Note: The output shown below is from the 

Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) 

system used in the On-board Circulation and Seating 

Subcommittee meeting and is unedited. The CART 

system was used to provide an accommodation to 

persons with hearing loss and persons who are deaf, 

and was streamed in real-time and available to the 

public on the internet during the meeting. 

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

U.S. Access Board

>> PAUL BEATTY: Thank you. Welcome to the meeting of the 

onboard circulation and seating subcommittee. Just to let you 

know, we will not be having a public comment time. It's not shown 

in the agenda. The 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 address 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. I am not sure if I was on mute 

before.

>> PAUL BEATTY: All right. I guess we are ready to get started. 

I will turn the call over to Blair.

>> Okay. Hello everybody. It's -- we are going to have a fairly 

busy day. I trust everyone has got the agenda for this week's 

meeting in front of them one way or the other? So, 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? This 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: This there is a motion on the floor any second? Don't 

everyone jump in at once

>> Marilyn. I will second it.

>> Blair: Okay, thanks Marilyn. Okay. I guess the easiest way 

to do this does anyone -- if there is any nays we can discuss those 

but 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: The line does sound a little bit scratchy today. 

Everyone there?

>> Yep.

>> Blair: Okay. Usually during these we will hear from 

shuffling and things going around but the silence is very silent. 

Okay. Hearing no -- no dissenting comments, we will assume that 

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. But, yes, I heard Gary. And I think it was 

Bob Reuter who asked whether they were heard. 

>> Blair: This 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. And then the -- my 

goal if everyone agrees with it is to establish a few things and then 

leave Vertical Access for now. What 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: Sure.

>> Marilyn: Did you incorporate in your view all of the input 

sent into the draft proposal?

>> Blair: Marilyn, I took what -- because a lot of what I got was 

more general and not specific to Vertical Access. Vertical 

circulation. So, 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. So I invite everyone to look at it again and 

mark it up. If possible, if everyone has you know access to 

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

that would be awesome. And then the comments are right where 

they need to be in the document. And that will help me not miss 

things and if anything is not included it's not because I didn't think 

it was relevant, necessarily. I may have just missed it. But 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 in 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. And 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: Thank you. This 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. I need to do that and 
we can set another deadline that's fair for that. I am 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 the 

subcommittee agreement.

>> Blair: Marilyn, I would agree with that absolutely. That'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 sent me stuff in Microsoft Word 

marked up in track changes. And I accepted the changes and there 

weren't many changes but they were -- they were relevant, I 

thought. Unfortunately, they are not highlighted in red. But the 

rest of the things that I changed are highlighted in red. So, 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. It's too big of an impact for the community and for the 

railroads. I don't think that we are near done yet. What 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. And look at the different car types and things like 

that. And then come back and circulate that with everyone, have 
you know, a conversation based on the physical realities of it. See 

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: One last procedural point if I may I promise to be 

quiet for a while. And just -- you know you are putting in a loft 

time, Blair, 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, and 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. But, anyway, if we do that, it would be great if 

something you could do, in a subsequent draft, as marked up from 

the previous ones showing changes. So 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 happen, that's no problem. Just 

making a proposal on a going forward basis.

>> Blair: Yes. And 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 longer 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. I will leave the old 

information and the corrected.

>> Marilyn: Yes, let's talk offline. There 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. Anyway, not worth the 

group time. There is way to do this, that isn't very hard but it will 

show the pathway that you have taken.

>> Blair: Right. I think historically it will good for us to be able 

to reach back and understand that, so inevitably there will be 

questions about how we did one thing or another. It's good to be 

able to reach back in time and see what led to those changes and 

those events. So, okay. I know Microsoft Word you can do 

wonderful things with. You can have all of the data in there and 

hide it so you only see the finished document and you can turn it 

back on to understand what happened before. So, 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. Okay.

>> Hay, Blair. This is Frank Maldari. Where is the word 
document? I am just finding it on the website it's just have to print 

to an old Adobe file. Is it --

>> Blair: Frank, 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? This is Dennis Cannon. What document specifically

are you looking at right now? Because 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 Dennis that will link to 

everything.

>> PAUL BEATTY: This is Paul Beatty consistently we put all of 

the meeting material on the RVAAC website. If you go to 

WWW.access-board.gov/RVAAC there is a link to the meeting 

materials.

