani went to make copies so everyone else here in the 

room will have a copy. But if there is no questions or 

discussion on the agenda, I would like to approve that and 

move forward

>> This is Bob Reuter. I did not get a copy of the 

Vertical Access part. I got everything else.

>> Blair: It was not E-mailed Bob, I got it to the Access 

Board rather late so I think it was on the website but I will 

not swear to that.

>> I have the website over here

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: This is Melissa. It was added 
to the website yesterday.

>> Blair: Thank you. Okay.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Paul, if you could remind folks to 

mute their phones when they are not talking, that would be 

great.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. You guys heard.

>> Blair: Thanks Marsha. Hearing no discussion on 

the agenda, I will assume it's accepted by silence.

>> Bob: -- Frank: Blair, I have a question. You 

mentioned the Vertical Access information. That is where. 

Here it is I got it that's in the -- okay. The meeting 

materials.

>> At the very end.

>> I didn't realize how far at the end it was.

>> Blair: What I would like to do is do a quick revisit 

on the matrix there were some things I tidied up in that and 

added to based on my notes from the last meeting. I don't 

think hopefully there wouldn't be anything conscientious in 

that. But let's see the next meeting I guess is our full 

meeting in February. What is the date for that again Paul?

>> PAUL BEATTY: The date will be February 26, 27 and 

most likely --

>> PAUL BEATTY: This is Paul Beatty.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: This is Melissa. Our next 
meeting will be February 26 and 27 and that's here in our 

office with full committee meeting.

>> Okay. There we go.

>> Blair: All righty. The first them with -- item with 

note number 3 on the matrix there had been discussion 

before about cab and -- what I did I went back and tried to 

clean that up. And make sure it was clear based on the 

comments that I had gotten before on that. So, we can run 

through that. Some of this is from the original text, but 

basically it says, cab ends of cars and commuter cars may 

have legitimate conditions that impact the end doorway. 

Those conditions are system clearance, structural 

requirements, operator having appropriate physical space 

and the operator's safe field of vision. And then proposed. 

The cab ends of vehicles that may be used coupled within 

the train, cab ends of transit cars such as subways may have 

30 inch clear openings if there is legitimate issue for 

operator having appropriate space in creating wider path 

that (inaudible) safe field of vision. B, cab cars regardless of 

mode may have end door of 30 inches if there is legitimate 

issue again for the operator having appropriate space in 

creating a wider path adversely impacts the operators safe 

field of vision. Movement through the doorway shall not be 

necessary for individual to get to an accessible seating 
space. Now, that's a -- that one may be ticklish for some 

modes and may be worth discussing. The last one, C, says 

if the path from an accessible area to the cab end door is 

required as part of the vehicle's accessibility, the minimum 

clear dimension of the door -- then the minimum clear 

dimension of the doorway is 30 inches. Only safety devices 

may overlap the path through the doorway by a maximum of 

2 inches at or about 34 inches minimum from the floor. I

put that in there because it really -- that meshes with some 

of the other conversations that we have had about the clear 

door -- the clear path through other doorways, where we 

reach back and talked about allowing 4 inches overlap of the 

path above 34 inches. Since we are talking about a path 

that's 2 inches less than 32, I reduced that maximum overlap 

by 2 inches at 34 inches above the floor or higher. So, that 

was the reason for adding that in. Does anyone have 

any -- any thoughts one way or the other about this note 3 

or any parts of it? 

>> Frank Maldari: Blair, this is Frank from MTA. When I 

am looking at the chart here I am not seeing at least on the 

commuter rail where note 3 is even listed. So, is it 

supposed to be for specific requirement?

>> Blair: Let's see. Bear with me a second Frank.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: This is Melissa Anderson. I
was going through the matrix in the notes I think over time 

some of the note numbers and the notes have become 

disconnected.

>> Marilyn Golden: This is Marilyn. It's under I think 

the fifth or sixth column clear mobility seating location. It's 

in five places.

>> Frank: Doesn't seem like it's applicable there 

though.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: It probably really belongs in 

the --

>> Blair: You are right Frank. The note reference is 

off there. That note in the clear mobility aid should refer to 

note 4, I believe. Let's see, wait a minute. Bear with me a 

second here.

>> Frank: Yeah.

>> Blair: I believe that's correct. I will doublecheck 

that but I believe that was incorrect reference for note 3 on 

those items. Okay.

I am not sure, looking back, that it had a place -- oh, 

yeah.

>> Frank: Should be the first column right.

>> Doorway width between cars.

>> Um-hmm.

>> Blair: And --
>> Frank: It says see note 7 maybe that's supposed to 

be 3, yeah. Yeah, maybe that's supposed to be 3.

>> Blair: All right. That makes sense. 7 should be 3. 

Okay.

>> Frank: Assuming that you are going to get that 

figured out. It does get confusing when you start moving it 

around. The real question I have is I know you tried to 

identify specific reasons why and you think one of the things 

I don't know if we discussed this but typically on MU cars you 

have B end doors and the B end doors is not an operating 

cab. And historically you did not have to have the larger 

opening in the B end doors because you didn't have to go 

through the B ends of the cars if it was not in the accessible 

path you did not have to have a larger opening. So, if you 

make this door 32 inches, now, the way the rules are written 

then the aisle has to be wide enough to allow you to get 

there. So, when you do that you start removing seats. 

Every row of seats between the end of the K and the 

vestibule would have to have one seat removed. And --

>> Blair: Right.

>> Frank: So I am requesting the need to do that.

>> This is Bob Reuter. Two days ago in Metro in 

Washington shows the importance of having that clear 

doorway because everybody had to exit from the rearend of 
the train. And I am not sure whether it was a 6 or 8-car 

train but everybody had to exit through the rear door after 

that smoke incident in the L'Enfant Plaza station, which 

meant everybody had to go through the length of the train.

>> Frank: If you are going through the length of the 

train all of the FM doors at 30 inches the B end doors a the 

32 doesn't really help you out that much.

>> The question I was brought up maybe the A end 

doors should be 32 also. And there needs to be a clear 

path. I am not sure how we go about this but there was 45 

minutes where people were moving to the rear of the train 

long before the fire department got there and the emergency 

equipment.

>> Blair: Yeah. Just so we don't plow too much of the 

same ground the original discussion was around -- driven 

because of the cab car issues and some vehicles were being 

so narrow having a full width pathway created an operational 

issue. If the -- I think the driver was always that if access 

through the door was necessary to reach accessible space, 

then it had to be -- the idea was it had to be no less than 30 

inches on a cab end. But if you have a vehicle that didn't 

have access to that door anyway and that access isn't 

necessary--well because you have got an aisle way that 

doesn't -- isn't will not accommodate someone in a 
wheelchair, then it sort of comes off the -- it's required. 

>> Frank: Right.

>> Blair: Because you couldn't get there anyway.

>> Right.

>> Blair: That's why I tried to plug in the caveat if it's 

part of the path to get to an accessible space, then that 

really -- that should establish it if it's a transient car and 

another vehicle that has its seating condition such that the 

pathway is there and it's 32 inches all the way up to the door 

then -- then at least that cab end door with can be 30 inches 

so you can get through the door.

>> (inaudible).

>> Frank: I think the wording the way you have it is 

the opposite way if that was your intention I think you need 

to change the wording. If you read -- the way it reads now 

is what you just said if you have -- you have to get from one 

spot to the other. And you have an accessible path then the 

door has to be made to make as wide as the path. If the 

path is not narrow too narrow to allow you to go through a 

door anyhow there is no benefit having a wide door.

>> Blair: Right.

>> 38.93 if you want to take time to reword it that's 

fine with me if that's your intention.

>> The intention was if you have a vehicle that has a an 
otherwise compliant pathway to the door, that the minimum 

acceptable width for -- because of cab issues the issues 

mentioned structural clearance issues, whatever they are that 

drive that, that it can be no less than 30 inches. In those 

conditions. So I will -- I will try to rewordsmith this so that 

it's perfectly clear. There had been a comment because the 

initial comments were around subways and very tight gauged 

vehicles, I'm sorry tight clearance vehicles, we should add 

MU cars and all cab cars. And because of the changing and 

structural requirements and what not that have been pushed 

down on the industry and the visibility for the operator. So, 

I changed the -- I tried to change the wording so that any 

vehicle rather that's operating within a train that you know 

has a cab function, this could theoretically apply to. But 

there is conditional -- conditional conditions for this to be 

acceptable and they have to be legitimate and shown before 

you squeeze that down to 30 inches.

