Note: The output shown below i s from the

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

- board Circulation and Seating S ubcommittee meeting and is unedited

. The CART system was used to provide an accommodation to persons with hearing loss and persons who are deaf, and was streamed in real

- time and available to the public on the internet during the meeting.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014 U.S. Access Board

>> PAUL BEATTY: Thank you. Welcome to the meeting of the onboard circulation and seating subcommittee. J ust to let you know, we will not be having a public comment time. I t's not shown in the agenda. T he reason is anybody can participate in the call. Let you know the CART system chat box is not available for subcommittee participants who are only using the CART system to participate and if you desire to raise a question or make a statement use E

- mail addre ss RVAAC @ access board.gov. I will start to let you know who is here.
>> Lisa Fairhall. >> JIM PECHT: Jim Pecht. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Melissa Anderson.>> MARSHA MAZZ: Marsha Mazz.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Thank you those on the line just chime in. >> Bob Reuter

. >> Ed Steinfeld. >> Gary Talbot. >> Crystal Lyonns. >> Marilyn Golden. >> (inaudible) >> Ken Shiotani from National Disability Rights Network. >> Frank Maldari. >> Ed Hoff. >> (inaudible) >> Melissa (inaudible) from FRA. >> Blair Slaughter, Amtrak. Iam not sure if I was on mute before.
>> PAUL BEATTY: All right. Iguess we are ready to get started. I will turn the call over to Blair.
>> Okay. H ello everybody. I t's

-- we are going to have a fairly busy day. I trust everyone has got the agenda for t his week's meeting in front of them one way or the other? S o, if we could, just to get going if we could approve the agenda that would be
awesome. I am assuming everyone had had a chance to look at it. I know how busy everyone is. >> Can you hear me? T his is Ed Steinfeld>> I can hear you Ed.

>> Fine. I don't have it in front of me but I am trying to find it. >> This is Billy if you need a motion I make a motion to accept it. >> Blair: T his there is a motion on the floor any second? D on't everyone jump in at once >> Marilyn. I will second it.
>> Blair: O kay, thanks Marilyn. O kay. Iguess the easiest way to do this does anyone

-- if there is any nays we can discuss those b ut otherwise we will consider it

-- >> Hello? >> Blair: Yes? >> Hello? Yes, okay, sorry, sounded like my line dropped out.
>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay.
>> This is Gary Talbot, it sounded like mine did as well. >> MARSHA MAZZ: We are hearing you. >> Blair: T he line does sound a little bit scratchy today. Everyone there? >> Yep.
>> Blair: O kay. U sually during these we will hear from shuffling and things going around but the silence is very silent. Okay. H earing no

-- no dissenting comments, we will assume t hat the agenda is approved. What I would like to do today folks is

-- what? >> Marsha, was that you?>> MARSHA MAZZ: We are having a little bit of a problem with

our microphones here. B ut, yes, I heard Gary. A nd I think it was Bob Reuter who asked whethe r they were heard. >> Blair: T his is Blair Slaughter. I tried to set the agenda up today so that we could have limited discussion about Vertical Access to go back on what we did last week. A nd then the

-- my goal if everyone agrees with it is to establ ish a few things and then leave Vertical Access for now. W hat I would like to be able to do is take information coming in today and build floor plans and things that would let us apply what we have talked about so far into some scenario

-- some scenarios to see what it does to the cars and then we will talk a little bit more factually about what we recommend going down the path. >> This is Marilyn, could I ask something? >> Blair: S ure. >> Marilyn: D id you incorporate in your view all of the input sent i nto the draft proposal? >> Blair: M arilyn, I took what

-- because a lot of what I got was more general and not specific to Vertical Access. Vertical circulation. S o, I tried to put everything in there that I

-- that made sense. I will not promise that I got everything in there that needed to be there. S o I invite everyone to look at it again and mark it up. I f possible, if everyone has you know access to Microsoft Word, if you could

-- if you could mark it up with trackedchanges in Microsoft Word or PDF mark it up with Adobe Acrobat,

that would be awesome. A nd then the comments are right where they need to be in the document. A nd that will help me not miss things and if anything is not included it's not because I didn't think it was relevant, necess arily. I may have just missed it. B ut I did try to work through the various things that folks sent that were information like Marilyn, you had, for example, the statement I included at the end of the document of the draft that I don't think we put down i n paper anywhere where I felt like it was relevant to virtually everything that we are doing not just vertical accessibility. And that was your comment that features providing access for people with disabilities must be equivalent to those provided others in terms of functionality and aesthetics not segregate individuals with disabilities ideally accessible features should be the norm for everyone. A nd I thought that was

-- you know, you wrapped up so much of what we were supposed to be doing in those

-- those sentences. I wanted to make sure maybe the first time it was captured, written down what we were doing.
>> Marilyn: T hank you. T his is Marilyn, thank you. I haven't had an opportunity to go over this in depth. I think that I may sent some other things I sent two E

- mails.
>> Blair: You did, yes.
>> Marilyn: You got both of them, okay. Ineed to do that andwe can set another deadline that's fair for that. Iam not asking

people to hold it open indefinitely it would be good to have a chance to review it and mark it up again if necessary and to under the assumption and until we have all had a chance to do that, and until

-- until either we have read by consensus or by vote

-- agreed by consensus in subcommittee agreement it's not be considered th e subcommittee agreement. >> Blair: M arilyn, I would agree with that absolutely. T hat's why if people want to get

-- you know, spend time on it today we can go back through my draft and what I added in there with some minor exceptions. I think Ken had s ent me stuff in Microsoft Word marked up in track changes. A nd I accepted the changes and there weren't many changes but they were

-- they were relevant, I thought. U nfortunately, they are not highlighted in red. B ut the rest of the things that I change d are highlighted in red. S o, I would welcome everyone to have a look at them and comment. I don't want to close it up now. I don't think that we are near being ready to do that. I t's too big of an impact for the community and for the railroads. I don 't think that we are near done yet. W hat I would like to do today as we move through the agenda on item 4, is come to a point where on my end I can go back and develop the floor plans that are dimensionally correct with as much information as we have today. A nd look at the different car types and things like that. A nd then come back and circulate that with everyone, haveyou know, a conversation based on the physical realities of it. S ee

that it's doing what we expect it should do for everyone concerned

. And then we can, I think, build a solid set of recommendations back to RVAAC and come up with something that we

-- >> Marilyn: O ne last procedural point if I may I promise to be quiet for a while. A nd just

-- you know you are putting in a loft time, B lair, and I appreciate it and we are blazing a trail of how to separate so

-- so as it evolves it won't be perfect so we (inaudible). One piece of input that I would request, if we will do things in track changes which is a perfectly legitimate request, a nd I know that, for me, since some of the disability input that at least DREDF will make are general principles what I will do is make a section for general principles. B ut, anyway, if we do that, it would be great if something you could do, in a subseque nt draft, as marked up from the previous ones showing changes. S o that we don't have to review the thing in its entirety everyone just things that are marked. I understand what happened last time you already accepted them they were accepted it didn't hap pen, that's no problem. J ust making a proposal on a going forward basis.
>> Blair: Yes. A nd Marilyn, to that point, that was my intent. It was only after we had gotten everything up to the point that it (inaudible) that I realize the changes were no lo nger highlighted. I will go back in and for the next go around make sure that

-- that everything is highlighted, and maybe I can highlight the stages.But, obviously it changes the old data the mark

- out stuff goes away

you -- and you lose the highlight. I can redo the highlight. To your point so you won't spend a lot of time figuring out what change you will see what the change is. Iwill leave the old information and the corrected. >> Marilyn: Yes, let's talk offline. T here are ways to do it that aren't track changes there is code language a custom of marking out and underlining so that you can always

-- you are not doing it by track changes but putting in formatting. A nyway, not worth the group time. T here is way to do this, that isn't very hard but it will show the pathway that you have taken.
>> Blair: R ight. I think historically it will good for us to be able to reach back and understand that, so inevitably there will be que stions about how we did one thing or another. I t's good to be able to reach back in time and see what led to those changes and those events. S o, okay. I know Microsoft Word you can do wonderful things with. You can have all of the data in there and hid e it so you only see the finished document and you can turn it back on to understand what happened before. S o, okay. But the goal, of course, is to make sure that everyone understands what is changing as we go forward and that we keep track of what the previous document was so that we don't lose the data. O kay. >> Hay, Blair. T his is Frank Maldari. W here is the worddocument? I am just finding it on the website it's just have to print

to an old Adobe file. I s it

-- >> Blair: F rank, you bring up a very good point. >> Ed Steinfeld. I copied and pasted it, it is fine, leaves all the formatting.
>> I think we just took it from the website and pasted it to Word to submit comments or look at it. >> Hello? T his is Dennis Cannon. W hat document specifically are you looking at right now? B ecause I am lost. >> It's going below the agenda, it's the draft recommendations for vertical

