Note: The output shown below is from the 

Communication Access Realtime Translation 

(CART) system used in the 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. 

U.S. Access Board

Friday, April 11, 2014

Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee

On-board Circulation and Seating Subcommittee

meeting

>> PAUL BEATTY: Conference call operator?

>> Welcome. Thank you for standing by, all lines are 

live and interactive. Utilize the mute function of your 

phone if you don't have a mute function you can press 

star 6 to mute and unmute. You may begin.

>> PAUL BEATTY: For the benefit of those on the 

line we are about ready to start the conference call -- I 

mean the subcommittee meeting it's the On-Board 

Circulation & Seating Subcommittee for the benefit of 
those using only the CART system to pay attention, the 

CART system chat box is not available for subcommittee 

participants only using CART to participate and desire to 

raise a question or make a statement use E-mail 

address: RVAAC @ access-board.gov. As anybody 

may participate in the subcommittee, we will not be 

having a public comment time. All lines are unmuted. 

So, if you need to raise a question for those on the line, 

it might be good if you can't break in to use the E-mail 

address that we will be monitoring to alert the chair that 

you desire to make a statement or ask a question again 

the E mail address RVAAC @ access-board.gov. Now I 

will turn the call over to I guess the chair of the 

subcommittee Blair take it away.

>> Blair Slaughter: Good morning, everyone. I was 

all geared up to apologize for being late I had in my 

head we started at 8:30 I was here early.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair Slaughter: For a change. First off, my 

original plan coming into this was to have floor plans 

generated that I could have sent to everyone or sent to 

the Access Board early enough to be distributed. But 

unforeseen events on the railroad changed my plans. 

So, before our next meeting I will have that information 
together so we will have something to chew on for the 

vertical circulation. Our goal from the last meeting was 

to leave that point and generate something tangible we 

could get our arms around and talk about. Unless 

someone has something to discuss about that idea, or 

that aspect of interior circulation --

>> I am not sure if you can hear me Linda Martin on 

the phone I can't hear Blair at all

>> Blair: Uh-oh.

>> Get closer or further away.

>> Linda?

>> LINDA MARTIN: I can't hear you at all Blair. Are 

other people on the phone having that problem?

>> I am hearing the same thing you are Linda it's 

coming in and out

>> Same thing.

>> What about hear in the room breaking up

>> Blair, you don't appear to be coming through the 

assistive listening switch mics and see what happens.

>> What about now? Can everyone hear me?

>> Better.

>> Blair Slaughter: Time the change the batteries I 

guess. As I was saying in the last subcommittee 

meeting, we left the Vertical Access at Blair was going to 
develop drawings and I don't have those ready to share 

yet. So, unless anyone has anything to -- a question or 

add to that discussion, we will move on to the remaining 

of that agenda from the last meeting.

From the silence I will take that as a no. Okay. Item 

5 on the last agenda, the idea I had there was to try to 

list all of the items that are relevant to interior 

circulation that doesn't crowd the boarding and 

alighting side. So, we assume that we have arrived 

inside the car. What happens next.

And the way that I like to start things sometimes is to 

say, well, what is wrong with what is there now? 

Because we have been at this for a while now. We 

should probably all have a list of bad things. So, that 

would seem a good place to start. Just to see where we 

are. And I would include not just cars that are 

obviously wrong and have never been up to the current 

standard but cars that have been built to the existing 

standard. And where they may have shortcomings. So 

we can move forward.

>> Bob Reuter: On the item you sent out with 

Marilyn Golden's very well done changes here I think 

there is one item that needs to add one word to it on 

initial technical requirements, the lift may be vertical 
shaft or stair lift style I think definitely add in the word 

stair platform lift style so they make sure they don't 

stick in one of those going up the stairs thing.

>> Blair Slaughter: I wouldn't consider transferring 

to another seat as a viable --

>> Bob Reuter: By the time it goes to bid somebody 

will try to do it.

>> Blair Slaughter: That's a good thing that needs to 

be tucked in there for sure thank you. If we start at car 

entrance. If we think about it in terms of where we are 

today, Dennis?

>> DENNIS CANNON: People should realize Dennis 

Cannon. People should realize that the current 

standard or guidelines are minimum requirements not 

best practice. Or good design even. They are 

designed to say you can't do any worse than this. 

Doesn't mean that what you are doing is good. Even if 

the -- even with the standard, because of the typical car 

that boards on end through a vestibule not to be 

confused with the double deck sleeper cars which you 

enter from the center of the car. When you enter on 

the end, you have to go through a relatively narrow 

doorway. And the -- then you have to make a right 

angle turn. We specified in the standard that the 
minimum width across that vestibule has got to be 42 

inches clear and some people haven't figured out what 

clear means. Clear means everything. So, for 

example, in the current cars when you go in the door, 

on the single-level cars what is right inside the door is 

the trap latch. Which sticks out about maybe 3 or 4 

inches. It's right at the control level. And inevitably if 

you are not careful going through the door, you end up 

or I have ruined a couple of good armrests because it 

tears it up. The worst part about it is the current 

bridgeplate the checker plates has a rather steep drop 

off at both ends. So, what happens is you get up on to 

it you are moving in, right about the time that you hit 

that down slope on the inside you are now suddenly 

going forward rather fast as a time when you need to go 

slow to avoid that -- the trap latch. We hope 

that -- these are all with the current trains which I 

haven't seen yet one bi-level -- a single level that meets 

the current standard for 42 inch clear width in the 

vestibule. But if we are talking about something like 

lengthening and changing the space for wheelchairs, we 

are going to need to reconsider the 42 inches. Because 

it's tight to begin with if you are going to have a longer 

chair that's going to be as difficult as it is now with the 
current shares.

>> Blair Slaughter: Okay. Thanks Dennis. Anyone 

have any thoughts on that? I mean that is the -- there 

is that cart and horse issue if we change the sizes it's 

going to cascade back through everything, but, yes, 

Bob?

>> I was waiting for you to finish. Bob Reuter. The 

trap latch probably doesn't comply with the visually 

impaired tactile being able to find it. And running into 

it. It's not in the clear it wouldn't be a clear area

>> Blair Slaughter: I was going to say you probably 

will find it when you don't want to find it.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair Slaughter: I think it's important for those of 

us on the Amtrak special the other day with the 

bridgeplates, those cars are the 1974 vintage vehicles 

that probably generated the thought process around 

widening doorways in the first place and they are still 

the way they are, so we are looking forward to those 

being breached where they are in longer a problem. 

They are, Dennis, within the newer single-level cars, 

that has been watched very carefully on that width. 

Even to the point of when you open a hinge door into a 

32 inch opening so the door frame is okay but now the 
door is in the frame. So, it's not okay anymore. Those 

kinds of details that, um, have been missed on things 

we tried to be very diligent. And, also, looking at the 

thresholds and how critical that is to what you described 

moving through in a controlled fashion versus fighting 

with every element that you encounter. Yes, sir.

>> Thank you, Blair. Gary Talbot, Amtrak. Just a 

couple of follow-ups to Dennis' comments. I think the 

most critical measurement that we have is the 42 inch 

vestibule. Clearly the door opening is huge too. But 

42 inch vestibule and making that clear space so people 

can probably navigate in there and it may in fact need to 

be larger. The other issue on the private train, the 

other day we found the diamond plate used on the 

surface the walking surface that we have to roll across is 

God awful people can't get traction. If it's wet it's slick 

as you know what. The thresholds are just -- I will tell 

you, I can just about anywhere in your manual 

wheelchair I am popping wheelies so I get myself sort of 

situated. The reason I bring it up what we are hope to 

go do with our bridgeplate program is to improve that 

process as best we can, because like Dennis said, if you 

come off of something really steep inside there you are 

tearing up controllers, bashing your knuckles, it's really 
not a good situation. Future vehicles that you are guys 

are helping to pull together some recommendations for 

the board need to be a true space where folks can really 

get on and off a train and do the things that we need to 

do. We just can't do that in that type of a space.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Chris Hart. Correct me if I 

am wrong, the PRIIA the vestibule was widened to 44 or 

46 inches, and -- was it 44? Okay. And so, I think 

that might be the as you go forward, looking at Jon and 

Andre. And Josh, knowing what is being done in 

Europe, I don't know a train set nowadays operating 

with such a tight vestibule. Just because it impacts the 

boarding and alighting time. And if we are really 

moving toward higher speed rail I won't say high-speed 

rail but higher speed rail, then boarding and alighting 

time is the preeminent issue for improving overall 

running time.

>> Blair Slaughter: Absolutely.

>> LINDA MARTIN: I have a comment

>> Blair Slaughter: Okay. Linda?

>> LINDA MARTIN: Just as a point of clarification the 

specification for the bi-level car was changed to the 

vestibule to 44 inches the single level has not been 

changed yet it's still a work in progress. I hope. 
Anyway.

>> UWE RUTENBERG: Uwe Rutenberg -- sorry Chris, 

you go ahead.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Josh, were you able 

to -- Talgo vestibule were you able to solve that on the 

current cars in production?

>> JOSH CORAN: This is Josh Coran, Talgo. We 

did -- we had an interpretation problem at that resulted 

in the what people considered to be the haul bay being 

less than 42 inches or as required in the vestibule it was 

because of a folded away wheelchair lift. What we had 

to do is redesign the wheelchair lift, and we solved the 

problem that way so we have the full 44 inches.

>> UWE RUTENBERG: In Canada we specified and 

worked the vestibule with clearance of 60 inches. The 

reason for this was specifically because if you accept a 

scooter or mobility device that's 54 inches long and I 

don't know 30 or 32 inches wide, the turning radius that 

these things need now just won't do the 42 or 44 

inches. So, we specified the 60 inches and the 

vestibule is built to 60 inches right now. But I 

understand that in some of your older cars that might 

be difficult to do because you would have to move the 

bulk head in and restructure the whole car itself. It was 
easy in our case because it was almost kind of a new 

train new car rebuilt therefore we could do it this way.

>> Why would you need to turn around in the 

vestibule?

>> UWE RUTENBERG: To get around --

>> Use the mic.