Okay. Well, I will re-smith that so that it's -- there is 

no question there. But I think the principle is understood, 

it's to take care of cab situations that are otherwise -- the 

path up to that point is compliant to the 32-inch path.

>> Blair, this is Marsha Mazz, I have a question. Your 

second sentence in item B, how is that different from what 

you say in item C?
>> Blair: Well, okay, if --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: I read item C as being very broad.

>> Blair: Yes. It is somewhat repetitive. One 

advantage Marsha, if the doorway is 30 inches, and let's say 

we get into an evacuation situation where anyone 

whether -- maybe they were ambulatory when they got on 

the train or in a wheelchair the possibility of moving 

someone on a narrow rescue chair becomes very possible 

even if they narrow aisleways and that -- having some 

standard for the door even if it's not at the end of an 

accessible pathway can be a benefit.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: All right. I understand what you are 

saying --

>> Blair: I understand what you are saying I want to 

make sure we are not repeating something for the sake of it 

or repeating if a different way.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: I wasn't sure if you were trying to 

address two different situations. It seems to me like the last 

sentence in item B is covered by item A. Unless you mean 

something different by vehicles accessibility.

>> Blair: Item A and item B would really refer to two 

different modes. I would say.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: No, no, no, I am talking about B and 

C.
>> Blair: B and C okay.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: When you say the cabin doors 

required as part of the vehicle's accessibility, I am assuming 

you mean provides the -- you know required accessible 

pathway.

>> Blair: Yes. In other words, if by the way the 

vehicles are designed or the way that the system is operated, 

if you bored in controlled areas -- let's say you got on a 

vehicle that vehicle has accessible pathways because you 

may board on the vehicle where accessible space is already 

occupied, and you need to go to the adjacent car. Then in 

that case, that vehicle -- that system is providing 32-inch 

pathway up to that cab door, which is now 30 inches. And 

then I did that because I felt it was necessary to say, okay, if 

you are going to have this path through a 30-inch doorway 

then I am going to get a little further and design the issue of 

overlapping as well so there is no question about that.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Okay. Thank you.

>> Blair: Okay? It's really sort of repeating but this is 

the nature of regulations sometimes it sort of repeats but it's 

applied to --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: I same very hard not to be 

repetitive.

>> Blair: I understand.
>> MARSHA MAZZ: I want to make sure if you are trying 

to say something different we accurately capture it so we 

have two separate provisions instead of one.

>> Blair: Okay. Well, as long as I --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: If it's something different I want to 

be sure I understand that so when we get to the writing we 

capture it.

>> Blair: Okay. I will try to make revisions to make it 

abundantly clear for everyone so when it gets to that point, 

you know, you won't be scratching your head going what did 

this guy mean? And then when I read it again I will 

understand what I meant.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> MARSHA MAZZ: And we know your number too.

>> Blair: Unfortunately I have to change that.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Hey Blair. On this issue I am sure most of us are 

familiar with, what happened on the Washington Metro. The 

smoke was in the front. Everybody had to -- the rear of the 

train was fairly clear so people were going through the train 

to get to the rear to get away from the smoke. It was 45 

minutes before they could get the power shut off and fire 

department there. That's 45 minutes somebody in a chair in 

the front car would have been stranded in the front car with 
the smoke. And I am wondering whether we need to revisit 

that clear path through the train.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Bob, this is Chris. It's 

(inaudible) the committee wants to reinforce evacuation 

chairs be provided on all trains. So, when you do have an 

emergency it's, you have a way to get your chair down that 

aisleway and hopefully out of the smoke.

>> Bob: Of course this means providing access chair 

on every car or every other car and having the crews trained 

in using it.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Well, in fact, in Washington there 

weren't in first responders on the train in that 45 minutes.

>> That's what I am saying there weren't any.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: There was nobody to operate the --

>> That means the crew would have to operate it.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: And I would just say while I 

could (inaudible) it's located in the control cab, that it is so 

simple, basically a 10-year-old could operate it.

>> This is Gary Talbot, Blair I think the biggest issue the 

path of travel is less than 30 inches already you are not 

getting down the path of travel to the door. That's the case 

that you are covering.

>> Yes.

>> Wider doors everywhere are better there is no sense 
to make it overly wide because you can't get there anyway.

>> Blair: Right.

>> Bob: I was talking about revisiting maybe we need 

to have the wider aisle.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: I think my professional opinion 

I don't think they are viable. I think (inaudible) in a way that 

basically would stall and --

>> Bob: I was just thinking -- I was not on a train I 

ride on the first car it seems and I do ride that a lot.

>> Blair: Okay. All right. Well, so --

>> Frank: Blair think you got my point you were 

explaining -- the -- well I am asking is that necessary to 

have a wide door when the aisles -- the aisles are like 20 

inches wide.

>> Right.

>> 20-inch wide aisle do you need a 32-inch door.

>> Would evacuation chair go down a 20 inch wide 

aisle?

>> They go down 20?

>> Frank: It's like with anything else the narrowest 

path is the one you have to account for. The way that we 

design as you know, you make the path accessible from the 

entrance to where your parking location is to the bathroom if 

you have one. You are creating that 32-inch wide corridor 
to get them to the area that the wheelchair would have to but 

it doesn't allow the wheelchair to go from the full length of 

the car and car to car to car. That would be a big big 

change to decrease or increase the aisle space. I mean you 

would be removing a seat every row of seats it would be 

significant on some of the commuter rail cars.

>> People don't like the wide --

>> I have to agree with you. Unfortunately, you know, 

you talk about up to 20% almost 20% of the seats in certain 

cars that's a big hit.

>> Bob: I am very aware of the issue the thing is with 

the Washington subway brought it to the forefront.

>> Blair: Some of these things are, and I think it will 

come out in the investigation, as it often does, is that 

procedure and processes and preparedness on the part of 

the operator you know, if the second or sometimes the most 

critical part of anything in vehicles we -- you can't depend 

on the vehicle to do everything. There is the people side of 

it that it sounds like maybe didn't kick in as it should have. 

I mean that seems an inordinate amount of time of a system 

as integrated as Washington Metro to respond. And 

I -- when the investigations are done we will all know more. 

And I don't want to speak out of turn, you know, to -- a few 

days after an event.
>> The fire department was in the station but they 

couldn't get to the train because they weren't on the -- they 

had no way to confirm the third rail was off.

>> Blair: I know our railroad before fire men address it 

it has to be grounded to the rail for their safety. And you 

have to be able to make those -- those -- you have to have 

everything in place to do that as quickly as you can I will 

leave it at that. So, all right. Let's see.

(Discussion off record.)

>> This is my day to pick on Ken Shiotani for a change. 

I asked him to make copies and then he didn't give me all of 

my stuff back I am sitting here -- I think it was a test or 

something. Okay. Otherwise it was a very short meeting 

because I was running out of notes in like the next page.

Okay. I think I want to leave note 3, the way it is with 

the understanding of what it was intended to do as far 

as -- with respect to cabs and end of car conditions where 

there either is a clear path in the case of a cab or not a clear 

path and how they relate to accessibility. You know, I think 

it's leaving it at 30 inches at a minimum is probably a wise 

thing to do I don't know if there are conditions that whatever 

want to drive it lower than that. Especially within the same 

car where you like all of your doors to be as common as they 
can be. Versus the you know A end B end being different 

unless there are strength issues associated with it. So, if we 

can, I have got my notes made on that I will dress that up. If 

we could move down to note 5. Thanks Ken.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair: There was a conversation last time about our 

note that says some quantity of sheets should be easily 

removable or convertible to term temporarily accommodate 

individuals using wheelchairs. Based on the comments from 

the last time, I made an addition to this and this is sort of in 

the form of a suggestion, and just, also, to make sure that 

the discussion was understood. And that is that there 

should be some definition of the quantity of seats that 

should be removable per vehicle by mode. Removing or 

converting seats should not generate conflicts with other 

requirements or accessibility and where conflict occurs the 

applicable requirement should be waived. Now, that sounds 

like a get out of jail free card. But the intent is if you 

are -- if you are doing like what we did on Amtrak and we 

take a bunch of seats out in the back end and here we go, do 

the -- does the clear floor space requirement for everybody 

that's now occupying the space where we pulled out a bunch 

of seats does that apply strictly? You know, how do 

we -- how do we address that -- that issue. It seems a 
simple thing but it could become a point of contention at 

some point for an operator who says, well I will take out 5 

seats does that mean 5 folks in wheelchairs can be in those 

spaces or is it some smaller number or some bigger number. 