-- >> I don't have the agenda either I don't have any E

- mail connections to this. >> Oh, um

-- >> I can forward you an E

- mail Den nis that will link to everything.
>> PAUL BEATTY: This is Paul Beatty consistently we put all of the meeting material on the RVAAC website. I f you go to WWW.access

- board.gov/RVAAC there is a link to the meeting materials. >> Okay. T hat one I didn't find either. B ut I will find it let me look.
>> PAUL BEATTY: Go on the RVAAC website it has all the necessary call in numbers et cetera.>> Hey Paul, is there a reason why you couldn't put the word

document in the folder there.
>> PAUL BEATTY: I am not an I .T. guy. Ican ask whether there is any way of putting it in there. >> MARSHA MAZZ: There is a print option you should be able to do that.
>> The Word document to

-- >> MELISSA ANDERSON: This is Melissa Anderson. B efore our next circulation and seating c ommittee meeting, I will make sure that we mail out all of the meeting material prior to and help make it easier for everybody. >> Thank you. >> Blair: O kay. I just, this is Blair. Ijust tried doing a cut and paste from the website and that worked find dropping it into Word all of the formatting was maintained. I f that helps anyone immediately. S o, okay. Let's see. One of the if we move down the list

-- I want to

-- pardon me for being (inaudible). I want to make sure I don't miss it. One of the comm ents that came from I forget if it was Marilyn or who, but it was on the car types, and so item 4.1 is determine the car types to be addressed. A nd I had corrected in the draft recommendation before we had just talked about the lounge car but I added in t he section called applicability in the draft that it wouldinclude cars coaches and sleepers. A nd that diners would be

accessible from the adjacent cars because the lower level of the diner is consumed by the kitchen. So, that really lines out most of the cars that are available to the public (inaudible). >> Bob Reuter. I may have one

-- one of the people that brought it up the point being we are not discussing inner

- city rail cars all rail vehicles which includes things like commuter cars streetcars ligh t rail incline and all the rest. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Bob can you speak more directly into your phone or speak up. >> Bob: I 'm sorry, I guess I can talk a little louder. I was referring to

-- we are not just discussing Amtrak type cars but also all type of ra il vehicles while we are here from streetcars, light rail, commuter cars, even down to rails and incline plains.
>> Bob, this is Blair. I understand that for the sake of Vertical Access our discussion so far have been around inner

- city long distance primarily. A s benefiting from the second level access. When we get into onboard circulation (inaudible) that is across the board applicable. T here are some areas obviously that won't be to all modes but there is a lot of things obvious ly that apply to all of the modes when it comes to interior circulation. B ut for the Vertical Access, I am looking for starting points for bi

- level cars so that I can build some strawman sketches of the cars themselvesthat we can work on down the path.

> > Hey Blair, this is Gary Talbot, if I could comment on two things: I completely understand what you are talking about. M y only concern with long distance is San Diego to Los Angeles take a route like that one of the most gorgeous in the country. I t's a bout what an hour and a half hour and 45 minutes bi

- level car right on the ocean that would be my concern with the long distance piece in there. I would request that maybe we soften that or you know just expand from pure long distance. S o that we make su re we capture stuff like that. I think that would be important to do that. T he other comment that I have was on the diner. I completely agree with you with the current stock but because the rulemaking would end up being for things that aren't yet design ed, I think that we might want to include the diners, where you know, if you had a different diner arrangement I don't want access directly that I think given current bi

- level cars you are absolutely right gain access from the adjacent car for future stuff that could change. J ust a thought on that. >> Blair: Yeah, I think that obviously we have what we have today. A nd that is diners that are strictly dining cars and lounges that are sort of a multi purpose car. A nd the space that is needed for the kitch en I can't begin to

-- to know what food preparation is

-- space is going to be required with the next series of cars are ordered. B ut my bet would be that a lot of those functions willhave to occur somewhere. A nd then we also get into

-- when we

start talking about you know putting things together. We get into FDA concerns about what is in the kitchen. S o, I

-- we can certainly figure out a way to craft it if it's a multi use car doing multi Tim things where there is no diner and a lounge but maybe it 's a combination car then it becomes more appropriate to try to do that. So now I guess we have to figure out how to word it so we keep that

-- it's understandable.
>> This is Robert Carlson, I have a comment regarding the

-- that bi

- level kitchen kind of situation. That we just make it

-- you know, there is a bi

- level access where you have passenger services actually resident in that car on that level. I mean, we are not looking at having to go through the kitchen to get to the second floor. S o, if there is no passenger amenities there you wouldn't need Vertical Access and you wouldn't

-- you would gain it from an adjacent car.
>> This is Gary Talbot. I would add

-- I would suggest something like all cars. M ust be on an accessible route if the dining room had a bottom the adjacent car had Vertical Access you need access from the adjacent car to the dining car.
>> Actually, that's a good way of putting it because that's one of the requirements for transit facilities is there be accessible route from the exterior to every passenger service area within the facility. That same language could apply to the train car.>> Yes, I agree, thank you.

>> This is Marilyn. Iagree too. J ust to throw out a general principle, I mean I like saying

-- I like what Bob an d Gary just said. Another general principle to think about is that if you are trying to figure out

-- what to talk about like what I have learned from the code is you don't say what you are including but you will inevitably forget something. You say what you are accepting. Say what you are not including then you can debate discuss whatever should any exemptions be there at all. M aybe not. B ut if you include it it's hard not to forget (inaudible).
>> This is Dennis Cannon, I got cut off for a minute the re, my phone crapped out on me. I s there anybody on that call that is a car manufacturer or the FRA? >> (ringing.) >> Maybe they are calling in. (LAUGHTER) >> I represent Bombardie on the car, Andre Gagne from Bombardie.
>> One of the things back when we were writing the first guidelines we were told by both car manufacturers and the FR remarks there are mandatory I believe called collision posts in the ends of the car.
>> Correct.
>> That prohibited

-- that made it impossible to make theopening any w ider than 30 inches to get from car to car. I s that

still true? >> Andre: I would have to review it. Iknow we have collision posts. I know the distance is fairly limited between the two collision posts.
>> Because I know that that is why the current r ule says the
car -- the passage from one car to the other is 30 inches. A nd it doesn't make it 32 or anything like that. S o, the only problem with the issue of accessible paths. T he other question is in a double decker sleeping car by the

-- what is the aisle width on the upper level do you know? >> Andre: I f you give me a few minutes I will check and advise. (inaudible) >> That affects how you actually get into the dining car. >> Andre: Yes, that is correct. I will

-- I will check the set up I believe we have 32 inches between the collision points it's wider because there is also (inaudible) in the collision post.
>> I know it's wider in the Acela because I have been in the wider car into the cafe card I know it's wide I am not sure it's true for oth er trains.
>> This is Chris Hart. D ennis, I believe there is also (inaudible) certainly if you look at a new commuter rail you have easily more than 32 inches between the bumpers, include the rail, I believe that is a moot issue at this point.>> Okay.

>> Andre: T his is Andre again issue on some bi

- levels you don't have a high level end, you have intermediate level. S o you have to take the stairs down to the intermediate level from the upper level you know to reach the end doors. S o you don't necessaril y have access through there. B ut if you have a bi

- level which is similar to the ones we provided to Amtrak on the super liners those are equipped with high level end doors same thing for California. T he Cal Trans cars the bi

- level cars they are ordering
now. T hey will have eye level end doors. I t's difficult to write a rule for awe bi

- level cars I believe Josh Coran mentioned that in a previous meeting in Washington. We have to be precise on the type of bi

- level that we are looking at here. >> Dennis, this is Blair. T he new single

- level cars that we are getting have a 32 inch passage in the collision post area.
>> Oh, good, thank you.
>> Blair: I think that what we were dealing with going back, you know, to 1989, 1990 was the predominance of cars did not have that condition on their collision post.
>> Right.
>> Blair: A nd the problem was that going back and correcting those collision pos ts on the existing cars was a

-- a huge, huge structural undertaking on the cars.
>> Right. I know that as well as moving them the bulk heads inthe vestibule is not practical either, I understand that.

>> But I

-- >> This is Melissa from the FRA and I wa nted to clarify that the FRA requirements for collision posts are for them to be located about 1/3 from the end of the car. S o, there is no requirement for 30 inches between (inaudible) to the end of the car going inward.
>> Okay. >> Linda Martin: A lso F RA I was going to reiterate what Melissa just said which was that

-- and what Blair said earlier about how the

-- it was based on the existing equipment not that it couldn't be different but that's what it had.
>> Okay. >> Yes. >> Blair: S o, I think that we have some clarification looking at the long distance bi

- level.
>> There is no search capacity there. A nd after

-- you know, I have pulled Eric aside after yesterday and said, well, it might be too (inaudible) but you (inaudible). >> Sounds like somethi ng unmuted.
>> That's not normal.
>> Somebody needs to mute their phone.
>> Emergency situation >> Please. B ut he does have a point if we are looking for
some -->> Somebody accidentally.

