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

**(CART) system used in the Boarding and Alighting Subcommittee Meeting #3 and is generally unedited.**  **Although CART services started at the beginning of the conference call on June 25, 2014 (1 pm ET), problems with the CART output made the service unusable which stopped**  **around 1:15 pm. L** **ater, CART output** **text was provided by the operator.**

x--------------------------------x : UNITED STATES ACCESS BOARD :
: RAIL VEHICLES ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE :
x--------------------------------x

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BOARDING AND ALIGHTING

TELECONFERENCE *DRAFT TRANSCRIPT*
Wednesday, June 25, 2014

1:00 p.m.Location: United States Access Board 1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Reporter: Sandra GartrellPAUL BEATTY: Thank you. Good afternoon, this is Paul Beatty. Welcome to the third meeting of the Boarding and Alighting Subcommittee. As you know, since anyone may participate in subcommittee discussions, time for public comment has been scheduled during this two
-hour call. You may also note that we have a CART system in operation and it appears the chat box is functioning, but to allow the CART operator to perform her duties, forparticipants who are only using CART toparticipate, in a desire to raise a question, make a statement, we request to use email address RVAAC@access
-board.GOV. A note to the CART operator, I will send you a list of the committee members. I did not have time to send it to you for purposes of your duty. For those participating in this conference call, please remember to give your name when speaking. As a reminder, the next meeting of the subcommittee is scheduled for July 24, which is a Thursday. In this room Melissa Anderson is present and on the linewe request those on the line to identify themselves. Speak up, please. MICHAEL PORTER: Michael Porter.DENNIS CANNON: Dennis Cannon. PAUL BEATTY: Thank you, Dennis. CRYSTAL LYONS: Crystal Lyons. KENNETH SHIOTANI: Kenneth SHIOTANI. PAUL BEATTY: Operator, could you raise the volume on that individual. <<<: Priscilla (inaudible). PAUL BEATTY: Anybody else? FRANK MALDARI: Frank Maldari. PAUL BEATTY: Thank you, Frank. Anyone else? STEVE ROMAN: Steve Roman. PAUL BEATTY: Steve, thank you. MARILYN GOLDEN: This is Marilyn Golden. PAUL BEATTY: Thank you, Marilyn. ED HOFF: Ed Hoff. PAUL BEATTY: Thank you, Ed. According to my list, Gary, you're on? GARY TALBOT: Yes, sir, I am. Hi, Paul. Hi, everybody. PAUL BEATTY: Sid Goldstein is on. And I'm looking at my list here, I think we have everybody. At this point I will turn it over to the subcommittee chair, Marilyn Golden. Marilyn?MARILYN GOLDEN: Thank you, Paul. We have the agenda,whichwe are in away continuing from last time and we are up to, I think .5. Any discussion of the agenda? I have one or two quick points to cover before we jump into it, but I just want to deal with 2.0, approval point first. Going once? Twice? Okay. Just real quickly, first of all, staff and I received a letter from Mr. (inaudible), the same gentleman who also spoke at our last meeting about the gap fill device. And, you know, reiterating some of the
same points and reiterating some of the points from the last meeting we all heard. We will be considering all concepts in our committee deliberations, not necessarily specific devices. The staff is putting your letter into
-- and we can talk about research funding that is notpart of RVAACpurview,but theAccess Board. Another thing I wanted to point out is that our job is to make sure that our recommendations for guidelines are open to all such innovations but the specific products, railroad use to develop them is one issue for the railroads, rather than for theRVAAC, as Iunderstand our purview.The other thing is that in the interim since our last meeting, one of our active participants from NDR, Ken Shiotani, had raised with me whether a specific element is within our subcommittee purview or a different subcommittee. Ken, do. You want to raise that?KENNETH SHIOTANI: That is the issue of vestibules. This is relevant to inter
-city and certain commuter cars, not relevant to light rail or rapid rail. But on the inter
-city cars
-- actually, I guess -- basically on the cars that havevestibules, the sections at the ends of the cars where there are traditionally steps and a landing and the rest of the car, seems to me that this is boarding and alighting but it could be spaces. But I guess the question is, which committee should deal with it and then what fits into the agenda, I guess, are the current requirements adequate or do we need any changes. But it is the question of vestibules. DENNIS CANNON: I think that is interior circulation. That being said, I think there is no
reason that anybody can't have an issue that they want tomake sure gets coveredby that. We don'twant to lose anything accidentally by having one committee saying,"No, no, it is something else and the other committee doesn't cover it." So if there is a specific issue relating to that, you write warning -- the vestibule is the thing that you enter the first so, so in a sense it is where you go into the boarding area. And clearly things like doorways and turning and all of that is part of the circulation, but there is a question about where the circulation path begins, I guess, as opposed to inside the vehicle as opposed to on the platform. So you canprobablymention it if it is an important issue that needs to be raised. I think it should be noted, if not necessarily directly covered. EDHOFF: I thinkwe covered a littlebit about that in interior circulation. I think when Blair first started off we said we were going to start at the door. So we were discussing things like the envelope of the vestibule area, protrusions into that space, not just the clear floor space. So I think to avoid any duplicative effort, I think we could note it if we think of something and just make sure that it is being covered in that circulation subcommittee. MARILYN GOLDEN: Yes. It is better to cover points than to not cover it and it is possible that the two different subcommittees may cover different aspectsof it. So I suggest that we err on the side of discussing any issues that are subcommittee participants feel are important and if we get too far into another subcommittee's purview, that staff can just point that out or anybody, you know, staff or anybody canpoint that out and redirect us. Does that work, Ken? KENNETH SHIOTANI: Sure. The other question that I had
-- and I don't know, again, where it fits. It is related to boarding but it is also
-- maybe it is interior circulation,but it is relevant to aparticular type of rail car, which is the gallery car, which is used by, I think, abunch of the Chicago commuter lines,which is used in light VRE in the D.C. area. And those cars have a center set of steps going up into a high floor car and then they have an upper level, but, you know, that is an interior circulation issue and I don't think this committee is trying to get upper-level circulation in a commuter car. But it is the getting on to a gallery car, which does have this somewhat unique entrance, which has steps. I think thenew cars allhave lifts. But Iguess the question is, how does that sort of fit into theregulatory scheme. It is sort of assumes levelboarding is generally required if not feasible. And I guess is it just not feasible in those kinds of cars. Again, I don't know where that fits into
-- whether it fits into boarding and alighting or it fits into interior circulation or a little of both. FRANK MALDARI: I believe it fits into this particular group and I think it is going to get covered. But, you know, I don't think we are going to specify a particular way to provide access, but rather to give options. Levelboarding is always the best option and Idon't know if we can stress it but it's not the only option. MARILYN GOLDEN: I think Ken is saying thatmay not work for these cars can. Ken, I think that
-- other thoughts about whether it fits here? If it does, you should raise it, you know, whenever in the discussion it falls. FRANK MALDARI: I'm not that familiar with them. If the car to be accessible, you have to get it. If a wayside lift is needed or, you know, some other way is provided, I think the regulations would leave it open to decide how to do it and not require one way or the other.So, yes, you have to be able to get into that car. Is it level boarding? Probably not. I'm not that familiar with it. A platform lift or a car-borne lift wouldhave tobeprovided for access. That is theextent of what we are talking about. You have to be able to get on it one way or the other. GARY TALBOT: Can I ask a question? Frank, I appreciate you bringing that up because this is something I have been confused with for a long time. If you look at the legislation for inner
-city rail, it is supposed to comply with 504 and the ADA. The 504 says that the accessibility you provide should be in the most integrated setting possible. There is other language,but that tome is one of the keypieces. Well, if the RVAAC committee is supposed to write new rules. Itwouldmake sense if someone to required to complywith 504 would have a little bit of a different rule than someone who didn't have to. It would get to Frank's point that
-- I have been confused why a station
-based mobile lift would comply, how it would comply with like a 504 requirement and ADA especially under a Title III or maybe even Title II. I would understand where that would comply. I understand that
--PAUL BEATTY: Can I interrupt you, Gary. I am trying to communicate to the CART being shown in our
screen on the office, it has the entire right
-hand side truncated off. The lead sentences can't be seen, so, Sandra, is that something that is at our end or our end. Is anyone else monitoring the CART and are they having the similar problem. FRANK MALDARI: I see the same thing here. PAUL BEATTY: Okay. We can't proceed until we have a complete CART projection.

