Note: The output shown below is from the 

Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) 

system used in the On-board Circulation (and 

Seating) 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. 

Thursday, March 20, 2014 

U.S. Access Board

Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee meeting 

>> At this time I would like to turn your meeting over 

to Mr. Paul Beatty. Mr. Beatty, you may begin.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Thank you very much. Welcome 

to the subcommittee meeting. Before we go to 

introductions, just as something to point out, as the 

CART system chat box is not available for subcommittee 

participants who are using CART to participate and want 

to raise a question or make a statement please use the 

RVAAC E-mail address RVAAC @ access-board.gov to 

communicate. We will now go around with 
introductions first in the room. Of course, Paul Beatty. 

We will go to the right.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Melissa Anderson. 

>> LISA FAIRHALL: Lisa Fairhall.

>> JIM PECHT: Jim Pecht.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Marsha Mazz.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Thank you. We will go for those 

on the line. Tell us who you are.

>> (inaudible)

>> *John all burg

>> Joe Slaughter

>> Gary Talbot.

>> Robert Carlson

>> (Inaudible) from National Disability Rights 

Network.

>> Curtis McDowell.

>> Frank Maldari New York MTA. 

>> Paul Beatty: Are there any other people on the line/

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Chris sent me a text, he can't 

get through, he is on hold.

>> This is Ken Shiotani, Marilyn Golden is trying to 

get on.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Right now in terms of people I 

have on the line according to the computer screen it's 
not muted, Ed Hoff, Crystal Lyonns, Michael Porter 

Curtis McDowell, Johnson Holbrook *Ebert Vagagets. 

>> (inaudible)

>> PAUL BEATTY: Pardon me. So, those all that I 

have the computer screen showing.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Chris Hart is trying to get on, 

he is on hold. Operator, how many ports were you 

asked for?

(Discussion off record.) 

>> PAUL BEATTY: I am told at least one or two other 

people are trying to get in, and they are on hold. I was 

first checking to see how many lines.

>> Okay. We were expecting 30 participants, at this 

time we have approximately 15 lines in the conference.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Right. Okay.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Can she do something being 

on hold/ 

>> PAUL BEATTY: Chris Hart says he called in, is on 

hold, I may be assuming he is sitting there listening to 

music.

>> Um --

>> I was here quite a while before they logged me on.

>> Same here.

>> I apologize. What is the individual's name, 
please, sir?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Christopher Hart.

>> He may be trying to call into the conference we 

have a few other conferences going on at the same time 

he maybe into the main bell system that beef here or 

excuse me the answering system.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Right now Marilyn Golden has 

joined us. Marilyn, can you hear us?

>> Yes, thanks. I just got on a few moments ago.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: I told Chris to try again.

(Discussion off record.) 

>> Sir, I have informed the conferencing center about 

this issue, and they are going to get on the issue as 

soon as we can and get him into the conference okay? 

Thank you, sir.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Steve Mermen, is that pronounced 

correctly, has joined us?

>> Yes, that's true. At this time point David Nelson 

and Chris Hart are two individuals that we are waiting 

for. Jonathan Michael has joined us.

>> He has?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Jonathan, can you hear us? 

>> Yes, I am here. Can you hear me?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Yes we can. And David Nelson 
has joined us. And David, just to let you know, the as 

you probably aware, the CART system chat box is not 

available for subcommittee --

>> That's okay. I have got my interpreter, no 

worries. Thank you.

>> Okay. Great. We are waiting for one last person 

that we know wanted to participate that's Chris Hart.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: But you can still access the CART.

(Discussion off record.) 

>> PAUL BEATTY: Just to remind people that we 

have a CART option set up so you can go to the RVAAC 

website and link connect to that link and you can see 

what is going on text-wise. RVAAC website. 

(Discussion off record.) 

>> PAUL BEATTY: I am going to turn it over to 

Melissa.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you everybody for 

joining us. We got the agenda posted to the website, it 

wasn't until late yesterday, I apologize for that. So, the 

first thing on our agenda is to approve the agenda. 

So, if everybody wants to take a look at it, and I will go 

through it real briefly in case you don't have it in front of 

you, we selected the subcommittee chair, discussed 

scope and objectives, review the major points from the 
last meeting. Including mobile impacts and action 

items, and then have a discussion about the Vertical 

Access that -- that was written up as a draft. And look 

at our next steps. And then identify how we are going 

to move forward as a larger committee. And I put 

together a draft organizational plan. It will be up to the 

committee and the committee chair to see side how to 

move forward from here. I wanted to give us 

something to work on today. So, you guys can 

completely rearrange it. And then the objectives as I 

have down here are really meant for everybody that we 

do. This is the information that we need to get out of 

it. I just want to keep those in mind. And then we will 

plan for if we have action items out of this meeting and 

assign duties and tasks establish deadlines. Talk about 

the next meeting and public comments. So, does 

anybody have any comments, questions or objections to 

the agenda.

>> No.

>> Nope.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Can you speak up, please, 

Bob.

>> I thought the next, it says here at the last in the 

timetable, it says recommendations by October of 2014. 
I thought that was September.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: We are on the agenda now. 

Approval of the agenda.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We will talk about the draft 

scope in a few minutes.

>> I thought that was part of the agenda -- my 

printout is scrambled.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: It's all together on the 

website. 

Do we have a motion to approve the agenda? 

Any -- any committee member or alternate can make a 

motion.

>> So moved.

>> Second, Crystal.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you Blair and Crystal. 

We will consider it approved. And I 

am going to turn it over to Billy Altom, the full 

committee share to go through the selection of the 

subcommittee share.

>> Awesome. Thank you, Melissa. This is Billy. 

Right at the moment we just have one person that 

submitted, their name to the subcommittee chair and 

that is Blair Slaughter. What I would like to do is ask if 

there is anyone else on the call, this can be alternates as 
well, that would like to volunteer to be --

>> Billy, this is Marilyn Golden from DREDF, could I 

ask a clarifying question first?

>> Sure.

>> Just because it would have gotten straightened 

out with you ahead of time. But just got the materials 

pretty recently. So, this is for Vertical Access, onboard 

circulation is on the agenda, is that being 

folded -- okay. That's an access of Vertical Access, 

that's right, those two were folded together.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: This is Melissa. When we 

sent -- when we decided to break up into five 

committees, and we sent the information around a 

couple of weeks ago and asked everybody to let us know 

which committees they are most interested in, that's 

when we -- due to the responses that we had we 

decided that seating could easily be folded into the 

vertical -- into the on board circulation subcommittee.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: I think the confusing thing Melissa 

is the heading on the agenda, it's incorrect. 

Subcommittee on vertical access.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: My mistake. I copied and 

pasted the last one and changed the date. This is the 

subcommittee on -- on onboard circulation and seating 
and Vertical Access will be a part of that discussion and 

the Vertical Access is going to be folded into the larger 

topic of onboard circulation. 

>> Thank you both for the clarification.

>> I see, onboard circulation and seating. Thank 

you. That's very helpful.

>> Thank you both again for the clarification. Right 

at the moment, as I was saying, we have Blair who has 

volunteered. Is there anyone else who would like to 

volunteer? Any takers? I believe I am hearing none, I 

believe the protocol is Blair would be named the 

subcommittee chair. Am I correct in our operating 

procedures?

>> MARSHA MAZZ: By acclamation. 

>> By acclamation. 

>> Hearing none, Blair, congratulations.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Or condolences.

>> I feel like a bidder in the contract.

>> You always wonder what was left on the table, 

don't you?

 (LAUGHTER)

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. So --

>> Go ahead, Melissa, thank you.
>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you Billy for doing 

that. And Blair, technically you should be taking over 

and running the meeting. So, if you want to do that you 

can. Or I can just kind of lead us through and you can 

step up as frequently as you like.

>> Okay. Well, I would at this point Melissa, I 

appreciate if you could carry through and I will step up 

to the next go around and stick my two cents in then, if 

that's okay.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: That will be great. We are 

going to ask for a lot of your input here in a minute 

anyway. So, included on the website was a draft of the 

subcommittee or onboard circulation and seating. The 

scope and objectives. And these are basically the same 

scope and objectives that were included for all of the 

subcommittees. And you know, I think we read through 

this before. Scope of subcommittees to review current 

requirements. And that hasn't been updated our 

objective is to propose revisions to update improve or 

expand the scoping and technical criteria in order to 

acceptable level of access for persons with disabilities 

on all of the different modes of rail, that are covered by 

the board's current guidelines.

So, that would be based on current regulations and 
considerations of changes that have taken place in 

vehicle structure, technology, and the needs and desires 

of people with disabilities. And in the subcommittee, 

and I have bulletted, I took the issues list and kind of 

combined things so that we didn't have a four-page list 

here we want to address all of the issues under these 

bullets. I folded the seating into the onboard 

circulation issues. So, the subcommittee -- we are 

proposing that the committee address the number and 

location of wheelchair spaces and priority seating 

according to the vehicle type and removable seats. 