>> There is an opening in the aisle that allows you 

the extra space to turn 60-inch-wide vestibule

>> You need to use the microphone.

>> FRANK MALDARI: A 60-inch-wide vestibule is 

enough. The next task is getting into the passenger 

compartment that area is typically a big opening you 

can turn around if you need to. Making the vestibule 

60 inches just seems like an overkill to me. We have 50 

inches mainly because we have 50-inch doors mainly 

because getting people on and off the train very quickly. 

When you get into one of our cars though the first area 

is -- happens to be where we assign for the ADA access 

area, and there is a rather large opening in the aisle, 

and the space is directly adjacent to it. But I am just 

wondering, why would you need to turn around in the 

small confined area.

>> Blair Slaughter: It wasn't to turn around but 

accommodate the turn radius of the scooters which 
have a very long wheel base geometry. Let me work 

down the line here, Dennis?

>> DENNIS CANNON: Yeah. The issue is not turning 

around, the issue is the right angle, turn into the 

aisleway to get you back into the space. If you look at 

ADAAG, for example, you will see that there are 

differences. We got the 42 inches from an ADAAG 

specification, but in ADAAG you turn into a wider, 

36-inch wide aisle. So can you make that right angle 

turn easier. We permit a 32-inch wide aisle turning 

from 42 inch vestibule into 32-inch aisle is not 

permitted in ADAAG. We did it in the cars because we 

were constrained by a number of issues. And again, we 

are try to go accommodate some of the older cars. The 

requirement to have a restroom on each side of that 

aisle essentially dictates the maximum width that you 

can get in there. If you do something like the Acela, 

which has a much wider aisle it's because the aisle is set 

to the side as opposed to trying to go down between 

two restrooms. And that works because it's a level 

boarding train and there are no step wells. The other 

issue that is often forgotten which is what I was getting 

at earlier is, when the guideline says 42 inches clear, it 

needs to be made clear to people that that means from 
all partitions what is typically done people think that 

means the walls have to be 42 inches apart. No, that's 

not correct you have to have 42 inches clear so you get 

more. The other question of course is you know, 

does -- is there a better design for the trap latch. Do 

you need a trap latch. Can the trap stay up in some 

other manner? Maybe magnetic or something so you 

don't have to have that. The question think -- the 

other question that I have though is when you go into 

the vestibule at least in the older cars, there is a, maybe 

probably about 3/4 of an inch sill at the doorway. 

There is also a sill into the compartment and one into 

the connection. So, the vestibule floor is actually 

maybe 3/4 of an inch lower than the rest of the floors. 

And I am wondering if that is just because that's the way 

we did it? Or if there is a reason for why that is there. 

I mean, one solution, of course, is to essentially raise 

the floor of the vestibule 3/4 of an inch and make all of 

the transitions nice. I am wondering if there is a reason 

why that is done that way?

>> Blair Slaughter: Dennis I will answer that and we 

will move to some of the other urgent hands across the 

aisle here. That is if you look at the older cars that's

because the way it was done. There was no thought 
given to a wheelchair was going to traverse that in 1968 

when the cars were originally designed. And that style 

was put into service. So, that's the shorted and 

unfortunate answer there. Actually, some of the 

modifications that have been looked at for those cars to 

improve the floor surface have also been looked at to 

improve that threshold condition so that it may remain 

high on those old cars from one side but won't drop on 

the other side you will be flowing into a smoother or 

more level condition. Let's see. Ed?

>> Just to let you know what the research found in 

terms of an L shaped turn, you are talking about a 42 by 

42 which would accommodate at least 95% of the 

population we studied maybe more we found a 40 by 40 

would be sufficient for an L turn.

>> Blair Slaughter: Okay. Gary.

>> Thank you Mr. Chair. Gary Talbot, I want to talk 

to the no need to turn around in the vestibule. The 

Acela, one thing I really do like about it, I know for folks 

that haven't been on the train don't ride it the way the 

accessible door is on the restroom it closes kind of 

towards the inner part of the car. So, if you try to open 

that door up, and you are sitting, you know, and the 

door is to your left it's constantly closing on you 
because the train is in motion. I go up to the vestibule 

spin around and jamb my feet into it so I can get in from 

that direction. I do that because the vestibule is large 

enough to be turned around in. The regional cars there 

is -- there is a lot of time you need to get through the 

car you need to go through the vestibule if you are in 

accessible end and connect today a cafe car like the 

train was the other day. You may not have to turn 

around completely in the vestibule just to make that 

maneuver, but the fact that it's so constricting today 

make that even very, very difficult. I think a 42-inch 

wide clear or larger would accommodate that even 

more.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: So it's -- Chris Hart, public 

member. I note on Wednesday when we were on that 

train, the vestibule was often the only place a couple of 

us could tuck in to go up or get to the cafe car without 

having to fight our way back over the (inaudible) to get 

into the coach cars. And -- if you were on a view liner 

sleeper, and you are one of the lucky people where it's 

not as skinny as Gary or Billy and you have a very small 

manual chair, the only way you can actually turn around 

is to back out of the sleeper room into the vestibule do 

a 6 or 7-point turn and then get to where you want to 
go like in the sleeper car. That's the current deal with 

maneuvering space. So, I think we have got pretty 

decent precedent for going at least to 44. And I would 

look to the vehicle manufacturers to share what their 

typical vestibules are on the international offerings so 

that just like yesterday FRA had that comparison of floor 

height for European, it's real standard input. Asian 

versus U.S. so folks can see the difference visually.

>> Blair Slaughter: Andre Gagne?

>> Yes. This is Andre from Bombardier. I was 

looking at the CFR and found the door opening or 

doorways have a minimum clear opening of 32 inches or 

30 inches. When I scroll down to the vestibule, it says 

shall have a minimum width of 42 inches. So why the 

different language? Why clear width for some doorways 

and minimum width for the vestibule?

>> DENNIS CANNON: It's all clear width it's the way it 

happens to get --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Dennis you are not on the mic

>> All of that needs to be clarified

>> Engineers would interpret it different minimum 

width you could have intrusions like handrails, knobs 

and things like that. You don't want to leave it to the 

engineers that's what I am saying.
>> DENNIS CANNON: We did a -- in addition to the 

regulation itself, which is written in reg-u-babble. We 

produced a series of language technical assistance 

manual so there is one for each mode. There is 

separate for commuter rail inter-city rail all go into 

great deal. They state the requirement. The 

reg-u-babble requirement there is a bar paragraph or 

maybe even a couple of pages explaining how it's to be 

applied and giving you some other issues about things 

like best practice and what not. Those are all available 

I am not sure that the folks necessarily got all of those 

things. We made them available when it was first 

written shortly after it was first written. And there is 

stacks of them up stairs these days. I don't think that 

we got a lot of use out of them but there was their 

intention. It's done that way in building codes as well. 

If you look at things like the NFPA fire code they put out 

the regulation they put out a handbook which is twice as 

thick that has all of the explanations of the information. 

That's one of the ways.

The other thing we did with the proposed revisions to 

the bus, is unlike the old original ADAAG which had a 

set of an appendix that has all kinds of initial 

information that nobody ever read, we started putting 
information in the text itself in a gray box. So, that you 

had the advisory information right in front of you in the 

regulation. So that you didn't have to search someone 

else to find it. And we definitely need something like 

that. The board will create that. We don't have to 

worry about it. But as we as part of the report can put 

in language and talk about discussions, what we mean 

by this, how it should be applied, then the board can 

use that language as part of its advisory notes.

>> Blair Slaughter: Dennis, thank you. I like that 

term reg-u-babble. We spend a lot of time diszoo 

ciphering code from various organizations sometimes 

our own. Chris pointed out the slide that's up on the 

screen now that shows different dimensions for clear 

space nearen traps it looks like.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Yes. Just to be clear this is 

for the built environment, this is a nonmoving object.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: So, this is for buildings these 

are the current door clearance standards for sliding 

doors arrangements. I will say in moving vehicles you 

have less precision in where your chair goes.

>> One thing I would like to point out in listening to 

the comments, right now the way that the regs seem to 
be written is based on parallel and perpendicular walls. 

And it seems like maybe what we need to be dealing 

with is the maneuvering geometry to ensure that we get 

what we want at the end of the day. That is the 

maneuverability, you know, I guess the easiest way to 

do that is set the clear width of the vestibule but maybe 

we can do better and -- and reduce the potential impact 

to the vehicle. And what I am thinking is just to throw 

out an idea, if we deal with it more from the 

transitioning aspect the geometry of turning and 

maneuvering versus parallel walls, when you build a 

vehicle, and I will use the Acela as a good example. We 

did -- the Acela is not a locomotive-hauled car. I

realize everyone is dealing with different modes. Just a 

little quick definition Acela -- Acela is a train set it 

doesn't have traditional vestibule and body indoor 

arrangement that you would find on a typical coach that 

you could take apart and put in a different tray. We 

had a lot of leeway there. We all set the aisle way and 

put the electrical cabinets and things in a shallower 

arrangement against the wall op set of the restroom. 

And ended up with a curved path from the vestibule 

area into the main body of the coach. But if you look at 

the way those walls are within the vestibule area, the 
room walls are not parallel to if the car body, at almost 

any point. They taper into the center line of the car 

which gives you greater maneuverability. And what I 

am leading to is if we can think about it more in those 

terms that little space buy the -- by the door those few 

ins -- inches that don't get caught up in a parallel wall 

definition can be electric locker space. And then that 

space isn't pushed into the body of the coach.

And I think we might be more efficient at the end of 

the day do a better service if we talk about it from terms 

of maneuverability not just all dimension obviously we 

have to have raw dim mentions in there but then talk 

about some of the design aspects that I think will help 

us do a better job on the industry side. Any thoughts 

to that? Gary?

>> Thank you Mr. Chair. Gary Talbot, Amtrak. I

don't disagree with your comments, but I would say it's 

amazing to me -- I have often am applying exactly what 

is in the ADAAG looking at it from the built 

environment, often in the vehicle environment. And I 

can tell you there has been so many times when you 

know we require certain clear space to get access to pull 

a door open in the built environment. Something like 

that.
>> Blair Slaughter: Right

>> It's amazing to me that's off an inch or two you 

know it is and opening the door is very, very difficult. 

