Note: The output shown below i s from the

Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) system used in the On

- board Circulation (and Seating) S ubcommittee 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. M r. Beatty, you may begin.
>> PAUL BEATTY: Thank you very much. Welcome to the subc ommittee meeting. B efore 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 withintroductions first in the room. O f course, Paul Beatty.

We will go to the right. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Melissa Anderson. >> LISA FAIRHALL: Lisa Fairhall. >> JIM PEC HT: 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 Rig hts Network. >> Curtis McDowell. >> Frank Maldari New York MTA. >> Paul Beatty: A re 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, M arilyn 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'snot muted, Ed Hoff, Crystal Lyonns, Michael Porter

Curtis McDowell, Johnson Holbrook *Ebert Vagagets. >> (inaudible)
>> PAUL BEATTY: Pardon me. S o, those all that I have the computer screen showing. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Chris Hart is trying to get on, he is on hold. O perator, 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. O kay. >> 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. W hat 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: R ight now Marilyn Golden has joined us. M arilyn, 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 i nformed 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 tru e. At this time point David Nelson and Chris Hart are two individuals that we are waiting for. J onathan Michael has joined us. >> He has?
>> PAUL BEATTY: Jonathan, can you hear us?
>> Yes, I am here. C an you hear me?
>> PAUL BEATTY: Yes we can. A nd David Nelsonhas joined us. A nd 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. T hank you. >> Okay. G reat. 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 a nd 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. S o, 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 thelast meeting. I ncluding mobile impacts and action

items, and then have a discussion about the Vertical Access that

-- t hat was written up as a draft. A nd look at our next steps. A nd then identify how we are going to move forward as a larger committee. A nd I put together a draft organizational plan. I t 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. S o, you guys can completely rearrange it. A nd then the objectives as I have down here are really meant for everybody that we do. T his is the information that we need to get out of it. I just want to keep those in mind. A nd 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. S o, does anybody have any comments, questi ons 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. A nd I am going to turn it over to Billy Altom, the full committee share to go through the selection of the subcommittee share.
>> Awesome. T hank you, Melissa. T his is Billy. Right at the moment we just have one person that submitted, their name to the subcommittee chair and that is Blair Slaughter. W hat I would like to do is ask if there is anyone else on the call, this can be alternates aswell, that would like to volunteer to be

--

>> Billy, this is Marilyn Golden from DR EDF, could I ask a clarifying question first? >> Sure.
>> Just because it would have gotten straightened out with you ahead of time. B ut just got the materials pretty recently. S o, this is for Vertical Access, onboard circulation is on the agenda, is that being folded

-- okay. T hat's an access of Vertical Access, that's right, those two were folded together. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: This is Melissa. W hen 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. T his is the subcommittee on

-- o n onboard circulation and seatingand 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. T hank you. T hat's very helpful. >> Thank you both again for the clarification. R ight at the moment, as I was saying, we have Blair who has volunteered. I s there anyone else who would like to volunteer? A ny takers? I believe I am hearing none , I believe the protocol is Blair would be named the subcommittee chair. A m 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. S o
-- >> Go ahead, Melissa, thank you.>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you Billy for doing

that. A nd Blair, technically you should be taking over and running the meeting. S o, if you want to do that you
can. O r 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 cou ld 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. S o, included on the website was a draft of the subcommittee or onboard circulation and seating. T he scope and objectives. A nd these are basically the same scope and objectives that were included for all of the subcommittees. A nd you know, I think we read through this before. S cope of subco mmittees to review current requirements. A nd 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 d ifferent modes of rail, that are covered by the board's current guidelines. So, that would be based on current regulations andconsiderations of changes that have taken place in

vehicle structure, technology, and the needs and desires of people with disabi lities. A nd 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. S o, 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. I nterior doors and operation features. Onboard lift or left change device access to the prior

-- to the upper and lower levels of the bi

- l evel
cars. And that's where Vertical Access is folded into this committee. A nd access to within special
car
-- specialty cars, escape and egress wheelchair space design including minimum size amenities controls and variations. O ther types of accessible s eating such as transfer seats mobility device storage seating toaccommodate service animals including minimum space

and other issues that may come up through the discussion. D oes anybody have any comments on this

