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) has 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. Thank 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. Marilyn Golden, Blair 

Slaughter, Robert Kimrey. I have a Francis out of area 

code 312. Frank Maldari. Melissa Shurland. Ed Hoff 

and Crystal Lyonns. Melissa?

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you. And 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. Thank you. We 

sent out the agenda prior to the meeting so the first 

thing on the agenda after introductions is approval of 

the agenda. So, 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. But 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 discussion 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. So, we 
can --

>> 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. The objectives and purpose 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. So, that's kind of the basics of our scope 

and objective for all of our committees. So, today we 

are just going to talk about Vertical Access. And 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. So, we sent out and put on the 

website the current regulations and laws that affect 

Vertical Access on rail cars. And they only apply to 
inner-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 these 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. Bi-level 

dining cars shall not be required to be entered by an 

individual who uses a wheelchair. Have a space to park 

and secure a wheelchair. Or 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 

restroom 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. Now 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 be 
provided to make sure -- including individuals who use 

wheelchairs and passengers traveling with such 

individuals. So, what it really boils down to is we 

cannot require bi-level dining cars to be accessible to, 

you know, for people in wheelchairs. But 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. So, 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. So, 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. Which are like our 

subway system. Light rail, which are more of our 

street-level, you know, running it through the city on a 

track in the street frequently. Commuter rail, which are 

the trains that operate during peak service bringing 

people in and out of suburbs into city center. These are 

just examples they are not complete descriptions. And 

then inner-city rail, which is primarily Amtrak. And 
then 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. And this is -- we 

want to brainstorm we want to hear comments from 

everybody keep them brief. Make 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. It's more -- it's more an overall 

how could we changed system. So, anybody have some 

recommendations 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. High speed is only 

going to be affected again if there is bi-level equipment 
there. So, then we are down to commuter rail and 

inner-city. And 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. Especially 

with very close headway of trains and frequent stops 

and that sort of thing. Even in the case of inner-city, I 

think we need 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 studying 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 

should not apply to commuter rail. There 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 really 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. France has definitely gone double deck cars.

>> Hi, Frank Maldari, MTA New York. Long Island 

Railroad has only single level access instead of bi-level 

it's only high level on our equipment. Along 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. Essentially 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. And 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 apply on 
the 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. And they have doors on both the high and 

low level.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Does anyone else have any 

comments?

>> This is Marilyn Golden from DREDF. It doesn't 

mean that they all don't. Where 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. Thanks.

>> 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. What type of rail are 

the -- like the Princess Cruise and Alaska the rail that 

connects to their (inaudible) rail --
>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Can you talk more directly 

into your phone? And 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. Thank 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 Railroad and the other services that they 

run on the Alaska Railroad. The 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 

line. They are a land cruise, if you will. So, they 

actually fall more into what we look at inner-city or long 

distance trains down in the lower 48. They really -- not 

unlike a lot of our long haul trains they really fit into a 

place of their own where their whole goal is to let you 

see things. There was such an effort on the part of the 
folks 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. Thank you. Does 

anybody else have any -- does anybody have any input 

on high-speed rail?

>> Yes, Bob Reuter. When I road Japanese high 

speed rail the Max trains, which are double deck. You 

were restricted to the intermediate level, much like 

commuter cars. That intermediate level you didn't see 

much. That would be my only real comment on those 

cars. It was small you only had room for one person.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you. And 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. Okay. So, 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 a 
couple of areas and move forward. Commuter 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. As 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. There may be some 

issues about how long it takes to board and alight in 

that particular case. So, requiring it to be available 

might be a little more than we are prepared to deal with.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay.

>> I personally would like to be able to access both 

levels from a bi-level commuter car. But from a 

tracking point of view, it's probably not all that practical

>> This is Bob Reuter again. The only place I was 

considering it and thought it was appropriate was 

basically on the tri-level cars where there is a mezzanine 

level, if you will, for high level boarding and you go up 

and down. There are a few railroads, commuter 

railroads that use high and low level platform boarding. 
On the low platform they use low and high they use high 

level platform. This is the only place where I see that 

would be appropriate.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you. So 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. But 

let's focus on inner-city rail now. And 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 to be 

addressed. And amenities and other considerations. 

So, the general principles, what do we expect to gain 

from this or lose from this. What locations do we want 

to address, dining cars are kind of off the table scenic 

cars, maybe dining cars if provide -- do we want to 

provide technical specifications for them to meet? 