(Off
-the
-Record Discussion)
MARILYN GOLDEN: ... partially or fully fall in either subcommittee. I'm going to say that whatever minimal power, I may have as chair it is better to duplicate rather than to ignore missing something. I suggest you, Ken, or anyone to raise them when it is appropriate and that would be -- and this gives me a chance to transition into what our program for the day was, which is to go through the requirements per Melissa focusing us where it is our purview in them and discuss the different elements of the existing guidelines, what needs to be changed, what needs to be added, et cetera,and go through like that. One thing I would say, though, I think there are
concerns on the issues list. I think Ken's concernsmay
or may not also be on this. There may be concerns that looking at the existing requirements we may not bring up because they were not thought of at that time when they were developed. So people who are interested in such as like these two topics, Ken, and at the end we should circulate back to our issues list. And anything going through the existing guidelines that has not been raised that you should raise it at that time so itdoesnotget forgotten. I just sense a substance shift in the discussion of your questions might hijack the discussion, the discussion of not doing it right now, just a ruling whether they are ours. KENNETH SHIOTANI: That sounds fine. MARILYN GOLDEN: Melissa, you sent several attachments, including current requirements and also Ed Steinfeld's memo about a clear floor space proposal. Did you want to direct us at particular sections? MELISSA ANDERSON: No. MARILYN GOLDEN: Start with the coordination with the boarding platform and sort of work our way throughthe rules. So you're saying all of it is our purview in this subcommittee. MELISSA ANDERSON: The current regulations that
were attached to the meeting notice for today, it is not all of the current regulations. It is only the one that address boarding and alighting. MARILYN GOLDEN: Ah
-ha, why not start with the clear doorways? MELISSA ANDERSON: The doorways is intermediate and I don't think it is something we can solve real quick yet. We can do it either way you want. I thought we would start tackling lists and ramps and bridge plates, but if you want to do doorways, give me just a minute to find that. MARILYN GOLDEN: Not necessarily. I'm happy to go with your suggestion. Another subcommittee will do widths. This is really the whole issue of building block standards and what we're going to use. You're right, that it is a big issue. I would just encourage staff to make sure that when we discuss that, we discuss all of it and this is part of it. Forexample, theEd'smemo is only about clear floor space and not about clear width and doorways but itimpacts it. MELISSA ANDERSON: I thought maybe we would start with getting people off the platform before we took them through the doorway. DENNIS CANNON: One of the things I think Blair is working on from the circulation is kind of performance standard, which is an effect you would define a volume, a box, if you will, that has to be maneuverable through
-- into and through the car to the space it is supposed to be. If you do that process and say, "This is thebox that ithas to fit", then that is aperformance requirement that tells you how wide the doors have to be and how big the vestibules have to be. So, in a sense, if you take that approach, which
we are not sure it is going to work yet because somebody isworking on it, then you don't actually have to specify minimum requirements for doors and vestibules. You only have to specify that this device can be maneuvered through the area. <<<: The issue with gallery cars, we think level boarding is the gold standard. We want a platform the height of the floor and no minimum gaps. If you specify that as the general requirement and say all new cars must be able to be entered and boardedfrom a platform
-- must allow level boarding, that is the first thing. We are not going to get high platforms all over the country. Not going to happen for hundreds of years. But it has to be compatible with that. If you have a gallery car, with has steps at the entrance and what that means and you might say it, actually call it out, all those steps have to have a trap that closes over the steps, like a current Amtrak cars, which have a trap that closes over the steps. You lift the trap up and the steps fold down but it permits level boarding. What you would say, yeah, you can do gallery
carsbut they have tobe designed to allow levelboarding wherever those platforms are going to be. And some platforms in some areas because of a variety of cars, you may have platform fix that is not necessarily at the
same level of the floor of all of the cars. So some of your cars may still require a ramp to get into it. But if you specify all the new cars have to allow for level boarding, a platform at floor level, the gallery
car -- we don't care if you have gallery cars, if you cover the step. We allow you to have them. MARILYN GOLDEN: I'm strugglingwith aperformance standard box that has to maneuver throughout the car. That is what didn't allow us to maneuver properly on thebus. And the revisions of the bus standards
-- and there is probably work on it since a lot of us have seen it and don't know the latest version of it. To the extentwe know, theboard hadproposedmaneuvering space that had not been available in a lot of situations because a performance standard was used and was applied in away that doesn't fully understandmaneuvering space is necessary. So I hope that we won't do that. FRANKMALDARI: You know,we talked about thiswith Blair for a while. The maneuverability of the volume that is going tobe defined andmaybe that addresseswhat
one of the issues you had was. If you are assuming it
was a wheelchair with four wheels and two pivoting, that limits the maneuverability. You can't move the wheelchair laterally, unless you make a bunch of steps to move it forward and back. So limiting the maneuverability of the volume that is to be defined was the way that we had considered to restrict
-- you know, putting a space directly adjacent to that you couldn't access because you needed maneuvering space. So I don't know if that addresses your issues specifically. The intent was to come up with a volume andput limits on it thatwere realistic formost devicesand that would allow us to design a space that you could move in and out of. So does that address your concern with the way it had been working previously. <<<: Conceivably it does. MARSHA MAZZ: Performance standards are not easy to write. And I think before you make a decision about whether or not you want performance standards, I think it would be important to give it a try and make the decision after you see what people come up with. I think what Frank is trying to say is that he understands that a good performance standard is going to do something more than just establish a rectangle, a box. MARILYN GOLDEN: Yeah, yeah. MARSHA MAZZ: Because, you know, a good performance is going to deal with how wheelchairs turn and that kind of thing. I think it is a huge challenge to do a decent performance standard. And the best performance standards also have a parallel, explicit standard thatwould go alongwith it. You either comply with the performance standard or you comply with the prescriptive standard, which would be my preference for Access Board rule, generally, if we went to performancestandards. So you give people an option of the performance standard or the prescriptive standard because some peoplewould just prefer to complywith theprescriptive and others who feel they can tolerate more risks would comply with the performance standard. That, at least, would be what I would expect to see when and if we do performance standards. I think a performance standard has to do awhole lotmore than just articulate what the ultimate outcome is in terms of, you know, provide equal treatment, which some of our rules have done in the past and with limited success. I guess all I'm trying to say, in a very long winded way, it might be a good idea to hold that decision in abeyance until we see what people come up with. DENNIS CANNON: I wasn't suggesting we go to that untilwe seewhat Blair comes upwith. Iwas just saying as an example, as a way we deal with the vestibule in