>> Okay. That one I didn't find either. But 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. I can 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. Before our 

next circulation and seating committee 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: Okay. I just, this is Blair. I just tried doing a cut and 

paste from the website and that worked find dropping it into Word 

all of the formatting was maintained. If that helps anyone 

immediately. So, 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 comments 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. And I had corrected in the draft 

recommendation before we had just talked about the lounge car but 

I added in the section called applicability in the draft that it would 
include cars coaches and sleepers. And 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 light 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 rail 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. As benefiting from the second level access.

When we get into onboard circulation (inaudible) that is across 

the board applicable. There are some areas obviously that won't 

be to all modes but there is a lot of things obviously that apply to 

all of the modes when it comes to interior circulation. But 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 themselves 
that 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. My 

only concern with long distance is San Diego to Los Angeles take a 

route like that one of the most gorgeous in the country. It's about 

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. So that we make sure we capture 

stuff like that. I think that would be important to do that. The 

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 designed, 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. Just a thought 

on that.

>> Blair: Yeah, I think that obviously we have what we have 

today. And that is diners that are strictly dining cars and lounges 

that are sort of a multi purpose car. And the space that is needed 

for the kitchen 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. But my bet would be that a lot of those functions will 
have to occur somewhere. And 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. So, 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. So, 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. Must 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. I agree too. Just to throw out a general 

principle, I mean I like saying -- I like what Bob and 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. Maybe not. But if 

you include it it's hard not to forget (inaudible).

>> This is Dennis Cannon, I got cut off for a minute there, my 

phone crapped out on me. Is 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 the 
opening any wider than 30 inches to get from car to car. Is that 

still true?

>> Andre: I would have to review it. I know 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 rule says the 

car -- the passage from one car to the other is 30 inches. And it 

doesn't make it 32 or anything like that. So, the only problem with 

the issue of accessible paths. The other question is in a double 

decker sleeping car by the -- what is the aisle width on the upper 

level do you know?

>> Andre: If 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 

other trains.

>> This is Chris Hart. Dennis, 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: This is Andre again issue on some bi-levels you 

don't have a high level end, you have intermediate level. So you 

have to take the stairs down to the intermediate level from the 

upper level you know to reach the end doors. So you don't 

necessarily have access through there. But 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. The Cal Trans cars the bi-level cars they are ordering 

now. They will have eye level end doors. It'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. The 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: And the problem was that going back and correcting 

those collision posts 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 in 
the vestibule is not practical either, I understand that.

>> But I --

>> This is Melissa from the FRA and I wanted to clarify that the 

FRA requirements for collision posts are for them to be located 

about 1/3 from the end of the car. So, there is no requirement for 

30 inches between (inaudible) to the end of the car going inward.

>> Okay.

>> Linda Martin: Also FRA 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: So, I think that we have some clarification looking at 

the long distance bi-level.

>> There is no search capacity there. And after -- you know, I 

have pulled Eric aside after yesterday and said, well, it might be too 

(inaudible) but you (inaudible).

>> Sounds like something unmuted.

>> That's not normal.

>> Somebody needs to mute their phone.

>> Emergency situation

>> Please. But 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: So, I think, what I got in a nutshell was, if a car -- if a 

car has access public access on (inaudible) level or passengers then 

it must have an accessible route to it. And that would -- would 

give some flexibility on how we would approach the diner. And, 

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. And I 

think my goal would be to get out of that more conversation with 

some pictures in front of us. That 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. One 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 the 
single level diners you can get in one end but not from the other 

because of the kitchen in the way.

>> Bob, this is Blair. From a railroad operating perspective 

when we have cars coupled together and on the mechanical side 

where I come from, we would like them to stay coupled up because 

everything is better if you don't uncouple them and move them 

around. Not saying that we don't want them uncoupled. People 

that handle the trains switch them every way you imagine and 

couple them up again. However, if we ask them to couple them up 

a certain way, they will swear that they are welded together.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair: With that I will say that that is a railroad operation 

issue. And 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. There 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. But we have had recent discussions with Amtrak 

about it. I don't know if Calvin is on the call but -- Calvin are you 

on the call? I guess not. But he our civil rights director he could 

have give you a little bit -- again, that's operations it is already a 

rule.

>> All right. So, to that end, I mean, I would 
rather -- 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. And 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 Bob Reuter of course the problem comes in 

on the fact that you have coaches and usually the diner separates 

the coaches from the sleepers. So, you have people coming in 

from both ends.