>> Can you mute that person Paul? >> Does anybody know who it is? We can mute them if we know who they are. (Discussion off record.)

>> That seemed to take care of it.
>> Okay. (LAUGHTER) >> Thank you Paul. >> Blair: S o, I think, what I got in a nutshell was, if a car

-- if a car has access public access on (inaudi ble) level or passengers then it must have an accessible route to it. A nd that would

-- would give some flexibility on how we would approach the diner. A nd, again, my goal is to be able to apply what we have talked about so far to the multiple car types and see what shakes out of that. A nd I think my goal would be to get out of that more conversation with some pictures in front of us. T hat will help us once we are

-- if we take it as we are expanding outward and looking at things it will help us come back in and narrow things down and craft the recommendations. >> Bob Reuter here. O ne of the problems with a lot of these is that because the cars are bidirectional they can be turned in either direction, to make sure both ends can be used. I know in thes ingle level diners you can get in one end but not from the other

because of the kitchen in the way. >> Bob, this is Blair. F rom a railroad operating perspective when we have cars coupled together and on the mechanical side where I come from, we wo uld like them to stay coupled up because everything is better if you don't uncouple them and move them around. N ot saying that we don't want them uncoupled. People that handle the trains switch them every way you imagine and couple them up again. H oweve r, if we ask them to couple them up a certain way, they will swear that they are welded together. (LAUGHTER) >> Blair: W ith that I will say that that is a railroad operation issue. A nd if the

-- if the rule comes down and says that you got to arrange your trains a certain way by gosh, that's the burden it's not a huge burden the trains will have to be arranged that way to provide the accommodation.
>> This is Linda Martin. T here is actually a rule that says that. And we have

-- I don't know where it's at I don't want to talk about it a whole lot. B ut we have had recent discussions with Amtrak about it. Idon't know if Calvin is on the call but

-- Calvin are you on the call? I guess not. B ut he our civil rights director he could have give you a litt le bit

-- again, that's operations it is already a rule.
>> All right. S o, to that end, I mean, I wouldrather

-- depending on the vehicle there may be situations where

by having it accessible from one end it improves the maybe the quality of the vehicle of the accessibility. A nd then that puts the burden on the operator to make sure the trains are linked up correctly. I don't mind signing up for that burden. By gosh we are railroads we should be able to couple trains up correctly.
>> Of course, again B ob Reuter of course the problem comes in on the fact that you have coaches and usually the diner separates the coaches from the sleepers. S o, you have people coming in from both ends.
>> Blair: R ight, Bob I don't want to take too much

-- to dig too much into designing it right now, but here, this would be just to think out loud, again, this is as soon as I can get something in front of everyone it will help us. I f we had a coach that was accessible from the lower level, let's say you had Vertical Access within the coach. A nd that coach should have its accessible end that's near the stairs and the restrooms and all of those things, should be coupled up to the lounge car. T he sightseer car. O bviously we can't have pass through the entire car seats but (i naudible) from the end of a coach it's coupled up to a lounge car. T he lounge car is the one car in the train that I feel like we could make an accessible pathway throughout the entire upper level. S o, you could go into that car from a coach, all the way through it, and if the diner is accessible or there is

-- or we end up with accessible tables in thelounge, you have got that access. F rom the other end of the diner,

typically you have sleepers the first class passengers are coupled to the diner direct ly. You would be able to enter from the accessible end of the sleeper at the upper level into the diner. T hat would be what I am assuming now. S o, the idea would be that the lounge becomes a very key element in the train, it's a very desirable element for people to come and use, and get the most out of the higher level. B ut it also becomes the

-- a pathway car to expand accessibility on the second level as much as we can. >> But not all (inaudible) have a lounge do they? >> Blair: D ennis, no. N ot righ t now, they don't. N ot all (inaudible) have

-- typically in the diner they have a lounge. Sometimes they may only have a lounge. A nd not a diner. O r there may be some other minor amenity or it could be a coach train. I think we still have some

-- some super liner equipment running in coach only situations. I would have to check the

-- you know the trains themselves. B ut from what we are saying now, we are looking at making virtually all of the revenue cars and the sightseer lounge accessible at some form to the upper level. B ut if you have a lounge, if a lounge is a minimum food service amenity car on the train then, again, it becomes very key element for accessibility. >> This is Ed Steinfeld. I would like to ask a question, probably the board staff. I liked Gary's comment about we should look to the future as well as consider what is on the drawing boards nowand what is, you know, available now. I n other regulatory

activities, there is sometimes a regulations that set a standard and then propose another standard or set another standard 5, 10 years down the road is that feasible with this? >> MELISSA ANDERSON: This is Melissa from the Access Board. Your task is to make recommendations to the board. A nd then we will write up proposed

-- proposed language for the regulations which will be adopted by DOT. At some point in the future, they will be reviewed and updated. B ut that may be many years -- many years out. >> So, if I understand that correctly, what you are saying is that we could. I t migh t not be accepted, but we could. (LAUGHTER) >> MELISSA ANDERSON: You can make recommendations you know, they need to be realistic. We also once we propose a rule, industry and the public get an opportunity to comment, which frequently will result in c hanges to the recommendation

-- to the text that was written based on the recommendation. >> Also, the board has to prepare regulatory assessments and so that's sort of a cost benefit. S o, some of the things fall out because they simply can't pass muster. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Right. >> Just to follow up on that, was that Dennis? >> Yeah.>> The

-- in other words, if we

-- if we propose something like

10 years to achieve another level a higher level of accessibility, then if we can't figure out whether it c an be done or can't or what the cost is then that will fall out of the reg because there is no way to

-- to look at the cost impact.
>> Yeah. O nly thing is the 500

- pound gorilla it does what it wants. A nd whatever is proposed if OMB doesn't like it it do esn't fly period.
>> You didn't answer my question there

-- the

-- >> If you can't really do a cost analysis, that and benefit analysis of that proposal and it would be pretty tricky to do OMB will say you can't do that unless you provide the information to us. I t would be a tricky issue to make something for 10 years down the road and try to figure out what the cost and benefit of that would be. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Dennis, this is Marsha. Iam not willing to constrain the committee in this way. To the extent t hat the committee can help with cost and benefit information that's wonderful. B ut it's the committee's job to make recommendations and to make whatever recommendations they see fit

-- >> I wasn't suggesting that the committee should limit its recommendat ions based on that. Iam simply saying if the

-- that the board will have to do it it's possible that something that is recommended won't work.>> MARSHA MAZZ: That's true of everything that is

recommended. >> That's something for the board to decide. >> MARSHA MAZZ: T hat's true of everything that is recommended the board will decide on a variety of factors not just the regulatory cost. A nd so, you know, that is outside of the committee as control. I would urge the committee to make wh atever recommendations they see best if you want to focus your time and smart to focus on what is achievable now, or what you believe is achievable now that is probably a good thing to do. Rather than prospective things that might be achievable in 10 year s. >> This is Ed Steinfeld I agree with what you are saying Marsha. I think that we could we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we all might agree certain things might be desirable down the road they are not achievable now and put them into a category that me might give thought to after we get the first most important priorities done that you know what we would recommend that the board consider down the road. You know, and

-- and maybe industry can come up with feedback too. T hey know technologies bei ng developed that we don't know about, they could say, yeah, that might be achievable 10 years from now 20 years from now. T hat would be a good thing to do get it on record. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Again, I can't agree more but in 10 years we may have revolutiona ry changes in wheelchairs as well. W hichwould change the anthropometry. S o, you know there are factors

that may not be within the committee's grasp or may not be you know, the committee may not be able to contend with because they are unknowable. 1 0 or 15 years from now. M aybe that's for the next RVAAC committee. >> Blair: M arsha this is Blair I think the comments are good I appreciate what Dennis is saying, one of my goals in getting to the point where we can get pencil to paper on

-- a clean sheet of paper not worrying about what Amtrak's current bi

- level cars look like, drawing PRIIA has done so far, but, also, being a little blue sky, and coming up ultimately with what we think are realistic recommendations, and I would not be surprised if we have that and we have some things that are out there a little bit. S o, we push the envelope if we

-- I think even as representing Amtrak, who has a lot of

-- a lot of interest in this and stands to gain and lose the most arguably, we have to push the envelope because if we don't push then we never get anywhere. B ut there are a few things that won't change going forward, as much as we would like them to. T hey won't in any of our lifetime and not likely our children's lifetimes. The trains won't get any bigger

. H opefully they won't get any taller I think they are quite tall enough. T hey won't get any wider. T hey doubtfully will get any longer because of the operating footprint in North America is probably about all it's going to be. People are more likely to get bigger rather than smaller and thetrains are not getting any bigger. T hose things we can count on.