Likewise, on you know, we extend a level platform on a 

door where the door opens and swings towards you you 

have a longer level platform so that if you need to do 

something, open the door, you are not like falling down 

a ramp to do it. People always -- always -- they often 

mess that up. And just an inch here and there just 

makes an incredible impact.

So, I understand what you are saying and I don't 

disagree with it but I think there are things like the 

vestibule width aisle widths and door openings are 

sacred. If you get those right with those you can do 

what you are talking about then you have a chance of 

having something closer to an Acela and less close to 

like a regional type thing that we have today. But 

without those hard and fast numbers to kind of package 

around, and try to move the things that you are talking 

about, and integrate, I don't -- I would be really 

concerned that we would end up where it would work 

for some but not the larger population that it could.

>> Blair Slaughter: Right. Gary I am with you there. 

If we talk about, for example, something between 42 
and 60 inches I think is the largest number we have 

heard today, and then look at -- go back and look at at 

that from -- if 42 is the minimum as it is today or even 

44 if that's what we go to, okay. But does that

ensure -- that's going to get you close when we start 

getting back to the manufacturing side, and the 

engineering side it's going to run right up against that. 

My thinking is what what if we do a little bit of both. If 

we set the minimum and you get a good chance of 

getting it right by the minimum but is there is it 

reasonable to extend -- to add to the minimum a 

maneuvering aspect so that you sort of maybe it begins 

to solve the problem for sure because we are adding the 

maneuvering aspect along with a maneuvering of some 

defined thing and then we get into trouble again what is 

the defined maneuvering. And, again, I think that 

would let us make sure we do a good job when you talk 

about inches, there is the inches that let you have 

accessibility, and then there is all of the other inches 

that stack up in the car. And I always tell people, you 

know an a rail car the inch is an inch it's not a 

throwaway whatever you are doing with it. I appreciate 

that from the accessibility side of it, that inch is just as 

critical as every other inch in the car. That's why I say if 
we can think about it in those terms, maybe we can do a 

bet are job all the way around at the end of the day.

>> if we set the -- we have to have a minimum 32 

aisle that you are turning into. So if we determine what 

the minimum vestibule width would be to be able to get 

into the 32 inch aisle with the scooter that could be 

base but as car builders if we were able to provide a 

wider aisle area (Jon Holbrook) when we turn the 

vestibule wouldn't have to be as big as the numbers that 

we come up with. Also, I found in the ADAAG figure 

410.6 confirm -- they have this platform lift doors and 

gates it it shows 42 minimum turning into a 32 min that 

was with the old chair numbers. So, what we really 

need to come up with is the correct number min number 

for a scooter.

>> Blair Slaughter: Right. Jim?

>> JIM WEISMAN: Quick question. How would you 

write a standard -- I know it's getting into 

regular-U-babble how would you write a standard that 

gets into maneuverability without getting into hard 

numbers I think it's a good idea.

>> ED HOFF: It's actually written in the proposed bus 

standards. With circulation paths although I 

wouldn't -- buses are a little bit more restrictive it's 
called a circulation path that identifies the clear width 

necessary from the boarding entrance to the accessible 

on board area called width of circulation path it's not as 

well design -- defined as we could do here for rail 

vehicles it defines the envelope being 40 inches above

the floor in other words, clear space for a height of a 

certain distance that helps Dennis' definition of you 

know where things are placed and how far the width is 

above the bottom of the floor.

>> This is Bob Carlson. Isn't the vestibule concept a 

legacy design in the first place where it needs to be 

open, and that's where the door was? Why are we even 

talking about vestibules? We are talking about Acela's 

not having that at all.

>> Blair Slaughter: I think just to answer that, the 

term vestibule as it applies to car that's a legacy thing it 

still occurs. It is not quite the thing it was years ago 

but there is not a better term that we have come up with 

like foyer or something like that but -- foyer it is an old 

term.

>> Isn't it also like an old concept that's not 

necessary anymore? Why do we have the interior door?

>> Blair Slaughter: It's -- when you have a 

locomotive hauled car a car that can be broken up, if 
you build a train out of ten cars or five or six cars and 

it's according to how many cars that you pull from the 

yard and build the train with, that's a locomotive hauled 

car. That gives flexibility to operation seasonally and 

daily and things like that. When you get into a train 

set -- also from maintenance standpoint if you have a 

bad car you drop it out and put another one in. A train 

set you lose a car you lose a train. So, you really have 

to be geared to manage train sets it's a fixed consist 

without moving heaven and earth. That's one of the 

advantages and disadvantages when you look at train 

sets versus individual cars. That drives that.

>> As opposed to being semi-permanently 

connected. Even then if the door the pocket door that 

goes between the vestibule and the passenger 

compartment if that were out on the other side of the 

vestibule wouldn't it do the same thing but you wouldn't 

have the barrier there?

>> Blair Slaughter: If you had it at the very end of 

the -- essentially the end of the vehicle?

>> Right.

>> Blair Slaughter: The trick with that, yes and no. 

We have had trains that were set up that way where the 

turbo liners we used to run up in New York State they 
had a door at the end of the collision post right by the 

diaphragm and they had the restrooms and things and 

then another set of doors so you achieve that. You

could do it both ways I suppose from a standpoint of 

people moving between cars, you don't want to have a 

stop in the middle of a diaphragm to push the button. 

It's -- that gets back to another advantage of train sets. 

You have permanently coupled or semipermanently 

coupled diaphragms. It can be done both ways. I

don't know that we want to get into dictating the car 

design but because things will vary probably primarily 

regional what works best on different cars. There may 

be some other engineering logic to why you with a want 

to -- why you would want to keep the door out of the 

area Andre the car builder.

>> This is Andre. Maybe for comfort noise coming 

from the truck you isolate that passenger area from the 

ends. That could be one reason.

>> That's create a vestibule.

>> Blair Slaughter: The railroad used to charge extra 

for vestibule in trains back when they were wooden. 

Bob?

>> Bob Reuter: That goes back before even my 

name Bob Reuter putting on my engineer's hat ridden 
the Acela I loved the curved hallway I am thinking how 

you would write it into spec that's the part that's 

interesting. How do you write a curved area way to put 

into a specification when it gets to Bombardier and here 

to Talgo they can interpret it the same way. And 

changing it just to a slightly different one when you 

talked about the vestibules, a lot of the new commuter 

cars are having the entries 1/3 from the ends they don't 

have vestibules. Even the silver liner 5's up in 

Philadelphia they have low -- high and low plat form 

from a 1/3 entry. It's beginning to show up. And the 

question is: We don't want to prevent it from 

happening in the future if a manufacturer wants to do it. 

Or if you spec it.

>> Blair Slaughter: Right, right.

>> Bob: I am trying to figure out how to spec the 

curve thing.

>> Blair Slaughter: It's worth looking at. There is 

always a risk with adding too much definition to 

something. And or not enough. And I have been in 

enough situations where it's like if someone tells you 

you can't put too much water or you can't have too 

much wear in a nuclear reactor, what does it mean? 

You can never put enough you can't put too much? So, 
you know on the design side you spend a lot of time 

going through the regs trying to understand the 

nuances that may not have even been there to begin 

with. Dennis?

>> DENNIS CANNON: Yeah. Ed mentioned this 

before. When we wrote the original bus standard we 

had -- because of the trickiness of all of those little 

obstructions fare boxes and so forth. We had a 

requirement for the minimum width of the ramp and the 

minimum width of the lift. And then the space for the 

wheelchairs. And then we said sufficient maneuvering 

space for wheelchairs to get from the door to that 

space. Which sounds like a nice idea in terms of 

performance standard. The problem is, how do you 

measure that as a designer how do you actually comply 

with that. We had some people who built a box 30 

inches by 48 inches by 30 inches high and put it on 

the -- pushed it down the aisle say if it can go down the 

aisle that's compliant. That's going to work but a 

wheelchair isn't a box, and it's narrow at the front than 

the back and so forth. Even if the box didn't fit exactly 

doesn't mean that a wheelchair couldn't have made the 

choice. We had lots of issues about people saying, 

well, what wheelchair are we talking about? And now 
manufacturers of buses are going to have to, you know, 

do research of their own and find out all of the 

wheelchairs in existence and measure them and every 

time they change. So, there is a trade-off between 

being too performance oriented and too design specific. 

You need both and you have to kind of walk a narrow 

line in the revised bus standard we tried to be a little 

more clear about minimum requirements measured 

from all points along that path. So that we better 

define what we mean by sufficient clearances. And so, 

it's tricky to do the performance like universal design 

which is a great concept but when it comes to 

somebody who is actually building, putting numbers in 

their auto CAD provision they have to have numbers to 

put in there to do the drawings. So it's tricky. But 

that's part of where you can amplify with some advisory 

language. It's also true, although this can be a pain, 

that you can go for equivalent facilitation. And lots of 

people have done that. DOT the advantage here with 

vehicles is DOT as an -- has an actual procedure where 

you get equivalent facilitation as opposed to the 

Department of Justice rules which are ambiguous 

enough it scares everybody off. I am not going to try 

that I am just going to comply. But we have had a lot 
of vehicle and DOT folks apply for different kinds of 

designs. These bridgeplates that we tested out, for 

example, don't comply with the standard. Because the 

two-inch lip on the side is supposed to go all the way 

from one end to the other. It makes sense to have 

them tapered the way they are but technically it's not in 

compliance. I am sure that they could get equivalent 

facilitation if they wanted to. Our job here is to fix 

that. So, it's not as it currently says. Make clear that 

those bridgeplates with the tapering of the side rail of 

permitted. But we need to be -- we need to get at least 

some specificity to the manufacturers and we don't want 

to have everybody having to go to do equivalent 

facilitation all over the place either. Because that's a 

process but it's also complicated.