So, think about that a second and let me go through the rest 

here. Depending on the mode convertible seats may have 

reduced functionality this is especially true of complex seats 

used in inner-city training where mechanical function 

interferes with other comfort features. Convertible seats 

will fall into the area where the seats need to be transfer 

seats some language to address this possibility.

I wrote that because my understanding, and wherever I 

can, I like for inner-city because people are in our seats a lot 

longer, I don't want a compromised flip up seat to be the 

seat that I am intending to the transfer seat. I think that's 

for us at Amtrak at least that's sort of an unwritten policy. 

So, you know, do we need to add some language around that 

or -- it's one of those things that you can chew on for white 

a while. And I don't know, you know some seat 

manufacturers you can't tell if they are the flip up seats or 

not that's especially true when you get town to commuter 

seats and things you wouldn't know. But on a higher 

functioning seat would recline and tray tables and all sorts of 

little widgets like we like to have on the inner-city trains 
could create a less than adequate situation. So, again think 

about that. We get to I think the real meat and potatoes the 

operational practices are not part of the RVAAC respond 

however by requiring removable seats -- I'm sorry remove 

available or convert bible seats there is implied if not defined 

requirement for provider to offer a seat removal plan and 

service depending on the mode or the nature of the 

operation the impact to the provider do be substantial in 

absence of a policy for provision of service equipping 

vehicles is irrelevant. As an example, many but not of 

Amtrak's car use a system that allows seats to be easily 

removes but removing seats for group is not consistent. In 

tier 2 trains (inaudible) removing seats especially difficult in 

the case of transit systems where seat volume is more time 

of day critical the logistical problems of managing the car 

with missing seats could dramatically impact the system 

ability to provide its service. An example is what type of 

group movements should be reviewed with -- reviewed and 

community and industry input to craft more defined 

language for the NRV NPRM how is that for a mouthful?

>> Geared to the high-speed trains?

>> Yes.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Where is your next career in 

rulemaking?
 (LAUGHTER)

>> Gary Talbot if I could comment. I think I remember 

this from many, many months ago, you know, to me having 

the ability -- requiring the -- that you have a certain number 

of seats I don't know what that proper number is let's say 

like you said 5 seats or something that could easily be 

removed, there are certainly a lot of other issues that go with 

that. But just letting the vehicle be the vehicle a minute by 

doing so you open the opportunity for folks to be able to tap 

into public transit and inner-city rail versus always being 

split up. All of those other issues are real issues that would 

have to be sorted out. My concern is I certainly -- I agree 

with you whether it's Amtrak or other agencies, where folks 

have you know -- one day you try to do it and you do it so 

easy you can't believe it it's an issue the next time that you 

try to do it somebody says it's like $5,000 to remove your 

seats and put it back in. To me it just makes sense if there 

is a way to require certain number that are the convertible 

seats. I agree with you on the flip up seats no argument 

there at all more just your fixed seats if you require the 

ability to remove X number, you know, all of the upon 

requests and how that works out and all of that stuff is an 

operational issue for each entity versus just the base unit has 

that requirement already. And then you can tap into it and 
it wouldn't be irrelevant if people knew about it and they 

could actually do it where today often the answers -- the 

answer is just no you can't.

>> Talking to seat manufacturers basically they said if 

somebody if there are a enough people want them we will 

figure out a way to do it.

>> Blair: If we write the specification for a seat it 

includes that functionality, then that's what will happen to 

the seat it's just a matter of of facts.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: My question is (inaudible) is is 

it overall percentage or is it only that width is reachable by a 

certain group.

>> Bob: It's important to be reachable by an accessible 

route or be usable.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Here is -- I am just referring to 

the top. If I have a bi-level commuter rail coach, I can 

(inaudible) I only got access to one level. If it's top rail I 

have vestibules at either end that's all I have got with space 

to work with. On Amtrak, there I have got a lift and I am 

providing (inaudible) at (inaudible) and to the rear to 

what -- then you want to call that out.

>> Blair: That's why I noted it would make more sense 

to define it by mode or should be defined by mode. 

Because you know a couple bear of -- couple pair of MU cars 
only have so many seats that are to your point accessible 

anyway. Even if you took them all out you might not be able 

to get to that spot.

>> Bob: I was thinking MTA he has a 20-inch aisle 

pulling 5 of the seats out in the bulk head in or the B end 

you still can't get back there to them because you can't get 

through the 20-inch aisle

>> This is Frank again I thought we were talking about 

making the removable seats inner-city train not commuter 

rail. I think we talked about commuter rails a little different 

you mentioned it in your operation. There is no place to put 

the seats and they need to be available as soon as the 

customers are -- you are rushing into the -- you are going 

into the rush hour you need the seats back there is not that 

independent kind of flexibility to customize the train to suit 

anybody. I mean, we get classrooms that come in this that 

say we would like to all be in the same car you can only 

accommodate them the best you can. If there is a lot of 

people on the car they tried to cut off the car depending 

where you get on they can only do so much because there 

are other customers on the train as well.

>> You could take automatic of the seats out of the car 

Chicago tried that.

>> I voluntary volunteer for that inner-city.
>> I wouldn't mind if I didn't have to ride the train.

>> Blair: The beautiful part about you know being in a

service where we have scheduled trains and reservations is 

it's a little easier to plan and plan in advance. If we 

make -- if Amtrak is -- knows that and Philadelphia there is 

a group getting on we need to remove X number seats 

before the train leaves New York that's what we do. And we 

sort it out. You know? But those cars aren't going to hit 

Washington and the world come to an end because we are 

going into crush loading or rush hour if we have to cut one 

of those cars out or substitute it. The operational pressure 

is just not as intense as it is on a commuter situation. So, I 

don't mind -- I don't mind making that you know an Amtrak 

inner-city issue. I use those terms because I think it would 

ADA inner-city and Amtrak are interchangeable. We will talk 

about that in a little bit. But 

>> One of -- -- the questions that came up on this 

whole issue here is where do you define the difference 

between computer -- commuter and inner-city when you 

think about the cars or services in California.

>> Well -- go ahead. Marsha?

>> This is Marilyn actually. From DREDF I am not sure 

how much this applies to Bob's question though I had other 

thoughts should I wait Blair or --
>> Blair: Well, that is a -- that is an important 

question. If someone from the Access Board could weigh in 

on that definition inner-city is defined as Amtrak. So, 

unless that definition gets changed, it's still Amtrak. 

Understanding of course when that language was crafted, 

California really wasn't operating any services it was all 

Amtrak. So, I --

>> Now there are subcontract services like the one they 

tried to put in and in Indiana.

>> Blair: That issue is going to raise its head over and 

over again with PRIIA. We were just discussing some of that 

earlier today. But I don't want to -- I can't rearrange that 

world. That is something that will have to be more 

conversation about. I don't know that we can really do it 

here on this call, but we do need to raise the flag that it 

needs to be address the or else it's going to create an 

opportunity down the path for a level of unintended 

discrimination based on you know, the literal interpretation 

of some of these things. So, anyway all that said, Marilyn 

Tess, your turn.

>> Marilyn: Thank you. You know, I -- at DREDF we 

haven't had experience with this problem other than on 

Amtrak. So I leave it to others to say --

>> Of course.
 (LAUGHTER)

>> Marilyn: What is there. But I -- I am not sure a lot 

of this extra language is needed or may be more appropriate 

in the report that explains the changes that you are 

recommending. Rather than as part of this chart, which 

suggests that it's part of what we are recommending, you 

know, to the board as part of their rule. It seems to me that 

all of the operational aspects have to be handled by DOT. 

And what RVAAC can do is as this report moves forward 

there will be a very short list, as far as I know, of 

recommendations to DOT of things that they should include 

in their rule. They have to work a lot of this out. I -- I 

don't know that we need to -- I am concerned about the 

reference to cost. This seems to me to be a civil rights issue 

the costs has to get absorbed. You know, I am hoping that 

in the final analysis DOT will require the additional fee to be 

nominal. As regard -- again, I am speaking to the Amtrak 

situation. Because I don't have a sense of the issue on other 

modes. In terms of the issue of loss functionality. When 

you think you are saying is that if a seat on Amtrak has a 

table and a switch or you know, any -- any of those kinds of 

amenities, then you remove seats and you have a big empty 

space those amenities aren't there for each spot somebody 

takes. If that's what you mean, I don't think that's the case 
where people are asking for seats to be removed, they are 

expecting you to replace all of these many am machine 

trees. -- amenities. People are asking for a which to get a 

lot of people to ride. I don't want to give away the store. Is 

that what you mean about the functionality? Because I think 

that's a -- I don't know. I am raising whether that's a side 

issue. I know that for us as an advocate I wasn't thinking 

about oh, my good, everyone has to have a table when you 

are putting 6 wheelchair users in a car that usually holds 

two.