And what we also can count on is technology will change. B ut the only

-- I think the only technology that is going to have any potential affect down the path will be possibly wheelchairs and maybe what the configurations are. B ut there is physical factors that are going to keep all of that within some range of size. S o, if we were talking about communication issues, those kind of things I think are wide open. I f you went back 20 years and said this is what you will have in 20 years you would laugh. Ithink for rail cars there is a lot of stuff you are simply not going to change we have to think how creative can we be in the confines that we have to live with. A nd that may mean that we

-- we have to look at operating things a little differently, arranging things a certain way. Rearranging things within the box that is the train. S o, I don't want us to

-- to get too bogged down at this point, I thi nk we will have the opportunity as we work through this to come back and see for ourselves if there is in practicalities. T hat we will

-- that jeopardize what we want to achieve. Take those out of the picture. Then there may be some things that we feel like from a recommendation standpoint we have to push forward and let

-- let the Access Board sort those outgoing forward. A nd the industry and community as well when it comes time for comment. So, with all of that said, I feel comfortable that I have got something to work with on the car type side of it. A nd, again,when we started this conversation I have always maintained that we

are looking at this primarily from a

-- an innercity commuter situation. G ary brought up a very good point about sort of th e odd or the operations that don't quite fit into clearly into those

-- those categories one way or the other. And I think we will have to discuss that. Iwould like to hold that

-- that discussion maybe because right now what we know as the San Diego

- type service is using a strict bi

- level car much the surfliner the Cal Trans cars that sort of thing. S o, I think if we can work through some ideas and some plans we can see how that would be effective or detrimental to a service like that and discuss it down the path. But that helps me because now I know the car types I have to work with. A nd can we can play around with the arrangements to achieve what we can do. >> We really need drawings too of dimension correctly so we can really see what is there.
>> Blai r: T hat is what we will do Dennis that was my next step after this call today is going to be to sit down and start doing that. And try to get that information back out to the committee as quickly as I can. A nd do my other job as well. S o, that

-- >> Th at's drawings exist? C learly you must have plans somewhere of all of those cars.
>> Blair: O h, yes, we have plans today and the PRIIA cars and sothose are my starting points because the boxes themselves don't

change it's a matter of repositioning everyt hing in them. A nd then coupling those up so you can see not just how something functions as a stand alone car but how it functions in a train. S ince we are going to have the potential of having situations where if we assume a diner isn't going to have ac cess through the kitchen level, it can only function, you know, within the train. A nd so we would have (inaudible). I don't plan to give

-- here is the coach, here is the food car, here is a diner. I want to give multiples of those so we can see what th e effect is of having a lift that follows a staircase versus a lift that is more of an elevator style. Restrooms the placement of those. H ow the overall vehicle gets reshuffled because obviously an operator like Amtrak is going to be looking at, if you m ake a coach accessible. W hat happens to the number of coach seats in the car. A nd I don't know now until I put

-- start working on plans if there is any impact if it's you know one seat or two seat or none, that are affected by this. A nd that can't happ en until there is dimensional drawings. Again, I think I am beginning to get, that's my goal today in item 4 is to

-- with that

-- that information if not solidified at least congealed. (LAUGHTER) >> Blair: T hat we can build those and come back and h ave a more legitimate conversation about where we want to go. >> This is Andre again. I n answer to that question that wasasked previously I looked at the superliner II drawings on the upper

level of a coach car, the

-- for two plus two seating arrangemen t the aisle width is 22 inches fairly narrow.
>> Coach seating, right? >> That's right.
>> What about the sleepers.
>> Andre: I t's going to take me more time
>> The upper passage of the sleepers is quite narrow.
>> I thought so I have never been up there of course I would assume it would be quite narrow. T he question of getting

-- whether it's practical in

-- depends on where you put the lift and all of this as to how you can get it. I doubt you will be able to move down the car though. >> Blair: D ennis , this is Blair. Ithink that's a safe bet. Because the aisle ways past the large deluxe rooms the aisle ways between the roomettes are quite narrow there is a bit of widening where the staircase is. B ut what I will do will not even consider the stairca se stays in the same place, and that opens up the car to do some different things. M aybe the accessible room is more like what we have on the single

- level cars. S o you come through the end and you sort of

-- it's right there in front of you. You can't g et down the length of the car.
>> Yep. >> This is Gary Talbot. T hat's a great point, Blair. Iagree, Ithink we may end up having to take a look at you know real

strategic location for where you are at on that upper level and then maybe from an end so th at you may not get the through car stuff but you may be able to get from one end across through the other car so you have dining access from the adjoining car kind of thing.
>> That's why the current reg specifies you enter one end the seating and restroom are all at that entrance because you can't assume that you can go down the length of the car to get the to the other end.
>> Right. >> Chris Hart: We know in practice that that is something that is how trains are put together in (inaudible). Ido think it's worthwhile to (inaudible) because at one level it's completely operational if you

-- it's ultimately impacts the car design. A nd to the sense that one might think about a sleeper lounge then diner car group connected to a coach car, you know, maybe t hat's how we issue access for cars and gets to a couple (inaudible) you have Vertical Access between these two cars

-- at least two cars. B ut it will be most helpful when you can get the layout and how they are assembled. J ust a question, I realize that you and Gary are (inaudible) the point where impact (inaudible) comfortable (inaudible). I am -- I wonder at some point how you guys feed this back internally. Iknow in the past (inaudible) with folks like Mark (inaudible) and have not made progress.>> Blair: I t's interesting Chris that you bring that up. We are

actually working on establishing an internal working group that deals with just with vehicles. A nd we will have access to

-- we will report to Amtrak's executive oversight committee. S o, that will include people from the various departments, so that's

-- we thought that was critical when we are working on things like that or a whole host of issues that affect equipment is to be able to bring the issues to the various departments so we are not operating independently of the railroad so everyone is aware of what is going
on. A nd hopefully we get some buy in on some of these as we are working on them in the committee here. Okay. L ift platform size. I tem 4.2. We have right now the existing req uirements for wheelchair lifts for cars whether they are on the car or working from the ground. T here was a document that went out from Ed that was the study that was studying the clear floor space for a wheelchair. I did not have a chance to prepare that to the lifts. B ut I would like recommendations from the group if possible. W hat exit wide dimension should I take and work with. D id do I work with the minimum we have now or do we have let's see Ed did you have a paper.
>> The recommendation based on the research is 32 by 54. >> Right now it's 30 by 48 that the limit for the lift platforms right now? >> Yeah. T his is Dennis. Let me explain a little bit aboutwhere that came from and why. B ecause it will affect some of

the

-- there are some things, as you said you can't make a train car wider you can't make a bus wider. T here are areas where you are limited to what you could actually fit, say, down the aisle of a bus or train or whatever. S o, our assumption because that

-- our assumption was that we wanted to make sure we didn't have a situation where we had a very large lift, for example, and you would get a very large wheelchair inside that then you couldn't maneuver or move and maybe couldn't get out. T he limitation in thinking was we want to s top that at the entrance. We don't want to get somebody on the train or a bus or whatever that can't then do anything once they get there. S o, it's better to stop the person outside than it is to get them on the bus and discover they can't move so part of the rationale for the size limitations on the lift platform were if somebody is too big for that we don't want them to get in the bus or the train and discover they can't move around. >> (inaudible) that may have been

-- you know, I think a very valid set of assumptions to work from at the time in 91. O r thereabouts. I wonder if we have to accept the limits today >> I am telling you what we did and why it is what it is.
>> This is Robert Carlson. I think that we need to make sure whatever dimension we use for lifts and entrances they remain consistent throughout the accessible path of the vehicle. S o, it would actually be defacto, you are not going to get up stairs if youcan't get on the train. B ut if they are the same dimensions, you

wouldn't real ly have that problem. >> This is Bob Reuter. Ithink all of the dimensions needs to be consistent. >> Bob, to that point, in the draft Vertical Access document, I put that the lift the internal lift or whatever it's going to be elevator or whatever the cl ear floor space on that would equal the same as an external lift or car born lift to get in the car because it would make more sense to have a smaller space, you really wanted that to be a consistent footprint everyone are went or I think we would be (inau dible) >> MARSHA MAZZ: Blair? T his is Marsha Mazz. T he platform lifts that are covered under the ASME A18 standard which you might want to take a look at, at some point in the future, are not as constrained. Part of the reason is they are not as constra ined is that these are confined on three sides. S o, they essentially are alcoves. A nd they have additional room for maneuvering, also, depending on how you set up the lift optimally you want to enter on one side of the lift and exit at the upper level on the opposite side of the lift with no maneuvering or turning. B ut on occasion the only way to configure that is for a door to be on the long side of the lift, and another door to be on the shortened of the lift, which, again, affects it's the minimum space necessary for that kind of a
maneuver. J ust a point of information.>> Blair: M arsha, I appreciate that. Ilooked through A18 and

(laughter) I think if we followed everything in A18 we could have a lift in the car and not much else. (LAUGHTER)
>> Blair: I t became very evidence that when you are looking at things purely architectural terms where space is not as confined and there is flexible pathways, within a building or park or wherever that might be, you know, in our world, of course you are lo oking at a fixed width and the downstairs of a bi