Characteristics of circulation pads, aisles, protruding 

objects, changes in level thresholds and other onboard 

circulation features this includes handholds and 

stanchions. Interior doors and operation features. 

Onboard lift or left change device access to the 

prior -- to the upper and lower levels of the bi-level 

cars.

And that's where Vertical Access is folded into this 

committee. And access to within special 

car -- specialty cars, escape and egress wheelchair 

space design including minimum size amenities controls 

and variations. Other types of accessible seating such 

as transfer seats mobility device storage seating to 
accommodate service animals including minimum space 

and other issues that may come up through the 

discussion. Does anybody have any comments on 

this -- on the scope and objectives.

>> Yes, this is (inaudible) I have two comments. The 

first one talks about the location of the wheelchair 

space, now, I would prefer to -- if we could change it to 

the acceptable space. Because it's not only that 

wheelchairs will be parked there but there is going to be 

other mobility aid devices. So, if we could just change 

that as generic.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. We will take that into 

account. A lot of times something to think about is the 

wheelchair spaces have in some modes will have specific 

securement requirements possibly so we may have to 

differentiate between accessible space and wheelchair 

space where it's appropriate. But we can add accessible 

space to that.

>> Okay. But be mindful that on the inner-city 

trains they don't require securements of wheelchairs.

>> if I am not mistaken I don't think any rail vehicle 

requires securement. 

>> Right, right, some do require that.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: As we are going through 
discussions there isn't need to differentiate between 

them or specify that it's specifically a wheelchair space 

then --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: It's simply a term of art because 

the space at a minimum has to accommodate a 

wheelchair. And because we know the dimensions of a 

wheelchair, we call it a wheelchair space just like in 

theaters you may have a wheelchair space that ends up 

being occupied by somebody with a walker. Sitting in a 

regular theater chair. But that theater chair has to be 

able to be moved out of the way to created a void for the 

wheelchair.

>> The issue you have is Amtrak, for example, is 

carrying Segways and we do secure the Segways when 

you turn them off they typically have no brake and 

wander around it's considered a mobility device for us 

so that's different from how we would treat a wheelchair 

which has no securement right now

>> This is Gary Talbot if I could -- I guess I am really 

confused because rail vehicles do not have securement. 

That's in the rule today, correct?

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Correct.

>> Right.

>> So, we shouldn't be writing something about 
securement of wheelchairs

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. So, we -- we can 

change that to accessible spaces in your discussions. 

Do anybody else have --

>> Yes, this is Nelson here. I will leave it to the 

wisdom of Gary and, you know, if he can make the 

recommendation on what the proper terminology is to 

use. And one more comment to make. It was the 

bullet point it says, it says access to and within special 

cars. I don't like the word "special."

>> MARSHA MAZZ: This is Marsha Mazz. I think, 

David it would be helpful if we would try and stick to the 

substance of the discussion and we can in the final 

report as we go along later deal with some of the 

terminology the special rooms and spaces is taken 

directly out of the Uniform Federal Accessibility 

Standards and the 1991 ADA standards. And a lot of 

people don't like it. And we are not likely to use it in a 

regulation. It was simply shorthand to enable us to 

have a way of distinguishing those types of rooms and 

spaces from your typical passenger car where people are 

seated. But if we could -- if we could get going on 

some of the substance and not worry too much about 

the vocabulary and then we can -- we can put the some 
refinements on it later in terms of how we portray these 

in a report.

>> This is (inaudible) just another comment towards 

the securement in cases where powered mobility 

scooters are transported and people are transferred 

from their scooter to a seat, I think there was a 

discussion that the scooters should be secured to 

a -- to travel on the inner-city train.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Maybe the right word for that is 

"stowage." If a person is not in it, it's essentially stowed 

it may be stowed in a manner that doesn't allow it to 

travel. Similar to the Segway which is not secured with 

the Segway user in it, it's secured separate from the 

user.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Just one more quick 

comment on the topic and then let's move on. Our 

attorney in -- has pointed out to me the law actually 

says single level cars are required to provide a place to 

park a spaced park and secure wheelchairs.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: But that's again stowing.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: So it's just something that 

it's --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Not securing an occupied 

wheelchair. Different.
>> LISA FAIRHALL: I think your point about let's not 

worry too much about the terminology now but we need 

to be mindful that words have specific meaning in the 

law, and we want to make sure if we are going to 

change --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: In this case I don't think the law is 

referring to securing the passenger.

>> LISA FAIRHALL: No, no, I understand they are not 

talking about accessible spaces they are talking about 

stowing a wheelchair.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: It's not really securement even 

though they use the word secure in the law.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Now, is the time to correct the terminology. This 

is -- this has happened before. There are terms in the 

statute that -- I am talking about unrelated to rail, that 

the DOT regulations basically says the statute -- the 

statute says this. The statute says X it means Y and this 

regulation will address Y. And nobody has ever 

objected because of the kind of thing Marsha is saying, 

these are terms of art. But I think Marsha's verbal 

substitution solves the problem if that's okay with 

everybody.

>> It's a valid point.
>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Yeah, that's fine.

>> So, we are saying stowage; is that right?

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Well --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: For now let's use that term 

knowing that it means, you know, we are making the 

unoccupied device unable to travel on its own.

>> Right. This is Robert Carlson they do that with 

bicycles on the Amtrak as well.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Right.

>> They can't just bring a bicycle in and set it 

anywhere it is in a designated area where it's stowed and 

safely transported.

>> Gary Talbot: Aren't we opening up if we are 

going to compare them -- I understand what you are 

saying about bicycles, but doesn't that open us open to 

somebody says I can't secure it you don't get to go kind 

of thing, that was the whole point on rail we didn't need 

securements, yes, we have to have stowage areas, but 

stowage areas would be a place where you take an 

unoccupied chair and put it.

>> Gary, this is Blair. I think the point we got into 

with the Segways is most -- a lot of devices have a 

(inaudible) regardless of whether the device is manual or 

powered or whatever. The problem is the Segways is 
when you turn them off they wander around on their 

own and create --

>> They don't if they are laid down. I will talk -- we 

will talk about that later.

>> They are rolling around.

>> Well, if they are powered down and laying -- they 

are laying down they are not going to move all over the 

place that's a different issue. I mean I am hoping we 

are not getting ourselves into thinking that there is like 

securement stuff and that's what I am hearing. I agree 

with Marilyn. I think this is the time to fix whatever 

isn't right in the DOT.

>> It sounds like that's what the consensus is to do, 

to say stowage, and we all know what we mean as 

reflected in this conversation, if that's okay with you, in 

the last couple of minutes I haven't heard anybody 

object to that.

>> My only concern about stowage they start taking 

your chair away and taking it to the baggage care it has 

to be stowed.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Is that you Bob Reuter? Can you 

speak directly into your phone and speak up.

>> My issue with using the term stowage, you may 

get to sit in the seat and they drag your chair off the 
baggage compartment.

>> This is David Nelson. Our policy at Amtrak 

doesn't allow to bring a chair to the baggage car it has 

to be in the vicinity of the person.

>> Gary Talbot: That's actually D.O.T. rule that's 

supposed to be in the same car and in the same area.

>> Hi guys, this is Chris Hart. I just want to bring 

this back to -- we are not concerned about operational 

issues it's only to -- it's to know what happens when 

you get out of your chair or your scooter but for the 

purposes of this committee, we (inaudible) people 

(inaudible) D.O.T. by rights have the obligation that that 

is operational issues. Whether it's a device that has to 

be secured when it's not occupied.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Well, and those are things 

that we can address specifically as we work through all 

of the circulation issues. You know, seating and in the 

wheelchair or accessible space and storage of mobility 

devices are specific issues that we will address as we go 

along.

>> This is Robert Carlson. I have a comment 

regarding the next item in that last the escape and 

egress, and do I believe that we need to discuss or at 

least mention the redundancy of the (inaudible) impact 
such that you can get from one -- out of a vehicle or 

from one vehicle to another if one particular lift 

assembly doesn't work or, you know, whatever you are 

using for Vertical Access you would be able to get out by 

more than one path.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: These are simply topics that you 

will address in the future. And I think what we were 

looking for is some agreement that these are suitable 

topics and not to get down into the weeds of discussing 

the substance of them at this point in time.

>> This is Bob Reuter. We should add emergency 

devices. Emergency equipment, devices.

>> That's a good idea.

>> How to stop how to open the doors manually and 

stuff like this.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay.