>> Blair Slaughter: Yes, I will agree with that. Yes, 

Marsha.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Marsha Mazz U.S. Access Board 

Blair I would like to open really the best performance 

standards have a corollary prescriptive standard. So, 

you can comply with either the prescriptive standard or 

the performance standard. And the performance 

standard has to describe the outcome in sufficient detail 

that you even by reading the performance standard have 
a better understanding of what the prescriptive standard 

intends to achieve. So, if you are head inside that 

direction, I think it's fabulous. I also think that 

performance standards are much harder to write than 

prescriptive standards. But if that's where this 

committee wants to go, I would urge you to give it a 

shot it would be wonderful.

>> Blair Slaughter: This is Blair Slaughter, I am just 

curious from the car builders that are here, and 

suppliers what thoughts you have if you were handed 

that kind of a standard? Performance. Versus 

prescriptive or some combination thereof.

>> Andre: I prefer a performance standard it gives 

us much more leeway but it has -- I like the idea of 

having both at least give guidelines to some and open 

the door or other things library the Acela with the 

curved walls and pretty much anything as long as it 

works in the end. I understand the difficulty of having 

the wheelchair you know trying to define the wheelchair 

what it can do. Maybe we can what we could do is take 

the worst case I saw three categories yesterday of 

wheelchairs and maybe we can take the worst case of all 

of them and say you have to be able to -- you have to 

be compatible with these three occupied devices and 
make your way from the door to the area. Something 

like that. But I think it's interesting.

>> Blair Slaughter: Ed?

>> ED HOFF: Building off of the proposed bus regs 

they call out circulation paths although it doesn't say 

perpendicular to the path of travel, the measurement in 

my mind means perpendicular to travel at point to 

point. In other words, not a full box but a anywhere 

perpendicular to the route circulation route that you 

would take possible route. Let's say you are entering 

the vehicle and turning right into the coach. That any 

point along their perpendicular to the direction of travel 

measure point to point has to be a certain width at a 

certain height. And then there is an advisory in blue in 

the proposed reg that speaks to using a 3D model or 

other design moving from the vehicle doorway to the 

vehicle wheelchair space will help to ensure the clear 

circulation path complies with that requirement. So, it's 

not a performance standard but a guidance to help you 

get through that point. If we do a point to point 

perpendicular to intended route of travel or all possible 

intended routes and point to point and put a minimum 

dimension to that, and then put that advisory in similar 

to the proposed bus regs I think that we can achieve 
that.

>> UWE RUTENBERG: I am on here right? I am 

coming back to what Marsha and Andre said about 

performance standards. We actually started with 

performance specifications in our case. And what is 

interesting is when I compare what Frank said for 

instance we are looking at the 42 inch going into from 

the vestibule into the door, that design actually works. 

It's fine because you have the door in the center. In our 

case, the door was off the center, at the corridor, at the 

all. So, in both cases actually it works from a 

performance point of view but as Dennis said, you try to 

write this into standards and it's a very difficult thing to 

do. And very often you have to start with the 

performance standards or specific indications and then 

go to the descriptive and try to work from there. But 

it's very difficult to translate this then into standards 

and say this is what we have to do because it depends 

on all kinds of other elements you have in the design of 

the car or the seating or the corridors it's an integrated 

system. It's not just the vestibule and the door. It's 

you know to go into the passageway as you said in the 

buses, and you have to consider all of these elements to 

work together. So, it's very -- I think it's very difficult 
to write perfectly standards for that kind of thing.

>> Blair Slaughter: Thank you Ed?

>> ED HOFF: Again, this is if you think about an 

elevator where you have two doors one on one side and 

one on the adjacent is side to that door very much 

similar to what I was saying depending where the doors 

are located center on the wall of the elevator or when 

it's on the adjacent wall the long wall it could be too 

close to the door. I have to maneuver into the elevator 

do maneuverability to make it through it's not a clear 

shut through. I think that there is a -- the elevator 

regs come close to helping you through that. But in the 

end, I think that advisory that's in the proposed bus 

regs is very helpful in suggesting ways to work through 

that. I think you need that I don't know if it's 

necessarily a performance standard but advisory to help 

you work through trying to build the design based 

around the narrative.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Just one more point. We are no 

longer able to include advisories in the fed federal 

register version of anything that we publish. And that's 

not our rule it's federal register's rule. We can put 

advisory material on the website we are moving away 

from including little boxes with advisories, and moving 
toward our online technical assistance guides, which 

you may have seen. They are relatively new. Which 

will be companion documents to the materials. 

Moreallily segregate advisory from mandatory language 

which is pretty important in our world.

So, don't count too heavily on the advisory to say what 

you need to say. I would, again, urge you to consider a 

performance standard or come foremans or compliance 

with a prescriptive standard. And in that way, you 

provide two alternatives and people can use one or the 

other.

And so, lastly I want to say advisories are not 

enforceable nor are definitions. So, please just take 

that into consideration.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: And to (inaudible) while it's 

never enforceable obviously it doesn't solve (inaudible) 

pointing to it to say you can -- you define the door as 

XYZ. That said I think it's worthwhile to note in the 

508 ICT rule working with the European Union and 

colleagues around the world it's very nice performance 

space because ICT changes much faster than any 

regulatory (inaudible). That said, I do want to go back 

to -- I want to go back to something that someone 

raised earlier. And realizing that some of vestibule 
issues may impact the legacy issues. So, if I think 

about (inaudible) you get along the airport and you get 

downtown or you get to Rotterdam or it takes you from 

(inaudible) airport into Tokyo or elsewhere. They are 

not actually vestibules to begin with on those trains.

And so, it may behoove the advisory committee to 

really look at what is the state of train sets around the 

world, not necessarily long distance train sets. But 

there is medium distance and short haul train sets 

where frankly I am not picturing a lot of vestibules in 

the way -- in the way that the U.S. market is used to a 

vestibule.

>> Blair Slaughter: Chris, thanks. As you were 

talking I was thinking about at Amtrak when we talk 

about the entrances to cars we talk about vestibules 

even in a bi-level car where it isn't in the strict definition 

old definition of a vestibule a vestibule. But it is very 

much a transitional area from entering the door from 

the side, and making a perpendicular trance significance 

into the car body whether it's happen ago -- happening 

at the middle of the car or the end of the car on a single 

level or bi-level or where that's occurring. Whether it's 

on you know, an inter-city car, commuter, a light rail, 

whatever it might be, you are typically coming into a car 
and making it perpendicular transition. So, I think 

when we are looking, what we are talking about here is 

just that. It's transitioning initially from the side of the 

train, into it the longitudinal body of the train. And 

how we do that. So, those barriers that are there 

whether they are walls or post or whatever they are all 

need the same sort of -- they are all in the way or not in 

the way depending on how the car is set up.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: And I raise that, using the 

(inaudible) train as, I want to say it's an awesome train. 

But when you come in the door there is a 20 foot space 

where folks, where you can sit, you can per much you 

can keep your luggage. People go down two steps or 

they go up a couple steps because it's a bi-level. It's 

more that 1/3 mentality. But there is no bulk head 

separating to that side door. It's very much like getting 

on a WMATA train where it's open, and obviously they 

chose to do that design because hey you are serving the 

airport, you are going to have luggage and all of that. 

But it produces a much different on and off sequence 

than (inaudible) people. Which is the same thing for 

Cal Trans. You know, the (inaudible) corridor or newer 

cars in (inaudible) where you walk in you get light 

storage on the wall, and you get this open area that 
stands up.

>> Chris, again you make a good point. I think it's 

going to vary so vastly between the services, you know, 

again I look at the various services that Amtrak has and 

we sort of run the gamut from strictly long distance to 

almost a quasi commuter situation. Again, when you 

get down into the shorter trip modes, like the airport 

vehicles and things like that, it's -- you are going to 

have different arrangements conducive hopefully 

designed to manage what that train's purpose is that 

car's purpose is. But, again, I will go back to I think 

what we really looking at here is, and I have to keep 

breaking myself away from my Amtrak thinking. And 

into the broader term of we are making the transition 

entering the car making the transition. Yes, Dennis?

>> DENNIS CANNON: Yeah probably, again, the 

vestibule issue is from the older design, one of the 

reasons that the Acela works so well is because the aisle 

is off to the side. And parted of that is because there 

are no step wells for people to fall into or whatever if 

they are coming down that aisle. Although I suspect 

you could protect it with handrail if they had steps we 

should design all of the trains like the Acela.

 (LAUGHTER)
>> DENNIS CANNON: But transition area might be the 

better way to describe it say where you are coming in 

from the side and making a right angle turn to get to 

the seating area. And you want to make sure that it 

complies -- that there is a maximum maneuvering 

room, something about using maybe some of the 

diagrams in the ADAAG that talk about moving from one 

aisle width to another aisle width so depending upon 

the aisle width that you have going into the train, that

determines the width that you need perpendicular to 

that just inside the doorway. And there are a couple of 

diagrams in ADAAG it's not ADAAG anymore bus 

everybody call it is that. That has -- that shows 

turning into from one hallway essentially into another 

hallway. That depends on the widths of those corridor 

he is. So, if you make the entryway that goes down into 

the -- where the seating is wider, you don't need as 

much perpendicular room in the transition area. So, 

you have given some flexibility to people to design a 

variety of different configuration as long as they meet 

all of those minimum requirements

>> Dennis, to that point I will say this real quick and I 

will call you David hold go ahead David yesterday we got 

you balled up with your -- we broke your train of 
thought.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> David: Yes. Thank you. No, Chris mentioned 

earlier about ICT and that's the international is that 

European standards? I want today follow-up with what 

exactly ICT means just for clarification.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: That's a 508 computer 

technology rule that the board has sorry. Sorry. I was 

in government babble.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> David: Okay. And, remember, I am not 

government. My only concern here is that the 

technology is changing so much and so often. The way 

that the train cars are made, and you know the way they 

are now are going to be different 20 years later they are 

going to be lighter and stronger than they currently are 

than the heavy cars that we have now. Now, I guess my 

frustration is the current regulations for inter-city have 

not been changed over 20 years.

And so, there needs to be some type of language 

where it's easier to follow, you know, international 

standards of some kind. But at the same time, I am 

scared of doing international standards because Europe 

is very -- it's not very progressive compared to us 
regarding accessibility. They might be progressive in 

terms of train cars, but I guess what I am looking for is 

a way that we can say we don't have to locked down for 

the next 20 or 30 years per se.