>> Blair: Marilyn that's part of it, yes. You cornered 

that. There was also -- there is two -- when I talk about 

the functionality if I make a seat that -- one of the ways of 

accommodating more people in a seat it has foldable 

elements it collapses to get out of the way, that when you 

look at every other, beyond the area in a we are say we are 

requiring for removal of seats, or convertible seats, the 

challenge can be that on an inner-city train that has bells 

and whistles you know lots of recline and other things that it 

may be difficult to achieve convertible seats at the same 

time. Now, I just boxed myself into a corner saying it's 

difficult versus impossible.

I think that -- that what you said Marilyn is more 

applicable that when you take the seats out that you have 
space -- spaces that are now arguably no longer compliant 

because they might not have the light switch it should have 

because it's not near where the permanent acceptable space 

is those kind of things. If -- and I want to -- the reason I 

included that I wanted us to think ahead a little bit to try to 

avoid problems and just anticipating as much as we can. 

You made a very good point about what goes in the notes 

with reference to the matrix versus the report.

I added these things so that we could see them and I 

was not intending on leaving them in the notes parted of the 

chore is to go back and glean out the commentary from what 

we are recommending and then referencing it in the report 

so it's captured. So, it's going to be an inner-city 

requirement only like I said I don't have a problem 

swallowing that pill as "the" inner-city railroad.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: This is Chris. I don't know 

necessarily if you want to limit it directly to inner city, this is 

a growing PPP (inaudible) and other places. (inaudible) there 

is a private entity that wants to set up commercial rail service 

from Providence to Wooster. Now it will cross state lines 

and they actually have got a whole bunch of analysis and 

they are going through that process. This technically 

inner-city it's crossing state lines

>> It's interstate.
>> CHRISTOPHER HART: It would not be an Amtrak 

service.

>> And some of these commuter lines are getting to the 

point of being super commuters you are coming from south 

bend Indiana to Chicago you are talking two-hour commute 

or more.

>> You are saying then it has the same issue as Amtrak. 

Is that --

>> Yeah.

>> Marilyn: I am not saying that it doesn't, I didn't 

mean to suggest it doesn't I didn't know. I leave it for you 

who know more about commuter to say if it applies. To 

Blair regarding functionality. I see what are saying now 

there are two levels there is functionality for the people who 

are taking space in the area where seats are removed but 

there is also the -- the function -- I guess you are saying 

that part of the functionality you want to provide to seats 

that are -- that when they are not removed you don't want to 

compromise that by the removability. That's a design issue. 

I hope it would fall under, you know, if you spec it out they 

will design it. You know, it would be a shame in brand new 

cars to think XYZ isn't possible. For the disability 

community there is often at least for DREDF there is often a 

little bit of a concern of a fox hen house situation when the 
board -- which legitimately may not have another way to

accomplish the task ask the industry can you do this. If it's 

not in the industry's industry to say they can they will say no 

which may or may not mean it's possible. I am not sure a 

better way to accomplish that I am just expressing that 

concern. I would hope that we are so early in the process 

that we can make a recommendation, we can ask and answer 

as many of the questions as we possibly can to the extent 

that we can't it goes -- it gets kicked down the road to the 

board and to DOT to establish the viability of some of these 

things. But I see our job is to raise questions about what 

can the future accomplish. And I would really, really 

hesitate to start saying no to anything at this stage. I don't 

think our job is to open doors here. Not close them.

>> I agree with you Marilyn. You ask an engineer he 

can do it, ask the operator, he can't.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Depends on engineer that you ask too.

>> Not the guy driving the train.

>> No, no, they will do anything that involves a throttle 

and a (inaudible). No, I mean I have dealt with lots of 

engineers who only know how to say no. Regardless. They 

won't take the challenge. Okay.

>> This is Jackson, I have a question regarding the 
definition for inter-city and whether or not it's the intent that 

the application of the word inner-city covers high speed 

equipment as well as is shown in the matrix.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Well, it does (inaudible).

>> I thought the law said it included inner --

>> That's my understanding.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: That (inaudible)

>> The thing that gets confusing now is the fact that 

there is a great push from some of the various operators to 

move away from having Amtrak provide the service even 

though it's inner-city they would be taking over Amtrak 

service.

>> Blair: Right. I have referred to that in the vertical 

movement draft that's at the back of the process as let's see 

inner-city cars built for Amtrak any bi-level equipment used 

by successors Amtrak (inaudible) acquired by not entity or 

company sanctioned under PRIIA. So, you know, if an 

organization thinks they are going to go in and run the route 

but because they are not Amtrak they are free from the 

obligation to apply that was my reason for adding that in 

there. And I think it is the unintended consequence of PRIIA 

where inner-city is defined as Amtrak only.

>> Unfortunately, it's -- yeah, I was looking at the 

definitions in section 37 of the regs. And they define 
inner-city rail transportation meaning transportation 

provided by Amtrak.

>> Amtrak, yes.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Let's not forget Alaska 

(inaudible)

>> We are not touching Alaska.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: They are quite different 

(inaudible).

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair: Okay.

(Discussion off record.)

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair: Anybody from Alaska on the call in sorry 

about that. Russia that's what it was.

 (LAUGHTER) 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: You can see Russia from 

Alaska.

>> This is Marilyn. They have done a good job on 

some things they are models. I also think that the timing of 

calls we forget Alaska and Hawaii we need to push it even 

late are than California. I don't know if they have been good 

on the seat removal issue.

>> They have a lot of other problems in Alaska the 
trains are good in Alaska are the ones operated by the cruise 

lines not necessarily by Alaska Railroads.

>> Blair: Well, there is understanding by some of these 

entities that everybody's money is green.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair: You know? Regardless of how you get on 

the car your money is the same color. So I think to the 

cruise lines, you know, they understand that kind of 

customer service.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: I think as you think about the 

wording you may also want to call out tourists railroads and I 

don't know what we call them whether it's (inaudible) railroad 

let's say Walt Disney decides to build it's own line from 

Los Angeles airport. That type of thing.

>> I am wondering if PRIIA has in an effect on the 

39 -- 37 because it actually changed the definition and now 

we have got the Supreme Court thing trying to define what 

Amtrak is.

>> Blair: That could be dangerous in itself. If we can 

let's move on through the notes. Note number 6, I added 

from the last meeting the wording to the accessible path in 

the note about let's see if the vestibule is arranged allow free 

flowing path into the passenger area or aisle leading to that 

area then the most -- wait a minute. Then the most 
restrictive width of the vestibule near the door which be less 

than 44 inches but in no case can the unobstructed path to 

the accessible seating area be less than 32 inches. I hope 

that makes sense that's what I had on the notes to add in so 

the path was -- there was no deconstructing of the 32-inch 

path. And, also, I added the word "should" on the issue of 

the path being a straight line across the doorway the 44-inch 

wide projected volume through the or width through the car 

across from door to door. And I think my understanding 

again was everyone pretty much with the exception from the 

folks from BART thought that was -- thought that that was 

okay. Some agencies are already doing that.

>> There is one exception there. I think Buffalo, if says 

they are bidirectional equipment but it's only the right front 

corner that is acceptable. There are one or two occasions 

where you have to move from one end of the car to the other 

two along the accessible route. It's a diagonal doors.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Again, (inaudible) equipment 

so we are not really (inaudible).

>> But Blair just a -- so, you are saying it's vestibule, if 

you don't have in type of a maneuver it's a straight shot. It's 

not less than 52 inches?

>> No, 44

>> I thought here you just said that it couldn't go less 
than 32 inches.

>> Blair: Is 

it-- >> 

Unobstructed the seating area should be less than 32.

>> Yes, that's to the acceptable seating area the 

concept is again it would always be 44 or in -- I have to go 

back and just resitter -- just reiterate in vehicles without 

vestibules or that have -- that have a defined space 

between doors, that you want that space across the vehicle 

if you have got doors on both sides of the vehicles you want 

that 44 inches because that guarantees you a level of 

maneuverability and that's assuming that you are going to 

turn and go into an area where there is seating or you 

remain in the wheelchair wheelchair or whatever adjusted to 

keep the flow in and out of the vehicle as clean as simple as 

possible. And, again, I think you see that occurring 

already. Some of these already have that. You know it's a 

clear shot across it works very well for ambulatory and folks 

using wheelchairs. Okay.

