Note: The output shown below is from the Communication 

Access Realtime Translation (CART) system used in the 

Communications Subcommittee Meeting #11 and is generally

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. 

CART Operator: Beverly Early

Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee

Communications Subcommittee Meeting #11

U.S. Access Board

Thursday, January 8, 2015

>> Good afternoon, this is Jim Pecht, welcome to the 11th 

meeting of the Communications Subcommittee. As everyone 

may participate no public time has been scheduled during the 

two hour call there is no chat CART box if you are using the 

CART system, any participants who wish to use the -- are using 

CART and desire to raise a question or make a statement, please 

send E-mail to RVAAC @ access -board.gov. We will monitor it 

and get the question into the subcommittee. Please remember 

to give your name when speaking or before you speak better 
yet. I will now turn the call over to the subcommittee chair, 

Terry.

>> Terry: Thank you, Jim. We have done self 

introductions. I want to just for a quick second say hello to 

everyone and apologize. Last month Jim and I were both ill, the 

month before I got triple booked on the day of the call, so I 

haven't been on since October and I do apologize for that. But 

from the notes that I have gotten it looks like -- like the 

committee has done quite a bit of work, which is great because 

we have more to get done and then we have to get our report 

ready for the February in-person meeting which is 26th and 

27th in Washington. Before we get started on all of that 

though, I would like to welcome Dr. Christian Vogler from 

Gallaudet who is going to give us a brief presentation on some 

possible new technologies for communications on rail vehicles 

for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. So, with that, I 

would like to thank you for joining us today, Dr. Vogler, and 

turn it over to you.

>> Hello everyone, this is Christian speaking. Thank you 

for inviting me to join the call today. I am very honored to be 

here. To start, I wanted to explain that I am speaking through a 

video relay interpreter service. And I hope I got a good 

interpreter. But sometimes the technology can go downhill 

quickly and sometimes there are some misunderstandings that 
happen, so I will be monitoring that but feel free to say 

something if something isn't clear, and feel free to interrupt me 

if you have questions, okay?

>> Fine. Thank you.

>> We will proceed. First, a brief summary about 

Gallaudet University. What I do there, I am part of the Tech 

Access Program. And my research focus is specifically on 

technologies for individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing. 

A lot of things happen in that area regarding 

telecommunication. And, you know, it's a very broad field and 

there are a lot of exciting new technologies for individuals who 

are deaf or hard of hearing. I am been following the research 

on technology and I am involved in the development of a 

new -- new prototype technology. So that's been theeing 

biggest -- that's been the biggest thing at this point. We have 

a lot of interactions together with government agencies. And 

we work also if the FCC and serve on the board there are a lot of 

interactions by deaf and hard of hearing people with the group. 

For example, TDI, NAD, et cetera. We have a lot of interactions 

and activities with the industry various industries. What I am 

going to be doing is providing some guidance to those 

particular groups and we have developed some wonderful 

relationships so far and it's been great to serve on the board of 

the with that aside -- one moment, if you wouldn't mind. 
Okay. Moving on, so before the call I had hadn't had a chance 

to meet with David and Andrew and -- who come together with 

this rail transportation information. So, we are trying to get 

disseminate the information to the deaf and hard of hearing. 

First of all, I would like to say our perspective is the technology 

is constantly changing, there is not often new programs that 

appear on the market. So, we are not really looking at a 

specific technology, so to speak. But the rules are more 

focused on actual function. The functionality. And the 

features. So, that's our perspective. And it's a very 

important -- 

>> This is Lise, can I interrupt? Lise Hamlin here. When you 

say the rules are focused on actual function, what rules are you 

referring to Christian?

>> The government management association makes rules 

for example transportation rules, rail rules, for access. For 

communication access. So does not -- does that clarify the 

question?

>> This is David Nelson here. I think what Dr. Vogler is 

speaking about is the regulations.

>> Right. Again, sorry about that.

>> Lise: Which regulations?

>> The FCC regulations there. Apologize for that 

misinterpretation. So, does that clarify that?
>> This is Lise Hamlin again not really. Because are we 

talking about the federal communications regulations here? Is 

that what you are referring to?

>> Well, that's just one example. I know that the Access 

Board hasn't actually -- I am just talking about the FCC 

regulations in general.

>> This is Lise again. Okay. I think you should move 

ahead maybe everything will become more clear to me as you 

move forward. I was wondering if there was basically an 

interpreter issue here.

>> This is Christian again. So, for people who are deaf 

and hard of hearing it's important that they make information 

available to a variety of-- in a variety of formats. And because 

our communication is various. It varies. Some people have a 

strong visual -- strong visual piece. Some people prefer the 

sign language, some people prefer to lip read or read in 

captions. Other individuals would rather hear auditorily via 

their hearing assistive technology. So, there is a variety there. 

For me the important question is, how do you make it possible 

to provide equal access for all of those -- that variety of deaf 

and hard of hearing individuals. So, we feel that any 

technology that is chosen for the future has to take into 

consideration all of those various needs. So, we expect that in 

the future we will use a variety of technologies to have that -- to 
have that full access. For example, a few examples will be 

provided of those various technologies. In the railroad system 

itself, there could be some signage that would disseminate 

information. And that would be very valuable. Because if 

the -- because of ease of use. Anyone who sees the signs can 

read it and automatically have access. If there is an actual 

visual sign with the -- in some sort of -- it can disseminate 

information via the sign. However, that's not a perfect fit for 

all. For example, if an individual has visual problems, perhaps 

we are losing their eyesight they wouldn't have access to that 

sign. Perhaps they don't read well. So, similar technology 

would have a way to provide information directly to a person 

who cannot access that communication on the signage or, for 

example, another example if a person is deaf, and they might 

feel more comfortable using sign language. And so is there a 

way that we can think about how to provide or disseminate that 

information via sign language as well. So, I understand 

that's--that's a difficult problem because it's an automated 

system. You can't do any automated system from English to 

ASL, it doesn't work well. However, from my 

perspective -- with the rail system there is very standard or 

common situation, it happens frequently. So, for 

example -- (inaudible) announcement of the next stop, or the 

town that they have arrived in they are going to arrive in the 
town in 5 minutes that announcement is a standard 

announcement. There are only two items that change. The 

one would be the name of the town. And so they just have to

remace -- switch out the name of the town. Or the time of 

arrival they just have to switch out the time of arrival. Or if the 

announcement -- if they happen to announce that the train is 

late, that's another announcement that would happen if the train 

was going to be late. How many minutes that would be late. 

So, there is very standard announcements so the only thing that 

would change is a few items. So, even if the -- if the rail is 

waiting, because the -- there is perhaps the break down further 

up the rail. Again, there is some common or standard 

announcements that are made. Now, I am not an expert in any 

of those matters. However, it's my feeling that there is a lot of 

standard situations that arise, so I think that the technology can 

take advantage of that. For example, when we had spoken 

about the signage earlier, if there is an automated message and 

you only put the name of the town that switches in that 

verbiage. So, the whole message would be the same except the 

city, it seems like it would be an easy fix. 