>> FRANK MALDARI: I am just going back to what you 

had mentioned before. And I think what Dennis had 

mentioned before as well. If you come up with some 

numbers like 42 inches for an opening in the door 

opening, and then an accessible path which is kind of 

what Ed was saying. If you put a 3D requirement for 

the volume that has to move it's given you some 

flexibility to whether you have curved walls straight 

walls whether you have 42 inch leading vestibule into a 

52 inch aisle or vice-versa it gives you flexibility. I am 

not sure that I really understand what is wrong with the 

3D volume because typically as a designer and you have 

auto CAD and these tools you try to do that. So, if you 

could define the volume accurately, you can really do a 

good job of designing the interior so it's 

accommodating before you wind up getting to the 

mockup stage. The 3D volume to me I think was the 

key. If you define the 3D volume accurately and 

somehow talk about the man 

enoughability. -- maneuverability. You can maneuver 
and backing up is different than having a straight path. 

I would think the entrance to the -- from the car 

through the transition area or vestibule into the seating 

area should be a straight path. And then after that, you 

are going to have to maneuver to get to a parking spot. 

So, my suggestion is 3D area and maybe a few more 

words as to what -- if you can back up or not back up in 

order to accommodate that. My suggestion.

>> Blair Slaughter: Bob?

>> Bob Reuter. We are all here try to go make 

something work. In October I am going to be down at 

APTA for the public transportation expo if it's typical 

everybody is going to ask me what can we get away 

with.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Bob: It's not what we have to do or what is good 

but what is the minimum we can get away with. And I 

think we talked to Bombardier we talked to Talgo we 

talked to everybody else who is building these things, 

and I will bet you have mentioned engineers are 

thinking exactly that way. And I think we have to be 

careful of giving them too much rope.

>> Blair Slaughter: As far as lack of definition or --

>> Bob Reuter: Yes lack of definition. I am an 
engineer on one side I like being able to play with stuff. 

But on the other side you are also playing up against 

what you can get away with.

>> Blair Slaughter: I understand.

>> Bob Reuter: We are try to go find here putting a 

limit on that what they can get away with part while 

encouraging innovation.

>> Blair Slaughter: Right and my point in bringing 

that up in the first place was that if if I designed a car 

entrance way similar to a an Acela. I may not have the 

electric cabinet side which is opposite from the 

restroom, maybe it doesn't protrude into the car very 

far, you can make a maneuvering argument that says, 

well, if that is only 32 inches wide, but it goes 12 inches 

into the car and suddenly opens into a 50 inch wide 

space that I have done more than is required by the law 

or by the rule from a functionality standpoint. And yet 

it would not comply because it's not wide enough. And 

I guess then you have to take the path equivalent 

facilitation and prove, yes, I have been bad over here 

look at what I have done at the same time. But, yes, 

there is a reality. I have run up against it with car 

builders where if you know you write into the 

specifications must comply with the ADA and then they 
want to pull the book out and argue with you about why 

things are the way that they are. And you are the job 

owner you are arguing. So, it's not always the -- the 

agency is not always the car builder but something in 

between Dennis?

>> Bob Reuter: One who does it long enough knows 

they only go by the minimums, the least possible but no 

less than or no greater than they are going to go with 

whatever number you spec.

>> DENNIS CANNON: In the original regulations we 

specify things like width and length. You know, 30 

inches 48 inches so forth in the proposed bus revisions 

we went an additional step and talked about height up 

to a certain height to clear things like the controls on a 

power wheelchair. So, we have gone now to more of a 

volume issue. One of the problems with that in terms 

of -- we used to have a definition in the guidelines 

that's still in the DOT rule but in the guidelines we had 

the definition of a common wheelchair.

And that was designed to give an idea of what the 

space requirements would be. What we found the 

transit agencies started using it in a totally different way 

that we did not intend to. They started using it to 

essentially try to exclude people from, especially 
paratransit because their wheelchair didn't comply with 

that specific requirement. We realized in revising the 

bus we really didn't need that just to specify the space 

requirements. We took it out. You would have 

thought that we completely gutted the regulation from 

the reaction we got from the transit industry. Who 

screamed and yelled about no, no, no you have to have 

that. Specify -- they wanted us to say, when we said 

the lift capacity was a minimum of 600 pounds they 

wanted to say no no you want to specify in the revision 

it's a maximum. Because that's the way they 

interpreted the definition of a common wheelchair which 

is a maximum. So we said nope that's not true. So, 

you have to be careful to some extent, I would love to 

have somebody have a nice, and I think maybe Ed was 

working on this, you know, auto CAD figure that you 

could just plop down into your decide and run it 

through and see whether or not it's really going to work 

and give somebody a tool that they could use that 

would be useful as opposed to this kind of conceptual 

idea of what is a common wheelchair. We want to avoid 

using that we want to talk more about the space 

requirements, not the maximum requirements of a 

common wheelchair.
>> Thank you Dennis. Ed Steinfeld.

>> We could take the data we have and develop some 

prototypical users from that. You know, if you 

accommodate all of these people, you pretty much 

accommodate the whole sample. In other words, man 

cans 3D mannequins that you could use to test out 

designs that could include reaching abilities and turning 

abilities as well. 

>> I think that we could do that. The -- I would also 

recommend -- I would recommend that you all look at 

online for designs of train cars because there is a lot 

online I found the website that has all of the countries in 

Europe not all of them but a lot of them you can go and 

look at cars that some of them are very diagram at 

particular others aren't. It seems to me that there are 

several different kinds of trains. And the kind of 

accommodations that each train has is different as has 

been mentioned before. I don't think that you can have 

standards that apply to all of the different types that are 

the same standards. It seems to me we want to think 

about a train standards that are different for each class 

of trains each type of trains. That's going to be harder 

than just coming up with one size fits all. But I think 
that is the way it would make sense when you look and 

see all of the differences the trains that have -- that are 

long distance trains need more space they need more 

amenities and access to amenities that you don't have in 

a commuter train. And subway trains are a whole 

different animal they have longitudinal seating and that 

allows a lot of different things to happen in it.

>> Blair Slaughter: Okay. Thanks Ed. Terry. 

>> LINDA MARTIN: This is Linda. I have one 

comment.

>> Go ahead Linda.

>> LINDA MARTIN: Well, I guess it's actually two. 

One is that DOT actually did take the definition of a 

common wheelchair out of its definition and it's now 

basically a class of 3 or more wheeled mobility device, 

et cetera. And the reason is just what Dennis was 

saying about paratransit agencies or bus agencies who 

could accommodate larger heavier wheelchair usually on

lifts or in their buses. And we are excluding them just 

based on their size. But and the other point that I 

wanted to make this is probably a less popular point. 

Which is what we often hear at FRA from builders and 

others that doesn't occur with commuter rail or bus 

services is that Amtrak inter-city rail they sell tickets. 
They sell seats and they sell services and amenities. 

Oftentimes when you ask them to give up space for 

whatever you asking them to give up space for whether 

a larger bathroom or a larger wheelchair space, the 

refrain that we hear and it's -- and it's a consideration 

that has to be considered is that there is an economic 

part to what they do. If you make the wheelchair space 

bigger or the restroom bigger you are taking away 

revenue seating. And it's never a popular comment to 

make around people who, including me, who would 

prefer larger spaces. But it is part of the equation I 

don't want us to loose sight of. It's a giant part of the 

equation when you are talking about a lift or an elevator 

inside a rail car and how many revenue seats that will 

take out to accommodate the lift itself. So, that -- I am 

just throwing it out there as that's part of the equation 

and would be part of a rulemaking equation once that 

eventually happens in terms of economic analysis that 

would be done in terms of the impact on railroads.

>> Linda, thank you I appreciate that. And 

that's -- that's a burden that we bear on the Amtrak 

side particularly. But Jim I will get to you in a second I 

owe Terry.

>> Linda trumped me. Terry Soesbee. Two things 
Linda hit on one of the ones I would get at. We come 

back around to the bad car builder who doesn't want to 

give up the space and the bad car builder goes back to 

the bad equipment supplier and the designers want to 

design to the bear minimum. Absolutely false 

impression. Because we are doing what our customer 

wants me for him and him for you, the guy saying I 

don't want to give up the space isn't the guy designing 

the bathroom or bedroom or the vestibule whatever it 

is. That's the operator. And I think you know there is 

a couple of good points that the operating environment 

whether it's commuter or subway inter-city controls you 

know how much space that you want to give up. 

People coming and going, at what rate getting on and 

off the train some things don't make sense in one 

environment than they do in the other. But as a 

designer, every other thing that we do there are 

standards. I go to a 1940's Dreyfus book I can find 

95th percentile male updated to the 2014 95th 

percentile male, but I don't have that quote standard 

wheelchair. I think it would be crazy to design around 

a standard wheelchair. But a maximum? A

nonrectangular non-box but that actually 

design -- defined the limits of the feet, the arms, I 
mean all of the usual things that we design around 

would be tremendously helpful. Can I go -- I can buy 

$500 software called mannequin, I get 3D any shape 

size person I want I can design right down to perfection 

or near perfection. But I don't have the same kind of 

criteria with designing for accessibility. It's really -- if 

we could do something like that, that would be very 

helpful at our level.

>> Thank you Terry.

>> JIM WEISMAN: Inter-city rail have they talked about 

I want to call it cheating like the airlines do? I -- what I 

mean is, today I checked in for my flight home it's 25 

different choices now about space. And they, you 

know, if you need room to tear open the peanuts they 

charge you for in a.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> JIM WEISMAN: It could be -- it could be that in the 

near future, inter-city rail distinguishes even in coach 

between seating spaces, and creates more room for 

wheelchairs by cheating there is the cheat. Cheating a 

little here and a little there on coach seats those people 

pay a little less they get a little less leg room overhead 

or whatever it is. And that makes more room for the 

chair without changing the size of the coach or the box 
that, the footprint that the coach uses. Changing the 

interior configuration of the seating. And it could 

actually be a revenue generate are for the rail system. 

