Note: The output shown below is from the Communication Access 

Realtime Translation (CART) system used in the Boarding and 

Alighting Subcommittee Meeting #6 and is generally unedited. The 

CART system was used to provide an accommodation to persons 

with hearing loss and persons who are deaf, and was streamed in 

real-time and available to the public on the internet during the 

meeting. 

CART Operator: Beverly Early

U.S. Access Board

Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee

Boarding and Alighting Subcommittee Meeting #6

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Meeting will commence at 1 p.m. eastern.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Good afternoon this is Paul Beatty welcome 

to the 6th meet of the boarding alighting subcommittee. As you know 

since anyone may participate in subcommittee discussions no time 

public comment has been scheduled during the two-hour call. Since 

the CART system's chat box is not available, for subcommittee 

participants who are only using CART to participate and desire to raise 

a question or make a statement, please use E-mail address RVAAC @ 

access-board.gov. When speaking remember to give your name, one 

of the agenda items will be to discuss when your next committee 
meeting will occur. Now, let's list those in attendance in the office. 

We have Melissa Anderson, Jim Pecht, Rose Bunales and myself. 

Rose would you indicate who is on the line?

>> Rose Marie Bunales: Yes. Okay. Good afternoon my name 

is Rose Marie U.S. Access Board today's court reporter is Beverly 

Early. When I say your name please repeat your name and state the 

organization that you are representing. And Beverly if if the line is 

good say so. If it needs to be boosted just go ahead and indicate. 

First one I have Rochelle Despedes 

>> MTA New York.

>> Joshua Coran.

>> Joshua Coran, Talgo.

>> Marilyn Golden.

>> Marilyn Golden, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.

>> Line is good. Melissa Shurland.

>> Melissa Shurland FRA office of R and D.

>> The line is good.

>> Kenneth Shiotani

>> Kenneth Shiotani National Disability Rights Network.

>> Can you boost his line please? And Sid Goldstein.

>> Sid Goldstein, editor of Transit Access Report.

>> Line is good. Don Mebius. 

>> LTK Engineering services.

>> Operator boost Don Mebius' line please. Frank Maldari
>> Frank Maldari, MTA New York.

>> The line is good. Crystal Lyons.

>> Crystal Lyons, South West Transit Association.

>> Uwe Rutenberg.

>> Uwe Rutenberg representing Montreal

>> The line is good.

>> Judy Buckley.

>> Judy MTA New York.

>> Please boost Judith's line please. Dennis Cannon.

>> Dennis Cannon National Disability Rights Network

>> Christopher Hart.

>> Chris Hart the line is good

>> Ed Hoff

>> Ed Hoff New Jersey Transit.

>> the line is good.

>> One more more check Kenneth Shiotani

>> Kennth Shiotani National Disability Rights Network.

>> Judy Buckley

>> Judith Buckley MTA New York.

>> the line is good who is in charge.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Thank you Rose. Paul Beatty we will turn 

the call over to the chair of the subcommittee Marilyn Golden. Go 

ahead Marilyn.

>> Ah, unmuting would help. Thank you Paul. First, let's -- I 
think our introductions are done of the welcome everybody. Next we 

have approval of the agenda. The list in section 4 was a brainstorm 

from Melissa, thank you Melissa. About remaining business for our 

subcommittee. Anybody have any issues with the agenda? Giving 

you a minute to -- moment to unmute. Okay. Sounds like we are fine 

on that.

The -- moving on to our meeting schedule, given our 

subcommittee boarding alighting has been scheduled at the end of the 

month, there is the November/December calendar put us square reon 

holidays the staff went to work and suggested potential refiguring of 

dates. And they looked at the different subcommittees and which 

might need to meet more versus less. The proposal is, I guess I want 

to see if this is okay with everybody or with most of us hopefully 

because sometimes we can't get dates for every single one of us, but 

we would not have a meeting in November. So, our next meeting 

would be in December. The third week not the fourth. I think that 

would be the third. So, it would be the 17th of December or the 18th 

the Thursday of December. I am shooting for the 18th myself. And 

then in January, back to the last week the 28th or 29th Wednesday or 

Thursday. And then we have of course the in-person meeting 

February 6 and 7. Paul, would you -- were you going to -- say 

something or someone?

>> PAUL BEATTY: This is Paul speaking no, I have nothing 

more to add. I guess it's more finding out Dennis subcommittee rooms 
and spaces would be the one that is sort of losing a slot for the month 

of December. And boarding alighting would be taking their slot. So, 

all of the subcommittee chairs responded saying it's okay except I 

haven't heard from Dennis I guess I am making sure it's okay with his 

subcommittee they only have one meeting between now and end of the 

year which would be November 20th.