>> It's not addressed anywhere in the rules.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We will bring that up again 

as we get to that part in our discussions of your 

recommendations for that portion of the rule. Yeah, I 

just want today verify we aren't missing any major topics 

and that these are generically the topics that we are

going to cover. It doesn't have everything in the list 

because I still expect to cover everything that was in the 
issues list but this is just kind of a generic way to bullet 

point the highlights. So, does anybody -- anybody 

have any -- any really strong issues of something that 

we have missed or something that is -- that needs to be 

changed on here? Okay.

(Discussion off record.)

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. So, let's -- we are 

going to review a little bit of what we did at the last 

subcommittee meeting, which I thought was very, very 

successful. This is where you are going to get to talk 

some more, Blair. In the March 5th Vertical Access 

meeting, I think that we came to an agreement that 

Vertical Access primarily applied to inner-city rail. And 

we left with some action items Ken Shiotani sent out a 

Wheel-o-vator specification that was provided as 

background information on things that might be 

considered as we developed this. FRA is there anyone 

from FRA that wants to speak to the safety of lifts or

Vertical Access in the rail cars? Linda wasn't able to be 

on the call today 

Okay. We will have to address that in a future 

meeting. So, Blair Slaughter from Amtrak who is now 
our chair provided us with draft recommendations for 

Vertical Access, and I don't know if everybody has had a 

chance to go through them. We also received 

something I just got it this morning for -- from 

Bombardie about some other comments on vertical 

interior circulation. And elevators. But I think you 

have seen this, Blair. Do you want to talk about the 

draft recommendations that you made and perhaps 

people can provide us some comments?

>> Blair Slaughter: Yes, I have to apologize to Andre 

Gagne from Bombardie he sent me the information I was 

going to roll it into what I wrote. And I managed to not 

find it even though I really had it. Some of the things 

Andre wrote I hit but (inaudible). So, you can't just walk 

down through the -- through the draft if that's okay.

>> Where is a copy of the draft? I was try to go find 

it.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: It's on the -- it's on the 

website under the draft -- under the meeting material.

>> It's on the third or fourth page.

>> I brought this into a short proposal and 

background for those of us who aren't intimately 

familiar with the industry and the history and then the 

benefits and risk and technical requirements. Do you 
want us to go down through this everyone or how do 

you want to do this.

>> That probably would be helpful in case people had 

on opportunity. I don't know how familiar you are with 

Andre's comments if you can incorporate some of those 

as you go along or we can kind of look at -- talk about 

those later.

>> Blair Slaughter: Okay. I will do my best.

First, we have a proposal I thought it was important to 

put it in the front end and put the -- the interior 

circulation of the rail advisory committee of the U.S. 

Access Board proposes that inner-city long distance 

bi-level passenger trains have some means of 

transferring passengers using wheelchairs or who 

otherwise cannot negotiate stairs between the levels. 

This may be limited to particular feature cars such as 

dome or (inaudible). 

And I will stop there and say, this is the strawman. I am 

willing to take the darts for anything that's in here. 

Point of departure. (inaudible) to expand the full rail 

travel experience for passengers who might otherwise 

miss out on key features of travel. The upper level 

access will include an accessible restroom accessible 

seating for transfers, wheelchair parking space and a 
space to fold and store a wheelchair. The quantity of 

each type of space is to be determined. The type of 

seating is to be determined. That is, whether it's 

lounge or dining or whatever is appropriate.

Stair lift or vertical elevator style may be used.

As background, bi-level, long distance trains came 

into existence in the 1950's on the Santa Fe Railroad, 

El Capitan railway. With one known exception, there is 

not access for wheelchair users or people who cannot 

reasonably manage the stairs between levels.

In the late 1970's Amtrak ordered and received the 

bi-level superliner cars to supplement or replace a lot of 

its aging single-level cars. Sleepers and coachers had 

wheelchair accessibility in the lower level the diners and 

lounges did not. A subsequent order of similar cars 

from (inaudible) delivered beginning in 1993 had 

accessible spaces in the lower-level cars except the 

diners bi-level cars offered increased passenger 

capacity, weight savings to reduce overhead cost 

bi-level trains reduce the length of passenger boarding 

passenger. 1990 provided accessible spaces in the 

lower level of cars and for dining provided that 

passengers coach seat or bedroom. There was no 

requirement or suggestion that the second level access 
should be provided. Fortunately a key positive feature 

of traveling a bi-level car is the advantage point for 

viewing passing scenery this is true of the sight zero 

lounge expending from 20 inches above the floor up to 

the curved roof of the car. Arch windows over 

approximately 1/5 to 1/4 of the roof. The long has the 

large side windows obviously no dome windows. The 

geography of the bi-level car is such that the lower level 

is 17 inches botch the rail while the upper floor is 104 

inches above the rail. For comparison single level car 

floor is typically 15 inches to the rail. Alaska Railroad 

and travel partners have special passenger trains with 

sightseeing cars that are extensions of cruise line tours 

of Alaska and the surrounding areas. The newest dome 

cars include an elevator to accommodate wheelchairs to 

the second floor. While the operation of Alaska 

Railroad is different from Amtrak, the trips only a few 

hours versus multiple days, the innovation is 

commendable.

The benefits and this is made assuming that one car 

is accessible and obviously that's open for debate and 

conversation. Is one, passengers who cannot 

(inaudible) any enhancements due to increased elevation 

such as sightseeing passengers may have the 
opportunity to use services such as the diner in the 

same manner as other passengers that was the intent. 

This not change the passenger option that was delivered 

and served at the soot -- at the seat or room. Special 

events in the lounge such as guest provided sightseeing 

information or special food events such as wine and 

cheese tasting is directly accessible. Ambulatory 

passengers needing to visit the restroom will not have to 

go downstairs as it will be accessible restroom in the 

upper level. For new cars, the opportunity exists to 

move from the lounge to adjacent car such as diner 

coach this may not be possible in existing equipment 

but must be investigated. The risk that I have identified 

should the lift fail, manual operation should be possible 

to return passengers to the lower level. 

Passenger safety may be compromised. (inaudible) 

unlike the built environment rail cars experience lateral 

vertical longitudinal and torsional movement which can 

occur suddenly with no planning or warning. The 

effects of train operation today at 90 miles per hour at 

PRIIA specified speeds (inaudible) are not known. The 

compact environment of a passenger car coupled with 

the dynamic affects may make independent operation 

practical and or dangerous. Ensuring access to 
passengers need the lift versus nuisance users such as 

children may be difficult and failure to control access 

can be dangerous. And that's not considering access to 

people who are legitimately come to go use it, but you 

know, children can go almost anywhere including into 

there is little stuffed toy machines that they go into from 

time to time. Impact on space in the car is not known 

and must be studied. Initial technical requirements.

Lift may be vertical shaft style or chair lift style 

function on battery power including battery system 

independent from the car battery. Lift platform size 

equivalent to the platform for car or station born lifts. 

Lift capacity will be equal to station or car born lifts. 

Lift must include a fold down seat and vertical 

handholds for ambulatory unstable users. Lift entrance 

egress must be equal to that of alcove. Lifts must 

operate normally at super elevation to either side of the 

curve.

For you nonrailroaders they are super elevated on one 

side to help the train move safely through the curve at 

various speeds. So it gives a pronounced tilt that you 

won't unless the train stops then you know you are on a 

lean.

Lifts must operate in emergency mode to within X 
undetermined degree of the car's rollover angle. This 

must be studied to see how the movement within the car 

affect the vehicle's center of gravity in extreme cases. 

This is just simply looking at in an accident situation, if 

the car's railed and leaning it has a point at which it will 

tip over so I want the -- the lift device to be fully 

functional you know right up against that point. So, 

that we can still get people in that rather precarious 

situation back to the downstairs.

Let's see lost my space here. The frame must be of 

sufficient strength otherwise so designed and installed 

as to function (inaudible) diagonal misalignment. And 

that's just rail cars are very flexible they have to be or 

they would break and derail. So you get a lot of 

typically unseen flexing in the car but it's there and 

would affect anything mechanical. Gates, doors, 

guards, handrails et cetera, must be designed to 

maximum load required for the lift when subject to the 

FRA required loading of 4G vertical 4G lateral and 4G 

longitudinal and remain functional after the event. 

(inaudible) guards must include inter locks to have safe 

operation. Sufficient (inaudible) train motion and 

normal wear of components. So, that was the end of 

my list. Let me run down through the list that Andre 
built and --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Was that provided to the 

committee.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: No.

>> Blair Slaughter: The first page of what Andre 

Gagne provided speaks to the 49 CFR 238 which identify 

the G force loadings I mentioned before. Also the APTA 

recommended practices of the same loadings. And 

then the worst case scenario of the packs mum 

combined weight of the wheelchair occupant and 

possibly attendant and safety factor of 2. Let's see. 

Interlocks, of course, maximum travel time an integral 

break good idea soft stops and starts so you are not 

jolted to a -- on the beginning or end. Motor protected 

against failure modes lighting and what that defines is a 

lot of the -- the basic light levels and also emergency 

lighting. Elevator door and elevator tower doors 

emergency stop button destruction detection loss of 

electrical power and (inaudible) operation all have to be 

considered.