- level car because of clearance issues tends to be less than 10 feet it's in the 9 foot range. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Right. I n that case you may want to establish some recommendations on the approach and exit of that lift. S o, if you have an internal lift and you are not going to have the space necessary for someone to make a turn while in that confined space then you would probably want to mandate on one end off the other end. >> Blair: Yes, I thought about that a lot actually losing sleep at night generally, about that. A nd that was one of the reasons that
as -- as I talked about this internally to Amtrak, and people say elevator elevator elevator. I say don't think he elevator it may be something else and th e something else may be more space and functionally efficient at the same time. S o, you know, to think outloud if a stair lift system uses its lift path is a staircase whichhas obviously multifunction, and the platform at one end is

platform base of the stairs as an example there is some economies to be captured there and functional benefits as well. I won't know until I start laying things out. I will lay things out using both types of fruit prints to see what is most functional and most space efficien t at the same time. B ecause space efficient with sacrificing functionality or creating a situation that forces a lot of maneuvering where you can even begin to change levels is I think not good at all.
>> I will keep that in mind for sure. >> MARSHA MAZZ : One last point on the standard it's primary a safety standard not accessibility standard even if you don't go with the capacity requirements that are in the A18, you probably want to look pretty carefully at the safety features. W hich I think are equall y critical because you don't want to

-- you don't want a device that can potentially harm the user.
>> Blair: T he user or anyone in the general environment as well. That's absolutely critical. >> MARSHA MAZZ: You know, there may be no need to reinvent th e wheel with the standard in place particularly the latest standard with detailed safety requirements.
>> Blair: I suspect because there is there are you have the ASME obviously there are other similar groups, >> MARSHA MAZZ: There is an ISO lift standard as well.
>> Blair: I n the railroad we typically do a little bit of cherrypicking sometimes to not recreate something where a viable

standard already exists we refer to

-- we use ASTM and ASME all of the various organizations, ISO whatever, if there is s omething out there that already meets what we need to do we reach out and use them. T he military standards if they are the most appropriate. There is something often that industry is already familiar with that makes live a little easier for manufacturers if you are not recreating everything. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Right. T he only thing I am not aware of in terms of any private sector standard out there is a standard for the conveyances that addresses the dynamic loads that you have talked about, you know, when the rail car is traveling down the track.
>> Blair: R ight. T hat's the sort of thing that is probably the biggest piece for this industry to do ultimately is to figure out what those affects are. You can simulate them. We have some understanding of what happens to different machinery. You have been running food elevators a number of years and obviously we found out through your experience with Wheel

- o -vator the company dealing with things that normally the building didn't move just the lift.
>> Just in California. (LAUGHTER) >> Well

-- >> Blair Gary Talbot. T he other thing

-- I agree with you. I amnot aware of anything either. T here is the SAE standard for lifts as

well as NITS adopted that for cars. J ust another touch points for lifts and inter locking interface with the vehicle that kind of thing. To your point not reinventing the wheel. B ut maybe

-- one thing we should keep in mind if it just makes the device too, you know such a monstrosity maybe we take a parallel approach and say if there is restroom access on the second level, and the train is in motion, maybe the thing is locked out while the vehicle is in motion. You do that with vehicle lifts in other type vehicles. You know single level vehicles today.
>> Right. A nd some of this ho nestly, I know Marilyn

-- I am surprised Marilyn hasn't said something. M arilyn would say somewhere in the generational development the technology will catch up with the problems. I would hope that we could get this right the first time out. You know, i n a prototype situation so when we go to the point of ordering cars from manufacturers we worked out a lot of the bugs so we know what the bear minimum is for it to function properly and then we go from there. >> Blair, this is Ken Shiotani. I f you would include

-- you were describing something regarding Vertical Access using a stairway and I am just not visualizing that at all. S o, if you have an example of that if you could include that in your materials with the drawings because I just

-- I you know I am just not

-- >> This is Jim can you hear me? Ken?>> Yeah.

>> Jim: I am assuming that he meant Jim Weisman I am assuming he meant to follow the contour of the stairway is that right? >> Blair: Well, I am assuming boldly that because of our experience with the staircases that we have now in your super liners that we would go with a straight staircase that is more what you would find in the California equipment in the PRIIA cars have a straight staircase. A nd if you take that staircase as a pathway for a stair lift, and

-- >> Right.
>> Blair: T hat's not an uncommon device

-- >> Essentially you have an inclined elevator.
>> Yeah, okay.
>> It's running up the stairwell. I f you are talking about spiral stairways that's a very different issue.
>> Blair: Yes. >> and trying to make something

-- there are lifts that will conform to those

-- Garaventa makes one that goes around corners they take up a lot more room. You have to have bigger, wider expanse for that to happen. S o that is probably not practical. But going straight up a straight stair maybe essentially just essentially an incline lift.
>> If we do a spiral staircase I am going to put a coin box on itand charge extra to ride on it.

(LAUGHTER) >> Right.
>> Blair, this is Jim. Iam assuming that everything that we are doing is self operable, right? >> Blair: U m, that's the

-- that's the concept at this point. I have a loft concern about that and I think that I have voiced that before maybe it's just purely fear or understanding of what goes on in a moving train. Iunderstand from the user standpoint that independent access and separation is the goal. T hat's what you want. B ut I don't

-- I don't know when you throw the reality of a moving train into it and the confines that not just the user but everyone else is in, what that does from a safety standpoint. A nd I just

-- I don't want to throw it out all together as requiring assistance but I know the goal is to make it independently operated. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Blair, this is Melissa Anders on. D on't forget Alaska Railroad already figured this all out they have the lifts elevators they are on the moving trains I don't know how they operate if the operation is independent but they have dealt with the safety issues of being on moving vehicles so I think it would be really good to try to use them as a resource and that's the wheel that's already rolling so

-- >> Blair: I reached out through Josh Coran to Alaska and I know he has some answers already for me. A nd they are working onothers.

>> We need to do both physical design aspects and operational aspects because that will affect the

-- >> Blair: A bsolutely. I asked what are the

-- instructed what is the access, what is the policy on its use how is it used? I don't know. I assume they use it when it's in motion I don't know if it requires

-- (inaudible) is there. W hen you look at Alaska's operation part of the extension of bruise lines, >> Is that (inaudible) 10 minutes prior to (inaudible). >> Blair: W hen you

-- they are operating

-- th eir operating world an I don't know what their employee situation all of that is it's a little different we will get that information and use it going forward. O bviously if we find out that every time someone changes a level there is attendant like the st ores in New York pushing a button for you. T hat can be problematic but

-- but I don't know you have to comment on it. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Blair, this is Marsha, another question that you might want to investigate you may already know would be any regulatory p otential regulatory conflicts if you were to put a stairway chair lift or platform lift or incline platform lift on the stair. Because I would assume that there are minimum escape volume, you know and egress requirements in terms of the egress pathway. A nd its width. S o deployed incline platform lift is going to take up some space. A nd we would want to know whether the requiredegress width would be measured beyond the deployed platform of

an incline lift or would be measured from that lift in the folde d position. >> Okay, Marsha, just to ask the question, would you assume that the

-- let's say for some reason that the unoccupied lift is started down the stairway or it's moving up, there I other ways around it if some element of that can be in an emergen cy situation folded away. >> MARSHA MAZZ: It can't be folded away if someone is on it though. A nd I know buildings better than I know trains. B ut I know fire marshals tend to assume worst case scenario.
>> Blair: A nd we have that life safety organizatio n within Amtrak. Well, we have to work this.
>> Right.
>> Blair: Yeah I thought about that as well. Actually was leaning back toward elevator was the staircase you know additional width may become an issue, but again I haven't put it in a dimensional co ndition it's only rolling around in my head I can't say for sure. O nce I am able to do that it may rule out some options

-- >> MARSHA MAZZ: Linda may be able to give us additional insights from DOT on you know, minimum egress width requirements and how th ey would measure that if it were

-- if the device were on the stair. >> This is Frank, I want to make a brief comment. B lair, we aregetting into the details about the size of the lift and lift design and

whether it should be self powered or not. I would think as a standard, you would list the minimum requirements to provide the accessibility that you need minimum requirements to be accommodate this size wheelchair, accommodate this wait of

-- this weight of wheelchair and do it safely and make sure that you don't need power to separate

-- to operate it. I know you want to gather information to know what is available. B ut because there isn't a lift manufacturing company doesn't mean that anybody with engineering intelligence couldn't make one if they have an outline of what they needed to do. Iam just a little bit worried if we provide too many requirements become too detailed in what can be done we will restrict innovation and make it maybe rule out something that was preferential to what we have actua lly specified. So, I am just saying that you know, we are focusing on what size lifts are on the platforms now but some platforms are regular station platforms what if you went through pen station and went through on a giant elevator you are not talking a bout the size of that platform.
>> Manufacturers can innovate, I mean, Bombardie they have a totally different solution and outcome.
>> That's what I am saying to say that it has to be operated by the user may be a nice thing as a minimum standard it may not be necessary. I mean, if the railroad or authority chooses to maintainsafety by having an operator there all the time do you really want to

restrict them from something the opportunity to do that. I mean if you say safety is a concern, and you know, making something fail safe somebody can claim it's fail safe it will be safe until the day it fails then it's not fail safe anymore. You do your best to make something fail safe typically if you have the opportunity better to have somebody there to make sure that it's operating properly. S o, my suggestion here is just gather the information, getting the information from Alaska is great, when it comes time to writing the rule. T hat the rule be as open as possible. A nd not be so restrictive to say it has to be through a stair or stair is okay. I t should be, hey you want to get from this level of the car to that level of a car, this is the size of the wheelchair and this is its weight how ever you feel you can do it safely, is the way we would like to do it. >> I would agree with that.
>> I'm sorry this is Marilyn Golden from DREDF. I hear what you are saying Frank I do think there

-- this is a key issue that we may need to really discuss the data out in the subcommittee and the full committee. We may ne ed to acquaint people who aren't already today acquainted with how safety issues have been handled in disability rights laws. A s we discussed last time. I mean there is a long history to this and there has always

-- it has

-- every sort of era has had to struggle with, you know, well intended but ultimatelydiscriminatory rules based on fears about safety that often end up

not being legitimately valid when everything is taken into effect. You know, again, if you go back enough decades we had statements
m ade that people using wheelchairs shouldn't go to upper levels of buildings because how could we evacuate them. Well that seems silly today no one would agree to it I hope. B ut you know we are developing better and better systems of evacuation. Regardle ss where there is an elevator in the building I in the wheelchair and all of my others brothers and sisters who are can go to the elevator to whatever top floor it goes. T hat seems silly now disability right laws Section 504 of the Rehab Act the ADA the access act have all

-- have all discussed the safety issues. You really have to look at exactly what the risks are and if they pose a significant risk of substantial harm a significant risk alone is not enough if it wouldn't cause substantial harm. V ice

-versa is also true. You have to pass those tests and look at facts about the situation and not just fears. We have also tended not to say here is the principle take it and do whatever you want because common sense in the general public who don't understan d disability rights will be the limiting based on safety even by the well meaning people. I am not talking about people try to go save money subterfuge whatever. I t's quote unquote common sense that hasn't been subjected to a rigorous analysis oh, my goo dness that won't be safe. I think what we have to do on the RVAAC and subcommittee to the very best of ourability with very thorough technical in

- depth research is to figure

out how significant the risks are and how substantial the potential harms. A nd we have to really consider right

-- we have to remember that this is all pursuant to a disability rights law. S o, that we don't want to put in any apriori rules that could have a discriminatory effect without a very careful examination of how they are str uctured that only

-- the only restrictions that you have are those that are doomed to be absolutely necessary given the standards that I have already talked about. >> LISA FAIRHALL: This is Lisa

-- >> This is Jim. I just wanted to clarify one thing based on what Marilyn and Frank were just talking about when I asked about the self operability of lift equipment for example I am thinking of a particular situation I am dealing with now with the port authority of New York, New Jersey. T hey want to put in a li mited use

-- I'm sorry, they want a vertical platform use to be put in between the mezzanine on the fast trains and platform. T he ASME requires constant pressure switches both the call of the lift and to operate the lift. To get it to come to the level t hat you are on and to operate it. T hey don't want to violate that but they have an unmanned station the train runs at 2 o'clock in the morning. I f a person loses contact with the switch they are hung up in the middle of the lift. W hen I tried to investi gate to find out where this constant pressure lift requirement comes from the best I can figureout people can get in between the lift and its destination or

somebody could get caught in it in some part of the lift and if he lets go of the switch, the thin g will stop. T here should be a way around this so people without dexterity and the ability to hold the constant pressure switch for the length of the ride can use the equipment. B ut nobody is willing to take the risk and say, well we are willing to violate ASME and put a regular call button on it. Even though we know there is no danger. A nd the danger thing is what is driving the perceived danger is what is driving it and the usability of the equipment

-- is becoming less important than the perceived da nger. A nd it gets really awkward when we are discussing this. Because they see a problem we don't see. S o, you know, I don't know

-- like Frank said, what if somebody wanted to have a guy there to have it operated some rail systems want to do that. T hat's okay, I guess. Except you know when that's the kind of thing that's very expendable. T he guy who operates the lift. You know personnel issues, and it's not going to be standing there 24 hours a day when the train is running even though it's running 24 hours a day. T here is going to be dependence on the guy and he is going to be missing. A nd maybe the equipment can just take care of it without it. O n the other hand, trains moving, I get it. O f course trains moving at a constant pressure switch wou ld be

-- (laughter) because you can't hang on it. We have to be thinking let's facilitate the access and then consider if there is a safety problem instead ofthink of the safety problem first and try to design around it. Let's

try to design access first

. A nd then see what safety problem we created if we created any.
>> Let's keep in mind back in the early days of elevators when you had something operating he had a constant pressure switch that he had control to go up or down there were no buttons if he wasn't there the elevator didn't go. We are try to go get past that at this point in time. >> This is Blair again. S o we don't get too far afield I appreciate the comments, and about how do we

-- how do we achieve the reasonable level of safety and the functionality of the lift. I sort of came to the point that Jim is. Let's figure out one step at a time what it's going to do or take to get from one level to the other and assume we will be able to manage the technology to make these things operate

-- op erate properly within the train. S o if it's

-- I am assume willing a call button or something like that, that it is looking at everything. N ow, there is risk any time you are depending on the machinery to do a lot of things. It all becomes part of the bi g circle of the design the construction the reliability how it's maintained how do you assure it's maintained all of the things that keep the risk whether it's operated by an individual who is an employee of the railroad or if it's operated by the individu al who is riding the lift how do you keep that so it's always functioning. A nd do that day after day on an extended trip.We can get balled up in that that's where we would be. I agree with

Frank we immediate to keep the door open to technology say yes we want A being one level B being the other and doing it safely. We can build parameters around that. I don't know, we may find that the process of moving between levels on a moving train is mechanically or technically so onerous it's not

-- it's not rel iable to be dealt with just with a machine you may need somebody. I don't know that. I don't want to stop there and say that's the way it is. I would say, again, so we can keep moving forward, and this about this in spatial relations physical relations of the vehicle, then we can come back and start sorting through what we think the risks are. I listed some in the draft. I f you come up with more please add to that and let let's talk them through. T he advantage of looking at what other people and indus tries have done is if a problem is solved we know that risk is manageable. I don't think we want to do that today we need to put those things out on the table. I would say let's put them on the table and keep them but hold them on the back burner so we c an move forward. >> LISA FAIRHALL: This options analysis is critical to the work of the advisory committee. I n assisting the Access Board as it ultimately develops and costs the costs and benefits associated with our final recommendations. B eing able to explain the various options that you considered and the pros and cons associated with each of those in terms of both costs and benefits to all of theaffected parties is a huge help to the Access Board as we develop

the final recommendations for the propos ed rule. S o, I think what you are laying out is a framework that would be very, very supportive and helpful for the Access Board when it comes down to developing the proposed rule.
>> Okay. Iappreciate that. I don't pretend to discount at all any of th e comments that are coming from

-- from

-- from the community or from the transportation providers. I mean I fall into somewhat into both of that. B ut it's

-- within the railroad, safety has always been a big, big issue. At one time it was the most dang erous profession even more dangerous than coal mining in the country for a lot of years. A nd the industry has done a lot to make it not anywhere near that category. I ncluding the way that trains behave when they crash so we minimize injury and fatality a nd all of those things. I ask for people looking at the railroad side of things, that we bristle a little bit when you talk about safety and anything that would detract from it. >> When you look at the rules that the FRA has a lot of those rules and the rules or guidelines that AFTA and AAR has developed through the years someone told me years ago most of the FRA's rules are written in blood somebody's blood. S o, we can't we can't back away to things that are real. To Marilyn's point, I understand that for someone who is not intimate with disability that you could throw up the safety flag it may be legitimate or maybe a way toavoid doing something purely fear, based. We have to work

around that and make sure the things we identify are legitimate but
not the ultimate road block to getting things done but we can't pretend they don't exist. T hat will be something that we carry forward and include in our final recommendations to the overall committee and hopefully up to the Access Board. S o, with that in mind, if we could move on >> Speaking to moving on, thanks for your summary, Blair. We were on lift platform size, right? >> Yes.
>> I

-- what I wasn't sure about way back in that discussion, I think this, by the way, is a very, very useful discussion, I a m glad we had it. B ut Ed you threw out some numbers I am not sure where I want

-- I don't know if we came to either consensus or a clear understanding of where our

-- what questions need to be answered.
>> Maybe we did and I missed it but

-- >> Blair: W hat I understood from the study, Ed, is that this is Blair again I'm sorry, is that you had a recommended increase of the clear footprint from 30 by 48 to 32 by 54. I