So, I think the same concept could apply to making information 

accessible for all. If you develop a standard message that could 

be translated into sign language which, theoretically, that 

should be possible. And you should be able to provide that in 
real time because the only thing that would change would be the 

city or the time, so it seems like that's pretty easy to do. You 

wouldn't have to sign a whole new message from scratch. So, 

it's my feeling that the technology should be -- considered that, 

and there should be in my opinion some sort of 

standard -- standardization, standard message format that's 

provided. And that's available to be disseminated to all of the 

passengers that you can just take out the few items that need to 

be switched out to accommodate all individuals. So, my 

technology that I am suggesting is the signage, it's my vision 

that you would use some sort of also mobile communication. 

So, the sign information could be transmitted to my mobile 

device, for those people who need that there. For example, if I 

am deaf and I have vision -- if I have vision issues and I want to 

transfer rails, I can put that -- I can have the signage 

feed -- the information sent to my phone, to my mobile device, 

and then on the plane there with is WI/FI that's available and 

there should be an app that can be downloaded and then I 

could, technically speaking, we could do that. So, and in the 

app, the message would be communicated via sign language, 

that message that on the board would be transmitted into 

American Sign Language in that app. And that would be real 

time. So that they would sign the message to me. Again, I see 

that this should be feasible theoretically. And I understand the 
technology is constantly changing and they are always making 

new improvements, I am encouraging to look towards the future 

with this technology. 

Now, let me go back a little bit and emphasize a key point in 

regards to the sign. The sign should be the primary way that 

information is disseminated. We are not forcing everyone to 

rely on the app. The app is just a way to provide information. 

But there -- the primary information dissemination would be the 

signage. That would be there for all to see. And that should 

be effective. So, we are not forcing these users to download an 

app it's up O to their discernment but we want to know that they 

have that app as an option. We are not going to get rid of the 

signage that's not the goal at all. But that's from my 

perspective. The app would just be, for example, a fallback or 

alternative way to get that information. I think it's important to 

think about the system as we move on in the future and how we 

can make all of this accessible and compatible. Also, if we 

could find a way to do that -- think about the compatibility with 

regards to hearing aids. So --

>> Christian, may I ask a question? And that is: Do you 

have -- I would like to know what your thoughts are on 

using -- us using loops. Loops on the vehicles.

>> Christian: Yeah, sure. First, can I ask who asked that 

question?
>> I'm sorry, this is Terry Pacheco.

>> Christian: Okay. Terry, thank you for identifying 

yourself, this is Christian. Yes, loops have a great -- are very 

positive for ease of use. If -- if the loop is set up appropriately. 

It's not always easy to get the hearing aids to switch -- to 

change to the telecoil mode. To get that -- get that hearing to 

happen. So --

>> This is Lise Hamlin, let me ask for clarification here. It 

actually my understanding that it's very easy to switch a hearing 

aid into telecoil mode as long as the person has a hearing aid 

and a telecoil in the hearing aid. Is that what you were say 

trying to say?

>> Christian: That's ease of use, so yes. Yeah. I am not 

sure -- but I am not familiar with that -- that hearing aid use. 

But yes, I don't use the loop. So Lise you are probably more an 

expert in that matter than I am. However, the basic concept is I 

believe that it is -- it is easy to use.

>> Lise: Right. This is Lise again. The idea -- it's really 

easy for the user and it's -- it's no -- there is no staffing, in 

other words, it's not like you have to provide, in that way it 

comes under the umbrella of the Access Board because once it's 

installed it's there, there is no other equipment that has to be 

delivered to the user. So from that perspective, it's easy to use 

and doable. But that's -- I just wanted to make sure that that 
was clear to everyone. Thank you.

>> Christian: Yes. So this is Christian speaking. I will 

agree with you on that. So, to emphasize again, it would be 

ease of use is very key. I have, for example, the sign that we 

were mentioning is very it--the ease of use applies there. And 

the loop ease of use is there for a person who is deaf or hard of 

hearing and has a loop system. Now, there is no other 

technology that is as easy to use as the loop system. There is 

no other. Unfortunately, the loop setup is -- I'm sorry if you 

could hold on one moment while the interpreter clarifies.

So, talking about the actual company who builds the rail 

line, from their perspective, from the perspective of the 

company who actually build the rail, the train, the rail cars it's a 

bit more complicated to have the setup appropriate when they 

are actually building the rail cars. So I am sure that you would 

understand the loop system, the technology is based on 

magnetic induction, so with that said, it's very sensitive to 

interference. If there is a lot of metal and electrical wires 

surrounding that area it can be difficult and it can interfere with 

the loop. 

>> This is Lise Hamlin I have to interrupt because we lost 

the CART. Is there a problem? 

**NOTE: Short recess. 

>> Rose Marie Bunales: We are testing the CART. I don't 
see anything coming across.

I am going to refresh my screen. And I see your fingers 

moving I see nothing on my screen. Does anybody see 

anything on the screen?

**NOTE: Testing system connection. 

>> Rose Marie Bunales: Okay. Dr. Vogler.

>> Lise: Looks good. Thank you. Sorry Christian, 

apologize.

**NOTE: No thank you for letting us know.

>> Christian: I understand. That's fine. Technology 

sometimes has problems. And, again, yes I just want to clearly 

emphasize the point that technology should be easy.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Christian: That's the important part. Sometimes 

things happen. So, I will proceed. From the perspective of the 

company who builds the rail cars, there is a big challenge 

installing the loop system. Because of the magnetic induction 

technology. There can be interference that occurs with the 

wiring in the rail car because if there is metal in the area and 

there is risk of interference. So, Lise Hamlin and I were in 

contact with people in Europe regarding some of the rail 

technologies they invested in regarding a loop system. Some of 

them were successful installing the loop and were continuing to 

research for more information. It seems that if they do it if they 
build it into the car, the rail car, then there is -- then there will 

be less metal. There is more metal in the older cars. So it 

would be more successful in the newer version of rail cars. 

That often is -- that option is definitely worth pursuing. 

Now I want to back up a little bit again, and if you remember, 

you know, I -- we have thought about how technology changes 

so much, and the issue of how diverse members of the 

community interact with each other. For example, now, in 

Las Vegas, um, we have a custom electronic 

consumer -- electronic show. I am going to abbreviate that 

and call it CES. There are a lot of things happening regarding 

how -- how technologies interact with one another. So, I want 

to emphasize that with these technologies, there is -- there is 

no good loop. In the future, when they make changes to 

technology, that they are looking for improvements rather than 

switching out the loop -- looking for improvements rather than 

switching out the loop, that's not the near future the changes 

that we are seeing. That will happen somewhere down the line. 

The important thing that I want to emphasize is functionality. 