-- on the scope and objectives.
>> Yes, t his is (inaudible) I have two comments. T he first one talks about the location of the wheelchair space, now, I would prefer to

-- if we could change it to the acceptable space. B ecause it's not only that wheelchairs will be parked there but there is goin g to be other mobility aid devices. S o, if we could just change that as generic. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. We will take that into account. Alot 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. B ut we can add accessible space to that. >> Okay. B ut 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 throughdiscussions 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. A nd because we know the dimensions of a wheelchair, we call it a wheelchair space just like in theaters you m ay have a wheelchair space that ends up being occupied by somebody with a walker. S itting in a regular theater chair. B ut 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 ri ght 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 aboutsecurement of whee lchairs

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. S o, 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. A nd one more comment to make. I t 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. A nd a lot of people don't like it. A nd we are not likely to use it in a regulation. I t 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 somerefinements 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." I f a person is not in it, it's essentially stowed it may be stowed in a manner that doesn't allow it to travel. S imilar 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. O ur 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 secur e 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. D ifferent.>> 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, n o, 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 terminol ogy. T his is

-- this has happened before. T here 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. T he statute says X it means Y and this regulation will a ddress Y. A nd nobody has ever objected because of the kind of thing Marsha is saying, these are terms of art. B ut 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. T his is Robert Carl son 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: A ren't we opening up if we are goin g 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 o r powered or whatever. T he problem is the Segways iswhen 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 agre e 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 cou ple 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? C an 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 thebaggage compartment.

>> This is David Nelson. O ur policy at Amtrak doesn't allow to bring a chair to the baggage car it has to be in th e vicinity of the person. >> Gary Talbot: T hat'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. W hether 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 (inau dible) impactsuch 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. >> MA RSHA MAZZ: These are simply topics that you will address in the future. A nd 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. E mergency 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. I t doesn't have everything in the list because I still expect to cover everything that was in theissues list but this is just kind of a generic way to bullet

point the highlights. S o, does anybody

-- anybody have any

-- any really stron g issues of something that we have missed or something that is

-- that needs to be changed on here? O kay.

(Discussion off record.)

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. S o, let's

-- we are going to review a little bit of what we did at the last subcommittee meeti ng, which I thought was very, very successful. T his is where you are going to get to talk some more, Blair. I n the March 5th Vertical Access meeting, I think that we came to an agreement that Vertical Access primarily applied to inner

- city rail. A nd
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. F RA is there anyone from FRA that wants to speak to the safety of lifts or Vertical Access in the rail cars? L inda wasn't able to be on the call today Okay. We will have to address that in a future meeting. S o, Blair Slaughter from Amtrak who is nowour 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. A nd elevators. B ut I think you have seen this, Blair. D o 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 wrot e. A nd I managed to not find it even though I really had it. S ome of the things Andre wrote I hit but (inaudible). S o, 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 indust ry and the history and then the benefits and risk and technical requirements. D o youwant 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 yo u 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: O kay. 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 negot iate 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 her e. Point of departure. ( inaudible) to expand the full rail travel experience for passengers who might otherwise miss out on key features of travel. T he upper level access will include an accessible restroom accessible seating for transfers, wheelchair parking space and aspace to fold and store a wheelchair. T he quantity of