Some key considerations that Andre listed was how to 

retrieve a passenger stuck in an elevator after an 

accident. That would be an accident involving the car. 

We should keep in mind rail cars don't stay vertical in a 
crash. That's sort of what I mentioned before. Should 

have means of providing adequate ventilation and 

heating as if it were a regular and closed elevator. If 

that is how it's constructed.

>> Blair, is what you are reading from available.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: It's not available on the web 

yet, but I will put it up after the meeting.

>> Okay, thank you.

>> Blair Slaughter: A means of egress such as 

evacuation chairs should be considered if the elevator is 

inoperable. And the question does Amtrak have 

statistics on the reliability of their cart elevators we can 

talk about that. Using the elevator will require the 

passenger to sign a liability waiver. Well, I don't know 

that's up for discussion. Some things come with buying 

a ticket. Adding a high capacity elevator in the rail car 

will require additional reinforcing structural elements 

that will take up space and add weight. Elevators would 

be used frequently if the vehicle has only one accessible 

restroom, another scenario would be to equip the 

vehicles with two accessible restrooms one per level. 

That's what I had mentioned before. I think that's final 

if we do this.

Let's see. The elevator means two accessible spaces 
would have to be provided, one upstairs and one 

downstairs. Bringing wheelchairs to the upper level in a 

dining car would affect the layout of the upper level aisle 

width transfer seat access to counter cash register 

self-service shelves and dispensing lines, et cetera. 

What happens if there is a fire when someone is in the 

elevator. The impact of rail gap later operation must be 

assessed. That's just the routine I get from the rail car 

movement.

>> (inaudible). Chris Hart here. A key (inaudible) 

what happened if someone (inaudible) restroom or 

anywhere else.

>> Blair Slaughter: Well, Chris, what we have found 

in practice is that when we have a fire on an occupied 

car, it is generally immediately put out because there are 

people close by that react you know either the crew or 

the passenger, we had a fire -- four five years ago in a 

restroom, that was unoccupied nontheless the car was 

occupied. And the fire was immediately put out.

>> Chris Hart: Can I just ask for folks on the phone, 

when you mention things like the rollover angle, is that 

same level testing done to, say, doors or sliding doors 

or bedroom doors. Is that evaluated on all of the other 

equipment in the cars?
>> Blair Slaughter: Chris, typically this is Blair again 

for everyone else, typically, when we are looking at a 

doors on a car rooms and things we do look at that to 

make sure that they can still be opened, they may not 

work at the same level of efficiency because a sliding 

door may be put in the pocket but it still has to be able 

to move. If you have a single leaf door across the car 

like the very end of a car. And it's a sliding door. It 

still has to function and slide versus being bound up. If 

the car goes into any of these odd angles. And what I 

am looking at, Chris, is the more robust we make some 

of these things the less likely we are to have problems in 

normal operation. You know, to me the worst thing in 

the world would be to get someone in there and have 

them stuck halfway between floors, and then here we go 

down the railroad we have to figure what to do. But I 

think -- I just want to keep those kinds of things in 

everyone's mind, and to -- to detract from taking this 

forward, it's merely trying to put there all of the 

considerations that you run into --

>> This is Jim. Most excellent draft, particularly with 

Andre's additions there, but we talked about this before. 

I thought we were talking about just in station we are 

really looking at this as a continually thing 
while -- while in service out on the road?

>> Blair Slaughter: That was -- that was one of the 

last points on Andre's bullet list was should we consider 

using the elevator only when the train had stopped 

safety reason.

>> Yes, because there could be operational costs all 

kinds of affects there. And you know, I didn't know as 

far as Amtrak and operational procedures well things 

like that what got me thinking about it just reading the 

current high speed spec where they are talking about 

people in wheelchairs not going from car to car when 

you are out on the road.

>> Blair Slaughter: I think that there is -- I don't 

want to throw anything out at this point.

>> Yeah.

>> Blair Slaughter: I think that if you look at the 

distance between stations, on the long distance trains, 

you can go for quite a ways without a station. And it 

may not be practical to -- to over limit then right now, 

we don't know what the dynamic affects are because we 

have never done this before. We have we move food 

carts and food up and down in elevators now, and we 

have had our share of trouble with those. In fact, 

elevator -- National Wheel-o-vator, I was reminded 
today was our contractor to do a new elevator that 

moves trays of food and load it. We had no end of 

trouble with those things a number of times I had to go 

to Washington and see the cars that came in and unwrap 

the -- available in these horrible disasters had 

happened on them. We used them. We felt, wow, they 

are an elevator company, they will understand that stuff.

>> Not that we never want to limit service to the 

disabled but, you know, if enough design and testing 

considerations showed that we just weren't going to be 

able make an acceptable reliability level that may be a 

consideration but I -- and I also assume that this was 

going to be run by crew.

>> Blair Slaughter: Well, that's one of the points that 

has to be discussed. Obviously the most 

appropriate -- the best condition is that it's 

independently operated by the person who comes to it. 

Part of what I would like to have good discourse on is 

what are the pluses and minuses of doing that. 

Obviously there is a level of independence that they can 

go up to anything and use it themselves versus calling in 

an attendance. I come at it from -- from the railroad 

safety side of things and I look at it and go wow that's a 

point that we really need to talk about. And it has 
nothing to do with -- with questioning someone's life 

independence it has everything to do with running my 

railroad safely. So, no one gets injured. It's -- we try 

to avoid that it's really bad business to hurt folks.

>> This is Bonnie, and I have not been able to get 

additional information I don't know what the questions 

are to ask. But you know because the Alaska Railroad 

and a couple of cruise companies have cars that do this, 

I believe that the elevators are used while the train is 

operating, you know, I think that talking to them -- I 

don't know what -- the way to get the information is, 

but some of this -- you know the design is going to be 

a little different on an Amtrak long distance car. But 

you know I don't think it's hugely different and I think 

that the Alaska providers probably have a wealth of 

experience that can be brought from, you know, that 

should be part of this deliberations or recommendation 

or whatever.

>> Blair Slaughter: This is Blair. That's a very good 

point. I know that Josh Coran, who is on the committee 

from Talgo was with the Alaska Railroad and there is at 

least one -- one fellow that's on the call today who 

worked for Colorado rail car that did those cars.

One of the things that I want to find out is how they 
use them operationally what is their practice. Just to 

know when we say, okay, Alaska has elevators that can 

move wheelchairs from one level to the other, okay, how 

do they do that? I think having the device that can do 

the task is one small part of it, having the device that 

can do the task with all of the other parameters of doing 

it in a moving train and doing it reliably is a big deal. 

Alaska, I went on the website did some research and 

found it, they run the way they run their trains, they 

don't have a sleeper service. So they will run for you 

know four hours five hours or something they stop and 

people go sightseeing they spend the night in a nice 

hotel they get up and go on the train the next day. 

Really Chicago going to the west coast on a bi-level 

train, and it's almost like losing a plane in the ocean. 

You say goodbye to the train and wait for good word 

from Los Angeles or somewhere.

>> I think the Access Board should pay for a trip for 

us to examine the Alaska railroad cars.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: We will do that.

>> Is that a motion?

>> Get it seconded real quick

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: No.

>> It needs to be in the summertime by the way.
>> Needs planning.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Looking at the function battery-powered, we are 

going to have some possible battery load issues 

dependent upon the amount of usage on the thing also. 

Because that takes space, and everything -- everything 

is possible.

>> Nowadays are battery-operated

>> This is David here. Now, I can tell you that Alaska 

Railroads, what I was informed of is that they are -- they 

rebuilt the lifts, so, I am kind of calling it -- what they 

have now is the second generation list, you look at the 

monster lifts on buses, for example, the first generation 

the second generation typically have a lot of issues. By 

the time they get to the third generation or the fourth 

generation, it's pretty much refined, it's working. There 

is a lot less issues with it. So, I think that -- I am 

looking at this like we might have problems initially on 

lifts with bi-level cars but I think that as we go down the 

road, you know, and we refine it then it would be much 

easier. But just saying that Alaska is on their second 

generation lift I am not sure if it was by a specific 

company or if it was made in-house type of thing. I am 

not sure about.
>> So from the standpoint if we don't get it right the 

first time we will never hear the end of it.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> On the operator standpoint I can say, yes, that's 

true because there is a period in there where we get 

just -- you become your own worst enemy.

>> Once again, Blair, just the fact that this draft 

exists to this extent, is refreshing and well done.