>> Dennis: That's okay.

>> Marilyn: Any comments questions concerns with that 

somewhat revised meeting schedule? And, Paul presumably you will 

send it out for everybody now that you have Dennis --

>> PAUL BEATTY: This is Paul speaking. One other thing 

when I sent out the potential schedule to you Marilyn I indicate 

December 17th or 18th same thing in terms of January 28th or 29th 

Wednesday or Thursday. You had indicated that December-wise the 

18th was best for you. One of the reasons why we had selected a 

Wednesday was we were thinking that Ed Steinfeld wanted to 

participate. We think that might be more of an issue for the on board 

circulation and seating subcommittee. As compared to boarding and 

alighting. We don't know what his availability is regarding December. 

Or January. So, we -- so, --

>> Marilyn: It's probably the 17th would probably be okay for me. 

We should -- yes anyway.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. You are saying we should 

check -- we should check with Ed and decide either the staff should 
decide whether it's the 17th or 18th realizing you prefer the 18th?

>> Marilyn: Ed Steinfeld had teaching on Wednesday

>> PAUL BEATTY: Thursday. You might be on break school 

could be over by then. So is your direction to us that go ahead make 

the change in terms of whether it's the 17th or 18th or 28th or 29th to 

check with Ed first and then finalize it?

>> Marilyn: If anyone have preferences for the December or 

January dates now is the time to say. For me, the January dates are 

both fine. For the December I slightly -- you know, I slightly prefer the 

Thursday. Anybody else have any druthers on this? Looks like 

whatever you think is needed Paul.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. We will check with Ed and send out 

to everybody the revised schedule for conference calls.

>> Marilyn: Moving on to our discussion items. We have had 

some maybe new people coming on or off do we need to do anything 

like that finding out who they are or saying introductions or anything? 

>> Rose Marie Bunales: This is Rose Marie I do see who they are 

just real quick I have Calvin glib son Glenn Millis Michael Chisena and 

David Martinez did I -- do I have your names correct.

>> Yes, for David Martinez.

>> Rose Marie Bunales: Yes

>> Yes Calvin Gibson

>> Yes, Glenn Millis.

>> Rose Marie Bunales: And the lines do sound good thank you 
go ahead Marilyn.

>> Marilyn: Thanks. We have now on the proposal sent out 

from Melissa and Melissa thanks forgetting all of this ready hopefully 

everyone got the latest. We have now seen this proposal a number of 

times. We had it at the in-person meeting. We had a very small 

change at the top of the second page the section called operations, 

operation, deployment this is looking at the middle of the paragraph 

deployment shall result in a gab between -- gap between the that meets 

the requirements stated above or shall eliminate the gab entirely that 

last phrase was added arguably redundant but it mattered a lot to the 

committee member who wanted that language and it seemed 

completely harmless and all good, so we put it in. Otherwise, we 

have -- we have had this for a while. And it was my impression at the 

in-person meeting after our discussion that people have consensus on 

this proposal. Doesn't mean it's not going to change further. But as of 

now the changes that we have so far from the current requirements 

seems like people are okay with. What we want to make -- just wanted 

to check if we have consensus, consensus doesn't mean 100% 

agreement. But it may mean -- it may mean that if, you know, most of 

us are with it, we will go forward with it and anyone who doesn't agree 

with parts of it can you know certainly all of these issues will come up 

again before the full group. So, ratification out of the subcommittee 

certainly is not final vetting for these proposals. But they are -- it is the 

first hurdle one could say. So, with that, anything anyone wants to say 
about having problems with where we are with this proposal? We 

have had some discussion. Oh, about discussion, I want to just put 

out -- let's hear what people have to say and go back and forth and try 

not to be too repetitive if -- you know, after a little discussion let's kind of 

see where we are. But I don't want to cut anybody off. So, I will try 

to-- I will try to thread that needle and be both democratic but not sort of 

taking up lots and lots of time discussing the same thing.

So, okay I think that's everything. Any comments? Concerns?

>> This is Frank Maldari from the MTA I still have the concern 

about requiring and automatically deploying bridgeplate. I said it a few 

times, I don't think it's necessary for us to dictate that it has to be 

attached to the car and be automatically deployed. The key is making 

sure that it's available and requiring it to be attached to the cars is an 

extra level of complexity that depending on the operation is not in the 

best interest for safety. If you have to buy only cars that have 

automatically deploying bridgeplates it kind of limits what you can get. 

And the -- in some cases when you have you know, small, short -- small 

amount of equipment, and you feel that it's better to use a manual 

deploying bridgeplate, I believe that works just as good it provides the 

access that you need, without the associated complexity and reliability 

issues associated with an automatically deploying bridgeplate.