By the way, I hate that idea.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> JIM WEISMAN: But I feel like it's coming 

everywhere. You know the movies now in New York 

City you can buy advanced reservation and get 

recess -- re-- reserved seat. You pay a little more

>> I will say this quick we need to take a 10-minute 

break Chris is reminding me I am glad somebody is 

keeping up with me. One, I would hope that bee 

don't -- I hope we don't go down that path

>> Me too.

>> From the Amtrak perspective that's all I can speak 

to directly historically we have tried to be where we can 

the nice guy. The airlines are beating people up. You 

look and go the only reason the people fly is because 

the plane goes fast. They have nothing else going for 

them. It isn't the way they treat people. It isn't the 

way they handle people. You are basically a sack of 

potatoes with them with a credit card.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> And if you bring any extra sacks of potatoes it's 
more money. So I -- I know that it's not always been a 

clear shot with a sharp focus but we would like to be the 

place that you go and sigh a sigh of relief not frustration 

thank God I am not on an airplane. And I think that for 

all of us us whether we are in local short distance transit 

or long haul passenger trains that the goal is when 

people get into your vehicle, they sigh a sigh of relief 

that they are not on the highway, that they are not in an 

airplane, so that we continue to grow our mutual 

industry the broader industry of mass transportation.

>> And they can take their shoes off.

>> Stay awhile, yeah. Sometimes longer than you 

want to.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> with that, should we take 10 minutes. What does 

it work out to be time wise.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: That will be 11:25. -- or 

11:20.

>> Minimum or maximum.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Is that a performance standard or a --

 (LAUGHTER)

(Short recess taken.)
>> PAUL BEATTY: Yes, this is Paul.

>> Hello this is the operator.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Hi operator.

>> Hi.

>> PAUL BEATTY: We are still we took a break but 

we want all lines open. And we will be shortly starting 

again we will take it from there.

>> Okay, great. (Short break) (Waiting to resume)

(Discussion off record.)

>> Blair Slaughter: I am going to jump in and try to 

get this show on the road. Could we get back to the 

program, folks? Hello? Now, boarding. Track 

number 10. The express.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair Slaughter: Last call. Service to Chicago. 

Boy, that did it.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair Slaughter: Okay. All Aboard Florida for the 

Access Board.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Okay. Folks we are reconvening.

>> Mr. Chair I don't think we gave you the honorary 

taser. 
>> Blair Slaughter: I am as bad as anyone. If we 

could get you started again. Are we ready on 

the -- she is good over there okay saw some. -- okay, 

awesome. I did want to step back to comments made 

before the break that Ed was talking about looking at 

things by mode. And I think I got what he was saying 

at the same time looking at try to go move seamlessly 

and can you from one place to the other. I think I 

would have to be very careful. If you leave home or 

work and you are taking one form of transit to another 

to another. And eventually ending up on a train, you 

want to be -- know that you are going to do that 

without running into a situation where there is 

a -- there is an access problem of some sort because of 

dimensional differences. So when if you think about 

what is happening day on the Metro here, I don't know 

what percentage of folks are going to work. Some folks 

are going shopping. Others are just transitioning to 

maybe union station to get the Marc train or Amtrak to 

go to BWI to get a plane. All different conditions all on 

the maim mode for different periods of time. I would

think that we want to keep the standards as close as 

possible throughout the modes. I mean, maybe we 

say -- from a -- I hate the word from a minimum 
standpoint, at least and then maybe in other situations 

we add to that. But that was just my thought. David 

Nelson?

>> David Nelson: Okay. I want to see more of a 

consistency because you know I get on one train it's 

older. There is a different -- there is different 

accessibility standards than a newer train so it gets very 

confusing when I am a first-time user. I would like to 

see more consistency as much as possible. In the 

newer regulations that is.

>> Blair Slaughter: Okay. And David, I guess the 

tough part of that is if you are looking at new vehicles 

versus vehicles that get rehabilitated sometimes it's 

not -- there is that -- that sneaky word practicable is 

that the word? I hate that word.

 (LAUGHTER) 

>> I have a hard time getting my arms around what 

that means it's a source of argument. David makes a 

good point it's critical. It's worse if you are in the same 

train made up of different lineage of cars Dennis?

>> DENNIS CANNON: We have to remember again we 

are riding -- we are writing recommendations for a new 

car. There will always be the case of some of the old 

equipment. We have an -- we got that argument 
proposing the new bus regs from somebody said no, no 

you can't change it. We will have buses of two types or 

whatever on -- on the road at the same time. We will 

will be confused. Our answer is that happens no matter 

what change you make. And that's always going to be 

the case no matter what. You will have some people 

that can't get on one bus when they can get on another. 

Paratransit lifts typically are bigger than the lifts in the 

fixed route buses, and the doors, it has to do with 

configuration and where the doors are and the 

clearance -- the approach angle and so forth for the 

bus. So it may be that you can get on a paratransit 

vehicle but you can't get on a bus. You may be able to 

get or not get on a bus but you can get on a Metro car. 

The Metro car has a 40-inch wide door. Buses do not 

have 40-inch wide doors. So, there is always going to 

be the case of you may find yourself at some point 

getting off the Metro going up to the Union Station and 

discovering while you had no problem getting on and 

off the Metro you can't get off the train because it's an 

older model. Consistency is great amongst the kind of 

things in new construction or new design. Even then 

we may have different requirements for buses, for 

example, than for -- I mean, you want to talk about the 
doorway width in the rail car, that's not necessarily 

going to work in the bus. So, you may find yourself 

that even when we write standards that talk about 

32-inch clear doorways in train cars, somebody who can 

get in there isn't necessarily going to be able to get on 

other kinds of modes.

>> Blair Slaughter: Thank you Dennis. I mean, 

that -- that idea sort of goes back to or gives credence 

to what Terry was saying before the break which is is 

there any sanity in talking about not a minimum vehicle 

size but a maximum envelope to use, for defining 

movement in our rail vehicles. I mean, there is some 

risk there but there a lot risk with than than with the 

minimum where everybody defaults back to and argues 

about. But I understand. Obviously things that affect 

the access to a bus or train, some of those things are 

going to be driven by -- by time. And the function of 

that vehicle. But if we -- if we had a maximum size 

then -- and you knew that vehicles of a certain ilk are 

going to have that capacity, then you can plan your path 

accordingly. I mean, if you know a paratransit vehicle 

has a certain level of accessibility and you need to get 

from point A to point B, and the bus won't do it you 

won't take the bus. But I think -- the more consistency 
we can get within what we have control over, I think, is a 

reasonable thing.

deny dn that was part of the rationale for some of the 

things like the width of the ramp say in a bus (Dennis) 

while we maybe had more space inside I think I said this 

before. One of the things that we wanted to have 

happen if you weren't going to be able to maneuver 

inside a bus or any train we didn't want you to get inside 

to find that out. We wanted to stop you at the door. 

We wanted to make sure that you didn't get into the 

vehicle if you weren't likely to have enough space on the 

inside. So, even though you could have made the lift or 

the ramp or whatever a little wider if you wanted to, it 

was partly a limitation to say, if you can't get in this 

door, we don't -- you can't maneuver in this vehicle, 

you should not get on the vehicle and get stuck in the 

vehicle. We want to stop you before you get on.

>> Blair Slaughter: Right. Bob?

>> Bob Reuter. I am wondering this is just a 

thought, if we should designate something like nominal 

standard with a minimum 36 inch nominal 32 inch 

minimum. We are telling people we wanted 36.

>> Nominal isn't defined. We ran into that with 

detectable warnings when we had nominal before. And 
realized there is no definition of nominal. So you can't 

enforce it.

>> Bob Reuter: That's what I was afraid of.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: We don't include advisory in our 

regulations essentially by saying 36, I think nominal 

isn't the right word 36 preferred 32 required is 

essentially an advisory not a requirement. And, again, 

we don't include advisories in the enforceable text. 

>> Blair Slaughter: Okay. Everyone is looking so 

quiet right now. Chris?

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: I just wanted to -- it's time 

to put together a document on clear force circulation for 

the committee. I just realized Ed is not in the room 

right now. But that is on that website. And I think that 

might help inform discussion. And just a little note 

that you guys are not meeting all day. So, you may 

want to begin to think about concrete steps before 

everyone gets too hungry.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: And just as a time check it is 

10 minutes of noon

>> Wow. Spoken like a hungry man.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Time flies when you are having fun.
>> Blair Slaughter: Well I appreciate the discussion 

that we are having here. I think it's critical and it's nice 

to see the interaction between folks with often very 

different interests but common interests at end of the 

day here. So, if we go back to item 5.1. And or 5.1.1 

and we have car entrance the vestibule if we want to talk 

about that as a transitional area, I think we have hit on 

that quite a lot. My thinking is we need -- there needs 

to be homework done on

>> I'm sorry what was that?

>> Blair Slaughter: That's in the agenda (indicating).

>> Thank you.

>> Blair Slaughter: I think I have an extra copy. I'm 

sorry 5.1.1 was car entrance. 5.1.2 was vestibule 

including thresh holds then it goes to 5.1.3 which is 

inner car passage. I would appreciate because it can't 

just be talking I would appreciate thoughts about what 

we do to move this thing down the line. You know, do 

we put a stake up and say here is a dimension or do we 

feel like we need to gather more information before we 

can do that and then what is that information do we 

want to look at volumes.

>> STANTON SAUCIER: I don't want to prolong the 

discussion anymore than is necessary. But I just just 
occurred to me that the through some comments that 

Mr. Steinfield made reminded me of a series of surveys 

that I had done in the UK which were essentially to 

measure a bunch of systems to see what you could 

apply a definition of a standard, you know, come up 

with a standard definition you know based on. It would 

seem to me there might be an opportunity here to have 

or to take leadership in describing what that standard 

should be and based on hard data, provided by the 

study that Mr. Steinfeld has already done as well as what 

might be gleaned from some of these things done in the 

UK where we might be able to say this is a standard 

mobility device, you know, provide a generous envelope 

for that. And not only would this provide some 

guidance for designers of the systems, but might even 

provide some guidance for folks that are looking to get 

mobility aids that are you know known to be able to go 

through public transit systems. Perhaps this is a place 

for that. Especially given some of the work that's been 

done by Mr. Steinfeld and his group.