>> Blair, this is Gary Talbot. I mean, has there been 

any -- any considerations maybe writing the technical 

documents to include everything that everyone is talking 

about and maybe trying to find a contractor a design 

and development house that could assist and maybe 

take some fresh eyes or something somebody that does 

similar kinds of things, very complex things on moving 

vehicles that -- I mean, it just seems to me this is such 

a great project and a really great start, we change 

update the language some but at the same time, just 

seems like, you know on the gap project we kind of 

jumped out and found a provider, a contractor that 

could assist us. And I think a similar approach might 

really -- this is a very, very complex issue. But it might 

be helpful to have something like that that would assist 

the board. Just a thought.
>> Gary, that's a good point. We will have to talk 

offline as Amtrak folks but I do have some things to let 

you know that I think you will be interested in. But a 

very good point, I think maybe we can move to some of 

the other discussions, if folks can take this draft and use 

it as an idea generator to make some comments

>> I would appreciate that. I think that lets us get 

closer to build a sounder recommendation to the overall 

RVAAC. What we typically do with equipment, we are 

breaking new ground or making a major departure what 

we have done traditionally and successfully. We will 

typically prototype something, and put it through its full 

paces and either simulate the railroad dynamic or if 

possible put it into railroad service and have it not 

necessarily as a primary device but in a situation where 

we can really test it in the real world. Experience has 

shown that unless you do an extreme dynamic situation 

in a building, in a factory, you really don't come close to 

generating the same difficulty that you have out on the 

railroad. I don't know if we have gremlins on the 

railroad or not but we can break most anything.

>> Ed Steinfeld. We have been collaborating in 

Toronto with a simulation platform where something 

like this could be tested in and actually like simulate 
movement. I am not sure whether the capability of 

their facility would be able to simulate a railroad car but 

they can do things like this. And pretty amazing 

facility.

>> Blair Slaughter: This is Blair again. I don't doubt 

that we could simulate the environment, I mean Amtrak 

has and passed along for the use of PRIIA and 

environmental specification that gets detailed as to the 

vibration and angles electrical conditions, a whole litany 

of things that affect not just Amtrak but most railroad 

operations. The extreme temperatures, you name it. 

We would -- we would have to put anything that we did 

through those kind of paces. And, again, I don't -- I 

honestly -- I don't think that there is anything that is 

insurmountable here. But it needs to be, before we 

could -- if we were to order new cars today from Alstom 

or Bombardier and have that requirement in there we 

would have to be prepared to have a pretty long learning 

and engineering period in there to all be comfortable 

with what we got to. I think to Gary's point it's going to 

be very critical somehow in this process and I don't 

know that it falls to the Access Board's responsibility or 

how we can do this it's critical we prove these things out 

for everyone's benefit. So that we can know at a point 
that we can have lifts and operate them safely and 

reliably and do what we want to do.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Blair, this is Marsha Mazz from 

the Access Board. I am closing in on being able to 

provide the committee a copy of the ASME A18 platform 

lift standard. But I can tell you as a member of that 

committee, that that standard does not address any of 

the kinds of stresses that you are talking about. I don't 

even think there is anything in there or seismic or 

anything of that. But the data may be useful to you if 

nothing else as a guide to look at some of the other 

issues that have -- that the lift designers are pretty 

cognizant of. And that has to do with you know 

openings and entrapments and share points, and other 

things that can present problems for the user.

If you, for example, don't guard the lift as it travels it 

can slice your toes off. So, you do want to look to -- to 

a safety standard to -- to cover some of those other 

issues. On a second matter, just talking about using 

the lift when only in stations, it strikes me that 

when -- the car -- when the train is in the station, that's 

when the majority of people are going to want to change 

the position. They are going to want to come down 

either because they are leafing the train or whatever. 
And if you have a lift on the stair, now you are forcing 

the lift to operate under -- under the most constrained 

conditions when there is the heaviest demand on the 

stair.

>> This is Bob Reuter. It's also when the train crew 

itself is the most busy.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: That's a good point as well. I

think there might be pluses and minuses there. That 

seems like a pretty big minus. Because your stair is 

going to be sized according to the amount of flow that 

you want to accommodate at those transition times.

>> Yeah, this is Marilyn Golden from DREDF. I agree 

with Bob and Marsha very strongly. We certainly at 

DREDF could not agree apriori as least maybe not ever 

but certainly apriori to any restrictions on using 

anything whether it's between cars, vertical, anywhere, 

anything other than maybe getting on and off the train 

until the train is stopped.

I agree not to get on and off until it's stopped.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> But I don't think we can agree to wait for that for 

anything else.

Another thing I would like to go back to is the safety 

conversation. Certainly, any new product needs a lot of 
testing. But there has been an issue in disability rights 

this is the strain that runs through, you know, well back 

to the 504 regulations much less the ADA statute the 

ADA regulation process it's a process of developing the 

ADAAG revised ADAAG and so on around safety while a 

concern for safety is legitimate. And while the disability 

rights community certainly you know in terms of my 

representation of DREDF's interests do not dismiss 

safety at the same time it is very, very common for 

concerns about safety to get in the way of allowing 

accessibility. It goes all the way back to pre-504 in 

earlier years with some writers would opine, this is of 

course in an earlier day that wheelchair users should not 

use elevators in buildings because how will we evacuate 

them if there is a problem.

That concern looked so ridiculous and at best quaint, 

at worst other things to us today. Because we obviously 

allow wheelchair users to go up to the highest floor that 

the an elevator goes and we find other ways to deal with 

evacuation we are over the decades are improving but 

we didn't wait for the civil right of accessibility to wait 

until the perfecting of every evacuation and safety 

question. So, I think we all need to remember, also, 

that there are standards in the ADA around safety, I 
mean there are more of a defense but the principle can 

be used which is direct threat. You know, we don't 

allow significantly unsafe conditions but at the same 

time we don't allow in terms of (inaudible) to block 

innovation. And a third concept that I want to throw 

into the discussion, is the issue of -- this was always 

the guideline by the way that we used in the 

development of the ADA statute.

And between the years of 1988 and 1990 and into the 

years of 1990 and 1991. The policy drives the 

technology. For example, if we wait until the perfect 

product is developed, before we require it, we will never 

require it.

We let the establishment of a policy to require 

something drive the development of the technology and 

it does, in fact, derive the development if you allow it to 

do so once there is a requirement companies will fall all 

over themselves to make the product, but that won't 

happen until the requirement is in place.

And a related concern is the issue of what level of 

safety. You know, every new product, I mean when we 

require lifts on buses, we had decent lifts but we don't 

have great lifts. As soon as the requirement was there, 

we had many evolutions, many generations of better 
lifts. And this gets to the point that David Nelson 

raised earlier with which I agree. We can't wait for the 

perfect technology. It's interesting because it's the 

same area of transportation when the ADA was 

developed we already had like, again, decent lifts for 

buses. But we don't have very good lifts at all for over 

the road buses the buses with luggage compartments 

underneath. And the development of the final policy 

document, which was D.O.T.'s addition of the 1998 

regulations into the D.O.T. ADA regulation Part 37 was 

what drove better and better technology on the lifts on 

buses the seating that collapse the proper way blah, 

blah, blah to make that seating work. And we are still 

developing it. But we have the policy in place. And I 

think the crucial thing here for anybody connected to 

an -- to the Access Board, whether, you know, we are 

members or on advisory committee is to find the right 

policy and trust that the development of the technology 

will take place. Yes, we have to deal with the larger 

safety matters but we can't let every tiny safety issue 

stop our progress.

>> This is Bob Reuter. I have to agree. As I told one 

person, going over the safety (inaudible) they are, wait a 

minute, I have to see like everyone else on here.
 (LAUGHTER)

>> Well, study -- it may be a improper time to say it.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Equal rights.

>> Blair Slaughter. To Bob's point, it's not always 

about -- obviously there is -- I know in the past the 

concern for safety of the individual whose using the 

element in the train or the bus or whatever, the person 

who may be in the wheelchair is probably been used 

against people and used as an excuse. But when I look 

at safety, that's obvious the person who is using elevator 

or lift it's everyone else around. Those -- you can't 

disregard them. I am not suggesting anyway one is 

saying that we should. We do have to consider it. And 

I think what I would like to see us get to as we move to 

the point of recommending to the larger committee and 

to the Access Board, is that we think through this thing 

enough so that we don't scare everyone away or put 

everyone on the immediate excuse and defensive mode 

of saying, oh, that's impossible. Because I think that we 

would have failed if we do that. I have seen other 

situations where there were recommended practices 

within my industry that were eventually became rules. 

Now, if we were following the recommended practices 
when they became rule, it only got a little more 

complicated. So, it wasn't a big deal. For other 

organizations it got very complex. But the fact is that 

once it became rule and law, the supplier chain for a lot 

of things that we struggled for suddenly got big. We all 

tee -- we actually had competitors in multiple suppliers 

that stepped up to the plate. So, to that point, if you 

don't make a step then nothing ever happens, and that's 

understood.