>> Blair: Right, 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. If we had a coach that was accessible 

from the lower level, let's say you had Vertical Access within the 

coach. And 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. The sightseer car. Obviously we 

can't have pass through the entire car seats but (inaudible) from the 

end of a coach it's coupled up to a lounge car. The lounge car is 

the one car in the train that I feel like we could make an accessible 

pathway throughout the entire upper level. So, 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 the 
lounge, you have got that access. From the other end of the diner, 

typically you have sleepers the first class passengers are coupled to 

the diner directly. You would be able to enter from the accessible 

end of the sleeper at the upper level into the diner. That would be 

what I am assuming now. So, 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. But 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: Dennis, no. Not right now, they don't. Not all 

(inaudible) have -- typically in the diner they have a lounge. 

Sometimes they may only have a lounge. And not a diner. Or 

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. But 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. But 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 now 
and what is, you know, available now. In 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. And 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. But that may be many 

years -- many years out.

>> So, if I understand that correctly, what you are saying is that 

we could. It might 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 changes 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. So, 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 can 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. Only thing is the 500-pound gorilla it does what it 

wants. And whatever is proposed if OMB doesn't like it it doesn'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. It 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. I am not willing to 

constrain the committee in this way.

To the extent that the committee can help with cost and benefit 

information that's wonderful. But 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 

recommendations based on that. I am 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: That's true of everything that is recommended 

the board will decide on a variety of factors not just the regulatory 

cost. And so, you know, that is outside of the committee as 

control. I would urge the committee to make whatever 

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 years.

>> 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. They know technologies being developed 

that we don't know about, they could say, yeah, that might be 

achievable 10 years from now 20 years from now. That 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 revolutionary changes in wheelchairs as well. Which 
would change the anthropometry. So, 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. 10 or 15 years from now. Maybe that's for the 

next RVAAC committee.

>> Blair: Marsha 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. So, 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. But there are a few things that won't 

change going forward, as much as we would like them to. They 

won't in any of our lifetime and not likely our children's lifetimes. 

The trains won't get any bigger. Hopefully they won't get any taller 

I think they are quite tall enough. They won't get any wider. They 

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 the 
trains are not getting any bigger. Those things we can count on. 

And what we also can count on is technology will change. But 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. But there is physical factors 

that are going to keep all of that within some range of size. So, if 

we were talking about communication issues, those kind of things I 

think are wide open. If you went back 20 years and said this is 

what you will have in 20 years you would laugh. I think 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. And 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. So, I don't want 

us to -- to get too bogged down at this point, I think we will have 

the opportunity as we work through this to come back and see for 

ourselves if there is in practicalities. That 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. And 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. And, again, 
when we started this conversation I have always maintained that we 

are looking at this primarily from a -- an innercity commuter 

situation. Gary brought up a very good point about sort of the 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. I would 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. So, 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. And 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.

>> Blair: That 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. And do my other job as well. So, that --

>> That's drawings exist? Clearly you must have plans 

somewhere of all of those cars.

>> Blair: Oh, yes, we have plans today and the PRIIA cars and so 
those are my starting points because the boxes themselves don't 

change it's a matter of repositioning everything in them. And 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. Since we are 

going to have the potential of having situations where if we assume 

a diner isn't going to have access through the kitchen level, it can 

only function, you know, within the train. And 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 the 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. How the overall vehicle gets reshuffled 

because obviously an operator like Amtrak is going to be looking 

at, if you make a coach accessible. What happens to the number of 

coach seats in the car. And 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. And that can't happen 

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: That we can build those and come back and have a 

more legitimate conversation about where we want to go.

>> This is Andre again. In answer to that question that was 
asked previously I looked at the superliner II drawings on the upper 

level of a coach car, the -- for two plus two seating arrangement 

the aisle width is 22 inches fairly narrow.

>> Coach seating, right?

>> That's right.

>> What about the sleepers.

>> Andre: It'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. The 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: Dennis, this is Blair. I think 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. But what I will do will not even consider the 

staircase stays in the same place, and that opens up the car to do 

some different things. Maybe the accessible room is more like 

what we have on the single-level cars. So you come through the 

end and you sort of -- it's right there in front of you. You can't get 

down the length of the car.

>> Yep.

>> This is Gary Talbot. That's a great point, Blair. I agree, I 
think 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 that 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). I do think it's 

worthwhile to (inaudible) because at one level it's completely 

operational if you -- it's ultimately impacts the car design. And to 

the sense that one might think about a sleeper lounge then diner 

car group connected to a coach car, you know, maybe that'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. But it 

will be most helpful when you can get the layout and how they are 

assembled. Just 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. I know in the past (inaudible) with folks like Mark 

(inaudible) and have not made progress.
>> Blair: It's interesting Chris that you bring that up. We are 

actually working on establishing an internal working group that 

deals with just with vehicles. And we will have access to -- we will 

report to Amtrak's executive oversight committee. So, 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. And hopefully we get some buy in on some of these as we are 

working on them in the committee here.