I did add some comments, let's see, at the end of that 

note end of 6B where I noted other providers and builders 

are seeing a shift -- flow on and off the cars and I think 

there were comments from Marsha that said doo sign can 

work against controversy. And defined positions 
encourage bad habits. And that was around the 

conversation around you know if -- if we place things so it 

sort of naturally makes folks con degree gait to an area if 

we do it correctly that works well. If we do it poorly, then 

it creates a bad habit and can put people in the position 

where you are depending on their sensibilities and courtesy 

to do the right thing. 

I think what we are seeing there is more and more of the 

trend to improve the speed that people get on and off the 

trains regardless whether they are walking or in a wheelchair 

and getting folks away from the door is very critical to that. 

So, there is no other comments on that we will let that dog 

lie. These -- some of these notes will come out and be part 

of the notes in the report that refer back to these items so 

that we don't lose any of the conversation we had. Okay. 

In 6D -- you know, let's see. Bear with me just a quick 

second. I had a note to add this part. Hand holds should 

terminate 32 inches from the floor or follow the guidelines 

for objects-- it should be objects that protrude into the 

defined floor space an example a vertical handhold or 

stanchion at a seat that blends into the seat at 34 inches 

optionally if the stanchion must go to the floor then the floor 

mount is setback 6 inches from the path of travel.

I have --
>> CHRISTOPHER HART: (inaudible).

>> Blair: Bear with me folks I am shuffling paper here.

(Discussion off record.)

>> Blair: Let's see because something disappeared 

here. Oh. I was missing something still. A couple of 

bolts or something. Okay.

I apologize. Okay the stanchion must go to the floor 

the floor mount is setback 6 inches from the path of travel 

the transition back (inaudible) at or above 9 inches that is to 

help provide improved movement by people using 

wheelchairs particularly during high demand where 

compliant are crowded with passengers in no case should 

the offset be in a walking path where it would create a 

tripping condition. The idea there, of course, is that you 

know, if you are taking those stanchion down and can keep it 

out of the pathway that's a good thing. If -- if doing that 

doesn't gain anything, in other words, the stanchion is 

maybe next to a wind screen or something where you know, 

offsetting doesn't do anything. This goes straight to --

>> (inaudible).

>> I am a little confused too why would you want the 

handhold to not to intrude into the path? I don't understand 

the benefit of having inches away from the path, I mean --
>> Blair: Well, I have no problem in dropping 

that -- that off. But it was -- that's why it's prefaced at the 

front wherever practical. That if you could -- if you offset 

something -- if you have stanchions that goes floor to 

ceiling if at the very end of it, and it's near a -- it's not in 

a -- one side of it isn't in a path you can offset it, and then 

take it to the floor, and it doesn't create a tripping hazard at 

the offset, in other words, no one can go by it at the offset, 

then it just gives you some foot plate clearance and things 

like that could be useful for wheelchair. It may not be 

practical depending on the application that's why it was 

prefaced the way it was. The 34 inches is the dimension 

that's given for things to protrude into the clear pathway on 

the architectural side. We discussed that before, to try to 

keep things in a defined pathway from protruding unless 

they are at 34 or above because they snag the controls 

armrests and things on wheelchairs.

>> Frank: If you have a pathway that's 50 inches wide, 

why do you care about anything of -- any of this that's why 

it's confusing to me. Why you have to terminate a handhold 

if it creates a pathway that's 50 inches why why would you 

have to terminate at 32 inches

>> Blair: Frank, that's a good question. Here again, 

the thinking was that, okay, you have 50 inches you exceed 
by huge numbers what is required but if you are boarding 

trains in -- and I am not from a commuter railroad this is all 

just observation and speculation, when you are boarding a 

train and you have crush loading and a lot of folks getting on 

and off that 50 inches suddenly becomes a lot less and even 

begins to crush in on 32-inch path anything that you do that 

doesn't affect the functionality of that stanchion or rail that 

maybe gives you a few more inches of pathway, would seem 

a good thing to do. That was the intent. And maybe I 

missed the mark but that was the intent.

>> Bob: I was looking at the plans for the new cars 

that aren't on the -- aren't furnished yet.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Bob, this is Paul Beatty can you 

speak up?

>> Bob: I was looking at the plans for a new car with 

longitudinal seating there would be no transverse seating at 

all in the car. Which means that aisle is going to be about 

60 inches wide. In the early drawings has the stanchions 

running from floor to ceiling every third seat or so right at 

the front of the seat. Which means you are going to have 60 

inches but you are going to have the stanchions there 

divided by the longitudinal seats up into sections. You 

know, I can't see where this would have any major impact. 

In fact it gives you something to hang on to if you are going 
down the aisle.

>> Yeah.

>> Frank: Yeah, I guess the thing that comes to my 

mind is sometimes you want a handhold that's in a lower 

area I don't know maybe fore kids to short on or shorter 

people to hold on to. Generally speaking, you know, on rail 

cars that I am used to commuter-wise you try to end the 

stanchion before the floor but you incorporate it into the 

wall. So, you know, bringing stanchion down and offsetting 

it 9 inches or 6 inches I am not sure what you are gaining by 

that.

>> Bob: Manual chair user when I go in I will sit near a 

stanchion and wrap my arm and it so it's within the crook of 

my elbow that hold me that's right around 34 inches high, I 

suspect.

>> Blair, are you thinking about the fact that you 

want -- especially in a rapid transit car you want to have a 

lot of vertical handholds, but you want to have the clear 

space so it's the foot -- the wheelchair footrests as you are 

going in is that the idea of the 9 inches?

>> Blair: Yes, that was exactly right. That's why it's 

prefaced wherever practical. So that not a would not be a 

hard and fast requirement. But it's -- it's a thinking point 

you design in the car that you could make an easier path 
without creating a monster and not having a negative effect.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: And to that end I will just 

mention what happened in Boston when I am going to 

Florida it's a lot more difficult to sweep across the path out 

at the end of the day versus going around all of these posts. 

So the (inaudible) please -- (inaudible) seat because we don't 

want polls every three feet.

>> Right. I think Blair mentioned that in one of the last 

calls around poles. If you could avoid that, wheelchair meet 

rest clearance and gives cleaning people floor clearance.

>> This is Gary Talbot there is a host of different modes 

where any time you have that open space down towards the 

bottom of the floor you are going to move with people. 

When you are in a crowded environment especially and you 

are cruising along you may not even realize there is a pole 

there if it terminates at the seat or gives you a gap you have 

a better chance -- and folks who are ambulatory have 

something to hang on to and wheelchair users can use it to 

too.

>> Blair: I could advocate to shake sure or ask the 

Access Board that that should not become a shelf but should 

remain whenever practical because you want it to be, help to 

be a design guide source. There may be situations that 

doing that create a problem poll floor to ceiling or pole tide 
to a seat has a certain number of strength. If you offset it 

you create a crank condition. It could be structural unsound 

but it might work. It's simply to say, we are assuming 

that -- we are legally compliant in all of our dimensions but 

if you do these things, it's going to be an ADA benefit, so, 

you know -- going to be an added benefit. To those of us 

that are close it not obvious to the designer or engineer 

looking at this four or five years they may scratch their head 

go oh, we didn't think about that. Maybe that it 

doesn't -- that it doesn't impact anything negatively to 

follow that suggestion.

But if they do it it could create an ease of movement. 

That's the intention of that.

>> Frank: I understand better what you were trying to 

do. I can think of times when it would be good I can think 

of times when it would be bad that's what you are trying to 

allow.

>> Blair: That's why -- that's why I added -- I tried to 

think what could happen? Well if it's too far out in the floor 

you put a loop sore somebody to trip over. So, yeah 

that -- that is why I wrote that the way that I did. And trust 

me, please, if you want to mark this up and send it to me I 

will -- I will do my best to include those clarifications.

>> Frank: I think the point is if it's vertical stanchion in 
the middle of the car with 6 inch offset that's not what you 

are trying to do but defined space at the end of the vest 

actual I could see where the 6 inches would be helpful at 34 

inches. So I guess, you know, you could do it there, I guess 

depending how you tie them to the wall if it becomes part of 

the vestibule wall it doesn't seem like it's a big problem. But 

I think it's a good guideline I wish there was a better way to 

word it so it's easy for everybody to understand. I don't 

know if there is a bet are way to worry about it.

>> If you come up with something let me know. The 

last thing certainly not included to -- intended to put a loop 

out in the middle of the car for people to trip over that would 

be a claim generator as we call it. Write blank checks or 

sign blank checks and let the folks fill them in tables to the 

pole.