>> Marlin: Thanks Frank I remember MTA had that concern. 

Others? Other discussion from other parties about this? Just be 

aware of where the rest of the group is
>> This is Josh.

>> Talgo.

>> I don't -- I am not sure if people are picturing this ramp as they 

should be. The knew Acela replacement program Amtrak is the side of 

the car should have 51 inch high floors we asked them to reduce 48 

they did not. So there is a nominal difference of 3 inches between this 

bridgeplate going to have to be at least two feet long. Talking about 

major components here and as it unfolds how it prevents -- prevented 

from hitting people I am not sure I can picture how it works. I am with 

Frank this could create a very serious situation.

>> Marilyn: Who can respond to those questions?

>> This is Ed Hoff. I think that we envisioned that regardless of 

how long the bridgeplate was, that it would -- it would be designed with 

a maximum allowable slope did we specific identify one? Yes for 3 

inch you are talking about 2 feet long. Where the gaps horizontally are 

probably somewhere between 4 inches and probably 12 inches. So, 

the bridgeplate will in all likelihood need to overlap the platform by at 

least a foot. And bring you on to the detectable warning surface where 

we all know customers, although asked not to stand that close to the 

edge of the platform, in all likelihood are standing. So there is 

some -- some concern that as the bridgeplate deploys, there will be 

people on the platform that need to be mindful of that. In most cases, 

again, this is I am not exactly sure how it's handled it's still a concern. 

But in most cases railroads make an announcement to please allow 
people to exit the vehicle before boarding. We all know how that goes 

usually. There is some crowding near where the doors open. 

However, it's inevitable depending on what system that you are on 

there will be people getting off that you need to make room for. You 

should not stand right in front of the door. As the door opens. So, I 

am really just presenting the -- the scenarios without really saying how 

strong of a concern there is. I do see there is a concern and a 

possibility. They are not going to -- I don't expect that they are going to 

be moving at such a rate and perhaps we discuss what rate they do 

deploy giving people time to react so they don't come shooting out and 

could injure somebody and the timing with the door opening. We 

discussed that, that's in the proposal that they should deploy prior to the 

door opening. So, that was just presenting the scenario, I really 

don't -- I really don't know to what extent the concern is.

>> Marilyn: Others? Thank you Ed.

>> This is Frank again, I just wanted to comment on some of the 

issues that Ed brought up. One thing that you have to realize is that 

this is going to be applied to new equipment only. Not it's not 

retrofitting to old equipment. So, when properties are buying new 

equipment they are going to have this new piece of equipment where 

you could possibly be having it fold out bridgeplate. And, yes, the 

authorities we do make announcement saying stand clear of the doors 

allowing people to exit. That certainly doesn't stop them from standing 

in front of the door. When #- 9% of your equipment you can stand in 
front of the door without a bridgeplate coming out at you. It's going to 

be hard for them to get used to this automatically deploying bridgeplate 

when you have a 10-car train 20 doors opening it's really difficult to 

make sure that nobody is getting hurt when these things are deployed. 

The amount of safeties that you have to put on them is still not going to 

prevent somebody from accidentally getting hit somebody from getting 

tripped -- you know, you are creating a safety hazard that doesn't 

currently exist so you can have an automatically deploying bridgeplate. 

I don't think it's a good idea. Maybe in some circumstances, 

depending on how the car and the platform align where you don't have 

a vertical gap it might be a good idea but what you are doing is creating 

a one-stop requirement that requires everybody to somehow address it 

recognizing that there are difficulties associated with this application in 

certain circumstances. And you don't want the thing to deploy quickly. 

And you still got to keep in mind we run 3 to 5 minute headway at some 

of these stations these trains are moving quickly. You have something 

that takes 5 minutes to deploy. You have to change your schedule to 

allow for that that's every station. So, you know, I am saying that -- I 

am saying it's not bad if you can use it and you have an operation and 

circumstances that allow for it. But to require it universally is wrong 

and it's going to create problems.

>> This is Melissa Anderson, and just one comment on what you 

just said Frank. If you are worried about headway capacity if you have 

to wait for someone to manually deploy a ramp or bridge late it's going 
to take a whole lot longer. I am wondering if this is should that should 

be addressed by mode where inner-city is separate from rapid rail 

and --

>> This is Chris. I was at the (inaudible). I want to understand 

some -- I understand others questions particularly for -- how do we 

actually get independent boarding. In the older systems, clearly 25 

years later we are still having trouble. So (inaudible) broken down by 

obviously the issues -- all of the high-speed rail if they are not 

necessarily apply to light rail or to heavy rail. I just note it (inaudible). 