And that is what we are working with today, to successfully set 

up communication access on the railways. And then you know, 

we want to tend to, announcements for individuals who are deaf 

and hard of hearing, those with hearing aids those with

implants, you know, how can that technology be made available. 
Particularly the loop that was discussed. 

In the near future, in the future perhaps something else will 

arise. It's important, again I think it's important to look at the 

issue of functionality and access. And -- so, this is the reason 

why we want them to have access to the announcement system 

that's our goal. We haven't given up yet on how to determine 

how to do that. We are trying to maintain flexibility and choose 

who is appropriate for diverse populations. Lise, I wanted to 

ask you, or I'm sorry Leslie, do you have anything that you 

would like to add at this point?

>> This is Lise. The only thing that I wanted to clarify is 

that at one point either you or the interpreter said there is no 

good loop. And in fact there are many good loops out there 

now. Even the intrepid, which is full of metal, clearly --

>> This was an interpretation error. We know that there 

are good loop systems for various users. But I am talking about 

other technology that might be made available that might tie to 

the loop. New technologies. So, currently, there are no good 

replacement for the current technologies that we have in place. 

I apologize for that error.

>> Lise: Thank you, that makes it more clear to me.

>> Christian: Sure thing.

>> Terry: Well, I hate to cut this short. I truly do, but I 

am afraid we can only do another four or five minutes, if there is 
anything else that you can -- anymore wisdom that you would 

impart to us or if anyone has any additional questions could we 

take care of them? I am afraid we are going to have to kind of 

move along with this, with everything that is on today's agenda. 

Though, I really have enjoyed getting your perspective on some 

of these issues that we have been talking about for so many 

months on these calls.

>> Thank you. Yes. This is Christian. I don't want to 

take up a lot of your time. And I appreciate the wisdom I have 

shared with the group as well. The point is, yeah, the 

perfect -- (inaudible). The perfect is the opposite option for 

the end play of the good. So, yeah, the perfect is the opposite 

of the good. So, what that means is 

technically that we want it to be accessible. Our goal is access. 

You know, perfection would be access for us. But we haven't 

found all of the answers. We are not striving for perfection we 

are striving for access. And we are not going to -- we are not 

about to give up on this end. We are going to achieve our goals 

no matter what we encounter. We are going to strive to use 

technology as a -- we are not going to use technology as an 

excuse to say we can't make it there. So, yeah, we -- but we 

can't wait for something to magically show up in the future, we 

have to work on it today.

>> This is David Nelson here. I wanted to make two 
points, if possible. So Christian mentioned earlier about the 

train cars that are older, which are true, FRA has regulation of 

what type of cars are needed in order to meet the threshold of 

access and so forth, which is why the trains are heavier, but also 

there is a new request to change those types of cars to make 

them lighter and easier. So I have no idea what type, and I am 

not sure if it would be similar to Europe, but you know, we do 

need to keep that in mind for future purposes. But, also, my 

friend Blair Slaughter, I don't know if he is on the call, but he is 

really skilled at what type of train cars that we have, what type 

of metal it is, whether it can be worked with, and also what's 

been sent in to the FRA for the newer cars. So, maybe that's 

something that if we had more knowledge on we would be able 

to work the loop with. But -- and that's it, thank you.

>> Terry: Thank you.

>> Yes, hi, this is Andrew. I was wanting to thank 

Christian for joining us today. I really, really appreciate it. 

And, also, I wanted to clarify what Christian had said. It seems 

that it -- it was misstated. To perfect is the enemy of the 

good. It's not the opposite, but it is the enemy. Yes, this is.

>> Yes. This is Christian. Well said. Thank you for your 

clarification, Andrew.

>> Terry: Well, this is Terry again. And again, I very 

much appreciate what -- you coming on with us today. I
believe everyone here on the call does as well. And I want to 

thank you again for joining us and talking with us about all of 

these information -- about all of the information regarding 

signage. I think we are all very much on the same page. We 

have been working very hard to make the communications on 

rail vehicles accessible to all--people of all disabilities, whether 

it's deaf, hard of hearing, blind, low vision, cognitive disabilities, 

mobility, any other one you want to add in there? We are trying 

to -- we are really trying to come up with as much of a -- kind 

of in a way, a universal design, as we possibly can. The signage 

is wonderful. But we need to also be able to make it audible for 

people who are blind. We need to be able to have it at a level 

where people in a wheelchair can read it. There is just so much 

going on with this. And we appreciate all of your thoughts on it 

as well. And I want to thank you very much for joining us 

today.

>> Christian: You are very welcome. Thank you for 

inviting me. I would like to stay on the call so if anyone has any 

thoughts that come up during the meeting today I look forward 

to addressing them.

>> Terry: Thank you very much.

>> Frank: Terry, this is Frank. I was wondering if I could 

make a couple of comments about the presentation?

>> Terry: Sure.
>> Frank: One of the things questioned, what kind of 

material the rail cars are made out of, you have carbon steel 

aluminum and stainless steel. They all have issues with 

magnetic and interference with the coil and they do make it 

difficult. Maybe not impossible but achieving good coverage in 

some areas and preventing coverage in areas where you don't 

want it is a challenge to do. It's not as easy as you might think 

it to be, as Christian pointed out. The other thing that I wanted 

to ask, possibly you mentioned the -- that perfect is the enemy 

of good. And the question I am wondering here is, most people 

with hearing disabilities, I would suspect, have visual abilities 

hopefully. And that would -- their communication with those 

individuals would probably best suited with a visual means. 

The question I am wondering, though, is what percentage of the 

hearing impaired could only communicate via hearing loop and 

would not get the benefit of you know visual signs. Is 

there -- do you have any idea Christian of what percentage of 

the population?

>> Christian: That's an excellent question. We have 

struggled with that question. In the past with the FCC in 

dealing with the FCC, the FCC had opened a process 

about -- the emergency warning systems. Emergency alerts. 

So, they had -- I did some research on that, and in part of that 

study at the university the estimated amount of people who have 
both hearing loss and visual loss about 1 million. 

Maybe -- and I did not do the study myself. But I have a 

feeling, I have considered some numbers that make sense. So, 

whatever that means, as far as that group, you can't ignore the 

group it's a significant group not to be -- so, we have to figure 

out how to work with that group of people. And another thing 

that I want to mention is most of the people who have both 

hearing loss and visual loss are older individuals, older adults. 

And as you all know how the baby boomers are getting a bit 

older closer to retirement, so that's a huge population. That's a 

really growing number of population that -- that will soon 

probably experience hearing loss. So then will have those 

numbers greatly increase. I would just keep that in mind as 

well.