a different way. I'm not opposed. I think the idea of clearly saying even if we accept the performance standard, we want to make sure the door is at least X and the vestibule is at least Y and the aisle is at least Z and so forth. So that in the end we like the performance standard that somebody comes up with, wedon'thave toworry about it. I'mnot suggestingwegive up and just say, "Let's throw all our eggs in the performance standard basket." I'm not personally. It is going to be adequate, but that is besides the point. Mymainpointwas youdon'tnecessarilyhave todeal with all the littlepieces right now. The doorwaywidth is one that I think we should just say flat out has to be a minimum of some number and then worry about whether the performance standard works or not. The main issue was to require that all new cars be compatible with level boarding or they have an onboard lift because there are still lifts that will not be at floor height for a very long time. There has to be some way to get you from the car to the floor. But the new cars have to be compatible with level boarding. In the futurewhen theAmtrak stations are rebuilt, we will have level boarding across the country. MARILYN GOLDEN: With that discussion, I don't know if there are any other comments but with that I'm willing to go on to coordination of the boarding platform. Anything else? STANTON SAUCIER: Marilyn, good morning. Stanton Saucier calling in from California. I just wanted to add from a systems point perspective and the conceptthat, you know, we don't want to necessarily write something that is going to restrict the use of certain
new technology that we don't necessarily know about yet today. Theperformance standard element is a good thing to have. I think it was one of the earlier commenters that mentioned something about a parallel path with performance
-oriented language and some prescriptive language with a really good approach. For the simple reason that, you know, we have this requirement that we're trying to meet and we feel that an (inaudible) can get it done. At some point down the road, technology becomes available that makes the size and shape of either the vehicle that is working its way down the trash
-- down the pathway or the materials that make up the pathway itself may change in such a way that, you know, that now theprescriptive portion of itmaybe hasbecome obsolete and the overall community isbetter served ifwe can take advantage of this new technology. So I guess what I'm trying to say here is from a systems design perspective, something that provides performance oriented language in addition to the prescriptive would be preferable. Thank you. DENNIS CANNON: Iwant to remind everybody too thatwe always have equivalent facilitation. And unlike Justice Department where you just kind of do it on your own, there is an actual procedure for granting equivalent facilitation and regulation. So there is availability to go over different options and different ways of solving the problem. Unlike the sort of throw your hat out and hope that you get something, there is a procedure whereby you can actually approve or disapprove equipment facilitation. MARILYN GOLDEN: Yeah, good point. And we should remember that later when we are talking about performance standards. Anything else before we move on? Coordination of boarding platforms, did you want to introduce that to us, Melissa. MELISSA ANDERSON: We are going to work our way through the prescriptive elements of the current text and, Stanton, if youhave some ideas forperformance spec
or anybody as we get through these kind of identify the prescriptiveparts, I thinkweareprobably allvery open to recommendations for specific performance specifications also. But let's save that until we kind of identify the prescriptive ones so we got something to start with.The coordination with boarding platforms
-- and I'm readingmost of this from the rapid rail requirements because most of the requirements are the same across the different modes. Rapid rail requires
-- okay. I'm just going to read it. "Coordination of boarding platform where new vehicles operate in new stations the design of the vehicle shall be coordinated with the boarding platform design, such that the horizontal gap between each vehicle door at rest and the platform shall be no greater than 3
-inches in height of the vehicle floor and should be within plus or minus 5/8

-inch of the platform height under normal passenger load condition. Vertical alignment may be accomplished by vehicle air suspension or other suitable means of meeting the requirement." And that is for new vehicles at new stations. I think we probably ought to start there. And Dennismentionedbefore that rather than trying to identify, you know, how big those gaps should be and what should be done for each type of gap, just trying to identify a gap at the point you need to provide some type of boarding and alighting device. So current requirement is no greater than three inches in height or in width
-- horizontal gap is no more than three inches and the vertical gap is 5/8 of an inch.Does everybody agreewith it or does somebody think it should be more or less? DENNIS CANNON: I want to propose the other issue which is again to say that wherever the horizontal gap exceeds X and the vertical difference exceeds Y, there shall be a mourning device, such as bridge plate lift, et cetera, and not specify the specific requirement. One of the problems we got in with the rail folks or Amtrak folk was the idea we specified a four
-inch maximum gap in some cases and three inches in other cases, but really can't do that. It gave people a headache to try to figure out how they could possibly meet that standard. We don't need to say anything about thevacuum of gap. We just say if the gap exceeds
-- and I would recommend two inches. (Inaudible) already done it. And wherever it is more than two inches, you have to provide a bridge plate, a ramp, a lift, period. And then you don't have to worry -- you also don't have to worry
-- because the way it works in the rail vehicles, we have new cars and new stations and new cars and old existing stations and existing cars in new stations. We have three different requirements. You don't have to specify any of that and make people's head swim if you simply say, "If you have a gap that isgreater, horizontal gap greater than two inches you have to do something to ameliorate it. If the vertical displacement is greater than 5/8 inches, you have to do something to fix it." ED HOFF: I wholeheartedly agree with Dennis. I think as we went over last meeting, I just added the caveat if it is a bridge plate, that the bridge plate be somehow on the vehicle rather than platform
-based. You can also have platform
-based ones that are redundant butwe shouldprobablyhave at least one to serve at least
one door ormore doorswithin a certainproximity. This is something certainly in our purview because we are talking strictly about the vehicle and not about coordination with the platform itself. We've gotten past level boarding and the gap. If you have a gap that exceeds a certain horizontal and/or vertical, that we have a car
-borne bridge plate or other devices. Now, other devices I'm not weighing in on, if it is a wayside lift, that is a deal. But if you are going to provide a bridge plate
-- I'm sorry, whether or not you are providing any of those things, if you are in territory to ever use the vehicle anywhere where there is level boarding and there is not some type of lift or other type of wayside device, that a bridge plate beavailable either integrated in the car or even if it is somehow manually deployed somehow stored on the car. I have a big justification. I promised Marilyn I wouldwrite up the justification for the next conference call. There are many advantages, as I may have voiced the last meeting, for having the bridge plate on board the rail car. So, again, wholeheartedly agree with Dennis and say if the gap exceeds this, somehow you have tohave abridgeplate andmyadditionwouldbe thebridge plate be on board. MARSHA MAZZ: Dennis, I have a question. Is it your intent to not establish any limitation on the gaps or height differentials? DENNIS CANNON: Yeah, that was the idea, the point is