We saw several automatically deploying bridgeplates and door 

systems, and deploying on steps where it wasn't quite (inaudible). So, 

manufacturers have figured out the solution. It's now a question of 

how you implement it. And what mode.

>> Marilyn: Yeah I would like to hear -- I would like to hear from 

the people that proposed this from the subcommittee or the small group 

that wrote the proposal. The idea was what forward thinking 

proposal -- I mean here at the subcommittee level, the idea was 

to -- what forward thinking proposals might we have because there will 

be plenty of time in the regulatory process, you know, with the full group 

and then the board proposed rule and more steps that the board 

chooses to put in.

So, there is a lot of time to take out things. But usually not time 

to vet, you know, new forward thinking ideas. So, I thought it was 

interesting those of you that thought this was a good idea and 
workable. So, let's hear from -- I hope you will speak up and you 

know -- but let's hear from different people than we have heard from 

already. If there are any who want to say anything.

>> This is Uwe Rutenberg. I saw some of this technology applied 

in some European trains. And I think the people who mentioned mode 

before you are right, you cannot make it a mandatory requirement. In 

some cases it might work. I have seen it on commuter trains, and 

there is definitely an extra delay in deploying and retracting these 

car-borne gap fillers or bridgeplates whatever you call them. On the 

other hand, the Metro in Vienna and Austria is using these on all of their 

cars. It would be interesting to find out what kind of safety problems 

they have. I don't have any information on that.

>> Marilyn: This is Marilyn with the question Uwe they can't be 

mandatory on every mode or --

>> on every mode yes, I would say it depends on the mode and 

the amount of traffic that you have on platforms. But on the other 

hand, as we have seen Vienna on the Metro, I mean there is a high 

capacity of people on the platforms and it still seems to work. So I 

don't know if this is part of their education program or people are used 

to this, I have no idea. It would be interesting to find you know what 

kind of problems or not problems that they would have.

>> Dennis: This is Dennis we put it in there in part because I 

have seen some of the, you know, like on the German high strain and 

so forth the automatic draw bridge kind of thing it works very well. The 
issue here was that when the doors are open automatically as opposed 

to Amtrak and others where the door is essentially opened by a person 

on the train, and that person can decide whether to push a button or 

to -- or whether it opens automatically and deploys. I am somewhat 

skeptical of some of these safety issues not because I don't think they 

may exist. But I can recall back in the 70's when we started talking 

about lifts on buses, we had the same kind of horror stories and horror 

accept sevens proposed about people were going to fall off -- rush out 

the door when the lift was down and fall off. People were going to get 

cut by the lift coming out and the ramps all of that none of that has 

materialized. It just doesn't happen. And I am not convinced that it's 

that big a deal for the rapid rail system. And, obviously, it's true that 

there will be mixed fleets for a while. That's true of every system and 

every change. We have a lot of different cars and configurations in the 

Metro system here and they are going to introduce new ones. 

Everybody has to sort of get used to which cars are going to be 

accessible and good and which considers are going to require some 

more -- I am concerned about the people talking about headways that 

the lift or ramp unless you are going to say, well, on the platform we are 

going to have a portable one of the reasons we are having a car-borne 

device it is with the car as opposed to on the platform. In a 

compartment or something. If it's not automatic but it's manual. If it's 

on the platform you have got to figure out which door somebody when 

the wheelchair is going to be added in and get the bridgeplate to that 
door. One of the issues was the reason for car-borne was to make 

sure that it was with the vehicle and not something that you had to 

retrieve. Automatic seems to be I have seen videos and so forth with a 

variety of automatic newly deployed devices I am not convinced that the 

problem is quite as -- quite as large as is being envisioned here. And, 

again, all of the horror stories about people getting hit by lifts and ramps 

I find I am very skeptical about the reality of those kinds of things.

>> This is Frank again just to comment on some of Dennis' 

comments.

>> Dennis: I am having a real hard time hearing Frank is 

this -- are other people having this problem

>> Marilyn: No, I heard Frank I don't know if anybody else is 

having problems. I was just going to see, I was going to Frank do you 

mind if I just ask to see if anyone else has comments

>> Frank: Go ahead when you want to hear my comment and

you are done with them

>> Marilyn: We are happy to hear your comments. I wanted to 

kind of see who else has comments.

>> Frank: Sure.

>> Marilyn: Anybody.

>> Hello Marilyn this is Blair.

>> Hi Blair.