>> Terry: If I could just -- see if I am muted or not. This 

is Terry again. If I could butt in here for a second. I can attest 

to that being a person who is legally blind and has a hearing 

loss, due to age -- primarily due to age-related issues. I -- I 

would be shocked if it's only a million at this point. I am sure 

that number is growing exponentially with the aging of baby 

boomers. Who are also going to be more user -- more using 

hearing aids than likely to be using maybe sign language or 

something that -- it's like with Braille. The older people tend 

to be less likely to learn it. And they -- you know, have 
somewhat of a hearing loss that can be helped with hearing 

aids. So, that -- I do think that that -- that the loop -- the 

population looking to use loops in the 10 and 20-year future is 

going to drastically increase.

>> Lise: This is Lise Hamlin. The other piece of that, as 

people age into hearing loss, and would use a hearing aid and 

benefit from the loop, those people as they get older it's harder 

to process visual, text information. So if there is a text sign 

may it not only be harder for the person to see it if they are 

older and losing their sight as well, but it's harder to process 

that information as they get older whereas processing the 

information coming in through the hearing aid is easier. I don't 

have statistics on that. But that group, plus the group of 

people -- remember we are talking for people with hearing loss 

of a whole community is some 48 million people that's a lot of 

people. There is a lot of people on both ends of the spectrum 

both with a mild loss just getting hearing aids to the ones who 

are profoundly deaf and using sign language. There is a lot of 

people and I can tell you there is a lot of people who would 

benefit from this. But I can't pull out what you were looking for 

how many people who are just benefiting from the hearing loss 

who -- hearing loop who wouldn't benefit from the visual what 

we call it a visual messaging system may not benefit -- I just 

don't have those statistics.
>> This is Andre Gagne from Bombardier. One comment I 

would like to make the main issue we trying to install the loop 

on the Bombardier vehicles the main issue is not the car body 

itself but with the equipment they install on cars the break 

resistors antennas these are source of interference with the 

loop. That's why the loop has to be limited to some areas of 

the vehicle.

>> This is Frank again. Along the same lines of what 

Andre was saying, depending where you are on the vehicle 

establishing a working loop is more difficult than other areas. 

In addition to what he had mentioned is also the propulsion 

circuits there are other switching electronic devices that cause 

interference. The concern I was bringing up, it's a little 

difficult -- it's difficult to do. And, perhaps later on is how 

(inaudible). (did we lose him?)

>> Rose Marie Bunales: Operator, do we have Frank Maldari 

on the line?

**NOTE: CART pausing we lost the line.

>> Marsha: I think U.S. Access Board was cutoff, there was 

nothing coming through.

(Please hold, attempting to re-establish connection.) 

>> Rose Marie Bunales: Operator, this is Rose Marie, can 

anybody hear me?

>> I am not hearing anything.
**NOTE: Please note CART operator at U.S. Access Board, 

we may have lost phone system here at US Access Board. We 

are waiting. 

>> Marsha: You are back on. I don't have it -- this is 

Lise.

**NOTE: This is a test. This is a test. Do you see CART?

>> Rose Marie Bunales: Calvin Gibson, are you there? 

Christian Vogler.

>> You are going in and out Rose Marie. Christian Vogler? 

And I do not see --

>> Yes, I'm sorry, I can -- I can hear you, but what are you 

asking?

>> Rose Marie Bunales: Just to see if anybody can hear me, 

if you are on the line as well. Mostly everybody is still 

connected.

>> Yeah, I don't see captioning at the moment.

**NOTE: This is a test test test test can you see the 

captioning?

>> Rose Marie Bunales: All right. CART is back here we go 

Frank had the floor when we disconnected.

>> This is David Nelson Frank I am glad you did bring this 

up. Dr. Vogler explained to me what I had a meeting with him 

he explained today with the loop it's analog. However, there is 

a standards group or currently working on standards for 
converting to a digital loop. And digital conductive loop 

whatever you want to call it hopefully it's not 100% true but it 

will go ahead and help reduce interference that were caused 

with the --

>> This is Christian. This is Christian speaking. Yes, the 

industry is becoming interested in that topic. However, we 

cannot proceed when -- when don't know when it will happen 

effectively. My prediction is we are talking a minimum 10, 15 

years before whatever digital technology is put on the market 

for the loop. To switch it out to a digital loop. I do, just keep 

in mind, there is a big positive to the loop that ease of use. 

With the current -- with the current available digital technology, 

there is no equivalent ease of use available. So, the loop has 

been the standard for while a while though.

>> This is David. Thank you.

>> Terry: Okay. Can we -- I hate to be the one pushing 

this, I know somebody has got to. And I guess that falls on me 

as the chair. Going back to our agenda, we had number 3, it 

was a brief review of the November -- the November 

teleconference. I believe everyone on here has already read this 

agenda. Does anyone have any questions or any of the -- or 

any other comments on the issues that were brought up on the 

November -- in that section of item number 3 -- well, on it 

would be item number 2, I'm sorry. Are we all set with that? 
All right, great. That takes us down to discussing the 

requirements for alarm systems for rail vehicles. And while I 

have the floor, I am just going to make my two comments on it 

which is alarm systems need to be audible as well as visual. But 

not to be -- not to the point of being so loud that they interfere 

with the orientation of people who use sound as a mobility tool. 

In other words,, you don't want a fire alarm that is so loud that 

someone -- that is totally disorients someone for instance who 

is blind because they can't hear the things that they ordinary 

narrowly can because of the -- ordinarily can because of the 

volume of it. It's an issue that probably run into more in 

buildings than on a train. But it is something that I think to 

keep in mind. The other thing is exits need to somehow be 

audibly, in my view, need to be audibly findable. Not just -- it 

always drives me crazy on the plane when they never say that 

the exits are over rows 11 and 12 they say you can follow the 

lights on the floor if the power goes out. That's totally useless 

to someone who is blind or visually impaired or if there is a lot 

of smoke in that situation. So that we need to take those issues 

into account as well in coming up with recommendations as far 

as alarms are concerned in my view. With that, I will back off 

and anyone else with any other questions or comments on that 

please I would like -- we would all like to hear them now.

>> Yes. This is David Nelson. I have a question here. 
Do we have any kind of regulations currently in the ADA, ADAAG 

with regards to how much audio for the wayfinding is there any 

regulations? I don't recall anything about that.

>> This is Jim. Do you mean audibility for wayfinding?

>> Yes.

>> Jim: No.

>> Like access in doors.

>> Jim: No.

>> Terry: But Jim, aren't there requirements as far as 

decibel levels for alarms?

>> Correct, there are, but that's just for general fire alarms 

that tell you there is a fire condition and you need to do 

something.

>> David: Okay. This is David Nelson again. Due to the 

fact that we don't -- we don't have the guidance or the 

regulation in the ADAAG now, so maybe we can go ahead and 

provide a recommendation and make -- and make a reference 

to--until ADAAG goes ahead and adopts a new standard? 

>> Marsha: David, Terry's point that the audible alarms 

can overwhelm someone's ability to find direction. Because 

they can be terribly loud. And that's why the decibel level 

ADAAG does in fact limit the decibel level below what is actually 

permitted in the national fire alarm code. Also, it's drew to 

concern for tinnitus which is a hearing disorder some people 
have with ringing in the ears.