-- as we heard from (inaudible) you may have an area where you can't get any closer than six inches to the platform
-- MARSHA MAZZ: You're language has the potential for having an unlimited size gap. So it could be 40 feet. I mean, it won't be. ED HOFF: Can we establish, as it has already been established, the gap dimensions be in the design of the platform itself as it is currently under DOT regs? DENNIS CANNON: There is a requirement. That iswhy the car requirements has this differencebetween new
and existing and so forth. If you comply with the current or even the older ADAAG platform requirements for a new platform, you had to build it so that the gap
was minimized. You couldn't
-- in fact, complying with the ADAAG and the new ADA standards, you can't build a curve platform anymore, period. Some people have missed the idea that you cannot build a curved platform under the curved standards. <<<: The current DOT regs take care of the gap requirementswhere the gapsmustbe and the rail carwill
say as a result of that, if you are building
-- encountering level boarding and you have a gap of a certain dimension, you must provide a bridge plate device. GARY TALBOT: You have platforms being built on curves all over the place today. DENNIS CANNON: It is very illegal. GARY TALBOT: You know, they are approved. <<<: It is a matter of gap, not necessarily a curve. You can have a gentle curve. It is a matter of the measurement of the resulting gap that is not necessarily illegal but the difficulty. At certain point you -- the RFA will step in and say you can't opena door at that point. GARY TALBOT: The difference is where there is passenger only traffic or the right
-of
-way is owned by public entity versus whether you are on a freight main. Ifyouareona freightmainyouonlyhavetodoa six
-inch platform anyway and they put them on the curves today. <<<: We can handle this. We are just going over the fact that now you have a platform somewhere. You
are really not concerned if we have gotten past all that and there is a small gap involved, that we will be using a bridge plate. GARY TALBOT: Yeah, but my question is this: We have what are called setback platforms that are set back
on the Down Eastern Line upby Boston toMaine. On those platforms the gap is 20 inches wide. For Marsha's point, for that I think youneedhandrails. That is like walking a plank. You are asking someone to go across
a two-foot span with no handrails and you are 40 inches above the ground. That is what I would ask
-- I think for standard gaps, Dennis is absolutely correct. But then there are the other gaps that exist because of freight traffic or Department of Defense traffic that requires you to build things, setback where you can do bridge plates. They will work, but they need to be adifferent requirement for the ones that are serving these further setback platforms and not the one I'm building but ones that are already out there today. Then you do like the four, five, six, seven inches. We have 10 or 11
-inch gaps in high
-level platforms in
numerous occasions. These are mini high platform that may be 40 in length that is set back about two foot. Do you want the bridge requirement to be different than the ones that will only do maybe up to 10 or eleven inches? The other question I would ask beyond the handrails, is do you want those devices to be independently operable. And it gets to are they on the car or on the platform. Another question: Do you want them independently operable or is it okay if you have human intervention? ED HOFF: I would suggest the setback platform should somehow be regulated through the DOT regs that specify the platform height. So if you do build a setback platform, that you do provide a bridge plate,
a platform
-based bridge plate to provide level boarding and you wouldn't need necessarily one on board. So handrails, everything that goes with the setbacks, with those long gaps goes along with that type of platform.As far as the bridge plate on board, at first, you know, depends on -- I would suggest that it be deployed by a crew member, but you could have ones that are automated as well. You could have automated, integrated, interlocked, a lot of language in there to provide either/or. But certainly a manually deployed bridge plate is going to have to be deployed by the personnel. GARY TALBOT: I would just caution you on the idea that the handrail equipped bridge plate would be on the wayside, on the station side because you now have a two-foot gap for someone to get across that has to put that down. So youwouldn'twant to ask your crew to jump
over a two-foot gap to go get a bridge plate to put it down for somebody with a disability, nor would you want your ambulatory passengers to jump across the two-foot span.<<<: How is that done right now? GARY TALBOT: They have a very short, very steep bridge plate that they put on board the vehicles that does not have handrails redesigning. <<<: That sounds like an issue unto itself. It is not something that is necessarily
-- that is a whole conundrum dealing with that right now.MARILYN GOLDEN: I had a question for Ed on what he was saying. DENNIS CANNON: This is technical spec for bridge plate we need to fix anyway. One is with the edge protection, we need to fix. I think we actually did one
on the proposed bus. At any rate, get rid of the edge and far outer edge. As far as handrails are concerned, I think it is appropriate to specify the bridge plate
-- could be a ramp because you could have a slope depending on the height of the platform. If you are trying to match different height floors with different height cars, you may have an intermediate platform. So in some cases you have straight across boarding and in some cases you have a ramp. But I think specifying handrails is certainly part of the technical spec or a bridge plate over the greater than some specific distance or length. You also have the requirement in the currentbridge plate spec that talks about theweight limitations. The assumption is that because it was like 300
-pounds, this is a short bridge plate. Only half your weight is on thebridgeplate, any given time, half is on theplatform to begin with and part of it is in the car. Ifwehave a longbridgeplate that is like 24
-- thespan of a 24
-inchgap, thenwehaveto specify adifferent weight limit for that because at some point you have the entire weight of the chair on the bridge plate. So we need to adjust that. Specifying handrails I think is appropriate for anything over some length. We can determine what that might be. Or maybe it is based on that vertical drop from the edge to whatever the ground is below it so that if it is only a couple of inches, maybe a handrail is not necessary, although a 24
-inch
-- I think probably a 24
-inch gap you still want handrails no matter what. GARY TALBOT: I completely agree with you. Even though Ihave two- or three
-inchvertical over that span, you can hang a wheel or someone could misstep or something like that and they have nothing to grab onto. Yeah, I agree with that. And I agree with you I think for both the ramp and bridge plate coming up with
-- especially on the bridge plate, coming up with whatever the horizontal distance is, then you would specify a handrail and some cases you are going to have to find a way to put them on the cars because you are going to have to have the crews put them down before people can get on and off the cars. <<<: I don't know if it still exists, they havea 24
-inch greater setback. The crew member would enter
a different door and go up the stairs and go to the mini