each type of space is to be determined. T he type of seating is to be determined. T hat is, whether it's lounge or dining or whatever is appropriate. Stair lift or vertical elevato r 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. W ith one known exception, there is not access for wheelchair users or people who cannot reasonably manage th e 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. S leepers and coachers had wheelchair accessibility in the lower level the diners and lounge s did not. Asubsequent 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. 1 990 provided accessible spaces in the lower level of cars and for dining provided that passengers coach seat or bedroom. T here was no requirement or suggestion that the second level accessshould be provided. F ortunately 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. A rch windows over approximately 1/5 to 1/4 of the roof. T he long has the large side windows obviously no dome windows. T he 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. F or comparison single level car floor is typically 15 inches to the rail. A laska Railroad and travel partners have special passenger trains with sightseeing cars that are extensions of cruise line tours of Alaska and the surrounding areas. T he newest dome
ca rs include an elevator to accommodate wheelchairs to the second floor. W hile 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. I s one, passengers who cannot (inaudible) any enhancements due to increased elevation such as sightseeing passengers may have theopportunity to use services such as the din er 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. S pecial events in the lounge such as guest provided sightseeing information or special food events such as wine and cheese tasting is directly accessible. A mbulatory passengers needing to visit the restroom will not have to go downstairs as it will be accessible restroom in the upper level. F or 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. T he risk that I have identified should the lift fail, manual operation should be possible to return passengers to the lower level. Pas senger 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. T he effects of train operation today at 90 miles pe r hour at PRIIA specified speeds (inaudible) are not known. T he compact environment of a passenger car coupled with the dynamic affects may make independent operation practical and or dangerous. E nsuring access topassengers need the lift versus nuisance users such as

children may be difficult and failure to control access can be dangerous. A nd 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. I mpact on space in the car is not known and must be studied. I nitial technical requirements. Lift may be vertical shaft style or chair lift style function on battery power including battery system inde pendent from the car battery. L ift 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. L ifts 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 speed s. S o 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 Xundetermined degree of the car's rollover angle. T his

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. S o, that we can still get people in that rather precarious situation back to the downstairs. Let's see lost my space here. T he frame must be of sufficient strength otherwise so designed and installed as to function (inau dible) diagonal misalignment. A nd that's just rail cars are very flexible they have to be or they would break and derail. S o you get a lot of typically unseen flexing in the car but it's there and would affect anything mechanical. G ates, 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 s afe operation. S ufficient (inaudible) train motion and normal wear of components. S o, that was the end of my list. Let me run down through the list that Andrebuilt and

--

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Was that provided to the committee. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: No. >> Blair Slaughter: T he first page of what Andre Gagne provided speaks to the 49 CFR 238 which identify the G force loadings I mentioned before. A lso the APTA recommended practices of the same loadings. A nd 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. M oto r protected against failure modes lighting and what that defines is a lot of the

-- the basic light levels and also emergency lighting. E levator door and elevator tower doors emergency stop button destruction detection loss of electrical power and (inaudi ble) 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. T hat would be an accident involving the car. We should keep in mind rail cars don't stay vertical in acrash. T hat's sort of what I mentioned before. S hould

have means of providing adequate ventilation and heating as if it were a regular and closed elevator. I f 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: Ameans of egress such as evacuation chairs should be considered if the elevator is inoperable. A nd the question does Amtrak have statistics on the reliability of their cart elevators we can talk about that. U sing the elevator will require the passenger to sign a liability waiver. Well, I don't know that's up for discussion. S ome 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. E levators 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. T he elevator means two accessible spaceswould have to be provided, one upstairs and one

downstairs. B ringing wheelc hairs 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. T he impact of rail gap later operation must be assessed. T hat's just the routine I get from the rail car movement. >> (inaudible). C hris Hart here. Akey (inaudible) what happened if someone (inaudible) restroom or anywhere else.
>> Blair Slaught er: 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 ag o in a restroom, that was unoccupied nontheless the car was occupied. A nd the fire was immediately put out. >> Chris Hart: C an I just ask for folks on the phone, when you mention things like the rollover angle, is that same level testing done to, say, do ors or sliding doors or bedroom doors. I s that evaluated on all of the other equipment in the cars?>> Blair Slaughter: C hris, 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. I f you have a single leaf door across the car like the very end of a car. A nd it's a sliding door. I t still has to function and slide versus being bound up. I f the car goes into any of these odd angles. A nd what I am looking at, Chris, is the more robust we make some of these things the less likely we are to have prob lems 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. B ut I think

-- I just want to keep tho se 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. M ost excellent draft, particularly with Andre's additions there, but we ta lked about this before. I thought we were talking about just in station we are really looking at this as a continually thingwhile

-- while in service out on the road?