>> David: Yes. This is David. I am aware of that. I was 

talking about wayfinding for the access. There is currently 

nothing out there so we can go ahead and recommend the 

language in our proposal that we need to have clarified and say 

this is just an interim until there is a formal standard at 

deposited -- adopted I am sure the Access Board would do 

some kind of induct study, research, to see how we can go 

ahead and establish that in the future. I think it's a -- it would 

be great if we go ahead and establish it now but keep it as 

interim.

>> Marsha: This committee is to deal with rail vehicles not 

the ADAAG itself. So any recommendations regarding rail 

vehicles you can go ahead and make.

>> Terry: Marsha would you or anyone there be willing to 

give us an opinion on the--on the regulation now whether you 

think it would actually work for rail vehicles?

>> (inaudible)

>> Terry: If we just use similar language in this?

>> Marsha: I really don't know. The national fire 

protection association has a number of --

>> I am not talking about --

>> Standards, and they -- I would have to look at their 

standards. They may have standards for alarms audible alarms 
on rail vehicles I don't know.

>> Terry: Okay, thanks. What I was asking about what I 

meant was not on the fire protection but the one -- the other 

one that you just mentioned.

>> The NFPA 72, which is the national fire alarm code.

>> What was the other one the ADAAG, right?

>> ADAAG I thought that's what I was asking.

>> I thought it was ADAAG.

>> You said the ADAAG limited the level.

>> ADAAG adopted the national fire alarm code and limits 

the number of decibels from 120 to 110.

>> That's what I was getting at that's what I was trying to 

get to. Okay. So could we use similar -- not say that we are 

using the ADAAG, or that expecting to change the ADAAG, but 

just use the same language as the ADAAG in this context?

>> Marsha: Well, to start with, there is not a reference to 

the NFPA27 for rail vehicles in the current rail standards. And I 

don't know whether NFPA 72 is an appropriate standard for rail 

vehicles. I would have to look into that. NFPA has a lot of 

standards. They may in fact have one specific to rail vehicles. 

I know they have fixed guide way standards regarding safety 

and egress. So, it's possible that there is an NFPA standard for 

audible and visual alarms on vehicles I just don't know. Then 

we would have to decide whether it's -- it's decibel level is 
appropriate or not. It may have a different decibel level.

>> Terry: Okay.

>> Marsha: But we can certainly find out whether NFPA 

have a standard Frank, you may know if you have audible alarms 

on the rail vehicles now, are you cite to go a standard in your 

specification?

>> Frank: Not NFPA standard.

>> Okay. What standard?

>> Frank: Typically it's an internal standard.

>> Marsha: Internal spec not a national standard.

>> Frank: Not as far as the level of the alarms the 

loudness level of the alarms is not standard to NFPA standard.

>> Do you know if there is applicable NFPA standard out 

there I could ask (inaudible) Robert Solomon. I can find that out 

pretty quickly.

>> Frank: NFPA is used for other things but with regard to 

loudness of the alarms --

>> The NFPA standard applicable is 130 section 8 which is 

specific to the vehicles and I am looking through the standard 

now it does not appear that they do specify a decibel level for 

alarms within the vehicle.

>> Hello?

>> Marsha: Maybe we want to find out why they have not 

done that. We can certainly inquire of the staff. We have good 
relationships with the staff at NFPA and we can find it out.

>> Great. I think that would be good to do.

>> You said Section 8.

>> Section 8 of 130.

>> Rose Marie Bunales: Jim Pecht are you reaching for 

something?

>> David Nelson. Also, if you could find out for egress or 

wayfinding so that you know, people would be able to follow 

where the sounds are coming, whichever, on an exit if it is not 

there --

>> Marsha: I can tell you it's not in there NFPA -- nobody 

has that information.

>> if you -- I mean, if people --

>> Marsha: That information doesn't exist there is not a 

standard for sound level for wayfinding. I can tell you that right 

now.

>> Jim Pecht put himself on something on a shelf so 

everybody knows Jack Shinshou joined the line, David Martinez 

and Blair Slaughter joined the line.

>> Terry: Welcome all of you.

>> Rose Marie Bunales: Jim is flipping through the book 

right now.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> You don't have 130 there.
>> Yes, I do, 2000 edition.

>> Great.

>> Section 8 we were hold.

>> Jim: Yep.

>> Marsha? This is Blair. We have -- we have referenced 

the marine standards put out by the Coast Guard some of the 

things that we were doing because the spatial situations are very 

much like those on board ship. And we have actually specked 

out fire alarms for the sleeping cars. And I can share that 

information with you guys.

>> Marsha: Actually, unfortunately Paul is not here but he 

is our passenger vessels guy. And he most likely is very 

familiar with this.

>> Blair: We are actually -- I can find out from the 

supplier we are working with a -- there is a company called 

CONSILIUM, one of the large suppliers to the passenger vessel 

industry they are doing trains and things over in --

>> Marsha: Okay. I think there is also a new standard for 

visible alarms on passenger vessels. So, I will look into that.

>> Jim: This is Jim. The copy of NFPA 130 I am looking 

at on the communications doesn't have any decibel 

requirements for anything of the things it cites in there.

>> Marsha: Yeah, that's what he said. There is no decibel 

requirements. I think it would be important to find out why 
they don't. There may be a reason that they elected not to 

address decibel level in this type of application.

>> Terry: All right. Anything else on this topic?

>> Jim: This is Jim. I think you might want to separate 

the audible discerning of exit from the alarms because that's a 

kind of a different issue.

>> Totally different. And there are no standards, none.

>> Jim: But it's not to say you can't put a recommendation 

in that you want that to happen because there are sort 

of -- there is stuff out there we do that is similar to that. The 

first thing that comes to mind is the audible pedestrian signal 

has a locator tone that goes along with it that could possibly be 

picked in when there is only an emergency.

>> Marsha: Yeah. But that kind of -- the kind of 

research that it would take to do that would be significant. We 

are talking about life safety here. So although you can put it on 

the wish list I think it been on the wish list a long time. We are 

look at a significant investment in research. There are some 

audible exit strategies that are out there. One was -- one was 

done at a university in England in Great Britain. And there has 

been some research on it.

>> That one is no longer in existence if you are talking 

about the one that I think you are.

>> Marsha: You --
>> University of Leeds about 10 years ago.

>> That is not in existence anymore.

>> I have not found anything on that I have looked and 

looked.

>> Marsha: No, there were some issues from what I 

understand. But so, you know, there really isn't a standard at 

this point in time. The Access Board is very unlikely to make 

one up out of whole cloth without research. Significant 

research.

>> Blair: This is Blair again. I apologize for coming in 

late. The concern is more like smoke and fire alarm that sort of 

alarming system?

>> Marsha: The rail vehicle the exits are much more 

logical place than they are in a building.

