**Note 1**  **: The output shown below is from the Communication Access**

**Realtime Translation (CART) system used in the Interior Vertical Circulation (Vertical Access)**  **Subcommittee meeting and is 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.** 

**Note 2: Soon after the March 5, 2014, conference call (in creating new**  **subcommittees), the Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee dissolved the Interior Vertical Circulation (Vertical Access) Subcommittee,**  **replacing it with the newly created On**
**- board Circulation**  **Subcommittee. The following**  **CART output (** **from the March 5 conference call on**  **vertical access) ha s**  **been placed in the electronic docket under the heading “On** 
**- board Circulation Subcommittee Meeting #1.”** 

U.S. Access Board Washington, DC Wednesday, March 5, 2014

>> Welcome, and thank you all for holding. I would like to remind all parties that I will be opening lines momentarily. After that they will be placed on listen only. I will now turn the call over to Melissa Anderson. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: We want them all open.Good afternoon everybody. T hank you for joining us

for the Vertical Access meeting. We will start off with the simplest of who joined us on the conference calls here

-- here in person we have Marsha Mazz, Christopher Hart and then we will go around and introduce people here at the table Rose can you tell us who is son the line please? >> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: On the line I have Robert Reuter Billy Altom, James Weisman, Andre Gagne, Steve Roman, Kenneth Shiotani. M arilyn Golden, Blair Slaughter, Robert Kimrey. I have a Francis out of area code 312. F rank Maldari. M elissa Shurland. E d Hoff and Crystal Lyonns. M elissa? >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you. A nd let's go around the room and say who is here in person at the Access Board. Paul, you want to start? >> PAUL BEATTY: Paul Beatty. >> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Rose Marie, Access Board staff.
>> Jim Pecht. >> Melissa Anderson. >> Lisa Fairhall. >> Aromie Noe ( inaudible). >> Chris Hart, public board member and liaison.>> MARSHA MAZZ: Marsha Mazz, U.S. Access Board.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. T hank you. We sent out the agenda prior to the meeting so the first thing on the agenda after introductions is approval of the agenda. S o, if everybody has looked at it, has it in front of you, does anyone have any comments or any
-- anything that we need to change on the agenda before we approve it? >> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: They are on full

- time talk. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Not hearing any comments can we consider that an approval of the agenda >> MARSHA MAZZ: Yes. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: We will consider the agenda approved we are in the process of considering subcommittees things may change since we don't have an official

-- well, we have the Vertical Access subcommittee. B ut we don't have a designated chair at the moment. I am going to be facilitating this discussion so we can continue to move forward. We want everybody's input on this, and the third them on the agenda is d iscussion of subcommittee scope and objectives because we don't have the other committees fully formed. I want to talk about the scope and objective of what we have in front of us today. S o, wecan
--

>> That's not on the website, did you E

- mail it?
>> PAUL BEATTY: Go underneath the agenda. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: The scope of our meeting is for

-- >> MARSHA MAZZ: It doesn't have scope and objectives on it. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: The scope, it's the scope of all of our subcommittees review the current requirements for accessibility on rail cars, and because they were originally issued in September of 1991 and it's not been updated, we are looking for recommendations for updating them. T he objectives and purp ose of our meeting is to recommend proposed revisions to update improved or expand based on technological changes and changes in the environment and circumstances since 1991. S o, that's kind of the basics of our scope and objective for all of our committe es. S o, today we are just going to talk about Vertical Access. A nd we recognize that it's an important issue but it's also a very narrow issue that is just part of the larger discussion on on board circulation. S o, we sent out and put on the website the current regulations and laws that affect Vertical Access on rail cars. A nd they only apply toinner

- city and they are in the Americans with Disabilities

Act inner

- city and commuter rail provisions issued in 1990, amended in 2008. I am going to read thes e to you, you probably have all read them, but we are going to go over them again. So, for inner

- city rail transportation on new inner

- city cars there is a special rule for bi

- level dining cars for individuals who use wheelchairs. B i

- level dining cars sha ll not be required to be entered by an individual who uses a wheelchair. H ave a space to park and secure a wheelchair. O r have a seat to which a passenger in a wheelchair can transfer or a space to fold and store such passenger's wheelchair or have a
res troom usable by an individual who uses a wheelchair. So, those are, when you

-- when new inner

- city cars are purchased now, the bi

- level cars can't be required to have those amenities. N ow in food service section, this is still under the inner

- city rail. Bi

- level dining cars on any train which a bi

- level dining car is used to provide food service, if such train includes bi

- level car purchased after the date of enactment of the act table service shall be provided to individuals whose wheelchairs to other passenger's and appropriate aids and surfaces, including a hard surface to eat will beprovided to make sure

-- including individuals who use

wheelchairs and passengers traveling with such individuals. S o, what it really boils down to is we cannot require bi

- level dining cars to be accessible to, you know, for people in wheelchairs. B ut it also does require that basically equivalent service be provide in the lounge car complete with, you know, just means that you get table service rather than going up to the dining car and experiencing the dining car. S o, those are the restrictions that we have to work with. And I think the first place to start is, I think there is some desire among the committee members to provide bi

- level access in some situations. S o, in order to get started, I think we would like to decide which modes this might be appropriate for. And our mode choices, the ones that we are addressing in the rule are rapid rail. W hich are like our subway system. L ight rail, which are more of our street

- level, you know, running it through the city on a track in the street frequently. C ommuter rail, which are the trains that operate during peak service bringing people in and out of suburbs into city center. T hese are just examples they are not comple te descriptions. A nd then inner

- city rail, which is primarily Amtrak. A ndthen we have

-- we don't have a lot of regulations for

high

- speed rail, we know it's out there and coming we want to make sure we include that in our conversation. So, does anybody have any comments on which modes that they feel would be appropriate to maybe include bi

- level access in the cars. A nd this is

-- we want to brainstorm we want to hear comments from everybody keep them brief. M ake sure that you introduce yourself, and we know who is speaking so we can keep it accurate on our CART and don't get too bogged down in specific projects or example, you know, personal experiences. I t's more

-- it's more an overall how could we changed system. S o, anybody have some recommendati ons on modes? >> This is Blair Slaughter from Amtrak. >> Hi Blair.
>> I would say in looking at the modes from the top of the list, that rapid rail and light rail are probably going to drop off automatically because of the lack of bi

- level if anyone knows otherwise I know there is some of the old

-- the older or old fashioned style bi

- level sightseer cars in some cities but I am not sure if that would ever affect new equipment. H igh speed is only going to be affected again if there is bi

- level equipmentth ere. S o, then we are down to commuter rail and

inner

- city. A nd quite honestly from my opinion I think the only one that belongs there is inner

- city for vertical level change. I think the nature of commuter services is use two

-- it's too purpose driven for moving people from point A to point B in a regional setting to really gain much by having the vertical circulation. E specially with very close headway of trains and frequent stops and that sort of thing. Even in the case of inner

- city, I think we nee d to maybe work on refining that more

-- is that defined as interstate or intrastate activities, I tend to think of inner

- city rail not being city to city but interstate, state to state, long haul trains where the greatest benefit is grained

-- gained by s tudying the Vertical Access.
>> This is Ed Hoff New Jersey transit, I agree with Blair. I add that it's the nonuniqueness of the two levels in New Jersey Transit, for example, between the top level and bottom level that would say that it would

-- it shoul d not apply to commuter rail. T here is no unique feature or features on one level as opposed to the other. And, clearly in the inner city, especially talking about different types of dining or different features available on different levels, it is reall y what we want to get at.We have discussed that in previous meetings, thank you.