>> Blair Slaughter: T hat 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. A nd 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 anyt hing 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. A nd 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. I n fact, elevator

-- National Wheel

- o
- vator, I was reminde dtoday 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 disast ers 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. O bviously the most
a ppropriate

-- 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. A nd it hasnothing to do with

-- with questioning someone's life

independence it has everything to do with running my railroad safely. S o, no one gets injured. I t'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. B ut 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. B ut you know I don't think it's hugely different and I think that the Alaska provide rs 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: T his is Blair. T hat's a very good point. I know that Josh Coran, who is on the commi ttee 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 theyuse them operationally what is their p ractice. J ust 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. S o 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. N ow, 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. T here is a lot less issues with it. S o, I think that

-- I am looking at this like we might have problems initially on lifts wi th 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. B ut 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 ju st

-- 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 docu ments 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. A nd I think a similar approach might really

-- this is a very, very complex issue. B ut it might be helpful to have something like that that would assist the board. J ust a thought.>> Gary, that's a good point. We will h ave to talk

offline as Amtrak folks but I do have some things to let you know that I think you will be interested in. B ut 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 gen erator to make some comments >> I would appreciate that. I think that lets us get closer to build a sounder recommendation to the overall RVAAC. W hat 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 situati on 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 k now 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 simulatemovement. I am not su re whether the capability of

their facility would be able to simulate a railroad car but they can do things like this. A nd pretty amazing facility.
>> Blair Slaughter: T his is Blair again. I don't doubt that we could simulate the environment, I mean Amt rak 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. T he extreme temperatu res, you name it. We would

-- we would have to put anything that we did through those kind of paces. A nd, again, I don't

-- I honestly

-- I don't think that there is anything that is insurmountable here. B ut it needs to be, before we could

-- if we were to order new cars today from Alstom or Bombardie r 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. S o that we can know at a pointthat we can have lifts an d 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. B ut 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. B ut the data may be useful to you if nothing else as a gu ide to look at some of the other issues that have

-- that the lift designers are pretty cognizant of. A nd 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. S o, you do want to look to

-- to a safety standard to

-- to cover some of those other issues. O n 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. T hey are going to want to come down either because they are leafing the train or whatever.And if you have a lift on the sta ir, 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. I t'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. T hat seems like a pretty big minus. B ecause 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 may be 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
conver sation. C ertainly, any new product needs a lot oftesting. B ut 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 proce ss of developing the ADAAG revised ADAAG and so on around safety while a concern for safety is legitimate. A nd while the disability rights community certainly you know in terms of my representation of DREDF's interests do not dismiss safety at the same ti me it is very, very common for concerns about safety to get in the way of allowing accessibility. I t 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. B ecause 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. S o, I think we all need to rem ember, also, that there are standards in the ADA around safety, Imean 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. A nd 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 in to the years of 1990 and 1991. T he policy drives the technology. F or 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 developme nt 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 conce rn 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. A s soon as the requirement was there, we had many evolutions, many generations of betterlifts

. A nd this gets to the point that David Nelson

raised earlier with which I agree. We can't wait for the perfect technology. I t's interesting because it's the same area of transportation when the ADA was developed we already had like, again, decent lifts for buses. B ut we don't have very good lifts at all for over the road buses the buses with luggage compartments underneath. A nd the development of the final policy document, which was D.O.T.'s addition of the 1998 regulations into the D.O.T. ADA regulat ion 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. A nd we are still developing it. B ut we have the policy in place. A nd I think the crucial t hing 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. A s 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 i n 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. B ut when I look at safety, that's obvious the person who is using elevator or lift it's everyone else around. T hose

-- you can't disregard them. I am not suggesting anyway one is saying that we should. We do have to consider it. A nd 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. B ecause I think that we would have failed if we do that. I have seen other situations w here there were recommended practices within my industry that were eventually became rules. Now, if we were following the recommended practiceswhen they became rule, it only got a little more

complicated. S o, it wasn't a big deal. F or other organizatio ns it got very complex. B ut 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. S o, 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. A nd 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. A nd that space should have been occupied by something so that they didn't fall into it. B ut 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. B ut you would be amazed. S o, yes, I don't worry about people, the actual users of the devices necessarily h aving the same equal right to sue. B ut it's all the other folks who show up. A nd find themselves in that situation who may noteven be using the system. S o, again, I would like to see

us not question this to the point of saying no. B ut question it to t he 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 t o 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. T hey probably did extensive safety research and some of the research you are talking about the torque on the trai n 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 contac t Josh you might get some information. H e 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. A nd I can send you that information. A nd