What kind of amenities do you want to reach. Do 

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, and 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. And that kind of goes down further into our 
agenda. So, 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. This is Robert Carlson again. As 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 having 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 just not 

practical to do. Because, 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 amenity 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. For example, Amtrak will put 
the a -- a car that you can get from one car into the cafe 

car through the cafe car into the next car. But 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. That's a good point.

>> CHRIS 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. Is that 

correct?

>> Chris, yes. That is correct. That 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 are 
on a level that's between the lowest level and the 

highest level. So, 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. Now you are 

basically pumping up to that holding area?

>> Yes, we are. It's a vacuum system. It all works 

quite well. From a physics standpoint, having the 

restroom on the second level isn't a big deal at all. In 

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. Because 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. So you can see 

out and down and up, you know, all -- all that you want 

to see. The interesting thing about that car is it is a 

nonrevenue car. We don't sell seats in the car. It's a 

general access space. You can come and be there as 

long as you want to be or as little time as you want to be 
there. And 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. And, 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. But on the end 

that's against 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. In 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. Because it gives you direct access for 

someone to come in from the dining car. And to have 

dinner on the upper level. And that is not a situation 

that's foreign to the railroads. Years ago you would 
have two unit or two-unit diners, where the service folks 

routinely went between cars to deliver meals and things 

to tables. So that is not foreign to the railroad industry 

as well.

>> Bob Reuter. To emphasis what 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. The problem is getting between 

the cars, especially 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 car and the amenity car, in this case the lounge.

>> Again, Bob Reuter. In 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 requirement. I suggest maybe 

you contact Calvin Gibson, our civil rights director about 

that issue.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. So, if we look at 

possibly putting in bi-level cars, or putting in bi-level 
access, 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. And 

an elevator or lift would take up -- takes up a certain 

amount of space. They each have, you know, pluses 

and minuses. Elevator is expensive. Lift is not 

reliable, has limitations on height and weight than 

more -- any thoughts? 

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Melissa, you might -- this is 

Marsha Mazz. You might give consideration not to 

whether you want an elevator or lift or whatever, but to 

what -- what you want to accomplish. In 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. Because the building 

standards are not likely to be appropriate in these 

vehicles. And elevator, ADA buildings 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. So, 

we need to be looking at things like weight. And 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? Of 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. The weight -- height, 

go ahead.

>> This is Robert Carlson. I think that the -- that 

we should anticipate a future weight and height 

capacity. They seem to be changing at this particular 

point in time. In 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 ridden a three-story 
garaventa 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 

right amount of space to do it. And 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. And then, of course, 

it's up to the engineers to figure out where to put that 

space and how to make it work. And of course we 

would want to make sure what we are requiring can 

actually be done.

>> CHRIS HART: So, this is Chris. Okay. Go 

ahead -- I was just going to call on you.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> This is Ken Shiotani. It 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, not 
disabled, I think having you know, some -- 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. But 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 members 
of 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 

outside, 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 other 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. And I think 

a lot of those cars that were built by Colorado rail car in 

Colorado for people who are ambulatory. They 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. But having the circular 

staircase saves some space. So 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. And I did get a manual for the lift 

from the Alaska Railroad people that I can share. I
mean, I am not a technical person, so I am just looking 

at this instruction manual and I don't know much about 

it. But 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. If 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 the Colorado railway the, company was 

national wheel-o-vator. And I request --

>> National wheel-o-vator no longer exists, it was 

bought out by one of the elevator companies. It 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. But those are quite 
solvable, 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. What are are impacts of that 

accessibility to the car, as far as seating and access to 

other amenities goes. But 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 used. If 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. It's like 

electric windows in an automobile. Pushing the button 

back and forth, back and forth. So, we have to think 

about it in those terms too. What is the -- what is the 

allowable process for using this. And I say that with full

understanding and respect that that access is about 

independence. And being able to do -- to enjoy the 

train and the trip as independently as possible. So, 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 west coast. And 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 it'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, and 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. This 

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 things 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. One 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. And I will -- I will -- this is Blair Slaughter, 

Amtrak. I understand that. And I always wondered 

who had those keys because I have been at the lifts in 

Washington and wondered who keeps the key. Now I 

know.

>> I have a drawer full of them.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> I have a draw full too if anybody needs one.

>> Marilyn Golden from DREDF. There are plenty of 

people that don't have them, but plenty of advocates 

have them. DREDF'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 to 
asterisk. But 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. And I feel strongly that we need to do 

the same. And as much as some people have keys, it's 

interesting how that works for when you have it. Some 

people can't always use that kind of key. So, 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. Certainly as far as 

the disabled community is concerned access is 

important.

>> Blair Slaughter from Amtrak. I understand that, 

how critical the independent access is. But when 

typically if you are -- a lot of these things 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. And 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. And a level of 

dynamics that you will -- you will only find in a building 

if it's falling down, heaven forbid. But I guess we are 

going to have more discussion on that going forward.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Blair, Marsha Mazz. I served on 

the platform committee. If you talking about platform 

lifts subject to ADA first and for most the platform lift 

standard no longer requires a key for operation. It used 

to be the lift standard required a key. You had to 

observe continuous pressure on the key in order to 

operate the lift. Now, 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. Lifts also have so many safeties on them now 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. Now, whether that standard is the right 

standard for a vehicle or not I can't say. But 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. It's actually got a longer name than that, it's 

platform lift and stairway chair lift standard.

>> This is Linda Martin, 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. There 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 code 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. Can you 

speak to that a little bit? Actually, Lisa our counsel is 

looking 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 said 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 

are pushing their way into inner-city rail. The 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, also because of the 

change in environment in terms of who is 

operating -- operating what. There are times when 

Amtrak is operating what is essentially commuter rails 

and the lines get blurred. But in those instances the 

commuter rail rules apply. So, it is -- it is muddled. I
wish I could say it wasn't. One 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. It 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 Amtrak 

does. 

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. This 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. So --

>> 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 this 
to apply we can later sort it out in terms of modes, and 

other things. So, 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 -- Rose 

passed me a note, I hadn't read it yet. Anybody 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. Okay.

So --

>> Jim Weisman. Can you hear me? I have a 

question. There 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. How are they classified?

>> (inaudible) commuter rail and (inaudible) FRA 
until 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 considered 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 commuter rail it's FTA. But 

for the purposes of this committee, I am not sure that 

that really matters.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. Something else and 

this is just to note for the moment. Right now the 

regulations are divided up by mode, and they include 

our bus 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. That is something that 

we need to keep in mind for the future, we don't need to 

go there now. That 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. Okay. If 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 to those things.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Gary, this is Marsha, I really don't 

want to get into that discussion now. That 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 wanted 

to make sure I understand how you were thinking of 

doing it. If 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 these 
guidelines. Okay? But 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. It'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 -- Amtrak is here to help gather information and 

help (inaudible) for the future rulemaking. The staff of 

the board will undertake that. And so, what we are 

hoping to have from you is that we will begin to have a 

pretty good sense of recommendations of hopefully 

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. That may be naive but as Marsha says, 

it really is -- we need your recommendations, we need 

your technical guidance and we frankly need you guys to 

do some leg work. And 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. The 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 

preliminary 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. But are 

we at a point where we could pin down a few 

recommendations?

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Maybe you have a volunteer to 

draft that.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. Marsha -- I haven't 

done advisory committees before, Marsha is helping me 

out here. Is there a volunteer who is a member of the 

committee who would volunteer to draft a 

recommendation? Based 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 apologies.

 (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 steps forward, but I will be glad to draft it up and 

so we can have something to chew on there. Should I 

forward it to Paul or --

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Yeah, forward that to Paul 

because we are going to keep one central point of 

contact. And 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 bit or, you know, Blair obviously has 

some advantages of doing it because he has a good 

handle on the situation. But you know, he represents 

the railroad, and we want to make sure everybody 
has -- has equal input into the draft recommendations.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: 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. What 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. And 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. There may be other considerations, for 

example, when you try to park in a small box, you 

sometimes need more space for maneuvering. But once 

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. There 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. So, I'm 

sorry from an unfolded platform lift. If 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 others. That's a requirement now in the 

building code for buildings, which is a pretty handy rule 

of thumb. So, 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 ANDERSON: Yes. And the details like 

that are things that we will work out as we move along.

>> Bob Reuter here. Could I make a request from 

Amtrak? When 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. And I -- sorry about this Chris. But you 

might check with your legal folks on that one, because 
some of that might still be proprietary.

>> Linda, thank you. This is Blair. I will do that 

certainly the -- I will do that. Certainly the -- I am not 

sure where things are with the PRIIA 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 it Blair?

>> Yes.

>> It's online. It'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 sent 
me there is at least a diagram of their bi-level cars. So, 

I sent that to the -- I couldn't find Paul's specific E-mail, 

I send it to the RVAAC E-mail address. But for folks 

that want to see diagrams, I do have a diagram 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 ANDERSON: He is unable to attend.

>> CHRIS HART: And I think our FRA was up there a 

year or two ago. So, 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. He was going to 

try to do some research.

>> Thank you.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. We have given Blair 

a pretty good assignment. Do we have someone else 

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

access? This would be a good role for somebody with 

less technical knowledge.

>> This is Blair Slaughter from Amtrak, again, I am 

not volunteering.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> But I do have a question of Linda. When 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. So, 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 missed the entire discussion.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: You were volunteered to 
write the full recommendation to the committee.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Oh, perfect.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: I am kidding. Blair, you 

want to go through that again quickly? I'm sorry.

>> Sorry. There 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. But 

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 talking about internal lift not a 

lift on -- not a lift on to a rail car?

>> Right. But --

>> Okay.

>> I assume, and obviously we have not gotten to 
that point, I assume there is the safety requirements for 

the lift itself are going to be the same as what we have 

now for bridges and or ramps and lifts. The safety 

factor. But 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. And obviously 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. The structure. So, I would be curious to know if 

Dick or someone 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. Unfortunately 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. If 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. But certainly we should have been. 

So, I will check with Dick on both of those points.

>> Yeah. This 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. Do 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. If 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 

Equipment person from here to be perhaps on the call 
and available to answer questions.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: That would be wonderful. 

Okay. Do we have a less technical person maybe to 

round up the benefits of providing this and maybe 

recommend -- recommendations 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 would 

certainly be willing to do that. If 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. And 

everybody of course will have an opportunity to 
comment 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. Developing a rationale for 

the recommendations.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Before you move off resources 

Melissa, I know we are getting close to the end. Linda, 

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 else to the committee in advance, 

that would be great.

>> Okay.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Any structural requirements that 

they think might apply.

>> Okay. And --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Structural mechanical safety 

related.

>> Okay.

>> CHRIS HART: Yeah.

>> The next meeting is what date again? Sorry.

>> 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. So I am going to 

run through them. And 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. Okay. Action 

items. Oh, wait, Paul?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Just to remind people.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Are you not turned on?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. This is Paul Beatty if you 

are sending anything, remember alternate formats. So 

if you are sending a picture, please give 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. Those are two things, 

quickly looking at the PDF's Ken sent me okay now we 
need to converted that into alternate format. Please 

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. Okay. Here 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. Blair 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. It's -- it must be a portion of the old 

catalog 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 permission to distribute it, then I won't be able to 

buy copies for everybody on the committee.

>> I think that we are members here. If 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. Okay.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Could we openly distribute 

that among the committee? 

>> MARSHA MAZZ: It can't be distributed among the 

committee. You have to purchase 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. Standards developers 

frequently will allow that when a group is considering 

referencing their standard for the future. But I don't 

know.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: If nothing else we may be 
able 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, Linda 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. And Gary you were 

going to work with Blair on the California car drawings 

benefits.

>> Right. For the benefits to get to the second 

level.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Yeah.

>> I am -- this is Blair. What was that about the 

California car drawings?

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. Never mind, just get 
the California 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 action items we have our duties. 

Deadlines would be the Friday after this which would be 

the 14th of March. And 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? Make 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. Do 
you 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 shoot them 

into the Q and A the operator can pull them out of line 

one by one. Anybody 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. There is Robert Reuter. Anybody 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. Or I could make 

announcements while this is happening.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: You are welcome to do that.

>> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Well, as far as 

announcements, while people are gathering their 

thoughts. Next conference call is the Interior Vertical 

Circulation subcommittee is March 20th, from 1 to 3 

p.m. eastern. The Signage Subcommittee 

teleconference is also meeting new date March 13 from 

1 to 3 p.m. eastern. And then committee members this 

is for RVAAC voting members who are you calling them 
primary members RVAAC members submit ballots by 

Sunday March 9 and to make subcommittee selections 

by the same date. Those 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 lines again

>> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Revert everybody to 

full-time talk again, please.

>> Certainly. One 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. So, 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 quickly thank you very much 
Melissa for running the meeting.

>> Thanks Billy. Thank you for joining us. Thank 

you everybody who took time to participate we had a 

great constructive meeting and we look forward to 

moving forward with this. It's a pretty narrow topic but 

it is important to a lot of people. So, 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. So thank you again for your participation.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Okay. Thank you 

operator for all of your help today. The meeting is now 

terminated. Go ahead disconnect all lines.

>> Certainly thank you have a great day.

(End of meeting.)