>> Blair: Right. Here is just -- I will give you some 

background on where the NTSB has been with these things. 

Their recommendation has been that we have you know fire 

alarms in cars that are compartmentalized where you could have 

a smoldering fire or people could be in a contained area and 

asphyxiated. In open coaches it was seen -- the opinion was 

that it really wouldn't do much for you because you are in a 

rather obvious situation. And where we have actually had fires 

on vehicles, say in a restroom, in an occupied coach, the 

passengers and crew have responded and dealt with it because 
everything is sort of right where you can see it. The concern 

has been in a car like a sleeper where you have 

compartmentalization and things can be going on for a while 

with no one knowing. You would monitor these rooms and 

have alarms and things to wake people up that's the big issue.

>> Marsha: Right. I will note that even in buildings the 

ADA doesn't require alarms. It only says when you provide 

alarms, and usually you provide them because you are required 

to by some code, then those alarms have to meet the audibility 

and visibility requirements of our reference standard. We are 

not in the business of deciding when an alarm gets provided. 

That's usually left to the life safety experts. But if there is an 

audible alarm out there for everybody else then promise the 

ADA is there is also one for people who can't hear it.

>> Terry: Thank you, Marsha. I can't think I was going to 

create that big -- this major an issue on that one.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair: On -- we go little further with our alarms. We 

actually have on the exterior of the vehicle a flashing indicator 

so that responders know that that is the vehicle -- that has the 

fire alarm in it so --

>> Marsha: That's great.

>> Terry: Yes, it is. All right. Where do we stand on the 

placement of the international symbol of accessibility? That 
many places, huh?

>> Jim: I have a question for Blair and Frank. The actual 

guys who put trains together. Presumably when this thing 

becomes final and it becomes a standard and there are cars 

being built to it, will there be situations where new cars that 

would comply with this hopefully upcoming standard would 

have to be coupled with older vehicles. Is there a situation 

where that might occur?

>> Likely.

>> Very likely.

>> Blair: More so probably in inner city than transit, but 

yeah. Only in the cases where it was confined to a train set like 

Acela or something that is an independent set would be able to 

keep that from happening.

>> Frank: Less likely with MU equipment because of 

communication between the cars but for coaches where it's a 

more standardized communication network it's a lot -- very 

likely they would be intermingled.

>> Jim: The reason I was asking that currently the only 

place the international symbol is required is on the outside of 

cars that are, in fact, considered accessible. And so, I would 

say probably what you probably want to require is where trains 

contain cars that aren't accessible you need to have symbol of 

accessibility on the accessible cars. And then I will shut up.
>> Lise: This is Lise Hamlin. I would want to see a 

symbol not only on the outside of the car but on the inside of 

the car, particularly in trains where you, being a New Yorker 

going from one car to the next people you are not supposed to 

do that people do that. But even if you are in the car and you 

miss the sign coming in, if you would see it on the inside as well 

would be very helpful.

>> Frank: What is the sign supposed to identify 

specifically to the person walking through the car?

>> Lise: This is Lise again for me as soon as I saw a 

symbol like that then I would -- immediately look to see, I see 

earlier discussions on whether there is a hearing loop available, 

whether there was visual signage available. All of the things 

that to me would make communication accessible to me.

>> Frank: I guess what I am thinking those visual 

indications are more or less obvious. If you see visual -- VMS 

sign, you know you have VMS in the car. If you see --ism just 

asking typically it's on the outside generally speaking, for me, 

personally, I think, when I see that sign it lets me know that 

there is a wheelchair parking area for the most part and not 

necessarily all of the other aspects associated with accessibility. 

There is lot of things that imply are implied by accessibility. 

But the one thing most people relate to is the wheelchair and 

having a parking area. So, that's what I think it means.
>> Jim: The international symbol encompasses all of it. It 

encompasses all disabilities not just wheelchairs it encompasses 

visual, hearing, cognitive, everything. So if there is a standard 

for it you would have to comply with the symbol would indicate 

all of it not just the wheelchair access stuff.

>> Lise: Right. This is Lise again. When I talk into 

someplace I see this international symbol of accessibility I look 

around I try to see if it means wheelchair access or if it means 

some other kind of access. If I see a sign that specifically says 

there is a loop here I specifically know what that means or 

specifically a wheelchair sign I know what that means if it's a 

general sign I will look around say does it apply to me or not. I

think for -- the reason I say inside and out is because, again, if I 

am-- on the platform and I see the sign great if I am on the 

platform and miss that I go in, I didn't realize there is a loop 

again unless you want to have a separate sign or looping oh, 

there is looping sign on the inside if you are going to make it 

general, then I would want to have it on both inside and out.

>> Blair: This is Blair. From a provider standpoint, if we 

equip cars today, you know, existing cars with loops, then we 

would put signs in to indicate people would know they were this 

and could turn the feature on. If in the future, the if 

accessibility means that it includes that feature, then there 

would be really no need to have the additional sign for the loop. 
If the list of items that are relative to that environment be it a 

car or whatever includes the loop why would we have an extra 

sign. You could have. Maybe this gets back to what sort of 

what Jim was thinking about too if you have an existing car that 

wasn't new and didn't have a feature that's going to be required 

in new vehicles, then people might have an expectation a level 

of accessibility when they walk into a car and that car isn't 

required to have that level.

>> Lise: This is Lise again. Are you saying that you 

prefer to have a specific sign, in other words, if you know that 

the -- if the only access in a particular car is wheelchair access 

you want to put a wheelchair signage there and forget about 

other signage?

>> Blair: What I am saying is if you take what Jim said the 

international symbol implies, that whatever is required of that 

vehicle or building or whatever for -- to be accessible is 

included. So if I put that sign up on a car, today, then 

everything that goes with that as a rail vehicle should be 

included in that car. And in the Newt tour -- in the future 

obviously that will be the same thing. But we could have a 

condition within a train made up of various age cars new and old 

ones, where going from a say a car built today, that doesn't 

meet the things that we are proposing, may not have a hearing 

loop in it. But I may be walking into a car in 10 years that, that 
is a standard requirement. It has a hearing loop. So, but if I, 

today, equipped cars with no guidelines -- or no regulation that 

says rail cars must have hearing loops, I as a provider would 

indicate that there were hearing loops I would add the extra 

indication because I want people to use the system that I put in 

the car. That would be -- from a clarification standpoint, you 

know, the whole new car versus old car and the symbol being 

a -- many plying that if it's there it's fully compliant. I am 

probably getting this scrambled up. But it is one of the 

nightmares that we have on the rail side because you can have 

old cars and new cars and they really have different standards 

because of that condition.