>> The problem with all of these dimensions here is 

everybody seems to all of these people seem to think that's 

what they are supposed to do. But you say your pole should 

terminate no lower than 34 inches to the car people I will 

guarantee will put it right at 34 inches.

>> Blair: Yeah, but the 34 inches is the dimension 

that's been defined. And some of these things it becomes 

critical to lean on those definitions or else you know you 

never get it right.
>> Right. But how it says in the -- shall be no more 

than 12 in 1 when you have room to make it 14 in 1 this is 

problem putting something specific I am not saying we 

shouldn't but when you say a minimum 34 inches I can 

guarantee everybody is going to be at 34 not some other 

maybe more opt mall number

>> Blair: Yes, that is the unfortunate part about, you 

know, if you had the other extreme defined then it would 

always be between 34 and 65 as a number. But you have to 

put -- if you don't put something in there then it will always 

be wrong to be detriment of people that are trying to get 

through there.

>> Frank: I think you have to have a number that's 

reasonable and make sense.

>> (inaudible).

>> Frank: If there is no reason why you can't go to 38 

you probably will. I mean it all depends on how energetic 

and good the designer is but the way -- if you word it 

properly and you explain what you are doing, and the 

designer is interested in making it work he is going to try to 

do the best that he can. I mean there is always an envelope. 

If there is a reason why you can't go above 34 there might be 

then he won't. But if there isn't then maybe he will.

>> Blair: If we don't say anything
>> You are stuck. You will get the wrong thing. 

(LAUGHTER)

>> I definitely have to say something the way it's stated 

it won't preclude. Again, it falls under the category if you 

know the answer let me know.

>> Blair: Well, here is the other thing too, having been 

on -- on the design end of it, and if you are trying to design 

things, you can have -- things change over time. You could 

have a design off or engineering department that is very 

cued into accessibility and what it does for every un. And 

then in five years that will turn over and you have a 

department that is looking at the letter of the law.

And in some cases you need and the designer or

engineer or somebody trying to do the right thing, the stick 

the enforcement of rule to show to someone who is -- well I 

am not even going to describe in my best terms what -- but, 

you know, sometimes that's all folks want. They 

want -- why does it have to be that way? Well, it's better 

that way. Show me? Well I don't have the time to do the 

research and go do that. I would rather just flip over the 

CFR and go here (indicating). This is why you have to do it 

go away and do it.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> How accurate that is.
 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair: You know? There is an old joke about 

arguing with engineers it's like wrestling with a pig when you 

are done you are tired and dirty and the pig enjoyed it.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair: You know? I am looking across at an 

engineer.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Are you tired and dirty?

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair: My apologies to the engineers in the room

>> As a designer I spent a lot of time tarring with 

engineers and no offense intended but it goes not just for 

engineers but all of us, we have all been on the dirty end and 

enjoying it. So, wherever we can define things and not 

make it a back breaker it would just make our path a little 

easier down the road to get things done correctly.

>> Yeah, this is Marilyn. That's the good -- that's the 

positive it shall one of the many positive functions of 

regulation. I don't know if we are more or less done with 

this little section I had a question on B, 6B. Can I ask that at 

this time?

>> Blair: Yes, because looking across I think we are 

almost done with the notes. There is something over on 20. 
But -- okay.

>> And B you have some new language in 6B. What is 

the role of your italicized paragraph? I think you have done 

a great job here in trying to capture the, you know, the 

different parts of the debate. I don't -- I don't think 

that -- well, I don't know. -- I might -- I my think it doesn't 

completely reflect the discussion in that I -- it seems like any 

concern about -- it seems like there was a lot more concern 

about having poles than there was desire foe them. It 

wasn't like 50/50. Other than that that's sort of nitpicking. 

But what is your trajectory for the paragraph is that part of 

the report? I don't think it's going to be part of your actual 

chart, right?

>> Blair: No. The chart will be gleaned down to what 

is absolutely necessary. And then the commentary, which is 

the italicized, and in some cases it will be the nonitalic 

depending when I go back through what is needed just to 

state the clarification for the matrix. It will go to report, and 

I left that in there Marilyn because I thought it was worth, the 

discussion was valuable.

>> Marilyn: It was and this is a good capture of it I just 

didn't know if it would go in the report or it would stay in 

your notes here to the chart, which I think elevates it to a 

level that it maybe doesn't deserve. Because it's more of our 
suggestion for requirement than it is part of that.

>> Blair: Right. It will go into the report but most 

everything you see in the notes that isn't absolutely 

particular to the note from a definition standpoint will go 

over to the report. Or otherwise remain captured, so we 

don't lose it in the process and when the -- when the board 

starts chewing through some of this stuff they will have the 

explanations and it will cue us for answering questions that 

they might come back with down the path.

>> So based on the metric cars in Chicago that have the 

really wide doors and vertical stanchions do not affect 

accessibility? Wasn't that's where it came from?

>> Blair: B?

>> Well, B down there the providers of stanchion. In 

the doorway.

>> Blair: Where it says other providers or builders are 

seeing a shift? What's the --

>> in reducing vertical stanchions in the door areas to 

increase passenger flow.

>> yes.

>> It seems like this came up because we discussed 

Chicago that has the 50 or 60-inch wide doors or something.

>> Blair: Well, no, there was a lot of discussion around 

what different agencies have done, and are finding out is 
improving you know access and circulation around the 

doors. It all originated with the whole concept of having 

a -- a clear vestibule-like path across the vehicle where you 

are required to make a turn to get into the accessible area of 

the car to ease the process of getting on and off the vehicle. 

That was the original point of all of this. And what we found 

was that different agencies were seeing and trying different 

things some of which do not include 44 inches clear across. 

But have stanchions and things in the path. There was also 

the discussion around vertical railing or stanchions that went 

from floor to ceiling or near to the floor in doorways, and so 

we had that conversation as well Bob, but again with the idea 

that we keep all of the handholds that we need to keep, and 

keep them in the places where they do the most for folks, 

where they present as little obstacle as they can at the same 

time.

>> This is Marilyn. Bob, that was -- I think that came 

mostly from a couple of different sources one WMATA I think 

was the first entity in some meetings ago talked about 

removing stanchions from the middle of that open end area 

of rapid rail cars helped them decrease dwell time because it 

facilitated passenger movement. And then one or two 

industries, you know, manufacturer participants said that the 

industry trend was also to, you know, that the trend in 
design was to get rid of those poles or stanchions in the 

middle of that open area. I think that's what Blair was trying 

to capture in that sentence. I -- I think it's a great -- we 

think it's a great sentence. And I hope it doesn't get taken 

out of the discussion.

>> I was just commenting on where it came from. I

think -- I think it's (inaudible).

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: I think one thing that I that got 

lost somewhere in the notes was some kind of vertical 

(inaudible) right inside the door frame. So folks can grab on 

as they step over the gap. And I -- I don't know if it was 

somebody else, but --

>> This is Gary Talbot. I remember that coming up but 

then we got in the discussion the more you put the vertical 

grab bars adjacent to the opening, you are going to have 

people congregate. That was part of the reasoning for the 

(inaudible).

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Well (inaudible) against what 

Bombardier and Kawasaki are doing on subway cars around 

the world. 

>> Here is the 6th seat the handholds provided to 

adjacent doors to aid alighting -- maybe at the 32-inch 

minimum or 6 inches less than clear opening door, 

whichever is greater. Okay? Vertical handholds intended 
as boarding aids that project into the clear door opening --

>> That was that whole --

>> Blair: So I think we are okay. And I think 

previous -- there is other language already in the ADA that 

talks about handrails. So, we are trying to --

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Yeah, I think we are --

>> I think I sent you a photograph Blair of the 

stanchions the handrails that I was talking about.

>> Blair: I think you did Bob. I think we are okay with 

that. And again the idea was that you know we have the 

handrails for folks that are ambulatory or in wheelchairs and 

we make sure that they are safe dimensions, and then 

hopefully folks just don't stand there in the door as a matter 

of practice. But, okay. >> If we go over to 6 -- bear 

with me.

I did that one. We are on 22, yes. Let's see. Is 22 in 

red? I have a black and white copy.

>> Mine is too.

>> It's unlined in green.

>> Blair: Green was something we had looked at 

before. The code is if it's green we already looked at it and I 

let it linger and red and underlined is the change so -- okay. 

That's the matrix and its notes. I noted the mistakes with 

the note refuse residences. And we can move over to the --
>> By the way, Blair that's absolutely phenomenal piece 

of work.