Okay. Lift platform size. Item 4.2. We have right now the 

existing requirements for wheelchair lifts for cars whether they are 

on the car or working from the ground. There 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. But I would like recommendations from 

the group if possible. What exit wide dimension should I take and 

work with. Did 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. This is Dennis. Let me explain a little bit about 
where that came from and why. Because 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. There are areas where you are 

limited to what you could actually fit, say, down the aisle of a bus or 

train or whatever. So, 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. The limitation in thinking 

was we want to stop 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. So, 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. Or 

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. So, it 

would actually be defacto, you are not going to get up stairs if you 
can't get on the train. But if they are the same dimensions, you 

wouldn't really have that problem.

>> This is Bob Reuter. I think 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 clear 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 

(inaudible)

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Blair? This is Marsha Mazz. The 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 constrained is 

that these are confined on three sides. So, they essentially are 

alcoves. And 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. But 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. Just a point of information.
>> Blair: Marsha, I appreciate that. I looked 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: It 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 looking 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. In that case you may want to 

establish some recommendations on the approach and exit of that 

lift. So, 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. And 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 the something else may be more space and 

functionally efficient at the same time. So, you know, to think 

outloud if a stair lift system uses its lift path is a staircase which 
has 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 

efficient at the same time. Because 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. Which I think are 

equally critical because you don't want to -- you don't want a 

device that can potentially harm the user.

>> Blair: The user or anyone in the general environment as well. 

That's absolutely critical.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: You know, there may be no need to reinvent 

the 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: In the railroad we typically do a little bit of cherry 
picking 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 something out 

there that already meets what we need to do we reach out and use 

them. The 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. The 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: Right. That'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. The other thing -- I agree with you. I am 
not aware of anything either. There is the SAE standard for lifts as 

well as NITS adopted that for cars. Just another touch points for 

lifts and inter locking interface with the vehicle that kind of thing. 

To your point not reinventing the wheel. But 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. And some of this honestly, I know Marilyn -- I am 

surprised Marilyn hasn't said something. Marilyn 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, in 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. If you would include -- you were 

describing something regarding Vertical Access using a stairway 

and I am just not visualizing that at all. So, 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. And if you take that staircase as a pathway for a 

stair lift, and --

>> Right.

>> Blair: That's not an uncommon device --

>> Essentially you have an inclined elevator.

>> Yeah, okay.

>> It's running up the stairwell. If 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. So 

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 it 
and charge extra to ride on it.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Right.

>> Blair, this is Jim. I am assuming that everything that we are 

doing is self operable, right?

>> Blair: Um, 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. I understand from the user standpoint that 

independent access and separation is the goal. That's what you 

want. But 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. And 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 Anderson. Don'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. And they are working on 
others.

>> We need to do both physical design aspects and operational 

aspects because that will affect the --

>> Blair: Absolutely. 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. When you look at Alaska's 

operation part of the extension of bruise lines,

>> Is that (inaudible) 10 minutes prior to (inaudible).

>> Blair: When you -- they are operating -- their 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. Obviously if we find out that every time someone changes 

a level there is attendant like the stores in New York pushing a 

button for you. That 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 potential 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. 

And its width. So deployed incline platform lift is going to take up 

some space. And we would want to know whether the required 
egress width would be measured beyond the deployed platform of 

an incline lift or would be measured from that lift in the folded 

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 emergency situation 

folded away.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: It can't be folded away if someone is on it 

though. And I know buildings better than I know trains. But I 

know fire marshals tend to assume worst case scenario.

>> Blair: And we have that life safety organization 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 condition it's only rolling around in my head I can't say 

for sure. Once 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 they would measure that if it were -- if the 

device were on the stair.