-level platform and get the bridge plate out of the box and put the bridge plate down and open the door for people to get on and off. Certainly that is cumbersome and time consuming. You are right, you don't want to go in your door and have a 24
-inch gap, but that is the way it was accomplished. ED STEINFELD: I am wondering about the wisdom of the idea that Dennis has. I'm wondering if it would actually lead to improvements or
-- it may not be the best solution. It might leave it open for a solution that is not as good as it could be and retard innovation in new products. Basicallywhat you are saying is you can getbywith
a solution that is less than optimal when what we really should be doing is coming up with solutions that are better. I don't know how we get around that problem. FRANK MALDARI: There is always a better solution, right. Depending on how much money you want to throw at something, you can always improve it. What you want to make sure of you want to get on and off the train. ED STEINFELD: Dennis can you repeat what your recommendation was before?DENNIS CANNON: The recommendation, whatever the horizontal difference between the platform height
-- excuse me, the platform edge and the car floor exceeds two inches and/or the vertical displacement between thedifferencebetween the level of the car floor with all those things, ordinary move, and the platform is 5/8

-inch was plus or minus must provide a device that ameliorates that distance. <<<: To me what this does is say, okay, you can have a two
-foot gap or 10
-inch gap and you can have a device that is stored on the platform and brought out to cover the gap or it could be on the train and taken off and put on. I think
-- maybe this isgood language,butwe ought to add this device should be automatic and it should be on the train. FRANK MALDARI: I don't know why you want to limit yourself to what you can do. Because if you have a few stations and a lot of cars, then it is different if you have a lot of cars and, you know
-- a few cars and a lot of stations. I don't know why you want to be so prescriptive in how you accomplish boarding and alighting. You need to board, alight. With respect to gaps, wheelchair access is not theonly reason why you want a small gap. I don't think any authority likes to have a 10
-inch gap anywhere on its property because it is a safety hazard. It is not like there is no incentive for anybody to reduce the gap as small as they can. <<<: What bothers me, this makes it too open for
a manual solution and I think we have the technology and utility to create automatic solutions. I agree with you, I don't think it should be made too prescriptive. I just thinkwe ought tobe trying to get away frommanual solutions. FRANK MALDARI: Manual solutions
-- <<<: We are talking about new regulations. We are not talking about, you know, dealing with the
-- GARY TALBOT: I completely agree with that, Ed. I agree with you, these are new regs. MARILYN GOLDEN: I agree with that. Ed made a persuasive case last time for train
-based solutions and also automatic ones or maybe that was talking the other day. But, you know,we reallyhave technology todo this now. It is almost as if
-- I bet the first time, you know, automatic doors were suggested it was like, "Oh, my God, let's not be prescriptive" and now we wouldn't think of getting rid of them. So I think those are goodideas. FRANKMALDARI: I think you should focus on Dennis' point of making sure you can get on and off the train and have the facilities to do so, more than you describe exactly how it is done. ED STEINFELD: I think we should be going beyond just going on and off the train. We want people to be able to get on and off the train safely but also without having to go through a lot of rigmarole to get this thing put in place. We know it is a problem. Things get broken, people don't know how to use them, they get misplaced. Having something automated adds one more level to it. It makes it part of
-- how do you say? It makes itmandatory that the rail lines andmanufacturers start to think about having a safe automated entry to the train. DAVID NELSON: I apologize. I arrived a little late. I missed the last conference call. I wanted to go ahead and clarify. So for the automatic solution, arewe talking about automatic bridge plate that would roll out from the car to the platform without the need of using a bridge plate manually? <<<: Right.DAVID NELSON: I'd advocate that. That is all I needed to ask for now. <<<: I think there could be an exception for conditions where it is existing stations, whatever we need to do. I don't know how to put that exception, to make it right, make it work right in terms of language. But I think as far as new construction, new trains go, this is something we can do. I know it can be done. FRANKMALDARI: Well, getting it done is one thing; getting it done reliably and safely is another. Easy to say how many different iterations of powered doors there have been over the 20 years to solve the problems associated to make it failsafe. There is a whole crew that went out there to make sure there are no mistakes and problems with automated side doors. You have to understand too you are adding complexity to a system andevery time you add complexity, you increase risks and safety is the paramount concern. If somebody is getting on and off that train, you would like to have somebody theremanually,with
-- it doesn't have to be manual, but it would be nice if somebody was there to assist them should there be any problems associated with it. MARSHA MAZZ: Frank, I'm going to jump in and sayone of the purposes of the committee is to explore alternatives. Until we have something concrete on the table, it seems unproductive to shoot down the idea. Why don't we let people who have those kinds of ideas go forward and develop them and bring them back to the group for their consideration. FRANK MALDARI: I'm not saying you can't have an automated device. I'm just saying
-- MARSHAMAZZ: I knowwhat you're saying. I am just saying a lot of time is being spent discouraging the thought, and we don't really have anything concrete to respond to at this point in time. Maybe we should move
on. CHRISTOPHER HART: This is the transit industry of yesteryear. It is not the transit industry that is here today or will be here tomorrow. MARILYN GOLDEN: Agreed. GARY TALBOT: If I can just add one last thought on it. If you think about the kneelers on buses, the kneelers were really put on there so the ramp angle was not so steep for those of us who use wheel mobility device. Most of your transit agencies today kneel the bus as part of their standard operating procedure whenever anybody gets on and off the bus because theysave a lot of money on their liability and it is easier for their passengers. This could be the same kind of thing to me. Thank you. MARILYN GOLDEN: Agree. I was going to say the same care in terms of development of successive generations of technology that Frank described as occurring on automatic doors should happen on this as well. Andwhile we always shouldbe concerned,with the second or third generation technology, we have to start with the first one. There is no way to avoid doing the first one. There is no reason this should not receive the same attention from designers and successive designs to make it work well. It would be great if maybe the two Ed's and Dennis got together andproposed language for the nextmeeting. Does that sound right or are there different pieces we want to divide up? I think Marsha is right, we should
move on. <<<: The only thing I really had to add is that the device be deployed from the vehicle, but I would be happy. If Denniswants to throw something out there and you can share with me, I would be happy to add whatever two cents I have. MARILYN GOLDEN: Dennis and Ed Hoff will presentsomething. Great if you have time to send it around before the meeting, if possible. Ed Steinfeld, I don't know if you want to be part of that. ED STEINFELD: I would be happy to participate in that.FRANK MALDARI: Is there anything that Ed Steinfeld could add to justify whatever gap is chosen? I know, Dennis, you are advocating two inches and plus