But, again, I would say, you know, in my role at 

Amtrak I spent a lot of time the in the courtroom and 

being deposed and everything else about things that 

have occurred on the railroad. And you would be 

surprised how folks can twist things around. People 

were maintaining that they were injured because there 

was a wheelchair space on a car. And that space should 

have been occupied by something so that they didn't fall 

into it. But I can't put anything there. You know. 

How can I have something there and then have someone 

come and use it as an accessible space. But you would 

be amazed. So, yes, I don't worry about people, the 

actual users of the devices necessarily having the same 

equal right to sue. But it's all the other folks who show 

up. And find themselves in that situation who may not 
even be using the system. So, again, I would like to see 

us not question this to the point of saying no. But 

question it to the point that we can address the 

concerns, and put forth a document at the end of the 

day that shows that we have given proper thought to 

these things, and so we stand a better chance of making 

this happen. I am not looking to slow it down but -- I 

want to go to the moon I don't want to sit and look at 

it --

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: I think we have to remember 

too, Alaska already figured this out. They probably did 

extensive safety research and some of the research you 

are talking about the torque on the train the egress and 

manual overrides and all of that I am sure they have 

been through that process.

>> Alaska Railroad is under the FRA, also they would 

be under the same rules.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Yeah, so I think it might be 

helpful -- Blair, if you contact Josh you might get some 

information. He gave -- he actually gave me the name 

of the contact at Alaska Railroad that asked me to go 

through him not contact the person directly. And I can 

send you that information. And --

>> Blair Slaughter: That would be fine. And I will 
point out that the FRA except when it comes to 

restraining things within the car, their activity -- except 

for restraining things and the ADA offset the door of the 

car. If Alaska Railroad got ready to put in a lift, the FRA 

probably would have only been concerned as far as 

making sure it was bolted down properly.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. I think that's some of 

the information that Linda intended to bring to us today 

but she was unable.

>> (inaudible) I want today kind of reinforce what 

Blair has said. But the only thing is that I don't want to 

get so bogged down with all of the specifics because 

technology does change. A lot of new technology will, 

you know, be emergent or emerges 10 years down the 

road it's totally different. So, you know any commuter 

railroad -- railroad operator company is not going to 

say, oh, well the ADA said we had to install this new 

technology that really helps a person with a specific 

disability. I really want to be open as much as possible. 

And have a lot of leeway as much as possible so that it's 

not -- yeah, I mean, I know we are not here to, you 

know, bog down the language right now. But it's just 

something to keep in mind, technology always changes.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. Let's --
>> Some other thoughts on the draft, are those in 

order?

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Yes, if you have some other 

thoughts and then --

>> Yeah, I just gave -- all right. Sorry. This is 

Marilyn Golden from DREDF. I notice that on a couple 

of locations it said something to the effect a stair lift or 

vertical elevator style may be used and then lifts may be 

vertical shaft style or chair lift I am not sure I fully 

understand the language but if I do I want to say that I 

don't think DREDF could agree to anything where you 

have to leave your mobility device behind. But I 

don't -- that may not be what is meant. So just to say 

that.

>> Mean incline platform lift.

>> Right. Second look at the language, that's what I 

think too. There was also the language assuming that 

one car is sightseer lounge is acceptable. And I think 

that we have to any carefully about one bi-level car 

versus every bi-level car for obvious reasons. 

Statements like lift platform size must be equivalent for 

the platform, for the car station born lift and lift capacity 

will be equal to station or car born lifts. The thing that 

I want to say to that as well as to a different on a 
different subject must be equal to that for alcove, my 

reaction to the statements would be it depends on what 

they are considered to be. We have seen lift platform 

sizes that are problematic we have seen some that are 

great. There are evolution in some specifications even 

as we speak such as on the ANSI committee. I

understand that that is not binding on the ADA process. 

But it does represent the evolution of technology that 

many of you addressed on the call already today. It 

would be great if we built on the best available 

technology as we develop these standards.

Lets see.

>> Marilyn, this is Gary Talbot, can I chime in just for

a moment?

>> Oh, I wanted to say one other thing and then, 

Gary, let me do that and then over to you?

>> Thank you.

>> I wanted to also mention Chris Hart's earlier point. 

And I may not quote this exactly right. But Chris, I 

think you were saying, according to the CART, when you 

mentioned things like the rollover angle is that many 

other terms that were used today and some of them are 

beyond my level of technical understanding of train cars, 

but you said is that the same level of testing done to say 
doors or sliding doors on bedroom doors, which is a 

great -- we show know the sleeper cars on Amtrak have 

sliding doors with all kinds of problems you included 

evaluated on all of the other equipment in the cars. 

You added that. This is sort of a -- you know, this is 

sort of the opposite but equally valid concern about 

safety. Which is that anything that we developed has to 

be subject to the same rigor of testing that any other 

thing that is used for the general public. Because there 

are some devices on trains, and the sleeper car door is 

also my favorite example because it has so many 

problems even simple like you know if you hook it 

somebody else can't get in if you need emergency 

assistance if you don't hook it, it opens and closes and 

opens and closes every time the train goes around a 

curve. Technology did it so simple it could easily be 

better. We can't allow disability technology to be 

subject to second-class development standards when 

other parts of the train that everybody uses are subject 

to a better quality development. Okay thanks Gary. 

Go ahead.

>> Thanks Marilyn. I agree with that comment.

What I was going to say, again, I think this is a -- I 

have to start someplace. And I think Blair has done a 
really great job of kind of pulling some of the issues 

together where now we can kind of peel it back a little 

bit. And one of the concerns that I have is that whether 

you are saying well we will have access to a sightseeing 

car maybe we won't have it to another car that 

presupposes that the solution is going to be so onerous 

so complex and expensive that that is why we can't have 

access to every car. Where from a rulemaking 

perspective, I would think that you would want to keep it 

as high level and flexible as possible until you get the 

data that tells that you need to be more restrictive. So, 

whether it's access to whatever car in the -- in the 

COMSYS or load capacity footprint or the type it is. I

wouldn't want to think you want to over constrain. I see 

that as being an over constrain. To your point Marilyn I 

think you are right, I can remember -- I have been in a 

chair since 1980 I remember people were freaking out 

we have to put elevators in buildings to the second and 

third floor. And everybody what are we going to do. 

We get there, like you said, there will be an emergency. 

Therefore we can't get you there kind of approach.

You know, we don't know what the right device really 

should look like. Maybe the right device is something 

that is just not that -- it's something that is can be 
better integrated into a car, meaning that we can have 

more weight capacity, more everything, and I wouldn't 

want to see this limit that like we already know all of the 

answers. That's the one thing in my question to Blair 

and anybody else on the call is how do we get this out of 

like just an Amtrak thing because it's really an industry 

thing but maybe because Amtrak is the inner-city 

provider maybe it is an Amtrak thing. But I would just 

like to see a very rigorous design development project. 

Where we can really find out what the bounds are. 

What really is the capability of the car. And the system 

to support equal access to the upper level. Can you do 

it when the vehicle is in motion. Well, if you can't, I 

would rather have that all get flushed out adds part of 

the process. And us assuming that it's just too difficult. 

Anyway, thank you very much. 

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Well, the committee can 

make recommendations. And the proposed rules get 

written it gives all of industry and all of the public an 

opportunity to comment and help determine whether or 

not some of these things can be done or if we are 

overreaching on regulation.

>> This is Blair. I just wanted to reach back to a 

couple of points that Marilyn brought up. Marilyn I 
wish you would write everything down and give me. I

can't write that fast.

 (LAUGHTER) 

The question about the lift -- the platform size and 

that, I put those in because I didn't have -- I know that 

one of the things that is going to -- we are going to go 

through not as part of this committee but the boarding 

and alighting I am assuming is the discussion about the 

lift capacities and lift sizes, lift platform sizes that have 

gone through on the -- not knowing what that was 

going to be I wanted to let -- whatever definition is 

given to the new platform size for the lifts, whether they 

are in a station or on -- as part of the car, that that 

comes right over. So, that gives you an automatic if 

nothing else a minimum space definition that works for 

the lift for between levels. That was the only purpose. 

That was -- that was the reason there. I did include the 

idea of a flip down seat for someone who is otherwise 

ambulatory. We sit down to move between levels. I

would never consider there is folks mentioned that I 

would never consider access to mean that you have to 

leave your wheelchair and get on some little seat and 

ride up stairs and do something else. Absolutely 

critical that you be able to take what you came with and 
go to the second level.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Blair, would you like to have 

everybody send their comments to you sore you could 

inappropriate -- you can incorporate them into your 

draft?

>> That would be great.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Paul, do you want them to 

send it directly to Blair or through you? 

>> PAUL BEATTY: That works for me.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. We need -- we need 

to move on or we are going to run out of time. If you 

have comments or you want to reiterate something that 

you commented on today, go ahead and send E-mail to 

Blair and I believe E-mail address is available to 

everyone.