-- dealing with 32 by 54, I don't think there is other

-- other parts or other subcommitt ees that are going to be looking at lifts or boarding and alighting that would have to come to that same agreement ultimately. B ut I can for the sake of what I wanted to donext with as far as the physical aspects I can take the old dimension

and existing new dimension and recommended dimension from Ed and apply those and see how that looks in the floor plans that was really the only thing I was looking for. I f we are thinking it's going to grow let's look at bigger one. I can prepare the two as well.
>> This is Ed again could I just if you look at the proposals carefully the details, the

-- the dimensions apply differently depending on where, you know, how you gang up the clear floor spaces where you have two or one or whether there is entry from the bac k or from the side. S o it's important to take that into consideration. W hether they are tandem or whether they are next to each other. >> Blair: A nd Ed that was one of the reasons in the draft document that I included the alcove reference. I f we are de aling with a say a direct vertical lift and not incline, you got the foot printed of what you are riding up and down on. B ut there has to be some allowance for boarding that as well. D epending on how it's configured if it's a simple drive in, one end and out the other, then obviously you have circulating space but the alcove reference maybe isn't relevant.
>> I would be happy to work with you in interpreting the

-- the proposals >> Blair: O kay. W hat I will do is start with

-- with what you have and I wi ll start laying it out that's a starting dimension and seewhat happens. You know, if it works if it's enough not enough too

much whatever. H ow ever it works out again I think it's critical to get it into dimensional diagrams so we can take it away from being just verbal. >> Just so you all know, we have other research that we have been doing on bus interiors, and we have a simulated low floor bus in the lab that we built. We can -- basically it's a big platform that we can build a simulation of any vehi cle on. S o we can test out different conditions. A nd we have a research study where we are writing up now for publication where we looked at actual people getting into position

-- but it's a bus it's not a train. B ut there is something to be turned from

-- there is something to be learned from it that could be applied to other vehicles.
>> Blair: O kay. S o, if we move to 4.3, seating requirements. The question there was, right now as an example in coach, coaches and lounges we have requirements for seating in the lower level. My assumption was that we would have seat willing in the upper -- seating in the upper and lower level accessible seating. I s that

-- is that a reasonable thing? O r if we have access to the upper level that we are going to simpl y have seating in the upper level. >> Bob Reuter people don't like riding on the upper level I have ridden coaches where people don't want to go upstairs you have to have both options.>> Blair: B ob, in that case, we are

-- we encounter that some

with Amt rak. I am sure I don't know what the percentages are of people that don't go upstairs because they simply don't want to be there. O r people that don't go upstairs because they know because of their own situation that they are going to have to turn around and come right back down to the restroom over and over again. So, I mean my assumption was that we would continue to offer seating on both levels. I guess the ticklish point there is there are existing requirements for the quantity of seating spaces on the single level, do we do the same quantity on the upper level. D o we have more on the upper level than we do on the lower level? I mean, that's obvious questions that come into this or if you board a train and for some reason the lift has broken en rou te, the accessibility of the train itself has to be maintained in some way. >> That would be critical there. M aybe

-- maybe there has to be some flexibility you know if a lift becomes inoperable en route yet you have folks that are going to be getting on that need the accessible space maybe one way of dealing with that is building in flexibility. B ut for the sake of not getting mired down in it right now, should we assume that we are going to have accessible space on both levels? A nd

-- >> Blair this is (inaudible) Gutenberg. I have a question when you are talking about accessible seating, are you also including seating for obese passengers?>> Blair: U m --

>> That's a very good question.
>> Blair: Yeah, it is a good question I am not sure where that

- - where that falls in our work here. >> Because as you know our demographics are indicating quite an increase in obesity, and we have found the same problem in aircraft where people have to pay for two seats if they are occupying for two seats. >> I don't begin to have an answer to that question.
>> Amtrak's policy on that if somebody needs two seats.
>> That's a good question Gary do you know what that answer is?>> This is Gary Talbot. N o, I don't know the answer to what the policy is. B ut I will tell you that, I mean, we just take all folks that have a ticket. S o, they

-- our seats are 19 inches wide which is pretty close to what a first class seat in an aircraft would be. S o, the seating capacity, the width those kinds of things are fairly generous. I am not aware of any policy beyond that. B ut I think a lot of times people put like the armrest up and they will occupy whatever space they need. >> Some of our seats don't have arm rests, so

-- >> Yes.
>> It's not an issue there. T hat is the question for something like I can reach back to the railroad, I know that Amtrak tends to bea little more liberal in a loft cases. Policy just by fact when it

comes to trying to accommodate folks.
>> If it doesn't have to get off the ground either.
>> This is tru e. S o, honestly, I do not know the firm answer to that that is something we can look into. >> It doesn't exist at least for New Jersey Transit it doesn't exist on other type of commuter rail, light rail because of the fact that we state it somewhere it's not

-- it's our policy that we sell fares we don't sell tickets for seats. W hen you buy a fare on one of the services, you are entitled to ride on the vehicles, sometimes you are not guaranteed a seat anyhow it might be standing room only. I t's a matter of allowing you to board and the vehicle gets to the destination, but not necessarily per seat. >> I thought, except for commuter train rail seats, you are guaranteed a seat. A ll reservation trains.
>> Blair: Well, at Amtrak where we run reserve service , the number of tickets sold should equal the number of seats in the car. Yet I don't know how or if

-- I know

-- >> Amtrak typically wouldn't have standees but commuter rails often do.
>> Blair: R ight. F or me I have been on a lot of trains where I have been a standee but I am an employee I am obliged to give up my seat to paying passenger. Isort of don't count in that. B ut I know in crush loading situations around holidays, on the northeastcorridor the trains become the Marrakesh Express, it's everyone.

>> I read one of those. >> We don't carry goats and things yet but we are probably getting there. (LAUGHTER) >> Blair: A nyway, okay. S o -- >> There is a potential issue that needs to be looked at in terms of the statute in this case. B ecause I am not clear on the wording of the statute as much there is a requirement that says the number of spaces for wheelchairs and transfer seats and so forth shall be one and no more than two. T hat often means there is only one. The question becomes if you have seating on both levels, does that violate that section or not. I don't know the answer to that because originally in dealing with

-- there was a working group with Steghoir and FRA folks and disability people and so forth. T he commuter rail folks orig inally in writing the section of the act wanted to have only one car be accessible. And put everybody on it who needed it. T he disability community referred to that as the cattle car option. A nd so, it was quickly rejected in favor of setting a minimum

- - rather a maximum number of people on any given car. I don't know that there was any discussion about whether that referred to only single

- level cars, or whether it was a general per car or maybe per level. S omebody needs to look into that a little furt her and see whether that's aproblem.

>> Dennis, this is Blair. I know maybe Linda if she is still on the call can say something about this. T he requirements on bi

- level cars I always thought were rather sketchy compared to single level. Single level ha s a lot more definition. Every time we have run toward the bi

- level cars we run up against wait a minute where is the definition where is our bumping post here. A nd there was just sort of a lack of clarity there. S o, I thought about that as well. And u nderstood that we want to avoid the cattle car approach. B ut at the same time we have the issue of if you have people multiple people traveling together.
>> That's an issue because the way it's often works out if it says at least one but no more than two because not wanting to limit seats you end up with one wheelchair space and one transfer seat. If you have two people with power wheelchairs that want to travel together they have to ride in separate cars. I have always thought at the very least we shoul d change the seating to make it two. I t's two for everything else. I t's two for commuter and rapid rail and light rail and so forth. T hat's a operate issue there is a separate committee I believe working on that. >> It's the same one. >> It's the same o ne, folded it. >> Item 5, if I am not mistaken

-- >> Okay.>> Blair: A nd so for the sake again of getting out of part 4 here,

I am going to assume

-- I will do

-- I will draw up plans that do it both ways so we have it in front of us where we have access for both levels and look at item 4.4, talking about restrooms, again, what I will do because we are running out of time here we are almost gone, is I will

-- I will do plans that show accessible restrooms on both levels accessible wheelchair spac e on both levels, and we can look at them and I will do it I will also include as an example what we have today so we can see what the potential impact the goal is to be minimize the impact and provide the
access. S o, if that's okay with everyone, I will assume that we are going to have the restrooms and accessible seating and since the bytes and bits are relatively cheap and it's easy once I have the base drawing I will show options so we can see what the effect is. >> Thank you.
>> This is Linda Martin at FRA. Ijust had a comment on the one but not more than two issue. W hich is the way that we have interpreted that to mean is that it's true there can be no more than two per war to reach the per space per car requirement that was the it initially each c ar has to be accessible in a bi

- level car if you had a space on both levels I don't think that you would be out of compliance the question is if you are asking if you have up stairs two downstairs there is four is that too much? T hat's the question if you have one up stairs and one downstairs, again two peopletraveling together can't eat together if there is a dining car.