orminus 5/8. Can you justhave some research to suggest what that number should be? ED STEINFELD: No, we don't really have anything
on that. I can tell you I just returned from Europe and I traveled on a lot of trains and they have really wide gaps there and it is dangerous for everybody and it is a real problem for travelers with luggage, strollers. There is a lot more attention now in Europe to accommodatingbicycles on trains. I'm going to show you a very interesting photograph of one train that I was on. Theyhave automatedbridgeplates. Many of youwho have been to Europe, you have probably seen them. The ones I saw -- I saw a lot of them that were set down from the platform. In other words
-- I don't know why. If you -- theywerebelow theplatform in the floorof the train. FRANK MALDARI: Maybe that is a gap of stopping somebody from falling. ED STEINFELD: Yes, I think it is more of a safety net. But that suggests it is a problem, doesn't it? FRANK MALDARI: Dennis you probably know, three inches horizontal, plus or minus 5/8 comes from. It wouldbe nice to justifywhatever number is chosen. And I'm not sure it should be two or three or plus or minus 5/8 is right. DENNIS CANNON: The 5/8 came from the actual specification from WMATA, which is Metro here at D.C. We figured if WMATA was going to spec that, we could go ahead and adopt their spec. They turned out not to be very happy about them because they often don't meet the requirement. Aside from that, the three inches originally came from that is the best you can possibly do on a rapid rail car. We know that is not true anymore, that two inches is, in fact, doable. We have a couple of systems that have two or less, actually. So that is where the number two came from. FRANK MALDARI: Depending on the system, it just
seems to me -- it would be nice to say, if you could say,that "95 percent of the wheelchairs can negotiate a gap of this much, the minimum wheel diameter is this much." Becausewhen you start looking and trying to justifywhat one location is doing for a gap, does not necessarily apply to other locations. WMATA is basically inside a building for the most part. You don't have outdoor tracks. <<<: Sure you do. FRANK MALDARI: Always. MARSHA MAZZ: Tons of outdoor tracks with WMATA. CHRISTOPHERHART: Ihear you, Frank, on one level. On another level I think it is important to remember that gap ultimately equals boarding
-- so I can't imagine an issue because ultimately
-- and really the gap issue
-- but when you look at gate issues, that horizontal gap canbe a huge, huge impediment. And that is where you are holding up subway time, as their time to negotiate a four inch gap and that is a real crux of the issue along with the wheel. I think it is always you play a cautionary role, but ultimately demographically for transport, gaps need the quickest service so it is in everybody's interest to maintain equipment and design both to achieve the smallest gap.DENNIS CANNON: Currently there is a transportation research board project developing a manual on gap accidents, essentially. Turns out that the biggest accident group for gap is children. The second biggest is women, because of high heels. But there is a lot of accidents all over the country, all over the world from gaps. So, yes, there are efforts underway everywhere to try to minimize gap. I don't think we are going to worry about the idea that somebody is going to make the gap bigger than they need to. ED STEINFELD: There was a major study in the Netherlands actually studied the gap in great detail. The only problem is the report is in Dutch. I have an abstract of it and I also know the author and let me try to follow up on that. They actually built platforms with different gaps and, I guess, in an old train station that was not being used and they tested all these different situations. So let me check that out. With regard to wheelchairs, the big problem is really the front casters, the small castersbecause they turn and then they slip down into the hole. And a two-inch gap is not going to stop that from happening. The question is how tight it could be and whether it isfeasible to actually have a gap thatwould stop that from happening. The only way would be to raise the platform
-- to lower the platform of the
-- the best thing is to get rid of the gap entirely. Basically you would have to have the platforms a little lower than the train floor and then you would have to have a little gang plank that just flipped over and sat on top of the platform. That would be the solution. DAVID NELSON: I was just actually in California last week and had quite an interesting observation on the trains out there. One of the subway cars that I saw in Los Angeles, they built a cone
-- there were cones that were actually on the platform that when the train actually pulled to a stop, the cones would actually be the locationbetween the two cars so noperson could fall in between the two cars. For example, if it was a blind person who thought they might have been going into the
car but was actually approaching the gap between the two cars. I hope I'm saying this clearly. I don't know exactly how to say it. I just thoughtwith theplatform it just has to have some kind of protection between the two cars. And, secondly, I wanted to add earlier there were some comments about
-- for automatic solution and thefirst generation and second generation. I was thinking we should maybe go ahead and adopt the rules that the bus lifts, all bus drivers need to go ahead and test the liftbefore they go ahead and start their runs and route,
a regulation to all crew; or the conductors needs to test the automatic solution before the train service starts. DENNIS CANNON: The requirement for making sure that the lifts and whatever move and operate correctly
are in the DOT rule. We are not going to be effecting that. But when DOT
-- when these guidelines are finalized from the Access Board, DOT has to adopt them and make them standard. When it does that it will go through a rule
-making process and at that point presumably you can also make recommendations about things that ought to be in the DOT rule regarding recommendations. Operational issues will not be (inaudible) rule from the Access Board. DAVID NELSON: I understand. Thank you, so much, Dennis. ED STEINFELD: To comment on the LosAngeles issue, those cones were put there to help visually ill impaired people to thinking the gap was the doorway and I talked to the people who developed that in LA. There are other ways of solving that problem.In Europe they have on their street cars, you probably noticed pictures of them, they don't have any space there. It is like this accordion system. That is basically there to prevent people from getting in between the two cars. Not just visually impaired people, like kids and animals and other things, there
are other things. There are ways to do that. The best solution is to have on a platform
-- in a subway system they do this now in almost all the new subway systems. They build a full partition from floor to ceiling and the doors open up, the doors of the train open up. The Copenhagen system I just traveled is like that, the new Jubilee Line in London, almost any of the new systems. They don't do that everywherebecause sometimes you have different length trains so that you can't predict where the door is going to be. But there are other solutions to that problem and that is definitely something we should address. DENNIS CANNON: There is currently a requirement for between
-car barriers. FRANK MALDARI: We have between