>> PAUL BEATTY: This is Paul Beatty we sent out 

E-mail giving people the contact list. And then there 

the E-mail addresses.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. If you have any 

questions you can always contact Paul or I and we can 

help you out.

So, I guess we have spent quite a bit of time talking 

about this and it's an important issue, but given all of 

the other issues that we need to cover circulation and 
seating, we need to kind of decide -- and this -- this I 

put together kind of an idea of how we could move 

forward. But we really need to talk about as a 

circulation and seating committee how we are going to 

move forward from this point on.

And, Blair, if you want -- if you want to do this, you 

can. If you want me to kind of go through the list that I 

have and see if anybody wants to make changes. I

mean, you get to be the chair so you can you can do it 

how ever you want to.

>> It was a lot easier when it was going to be Vertical 

Access.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: I know.

>> What list are you talking about?

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. There is on the 

agenda, there is -- number 7.0. There is onboard 

circulation. Determine an organizational plan to 

address the issues. And I put together kind of a draft 

list of how I thought we could move forward but you 

know, you guys can move forward how ever you want in 

whatever direction we just want to put one foot in front 

of the other. The first one I had was to -- was to talk 

about the access within single bi-level and specialty cars 
with consideration of modal differences. And that's just 

kind of generic on some of the differences in the 

different types of trains between light rail and commuter 

and inner-city, et cetera. And then talk about the 

wheelchair spaces and priority seating. And you know, 

I put that next simply because that gives us -- it would 

be nice to be able to move all around the trains but we 

want to get from the doorways to the accessible seating. 

So, you know, to me that was a logical place to start. 

You guys can start anywhere you want. And to address 

circulation path attributes and how you are going to get 

from the doorway to those -- those spaces.

Then interior doors, you know, I assume that we will 

at that point decided we want passage through some 

doors and maybe not some other doors and sleeper cars 

which are covered in another subcommittee. But 

bathroom doors and that type of thing. And then 

address the actual the actual dimensions and amenities 

of the seating areas themselves. So, that was -- those 

are my initial thoughts. But it's your committee. So,

>> Blair Slaughter: Okay. Well I think that certainly 

is a good start. Well let's see how are we doing on 

time.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: If you want Blair you and I 
can get together and discuss how you want to move 

forward too.

>> Blair Slaughter: I think it would be good for the 

folks on the phone if you look at the list (inaudible) is 

there anything not there that we need (inaudible) in 

detail. Or do we need to amend any of those between A 

and E? That is something in the time left we can do 

here online or if people want to send the information to 

us and let us include that (inaudible). Anyone have a --

>> Between A and E did you say?

>> I see under 7. Is the discussion about the order 

in which we are dealing with things?

>> Blair Slaughter: I don't know so much about the 

order we are dealing with as dealing with everything that 

we need to deal with and we don't miss anything.

>> Bob Reuter here. Usually when there is 

something --

>> Hello.

>> I try to go with flow, you get on the car, diner, 

restroom and food, you do it in a flow pattern dealing 

with what is most important. Getting on the car and 

getting to your location and what is the specific location.

>> Blair Slaughter: Up to that --

>> Well, if onboard lift, it's getting on the car.
>> MELISSA ANDERSON: The other subcommittee on 

boarding and alighting addresses getting on the car. 

That's not -- that's not something that we need to talk 

about in this subcommittee. We will coordinate the two 

subcommittees as we need to and move forward.

>> Still working with the flow you go from the door 

through the vestibule into the corridor into where you 

sit where you park your chair. And then the facilities 

within the car you go from where you park to the 

restroom from where you park to food. If you are in a 

sleeper from the door to the sleeper. To the door to 

the sleeper. And put it into a flow pattern of which way 

you are moving through the car.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Yeah. Well, and 

that's -- and that's kind of what I did we will deal with 

generic access once we determine where the seating 

locations are, that gives us a kind of a point that we

need to be able to get to and from.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Melissa, this is Marsha, don't 

spend too much time looking for the gaps at this point, 

you will discover them along the way.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Yes.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: There is nothing like starting. I

think that it would be beneficial for the committee to 
take ownership of some of these issues and begin to 

work them. And you can keep a technical list of gaps 

and things needs to be addressed as time permits. If 

you try to make sure that you have covered everything at 

this point, you will spend the next two meetings talking 

about what to talk about.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Right. That's why this is a 

short list everything that we need to talk about is 

actually included in the list, it just doesn't say that 

specifically. So, I guess the real point is what do you 

guys want to do next? What do you want to tackle. 

You want to tackle the path from the doorway to the 

wheelchair space? Or do the accessible space or do you 

want to address the accessible space next?

>> Some of the easy ones, to mark them off the list 

and put them on the side.

>> This is John Holbrook. I know that the wheelchair 

parking, you know, space and size to be accommodated 

is doubled with the ingress, egress. But it's also part of 

interior circulation, and that's pretty important and 

basic. And probably one of the, you know, the biggest 

thing that's going to be made and it's going to affect 

other equipment as being built as we speak.

>> Melissa, this is Marilyn, is your question about the 
order in which we deal with things? I think it is. But 

what I don't get as someone pointed out we spent a lot 

of time on Vertical Access we have the task in 7 on 

onboard circulation. Did you mean that we should all 

maybe send our things in to Blair and Blair I heard your 

question about requesting my list which I am happy to 

write up and send. And then while that is happening, 

just go into some of the items on 7? Because I think 

that is fine. And I think the list -- the order you have is 

fine. And I think worrying about what is left out Marsha 

is right we will figure it out later. Do you mean 

abandon vertical -- do you mean wait while we are 

doing the other things, sending to player and started on 

one of like 7.2A.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: My thoughts are that if 

people have comments to send to Blair, go ahead and 

send them to him. He can revise the Vertical Access. 

Vertical Access is actually included further down here. 

We have addressed that fairly well. And we don't need 

to -- we don't need to have every fine detail on that 

topic figured out right this minute. It will be part 

of -- part of the big picture. But my real point is what 

are you guys going to work on for the next meeting.

>> This is Blair. I would -- I would like to say 
everything in a way because it's -- obviously we have 

got a lot of comment on the Vertical Access and a lot of 

discussion. I could take the information folks give me 

roll that back in. But it's important currently we start 

looking at the other items in number 7, so that we move 

not just point by point, but that we move a lot of this 

concurrently down the path. There are some things I 

think is critical to define as you move through the car to 

Bob's point some of this is going to cascade, and be self 

defining.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Blair --

>> Blair Slaughter: I think if we take 

beginning -- assuming that we are not dealing with 

boarding and alighting, assuming that we have arrived 

to the vestibule of the car and move from that point to a 

defined accessible space with a group of amenities that 

are available, then -- then I think our task is to on the 

grand -- the larger side is to define that path and how 

that changing dimensionally, what devices are added 

into that space that we have learned after 20 years or 

more that need to be there. And then narrow down as 

part of dealing with seating the specifics of some of the 

devices whether it's a seat or anything else that need to 

be -- have greater level of detail and discussion. Does 
that sound like a reasonable thing to do?

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Blair, this is Marsha Mazz with the 

Access Board. It does seem like a reasonable thing to 

do, but it strikes me that there is a conversation to be 

had before you begin manipulating all of those parts. 

And that conversation is about the -- to steal a word 

from Ed Steinfeld, anthropometry of the wheeled 

mobility device that you want to accommodate. Once 

you describe that device, or you know the size device 

that you want to accommodate, then a lot of technical 

criteria sort of fall into place because you have 

described, for example, a wheelchair instead of a 48 

inch you know length has a I am going to pick a number 

52-inch length or 54-inch length. Once you have done 

that, then you will be able to really begin to articulate 

the amount of space that you need in order to 

accommodate travel of that device through the car.

>> Bob Reuter: Isn't that also be being discussed in 

a another committee.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: I am not aware of that.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: No, that will probably be up 

to this committee and also part of the onboard 

circulation or the boarding and alighting. But as a full 

committee, we have to -- you know, in D.O.T. terms it's 
your define vehicle we have to know what we have to 

accommodate.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Exactly. Until you know what you 

have to accommodate. If you start coming up with 

technical criteria, you run the risk of coming up with 

technical criteria that accommodated one point and 

don't accommodate your design vehicle at another 

point. So, it strikes me that the conversation to be had 

at the next meeting is what is our design vehicle if Ed 

Steinfeld is still on the line he might be a critical player 

in that conversation (Inaudible).

>> I don't know if Marsha is aware of this, but I have 

proposed to Paul Beatty -- you know this to Paul at the 

April meeting that I present the research we did on 

anthropometry and I don't know if this meeting 

is -- this meeting -- if this subcommittee meeting 

before that?

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We are, we are meeting a 

couple of times before then.