>> This is Frank, I want to make a brief comment. Blair, we are 
getting 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. But 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. I am 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 actually 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 about 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 maintain 
safety 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. So, 

my suggestion here is just gather the information, getting the 

information from Alaska is great, when it comes time to writing the 

rule. That the rule be as open as possible. And not be so 

restrictive to say it has to be through a stair or stair is okay. It 

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 need to acquaint people who aren't already 

today acquainted with how safety issues have been handled in 

disability rights laws. As 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 ultimately 
discriminatory 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 

made 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. But you know we are 

developing better and better systems of evacuation. Regardless 

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. That 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. Vice-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 understand 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. It's quote 

unquote common sense that hasn't been subjected to a rigorous 

analysis oh, my goodness that won't be safe. I think what we have 

to do on the RVAAC and subcommittee to the very best of our 
ability with very thorough technical in-depth research is to figure 

out how significant the risks are and how substantial the potential 

harms. And we have to really consider right -- we have to 

remember that this is all pursuant to a disability rights law. So, 

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 structured 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. They want to put in a limited use -- I'm 

sorry, they want a vertical platform use to be put in between the 

mezzanine on the fast trains and platform. The ASME requires 

constant pressure switches both the call of the lift and to operate 

the lift. To get it to come to the level that you are on and to 

operate it. They don't want to violate that but they have an 

unmanned station the train runs at 2 o'clock in the morning. If a 

person loses contact with the switch they are hung up in the middle 

of the lift. When I tried to investigate to find out where this 

constant pressure lift requirement comes from the best I can figure 
out 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 thing will stop. There 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. But 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. And 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 

danger. And it gets really awkward when we are discussing this. 

Because they see a problem we don't see. So, 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. That's 

okay, I guess. Except you know when that's the kind of thing that's 

very expendable. The 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. There is going to be dependence on the guy and he is going 

to be missing. And maybe the equipment can just take care of it 

without it. On the other hand, trains moving, I get it. Of course 

trains moving at a constant pressure switch would 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 of 
think of the safety problem first and try to design around it. Let's 

try to design access first. And 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. So 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 -- operate properly within the train. So if it's -- I 

am assume willing a call button or something like that, that it is 

looking at everything. Now, there is risk any time you are 

depending on the machinery to do a lot of things.

It all becomes part of the big 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 individual who is riding the lift how do you keep that so it's 

always functioning. And 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 reliable 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. If you come up with more please add to 

that and let let's talk them through. The advantage of looking at 

what other people and industries 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 can move forward.

>> LISA FAIRHALL: This options analysis is critical to the work of 

the advisory committee. In assisting the Access Board as it 

ultimately develops and costs the costs and benefits associated with 

our final recommendations. Being 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 the 
affected parties is a huge help to the Access Board as we develop 

the final recommendations for the proposed rule. So, 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. I appreciate that. I don't pretend to discount at all 

any of the comments that are coming from -- from -- from the 

community or from the transportation providers. I mean I fall into 

somewhat into both of that. But it's -- within the railroad, safety 

has always been a big, big issue. At one time it was the most 

dangerous profession even more dangerous than coal mining in the 

country for a lot of years. And the industry has done a lot to make 

it not anywhere near that category. Including the way that trains 

behave when they crash so we minimize injury and fatality and 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. So, 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 to 
avoid 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. That will be something that we carry 

forward and include in our final recommendations to the overall 

committee and hopefully up to the Access Board. So, 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 am glad we 

had it. But 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: What 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 subcommittees that are going to be looking at lifts or 

boarding and alighting that would have to come to that same 

agreement ultimately. But I can for the sake of what I wanted to do 
next 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. If 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 back or from the side. So it's important to take that into 

consideration. Whether they are tandem or whether they are next 

to each other.

>> Blair: And Ed that was one of the reasons in the draft 

document that I included the alcove reference. If we are dealing 

with a say a direct vertical lift and not incline, you got the foot 

printed of what you are riding up and down on. But there has to be 

some allowance for boarding that as well. Depending 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: Okay. What I will do is start with -- with what you 

have and I will start laying it out that's a starting dimension and see 
what happens. You know, if it works if it's enough not enough too 

much whatever. How 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 vehicle on. So we can test out 

different conditions. And 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. But there is 

something to be turned from -- there is something to be learned 

from it that could be applied to other vehicles.

>> Blair: Okay. So, 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. Is 

that -- is that a reasonable thing? Or if we have access to the 

upper level that we are going to simply 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: Bob, in that case, we are -- we encounter that some 

with Amtrak. 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. Or 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. Do 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 route, the 

accessibility of the train itself has to be maintained in some way.