>> Thank you sir Bob?

>> Bob Reuter maybe this is a chance where we put 

up a strawman standard and let us go home play with it 

and see whether -- where it works and where it doesn't 
work.

>> Blair Slaughter: Okay. I guess the question is do 

we have time to do that today I don't think so given the 

hour. But could -- should we do that as a bit of 

homework for Melissa wants to say something.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: I put the Steinfeld paper that 

he submitted to the circulation commit tie, into the 

meeting materials for both circulation committee and 

the boarding and alighting committee I wasn't sure 

where we would have the opportunity to tackle it first. 

And it is important and one of the first steps we need to 

take. So, we could continue this discussion with the 

boarding and alighting committee this afternoon and

work together as two committees.

>> Blair Slaughter: Okay. There is obviously a lot of 

overlap what one does is going to impact the other. 

Ultimately. I would be fine with that. But I think that 

to Bob's point and Stanton right? Stanton, yes, okay, as 

far as homework goes because I don't think that we can 

build our strawman today given the time that we have, 

but if we can get some of that data, is that something 

that you think you could --

>> I am perfectly happy to get together -- I noticed 

that Ed is not here either but I am perfectly happy to get 
together with him and share what I have and you know 

see if there is something that -- you know, for scooters 

for shares -- for chairs of these types here is what 

represents the 95th or 98th percentile. And come up 

with that.

>> Yes

>> This is Marilyn. I am over here now. Always 

moving around.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> I think we can all try to work with that Ed is the 

guy that can come up with that most easily I think he 

volunteered to do it. We didn't take him up on it at the 

moment he will be back hopefully we will say hey, yes, 

please do it.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: My policy is not to volunteer 

people when they are not there because they will just 

not do the thing. But yes I think he is happy to do it. I

also wanted to ask the question: As we establish the 

space needs for different kinds of devices, mobility 

devices, depending on how you conceptualize that 

exercise you -- it can seem like you are drifting into, 

well, if the people just bought scooters then we 

wouldn't need to provide this other dimension and then 
everything would be fine. In other words, it can't drift 

into you are prescribing what mobility device is 

acceptable people need to get that to ride your train. 

Not that you would say that. It drifts into prescribing 

what acceptable devices are. And so, what

>> (inaudible).

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Jim says only Medicaid can do 

that. Only the funder of the chairs can do that. They 

shouldn't but they get away with it. But one of the 

guiding principles that should be at the top of the other 

document that DREDF had the opportunity to make 

comments on is that people choose the mobility devices 

that they choose. And we have to figure out how big 

they tend to be. And how much access they need. But 

we can't prescribe what they use. Now, there is limits 

to that, the Department of Justice has put out in the 

2010 regulation the new category of other power driven 

mobility devices. That's referring to things that aren't 

wheelchairs and scooters count as wheelchairs. That's 

referring to things like SEGWAYs and what are the things 

that people use to tear up the environment the off road 

vehicles and off -- alter rain vehicles. That's not 

all terrain vehicles. If they can't get on those things 

that's okay. Power and manual wheelchairs and 
scooters within the category which is defined as the 

rights are protected by the ADA Ed has figured 

out -- here the man of the hour we are up to take you 

up on the offer to do some big thing.

>> UWE RUTENBERG: This is Uwe Rutenberg. I want 

to add to what Marilyn is saying we did a study of access 

of scooters to bus and paratransit vehicles. You have 

across public transportation the same problem that is 

how do you define the new footprint for mobility 

devices. If we are taking to account the fact it's now 30 

by 54 we have this problem in buses and paratransit 

vehicles and aircraft and trains and everywhere. The 

problem is that we have to find a way how to 

accommodate it. At the same time because when you 

look at the picture of scooters, for instance, that they 

are on the market right now, they can range from 54 

inches to 80 and 90 inches you have double seated 

scooters you have all kinds of things out on the market. 

And what we have tried to do in a -- is define between 

transportable scooters and nontransportable scooters 

and that receipts to the size dimension the turning 

radius and the weight. Because the weight is another 

problem that comes into the equation. When you are 

talking about lifts, platforms, bridgeplates. So far we 
have pay loads of 600 pounds. They seem to be not 

adequate for the future. We are talking about 800 

pounds in some cases a thousand pounds because if 

you take the increase in the weight of some people plus 

the mobility device, you know, very easily exceeding 

600 pounds that's another aspect that you have to look 

into. What I am saying is this problem is across all 

public transportation issues and I think that is 

something that we have to solve in the future.

>> Blair Slaughter: To that end I will say this quickly. 

It's every mode of transportation whether it's the airlines 

or the railroads or buses struggles with their own set of 

problems. Each thinks the other one has it easier. But 

one thing I have always thought and maybe someone in 

the community can speak to this is the one -- I don't 

want to say group that seems to get off without 

worrying about much is the manufacturers of the 

devices. And I mean they are selling devices and with 

awful bells and whistles that's understandable but I 

don't know if there is anything that helps people know 

when they are shopping or looking, you know, someone 

sells you something, yeah this will fit. And they have 

got your 

money -- 
 >> It's actually the opposite they tell you it's not 

transit safe they won't certify them for transit

>> The instructions say that nobody knows that.

>> JIM WEISMAN: When you talk to Medicaid HHS, HHS 

would love one size -- Obama care doesn't protect 

durable medical care equipment. Medicare Medicaid 

ensurers the overwhelmingly the purchasers of this 

thing the place for them to cheat is going to be on 

medical equipment and supplies because it's not 

protected by Obama care they would like disabled 

people to fit in one chair they can mass produce them it 

would be cheaper since they don't they are going for 

cheaper and lighter flimsier and not for use in the 

community more use at home. There is going to be a 

really rub with the aging population that is going to 

need wheels soon, I mean very soon. Because of the 

problem with Obama care and trying to keep costs 

down. And they keep saying that doing anything with 

making it transit safe or standardized for tie downs or 

ups the cost of the equipment. Of course 

customization does too for people with disabilities. 

Which is still the law. You still are supposed to be able 

to get a customized wheelchair you just have to fight.

>> Blair Slaughter: Just from -- I have seen at 
Amtrak and God knows we have done -- we have good 

days and bad days good years and bad years decades I 

have seen situations where the folks on the railroad 

would go out of their way to help someone get on the 

train that perhaps shouldn't have -- their travel vehicle 

shouldn't be there they moved heaven and earth to get 

them there. And then they get to a different part of the 

railroad where the size of the vehicles and things 

changed say into the corridor they simply can't complete 

their journey. But the folks say in Florida just again 

because they didn't want to not bring them aboard. It 

was, no, we are the railroad we can do anything. They 

got as far as Philadelphia and couldn't go to Harrisburg. 

You run into that -- but you can't write around that.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: You shouldn't have to.

>> Blair Slaughter: That's -- I don't know if it's 

anything that we can talk about because we have no 

affect on it. But it is from a provider side it's a 

difficulty.

>> I think we can talk about actually in a way I am 

channelling Ed for a second even though he is right 

here. The way -- I mean because I have been on the 

equivalent of this group for buildings, in terms of 

building standards the ANSI committee although that's 
not related to the ADA that's private anyway it relates to 

state codes. But the way Ed has handled it is to look at 

not all other power driven mobility devices but things 

that are wheelchairs, manual and power, and scooters 

he measures everybody. And then he comes to the 

(inaudible) standards fit the 95th percentile the 90th 

percentile. In other words, the question is how many 

people are we willing to exclude. So, you know, we 

have -- you know, we have tried to get it up to 95 or 90 

at least. You know and some of the industry folks on 

the group are happy to cut it off at 8 #- or 85 for the 

biggest devices but at least we know exactly what we 

are talking about. You are not talking about excluding 

one person you are talking about the numbers of people 

who use devices. And you make a decision that this 

standard gets just about everyone. You know, who use 

standard devices like wheelchairs and scooters. So, you 

are not -- you know, it's much less offensive. You are 

not dictating what devices people can use. You are 

establishing what level of standard we can come date in 

the built environment whether a vehicle or building. So 

I think it's a good way to do.

>> Ed: I hear you have been planning work for us?

 (LAUGHTER)
>> Ed: As a federally funded center it's the thing 

that we would like to do so we are willing to do this 

within certain limits. I don't know what you discussed 

but we definitely would like to develop 3D mannequins 

he can do static ones so that they are basically 

represented -- we could do enough that represent the 

different kinds of issues in the standards. So, like I 

showed you those photographs you have the knee 

height and toe clearance issues, you have the length 

and the width issues, you have those are the beginnings 

there is a reaching issue a bit more complicated because 

that requires some dynamic modeling. Terry

mentioned mannequins that are in human modeling 

programs we would like to work with human modeling 

software developer we have talked to them and they are 

not interested. If we could get the weight of people to 

pressure them maybe they would be willing to do this 

and we could work with them and give them the data 

and they could create manneqins that can be moved and 

adjusted. I am not sure we could do that. I think we 

have to look into that. I could tell you what we would 

be able to do. We could do it in a way to start with as 

Marilyn pointed out we can show you who is 

accommodated who isn't by etch each of the --
>> I think so we don't start getting into the spaces 

committee work but just to try to move this one along. 

If we were looking at it from -- from the types of 

wheelchairs or mobility devices to capture the scooters 

and the range of sizes and what -- what potentially the 

largest is or if we look at a range of volumes and see 

how that -- what percentile that deals with I realize in 

your research you have that according to vehicle type so 

I think if we could maybe do that as a starting point just 

to --

>> That's what I am thinking too.

>> Blair Slaughter: Utilize data that you already 

collected would at least let us begin to get our hands 

around this a little bit.

>> I think we would start with two dimensional 

drawings and which we are -- we pretty much have. 