>> So, I, it seems like

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Maybe what makes sense though 

Ed is as a member of the committee for you to do 

something like what Blair did, which is to come up with 

a strawman for --
>> I can do that

>> MARSHA MAZZ: For the committee's consideration 

at the next meeting.

>> Sure.

>> At the January meeting we discussed what PRIIA 

bi-level had come up with and I guess is enacting. Are 

we talking about the possibility of altering those -- that 

criteria?

>> It's up for discussion.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: It's up for discussion I am not 

sure anybody has come up with the criteria on behalf of 

the advisory committee. But maybe you could take 

those criteria, and look at what Ed comes up with in 

light of those criteria. See how they match, don't match 

since Ed has a research basis for, you know, his -- his 

understanding of what people are using, it does seem to 

make some sense to -- to hear from him about what his 

recommendations would be in terms of your design 

vehicle.

>> That was not applied to the PRIIA bi-level 

committee?

>> This is Blair. I am curious what came out of the 

revisions for buses? Is that something that falls into 

what you are looking at as well?
>> We have input into the rulemaking proposals into 

the research. But I don't believe that that is finalized 

left.

>> They have not.

>> We have also been working with the ICTNC A117 

committee for buildings they approved a number of 

items.

>> You need to be careful not going against each 

other and not so funny if you were on a rail vehicle that 

had to link with an Amtrak bus and find out you could 

ride the rail vehicle but not the bus.

>> Yes, or anyone else's multi-modal system. You 

know, I can get on the train, I can get on the bus, but I 

can't get in the station or the light rail or whatever. 

>> Marsha Mazz: Buses are not training and trains are 

not buildings it's entirely possible that different types of 

structures have different constraints that will in fact 

impact people differently. But we have to start 

somewhere.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: They are never all going to 

change at once light rail is 50 years if we set standards 

now don't expect people to make changes 50 years and 

do them all at once -- it's going to be incremental 

mismatch because buses have different life spans and 
regulations and so to the -- so do the rail we need to 

move forward with what we think will provide good 

accessibility. We have to be mindful of what else is out 

there that might be a constrain.

>> We have to be careful not to constrain ourselves I 

was on the other committee 20 years ago local light rail 

they never (inaudible) now they are every vehicle is 

(inaudible). 

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. For the next meeting, 

do you if you were going to do a presentation for the 

larger in person April meeting would you Ed Steinfeld 

would you be interested in doing it for other --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: I suggest he come up with a 

strawman and full -- and the full research presentation 

can be at the committee meeting. But if he came up 

with a strawman on what his recommendations would be 

then you can compare it to what PRIIA has done, and 

you will get more deeply into it later. But I think 

subjecting everybody to the same presentation twice 

would be kind of a waste of time.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Painful?

 (LAUGHTER)

>> And, also, I would argue that -- well I am not 

going to argue anything. But I could also send a -- a 
short report on the research that you might find useful 

with the recommendation.

>> That would be wonderful.

>> Also it would be nice if we had a -- something on 

what the PRIIA cars actually are producing. You know, 

how are they actually coming off the assembly line.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Maybe something else can 

synthesize the space requirements or can imagine a 

design vehicle backwards from what was in the PRIIA.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We have FRA on the 

committee we need to get ahold of Melissa Shurland --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: I don't think that they actually 

picked a target mobility device design, you would have 

to work backwards from the spec.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Yeah.

>> I think they were looking at just dimensions.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Yeah.

>> The dimensions.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: What can we get here what can we 

get there. Yes.

>> This is Ed Steinfeld. I have a question I didn't 

want to bring up earlier we are getting near the end 

because I missed the last meeting. It has to do with the 

future of these bi-level cars. I travel a lot around the 
world, and in other countries, I don't really see these 

bi-level cars the newer trains in Scandinavia and Japan 

are all single level cars Scandinavia. The only country 

that I visited that has a lot of England -- England falls 

into the category where else did I go recently? I can't 

think of it

But the country that had the bi-level cars was the 

Netherlands. They are still operating really old vehicles 

and everybody knows they are totally obsolete. They 

are not accessible at all. The ones that I saw. And I 

just wondered whether this is the future of the bi-level 

car or whether it's the past.

>> Japan is building a lot of their new Shinkansen is 

bi-level.

>> When I was there the Shinkansen was a single 

level.

>> Ed, this is Blair, one of the things that drives 

bi-level versus single level is existing infrastructure.

>> Yeah, the platform length and all of that.

>> Well, it gets worse. The reason we don't run 

bi-levels into -- bi-levels into New York City is the 

pesky tunnels under the Hudson.

>> I get that. One other question regarding 

bi-levels. The most accessible train that I have been on 
is the train between Copenhagen and Malmo, that was a 

brand new when I was there, it was brand new and it 

was -- that's a bi-level train, I believe Copenhagen the 

entry instead of having the entry on the end of the car 

the entries were on the middle, so there was a 

level -- there was a level part of the train in the middle 

that has all of the bathrooms in it, and all of the 

amenities are in that section. And there are sections on 

either end of the train that have stairs leading to them. 

Another way of doing a bi-level car, I am 

wondering -- that was a great train because that middle 

section had all -- granted, it was a commuter train. It 

was not a really long distance train. It was just -- just a 

20-minute ride between the airport in Copenhagen and 

the station in Malmo, and there was another 10 minutes 

into Copenhagen main station. For commuter trains 

that was an interesting design the center part where was 

everybody brought their bicycles and people with 

carriages all of the seats were flip down. So, that, 

basically, it was really flexible. The restrooms were 

there on that level too. And that seems to be a really 

good design for -- I thought a good design for 

commuter rail. I am wondering if that is happening in 

the states at all.
>> Very common cars use Metro link and MARC 

commuter with the doors in the middle level. What is 

sometimes called the (inaudible) or tri-level.

>> When I say the middle I mean the middle of the 

car not in the -- not the middle level but rather the --

>> Metro link has them on the middle of the car, 

MARC has them on the end of the car but it's the same 

designed car.

>> Has a large space on the end.

>> Right.

>> Okay good, that's good to know.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We are about out of time 

here, so Blair, you will need to do an agenda for the next 

meeting we will be happy to help you with doing that. 

And looks like the action items that I have for people are 

that if anybody has comments or wants to send things 

to Blair about Vertical Access, please do that.

And Blair is going to revise the draft. And then a 

draft recommendation and report on anthropometry 

from Ed Steinfeld to be presented at the next meeting. 

I will contact someone at FRA and see if we can get the 

specs for the PRIIA cars and background information on 

their seating spaces.

>> The meeting times for the next meeting dates and 
times on the website?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Yes.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: It will be on the website

>> PAUL BEATTY: It is.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: March 26, which is just next 

Thursday. And it will be at from 1 to 3 again.

>> I won't be able to be at that meeting. March 26 

that I can do, yes, I have it on my calendar, okay.

>> Is it possible to send E-mail address out to all of 

us Blair?

>> Yes.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We will send it out to 

everyone Blair.

>> Blair Slaughter: I was going to ask too how 

quickly, what is the deadline, Melissa, to get things to 

you for distribution over for placement on the website?

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We need them a couple of 

days ahead.

>> Blair Slaughter: Okay.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Sooner is always better. 

Anything that we get with pictures or anything we may 

take a little more time, but I think just a couple of days 

is fine.

>> We are at Thursday, if I can get everything to you 
by Monday morning, I can have it to you by close of 

business Monday, Melissa, if that works.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: That would be great. Have 

your comments to Blair by Monday morning and that 

way he can move forward with his revision.

>> This is Marilyn. Is our meeting Wednesday the 26 

or Thursday the 27th? Because somebody mentioned 

Thursday. I thought it was you.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: It's Wednesday the 26th.

>> Okay. All right. Thank you. 

>> Melissa this is Ken Shiotani was there -- there was 

back and forth discussion about whether FRA might 

have some information about the (inaudible) used on the 

Alaska and cruise line cars. Do you have anything?

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Well, they weren't able to 

attend. Aside from letting us know they weren't going 

to come, we don't really know. We will follow-up on 

that, and try to get that information to Blair also.

>> Blair Slaughter: I think that question was around, 

what is actually transpiring with the PRIIA cars that are 

being built. The way that I understood, the way we left 

the thing with Alaska, we need to contact them directly 

and find out everything that we can. How they are 

using those.
>> Maybe contact the cruise lines about the 

(inaudible).

>> Well, I know the folks and I speak their language.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. We will try to 

get -- we will try to get you hooked up with the Alaska 

people for more information. And we will send out 

Blair's contact information so everyone can send 

recommendations. And I think we are a couple of 

minutes past so -- we don't have a motion to close this 

call do we?

>> No.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: I guess this is the end for 

today we will see everybody back next Wednesday on 

the 26th and meeting information will be on the website 

prior to the meeting.

>> All right.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you everyone.

>> Thank you.

>> All right.

(End of meeting.)