>> This is Bob Reuter

-- >> Speak up, please
>>
-- from Access Systems. I think it's one case in which commuter rails need to be excluded where they are both high level and low level boarding (inaudible) and Long Island Railroad I believe are the two I think of off the top of my head. We need to include high speed rail. F rance has definitely gone double deck cars.
>> Hi, Frank Maldari, MTA New York. Long Island Railroad h as only single level access instead of bi

- level it's only high level on our equipment. A long the lines of what Ed Hoff and Blair Slaughter has said, it doesn't appear this type of service is appropriate for two

- level
access. E ssentially it's just a seat in the different area and the purpose of the bi

- level is only to provide more seats. You don't really have a different function on one deck as opposed to the other. A nd the frequency of the stops requires quick movement from one level to the next to get on and off the train so, I am agreeing with Blair and Ed in that regard as far as bi

- level and commuter service wouldn't apply. I believe that on certain inter

- city, as Blair pointed out. We should be a little bit more clear about which ones it does appl y onthe longer distance ones it's more applicable and

achieve a better outcome thank you.
>> Bob Reuter again. I am thinking of operations like SEPTA and Mark, where they use high and low level platforms. A nd they have doors on both the high and low level. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Does anyone else have any comments? >> This is Marilyn Golden from DREDF. I t doesn't mean that they all don't. W here they do

-- Amtrak is the most obvious, Amtrak and inner

- city is the most obvious target for such a thing. I agree with the other comments other than that. T hanks. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you.
>> This is Crystal Lyonns >> You reached the Maldaris, we can't come to the phone right now, if you leave your name number and a brief message

-- (LAUGHTER) >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you for the side bar. Crystal, do you have something to say? >> Yeah, I had a question. W hat type of rail are the

-- like the Princess Cruise and Alaska the rail that connects to their (inaudible) rail

-->> MELISSA ANDERSON: Can you ta lk more directly

into your phone? A nd I think I heard you, you were asking about what type of rail the trains in Alaska really what mode they really fall into.
>> That's correct. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: And it's a regional inner

- city, it travels from city to city. I think I would consider it to be an inner

- city regional rail. I don't know

-- >> Okay. T hank you. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: I don't know if anybody sees it different than that. >> Blair Slaughter from Amtrak, I would like to add on the Alaska Railroa d and the other services that they run on the Alaska Railroad. T he service has two purposes, one it's

-- obviously, it's transportation for folks that live up there, but quite often their trains are acting Princess tours, they are an extension of a ship l ine. T hey are a land cruise, if you will. S o, they actually fall more into what we look at inner

- city or long distance trains down in the lower 48. T hey really

-- not unlike a lot of our long haul trains they really fit into a place of their own where t heir whole goal is to let you see things. T here was such an effort on the part of thefolks in Alaska to make the second level some of their

cars accessible because if you are selling the view, it's kind of hard to keep people downstairs and sell them the view. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: It's almost a customer service issue. >> Yes. I am sure that's what drove it for them. And it's not an unreasonable thing for sure. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. T hank you. D oes anybody else have any

-- does anybody have any input on high

- speed rail? >> Yes, Bob Reuter. W hen I road Japanese high speed rail the Max trains, which are double deck. You were restricted to the intermediate level, much like commuter cars. T hat intermediate level you didn't s ee much. T hat would be my only real comment on those
cars. I t was small you only had room for one person. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. T hank you. A nd I think those are used more as commuter cars, they are focusing on efficiency and passenger movement getting you from point A to point B. O kay. S o, it looks like I didn't hear anybody that thought rapid rail, light rail should

-- should be considered for bi

- level access. I am trying to narrow this down so we can focus on acouple of areas and move forward

. C ommuter rail, I

guess somebody has strong feelings towards including that in the conversation you should probably speak up it sounds like most everybody thought it didn't necessarily suit the true purpose of commuter rail. >> This is Robert Carlson. A s far as commuter rail goes unless we are talking a long distance, long kind of trip, you know the second level access would be nice but it's probably sort of like the idea on a Metrorail system, you don't want to be stuck on the second floor when you want to get out at the next stop. T here may be some issues about how long it takes to board and alight in that particular case. S o, requiring it to be available might be a little more than we are prepared to deal with. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay.
>> I persona lly would like to be able to access both levels from a bi

- level commuter car. B ut from a tracking point of view, it's probably not all that practical >> This is Bob Reuter again. T he only place I was considering it and thought it was appropriate was basi cally on the tri

- level cars where there is a mezzanine level, if you will, for high level boarding and you go up and down. T here are a few railroads, commuter railroads that use high and low level platform boarding.On the low platform they use low and h igh they use high

level platform. T his is the only place where I see that would be appropriate. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. T hank you. S o it looks like we kind of boiled this down to inner

- city focusing on inner

- city, and we can kind of adjust things
as we go along and learn more about those too. B ut let's focus on inner

- city rail now. A nd I want to talk about the

-- we are going to go to the brainstorming portion 4.3 on the agenda, some of the general principles of bi

- level access potential locations t o be addressed. A nd amenities and other considerations. So, the general principles, what do we expect to gain from this or lose from this. W hat locations do we want to address, dining cars are kind of off the table scenic cars, maybe dining cars if prov ide

-- do we want to provide technical specifications for them to meet? What kind of amenities do you want to reach. D o you want bi

- level access in every car or some of the cars or, you know, and we are talking about the positive benefits of adding it, a nd also, you know, some of the

-- some of the costs that go along with that too, not just monetary, but what do you lose in having to do that. A nd that kind of goes down further into ouragenda. S o, I guess I invite everybody to speak up.

And let's hear some good reasons to do it and let's see what it's going to cost us to do it.
>> Okay. T his is Robert Carlson again. A s far as requiring every car to have second level access, I would say it depends on the type of car that it is. I mean, if you are hav ing you know like a site seeing car

-- a sightseeing car and a cafe car something like that dining room car that each type would need to have their second level access but not necessarily every car on the train. Because in many cases, it's you know it's j ust not practical to do. B ecause, you know, when you think about the practicality of second level access, I would be thinking in terms of, well, second level restroom as well. You don't have to wait to get it escorted downstairs again to use such an amen ity that was not on each level. So, specific cars within a train, that would probably be the more practical requirement. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: That coincides with how we do things in some of the building requirements too. That

-- that a certain percentage or at least one of each type of element be accessible.
>> And that you be able to get from one to the other on one level for another. F or example, Amtrak will putthe a

-- a car that you can get from one car into the cafe

car through the cafe car into th e next car. B ut if you can't get from one to the next, then you have another problem of being able to access it, even if you do have Vertical Access if you don't have the horizontal
car
- to

- car access. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. T hat's a good point. >> CH RIS HART: This is Chris Hart. I just want to clarify, you can correct me if I am wrong, but currently all of Amtrak's bi

- level cars the restrooms are on the lower level for primarily good reason, physics, and water goes to the lowest level possible. ( LAUGHTER) >> CHRIS HART: So, in that sense it may not be an issue about providing restrooms at the upper level that are accessible when in fact there are none. I s that correct? >> Chris, yes. T hat is correct. T hat is a really big issue that we have now with folks that are ambulatory that don't want to go upstairs because they don't want to have a

-- to go back downstairs to go to a restroom. So, the way the cars are configured, the equipment room where the air conditioners and the waste tanks and all of that are, are situated at the end of the car and they areon a level that's between the lowest level and the

highest level. S o, what we have looked at is, it's coming out of course in the PRIIA cars, the restroom on the second level above the waste tanks , so as everything is sinking to the lowest point, it's going the direction that we want it to go. (LAUGHTER) >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Right. N ow you are basically pumping up to that holding area? >> Yes, we are. I t's a vacuum system. I t all works quite well. F rom a physics standpoint, having the restroom on the second level isn't a big deal at all. I n fact, it

-- I think it's good long

- term for our passengers
as we move on. I would like to say, right now I look at our lounge car the sightseer lounge as being the single most important amenity car to have access to the upper level. B ecause you know, it's a car with huge windows, when you are sitting at the seat the lower level of the window is actually below your knees. S o you can see out and down and up, you know, all

-- all that you want to see. T he interesting thing about that car is it is a
nonrevenue car. We don't sell seats in the car. I t's a general access space. You can come and be there as long as you want to be or as little time as you wa nt to bethere. A nd the way trains are typically made up, with

on Amtrak is we will have the lounge car the sightseer car coupled up to a diner on one end and a coach on the other end. A nd, so, if we were to provide second level access we probably would put a restroom up there so that everyone that is getting to that level regardless of how they get there doesn't have to go downstairs again. Obviously that impacts the number of windows and things that you have to look out at. B ut on the end that's again st the diner, we have some choices we are talking about new equipment, we could go so far as to say you need to be able to have passage through the collision post doors, the diaphragms into the dining car or you could have several spaces in the lounge car that are accessible, tables that are equivalent or the same as what is in the diner. I n fact, we are doing some of that now on the existing cars we are putting booth seats where we had a more leisurely type of lounge seat before. To me, I think both the lounge car is the key, it's the most practical car to have access to. B ecause it gives you direct access for someone to come in from the dining car. A nd to have dinner on the upper level. A nd that is not a situation that's fore ign to the railroads. Years ago you wouldhave two unit or two

- unit diners, where the service folks

routinely went between cars to deliver meals and things to tables. S o that is not foreign to the railroad industry as well. >> Bob Reuter. To emphasis wh at you said about the lounge car, spending 200 miles looking at the Pacific ocean through a guardrail at the lower level, I can understand the importance of having the ability to get up into the lounge car. T he problem is getting between the cars, especia lly if you are in a sleeper. >> This is Blair Slaughter again. I believe the current regulations require us to provide, if you want to transfer between cars, from the coach or sleeper, we are obliged to provide at station stops the transfer between that c ar and the amenity car, in this case the lounge.
>> Again, Bob Reuter. I n 20 years of riding Amtrak super liners, you could not convince a conductor to actually do it. >> Hi, this is Linda Martin. I joined a little bit late. Blair is right, that is a re quirement. I suggest maybe you contact Calvin Gibson, our civil rights director about that issue. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. S o, if we look at possibly putting in bi

- level cars, or putting in bi

- levelaccess, something that I didn't put on the agenda but

obviously should be there are what types of methods would we be lookings at elevators lifts, fancy escalators? >> MARSHA MAZZ: Hoists? >> CHRIS HART: Cranes >> Anything that works. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Anything that works. A nd an elevator or lift would t ake up

-- takes up a certain amount of space. T hey each have, you know, pluses and minuses. E levator is expensive. L ift is not reliable, has limitations on height and weight than
more
-- any thoughts? >> MARSHA MAZZ: Melissa, you might

-- this is Marsh a Mazz. You might give consideration not to whether you want an elevator or lift or whatever, but to what

-- what you want to accomplish. I n other words, how big a

-- an occupied device you want to be able to get, how high, how much weight you want to transport. In other words, look more at something that more closely resembles a performance standard, right, than saying elevator, a lift or whatever. B ecause the building standards are not likely to be appropriate in these vehicles. A nd elevator, ADA bui ldings elevator is obviously not going to work in these vehicles.>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Right.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: So, it's possible that some of the mechanisms that will be used will be custom made, and may not conform to a particular design specification.
>> MELISSA ANDERSON: That's a good point. S o, we need to be looking at things like weight. A nd do we want to reflect the same weight that our ramps and lifts are able to carry as they come into the car, do we want something different from that? O f course we will address that. We will address that in the upcoming meetings. We don't necessarily know what the weight limits are going to be right now. T he weight

-- height, go ahead.
>> This is Robert Carlson. I think that the

-- that we should anticipate a future weight and height capacity. T hey seem to be changing at this particular point in time. I n trying to match that existing code, you know, about to be issued new code would probably be a little shortsighted when you consider that the service life of a rail car could be upwards of 50 years that we want to make sure that we are staying ahead of that curve. As far as pace and location obviously if you share the space with a stairwell that you have less space required. You know, an example where I have r idden a three

- storygaraventa lift up three stories on a standard stairway in

a very old building. I mean, they have the capacity and the capability of designing and building equipment that will go straight up a flight of stairs in a rail car, given the
r ight amount of space to do it. A nd I think that's where we would want to make sure that we are just making sure that we say, you need this size of a platform in order to address the accessibility. A nd then, of course, it's up to the engineers to figure o ut where to put that space and how to make it work. A nd of course we would want to make sure what we are requiring can actually be done. >> CHRIS HART: So, this is Chris. O kay. G o ahead

-- I was just going to call on you. (LAUGHTER) >> This is Ken S hiotani. I t seems to me that I think we shouldn't just skip, you know, that it's just the sightseer lounge cars but I think a percentage, you know, it may just be one extra per train, but I think a percentage of coach cars should have that so in case there is a failure, you know, on a lift in the lounge car there is at least one at least one more lift in a train set. Also, I think that as a practical matter for groups of people or couples, one of which is disabled, notdisabled, I think having you know, s ome
-- having a lift

or elevator or something in some number of coaches, and, again, you know, long train may be several short train may be just one coach. B ut I do think the coach seats from the upper level is not that (inaudible) either. Some people may choose not to want to go back and forth between the cars or if the lounge car is full, you know, they should still have the opportunity that

-- to have the better view. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Ken, this is Marsha Mazz. You may be getting ahead of the game just a little bit by getting deeply into scoping until you know what this animal is that is going to be ultimately recommended for guidelines. You maybe want to hold the scoping to the last thing that you do. >> All right. Well

-- >> CHRIS HART: Ken, I actually thought that you were going to talk about what you shared with several of us, and you
-- your research into

-- >> Sure. I can give you that. >> CHRIS HART: That's where I thought that you were going to go.
>> Okay. Well, I have shared with some membersof the group, I would be happy to share it as widely as

possible but being a little bit of a rail fan. I did do some digging and did find some photographs of what the different mechanisms or

-- I mean at least the out side, and I did get one instruction manual for some sort of screw

- driven lift that is used by the Alaska Railroad, and you know, there is websites that I can send links for that have photographs of some of the lifts used in like the Princess line or the ot her cars that are used in Alaska just so that folks can get sort of a sense of what kind of space

-- I mean, I don't have hard drawings or anything but you can get sort of a sense of what kind of space is used and sort of what it looks like. A nd I think
a lot of those cars that were built by Colorado rail car in Colorado for people who are ambulatory. T hey have a circular staircase that takes up, I think, less floor space than, you know, the stairs that are in superliner cars. So, you know, it does sort of

-- putting in the elevator or lift take up certain space. B ut having the circular staircase saves some space. S o I think it ends up being sort of a net

-- maybe it's a little bit more space is used but they just, you know, I would be happy to send the links to those things. A nd I did get a manual for the lift from the Alaska Railroad people that I can share. Imean, I am not a technical person, so I am just looking

at this instruction manual and I don't know much abo ut it. B ut it's just

-- you know, it seems like

-- it seems like all of the railroads up there do have at least some cars with the Vertical Access. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you, Ken. I f you could send the links to Paul Beatty.
>> Okay. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: We will take a look at them and try to get them distributed to everybody. >> This is Blair Slaughter from Amtrak. I got a brochure for a link from one of the engineers who was involved in the

-- with the design and construction of
a
-- of the cars th e Colorado railway the, company was national wheel

- o
-vator. A nd I request

-- >> National wheel

- o
-vator no longer exists, it was bought out by one of the elevator companies. I t was owned by a friend of mine and he sold it.
>> Okay. Well, I think the

-- from my standpoint I have had discussions with some of our engineers here at Amtrak, to me, the mechanical ability to make the level change is

-- it's a minor feat. I don't want to underestimate the structural and mechanical impacts on the car because they are great. B ut those are quitesolvable, I think, and

-- but I think some of the more

critical things are obviously what if more than one car is going to have the access. W hat are are impacts of that accessibility to the car, as far as seating and acces s to other amenities goes. B ut also the impact for me, the most important thing is the safety of the passengers, both ambulatory and wheelchair

-- and wheelchair users and our crews to make sure that we sort of establish how these things are going to be u sed. I f you think that someone is going to be able to go to this lift, and push a button and it goes to the upper level or down to the lower level, from my standpoint as a service provider, I have to worry about what happens when some child goes over and you know how it is. I t's like electric windows in an automobile. P ushing the button back and forth, back and forth. S o, we have to think about it in those terms too. W hat is the

-- what is the allowable process for using this. A nd I say that with full understanding and respect that that access is about independence. A nd being able to do

-- to enjoy the train and the trip as independently as possible. S o, but at the same time we have to be cognizant of the safety issues that go along with having this machine operating in a fairly compact space.I also want to emphasize that we have sort of the spiral

staircase in our existing bi

- level cars and we have straight staircases in the surfliner bi

- level cars out on the we st coast. A nd the new PRIIA car spec has the single or two single run staircases. We have done some preliminary drawings on what we will call the superliner three cars, where we have a single staircase, because i t's a very different type of service, and you don't need a staircase at each end of the car. But, I think if we start with a clean sheet of paper that we can integrate a lot of the functions other than the staircase and the lift function into the space, a nd gain back any or a lot of the perceived losses of space or impacts that we might think of just off the top of our heads. I haven't done any drawings on this yet. T his is, for my side of the world, that's the next thing that I want to do, because I am a visual person, is to start chewing at this graphically to understand what the

-- what the impacts are. And you know quite often when we start that process we find pluses and minuses and good things and maybe bad t hings that we never thought about before. I mean, that's going to be a critical step going forward. >> I am going to shut up now and let you folks talk.>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We appreciate your input.

Now

-- >> Bob Reuter here. O ne thing we can alleviate the minds of Amtrak, almost every lift in the United States has come in keyed. Every disabled person I know has the key. >> Yes. A nd I will

-- I will

-- this is Blair Slaughter, Amtrak. I understand that. A nd I always wondered who had those keys becau se I have been at the lifts in Washington and wondered who keeps the key. N ow I know.
>> I have a drawer full of them. (LAUGHTER) >> I have a draw full too if anybody needs one.
>> Marilyn Golden from DREDF. T here are plenty of people that don't have them, but plenty of advocates have them. D REDF's view is different Blair than some of the things that you said at the beginning of your remarks, in that, I mean, I think it is not unusual for the provider, in this case Amtrak, or the inner

- city companies , and we by

-- I want to put an asterisk there. We should check legally to make sure the ADA may define inner

- city as Amtrak. I don't know if we can write this to be all inner

- city that's legal issue toasterisk. B ut despite

-- I think the concerns of

facilities

-- the ADA has required independent use by people with disabilities to lifts anywhere lifts have been required, I believe, Marsha can correct me, in many of the locations. A nd I feel strongly that we need to do the same. A nd as much as some peo ple have keys, it's interesting how that works for when you have it. S ome people can't always use that kind of key. S o, I think it's important that it be independently operable. We may have to go back and forth on the policy consequences of each of the policies to figure out. C ertainly as far as the disabled community is concerned access is important.
>> Blair Slaughter from Amtrak. I understand that, how critical the independent access is. B ut when typically if you are

-- a lot of these th ings were considered before, they weren't on a train moving 90 miles an hour. We do operate superliners over portion of Santa Fe Railroad over 90 miles an hour, they are rated for higher speeds, so you get a lot of dynamics imposed on the vehicle and everything and everyone inside of it that you don't have in a fixed facility in an architectural setting. A nd you also have a much more compact group of people in a fairly concentrated space,so everything that we do on a train tends to be a little

more compact, and often a little less convenient than it would be if you were at home for in a commercial facility. I don't want us to lose sight of that. We have a reality of space on a vehicle of length and height and width that we can't get beyond. A nd a level of dynamics that you will

-- you will only find in a building if it's falling down, heaven forbid. B ut I guess we are going to have more discussion on that going forward. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Blair, Marsha Mazz. I served on the platform committee. I f you ta lking about platform lifts subject to ADA first and for most the platform lift standard no longer requires a key for operation. I t used to be the lift standard required a key. You had to observe continuous pressure on the key in order to operate the lift

. N ow, you can have a separate, if you will, dead man switch that enables someone to put constant pressure on a toggle, and that operates the lift. As soon as the pressure is released, the lift comes to a stop. L ifts also have so many safeties on them n ow in terms of detecting any person or body or barrier in the travel, you know, along the travel route, that suicidal cat can't be injured. (LAUGHTER)>> MARSHA MAZZ: So, I think some of the safety

concerns that you have might be well addressed in that standard. N ow, whether that standard is the right standard for a vehicle or not I can't say. B ut you may want to take a look at one of the more recent additions of the ASME A18 to see what features are considered necessary on a platform lift these days. >> Which

-- what was that reference then? >> MARSHA MAZZ: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME A18.1 platform lift standard. I t's actually got a longer name than that, it's platform lift and stairway chair lift standard. >> This is Linda Ma rtin, I had a comment. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Go ahead.
>> My only comment was regarding the speeds of bi

- level cars, the newer bi

- level passenger cars that are being built right now and the locomotives. T here is an ongoing procurement for the specifications for those locomotives is that they be able to go 125 miles an hour, so I wanted to put that out there, that that is the potential speed, not 90. >> This is Bob Reuter again. I have been 110 miles an hour Amtrak superliner trying to make up time, I have the c ode laying here in front of me, 49 CFR 30.3,says inner

- city rail transportation needs

transportations

-- means transportation provided by Amtrak. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you, Linda. C an you speak to that a little bit? Actually, Lisa our counsel is lo oking up some Rail Passenger Act to help clarify this, but Linda can you

-- I guess could you answer what regional inner

- city rail system would be considered if it doesn't fall under the inner

- city that covers Amtrak? >> Well, what we have traditionally sa id is that it is Amtrak, except for a couple

-- up until very recently one major exception and that's Alaska Railroad. Everything else has been commuter rail. Currently we have several private/public upstarts that
a re pushing their way into inner

- city rail. T he realm of inner

- city rail and essentially it's point

- to

- point travel between cities that isn't commuter rails, which isn't a precise definition. We here have said that we need

-- we need something better, als o because of the change in environment in terms of who is operating

-- operating what. T here are times when Amtrak is operating what is essentially commuter rails and the lines get blurred. B ut in those instances the commuter rail rules apply. S o, it is

-- it is muddled. Iwish I could say it wasn't. O ne other point is that there

is a provision in the regs, I believe it's 37.9, don't quote me on that, which talks about

-- I need to look it up actually. I t talks about when a private entity is providing what is essentially inner

- city rail this may come up in All Aboard Florida, assuming that that service takes off, it's a private entity who will be providing what is essentially inner

- city rail and they have to apply the same inner

- city rail regs that Amt rak does. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. T his might be an issue that we all acknowledge that times are changing and in the big

-- in the big picture, our agency and other agencies need to be looking at how things need to change in the future, but right now that's all beyond the scope of our project, or the scope of our committee. And we can deal with it a little more as we move along. But we are kind of bound by what the ADA says for definitions, unless it's changed somewhere else. S o
-- >> MARSHA MAZZ: I think you can deal with the question where to require these and where to recommend requiring these without getting yourself too hung up in the definition of the various modes as long as you are clearly articulating where you intend for thisto apply we c an later sort it out in terms of modes, and

other things. S o, I wouldn't want the committee to waste its time on that.
>> Yes, it's in the 37.5 where it talks about private entities 37.5F, for what it's worth. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you. I also

-- Ro se passed me a note, I hadn't read it yet. A nybody on CART, if you have comments, you are going to have to dial into the teleconference if you have comments, because that's the only way that we can get comments for you. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Or they can send E

- mail and the E

- mail go to the

-- if they send E

- mail to RVAAC @
access
- board.gov, Paul will monitor his E

- mail and he can read your E

- mail. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: We don't want to leave anybody out, I'm sorry I didn't mention it earlier. O kay. So

-- >> Jim Weisman. C an you hear me? I have a question. T here are two rail lines that I know of transferring between New York and New Jersey which looks like a rapid rail system, the same thing between Philadelphia and Camden. H ow are they classified? >> (inaudib le) commuter rail and (inaudible) FRAuntil just recently.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Maybe Linda could answer? >> CHRIS HART: Linda? >> What was the first thing that you said? >> Delaware River Port Authority that runs the Philadelphia Camden trains. >> It's conside red a commuter rail. >> It's considered Metro heavy rail.
>> Yeah, I mean, what might be complicating FRA is oftentimes the safer regulation of the safety aspects related to the rail lines but the

-- but the disability aspects of it is often if it's commut er rail it's FTA. B ut for the purposes of this committee, I am not sure that that really matters. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. S omething else and this is just to note for the moment. R ight now the regulations are divided up by mode, and they include our b us rules when we rewrote the bus rules what was proposed was combining

-- combining the modes and coming up with definitions and addressing modes individually with the elements. T hat is something that we need to keep in mind for the future, we don't need to go there now. T hat will be kind of towards the end of our whole committee discussion probably.>> Is it even within the scope of this committee?

Bob Reuter. >> MARSHA MAZZ: It's not within the scope of this committee. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: It's something that we want to discuss overall as a larger committee, but not in the scope of this committee. O kay. I f we go back to the agenda Paul has anybody sent E

- mails in from CARD. >> Melissa, Gary Talbot. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Sure.
>> Is your intent then, if I understand correctly, you would kind of like big umbrella picture. You would have some elements that would apply to everything. And then each individual mode you would have maybe some specific things that would apply t o those things. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Gary, this is Marsha, I really don't want to get into that discussion now. T hat is a format issue that really we don't need a lot of guidance on. We will deal with that later.
>> Okay. Yeah, I just didn't know why

-- I wa nted to make sure I understand how you were thinking of doing it. I f that doesn't apply I think that's better. >> MARSHA MAZZ: It's a format issue and one that we are going to have to address when we update theseguidelines. O kay? B ut it all has to come together with

our other guidelines and it has to be, you know, as seamless as it can be and user friendly as it can be. I t's not something that we want the committee to spend a lot of its time on. >> CHRIS HART: And the thing that's always critical

-- Am trak is here to help gather information and help (inaudible) for the future rulemaking. T he staff of the board will undertake that. A nd so, what we are hoping to have from you is that we will begin to have a pretty good sense of recommendations of hopefu lly sooner than later and being the optimist I am, I would actually hope that we have some draft recommendations or draft outlines of a report from the whole committee within the year. T hat may be naive but as Marsha says, it really is

-- we need your rec ommendations, we need your technical guidance and we frankly need you guys to do some leg work. A nd I wanted to point back to Blair, he indicated he is a very visual person, and I am sure that there are many other people on the phone that are as well. T h e sooner that we can get floor plans for existing (inaudible) stock and that we can describe the accessible riding for all train members that would be very helpful for everyone.>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Yes, if we can

-- if we

can
-- I am going to get to that when we do action items I actually want to assign people some homework. >> CHRIS HART: I think that's a good thing. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Yes. (LAUGHTER) >> MELISSA ANDERSON: I am going to be bold here. Have we had enough discussion to make some prelim inary recommendations on what the subcommittee would like to do, and these of course will be flexible because I suspect that will be part of on board circulation bigger picture in the future. B ut are we at a point where we could pin down a few recommendat ions? >> MARSHA MAZZ: Maybe you have a volunteer to draft that. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. M arsha

-- I haven't done advisory committees before, Marsha is helping me out here. I s there a volunteer who is a member of the committee who would volunteer to draft a recommendation? B ased on the committee discussions? >> MARSHA MAZZ: Don't all speak at once. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: I can volunteer somebody, if you like.(LAUGHTER)

>> This is Blair Slaughter from Amtrak, I was talking to my muted phone, my apolo gies. (LAUGHTER) >> No one was saying anything back. (LAUGHTER) >> So, I will volunteer to do that. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay.
>> And since I am

-- since Amtrak as someone said has the biggest dog in this fight, I don't see it as a fight, but as st eps forward, but I will be glad to draft it up and so we can have something to chew on there. S hould I forward it to Paul or

-- >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Yeah, forward that to Paul because we are going to keep one central point of contact. A nd if you will draft that, then next

-- at our next meeting we will get it out ahead of time and everybody will have a chance to look at it, it will be a draft. Everyone on the committee will have an opportunity to make recommendations for changes or to tweak it a little b it or, you know, Blair obviously has some advantages of doing it because he has a good handle on the situation. B ut you know, he represents the railroad, and we want to make sure everybodyhas

-- has equal input into the draft recommendations.

>> MARSHA M AZZ: Blair, this is Marsha Mazz, do you think you could include in your discussion what entities might be impacted by this? >> What entities? >> MARSHA MAZZ: In other words, aside from Amtrak would anybody else be impacted, and you know just to

-- a brief discussion of the potential impact? >> Okay. W hat I will try to do is characterize it from a benefits standpoint, and again, I am thinking of looking at the commuter operations, and there being a really minimal if nonexistent benefit there versus a long distance train where the train

-- it's not so much about that you are going somewhere it's how you are getting there and what you experience between points A and B not just points A and B. >> MARSHA MAZZ: I think that's just fine. Very helpful.
>> CHRIS HART: And just remember, we are also interested in costs as well as negative impacts too, and I just want to be clear, please don't ask the legal department to write a 10

- page brief about why they shouldn't do anything. (LAUGHTER)>> CHRIS HART: But it would be helpful to know

certainly

-- >> MARSHA MAZZ: The costs may be a little hard to arrive at at this point in the game because you don't know what the criteria are going to be for the device that gets you to the second floor yet. A nd in a is a future conversation for you to have. In other words, somebody throughout the idea that, okay, we would at least lift as many pounds as we lift on you know on a boarding device. We would potentially have space on the device that is at least as big as for example the wheelchair space that someone is going to park in. T here may be other considerations, for example, when you try to park in a small box, you sometimes need more space for maneuvering. B ut onc e you nail down the

-- the technical parameters then you may have a better

-- you may be in a much better position for looking at some of the costs. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Right. T here are more to

-- at this point we don't want dollar signs but the cost may be the general loss of revenue seats or you know just the loss in inefficiency if you were to put it into commuter rail or things like that those types of costs.>> MARSHA MAZZ: As an example in the building

code now there is a provision that requires 20 inches pleasured from a folded on stair platform lift. S o, I'm sorry from an unfolded platform lift. I f a platform lift is deployed you have to have at least another 20 inches on that stair beyond the deployed width of the platform lift for egress for ot hers. T hat's a requirement now in the building code for buildings, which is a pretty handy rule of thumb. S o, if the device were to increase your stair width, you might want to look at something like that width of the device plus 20 inches. >> MELISSA AN DERSON: Yes. A nd the details like that are things that we will work out as we move along. >> Bob Reuter here. C ould I make a request from Amtrak? W hen you provide us with this information do you have or can provide preliminary floor plans for the PRIIA and superliner floor cars.
>> Yes, I can.
>> Thank you. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: That would be really good to have Blair that would be helpful for a lot of people. >> Blair, I would just check with the

-- I this is Linda, sorry. A nd I

-- sorry about this Chri s. B ut you might check with your legal folks on that one, becausesome of that might still be proprietary.

>> Linda, thank you. T his is Blair. I will do that certainly the

-- I will do that. C ertainly the

-- I am not sure where things are with the PRII A I will check on that I don't think there is any issue on the PRIIA side typically we would put out our own drawings with a caveat.
>> Yeah, just thought that I would put that out.
>> This is Gary Talbot. I think all of the PRIIA stuff is online, isn't i t Blair? >> Yes.
>> It's online. I t's already out there. >> Technically you are supposed to check it in and out because it belongs to the PRIIA committee, that's all I am saying is just check on it.
>> They should look those PDF's before they put

-- ( LAUGHTER) >> (inaudible) >> MARSHA MAZZ: Next you will see they are going to have access at both levels. (LAUGHTER) >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay.
>> This is Ken Shiotani, can you hear me? >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Yes, Ken.
>> I dug through the stuff that Alaska Railroad sentme there is at least a diagram of their bi

- level cars. S o,

I sent that to the

-- I couldn't find Paul's specific E

- mail, I send it to the RVAAC E

- mail address. B ut for folks that want to see diagrams, I do have a diag ram of the Alaska Railroad car, and I sent it. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you, that's really helpful, Ken. >> CHRIS HART: Just a reminder, our colleague from (inaudible) used to work for Alaska Railroad and now he is not on the phone today. >> MELISSA ANDE RSON: He is unable to attend. >> CHRIS HART: And I think our FRA was up there a year or two ago. S o, we will piece together technical info.
>> Is there any technical information left from those original attempts at the California cars? >> CHRIS HART: This is Chris Hart. I really (inaudible) from Cal Trans was going to look at that based on the last committee meeting. H e was going to try to do some research. >> Thank you. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. We have given Blair a pretty good assignment. D o we have someone else who

-- someone else on the committee who could helpdevelop some of the general benefits of providing

access? T his would be a good role for somebody with less technical knowledge. >> This is Blair Slaughter from Amtrak, again, I am not volu nteering. (LAUGHTER)
>> But I do have a question of Linda. W hen we look at the requirements for onboard lifts and things now or any lifts for that matter there is a strength requirements, and I would be curious, and Linda if maybe you could reach back into the FRA with Dick Cogswell or someone and see how the lift requirements roll into the requirements for dynamics strength. We have the different G force loadings that you have to withstand for anything attached to trains. S o, if you could reach back into your organization for some thought that would be
awesome. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Is that something that you can do, Linda? >> MARSHA MAZZ: I think I heard her say "yes." (LAUGHTER) >> I apologize, someone came to the door so I muted the phone. I m issed the entire discussion. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: You were volunteered towrite the full recommendation to the committee. (LAUGHTER) >> Oh, perfect. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: I am kidding. B lair, you want to go through that again quickly? I 'm sorry.
>> So rry. T here are requirements for the

-- for lifts whether static at a station or attached to the car. Strength requirements and such associated with that. We have two, I think, three times the safety factor. B ut on anything we apply to rail vehicles we have to withstand lateral and vertical and longitudinal G forces, and it would be great if you could reach back into the FRA maybe Dick Cogswell or someone like that and see what the agency's thinking is in applying a lift in a nonstatic

-- now it's going to be a die unanimous milk condition what would their thoughts be with that. Obviously this affects the scale of the structure and everything else that goes along with the lift that you would not deal with in a building situation. >> Right. You are talki ng about internal lift not a lift on

-- not a lift on to a rail car? >> Right. B ut

-- >> Okay.
>> I assume, and obviously we have not gotten tothat point, I assume there is the safety requirements for

the lift itself are going to be the same as what we h ave now for bridges and or ramps and lifts. T he safety factor. B ut there is a

-- there is another bucket of requirements, if you will, for dynamic safety in the rail car for anything we attach to it have to be able to withstand certain loadings. A nd obv iously when you have a heavy piece of machinery you are installing in the car it has to stay there in severe loading and somewhere that's going to affect the sheer scale of the machinery itself. T he structure. S o, I would be curious to know if Dick or so meone like that has any thoughts about how that might affect it or how we might apply that or is there some way to overlap some of requirements at the end of the day for these for the device.
>> This is Ken Shiotani. I assume the Alaska Railroad and rail lines have to get approval from the FRA for their designs. U nfortunately the Colorado car company went out of business but FRA may have something from what those

-- I mean, U.S. entities, so I assume FRA has some input into looking at what they were doing and you know, what safety requirements were had to be met maybe this is something that would exist would be my suggestion.>> You would hope so. I f that's the case, Dick

Cogswell would have that he has been around since time immemorial. The one hesitation I have about that Alaska Railroad used to be owned by FRA oddly and was turned over to Alaska Railroad a number of years ago, and so there may have been decisions made on their part that we weren't aware of. B u t certainly we should have been. So, I will check with Dick on both of those points.
>> Yeah. T his is Gary Talbot. I can also check. I have been trying to work with Canadian guys on the dome car to get specifications from them, I can ask them for those details as well.
>> The Colorado rail carport land has a lien against them, they took a lot of their plans and blueprints. (LAUGHTER) >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. D o we have

-- is that all the technical issues that we really need to gather up for the next meeting? >> I mean, what I would offer is if that's the topic on the next meet

-- sorry, this is Linda again. I f that's a major topic of the next meeting, I would offer to try to have Mr. Cogswell or some other Mode of Power and Equip ment person from here to be perhaps on the calland available to answer questions.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: That would be wonderful. Okay. D o we have a less technical person maybe to round up the benefits of providing this and maybe recommend

-- recommendati ons and the benefits that it would provide? >> MARSHA MAZZ: Or a technical person who wants to wear a different hat. >> CHRIS HART: Don't make us assign you. >> This is Gary Talbot. I don't know if you are looking for me to do something like that but I wo uld certainly be willing to do that. I f you think that is

-- that is something that you want from me. >> MARSHA MAZZ: I think Blair actually said in his recommendation the way he is going to write it up he is going to be looking at the benefit as well.
>> (inaudible) >> MARSHA MAZZ: Maybe the two of you could work together to make sure that the benefits that would occur to people with disabilities and others are adequately reflected. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: That works. A nd everybody of c ourse will have an opportunity tocomment as we get the draft circulated. 4 .7 on the

agenda identify resources supported recommendations. Plan sheets being submitted and draft recommendations we will moved towards that. D eveloping a rationale for the re commendations. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Before you move off resources Melissa, I know we are getting close to the end. L inda, if it is at all possible to get some, that information from Dick Cogswell or someone else about, you know, the G forces and everything els e to the committee in advance, that would be great. >> Okay. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Any structural requirements that they think might apply.
>> Okay. A nd

-- >> MARSHA MAZZ: Structural mechanical safety related.
>> Okay. >> CHRIS HART: Yeah.
>> The next meeting i s what date again? S orry. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: That's what I was looking up. >> PAUL BEATTY: March 20. >> MARSHA MAZZ: March 20th Paul says.>> MELISSA ANDERSON: March 20th, 1 o'clock. We

have two weeks to get it done. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Nobody (indicating)

. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. I have a list of action items I have been collecting as you have been talking and volunteering for things. S o I am going to run through them. A nd I guess since we have two weeks till the next meeting if we could have

-- if we could have things if you could send things in by next Friday, which would be

-- >> MARSHA MAZZ: Not tomorrow. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Not this week the 14th. Then that would give everybody a chance to look at them prior to the meeting on the 20th. O kay. Action items. O h, wait, Paul? >> PAUL BEATTY: Just to remind people. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Are you not turned on? >> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. T his is Paul Beatty if you are sending anything, remember alternate formats. S o if you are sending a picture, please gi ve us a
-- it doesn't have to be embedded in the picture, but give us a verbal description if you are sending a plan give us a verbal description of the plan. T hose are two things, quickly looking at the PDF's Ken sent me okay now weneed to converted that into alternate format. P lease

help us out on this end, thanks. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: And we are happy to help you with that. Paul has been working with the meeting material so he is probably a good person to contact in how to get this done. O kay. H ere is homework. Ken Shiotani send links to Colorado railroad company and views of the Alaska cars, Paul gives me thumbs up you have done that by E

- mail. We will look at those and work with you on the alternative format. B lair you were going to send links to the national wheel

- o
-vator. >> MARSHA MAZZ: But that was sold to Tyson Corporate, and then they disbanded the platform lift

-- >> MELISSA ANDERSON: If you have any informations on the mechanics

-- >> I have. I t's

-- it must be a portion of the old cata log it gives you an idea of prices. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Actually, I think what might be more helpful to the committee is to try

-- and I will take this on myself, to try to get you a complimentary copy of the ASBI lift platform standard the owner was the chair of the committee until a few years ago it's not

-- it's not specific to one company, the standard applies to all platform lifts equally.>> That would be wonderful

-- wonderful

information.
>> I will try to get complimentary companies or can't get permiss ion to distribute it, then I won't be able to buy copies for everybody on the committee. >> I think that we are members here. I f you could give me the citation

-- this is Blair again from Amtrak

-- then I can get access to it. At least for here. >> A18.1

. >> A18.1. >> MARSHA MAZZ: It's ASME, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
>> All right. O kay. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Could we openly distribute that among the committee? >> MARSHA MAZZ: It can't be distributed among the committee. You have to purch ase the standard. I have done it before for the signage committee, and I will try to get permission to have a copy of the standard shared among the committee members. S tandards developers frequently will allow that when a group is considering referencing their standard for the future. B ut I don't know. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: If nothing else we may beable to summarize what is in it without distributing

copies. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Well not everybody on the committee will be interested in every jot and tittle of the safety standard. I think the engineers on the committee will. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Blair you were going to draft a recommendation and provide floor plans for the PRIIA cars and I guess

-- >> Superliner 3. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Superliners, okay. Um, L inda you were going to look up the structural requirements for the strength on the lifts. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Not the strength, the safety. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: The dynamic safety numbers and that type of thing. A nd Gary you were going to work with Blair on t he California car drawings benefits. >> Right. F or the benefits to get to the second level. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Yeah.
>> I am

-- this is Blair. W hat was that about the California car drawings? >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. N ever mind, just getthe Califor nia car. (LAUGHTER) >> MELISSA ANDERSON: You guys can work together on pulling the benefits together if they have been

-- if they have been submitted for other situations that

-- they would need to pull them out, thank you. And I think we have our act ion items we have our duties. Deadlines would be the Friday after this which would be the 14th of March. A nd get

-- send everything to Paul and you can send them to RVAAC @ access

- board.gov, the same place where you receive notices from. (LAUGHTER)
> > ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Area code 718. (LAUGHTER) >> MARSHA MAZZ: Okay Pennsylvania. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: I guess we can open for public comment? M ake sure everybody's lines are open and committee members is anybody listening from the public is welcome to speak up and provide any comments on the discussion or inform us of anything that you would like to inform us on. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Since nobody is muted, speak up. >> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Actually, they can. D oyou need

--

>> Melissa Gary Talbot could I ask a follow

- up question on the assignments. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Sure.
>> Did you want me to try to get ahold of any specifications I can get ahold of on the Canadian cars as a reference? >> MELISSA ANDERSON: That would be great. >> Okay. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: And I think I wrote California because I got distracted but yes Canadian is what you mentioned. >> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Everybody is in talk mode right now but to facilitate things for the public comment period, if they could press star 1 that would sh oot them into the Q and A the operator can pull them out of line one by one. A nybody that wants to provide public comment at this time >> I do need to mute all lines before the star 1 give me a moment here. >> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Sure. >> MELISSA ANDERSON : The operator is muting all lines if you have a comment press star 1. (Discussion off record.)>> MELISSA ANDERSON: This will help us keep order.

>> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: We have two noncommittee members. >> MARSHA MAZZ: One of them is talking all along.
> > ROSE MARIE BUNALES: There is somebody else on here that since has joined. I have a Sid Goldstein and Tom Fodar. T here is Robert Reuter. A nybody want to provide public comment at this time press star 1.
>> Star 1 and record your name when prompted.
>> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: We will wait. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Please state your name before you make your comments. >> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: We will pause a second while this is taking place. O r I could make announcements while this is happening. >> MELISSA ANDERS ON: You are welcome to do that. >> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Well, as far as announcements, while people are gathering their thoughts. N ext conference call is the Interior Vertical Circulation subcommittee is March 20th, from 1 to 3 p.m. eastern. T he Signage Subcommittee teleconference is also meeting new date March 13 from 1 to 3 p.m. eastern. A nd then committee members this is for RVAAC voting members who are you calling themprimary members RVAAC members submit ballots by

Sunday March 9 and to make subcomm ittee selections by the same date. T hose go to Paul Beatty right? Or RVAAC @ access

- board.gov. I am not seeing anybody cued up to public comment, correct? >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Open all l ines again >> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Revert everybody to full

- time talk again, please. >> Certainly. O ne moment while I unmute the line. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. We have to go through the process of gathering public comments at each one of these meetings, it's really important that we take everybody's comments into consideration. We didn't have anybody that specifically wanted to speak as a, you know, a public comment person, so we really have

-- have covered everything that we needed to on the agenda. S o, we can put an end to this call. (LAUGHTER) >> MELISSA ANDERSON: They are making fun of me here at the table. We can bring this conference call to a close, unless anybody has anything else they would like to say before we go. >> I just want to say q uickly thank you very muchMelissa for running the meeting.

>> Thanks Billy. T hank you for joining us. T hank you everybody who took time to participate we had a great constructive meeting and we look forward to moving forward with this. I t's a pretty na rrow topic but it is important to a lot of people. S o, with that, we will look forward to getting homework assignments by next Friday, and then we will talk to a few of you probably in between and we will have another conference call on the 20th. S o than k you again for your participation. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Okay. T hank you operator for all of your help today. T he meeting is now terminated. G o ahead disconnect all lines.
>> Certainly thank you have a great day. (End of me eting.)