>> That would be critical there. Maybe -- 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. But 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? And --

>> 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: Um --

>> 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. No, I don't know the answer to what the 

policy is. But I will tell you that, I mean, we just take all folks that 

have a ticket. So, they -- our seats are 19 inches wide which is 

pretty close to what a first class seat in an aircraft would be. So, 

the seating capacity, the width those kinds of things are fairly 

generous. I am not aware of any policy beyond that. But 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. That is the question for something 

like I can reach back to the railroad, I know that Amtrak tends to be 
a 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 true. So, 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. When 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. It'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. All 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: Right. For 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. I sort of don't count in that. But I 

know in crush loading situations around holidays, on the northeast 
corridor 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: Anyway, okay. So --

>> There is a potential issue that needs to be looked at in terms 

of the statute in this case. Because 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. That 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. The 

commuter rail folks originally in writing the section of the act 

wanted to have only one car be accessible.

And put everybody on it who needed it. The disability 

community referred to that as the cattle car option. And 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. Somebody 

needs to look into that a little further and see whether that's a 
problem.

>> Dennis, this is Blair. I know maybe Linda if she is still on the 

call can say something about this. The requirements on bi-level 

cars I always thought were rather sketchy compared to single level. 

Single level has 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. And there was just 

sort of a lack of clarity there. So, I thought about that as well. 

And understood that we want to avoid the cattle car approach. But 

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 should change the seating to make it two. It's 

two for everything else. It's two for commuter and rapid rail and 

light rail and so forth. That's a operate issue there is a separate 

committee I believe working on that.

>> It's the same one.

>> It's the same one, folded it.

>> Item 5, if I am not mistaken --

>> Okay.
>> Blair: And 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 space 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. So, 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. I just had a comment on the one 

but not more than two issue. Which 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 car 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? That's the question 

if you have one up stairs and one downstairs, again two people 
traveling 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 

(inaudible) then that seat can be used. It's always sort of a never 

quite the same as the rest of the seats. And I would never offer 

that seat as the transfer seat. I think we are skidding off the rails 

there. So, 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. And I think looking down the road. I think 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 the spaces together. But you can't do that if you 

have four people that show up in wheelchairs. They are going to 

be scattered through the train. And from a customer service 

standpoint, I think that is kind of a bad thing. I would like for us to 

be able to open it up a little bit --

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

unmute. Again, within --

>> (inaudible)

>> Both levels. I will go develop layouts that explore the 

possibilities and then I think we can come back and talk about 

those. Does 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 per 
car thinking it was a single level car. So, 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. I have been on a Marc train where 

every seating location was taken. And there was still one or two 

people in the aisle.

>> Yes.

>> It's actually in the statutes so --

>> It's in the statute for inner-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 correctly, 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 that.

>> 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. If you 
go 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 with 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. I know Gary has 

another meeting to run. If 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. And 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 feel 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. In fact if I want a photograph of the 

train I won't go to my archives I go to the web and look it up. So, 
we almost made it through item 4 today.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair: If anyone has other spatial considerations, I left that as 

an opening there. Feel free to drop me an E-mail again I know 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 committee to look at 

based on what we have done so far. There is so as far as I know, I 

have got the action item for that. Linda is going to Lisa was going 

to look at issues around the number of spaces for limitations for 

the number of spaces per car. Anything 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. Our 

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 agenda 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

>> This is Ken. A bunch 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 all kinds of vehicles, including people movers 

and all of that stuff.

>> All of the 5 stuff relates to any vehicle. It's just --

>> Right.

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

inter-city.

>> Blair: My 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: So, I think we almost did it. If 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: That's fine. So, 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. That assignment is for everyone. 

Please mark that up. The items in red is what I cleaned from the 

last comments. Please mark it up as you see fit. I take no offense 

at marked up documents I went to design school they used to --

>> Everybody uses a different color pencil.

>> 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. But I will try to get things out to the subcommittee by 

E-mail. It 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. So -- we will -- I will 
use 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 somebody 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 else 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. 10th and 11th.

>> Blair: Okay. Gosh.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Do you want things by the 4th so you 

will have time to, a little more time.

>> Blair: That will be good.

>> There will always be stragglers.
>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We need to wrap up the meeting. The 

next meeting is the full committee meeting on April 9 -- April 10th 

and 11th we will be meeting the subcommittee the second day 

probably in the morning. That's tentative it could change but not 

real likely. And then we will also have the boarding and alighting 

committee will meet for the first time in the afternoon. So some of 

you may also be interested in that communications committee will 

meet in the afternoon on the 10th probably. So, this is all 

tentative. But that's what we are planning. So I think Blair you did 

a get job. Thank you everybody for your input I think we need to 

close out 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. Thank you.

>> Bye.

>> PAUL BEATTY: This is Paul Beatty operator this is Paul Beatty 

this concludes the call.

(End of meeting.)