And then we can decide what ones we want to use for 

the three dimensional, if we want to go that far,

The way we have been usually doing it we use the 

50th, 75th, 90th and 95th percentile. Mainly because 

often there are constraints at the higher -- at the larger 

end that sort of mean you have to pull back in places 

because you -- the gain you are getting is not worth it. 

You know? It's like high-end stereo equipment.
>> Right.

>> Ed: So, we start with that for the three different 

types.

>> Again, I would like to just for the sake of not 

abusing your time and for the sake of the next meeting, 

you know, the more you can rely on data that you

already collected, and apply that Gary?

>> Thank you Mr. Chair. Gary Talbot, Amtrak. Just 

to kind of follow-up on what Ed is going to do I think 

that would be really exciting. And just to share with 

folks, what we did at Disney I think it was pretty cool. 

We -- I looked at rides and attractions to the space that 

would be considered like main program access area 

right? And tried to maximize that space and then from 

that space -- so, whether it's a seat in an auditorium or 

theater or on a ride vehicle or anything else, and then 

from that -- if I could come 36-inch space there I -- I 

would put a 36-inch wide space there. And then I 

would reverse track through the facility or the vehicle or 

whatever it was and not allow myself to -- I could stay 

at 36, could go less. But couldn't go more because I 

didn't want to wedge someone in and get them stuck. 

If my seating area was 54 by 36 which was fairly 

common like on a couple of train cars stuff like that. 
Then I would let the path of travel by 36 and in some

cases you had to go down to 32 that's okay because I 

knew I would have extra space in the vehicle. Like 

everybody has said what you don't want to do get 

somebody up the ramp they turn a corner and they are 

stuck. That's a great way of looking at it where you 

define what your largest space is you don't go above 

that you go that a little bit less stay compliant with the 

rules and you always have a nice funnel effect to get 

people where they need to be.

>> Blair Slaughter: Right. If we have multiple start

points and see what the affect is then we can make 

rational recommendations. So we can see what the 

affect is of taking that applying it to the various vehicle 

types. Again, with the hope of serving as great a 

number as possible. And maybe to Dennis' point 

before. Maybe there are situations where we know in a 

certain mode you are going to be able to do more than 

you can do in another. But we have to start 

somewhere. And I expect if it's like most things you 

start bigger and you argue back or you start at a size 

and find out that that really doesn't work you go the 

other way. But obviously we are not ready to set those 

sizes today if we can also -- folks have mentioned some 
of the data from the European Stanton so, Stanton you 

are going to go after that information

>> STANTON SAUCIER: Yes, I have access to a couple 

of surveys done in the UK that I am happy to share with 

Ed.

>> Blair Slaughter: That would be awesome. Okay.

>> You are referring to international standards on 

anthropometry?

>> STANTON SAUCIER: I --

>> It was something done I think commissioned 

originally by transport for London but it was essentially 

a study of wheeled mobility devices. And they came to 

very similar confusion----very similar conclusions to 

yourself. A difference between a manual chair, a 

powered chair and a scooter. There is dimensions for 

the 3.

>> The UK transport has done three studies, and we 

have those so we have that. But if that is what it is.

>> STANTON SAUCIER: If it's the same stuff great.

>> Blair Slaughter: Just as a matter of housekeeping 

our next meeting is established right?

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Our next -- sorry, turned 

myself off. The next meeting is May 7 from 1 to 3 for 

the on-board circulation committee. And we went back 
and looked at some of the scheduling that we talked 

about yesterday. And it made sense to kind of 

rearrange some things so we wanted to get the 

consensus of the group to make sure there isn't a 

problem. The communications committee will meet on 

or I mean the this committee will meet May 7. But kind 

of as a rule of thumb having communications on the 

first Thursday on-board circulation on the second, 

rooms and spaces on the third and boarding and 

alighting on the fourth. Does anybody have major 

problems? I know Ed you had class issues.

>> Not until September.

>> Repeat it.

>> Communications just generally would be on the 

first Thursday a conference call from 1 to 3. Then 

on-board circulation which is this committee would be 

the second Thursday the rooms and spaces would be 

the third Thursday and boarding and alighting would be 

the fourth Thursday. And then if things didn't work out 

for some of our resources we would err towards 

Wednesday as a second as an alternate to Thursday 

Tuesday as alternate to Wednesday. And the 

week -- anybody have a problem with taking using that 

kind of as a general moving forward type schedule?
>> No.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. In May, we have our 

out of town board meeting the week of of the 12th we 

won't have any meetings so, communications will meet 

the first on-board circulation the 7th boarding and 

alighting will meet on the 22nd rather than 15th. And 

then rooms and spaces will meet on the 29th.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: You are going to send this out 

right?

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We will send this out to 

everyone. We just wanted to make sure I think we have 

almost all of the committee here. To make sure 

nobody had big problems with it.

>> All right.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: (inaudible) May 8 not May 7, 

correct?

>> I'm sorry, it got moved to the Wednesday in May I 

think we talked about that yesterday we talked about it 

yes. May 7 is on a Wednesday for the on-board 

circulation when this committee will meet. We need to 

wind down it's lunch.

>> Blair Slaughter: Melissa to understand what the 

deadline for getting material in that's generated

>> if we have meeting on the Thursday Paul correct 
me if I am wrong we need things in by Monday pretty 

much?

>> Monday close of business Monday noon

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Monday, close of business 

eastern standard time

>> Or Tuesday morning 6 a.m. 

>> We all struggle to get things try to get them in by 

Monday.

>> Okay. Thank you

>> We have a hard time ourselves.

>> Blair Slaughter: I understand are we doing public 

comment at all? No okay.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: I do want to point out 

(inaudible) Carol would you wave for those of you if you 

don't know (inaudible) been in place over 25 years or 

industry and it's really (inaudible). We would not be 

where we are at today without the work of (inaudible) 

over the years. So you if you don't know Carol get to 

know her. She will be here. Hopefully for the next 

meeting as well.

>> Blair Slaughter: Great. Thank you. Bob and 

then we are going to close it out.

>> We set the first four meetings getting on to 

commuter rails Amtrak trains I think it will 2018 by the 
time we get to FINICULARs, I said that for the captioner. 

We need to make sure we move on once we get the first 

part nailed down the rest should be --

>> I think it's critical that we are having these 

discussions and I am trying to keep shifting between my 

vestibules and what I would find inside of a Metro car 

with polls and things like that in my head to make sure 

that we are -- that while I may be thinking one thing 

that's applicable across the board and I will depend on 

the people in the room to keep us on track as well.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: If I might gently nudge, 

again, our equipment manufacturers put together 

presentations, ideally for the next meeting, so folks can 

be aware of what is out there around the world. And 

begin to do that crosswalk comparison for each mode. 

That would be helpful I think in steering the discussion 

going forward.

>> Blair Slaughter: To that point can I -- I can lean 

on the folks from all symptom and Bombardier and 

Terry at a very minimum to show what your companies 

have been involved with because you will know that. 

And Bombardier obviously and Alstom International 

Companies. If you have an example I think that --

>> JON HOLBROOK: You are looking in particular for 
ADA accommodations or --

>> Blair Slaughter: Yes, we would have --

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: I think in hearing how 

important the discussion is, it would be good if we 

could think about compiling you know his heavy 

rail -- here is heavy rail match here is quasi inter-city 

we take from Brussels to Amsterdam that type of service 

versus -- ICE service cross Continental so the folks 

begin to see the range of things when you think about 

both boarding and alighting and interior layouts. 

All -- all of you have good websites with decent images 

but I don't know that everyone on the committee 

is -- has the time to go digging through all of your sites 

and try to go crosswalk it.

>> JON HOLBROOK: For myself, you know, contacting 

lots of different people across the pond to find that. 

But it's not -- it's not a significant amount of time but 

you know I may not have something by our first 

conference call --

>> Blair Slaughter: I would say whatever you have by 

then and then if not by then till the next one. But, 

again, to Chris's point anything that we have I think 

helps get the ideas into folk's heads about what we are 

dealing with as far as different vehicle types. Andre?
>> This is Andre from Bombardier, if we make 

presentation it has to be accessible it would be 

September the next meeting, right?

>> PAUL BEATTY: This is Paul speaking. I guess it 

depends when you are using if you use it as a 

conference call as lodge as we provide the PowerPoint to 

you and then we would have -- you provide us the 

PowerPoint we would have to work with you to make it 

accessible because we have to put it out, available for 

the public to look at. So, if you

>> It's mostly pictures.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Well, again, if you give it to us we 

will work with you to make it accessible then if you 

choose to use it for the conference calls that can be 

done obviously turn the page 1 turn to page 2. But if 

you want to reserve it and use it in the September 

meeting, like all presentations, you know we get them 

all together and then at the next full committee we talk 

with the chair and we decide okay do we have 20 

minutes -- do we have 20 presentations or two what is 

the priority for the two-day meeting. The key is as you 

point out there is accessibility element but we will work 

with you to deal with that. So, if you get us the 

pictures give us a brief description of each picture, we 
can insert it. We can easily show you how it's done if 

you got it in PowerPoint it's easy to put it in it's easy to 

screen the document to see whether it has the proper 

text we can train you on that simple.

>> Blair Slaughter: I was going to sigh if there is a 

template or guide you have that could streamline the 

process for both parties that would be great.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Just give me a call I will show you 

where you click on the PowerPoint.

>> He is the man okay all right. Thank you everyone 

for your attention. And for tolerating me what my dad 

would describe as daddy minutes instead of normal 

standard minutes daddy minutes are very long minutes.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair Slaughter: So, I guess we need to break for 

lunch. And what time should we be back?

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We are going to start the 

next committee meeting at 1, I know we are cutting it 

short. So it may be a few minutes after come back as 

quickly as you can. Request you want quick places to 

eat there is a food court across the street in the big 

building. There are signs out there McDonald's is on 

the corner if you are that person next door is a little deli 

you can grab something bring it back here to eat. 
Chicken and donuts.

>> And 10,000 teenagers in the eatery across the 

street.

>> Blair Slaughter: Blair is not the chair for this 

afternoon.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We are going to elect a new 

chair.

>> Blair Slaughter: There is hope for getting out of 

here. 

[End of meeting]