>> Blair: I appreciate that Bob. And coming from --

>> Marilyn: It really is you have been incredible.

>> Blair: But you -- this is all coming from you guys 

we are I am putting the words down.

>> Marilyn. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

>> We know better.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair: I will come back with the Amtrak arguments 

later.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: (inaudible)

 (LAUGHTER)

>> I think they should double your salary.

>> I am over here in Ken's world I have to make it back 

to my world at some point.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair: I took and I have not looked at vertical 

movement, that's the fall or way back summer been a long 

time since we originally looked at it I went back through and 

had notes from Andre Gagne and Marilyn primarily reand 

went back through and tried to clean it up. This is 

up -- everything is in here, I think. But I have on the first 
applicability that is in italics, it's that this applies to new 

bi-level inner-city lounge cars built for Amtrak and any 

bi-level equipment used by accessers to an Amtrak route 

acquired by another entity or company sanctioned under 

PRIIA. Long moons any car with the primary function that is 

to enhance the passenger experience beyond the purchased 

coach or sleeper accommodation. This irrelevantment 

extends to any bi-level car with or without food service 

except diners that have nonrevenue seating available to all 

passengers on the train on a first come service. First dining 

service with lower level kitchen are not required to have built 

in Vertical Access. While not considered true bi-level cars

single-level cars known as dome cars Chris,

 (LAUGHTER)

>> That offer elevated area design for viewing scenery 

with or without food service must have a number of 

accessible seating spaces and vertical access to reach to 

viewing level. Accessible space is in the dome car which be 

convertible with use by other passengers when wheelchair 

users are not present.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: And --

>> Where are you? Sorry.

>> Blair: Where am I the draft recommendations for 

vertical movement of passengers using wheelchairs or 
otherwise mobile impaired between levels on new inner-city 

Amtrak --

>> if you are looking at the web page, it's below 

the -- below the matrix.

>> Thank you.

>> All the way down.

>> Blair: At the very bottom.

>> My mistake got it go ahead.

>> There goes Amtrak's last dome car.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Well --

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: It occurs to me if you guys may 

want to think about putting in some kind of exterior viewing 

areas that are that can be provided on excursion for Alaska 

Railroad, or some of the cars in Colorado, they stand out on 

this roof, and take photos of the mountains or the bears or 

(inaudible).

>> Blair: My thinking Chris, and I will -- I will add 

something to that effect. The intent was if that -- that 

enhancement that enhanced experience thing is excluded it 

should be -- included it should be accessible. And I 

could --

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: I think the object going 

forward should have the committee certainly call it out it 
would be helpful for both the board and for DOT to 

understand the overall (inaudible).

>> Gary Talbot I completely agree with Chris. We saw 

that on passenger vessels where you would have like the 

sightseeing and sun deck with no Vertical Access, you know, 

we rode in sections where you had to be able to get to the

first section but to me it kind of feels like that. Although I 

realize you want -- we want to get up top we want to get to 

where everybody else is.

>> Right. And, yes, and there is -- (inaudible) persons 

otherwise ambulatory can't get to these either. And that is a 

growing issue. We see it at Amtrak with the dome and 

(inaudible). It's a quandary. Okay. That said, then there is 

suggested additional (inaudible)

>> Blair, before you go on one of the things that I 

don't -- I am not sufficiently familiar with (inaudible) but one 

would think we are talking about new cars, this should also 

apply if some provider decides to provide longer service on a 

nonexisting Amtrak route when you (inaudible) limits 

existing.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Excuse me this is Paul speaking we 

need one person speaking at a time so the CART operator 

can record things.

>> Sorry.
>> Blair: Thank you Paul. Yeah Chris and Ken here in 

the same room at the table.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair: But this is Blair by the way. So, Ken makes a 

very good point as did you Chris. PRIIA is in my mind is very 

complicated and it needs to be sorted out on I guess DOT or 

DOJ whoever handle it DOT needs to sort it out. Because 

there is existing definitions for inner-city that implies only 

Amtrak that's the way the ADA states it. So, I -- I can 

rearrange that and if nothing else for you folks at the Access 

Board it will let you stir that pot but I will capture all long 

distance trains whether existing mounts or not.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: And long distance.

>> Define long distance.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: For private offering.

>> Blair: Okay. I will make that note, very good. 

Okay.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Thank you.

>> Blair: Okay. Let's see. If we go t suggested -- all 

bi-level inner-city long distance lounge cars, of course, I'm 

sorry I repeated that. All bi-level long distance coaches, all 

bi-level inner-city long distance sleepers, and all bi-level 

inner-city long distance diner cars accessible from the 

adjacent car or dining tables provided in the lounge car. So, 
I left that in there, and the rest of the document is primarily 

around more general requirements. The guiding principle 

that that Marilyn provided, and I think they are valuable for 

everything that we are doing. If you look at the 

requirements, and I won't go through all of them if there are 

comments please mark those up and send them back to you.

>> One comment that I think I have sent back to you a 

couple of times it hasn't been incorporated on number 10.

>> Okay.

>> The list may be vertical or stair lifted it should say 

platform lifts or incline platform lifts.

>> Blair: Okay. Or incline. That was what I wanted 

to -- wanted to infer okay incline got you. Incline platform. 

All right. I suspect after looking at it that the chances of 

doing the incline are probably remote because it just 

consumes up -- consumes so much space at the end of the 

day.

>> This is Frank. I just a quick comment. I was 

wondering if you could send an editable document

>> Yes, sir.

>> Frank: I appreciate it it makes it easier to have 

comments and see where it go

>> Send it to everybody if you would.

>> Blair: Okay. Is it a Word document online?
>> No it's web formatted.

>> This is Melissa you can just go through and copy 

what is on the web and paste it into a Word document and 

you will be able to edit it. The matrix the matrix you can't 

do it the agenda and Vertical Access information you can 

copy and paste into a Word document.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: (inaudible)

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair: Okay. So, at the end of the day I think from 

the Amtrak perspective, we are simply agreeing that, yes, 

this is physically mechanically possible to -- without having 

built one but we know that they have existed and I--from my 

conversations with pretty hard headed engineers they pretty 

much accept yeah we could probably do this. It has a lot of 

other implications which is why I -- my suggestion is and 

what I had written was to keep it into the lounge cars from 

what little work that I have done just trying to plug things in 

to the other passenger cars, the consumption of room space 

and seat space gets to be pretty heavy. I made the 

comment in the -- what I -- well, in what I deem is the 

economic risk. And you know when we work through this 

and talk through this we ended up adding things that were 

sort of the general requirements. A lot of the risk whether 

they were physical or otherwise kind of went away. You sort 
of figured out how you could do things the risks were 

minimized if you thought through it. However, the if you 

look at number one under economic risk it's apply Vertical 

Access of nonrevenue cars have limited 

economic -- encourage passengers to not use stairs for 

(inaudible) travel. Primary cause or let's see. The primary 

costs are any extra costs for the equipment and maintenance 

over time. Apply Vertical Access revenue cars coaches and 

sleepers would have a direct -- a lost revenue capacity. The 

physical impact in corresponding physical impact must be 

reviewed prior to NPRM. And I think that's a given for the 

Access Board. Part 3 is probably the most, you know, brings 

on a lot of conversation. And that is, there is very real 

possibility that the economics will no longer justify building 

bi-level inner-city long distance cars. The bi-level cars on 

inner -- long distance trains, (inaudible) economic goals due 

to the extra height was nice the bi-level inner-city car came 

about just before the number of airline passengers 

surpassed the number of train passengers and railroads were 

trying to maintain service. Now, bi-level cars allow the 

railroad to increase the number of passengers per car, the 

(inaudible) on higher capacity car is lower than the profit or 

in our case loss reduction is greater. There is a huge risk 

that the economic efficiencies of bi-level inner-city cars will 
be lost to the accessible features this comment does not 

apply to lounge cars as defined at the front of this 

document. Proper study should be made. That is you 

know, that could be a very conscientious statement but at 

the same time in the real world, you know, I think our goal is 

to -- if we have cars that let you go upstairs and enjoy the 

scenery in this country that folks should be able to go 

upstairs and enjoy the scenery and not be down in the trees. 

And we do that on cars that we -- that at least Amtrak 

considers nonrevenue we don't charge you anymore or less 

for accessing or not accessing that car. And so, I think it 

becomes a very key feature that and being able to get access 

directly to the dining car in the lounge car or possibly even 

going from the lounge car into the dining car and not having 

to depend on having foot and walking to your room or eating 

something downstairs in the long when you would rather sit 

at a table with linen and that sort of thing. 

>> I want to be careful we don't create a situation where 

you could look at a car why we spend more money to build 

bi-level when we can build single level and haul as many 

people. That is a potential. Whether it's Amtrak or anyone 

else. So,

>> Blair, are these -- this is Marilyn. Are these 

concerns primarily for your revenue cars? And if so let me 
make sure that's clarified in point 3 that maybe that's not 

what you mean. If you do mean that, it might help to just 

be clear that that is what you mean. You don't mean all cars 

you mean revenue cars.

>> Right. That's why at the very end this doesn't apply 

to lounge cars as defined in the front of the document. This 

would be cars that you are buying a ticket for like a sleeper 

or coach because the others, the lounge -- we drag those 

things around they don't have -- they don't make money 

there is no ticket to get in there if you don't have it folks 

won't ride or not as many people will ride because it's a nice 

amenity. I see this as we are trying to make sure that we 

get that amenity acceptable.

>> Gary Talbot. I certainly support the lounge cars 

Vertical Access solution, I think it's a great idea. My concern 

would be if that were the only car even access to the dining 

car to me it does you know just -- especially the coach car I 

think the sleeper is a separate issue for me. And maybe I 

am not the best one to speak on that. Because but back to 

the coach car, maybe either I choose not to have a sleeper I 

don't want a sleeper or maybe I have a sleeper but I want a 

coach car I can see where you sit there five, six, seven hours 

and enjoy the ride kind of thing on a second level. So I 

understand what you are saying on the revenue side, and I 
can -- as an engineer I am struggling with where we would 

put something like for like the sleeper car. Although I am 

still not ready to bail on it I am just saying that I can 

understand you know how difficult it might be. That the 

coach car is the one revenue car that just -- I just -- you 

don't typically stay? A lounge car for five, six hours. You 

would go there maybe like do your dinner, and the 

reason -- one reason is other people want to get in there.

>> That's true.

>> Right? I don't know I have never been in the top but 

I imagine --

>> But Bob has.

>> I would think there is more pressure on the lounge 

car on a bi-level in the top level than there would be on the 

bottom level because there is just cool stuff going on. So, 

that's where I would think, to me, if you know if you could 

just take existing stuff and say boy if you could make like a 

coach car and lounge car and connect from the lounge into 

the dining car vertical accessible with those elements, to me, 

whether you are talking -- talking new construction or new 

cars or existing bi-level cars, I don't know how much better 

than that we could hope for except like I said I am not 

walking away from the other stuff. But those two pieces, to 

me, are incredible.
>> Bob Reuter the difference between the lower and 

upper level is day and night. I have always ridden on the 

lower level, one time on a capitol limit, I was in an ornery 

mood. I guess I drug myself down the hall of the sleeper, 

into the lounge car, up into the seat I stayed there as long as 

I could as long as my body allowed me to. But the 

difference in the ride the difference in the view the difference 

in the experience was day and night. It was just that much 

better on the second level. And on another case when we 

had a problem on the train, and we wrapped some stuff 

around one of the axles and they had to get out the people 

on the second level didn't even know what happened.

>> Blair: Well, to Gary's point, the space consumer is 

going to be the lift and what happens at the bottom and top 

of it. I thought about -- I will give everyone an example. 

The way Amtrak operates the lounge is coupled between the 

coaches and the diner. If we -- if we open up the pathway 

between--into the first coach you could arguably have you 

know accessible seating in that coach. And do some 

convertible seating that sort of thing.

>> That would be a great idea.

>> That's a great idea.

>> Blair: The tricky part comes, I talk about this as 

one -- a little further down, let's see, I
>> This is Gary Talbot you do that with one lift right?

>> Blair: Yeah. If we can that's a good segue 

Gary -- segue to another thing. In ancillary requirements it 

talks about item 1 says cars with upper level restrooms must 

have accessible restroom if they have access available from a 

car with a design with Vertical Access. Cars with Vertical 

Access with restrooms on the lower level are not required to 

have upper level rest rooms. The new PRIIA bi-level cars 

have a nonADA restroom on the second level and a reduced 

number of restrooms on the lower level. The net number of 

toilets remain the same and the seating is expanded on the 

lower level and reduced up -- and reduced on the upper 

level it's a trade-off.

>> As long as you are not spored to sit opposite the 

restrooms which they do a a lot of older Amtrak cars

>> The reasons for restrooms on the second level is 

negotiating the stairs is a growing problem for ambulatory 

passengers primarily due to age, I think I can say. If lower 

and upper level must have acceptable restrooms the primary 

function of the car the lounge as enhancement to travel is 

greatly reduced because the number of passengers that can 

use the car is reduced. So, the point -- and in a nutshell if 

the lounge is the car have Vertical Access you have 

accessible restrooms downstairs there is not accessible 
restrooms. Because you use the lift to go back down to the 

restroom.

>> A lot of senior citizens are using --

>> Yes, absolutely. And inebriated. 

>> For the lounge car.

>> It's the --

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: This is Melissa.

>> This is David. Okay. You have the coach car 

attached to the lounge car what about the restroom on the 

upper level of the coach car?

>> That was the point. That if -- somewhere in the 

process of providing accessibility and restrooms if you 

have -- I would do this scenario. If you have a coach that 

has no upper level restrooms that is coupled to the lounge 

and that coach as a result of being the car it is, your 

access -- if you can go from the lounge to the coach and sit 

in the couch the accessible restroom is downstairs in the 

lounge.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: This is Melissa. You have 

about 5 minutes to finish up, four minutes to finish up.

>> Okay.

>> Biggest problem I think with the coach and the 

lounge and the diner and all is going to be the simple 

problem of -- it's not, I know it's not our venue, but it's 
operational and getting them to put the cars in the right 

places in the right order.

>> Blair: You are absolutely right. That's a torement 

of the railroad, yes. The fortunate part is that typically when 

a train is made up it's running a route over and over again. 

They don't -- they tend not to twist the cars around too 

much unless one has to go to the shop. So they would stay 

pretty much together. People have to do their job that's 

what they are paid for make up trains. But that's Blair's 

opinion on the railroad. But, yes, whatever -- whatever 

comes out of that we just have to live with and do it.

>> I have ridden single level sleeper only once in all of 

those years has accessible room been opposite the dining 

car so I could get in the dining car.

>> And in Blair's world it wouldn't be that way Bob, I can 

assure you.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> You are not running Amtrak yet?

>> Blair: No.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: So I think -- this is Melissa I 

think we should wind down. I know that you haven't 

completely finished the topic of Vertical Access but we may 

be to a point where we need a draft report so that we can 

have that prior to the February meeting. And the full 
committee can review something at that point.

>> Okay.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We will work -- I will work with 

Blair and come up with deadlines on-- and you may just 

have to do some editing on a draft and go back and forth 

between now and then to finish up.

>> Blair: To that end Melissa, any comments or 

thoughts that people have please take the time to mark them 

up. I realize it's -- you know, I am taking biting a big chunk 

for Amtrak and anyone else in the inner-city business doing 

long haul trains but -- but I would appreciate the thoughts 

and expertise of everyone on the call to -- to make 

comments on the document.

>> Will there be subcommittee meeting at the 26-27 

meeting?

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We haven't determined the 

agenda for sure yet. The it's probably likely there will be 

some time for you guys to meet but we don't know for sure.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: (inaudible) we need to have 

some kind of draft.

>> Maybe to go over the final draft of the draft.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: And do not think Melissa or I 

will not call people to (inaudible).

>> Blair: Okay. All right. Well, I have nothing else 
unless someone from the Access Board has something else 

to add some advice, some suggestions some assignments.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Blair, you had mentioned 

before that you would put together a draft report is that stale 

the case or do you need volunteers to step up.

>> Blair: No, I will do that at least try to get a rough 

draft out Melissa because -- I think -- I think it can be more 

valuable if I do the initial draft and get like some of these 

notes out of the notes within the notes out of the matrix 

notes. So they are in somewhat logical order. And then I 

may scream for help.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay.

>> I certainly appreciate and I think you have done a 

yeoman's job.

>> Unless there are volunteers to say, Blair I will do this, 

don't worry about it.

>> You are doing such a good job that --

 (LAUGHTER)

>> He is doing a fantastic job, I don't think anybody 

should take over.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Flattery will get you everywhere.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. I think we are about 
done today thank you everybody for joining us and Blair you 

and I need to talk soon I will call when I have some more 

information.

>> Thank you very much.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you buys.\

>> PAUL BEATTY: Operator this concludes the 

conference call so you can shut it down.

(End of meeting.)