>> Terry: This is Terry. I think you make a very good 

point. The thing is if we just went now with the 

universal -- with the international symbol, we would actually be 

invalidating it because it's used on so many places now that are 

not what we are considering fully accessible. I mean, how many 

people get on a subway car and it's got the symbol there that 

certainly the VMS is not accessible to someone who is blind. As 

an example. Or it's got the symbol that's in space for the 

wheelchair but people don't think of it necessarily as being for 

the seats near that for people who have a mobility impairment 

that is not necessarily wheelchair requiring. The other day I 

just on the way home from work I happened to get on a train car 
just in my one car in the one car on WMATA there were two 

people -- there was two people totally blind at least one with 

low vision since I was there. There were two people on walkers, 

three on canes, and nobody in a wheelchair. But everyone of 

those people probably needed some kind of -- would qualify for 

some type of accessibility. The reality is that John Q. Public 

sees that international sign they think of it as wheelchair period. 

We really -- to me, it seems we really do need to 

put -- especially for something, a loop something that is not 

visible to anyone, I think we really do need to put a sign up or 

we are going to be devaluing the international symbol.

>> Frank: This is Frank I agree with you Terry I was going 

to say the same thing some of what you said anyhow. To me 

and to most people that I have talked to the sign means there is 

a wheelchair parking area. I know it's not the right 

interpretation of the sign, but by the same token, I don't think 

the average person knows what all of the regulations are and 

what exactly that means when you do have that sign on there 

even if you do recognize it meets all of the accessibility 

requirements. If you are going to put a loop on there put a sign 

with a loop. The designation of the wheelchair parking area is 

probably a good thing. Designation more clearly defining the 

seating areas for people who are not confined to a wheelchair 

and wish to help those people or who have difficulty walking 
that's an area that is very well misunderstood. And those signs 

could be made clearer which we are trying to do on newer 

equipment. I don't know. I don't see a lot of value in the 

signs. As you said I think they got devalued because they are 

mainly misunderstood what they are attempting to imply. I

don't know. As far as that goes I don't know the value of 

having them on there. To me if I was in a wheelchair I wanted 

to know where in the car there were wheelchair parking area if it 

was only one location --

>> Terry: You at least want to know there is an area.

>> Frank: Right.

>> You wouldn't wanted the sign on the outside.

>> All of the cars have them on the outside all of them 

have a wheelchair parking area. You know, the only difference 

is on some of the equipment it's one end of the car and not the 

other so I think that is helpful. But it's not for the intended 

purpose. That's where it gets misunderstood. Be that as it 

may, I would leave it on the outside. And mainly to identify the 

wheelchair parking area. Because all of the other, you know, 

things that we are adding in there are not located to a specific 

area in the entire car.

>> Terry: I think we are talking two different issues at this 

point. We are talking first of all do we want to put the sign on 

the inside and outside or where do we want to put it. And 
secondly, then do we want a separate sign for the loop. As I 

understand it maybe I am off base that's the way that I am 

understanding it.

>> Frank: I think if you have the loop you should have a 

sign I believe Blair would agree with that.

>> This is Lise. I would agree with it too. Listening to 

what you are saying I agree that people won't know there is a 

loop there unless you make a very specific sign. So, in that 

case, does that mean -- are you saying that that you would want 

an outside sign for people who use wheelchairs only? Is that 

what you are saying?

>> That's kind of what I am implying. I think to me the 

only use that you get out of the sign is knowing where there is a 

wheelchair parking area if you happen to be wound bound to 

wheelchair mobility device. Outside of that why do you need to 

know?

>> Terry: Because then it's designated seating for people 

with disabilities and seniors. You know, if you 

have -- somehow you have to designate the seating for the 

disabled people who are not in a wheelchair.

>> Frank: We do that with interior signs now too. So --

>> Yeah.

>> There is nothing wrong with that.

>> That's why we need to have it inside as well -- you need 
to have at least the sign outside but you need to have it inside 

for those purpose is what I am saying.

>> Lise: Here is the question that I have then. If you say 

some of the newer cars they do put a loop in and you have 

interior sign saying this is the area where the loop is how as a 

consumer do I know which car to get on? I don't know how the 

cars are I am outside on the platform how do I know to go into 

the car with a loop.

>> That's a good point. We can put a sign on the outside 

too. I am saying if --

>> I am good with that.

>> I'm sorry. We currently have both international sign 

and then we also have a hearing loss sign that we have on the 

outside and inside of our vehicles so most people would know 

which cars in our train help them with announcements and 

delays things of that nature.

>> Lise: Let me add something I am not sure this is part 

of the Access Board rules I think this is a lot of this sounds like 

education to me it should be on websites this is what the sign 

means this is what you should look for.

>> Blair: This is Blair. I can guarantee you for example, 

when we added WI/FI to the train, we identified those trains as 

having WI/FI on the outside you know when you are getting on 

it's going to be there. And I would -- would be pretty sure, I 
know we have just put a WI/FI sign next to the accessibility sign 

because it's you know it's one of the bits of information that you 

get as you board the train. If we went out and equipped cars 

with hearing loops I would put them on there and there is a 

good chance I would put the hearing loop sign at doors that 

might not be wheelchair accessible or accessible to wheelchair 

accessible spaces. Because there is nothing that precludes 

someone from getting on in other places. That's just a bit of 

information yes if I get on here without walking 85 feet to the 

other end to see what's on the car I know that there is a hearing 

loop. So, we would probably do that because if you spend the 

money to put the on the car we spend a couple more dollars to 

put the sign on the car.

>> Lise: That makes sense to me.

>> Blair: If we are going to do it we want people to use it. 

Otherwise -- there should come a time it's not today it's not 

next year or five years probably, the international symbol of 

accessibility will be the catch out again that it was intended to 

be you know if it's on the side of the car that the car is going to 

be visual systems and it's going to have hearing loops and all of 

those things wrapped into one. And we won't have to think 

about it. But we are not at that point yet. I think we still have 

to indicate what we are providing.

>> Frank: This is Frank again. To me maybe it's just to 
me. There is no real benefit into putting the international 

symbol on a car. Personally speaking. What are you gaining 

by that? If you want to know if it has the loop, I would put that 

on the outside. If you want to know where the wheelchair 

location and priority seating is I put those signs on and 

specifically identify them they may be at one end of the car and 

not the other. People use it that international symbol of 

accessibility for that purpose now generally speaking if you ask 

the average person that that sign means they say it's a 

wheelchair location on the car. So, I think it would be better to 

me if we were more specific about what the purpose of the decal 

is rather than to say, this is an accessible car. If you have a 

hearing loop put it on the outside of the car. If you have the 

wheelchair parking area on that end, you put it on the outside of 

the car. Unless the entire car both entrances or all four 

entrances depending how you look at it have a wheelchair 

parking area or accessible from both entrances, I would put it in 

the location where it provides the most useful information.

>> Blair: This is Blair again. Frank, for us, it does -- it's 

typically the B end of the car. I won't get into that for the 

folks -- for the folks not involved in railroad. But Frank knows. 