-car barriers for that specific reason, just like apantograph sitting off the end of the car. MARILYN GOLDEN: Let's get to that provision andwe will have that discussion. David, youbrought up a good issue and an issue that comes up later in the existing requirements. For people that joined late, we are going through the existing requirements, moving a bit slowly, but I think this has been an excellent discussion to see what needs to be added and we made some assignments for the previous provisions that we had already discussed. Arewe ready tomove to -- dowe need to -- anything else before we move on, I guess? FRANK MALDARI: I just want to clarify what we are trying to do, if I can just say for a second. Dennis is suggesting that you have one standard and if you don't meet it you have toprovide aprovision. And he is going to write something up: What it is, new station/old station, new equipment and old equipment, this is the standard; you have to omit it or provide provisions. The second part Ed was going to see if there was anything in theNetherlands report to justify anythingwedopick. Maybe something more. MARILYN GOLDEN: I think there are several parts here. Dennis and Ed are going to put their heads together on it and we have to see what they bring back. I personally am not comfortable describing what thehomework is. This is the right time for us bringing in whatever innovation and brainstorm the sharp people in the subcommittee have to offer. And if, you know, if it goes where you don't like it to go, you can argue against it when we have it in front of us. Okay. Anything else before we move forward? MELISSA ANDERSON: I wanted to remind
-- we start talking about rapid rail and we also need to take into consideration the light rail, commuter rate, inner
-city rail and high speed rail and they all have similar requirements for a three
-inchhorizontal gapmaximum and 5/8 vertical gap. I don't know if you guys want to have any discussion on that. Or, Dennis or Ed, as you are working through that, to consider what you can do in rapid rail you can't do in inner
-city or rapid rail. DENNIS CANNON: One of the issues has to do with scoping, which is on a rapid rail vehicle where you have three doors, typically. The general requirement now is that all of those doorsmeet this requirement. When you have an inner
-city rail car,Amtrak, typically there are only two doorways on each side, one at each end. The current requirement is at least one of those doorways on each side that passengers board has to meet these requirements. And that is the doorway that also has tohave a vestibule that is big enough and an access pad to get you to the space. We don't require all the cars
on an inner
-city rail currently to be accessible. The
same is generally true for commuter rails because they
are often basically like inner
-city rail cars operating on the same inner
-city line. But there is plenty of inner
-city rail cars that have three or four doors and all of them are generally accessible, assuming the platform is straight. So one of the issues is scoping and I think for rapid rail we want all the doors to be accessible. For inner
-city rail cars there is a reason to have both of those doors be accessible. GARY TALBOT: If I could comment on that, Dennis. DOT requires that all of Amtrak's cars be accessible today. So the only exception to that would be like your dining car thathas food serviceupstairs and the kitchen downstairs. So all the ones are supposed to be accessible today. I would fully support that. I think you are right. DENNIS CANNON: Not that all the new cars have to be accessible. The question is how many doors on any given cars have to be accessible. GARY TALBOT: Correct, and today it is not lessthan one, right? FRANK MALDARI: It is one. GARY TALBOT: Right. And are you asking should it be greater than that? DENNIS CANNON: Yeah. Personally I don't think it makes any sense because having the door at the other end of the carbe accessiblewhen the space isup at the other end of the cardoesn'tmake senseunless youget anaccess aisle all the way through the car. And, secondly, if you do that as opposed to things like rapid rail where you have plastic seats with minimal padding and whatnot and they are not very wide, you can make the aisle wide enough. In Metro cars currently you can navigate a wheelchair all the way down the aisle. Other ones you have seatsmuchmore comfortable. Some recline and they are wide and padded and therefore you get those kinds of things because you are going to be on it for a long period of time. You can't use those cheap Metro seats. You need to have something bigger, which means you can't have the aisle any wider unless you have two on one side and one on the other and I think that would not sit very well with the ability to try to get maximum passenger loads.<<<: I'm not exactly sure here, but I think for Amtrak, we have the two doors. I think one needs to be
-- has to have a trapdoor
-- I mean, a step with a trapdoor and the other door needs to be with the automatic solution. That might be more practical for outside of the northeast corridor? Again, I'm not 100 percent sure what the future, what it will hold for us, will it be same level boarding or not. I leave it to Gary and the others with the expertise, their view on this. <<<: May Ipoint out thatmostnewAmtrak carshave only one vestibule at one end. The ones people are picturing did have vestibules on both ends, but the new cars have one door on each side. ED HOFF: The majority of our fleet in a very -- multi
-level cars where there is definitely no way toprovide access from one car to the other. We have two end doors and two quarter point doors on each side. So there it is. Obvious you have to provide accessibility at both ends so at least two of the
-- quarter point and the end door on one side of the car has to be accessible as well as the
-- one of the two on the other ends. MARILYN GOLDEN: All of these schemes involve bothsides of the car, right, access to both sides? <<<: Yes. DENNIS CANNON: The way it is stated is access at least one door from each side from which passengers board. There is some operations, given the kind of stations that you obviously board from one side, but presumably that you may be moving those cars around to different lines, you clearly want to have both sides accessible. The current thing all sides at which passengers board, at least one door on each side passengers board has to be accessible. MARILYN GOLDEN: So the developers of this big proposal that small groups arebringingback should take Melissa's suggestion to consider whether your proposal should be different versus light versus rapid, versus commuter, versus inner
-city rail. <<<: I like a clarification. What is a side? MARILYN GOLDEN: By "side" I meant
-- like I was on the (inaudible) yesterday, one stop, if I'm facing in the direction the train is going, on some stops the right side open and other stops the door on the left side opens. <<<: Youmean right or left? You are on the train and you are facing the front?MARILYN GOLDEN: Correct. So, in otherwords, I'm not saying that Ed Hoff's trains, which he said can't provide access at both ends
-- <<<: So an end is the front and back of each car, whereas the side is one side or the other, left or right? <<<: Correct. <<<: Currently the rule requires an entry on each side but does it say anything about end? <<<: No. DENNIS CANNON: Yes, it does. <<<: It does. I'm sorry. DENNIS CANNON: There is a current requirement that says you get from one car to the other through the end cars. The end doors is specified. The end door is specified at 30 inches and the reason for that isbecause of the design of cars at the collision posts required by FRA rules in the end that you can't make it wider than 30 inches. We are now told from conversations from, I think, somebody from FRA or one of the other calls that currently iswider, isnow 32 inches. Somyadvicewould be we make it 32, since we can now do that. But it is
-- maximum possible at the time
-- 30 is the maximum possible at the time the rule was written. ED HOFF: I think you said from one car to the nextcar is widened to 32. Ed was talking about if I have one car with two side doors, one on each end, do both need to be made accessible. <<<: That is what I was getting at. DENNIS CANNON: My comment on that was currently it is only one door on each side because typical rail
cars has two doors on each side, one at each end. You go into the vestibules and you specify that vestibule