-- >> Blair Slaughter: T hat would be fine. A nd I willpoint 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. I f 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. B ut the only thing is that I don't want to get so bogged down with all of the specifics because technology does change. Alot of new technology will, you know, be emergent or emerges 10 years down the road it's totally different. S o, 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. B ut it's just something to keep in mind, technology always changes. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. Let's

-->> Some ot her 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. S orry. T his 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. B ut I don't

-- that may not be what is meant. S o just to say that. >> Mean incline platform lift.
>> Right. S econd look at the language, that's what I think too. T here was also the language assuming that one car i s sightseer lounge is acceptable. A nd 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 li ft capacity will be equal to station or car born lifts. T he thing that I want to say to that as well as to a different on adifferent subject must be equal to that for alcove, my

reaction to the statements would be it depends on what they are considered t o be. We have seen lift platform sizes that are problematic we have seen some that are great. T here 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 do es represent the evolution of technology that many of you addressed on the call already today. I t 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. B ut 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 saydoor s 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. T his is sort of a

-- you know , this is sort of the opposite but equally valid concern about safety. W hich 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. B ecause there are some devices on tra ins, 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. O kay 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. A nd I think Blair has done areally great job of kind of pulling some of the issues

together where now we can kind of peel it back a little bit. A nd 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 soluti on is going to be so onerous so complex and expensive that that is why we can't have access to every car. W here 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. S o, 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 you r 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. A nd 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. M aybe the right device is something that is just not that

-- it's something that is can bebet ter 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. T hat'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. B ut 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. A nd the system to support equal access to the upper level. C an 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. A nd us assuming that it's just too difficult. Anyway, thank you very much. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Well, the committee can make recommendations. A nd the proposed rules get written it gives all of industry and all of the public an opp ortunity 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. M arilyn Iwish 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 t o
-- 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 b e 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. S o, that gives you an automatic if nothing else a minimum space definition that works for the lift for between levels. T hat 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 t here 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. A bsolutely critical that you be able to take what you came with andgo to the s econd 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. I f 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. A nd then there the E

- mail ad dresses. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. I f 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 andseating, we need to kind of decide

-- and this

-- this I

put together kind of an idea of how we could move forward. B ut we really need to talk about as a circulation and seating committee how we are going to move forward fro m this point on. And, Blair, if you want

-- if you want to do this, you
can. I f 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. T here is on the agenda, there is

-- number 7.0. T here is onboard circulation. D e termine an organizational plan to address the issues. A nd 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 t he other. T he first one I had was to

-- was to talk about the access within single bi

- level and specialty carswith consideration of modal differences. A nd that's just

kind of generic on some of the differences in the different types of trains between li ght rail and commuter and inner

- city, et cetera. A nd then talk about the wheelchair spaces and priority seating. A nd 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. A nd to address circulation path attributes and how you are going to get from the doorway to those

-- those spaces. Th en 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. B ut bathroom doors and that type of thing. A nd then add ress the actual the actual dimensions and amenities of the seating areas themselves. S o, that was

-- those are my initial thoughts. B ut it's your committee. S o, >> Blair Slaughter: O kay. 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 Ican 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. O r do we need to amend any of those between A and E? T hat 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). A nyone have a

-- >> Between A and E did you say? >> I see under 7. I s 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 de al with and we don't miss anything. >> Bob Reuter here. U sually 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. G etting on the c ar and getting to your location and what is the specific location. >> Blair Slaughter: U p 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. Th at'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 whe re you sit where you park your chair. A nd then the facilities within the car you go from where you park to the restroom from where you park to food. I f you are in a sleeper from the door to the sleeper. To the door to the sleeper. A nd 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 st arting. I think that it would be beneficial for the committee totake ownership of some of these issues and begin to

work them. A nd you can keep a technical list of gaps and things needs to be addressed as time permits. I f 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. T hat'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. S o, I guess the real point is what do you guys want to do next? W hat do you want to tackle. You want to tackle the path from the doorway to the wheelchair space? O r do the accessible space or do you want to address the accessi ble 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. B ut it's also part of interior circulation, and that's pretty important and basic. A nd 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 questi on about theorder in which we deal with things? I think it is. B ut