That happens to be -- the other indicator is whether you are 

using it for accessibility you know if you ride the trains at all the 

restrooms are going to be near wherever that accessible space 
is. So, maybe if you are ambulatory and you have an option of 

being near the restroom or not, you are going to go and you are 

going to follow it because the sign is there you know you can sit 

anywhere in the general area you are going to be close are to 

the restroom than being at the other end of the car. I think 

it's -- I think the international symbol is fine because -- but I 

would say that when we start expanding what we are offering in 

the car beyond what is anticipated today, which is not a lot more 

than the wheelchair accessible spaces, and seating, when we 

start expanding that that we do need to indicate to people that 

those devices are available, particularly if it's going to be 

clustered to one end so people you know, again, are a-- are 

aware of it. If they need to turn a device on they do, or they 

need to go to the part of the vehicle that has the messaging 

system then you know, it -- for now, to me it would be the 

international symbol and any of the auxillary symbols that show 

expansion of accessibility.

>> This is Dave Martinez again in Chicago. Is there a, 

currently a sign that will tell you if there is a loop in a train that 

is in use anywhere?

>> Blair: The T-coil sign, yes.

>> The T-coil.

>> Dave: Okay.

>> Frank: This is Frank again. From my point of view the 
international symbol is a wheelchair sign that means there is a 

wheelchair parking area. That being said, you know, leaving it 

on the outside of the car is fine. I think the average person is 

going to continue to use that as an indication of where the 

wheelchair parking area is. It would be better if it was clearer 

as an indication this is where the wheelchair parking area is. I

don't think that that's important. I do agree with you Blair. If 

you are going to have a hearing loop put the sign there and 

that's a good idea generally speaking. I thought we covered 

that to some extent or overall if you are going to have the 

hearing loop put a sign in the car put a sign on the outside we 

could add that to the summary that we have pretty easily I think.

>> Terry: Well, Frank you have given us a good segue just 

then into the fact that we need to start putting together 

the -- we need to put together the final report to the 

committee. I am thinking that we -- well, let me ask this: 

First of all anybody want to volunteer to write this report? 

Okay. Going from there. I am thinking that we perhaps get a 

few of us to small working group to work on getting 

this -- getting the report put together. I am thinking let's start 

with remember way back we had Jim's list and his table with all 

of the different types of -- types of things that needed to be 

signed or have -- have signage and that? And what type and all 

of that? I think if we take that, we can absolutely paraphrase it 
and paraphrase a lot of what has taken place over our last, I 

think Jim it's our this is our 11th call. And let's put it together. 

I can definitely do a bit within this incomes week. -- within this 

next week. And anybody willing to review it, edit it, add to it, 

delete it, um, I would like to see -- I would love to see someone 

from the deaf and hard of hearing community that's on this 

committee help with it. I would love to see Frank and or Blair 

from their perspectives in designing and -- in designing cars. I

would love to see somebody from -- what am I try to go say I 

have trouble with the term -- light rail, the light rail community, 

just so that we are sure that we covered everybody, every area if 

we could just, you know, put together an E-mail list that we 

could just get this thing done and then get it out to the 

committee for everybody to look at, make any last minute 

changes to. Make any major changes, you know, present any 

major objections or minor ones so that we can have it ready for 

the -- for the committee meeting the in-person committee 

meeting the 26th and 27th of February. We do actually have 

one more call before that I was thinking this was our last one. 

At least we would have it ready for the next call then. We have 

a call the -- I don't have it calendar in front of me like the 3rd of 

February or something. Anybody have a calendar? It would be 

the first Thursday in February whatever that is. I took off my 

glasses I can't read mine.
>> The first Thursday is the 5th of February.

>> That would be our next call is February 5th. We could 

have it so that we can just dot the I's and cross the T's at that 

point, so we have it ready this time for the session on the 26th. 

Anybody that's willing to help with that? Can either let us know 

now or if you can E-mail me whichever way works anybody that 

doesn't who haven't heard it a hundred times already my E-mail 

is TERRYPACH @ Verizon.net. Does this make sense to 

everyone.

>> Terry, this is Frank. I was looking at the last summary 

document, I don't know who put it together I think you did with 

the Access Board it has 90% of what we need to say. I don't 

know how much background --

>> Terry: I think so we just need to basically put it 

all -- make 100% out of something. We have several things 

that I think need -- I will compile it -- get it compiled and get it 

put into more than just phrases here and there we need to 

actually do language in it.

>> Frank: Is that what you are looking for? Let me ask 

the question to the Access Board. I mean you have the 

summary document I think it has a very good outline are you 

looking for more than that? Or is that acceptable format.

>> Marsha: As long as what you are wanting to 

communicate to us is clear and you think it's clear and 
understandable that's the main thing. Now, you know -- that's 

the main thing. Now, one of the things we did ask you to do is 

give us if you know some background on what you think some 

of these things might cost. And if you are of a mind to give us 

some, you know more discussion about some of these items in 

terms of their pros and cons or priorities. That's also useful.

>> Terry: Those are good points Marsha, thank you.

>> Terry this is --

>> It's entirely up to you guys.

>> Terry, this is Jim I don't think we scheduled meeting 

that far in advance February 5 is open if that's okay with the 

committee no objections I will ask Rose to schedule it for that 

date. Does anybody have a problem with February 5th at about 

the same time? Hearing crickets I will ask Rose to schedule that 

dated for the communications subcommittee.

>> Same bat time, same bat channel.

>> Terry: I thought we had my mistake. That's all right. 

Thank you all. Anybody that's willing to help work on -- to 

help you know get everything finalized please let me know or 

you can just E-mail me at the RVAAC E-mail address and I will 

ask Paul to forward them. And let's just get things finished. 

It's been a long road. But I think we have come just an amazing 

distance on that group on this road with this group. And I 

thank you all. And Blair or David, um, David actually, your 
E-mail address can you remind me what it is David Nelson

>> Sure. D as in David, J as in John, N as in Nelson @ 

Amtrak.com.

>> DJN @ Amtrak. Thank you. I actually need to do 

inquiring about some lack of accessibility issues on Amtrak. 

Thank you.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Terry: We now have a guide dog in the family, we took 

the northeast regional, they told me no, they could not stop the 

train to let us to let the dog relieve herself. They said there was 

no way that could be done. It just didn't seem -- why are we 

try to go put signs on trains about where the relief areas are 

going to be located.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Terry: Anyway, because we were running an hour late 

on top of that it was an 11-hour trip.

>> Okay. Were you going to Boston from here?

>> Terry: Yes from Boston up -- from Washington to 

Boston Christmas eve.

>> Okay. Yeah. That's one --

>> Terry: We don't need to tie up the committee with this.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Okay.

>> Terry: Anyhow. I how very much I look forward to 
hearing from you and with that I will entertain a motion to 

adjourn.

>> Motion to adjourn?

>> Moved.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Terry: Anyone not in favor?

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Terry: Thank you all very much, and I will look