>> There could be folding seats that's certainly an option.
>> That is assuming I am talking about two power wheelchairs. >> I what I would like to throw out. Again, let's

-- let me put the plans together, today about folding chairs and expandability we typically think about the bench seats that we all know that flip up. They are all

-- they can be used by people who could be there (ina udible) then that seat can be used. I t's always sort of a never quite the same as the rest of the seats. A nd I would never offer that seat as the transfer seat. Ithink we are skidding off the rails there. S o, what I have been thinking about is that boy it would be a real shame to put the method to move from one level to the other and only be able to have very limited number of spaces once you get to that level. A nd I think looking down the road. Ithink the key to successful service and better quality of accessibility is flexibility that the railroad can build into its designs. I would go so far to say if there is three or four folks traveling together if three or four ambulatory people show up they can sit in a cluster in a coach they can reserve th e spaces together. B ut you can't do that if you have four people that show up in wheelchairs. T hey are going to be scattered through the train. A nd from a customer service standpoint, I think that is kind of a bad thing. Iwould like for us to be able to open it up a little bit

-- >> I was wondering are you (inaudible).>> Sorry, who is speaking? M aybe that was an accidental

unmute. Again, within

-- >> (inaudible) >> Both levels. I will go develop layouts that explore the possibilities and then I thi nk we can come back and talk about those. D oes that sound okay to everyone? >> The committee can send the recommendation and somebody else has to figure out like the board and DOT and FRA has to figure out whether it's going to work or not.
>> Blair: Yes , Dennis to the point of not creating the cattle car effect, but I think that we have

-- in the process of avoiding the cattle car we box ourselves in to maybe

-- >> But Blair I know we are out of time, I don't mean to interrupt. I think the intent of the non - cattle car was so that one couldn't put all of the required spaces on one car. I am not saying that you can't put more spaces per car it's saying you can't put all of the required spaces in one car >> MARSHA MAZZ: Linda

-- >> Linda

-- >> I think that's not correct, it needs to be looked at. >> It's not going to be no more than two but as

-- but you are right, it's kind of out of time out of place now.
>> It was assuming that we were dealing with the standard car, bi

- levels cars weren't that common, so two per car meant two percar thinking it was a single level car. S o, it may need to be

clarified, it may even be something in DOT rules needs to clarify it means level rather than just car but that's not for us to decide.
>> I think we need to consider the fact that the railroads are becoming far more popular. Ihave been on a Marc train where every seating location was taken. A nd there was still one or two people in the aisle.
>> Yes.
>> It's actually in the statutes so

-- >> It's in the statute for i nner- city it doesn't apply to commuter. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Dennis, don't you look at that as constraining the Access Board in terms of what the board can require but not necessarily constraining the railroads from providing more? >> If I read the act correctl y, it doesn't allow you to provide

-- to put more on but

-- >> Voluntarily? >> Somebody else can look at that.
>> I agree with you there but I hope we are wrong >> I really do >> Lisa has left we can ask Office of General Counsel to take a closer look at t hat.
>> I will too this is Linda at FRA. >> Our interpretation at Amtrak has been and our advice was from the legal side it was a prohibition on more than two. I f yougo back in time and look at you had to have the number of seats

equal to the number of coaches in the train, with no more than two of those seats in any one car. You could have half the cars

-- that gave you a way to in the interim at least to get your trains legal and then we made the decision on a lot of the vehicles to make every car wit h the one seat or one parking space just so it may make enough trains in keeping the trains correct every day a lot easier.
>> Right.
>> But, no, we took that as prohibition we could not have more than two in any one car. I appreciate any clarification on that. With that said, we are past our time limit here. Iknow Gary has another meeting to run. I f he hasn't left already. >> Blair, will you this is Marilyn, can you and Gary look jointly at those

-- you know, jointly on those drawings? >> Yes, I mean I will develop them float them past Gary and other folks here at the railroad to make sure I haven't missed anything. A nd again I will try to keep it as wide open as I can to begin with. I don't

-- I don't want us to

-- to narrow it down too quickly I fe el it's important to put the information in front of everyone on our little subcommittee here.
>> Interestingly the train buffs have maybe more information than usual in some of their sites.
>> I wouldn't be surprised. I n fact if I want a photograph of th e train I won't go to my archives I go to the web and look it up. S o,we almost made it through item 4 today.

(LAUGHTER) >> Blair: I f anyone has other spatial considerations, I left that as an opening there. F eel free to drop me an E

- mail again I kn ow we are beyond our time, from the point of

-- of next steps, pretending that we addressed number 5 but we didn't we will have to pick it up again. I see the next steps now as also an assignment is for me to develop the

-- a slew of floor plans for the c ommittee to look at based on what we have done so far. T here is so as far as I know, I have got the action item for that. L inda is going to Lisa was going to look at issues around the number of spaces for limitations for the number of spaces per car. A n ything else

-- >> Is it possible that maybe at the April 10

- 11 meeting we could do lunch over a table and throw some of these around? >> Sure. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: This is Melissa we have been working on the tentative schedule for the meeting in April the 10 and 11. O ur draft agenda so it could change is that the morning of the 11th the subcommittee will meet as a whole and we can talk about this stuff in person.
>> Okay. >> Blair, this is (inaudible) just one last thought, I don't know if it's on the agen da or not. Talking about space considerations, are we taking into consideration, also, the space for circus animals?>> We are going to take that up. Actually in

-- let's see. Yes,

it's in item 5.2.1.
>> Okay. >> Blair: We have to talk about that >> Th is is Ken. Abunch of those things relate to any car and go to beyond inter

- city it's just the bi

- level is a very unique inter

- city issue we are spending a lot of time on that >> Gary, remember the charge of the committee is to have recommendations for al l kinds of vehicles, including people movers and all of that stuff.
>> All of the 5 stuff relates to any vehicle. I t's just

-- >> Right.
>> By Vertical Access is just the long distance or the bi

- level inter

- city. >> Blair: M y hope today was that we would get past item 4 and move into item 5 and chewing on those things so we can actually give some time to our other modes versus just bi

- level walk

- ins.
>> Okay.
>> Blair: S o, I think we almost did it. I f anyone has any comments you know please you can send them

-- I guess this is safe to say Melissa, it can be sent straight to me or through the

-- through the RVAAC I am not sure what the correct protocol is. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: They can be sent directly to you Blair.>> Blair: T hat's fine. S o, the only two assignments I am aware

of on the car floor plans, and on the leg gallon tee

-- legality the issues around spaces on the car that have to be sorted out.
>> Any of us who have input on the document, right? >> Blair: Yes, absolutely. T hat assignment is for everyone. Please mark that up. T he items in red is what I cleaned from the last comments. P lease mark it up as you see fit. Itake no offense at marked up documents I went to design school they used to

-- >> Everybody uses a different color pen cil.
>> Ed Steinfeld comments on my proposals would be useful too.
>> Absolutely Ed, if you are open to that for sure. >> They could send them directly to me I will compile them.
>> How about sending a copy of what you posed >> MARSHA MAZZ: It's on the RVAAC website.
>> The bottom of the

-- of Blair's documents.
>> You keep scrolling down you will get to Ed's documents.
>> We haven't got to that yet. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: And in the future, the all of the

-- all of the whole RVAAC committee information will always be available on the website. B ut I will try to get things out to the subcommittee by E

- mail. I t won't be any different than what you find on the web it will go to the committee members, and the full committee members and their alternate and then we have a listed of other people, I think Paul has a group E

- mail list put together. S o -- we will

-- I willuse that.

>> Sorry to interrupt this is Ken you need to add Gary Talbot I think they switched him out Amtrak made him the alternate as opposed to s omebody else who had been alternate. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay.
>> I don't think he is getting the E

- mails. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Okay. Paul said that is taken care of but I will doublecheck.
>> And deadlines for the various input it would be great if they were as generous as possible because I think

-- I don't think we have a meeting down before the in

- person meeting >> It was only two weeks away.
>> Right. >> Well, I will be actually traveling most of next week so I could read them but couldn't do much el se with them before Monday the >> MELISSA ANDERSON: 7th.
>> 7th wow let me think here. Yeah. We are meeting on the 10th correct? >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Correct. 1 0th and 11th. >> Blair: O kay. G osh. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Do you want things by the 4th so yo u will have time to, a little more time. >> Blair: T hat will be good.
>> There will always be stragglers.>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We need to wrap up the meeting. T he

next meeting is the full committee meeting on April 9

-- April 10th and 11th we will be mee ting the subcommittee the second day probably in the morning. T hat's tentative it could change but not real likely. A nd then we will also have the boarding and alighting committee will meet for the first time in the afternoon. S o some of you may also be interested in that communications committee will meet in the afternoon on the 10th probably. S o, this is all tentative. B ut that's what we are planning. S o I think Blair you did a get job. T hank you everybody for your input I think we need to close ou t for today.
>> All right. >> I would like to from my end I think awesome input so I look forward to meeting with everyone again with more stuff. >> Awesome thank you Blair.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. T hank you. >> Bye.
>> PAUL BEATTY: This is Paul Be atty operator this is Paul Beatty this concludes the call. (End of meeting.)