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. D id 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. A nd then while that is happening, just go into some of the items on 7? B ecause I think that is fine. A nd I think the list

-- the order you have is fine. A nd I think worrying about what is left out Marsha is right we will figure it out later. D o 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. H e can revise the Vertical Access. Vertical Access is actually included further down here. We have addressed that fairly well. A nd we don't need to

-- we don't need to have every fine detail on that topic figured out right this minute. I t will be part of

-- part of the big picture. B ut 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 sayeve rything 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. B ut it's important currently we start looking at the other items in numb er 7, so that we move not just point by point, but that we move a lot of this concurrently down the path. T here 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 w ith 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. A nd 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. D oesthat sound like a reasonable thing to do?

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Blair, this is Marsha Mazz with the Access Board. I t 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. O nce you describe that device, or you know the size device that you want to accommodate, then a lot of technical criteria sort of fall in to 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. O nce 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: I sn'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 t his committee and also part of the onboard circulation or the boarding and alighting. B ut as a full committee, we have to

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

accommodate. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Exactly. U ntil yo u know what you have to accommodate. I f 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. S o, 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 be fore 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. A re 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. B ut maybe you could take those criteria, and look at what Ed comes up with in light of those criteria. S ee 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 P RIIA bi

- level committee? >> This is Blair. I am curious what came out of the revisions for buses? I s that something that falls into what you are looking at as well?>> We have input into the rulemaking proposals into

the research. B ut I don't believe th at 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 c an 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: B uses 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. B ut 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 mak e changes 50 years and do them all at once

-- it's going to be incremental mismatch because buses have different life spans andregulations 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. F or 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. B ut 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. B ut I think subj ecting 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. B ut I could also send a

-- ashort report on the rese arch 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 M AZZ: 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 thin k 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 ge t 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. I t has to do with the future of these bi

- level cars. I travel a lot around th eworld, 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. T he only country that I visited that has a lot of England

-- England falls into the category where els e did I go recently? I can't think of it But the country that had the bi

- level cars was the Netherlands. T hey are still operating really old vehicles and everybody knows they are totally obsolete. T hey are not accessible at all. T he ones that I saw. A nd 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. T he reason we don't run bi

- levels into

-- bi

- levels into New York City is the pesky tunnels under the Hudson.
>> I get th at. O ne other question regarding bi

- levels. T he most accessible train that I have been onis 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
e ntry 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. A nd there a re 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. I t was not a really long dista nce train. I t 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. F or commuter trains that was an interesting design the center part where was everyb ody brought their bicycles and people with carriages all of the seats were flip down. S o, that, basically, it was really flexible. T he restrooms were there on that level too. A nd that seems to be a really good design for

-- I thought a good design for
c ommuter 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. W hat 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 peopl e 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. A nd then a draft recommendation and report on anthropometry from Ed Steinfeld to be presented at the next me eting. 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 andtimes 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. A nd it will be at from 1 to 3 again.
>> I won't be able to be at that meeting. M arch 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: O kay. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Sooner is always better. Anything that we get with pictures or anything we may take a little more time, but I thi nk just a couple of days is fine. >> We are at Thursday, if I can get everything to youby Monday morning, I can have it to you by close of

business Monday, Melissa, if that works. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: That would be great. H ave your comments to Blair by M onday morning and that way he can move forward with his revision. >> This is Marilyn. I s our meeting Wednesday the 26 or Thursday the 27th? B ecause somebody mentioned Thursday. I thought it was you. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: It's Wednesday the 26th. >> Okay. All right. T hank 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. D o you have anything? >> MELISSA ANDERS ON: Well, they weren't able to attend. A side 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 a ctually transpiring with the PRIIA cars that are being built. T he 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. H ow 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. A nd we will send out Blair's contact information so everyone can send recommendations. A nd 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 b ack 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.)