as a minimum width and make a right angle turn and you go into the aisle and you go to where the parking space is. You don't require the other door at the other end to be accessible currently because there is no requirement for you to get down from that door, the length of the car between the seats to where the parking space is. <<<: Joshua's point is a lot of the newer Amtrak cars only have one door per side on one end. <<<: On one end; okay. <<<: And explaining how New Jersey transit have multi
-door, four doorsper side, two at the ends and then two more doors quarter of way toward the center of the car. The quarter point, and the end doors give you access to the same end vestibule but between the two quarter point doors is the area where you go above orbelow to the two different levels. We have to provide access. This is the first time you definitely need to provide both or at least two doors per side that provide
access and they would have to be at the end or quarter point doors at the end of our cars. FRANK MALDARI: Yeah. I think Dennis was suggesting one door per side per car as currently written, which I think makes sense and he gave a very good explanation as to why. Because there are two location areas for seating there and you are going to put it in one end of the car and if you make both doors open, youwould have toput another location at the other end or provide an aisle to get from one end of the car to the other end of the car, which means you are going to lose one seat in every row. Whether it is commuter rail and you have five across or inner
-city rail and you have four across, that ends up being a lot of seats you lose. I agree with what Dennis is saying and suggest we leave it kind of like it is. Every single car has to have at least one door on each side of the car that is accessible. MARILYN GOLDEN: Dennis is talking about the 30
-inch requirements the end doors. We will get tothat. When we do we will discuss it. We talked a lot about the subsection D. Is there any need to look at subpoints 2 and 3? We have been on subpoint 1, I think, for a long time. DENNIS CANNON: Those two exceptions are to cover
new cars and old stations and old cars in new stations and so forth. And it also talks about retrofitted vehicles, which we don't have. Under my proposal of saying "whenever we have some distance, you have to fix it," we don't need the exceptions. Don't need to spell out any of that stuff. MARILYN GOLDEN: Why not? DENNIS CANNON: Because it is already covered. You say "wherever you have a gap of greater than two inches you have to put a bridge plate." And this one gives you an exception that allows to have abigger
-- it goes up to 1.5 inchesvertical andmore than four inches, I guess, on the horizontal, depending on what you get. MARILYN GOLDEN: Yeah, good point. DENNIS CANNON: Actually saying those things are okay, you can leave them alone. And my proposal is, no, you can't. You have to put a bridge plate there. MARILYN GOLDEN: No. This makes sense. Melissa, it looks like the subsequent parts of thelist have similar provisions for different types of rails. The light rail has some accessibility provisions. I'm not sure, though, it makes sense. We are closing in on our end time. Anything further we can do at this time, do you think? MELISSA ANDERSON: I think basically the light rail, commuter rail and inner
-city rail, I think everybody seems to agree with requiring some type of device overmaximum gap. So the exceptionsmay go away. First we need to see if we have any hitches. The next thing is if we want to start talking about lift requirements, we could start a discussion on the design load. I don't know if we will finish it, but if we stick to that one topic we might get through that. MARILYN GOLDEN: Where are you? MELISSA ANDERSON: 1192.83B, that is on light rail. It is subpart D. DENNIS CANNON: It is the mobility aid accessible provision which basically outlines the technical specs for lifts, ramps, bridgeplates and so forth. Tells you what those technical specifications have to be. The fact the lift has to have a certain design load, has to have a certain width, has to have controls that areintermittent
-- you know, you have to have continuous pressure. These are the assumption that it is not like the lift in a building where you assume that it is independently operable. We never assume that a lift on
a bus, for example, or a bus on a light rail car would be something that a person in a wheelchair would operate him or herself from outside or inside. It's always assumed to be an operator. MELISSA ANDERSON: These are the technical requirements I had hoped to go through today and get some of it sorted out. Because rapid rail requires level boarding more or less. It doesn't have provisions for lifts and ramps in it, but the light rail, commuter and inner
-city rail do. We only really have seven minutes. So Iguess there isnotmuchpoint in starting. The design load currently for lifts is 600 pounds. I think PRIIA upped it to 800 pounds. I can't find it quickly in their specs, but does somebody know it is true? <<<: Yes, that is true. MELISSA ANDERSON: In the meantime between meetingswemightwant to considerwhether or notwewant to increase the design load. By the time these are published, the PRIIA specs will be built many times overand we will know it can be done and we will have prices for it. So that is something that we need to consider. And I would ask that everybody review the current recommendations for lifts and ramps and bridge plates before the next meeting so we can focus on them and get through them. MARILYN GOLDEN: Agreed. And I'm going to suggest that we maybe just start with the heading mobility aid accessibility. Because it has either floor space recommendation
-- you may say that we are taking care of that by another subcommittee
-- MELISSA ANDERSON: That cleared floor space is the cleared floor space for the seating area inside the vehicle. MARILYN GOLDEN: I see. So it is here but not really here. MELISSA ANDERSON: We will have platform dimensions as we go through the technical section. So the lift platform dimension and the ramp width and all of that we will cover as we move on. MARILYN GOLDEN: Okay. KENNETH SHIOTANI: Is there anybody from FRA on the call? I think we have been promised or discussed whether we can get the PRIIA specs a number of times andI don't think we ever got them. MELISSA ANDERSON: The PRIIA specs are readily available online. They are pretty easy to find. <<<: Can you send a link around, Melissa? KENNETH SHIOTANI: I have found excerpts but doesn't seem to be the full thing. I think I have found one chapter or something. Maybe I am just a bad web searcher, but I don't think I have found anything that looks like a full set of requirements. MELANIEBRUNSON: Iwill send the link around right after this meeting. KENNETH SHIOTANI: Thank you. Thank you. MARILYN GOLDEN: Any other final comments? I think this
-- we always wish we could go faster, but I think this was a very useful discussion today. I thank everyone for their participation. PAUL BEATTY: After the initial stop in the CART transmission, did anyone on the line
-- was the CART working? It was frozen for me and I just wanted to see whether the problem is associated with my computer. Some otherpeoplewere onCART, according to thedisplay. MARILYN GOLDEN: I had the same result. It was frozen and the mist
-- I tried to closeout and get back in and it was frozen just where it had been before.FRANK MALDARI: It is frozen for me too. PAUL BEATTY: Okay. MELISSAANDERSON: Wewill get the link out for the PRIIA specs. MARILYN GOLDEN: Thank you, very much. MELISSA ANDERSON: Dennis and Ed, do you think you can come up with draft language to start with? So our next meeting is July 24. Thank you for being on the call. July 24, 1:00 to 3:00 and we will get material set out with a little more warning during that time. MARILYN GOLDEN: Thanks, Melissa. Thanks to everyone. Bye, everybody. PAUL BEATTY: Conference call operator, that concludes our call. (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned)