Note: The output shown below is from the Communication Access

Realtime Translation (CART) system used in the meeting and is unedited, with two exceptions . T he text now reflects : 1) that the committee had a quorum at the start of the meeting, and 2) spelling corrections for s ome participant names. The CART system was used to provide an accommodation to persons with hearing loss and persons who are deaf, and was streamed in real

- time and available to the public on the internet during the meeting. U.S. Access Board Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee January 9, 2014 Morning Session 10:00 a.m. >> Matt French: I am going to do a brief introduc tion on the AV system. We will find out here shortly if it's going to work today or not sorry for the delay. S ince the new year we have had a ton of maintenance particularly this week most of it has not been working very well. You guys are going to be g uinea pig we had the microphones reprogrammed no one should touch a microphone at all. >> Matt French: We are going to run a test. We are going to be turning on the mics and no one should have to touch them after that. >> You can go ahead and start if yo u want >> Chris I will turn it over to you. >> Don't move the mics.
>> Good morning everyone. T hank you for coming to this session where we will

-- of the advisory committee meeting.I will hand it over to Billy the chair, but first I want to ask

everyone t o do introductions that includes all of you in the audience. M ost of you know me, I am Christopher Hart. I am a public member of the Access Board. A nd I am the liaison for from the board to the committee, so I report back on what you guys are discussing , and out here also as a technical resource, and advisor for

-- for you all here today and going forward. B eyond that, as mentioned we have had some technical issues, and so, hopefully things are going to work out today. A nd I do apologize, and we are go ing to move forward. S o, Michael would you start with introducing yourself, and we will go around the table and then go to back.
>> Thank you Chris. M ike Wetherell at New York City Transit representing New York MCA. >> Good morning, I am Stanton Saucier with the Ricon Corporation, a division of Web Tech, we are manufacturers of wheelchair lifting equipment. >> Josh Coran, with Talgo, manufacturer of high speed train sets. >> I am Marilyn Golden, with the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund or DRED F. >> Good morning Ed Hoff New Jersey Transit. >> Terry Soesbee RailPlan International >> Blair Slaughter, principal engineer at Amtrak.>> Robert Carlson with Transportation Authority.

>> Justin Vonashek, director of regulatory compliance. >> Jon Holbroo k Alstom Transportation. >> Federal railroad administration. >> David Gayle, Hearing Loss Association of America.
>> Hi, Debra Patkin, I am with the National Association of the Deaf. >> Jim Weisman, United Spinal Association. >> Uwe Rutenberg, Internationa l Centre for Accessible Transportation. >> Terry Pacheco the American Council of the Blind. >> Jackson Xue, Parsons Brinkerhoff. >> Crystal Lyons, South West Transit. >> Stanton Hunter, Cal Trans divi sion and rail. >> Dennis Cannon National Disability Rights Network.b >> I am Billy Altom with the Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living. >> Paul Beatty, Access Board staff. >> Melissa Anderson, Access Board staff >> (inaudible) >> Lisa Fairhall Access Board staff. >> Bob Reuter from Access Systems also officially representing Colonial Paralyzed Veterans and Baltimore Transit Association.>> Sid Goldstein, editor of transit access report.

>> Frank Maldari, MTA. >> James Lucas inte rfleet technology of Cal Trans. >> Ken Shiotani National Disability Rights. >> Gary Talbot with Amtrak. >> I am David, I am also with Amtrak. >> Monica London with Amtrak. >> Thomas Fodor, U.S. Department of Justice >> John Day, Federal Transit Administration.
>> Melissa Shurland, FRA. >> Harold Weisinger, mechanical engineer with the FRA. >> Paul with the South West Ohio Regional Transportation Authority, and incoming chair of the (inaudible). >> Charles Joseph. >> Lou Woohner , with the Virginia Railway Express. >> Glenn Miller, Washington Metropolitan Transit. >> Naomi Milton, U.S. Department of Justice. >> Paul Beatty: O perator, can you tell us who is on

-- >> On the audio line, Edward Steinfield with the Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access. >> Linda Martin, Federal Railroad Administration. >> And David Capozzi with the Access Board. >> Would you unmute all three of the lines/>> Chris Hart: S orry, we are going to go through the

agenda and we will go on from there.
>> Thank you, Chris. A pologize for some of the technical difficulties we are having now, it's the new year, and things are just working out wonderfully well for us all. B ut one of the things that I hope everybody got your

-- a lot of

-- Paul sent a lot of i nformation. We have the agenda did you receive the agenda via e

- mail? Everyone have a chance to review that? We have several things we want to accomplish today. At the end, there is one thing that I really want to drive home because we have a lot of au dience members here and I am thrilled to see we have folks who are interested in what we are doing with this particular committee. A nd we will have public comment period for all of those who made their effort to get here. C ertainly want to hear what you have to say. A s we look through this, we have done introductions we have administrative matters, at our last meeting, we went through and put together a committee or issues lit and we are going to look through that I want to turn it over to Paul now to ta lk about that or do we want to approve the minutes first. I don't have it on the list >> Paul Beatty: I am playing the part of Rose our administrative person. M ost of you know where the toilets
are. F or those that are new, you go out the door, head pas tthe elevators and to the right, and you have the men's rooms

and to the left you have the women's rooms. A nd in an emergency for evacuation the evacuation stairs are essentially located next to the toilet rooms. O ne on the right, and one on the left ac cess in the main lobby to the front of the basically down toward the Treasury building

-- >> We can make one up to the Hamilton building. >> There is a Hamilton restaurant on the other side of the street, other side of 14th Street. >> Northwest corner. T hank you, Melissa.
>> Paul Beatty: We are going to be doing discussions. A lot of you, at least committee members, you checked off the box regarding not being a federally registered lobbyist. B ut from a paper work standpoint we have a form for you to fill out. M ost of you have done that, some of you have not, so I will be hunting you down. I n terms of members of the public, this applies to you if you plan to participate in any of the activities except for the public comment time, you cannot

-- any of our activities, you cannot be a federally registered lobbyist and be allowed to participate, that's per executive order. G ood number of you have filled out that form saying, I am not nor will I become, unless I tell you, a few of you have not. T his may be important if we go into subcommittees where per the operating protocols of thecommittee anybody can participate in a subcommittee as if

they were a committee member. S o, you know who you are. Please fill out the form if you plan to participate and see me. These are things that Rose would be hunting you down for if she were here. T here is a sign in form there, if you are a committee member don't worry about signing in. I can check you off, that's great. I f you are an alternate, please sign in that way I know you are here. S econd, if you are a member of the public, please sign in for purposes of the record and the minutes. At least the November minutes we will look at. Now

-- we have enough people for a quorum we can make forma l decisions on the part of the committee, so those are the things that Rose would have said. N ow I will move into my next role. We are going to look at the summary minutes from the November meeting. T hese were sent out to the committee. I received no c omments on the minutes for the meeting itself. I did receive some comments on Attachment B. F or your memory, Attachment B lists those attended B was the issues list refined by the Access Board staff that the committee developed at the November meeting. I believe I inserted the comments, made some changes, minor changes based upon things committed to me by the committee members. I believe Attachment B reflects what was discussed at the November meeting or adequatelyreflects. N ow it doesn't mean that yo u can't add new issues.

That's going to be later on in the agenda. T he purpose now is to approve what happened in November. S o I can place that on the web. A nd move forward. S o, at this point, since I haven't received any additional comments, I am ask ing for a motion that the committee accept the November summary minutes as provided to you in my preparations E

- mail. >>So moved. >> Dennis Cannon ma de a motion. D o we have a second? >> Seconded by Mr. Wetherell. >> All in agreement? S ay aye. Raise yo ur hand. A ny disagreement? H earing none, for purposes of the record, the committee approved the November summary minutes as transmitted to them in the Access Board preparations E

- mail I believe on January 6 or 7, I think the 7th. O kay. N ow, we will tur n it back to Billy for next thing on the agenda item review of the issues list.
>> Bill Altom: J ust a couple of other small ones, cell phones if you have a cell phone on you, most of us do, put it on vibrate or silence. I f you need to make a call, there is a small conference room right directly behind me, just behind the coat rack that you can step into. We ask that you refrain from standing out in the hallway making phone calls justbecause there are other businesses that are trying to do

business there

. A nd it makes it their life a lot more easy as well if they don't hear all of our conversations. We have several presentations today that I am really looking forward to. T he first off again I am going to wear Paul out doing stuff for me. We developed and thank you Paul for putting that together from all of our brainstorming activities of putting together lists. S o, Paul would you like to go over with us the Attachment B that we were talking about of

-- >> Paul Beatty: T his is Paul Beatty. I f you go to Attachment B part of the summary minutes, there are

-- there was in terms of comments we did receive one comment requesting a new issue being added. A ppeared I in the preparations E

- mail, that provided on item 3, and the comment was in added to the commu nications section that all announcements in American Sign Language as well as text. So, we would be adding that to Attachment B under the communications section. T he second thing, and this is more Access Board request, that if you go to the very last iss ue on the list it's under "other" it says standards for websites and smartphones. B ecause the focus of the committee is on rail vehicles and the focus of the committee is on rail vehicle components that fall under the Access Board jurisdiction. We
are as king that issue to be removed because it doesn't fallunder the Access Board jurisdiction and in general it's

probably not part of the rail vehicle. By rail vehicle that's our short way of saying, you know vehicles that operate under fix guide way systems

. A ll right? S o as Dennis pointed out last time there are rubber

- wheeled vehicles that fall under your purview, so just for clarification. A ny other matters regarding the issues list? I may point out here it's not necessarily supper critical you add th ings right now, you know one of the things that we are going to get to is how you go about resolving issues. A nd the Access Board is recommending breaking into subcommittees if you accept that we will have that discussion later. I f you accept that method ology at the subcommittee level there is the ability for people to add in issues particularly as you are clarifying some of the existing issues that are in Attachment B but since this is the time if you desire to add anything new, this is your list. M aril yn? >> Hi, Marilyn Golden from DREDF. O ops. Well, I am not 100% sure that

-- I haven't compared a few things I thought of or weren't sure got on to what is on pardon me if I have redundancy, I had a number of thoughts since our discussion. Asurface table , for example, to eat, or for your laptop in wheelchair spaces something with knee and toe space, a fixed surface, not a portable tray. A s is given to you. Now. W hen I say "fixed" I don't mean it can't fold up or bemoved out of the way mechanically but once deployed it

should be fixed. >> Paul Beatty: We sort of feel we caught that if you go to wheelchair space and other seating. I tem 2, wheelchair space design and then C, as in Charlie, amenities and control of the wheelchair spaces provided people i naccessible seating, e.g, t ray tables, charging outlets lighting movies et cetera. So, would that be caught in that particular issue? >> Well, the knee and toe space should probably be in there. >> That's under item 3. >> That's under item 3, aha, sure. It

-- >> We have it under dining. >> Marilyn Golden: A ll right. I think that's fair. Redundant light control at a lower level.
>> Paul Beat ty: I n terms of sleeping compartments? >> Marilyn Golden: W herever riders passengers can switch on a light
>> Paul Beatty: We would say that's probably under 2

- C in terms of amenities and controls a whole bunch of those are provided for people in inaccessible seating.
>> Marilyn Golden: I know you have memorized it. >> Paul Beatty: N o, I have not. You are goi ng to challenge me on this.>> We are going to quiz you on this, as we do what

section of the ADAAG something is in. Well, if this happens for every item I am going to want to go back into my cave. Should I maybe talk to you on a break and compare >> Pau l Beatty: M aybe that's a good thing you can add things this isn't the only time it's important we have your concerns on the tables so they can be evaluated. >> Billy Altom: A nd other things may come up during if we break into a subcommittee too I am sure there is going to be other issues that will definitely find their way to the surface. >> Marilyn Golden: I f I just E

- mail you? >> Paul Beatty: T hat would be good. A ny other comments about new issues? Well hearing none, obviously the one that we added has been added and I hear no objection from the committee from us removing that very last issue concerning websites and smartphones. S o, I would say that at this point be creating a new attachment for purposes of the January summary minutes, and I will

-- I will turn it back to Billy for the next thing on the agenda. >> Billy Altom: P erfect. U p next we have our presentations. A nd we have six presentations today. T he first one on the list we are going to go down this list if you have the agenda in front of you. We have the FederalRailroad Administration with Rail 101. A nd one of the things

that we have asked everyone to do is try to keep these to about 15

- minute presentations so that we can get through these and looks like whoever is doing this presen tation if you would come up here to the front by me and we will

-- ah there she comes. I t's a very hot time >> So good morning I am Melissa S hurland with the FRA and before we get started on this presentation, unfortunately we have made significant change s to the presentation since it was sent out by Paul Beatty. A nd we would like the committee to consider doing this presentation at another time. We have added a lot of graphics and more information that will be useful to the committee versus this version that was given. We were not aware of the policy for having presentations in Braille as well as other accessible format we submitted the information to Paul too late. >> Paul Beatty: I want to make sure the committ ee clarified that. A s you know, per operating procedures, anything that is sent out to the committee has to be accessible. A nd so, there is a back end of accessibility on PowerPoints. S ometimes it's real simple to do sometimes it's not. A nd the closer and update to a presentation is provided to staff, the more difficult it is for us to make any changes and do a screening. S econd, the question about handing itout here at the committee, if something is handed out in

paper there is an obligation to assur e accessibility which could include Braille. E lectronically we make everything available on a website. A nd we had some problems there as you know. A nd we used Dropbox I think everybody got electronic version the website is up and running any member of t he public can look at the current presentations and participate. So, regrettably Melissa pointed out things that needs to be changed time wasn't available to make the change and disseminate it for purposes of maintaining Access Board policy as well as comm ittee operating procedures. S o, essentially Melissa is asking she has a better version, we can't give it to you right now, do you want to wait and see it later. >> Melissa Shurland: T hat would be at the April meeting. >> I'm sorry Billy, would that be available for

-- for distribution before the April meeting? I mean, obviously it's not available today. B ut can it be

-- >> Paul Beatty: Yes, I mean one thing good the next couple of weeks so people have it well in advance of that meeting >> Paul Beatty: Yes. Everybody but one person communicated to me that they could not use the Dropboxconnection. S o, I found that a very simple way of getting

something out versus try to go deal with regulations.gov is not designed for what we intend to use it for that 's what I am required to do fitting that square peg in the round hole or vice

-versa. You have to do jamming it's not the most user friendly tool for purposes of disseminating information in a hurry. S o, we would get that out to you way before. V ia Dropb ox. A nd only one person communicated to me they can't access Dropbox. A nd then I would send it to them directly. S o, that would be an option where Melissa would give me the update we do our screening and accepted it out to the full committee for purpose s of the April meeting. >> Just as a point of clarity, with regard to providing material in alternate formats Braille and such, does the Access Board have the resource to do that? I n other words, if we were to provide you with material the board can provi de the

-- okay. I s there any sort of timeframe you know in other words, if we want to make sure that something is available for presentation in the April meeting, what would be a reasonable deadline to have it into the Access Board so that there is time to do that. >> Paul Beatty: O kay. T his is sort of like Marilyn's point of challenging me but not on B but the operating procedure. O perating procedure said you have to give it tostaff 5 days before the committee meeting. I can't remember

it it was 5 cale ndar days or 5 business days.

(LAUGHTER) >> A week ahead of time should be good enough.
>> Paul Beatty: I will work with you if it's less than 5 days just realize the more we have to review, the more hoops we have to go introduce but if it's simple th at's possible.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you any other questions or issues regarding accessibility issues for presentations.
>> This is Terry Pacheco. S ince I am in the alternate format business and on this committee I would be more than happy to work with you gratis to get anything that you need done in any form of accessible format. >> Paul Beatty: T hank you Terry, I appreciate that. >> Terry: I n return, do we have audible listening devices today? >> Paul Beatty: We have getting it. We are on it.
>> We got it. >> Billy Altom: T hank you, Terry.
>> Paul Beatty: D id the committee agree to postpone this presentation on Rail 101 until the April meeting? I hear yes? >> Yes.>> Billy Altom: Yes, awesome. A nd thank you. S o

your next one is the

-- okay, perfect. (Discussion off record.)

>> Melissa Shurland: A s I said, I am Melissa with the Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research and Development. I am a program manager focusing on passenger rail safety as well as accessibility issues and alt ernative fields. Today I am going to give you a summary of the FRA activities involved with PRIIA next generation equipment committee. I t stands for Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. I t's an act from congress that enabled the fundin g of Amtrak as well as other aspects of rail transportation. S o, today I will give overview of the PRIIA next generation equipment committee activities. How we developed enhanced accessibility recommendations for the PRIIA equipment. A s well as characte ristics of the bi

- level car accommodations and new enhanced accessibility recommendations we are currently working on and I will also talk a little bit about the ADAAG review that we conducted that was disseminated out to the committee. S o, the PRIIA 2008 authorization from congress section 305 directed Amtrak and the states DOTs to establish a consortium that will look at developing a pool of equipment for the nextgeneration of passenger rail equipment within the United

States. A nd the idea was to have a standardized fleet that can be used across the United States. A mtrak

-- FRA provides support and input and the states that are currently part of the PRIIA process are California, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, O klahoma, Washington and Wisconsin. O ther states are allowed to join, it's not an exclusive club. T here is a process for gaining membership that

-- you can find all of this information at search for high speed rails, it will lead you to the page. Within t he PRIIA group there are many different groups focusing on rail transportation equipment as well as operating procedures, and accessibility being one of them. S o the accessibility policy group for which the accessibility work for which I am the team lead for had the task of reviewing the current and future needs of passengers with disabilities, and looking at the technology that is available we were to develop recommendations that would best address those needs. I n the most reasonable and cost effective m anner. T he FRA enacted a contract with Oregon State University that would support the development of such recommendations. O regon State University looked at the demographics of our population within the United States as well as the population of devicesand they developed recommendations based on those

growing trends looking at power devices manual devices sizes weights et cetera. We also looked at current design for passenger rail equipment both in the United States and in Canada. Participants in the PR IIA accessibility working group consisted of not only FRA but also car manufacturers such as Kawasaki, Talgo, et cetera. We have wheelchair lift suppliers, Ricon as well as service providers, Amtrak, Cal Trans, North Carolina DOT and we have input from th e Access Board staff as we were developing our recommendations they provided input to provide better clarity for the recommendations and provided us with guidance. O ur recommendations were presented to the executive board of the next generation equipment committee on which they were voted on for approval. A nd some of the

-- some of them you will see cooperating with a specification used for procurement. A s I said, we are looking at additional recommendations for the update specifications. S o, I

-- so,
a s we went through the process of developing these recommendations looking at larger wheelchair space within the consider, looking at wider vestibules, et cetera, we had a lot of input from the manufacturers. A nd for the PRIIA bi

- level car designed by the next generation committee thecar manufacturers and the supplies found it was technically

feasible to incorporate these recommendations into the PRIIA bi

- level car as defined. N onstructural recommendations such as changes within the restrooms will be furt her reviewed by the group for updates into the specifications. A nd I will get a little bit more in

- depth into this in the later slides. T he characteristics of the bi

- level car you have passengers seated in the upper and lower levels. I t's intended for

m edium

-- medium to long distance rail service and the pass through from car to car is on the upper level not the lower level. W ithin the PRIIA car types there is coach car, cafe, lounge car and a cab baggage car. T he accessible seating for these cars are all located on the lower level and I have a conceptual layout of those three cars to show in the later slides. And these, again, are just for the PRIIA bi

- level car defined in the specifications. T he overall length of the PRIIA bi

- level car is characteri zed 85 feet long over all height of 16 feet 2 inches. T he overall width is 10 feet 6 inches it's a lower floor height 18 inches above top of rail upper floor height is 105.5 inches above the top of the rail. T he side door opening to enter into the car ar ea has been categorized as a minimum of 52 inches clear opening. A s I said, the PRIIA bi

- level specification is intended for the development of astandardized fleet of equipment that can be used throughout

the United States for passenger rail service. S o , what the accessibility working group finally decided on and was approved by the executive board are these four requirements for enhanced accessibility that were impacted the structural design of the car. A nd we were in a procurement process when these recommendations were finally agreed to so, we focus on getting the structural changes the recommendation that would impact structural changes to the car and will later focus op those that are nonstructural such as changes within the restroom, as well as cha nges at the seating area. S o, what we started with and what I have on this table is the accessibility feature followed by our recommendations that were improved and included in the specifications being used for procurement currently. A nd what the regulat ions states within part 38. S o, first off, the PRIIA car requires a car borne lift to be installed in the car. We looked at that and said it should be 800 pounds versus the requirements of 600 pounds that is to take into account travelers using power cha irs, scooters that might be a little bit more

-- a little heavier a whole lot heavier than the manual wheelchair and to account for the weight of the passenger. S o, we are allowing a larger population of people to be able to gain access to the rail car. With the heavier load for the lift.We also look at the platform for the wheelchair lift and

currently the regulation has it set at 30 by 48 inches. A nd we have pushed the envelope a little bi t on that, and suggested and was approved platform size of 30 by 54 to account for the larger scooters that we are seeing in the population for mobility devices and also to allow for the larger power chairs that are being used by passengers with disabiliti es. Now, it will account for any extra accessories that might be hanging off the back of the chairs to allow people to gain access to the cars. M ore importantly what we did on the vestibule area we changed the clearance for 90

- degree turn into the seating around from

-- area from 42 as required by regulations to 44 inches. S o, once you get on to a lift and you get into the doorway of the car, you now have a 44 inch wide vestibule area versus 42

- inch and it's a very small change but it's a first step first to make a difference to getting folks to make that turn and get into the seating area and into their accessible seating location. Also, in terms of the accessible seating location we have increased that to 32 by 59 versus the regulation which requires 32 by 48 seating. T he space was enlarged due to maneuverability in and out of the position. F RA and some members from the accessibility working group view a few of the passenger equipment at union station and we were able todetermine that with the 30 by 48 space people with various

types of wheel mobility devices were having problems getting into that space. S o, we enhanced that a little bit and expanded to 32 by 59. >> Melissa, previously the ADA had the platform size and the accessible seating location th e same. 3 0 by 48 and 30 by 48, your new regulation or proposal would have 30 by 54 for the platform size and 32 by 59 for the seating location. How did you come up with the numbers?
>> Melissa Shurland: T he 30 by 54 was really

-- the required opening for the door was 32 inches, we didn't want to extend into that space too much. A s you say, we have to try to get the folks in through the doorway. A nd to make the length of the platform any longer than 30 by 59 we might have issue with having cargo lift on b oth sides of the car and having them to be stored within the vestibule area properly and not to take up too much space in the area. I t was decided from the research that Oregon State University conducted that a 30 by 54 we will be able to capture a majori ty between 85 and 90% of the wheel mobility device population. N ot necessarily the passenger but just the various sizes and types of the wheel mobility devices that are out there. >> So, you were attempting to get the best

-- tomaximize the possible spac e could we have access to the

Oregon State

-- >> Melissa Shurland: T hat work is in process. We hope to have the

-- we hope to have the research finalized in this fiscal year as for the PRIIA portion of that, that might see a different evolution. B ut FRA research will be able at the end of the fiscal year which include the background research.
>> Chris Hart: I t includes a lift industry they can elaborate further. T hey had some years ago already increased the platform size, and the lift capacity to in so me cases well over 800 pounds and beyond 54 inches. S o, in fact, what OSU and FRA were recognizing is the industry was already there, and they

-- they had not yet caught up to where industry is. I f I am right, there is

-- if you buy a lift for manufacturers most likely it's going to be well over 800 pounds and going to be 54 inches on the platform; is that correct? >> Yeah. I n terms of what is typically done for paratransit platform sizes are generally larger 32 or 34 inches in width 54 and 56 inches in length. I think it's probably also appropriate to point out at this time you know you might question you know, well if the platform size for the wheelchair lift is only sort of 30 by 54, why allocate more space for the chair. Well, there was quite a bit of discussion about it's notjust, you know, storage space there has to be room available

to maneuver. S o that was the justification for having the space for the chair and the vehicle a bit larger than the space on the platform itself.
>> Yeah, and I appreciate the

-- those comments, the reason for my question is I would like to

-- I think what we have got we probably have a lot of research that went into it I am trying to dig down. W hen we start looking at the items can start looking at factual type of t hings so that we can

-- I am looking for further down the road when we try to make decisions.
>> Chris Hart: T he

-- >> Paul Beatty: Wait a minute.
>> Billy Altom: O ne second Chris. We have 5 more presentations to go what I would suggest is that we allow her to finish her presentation and ask questions. Robert, I did see your hand up, I am going to call on you because you were in the queue. O nce we do that we will get on track and allow her to finish and ask questions so that we can get through all of these I can get you in the queue. P lus, for our participants who are using our interpreter services, they need to know who is speaking. I am watching, and we are eliminating part of our group. I want to get it back on track for us, thank you all. G o ah ead.>> Robert Carlson: Your on board circulation

designation for clear passage 32 inches is that along the entire aisle of the lower level or just at the end of it? >> Melissa Shurland: That is

-- well, that is to allow access to the accessibility restro om but what we have seen so far that

-- with one design layout that can be for the entire lower level. B ut that might not be typical for all equipment. And to

-- you can't have 32 inch wide space but it may not be a clear passage to the restroom. We see maneuverability is an important aspect for enhanced accessibility. >> Robert Carlson: O kay. T hank you. >> Melissa Shurland: T his is the layout for the coach car it's a conceptual layout. A s I said we have procurement in process so we are seeing design drawings that is being developed that are incorporating the enhanced accessibility requirements. A nd this is the coach car

-- the top drawing is the upper level and the lower drawing is the lower level where the accessible seating area is and restroom is located. A s you see the accessible space there is a table that is also an energy observing table as is required by the passenger rail industry now to ensure that passengers are safe during collision and derailments. We have here the lounge car with the upper level on the top half of the slide, and the lower level where the ADA seating on the lower half of the slide. A ndthis is the cab car baggage car once again upper level is the

general seating and lower level is where we find the accessible location along with the accessible restrooms. And as I mentioned, we were in the PRIIA accessible working group we are looking at additional accessibility enhancements for inter

- city passenger rail car as defined by PRIIA. H ere are some of our recommendations. We are looking for two accessible seating positions with two transfer seats on each car that are designated as PRIIA cars. A nd for these seating locations to have a window located next to them. A nd that's just the idea that passengers that are using disabi lity devices, ability devices will be able to have a view as they travel like other passengers. We are also making minor suggestions and recommendations to the PRIIA group such as having a pivoting arm chair. A nd to have tray tables such a workstation ta ble at the accessible seating location. A s you saw from the conceptual drawings that I showed, those are already incorporated into the PRIIA layout this we would like it written within the specification. We also are looking to have 30 at least a 30

- inch vertical clearance underneath the tables if there is a table provided at the accessible seating location or within the dining car at any accessible seating location. Toe and knee clearance needs to be taken into consideration, and we have incorporated som e of that within ourrecommendations. F or the accessible restroom, we are

recommending a power slide assist

-- power sliding doors. And this is to allow access to the restroom to be easy as possible without the need for putting

-- how heavy are those doo rs 200 pounds? T he restroom doors >> I don't know, I would assume

-- >> Melissa Shurland: Well, the restroom doors are fairly having the idea of having a power assisted door will allow users to gain access to the restroom area much easier than having to use the sliding manual doors. Within the restroom itself we have talked about maneuverability and being able to access the toilet, being able to access the sink is very important. We have looked at equipment currently within service and we have seen that folks in power chairs and scooters may be able to gain access to the restroom but may not be able to gain access to the toilet. T hey will not be able to transfer and do what they have to do within that small space or some folks may not be able to gain acc ess at all because of their joy sticks on the mobility devices, or extra accessories that they need for travel. W ithin the restroom we are going to be making a lot of recommendations importantly we are asking for emergency call buttons to be located both from a seated position on the toilet as well as from about 10 inches above the floor. A ndwe will be using the guidance from our view of the ADAAG to

specify various reach ranges. Some of the recommendations such as automatic toilet flush automatic soap d ispense controls being able to reach the sink from the seated position if needed also having the split type toilet seat has been recommended and it might seem to be small, but it will facilitate use of the facilities. One of our more important recommendati ons deals with communication. We have reviewed the current part 38 as we have seen that there is not much within the regulations for communication with passengers that have a disability, and therefore, we feel that for the PRIIA cars at a minimum it shoul d have audio and visual announcements for passengers both informing of travel information as well as emergency information. A nd this will facilitate travels not only passengers with disabilities but for all passengers. Also, of importance, is emergency evacuation for passengers that are using wheel mobility devices if the train breaks down if there is any type of derailment, collision, it's important to get those people off of the train. S o, within the accessibility working group we have identified the ne ed for an emergency evacuation chair that can be stored on the car that can be used to evacuation wheel mobility device users. We have also acknowledged that there is some wheelchair usersas well as other passengers with disabilities that use service

ani mals. A nd we have acknowledged that these animals need to be out of the passageway of other passengers out of the way of luggage that might be wheeled down the aisle or bags. So we

-- we said that for the PRIIA cars it should have space for service anima ls out of passage way of people. A nd it can be under seats, but it has to be within the accessible space so that the user can communicate with the animal. That's it for our recommendation. We are currently working with Amtrak and with our contractor Oreg on State University to take our recommendation and to update various drawings of equipment type to see exactly how feasible they are and also to tweak them and make them a little bit more better. O nce we go through that process, we will he will vote on it within the next generation equipment committee and the specification for PRIIA cars will be updated to include that information. I n December of 2012, the U.S. Department of Transportation also the secretary issued guidance on accessibility on transportat ion equipment. B asically, it was dealing with what to do with accessibility standards

--when accessibility standards apply to rail wars

-- rail cars when there is no specific guidance within Part 38 the NGEC asked the working group to review all of ADAAG a nd to see which other parts are, might be applicable to passenger railequipment. I t pointed to chapters 3 and 9 talking about knee

and toe clearances as reach ranges but the NGEC wanted to look at all of ADAAG and see if there is any guidance we can
use to make train travel a little bit better. S o, the accessibility working group formed the small team consisting of Amtrak the FRA some members from the U.S. Access Board staff, as well as some states, and we reviewed ADAAG, and looking at Part 38 and where Part 38 was silent on a specific feature. We looked to ADAAG to see if we could use any of that information. We developed the table that was disseminated out to you and I just would like to let you know that we have not done any technical feasibility as sessment of these comparisons. We just said here is information that might be useful as you design a rail car to be more accessible. For example, when we talk about public address, there isn't anything significant within Part 38 about communication with passengers that have a disability so we looked to ADAAG and we did find section 810 that speak a little bit more on that, and we also advise the committee that what is in ADAAG bay in the be sufficient that you need to go a little bit beyond that. And as I said, with the procurement that is in process and Stan Hunter is the lead on that effort they are looking at communication devices and protocols for the PRIIA bi

- level equipment and Stan can speak a little bit more to that. S o,the review of the ADAAG was really a tool for the industry

guidance to say these are things that consider as you design a rail car to be accessible. K nee and toe clearances that's not specifically called out within Part 38 but it's important as we talk about gaining access to var ious features within the car and maneuverability, communication. T hat's super important in this age of technology to be able to communicate with all of your passengers. A nd not only the ones that may have a hearing or sight problem but all passengers. B ecause we have all heard the squawks that come out some of the passenger rail equipment giving information, and it's not useful to many of us. S o, as I said, it was really meant for reference guide. S o, in conclusion, within the PRIIA accessibility worki ng group we have identified a few issues that needs to be addressed with accessibility. Maneuverability, and more importantly communication. A nd because we were within a schedule to use public funding to support the PRIIA process as well as California wa s going to procurement process, we were not able to sufficiently and satisfactorily include any type of requirements for communication on the PRIIA bi

- level cars. C alifornia has taken on the task of incorporating a change order that will include some of o ur features that we have identified here. But they will be going beyond what I have discuss and Stancan speak a little bit more to that. I f he would like.

>> Stan Hunter: T hank you Melissa this is Stan Hunter, chief of office of rail. A s Melissa menti oned, Cal Trans is in the lead working with Illinois DOT and next generation equipment committee to procure next generation bi

- level rail car fleet for use in California. A nd throughout the midwest and potentially other locations in the United States as well. And during the development of the specifications for the bi

- level car the next generation equipment committee adopt a number of the recommendations that Melissa discussed for wheelchair access and lift platform size and payload accommodation and some of the other things. And then as a commensurate exercise Cal Trans working in corporation with Amtrak and with the NGEC is developing standards and specifications for a duty mode effective communication system that will be applied to the new equipment cur rently being built by Nippon Sharyo, as well as retroactively applied to the bi

- level rail fleet in California for full system commonality and compatibility. T hat will include as many of the modern standards for dual

- mode communication as we can through v isual signs messages audible announcements, assistive listening devices. We are in the process of framing up the task order that will be utilized through Amtrak's contract with an on boardinformation system provided that Amtrak is soon to award,

and once the award is made then through a task order will develop technical specifications for the installation of the hardware as well as development of the content and the ongoing system management for the passenger communication system including automated annou ncements and signs, realtime announcement system status updates and potential other content passenger information amenities connecting information station stop information. A nd as we go forward within this committee, we will be coming back to the committe e for some advice and pointers as to how we go about developing the system specification and the content of the on board information system so that as we develop the task order and ultimately implement it on the equipment we meet as many of the needs of th e committee as we possibly
can. We have an opportunity to really bring the bi

- level fleet of rare equipment up to a very new standard that goes well beyond the existing ADA requirements, and serves all of our traveling public to a much better degree in ad dition to the needs of the group represented here. S o, I want to thank Melissa and the FRA for putting together this presentation. I think this is a very valuable tool for this group to understand where we are with the procurement of the existing equipme nt. We have gone through two levels of design review on themodern

-- on the new Nippon cars incorporating the

elements that Melissa discussed, as I said, the next step will be to develop the passenger information system standard that will be applied to t hese cars as well. And if there are any questions, you can bring them up now or ask me at any time during today. T hank you Melissa, thank you chairman. >> Billy Altom: D o you have a question? >> Very quick. Two things. I never heard any mention of the space between the cars, so someone doesn't accidentally fall in number one. N umber two we are talking about using buttons, which I don't think there is anything in the ADAAG about it, because it's so much newer, there cannot be touch pads. Touch p ads are not accessible. You don't want to have to try to figure out how to open a bathroom door. T hose are just two things to keep in mind. T hank you. >> Melissa Shurland: T hank you for that feedback. And I think when we discussed emergency call butto ns we were thinking more of mushroom style button versus, as you mentioned, something that might be touch pad.
>> I was thinking more of the ones to open the door into the restrooms for the toilet for the soap, those kinds of things too.>> Melissa Shurlan d: We are cognizant any type of

control devices needs to be accessible. >> Touch pads are so popular now.
>> Melissa Shurland: O ur guide from the Office of the Secretary Rich Dewilder, he actually has some of you guys may know he is a quadriplegic, he ha s been guiding us to incorporate as much as possible.
>> Billy Altom: T hank you. Way in the back. >> Thank you, Melissa. J ustin. T he lifts increase from 600 to 800, I am curious how you arrived at the 800; why not a thousand?
>> Melissa Shurland: T hat was because in talking to the car manufacturer for the structural elements of the car there were concerns that they may not be able to support 800 pounds. 1 000 pounds on both sides of the cars in a cantilever design, so we got guidance from Ricon that 80 0 would be a safer bet to go. T hat was mainly for safety structural purposes.
>> Thank you. >> Melissa, is the intent

-- >> Identify yourself. >> Larry, Amtrak. I s the intent for the with the increased lift capacity to keep the safety factor at 3 or is i t going to

-->> Melissa Shurland: T he safety factor is the same, it's

the design load that has been changed. >> Marilyn Golden: M arilyn Golden from DREDF. I wanted to

-- I don't know when is the right time to say this but I hope the recommendations wh ich, you know, by and large if not completely are very good. S hould be considered as a floor by this group. To work from, I would hope. >> Billy Altom: T hank you. A ny other questions any participants on the phone have a question? O r comments? >> Yeah, I

-- this is Ed Steinfield. C an anybody hear me? >> We got you Ed. >> Maybe I have to

-- I'm sorry, I couldn't hear the entire presentation but I have it up on my screen I got pulled out of the call for a minute. B ut I just have a question about the pla n just having some trouble figuring out what is going on here. O n the lower level, though can

-- what is happening on either end of the plans that show this empty space? A nd the other question that I have is: W hy is there a lift when it looks like there is upgrade entry? O r maybe I am misreading this. >> This is Josh Coran. I think I can answer both of those questions in my presentation on the various types of bi

- level cars.>> Billy Altom: P erfect. W ill that work Ed?

>> Ed Steinfield: Yes, I need to get more of a sense of context how you get in and out and what the lift is for. T hat can wait. >> Billy Altom: J osh, will get that for us here in a bit. Any other questions or comments? Yes. >> I did have one. I just wanted to make sure I wanted to talk specifically about the shared accessibility barrier for deaf and hard of hearing for communication purposes do we have anything

-- >> Can you repeat that? >> Sorry. I am looking at the accessibility that you are talking about here the specifications for the shared need of space for communication for deaf and hard of hearing users. >> Melissa Shurland: C an you elaborate what it is the shared meet up space? I am not quite understanding that. >> For text information, those specifications that you
were talking about announcements deaf and hard of hearing people need to know where

-- have you going to have any shared specifications available for deaf and hard of hearing users for announcements or texts or anything that is happening in specific areas?
>> Stan can speak a little bit to that and then I will follow

- up.>> Stan Hunter: T his is Stan Hunter. I 'm sorry, could

you repeat the question? I missed a big part of it. >> My apologies. >> I just wanted to have

-- have you reviewed any specifications in relation to deaf and hard of hearing individuals, can you elaborate more on what you are going to be doing in that regard basically.
>> Stan Hunter: We are in the process of collecting technical information for assistive listening device s. I know Janice Schacter Lintz who was here last meeting is not here today has offered to assist us in collecting technical information for assistive listening devices inductive loop systems. R ight at the moment what we are doing is framing out the basi c structure of the on board information system in identifying our needs, our areas of need for additional technical information. A nd certainly assistive listening device systems is one area in which we have technical research to do in order to put togethe r a technical specification for the system. S o, we are at the leading edge of that effort but we are very interested

-- in proceeding with the implementation of assistive listening systems in

-- with the assistance of this group. >> Melissa Shurland: To piggyback on what Stan said within the working group and FRA we have had discussionswith representatives from both the blind as well as deaf

community that can provide input and guidance in terms of things contrast rates scroll rates for the equipment so that communication will be to

-- so that within FRA and accessibility working group we have met with the American Council for the Blind as well as the national association of the deaf, to get input on what type of technology is best for communication, as well as the format, as well as items such as scroll rate for text, and contrast. S o, FRA will be supporting Cal Trans and the NGEC going forward to ensure that the communication equipment as provided in the information is accessible as possible. D oes that answer your question? >> Yes, thank you. >> This is Linda Martin, can you hear me? >> Yes, go ahead Linda. >> Linda Martin: I just have one point that I wanted to make about the communication aspect. W hat is in Part 38 right now is basically requires th at passengers be given information about travel. A nd what the regulation says right now is

-- what the regulation says right now basically I am looking the right at it alternative systems or devices providing equivalent access are also permitted. T his

-- there is also a section and appendix

-- this was all written in 1990 which says that we are sort of tabling DOT kind of tabled thediscussion on what those alternative systems or devices would

look like. B ecause at the time the technology was, I guess, i n flux and there was intent to do studies about what the best method of communication would be. A nd so, this is definitely an area in Part 38 that needs a lot of work and needs guidance to make it clear what is required and what is not required with regard to dual

- mode communication. K ind of a source of an issue for us and we hope that the committee will look at that, and decide what you know might be best as a recommendation. T hank you. >> Billy: You're welcome. T hank you. J im? >> James Weisman: I a m assuming you ruled out second level access there was consideration of it and it was dismissed? >> Melissa Shurland: We did a lot of discussions on having access to the upper level however due to maintainability of lifts and reliability the committee dec ided at this time we were not going to go forward with those ideas. We have fairly extensive discussions, there was also structural concerns when we start to consider various collision scenarios. >> James Weisman: J ust a quick follow

- up. A menities would be able on a second level probably that wouldn't be on the first level. A nd I am curious how that was dealt with.>> This is Stan Hunter from Cal Trans. I think

Jeff's

-- not Jeff Josh's bi

- level presentation will clarify the complexity of the situation with the variety of rail equipment that has more than one level, and it's

-- it becomes a real challenge in the tri

- level or multi level rail car community to provide access to more than two levels on the equipment in particular. B ut in answer to your qu estion about amenity, it's our objective to provide all of the same amenities on the lower level of the car as the upper level of the car toilet room access, lighting, public address, water fountain, seating, luggage storage, the only difference is pass

- th rough from one car to another that's the upper level of the car at 100 inch height as Melissa suggested. A ll of the other amenities of the car emergency passage
-- emergency passenger two

- way communication, like I said, it's

-- we are providing as much eq uivalent amenities on all levels of the car as is technically possible, other than pass

- through from one car to the next. The lower level is equivalent to the upper level. >> Billy Altom: A ny other questions or comments? None? T hank you very much. M el issa and Stan, thank you.

(APPLAUSE) >> Chris Hart: I want there is a question. >> Billy Altom: M arilyn, I didn't see you back there, sorry.>> Marilyn Golden: I was hiding from you. M elissa,

these are proposed, I don't know the right language exa ctly. But in some kind of way, these are now proposed for PRIIA they are not part of PRIIA. >> Melissa Shurland: S ome of them are the ones structural in nature the wheelchair lift and wheelchair spacing the vestibule clearance those are actually part of the PRIIA specifications the restroom features such as water temperature limits, emergency call button within the restroom sliding doors those are proposed and we will be going through more review and we should be presenting them to the board by the end of the year. >> Marilyn Golden: T he end of 2014.
>> Melissa Shurland: Yes.
>> Marilyn Golden: I don't know all of the steps but I am curious what needs to happen if anything to make sure they are made part of PRIIA, is there a role for the public to play. >> Melissa Shurland: The process with PRIIA we really in the working group have to show it's technically feasible. A nd then it goes to the policy group which makes policy for accessibility and they will design that

-- you know this is something good for us to do. A nd it's as simple as getting approval from the executive board which consists of votesfrom the states, Amtrak and FRA. T he states have spent one

vote counts as one vote am I correct? S o the 11 states that are participating members have one vote Amtrak has one vote and the FRA has one vote. W ithin the executive board.
>> Marilyn Golden: S o the states have 11 votes or something. >> Melissa Shurland: O ne. >> Marilyn Golden: O ne as a whole I see that must be fun to decide upon. O kay. T here isn't public comment or anything like that? >> Melissa Shurland: T here isn't public comment but the public is allowed to make what we call change requests to the specifications so you can submit a change request and within the committee we would review it and make a determination whether or not that change is possible. A nd we have had change requests from Gary Talbot in terms of accessibility and communication as well as David Nelson. And one of the changes that we have incorporating thus far is the need for assistive listen

-- systems within the train that change was accepted and incorporated into the latest specks however it was after the California procurement that was not part of that spec that was used. B ut since it's my understanding they will be i ncorporating that feature on their
cars.>> Thank you.

>> Stan Hunter: M arilyn, this is Stan again. O ne other thing Melissa mentioned toilet room amenities that had not made it technically into the specification for the bi

- level cars but we are still loo king into touchless faucets and soap dispensers. We are looking into power assist toilet room doors. Water temperature there are Food and Drug Administration regulations for water temperatures we have to do a comparison between what this group proposes a nd what FDA requires. Alot of those amenities. We know they are on the horizon and desired by the group and we are in a position we are we are only rolling them out in the new Nippon order but retrofits to toilet rooms we are adding amenities not only t he amenity for this group but for all passengers and the technology for things for touchless faucets is common standard reliable. I t's more reliable and easier to maintain operationally less to maintain than a traditional button faucet. There is a lot of advantages to adopt a lot of the recommendations even though they are not requirements. >> Linda Martin: T his is Linda. I have one comment when appropriate. >> Go ahead, Linda.
>> Linda Martin: I wanted to make the comment whichis that Melissa you prob ably know this but the specifications

are not regulations they are voluntary I am putting air quotes around that a little bit. S pecifications that builders can use. FRA you know, essentially required it for in certain procurements including the bi

- level multistate procurement. Therefore we are required, in air quotes, to apply those. A nd have graciously agreed to look at all of the other ones that didn't make it into the specification for those new rail cars. But I mean, that's why you know the process is different it's not

-- it's not a rulemaking so there isn't you know the typical notice of proposed rulemaking and commenting and all of that, that will occur you know with this group.
>> Billy Altom: T hank you. >> Robert Carlson. J ust a follow on to that comment about the second level, upper level accessibility. I notice in the cafe car there is a food service elevator, is that a fully accessible elevator or is it like a service elevator for the operation. >> That's just service

-- it's essentially a dumb waiters to move boxes of food products to the upper level. >> All right. T hanks. >> Billy Altom: A ll right. T hank you very much. >> Melissa Shurland: T hank you. >> Billy Altom: We have time for a question.>> Introduce yourself

>> Frank Maldari, MTA, New York. T he question that I had was where did 10 inches come from, the emergency call button height in the bathroom, I was wondering the purpose of that. >> Melissa Shurland: T hat was just in the event that someone falls on to the floor of the re stroom to be able to reach a call button we feel 10 inches was sufficient especially for someone of small stature. >> Okay.
>> Billy Altom: Awesome. T hank you very much. Fun part of being the chair of this I am going to make an executive decision here we are going to take a break for about 10 minutes to give our folks a chance to catch up. A nd our signers the chance to take a little break, and plus selfishly I need to go to the restroom. S o we are going to break for 10 minutes we will come back at a qu arter till and we will be up in with the next presentation. >> People on the call we will leave the lines open. (Short recess taken.) >> BILLY ALTOM: If the members will come back to the table we will get together and do the next presentation on the toil et module footprint. A nd then we will have a chance to go find a place to eat lunch. A ll righty. I t looks like we havefolks pretty much back. T hank you for indulging me for a

quick break. U p next we have our next presentation is from the Bombardier

- - >> Correct. >> BILLY ALTOM:

-- Transportation. A nd we are going to turn it over immediately and just allow you to take off on it.
>> Good morning, my name is Andre Gagne, I work for Bombardier and my presentation is on the subject of toilet modules. T h e first thing that I am going to discuss is the current CFR regulations just a subset of the requirements those that affect the toilet footprint, the second topic is will present a few north American toilet modules, and originally my presentation was suppo sed to end there, but then I had the unfortunate idea of asking my colleagues in Europe to send whatever materials they had right before Christmas. And so they flooded me with information and I am going to present to you

-- I call that the benchmarking bu t let's say a summary of the information that they provided. I am a comparison table that will compare the various modules and requirements in terms of area. A nd then a few conclusions. So, the CFR first of all there is a requirement for the minimum clea r floor area of 35 by 60. T here is requirements for the doorway, it has to be 32 inches minimum opposite to the water closet and 39 inches if it's on the side wall. F ixturesmay overlap under certain conditions. T he grab bars have to

be

-- there is one that has to be behind the water closet. And another one that has to be on the side wall next to the water closet as well. A nd wheelchairs in another section of the CFR wheelchairs have to be 30 by 48 minimum. So

-- now, I found a few issues with those requirements. Here my comments. F irst of all, there is no relationship between the floor area and the water closet itself. S o you leave the rest to the engineers who design the toilet mod actual. S econd of all there it's a rectangle square corners are

n ot necessarily adding usability to the space. A nd another comment is on the grab bars. T hey are attached to walls and not

-- there is no relationship between the grab bars and the water closet. S o, in terms of north American toilet modules the first is from the Long Island railroad cars the M7's you can see the perimeter in the dark line there is a toilet door in orange color 39 inches wide there is a few overlapping features there is a bench here it's give to

-- it's difficult to see with the laser there is the bench the toilet seat is right here (indicating). I will get my laser pointer if you don't mind this one is not working well. G ive me a minute. >> BILLY ALTOM: Andre, could you describe that? >> Correct. T his is a toilet module view from the to p, top down. You see the perimeter itself that's floor heavily.You have the door right here (indicating). A nd then you have

transfer seat that can be folded up. You have the toilet seat here. A nd there is the sink right there (indicating). A nd if I put the minimum clear floor area over that you see it meets the requirements. N ext step is new nerves multi level commuter car. You have the perimeter of the toilet module at the far left right here. T he door in orange here (indicating). A nd overlappin g features are the toilet seat and the sink in the corner right here (indicating). A nd again the minimum clear floor areas 35 by 60. A nd last up is I think it was a request from Mr. Cannon, Amtrak, Acela Express, all three are the same scale you can comp are them. A nd so, again, the toilet module perimeter of the floor level you have the door which is curved 39 inches of clear width opening. And the toilet seat overlaps a little bit on the sink here in the
corner. A nd that might explain why it's maybe a bit more easy to use because there is obviously more space you can see the 35 by 60 but there is more space next to the water closet. T hat might be more convenient for transferring from the wheelchair to the water closet. N ow, in the information I recei ved from Europe, there is the technical specific cases for interoperability the requirements for vehicles that go across borders in Europe. A nd it's from the European railway agency. I f you click or put the presentation in presentationmode and you click on the logo, you can get directly to the

website. A nd I believe this specification is free of charge so if you want to take a look at it for yourself. Next up is the information or operating rule from the international union of railways the UIC they prov ide guidance for accessibility of rail cars. T he last one the next one sorry is from the European committee for standardization they are in the

-- they are developing a standard for the accessibility of toilet modules. I t's not out yet it's being drafted

. B ut you can have different versions one from Germany, one is the British, they are developing one. T hey are going to try to combine them into one. A nd the last document that I got is from the ISO international organization for standardization. It provides requirements for specifications for wheelchairs and occupants. I have a few pictures of European modules. You will see common themes. F irst of all, there is maneuvering space, which is usually a circle. T he water closet is there. You can see the handrail there which is foldable. T here is one on the side wall here and the sink which is accessible from the maneuvering space. T his one is for original cars in Germany. N ext one, again, for high

- speed rail Germany, in Sweden you have the maneuvering space, the foldable grab handle, water closet and other fixed handle here on the side wall and sink. A nd another one in France EGC stillmaneuvering space the foldable handrail fixed handrail and

the sink. S lide differences between modules but they fair ly look the same. T he process that I found in European regulations is the following they start defining what wheelchair and occupant is in terms of dimensions. T hen they talk about transferring the passenger in the wheelchair from the wheelchair to the water closet. A nd then they talk about general accessibility of inside the toilet module. S o, I will touch each of those subjects. F irst one in ISO standard they provide dimensions for the wheelchair. T hey also define dimensions for the wheelchair with the occupant so what you do they add two inches for the feet for the length. A nd two inches on each side for the hands. A nd various regulations define the turning circle, which is 1500 meters or a bit more than 59 inches in diameter. A nd that's the enve lope that the minimum envelope inside which a wheelchair can be turned 360 degrees. The CFR is at 30 by 48 which is just a bit less than the wheelchair with occupant from the ISO. I made a small sketch to put everything into perspective. S o the first dot ted line the dark line is the wheelchair from the ISO. I n gray dotted line here (indicating) is the wheelchair with occupant from the ISO. You can see in blue it's the CFR requirement for the wheelchair. S o very close to the other ones. Youhave the 35 by 60 millimeter floor area here in red. A nd the

turning circle of 59.1 inches in diameter. So next up is transfer methods. T here is two methods that are defined. The first one is diagonal. B asically the wheelchair passenger is facing the toilet between 0 degrees or can go up to angle of 125 degrees on either side of the toilet. To accommodate that kind of traps for. T he second method is lateral. W here the wheelchair is next to the water closet. A nd it can be at an angle between 0 and 40 degrees. Again, to help in transferring the occupant from the wheelchair to the water closet is hand rails so there is

-- it has to go up to the edge of the toilet here water closet. A nd the wheelchair side it has to flip up like you saw on the pictures earlier o n the other side it can be fixed. F ixed. A ccessibility the first thing, there is clear space in front of the water closet obviously for the feet of the passengers. A nd then, the maneuvering space the first thing is the passenger goes through the door, g ets to the maneuvering space, can do a turn access to the various facilities inside the toilet. A nd then get into the transfer position. N ow what I put on the graph there is the lateral position but it could be something else could be a different positio n 40 degrees instead of 0 degrees like it's shown here. And they also mention at the bottom there is a need for a 2 inch radius to facilitate cleaning but it doesn't affect themaneuvering space since I mention there was a 2 inch space

around each side of the wheelchair for hands, so that use that space also to put a radius at the bottom. H ere on this table what I did was to compare the area taken by the various modules and requirements. I can
-- the CFR requires 14.6 square foot you can see the various modules Long Island New Jersey and the Amtrak Express toilets are taking 19 and 24 square foot. T he turning circle by itself is 19.1 square foot. A nd a European toilet style with lateral transfer with turning circle inside is 25.2 square foot. S lightly larger than the Amtrak Acela module it bet uses the space inside the toilet. S o, the comments and conclusions, like I mentioned earlier the CFR does not establish a relationship between the clear floor area and other toilet fixtures. T his clear floor are a is square or rectangular but has square corners so it doesn't have any usable space in those corners. T he ISO covers 80% of wheelchair

-- 85% of wheelchairs this is a statement in the standard that says that. T he wheelchair size defined in the CFR is a lmost identical to the one in the ISO with the occupied wheelchair in the ISO standard. T he CFR requires grab bars to be installed on walls, I believe it would be better if they are located from the closet so they would be more usable. I
was
-- actually some standards in Europe and my colleagues also in Europe mentioned to me that the lateral transfer seemsto be the preferred method the lateral transfer at 0 degrees

seems to be the preferred method that's the one if I go back that's this one here represe nted here. S eems to be the preferred method of transfer from the wheelchair to the water closet. H aving a turning circle inside the toilet makes it easier to access all of the features of inside the toilet including exiting from the front. A nd toilet mo dules that have this turning circle inside are just slightly larger than the ones in the Acela Express the other thing if you have a diagonal transfer position this can lead to a smaller toilet module footprint. A nd this is it. T hank you. >> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you. A nybody have any questions or comments for Andre? >> Blair Slaughter. I apologize, I came in after we started. A re there any weight capacities for wheelchair lifts or anything did you see anything in the European standards for those? >> I do n't remember seeing it but I did not review everything because there was a lot of materials so a lot of features, so

-- >> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. >> To save you trouble and tell you that the design in the CFR is not really accessible. I t was based on old design from Amtrak and at the time of the discussion it was prettyclear that Amtrak didn't want to change the standards so we

fixed it a little bit. We sort of nudged the door and so forth. And we always knew it was inaccessible. O ne of the problems th at Amtrak mentioned they said it was imperative they have two restrooms. O n each car. A nd so, the idea of trying to fit accessible and inaccessible was a problem for

-- from that design. N ow, the Acela has both it has two restrooms a phone booth and acc essible restroom I have used both. T he thing that I noticed when I toured the prototype in Vermont with FRA, and the thing that I noticed was that it had a power door that Amtrak then took off because in fact there is a

-- there is a spot on the wall that shows where the button used to be. At least in some of the Acelas I have been in. The issue is we know that the current standard is not accessible. We need to do something better. T he Bombardier is far better, it allows you to maneuver I could actuall y turn around in this chair and make a side transfer and so forth. I have not seen some of these other toilets to see whether they are really work as well as that one. At least I know that that one worked great. >> This is Andre, would you like to answer the power doors? >> Sure. A s I recall

-- and Andre and I worked on the Acela program together. At the time that the Acela was beingdeveloped, what we had was a sort of a power assist but there

was a time delay feature in the door that allowed the door to remain open for a period of time and then close using the system of counter weights or spring drive or things. Ultimately as I recall, that ended up just not functioning well with any kind of regularity. H owever, the technology, I think it's safe to s ay that the technology for power doors has come a long ways. A nd we are currently applying the power door to our new single level sleeper rooms and it looks like it's going to be very reliable system. S o, I think going forward it becomes a very realistic thing to include without having to worry about it you know working reliably. T he work that was done, Dennis going back to the very earliest days of the ADA, when Dennis was at the Access Board there was a lot of things that constrained Amtrak with its ex isting cars that

-- that we were able to get away from on the Acelas. O ne of them being the way that the toilet systems themselves worked not just the room space. We have done some other tee signs and perhaps in future meetings I can bring those in and s how you where we are heading to have rooms that are truly accessible rather than aligning up to an old sketch in the CFR. >> This is Andre. I f I may, the cut out was for the latching system there was a button to unlatch the door but you had to open it man ually. A nd then there was a system tobring it back to close, to close position automatically.

>> I have a comment that's related. T hat is: O ne of the big problems with all of these doors, is when you close the door the latch mechanism is very close to the edge. I t's very, very difficult to get to it. E specially with the footrest on your chair. N ow, years ago, it was an Amtrak design that had that old inaccessible restroom with the sliding door. T hey actually put the latching mechanism on the other s ide of the door. W hich was convenient for accessibility but nobody ever saw it there and so most of the people that went in didn't know how to latch the door. B ut there is a problem with having that latch even you know with the lever so close to the door

. I think we need to change operating mechanisms requirement that says, any operable control has to be minute number of 12 inches away from an inside corner. >> BILLY ALTOM: Any other comments or Chris did you have? J ohn? >> Jon Holbrook. Stan, if you co uld give a little input on the PRIIA

-- I see there was discussion about the PRIIA toilet room, I don't see the 60 inch turning circle there, and you know the thought there because I see there are some cars where you have the opportunity to have a turning circle and then there is as Blair would attest to there is times when toilet room you want to be able to go straight in, transfer, powerdoor, you know smaller

-- a smaller toilet room. S o, I see

the shape of the PRIIA sketch here and I just wondered you know how the

-- how did that evolve.
>> Stan: T hanks, Jon. S tan Hunter again. T he PRIIA conceptual floor plan provided in the previous presentation was really for the purposes of conceptual layout and in addition to meeting

-- as we went through and developed the specifications for PRIIA of course there was the requirement to meet the minimum Tim mentions of ADA. B ut after the award to Nippon and going through design review of the toilet room module and the circulation of the vestibule and access to the passageway to the accessible seating area, as well as based on the toilet room size for the equipment that we have, in California currently, we in addition to the 35 by 60 rectangular clear space requirement, we added the requirement

-- you there? We add ed the requirement for a 60

- inch radius

-- 60

- inch diameter turning circle as well so we have both 35 by

-- 35 by 60

-- 35 by 50 foot print

-- 35 by

-- sorry. Yeah the 35 by 60 wreck tack gel

-- we have oath rectangle as well as 60

- inch diameter clear spa ce turning circle in our toilet room to meet both requirements. B ecause we felt we had established a level of circulation in the toilet room on the existing equipment that meant both the turning circle and the rectangle and we wanted to maintain that.>> All right. J ust one more thing Billy. I think I

probably get some concurrence of people who thought of toilet rooms in their sleep as far as the designs. O n a commuter car where your vestibule set up is a little bit different in order to have handicap a ccessible toilet room, that 60

- inch circle could be prohibitive or it would have to be moved, you know, further into the car if you have a center

-- center vestibule door like on a lot of commuter cars. I think when it gets to the discussion, there could be some issues of applicability, you know, one car type versus another where you come into the California car and you have that vestibule in the open area to do that but if you were

-- if you came in N vestibule and turned into another door way that went i nto an aisled car you are hard pressed to

-- to put that size of the toilet room. T hey can be accommodated Andre I don't know

-- I don't know whose car it was in Europe it had a power door, you could drive straight into the thing and the power door you know closed behind and control was there. They had about a 0, you know, 0 degree side transfer the sink was right there. You had to hope that the door was incredibly reliable because there was

-- I could understand where a person could do everything in there but if the door didn't work they are in trouble. S o
-- >> Dennis Hunter: O ne of the issues that drove thatparticular design of the old inaccessible restroom was the

placement of the aisle and of course the Acela fixes that having the aisle offset it's not in the center anymore. Part of the rationale or we did discuss that at one point with FRA and Amtrak both, was that to

-- the Acela is level boarding. You don't have step wells in the vestibule. I f you have step wells in the vestibule the fear was if you offset the aisle at all, you would have a possibility of somebody coming down the aisle and getting into the step well if it were open. S o, that was one of the issues. I f you have level boarding, there shouldn't be a problem with that issue. B ut if there are step wells that may be something that needs to be worked on. I t seems to me you could have, you know, a barrier that came into place when the steps were when the trap was lifted. >> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you Ed first >> Ed Hoff, New Jersey Trans it. S ome of the European models and I couldn't tell whether they were power operated or really minimum effort. I f they are really minimum effort, can that same technology be used on a standard rectangular door a flush sliding door. I was curious to know about the circular doors and the effort involved in opening and closing the doors manually your reach range is going to change with every inch that you move the door. A nd what

-- what ergonomics played into determining what the radius wouldbe. F irst of a ll, are they power doors in the European models.

>> Yes, there are power doors I received documentation regarding those and requirements and system functional descriptions for those systems. S o for most of them yes, they are powered. >> Ed Steinfield: A n d the big concern obviously is also Dennis raised earlier with the reliability of the power modules. Are obviously we employ them still today. T he reliability is increased to the point where we are not after prayed to use them anymore are we? >> To use w hat? >> Ed Steinfield: Power doors. >> Power doors for restrooms? We haven't implemented one a power door but I have reliability data from suppliers in Europe that assess their systems improvement have been used in multiple vehicles before and are reliab le
so
-- >> BILLY ALTOM: Blair then

-- >> Blair: O ne of the things that I noticed in the European restrooms, is the proximity the sink to the water closet. A nd our thinking has been for a long time that ideally the sink is accessible while you are still on the water closet. And while you are trying to access is it from the wheelchair. And I have heard that as being very important thing forambulatory folks as well as who have colostomy bags and

things like that being able to reach the sink prior to traps forking or while seated is very valuable. S o, I am just curious what thoughts there might be on that. I t didn't seem to be an issue on the European side. >> BILLY ALTOM: That's a new one on me >> If he look at the sketches,

-- if we look at the sketches let me go back here (indicating). You can see that the Acela module has access to those sinks directly from the wheelchair. F or the other modules it would be a little bit difficult for the New Jersey module and the Long Island railroad module. M aybe dep ending on the size of the wheelchair it would be difficult. F or the

-- if I go to the modules from Europe, from what I see they are all accessible directly from the wheelchair. S o that could be a feature that's implied in the rule saying that this is pre ferable or mandatory.
>> Right. >> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. >> Terry with RailPlan. Two issues, curb door powers and manual. We design and build superliner coach accessible bathrooms with curved doors without power with very low effort to operate them. A nd th e new view liner accessible bedroom which is also bedroom, bathroom, and shower, has a curved powered door and when you lose power it's also veryeasy effort manually opening door.

>> Okay. >> Terry: A s a matter of fact, the superliner coach bathroom was given an international design award through the Brunell organization jointly with RailPlan and Amtrak we had international positive attention for once.

(LAUGHTER) >> BILLY ALTOM: Awesome. J ackson? >> Yes. J ust answering Ed's question. J ust from what I have seen internationally if you ever get a chance to ride for example the Seimen's high

- speed train they have ADA toilet module with a power door that's curved. A nd it's from what I have seen fairly reliable you push a button the door opens you get on the other side you push another button it automatically closes there is another button under that to lock the door. As

-- as was mentioned if you know in the event that you do lose power there is a latch on there that you could manually open and close th e door with little effort as well. >> BILLY ALTOM: Awesome. C hris? >> Chris Hart: I would just note the curved doors if they are in

-- in use for the last 25 years comparing that to my travels as a high school student in Europe when I didn't know

-- gett ing on the GTB I was there in '94 it was amazing to see the difference compared to existing new rails. W hatthe design was. I n Europe or in Asia, you would not walk into

a stainless steel vestibule with ice and here in a sense we do that from Chicago eas t.

(LAUGHTER) >> Chris Hart: A nd I say that in 2014. S o, our European and Japanese colleagues figured out how to put (inaudible) in vestibules. S o, in some ways we are trying to catch up with where

-- around the world. I think what Andre did so graph ically it show that one thing that Stan said he could help us to overlay existing California that will help on to Andre's so

-- so the existing California rail you can see what that one looks like. I t's similar to that one that's in use in Dallas Ft. Worth and a couple other commuter rail systems, you see there is a lot of commonalities in what California is doing just 10 years

-- i don't know how long that

-- I don't know how old this equipment is to what Dallas Ft. Worth is and a couple of other systems clea rly, I think it shows exemplary areas in where the industry has figured it out. And given electric doors, I am pretty confident this is not a (inaudible). >> BILLY ALTOM: Jon. >> I am looking at, Terry mentioned the bathroom I am looking at it on your sit e. T he discussion really will come down to it's about transfer. T hat's a diagonal. A nd then youhave the lateral

-- and then you have the lateral there are

spatial constraints but then again he and I are probably not the ones to be speaking to the prefe rence. B ut that's what it comes down to wouldn't you say Terry spatially whether it's a diagonal or

-- >> Terry: I n our case it comes down to what the agency, the specific agency has set as a target. A nd what they

-- what they set as their priorities. S o , if the agency says, and I don't think I have ever heard this but we don't care about revenue seats, give us the best bathroom you can, you know, we can do a wonderful job. T hey rarely say that. S o, it's

-- it is the compromise of you know what the minim um requirements are what the optimum is and some balance in between. A nd quite frankly what we do is a reflection pass through our customer who is typically the car builder and it's their interpretation of what the agency directs them to do. >> BILLY ALTO M: Any other questions or comments from or participants on the phone? >> Dennis Hunter: B ombardier is the drawing

-- because in addition to setting out measurements and so forth in guidelines it's useful to have a drawing that shows those guidelines that has measurements in it are they Bombardier drawings of the Acela toilet proprietary or could they be used in the guideline?>> Andre Gagne: W hat I did make sketches from the

original drawings I would have to look it up with the legal department, okay, to see if we can provide those drawings freely. A nd I will give that to you later. >> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. Larry? >> Larry: I will say that if it

-- if it helps the process, from the Amtrak side, when we typically go out if we are working with a suppliers li ke RailPlan, we buy the engineering so we own the designs that's not necessarily the case when we buy cars. B ut I think it's safe to say if sharing that information for the process helps the committee anything that we have we will be glad to share with th e organization. A s long as it's not owned by a

-- >> Mike Wetherell. I suggest what we do if we do something like we don't take a particular car builder's drawing and put in what we put forward. W hat we should do is take it and derive information from i t and use a sketch we don't want to show favoritism or anything

-- >> Larry: I f I may, again it's important to understand when the Acela bathroom layout was done there was actually some aspects of that that don't meet the strict letter of the rule, and th ere was an equivalent facilitation done with Bombardier on that back in its development. I t's more functional and that was part of the development process. S o,I would say we have to be careful on what we use if from that

standpoint. I agree I think it' s important that we show here are examples of what functions well. I will go a little further and say, I think if we are diligent it our process here, we should go so far as to define what levels of what transfer methods are provided if it's one method wh ich I which is dangerous we should have multiple methods for transfer because that will accommodate more people. >> Chris Hart: I f I might I would like to interject. I just want to answer regarding research. ( inaudible) Ed and staff I am sure will be ha ppy if folks are interested to go through some of that research so that folks understand because questions raised this morning are questions that folks have asked off and on for years. B ut now that really good dialogue help form questions going forward. And transfers, there is no one transfer that is ever (inaudible). >> BILLY ALTOM: Any other questions or comments? Just as a person who uses a wheelchair and travels a lot, one of the things that I look for in accessibility and that you value accessibility for is because the thing that I get every time pick a mode of transportation I travel by myself. A nd that's the first thing that happens are you by yourself? I am going so we have to keep in mind that people with disabilities can do and will travel by themselves without the help of other folksso those accessibility features are incredibly important

for

-- especially from a personal level I wanted to throw the commentary out there. T hank you Andre for your presentation, I appreciate it. Let's give him a hand. T hank you. (APPLAUSE) >> Dennis Hunter: I assume
-- one assumes that you will have the nurse >> BILLY ALTOM: In the Netherlands they assume I will have a nurse? >> Dennis Hunter: O r some companions the accessibility is designed that way.
>> BILLY ALTOM: We will have someone perfect timing you got us to the bottom of the hour it's 12:30. I think we should

-- I think we should work until 1

-- no, I wanted to see people's expressions I think we should go ahead and take our break for lunch we c an come back at 1:30. Perfect. There are places to eat just outside around the corner I am not sure you are aware if you go straight across the street into the building there is a food court on the

-- you are going to be around me long enough to know eve ry time I point it's going to be to my right.

(LAUGHTER) >> BILLY ALTOM: You want to go that way. T hank youvery much we will break for lunch and be back at 1:30 for

those on the phone be back here in just an hour. >> Ladies and gentlemen on the telec onference the phone line will remain open. (Lunch recess taken.)