>> My apologies for coming in late I won't stay for the full term I 

have another commitment to go to. But from the inner-city viewpoint, 
you know, anything that's mechanical, anything that deploys 

automatically has got its challenges, we went through all kinds of 

gyrations with the Acelas just getting the side doors to work. And they 

settled down sometimes they don't open as quickly as we would like. 

But looking at the conditions there may be -- I suppose the worry from 

an operator standpoint is what happens when our -- when we are in 

extreme conditions where we are fighting big weather issues of ice and 

things like that. There may -- my point is there may be -- from my point 

of view if I am able to make the call, if we end up with self deploying 

devices, and I expect at some level that we will, I would still probably 

keep ramps at the stations because in extreme weather conditions like 

we saw last winter where doors are iced over and frozen and you just 

can't -- can't seem to pump enough heat into anything to get it to work, 

there may be occasions where the system is so buggered up with ice 

and things that you have to resort back to manually go fetch a ramp 

kind of thing. But that would be the exception not the rule. But I know 

from the railroad point of view, you know, any -- any additional device 

that you add is seen as terrifies mechanical folks because oh, my God 

are we going to be able to make -- buying is one thing keeping it 

working is another. So it's just one of those inherent fears that we 

worry about. I think from our point of view. Once -- once people are 

aware of what is happening when a particular train arrives, we had the 

Amfleet cars are going around now almost 40 years and their doors 

simply slid open the Acela shows up its door pops open. I don't think 
that we see the problem that Frank sees with New York City where 

someone once said the goal if you are going to get on a subway car in 

New York is to press so tightly to the car when it stops that if the car 

were filled with water, when the door is open, not one drop of water 

would be lost.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair: So I see where Frank is coming from. I don't think that 

we will -- would have the same degree of issue in inner-city. There are 

always the mechanical issues you know a car will been route and have 

a failure. So, we have to be mindful of that.

>> Marilyn: Thanks Blair. So, all of your comments Blair -- you 

were talking about where doors are automatic only right?

>> Blair: Doors and a deployable ramp. I mean there are 

conditions that I am reading here of one and two at the gap where it's 

talking about if these conditions occur, then you will have -- if it's more 

than the plus or minus 5/8 or more than 2 inches it will be a you know a 

car-borne or some other device to address that. How did it say.

>> Marilyn: Car-borne ramp or bridgeplate or car-borne lift.

>> Blair: Shall be deployed. And I understand where every one 

is coming from on the car-borne, because you know, you show up at a 

station and where is the -- where's the bridgeplate we have run into that 

with situations. And everyone is scrambling around. And it's kind of 

it's annoying at best but end up delaying the train and the reason it isn't 

is because someone was there using a wheelchair it's because we 
didn't know what we did with the darn bridgeplate. And no one 

seemed to know. So, I mean from the inner-city standpoint, my fear 

level isn't as extreme or worry level isn't as extreme as Frank's there 

will be points wheren route you have failures because of weather and I 

think the railroads need to be -- it might be worth putting in there there 

needs to be a fall back if -- if there is dependability issue that can't be 

engineered out, because of weather changes that the where the -- that 

the railroad or the authority has to make some provisions to deal with it.

>> Marilyn: Others? Others? Anybody? Frank you had some 

responses? Frank: Yeah I just wanted to make a couple of more 

commentsal lodge the lines of what I was --al lodge the line lines of 

what I was saying before. What bothers me and what I think maybe is 

not clear is when you require it everybody has to do the same thing. 

It's -- I think in my mind it's okay to have manual bridgeplates and in 

some circumstances, when the operation is suited for such a thing, 

maybe you will get some automatically deploying bridgeplates. But to 

require it all the time I don't think is a good idea. And I know that -- you 

know, when you are making -- putting something on a train, a moving 

train it's typically much more complicated and difficult than making 

something work on a wayside which doesn't move. And you know, 

there the movable platform that's being made for Amtrak, I mean that's 

pretty complicated, pretty expensive. And they had to overcome a lot 

of obstacles what to do in weather conditions to heat it to get that thing 

to work. I know they have been working hard on it. And it's just not 
an easy thing to do. So, that's got to give you some idea of the 

complexity and you are not talking about doing it on one lotion -- one 

location on a car you are typically talking about four locations on every 

car. Most cars have four doors that's a lot of brink plates. Somebody 

mentioned Gee you have to -- if you have a manually deploying 

bridgeplate somebody has to get out and deploy it, well, typically yes 

that's true for the very first station that somebody gets on there may be 

a delay but when that person gets off the crew is going to be ready and 

he is going to pop in and out of the door that's one or two stationsal 

lodge the way not every door on every car at every station that this is 

going to be deployed at. That's a lot more duty that's a lot for potential 

for delay. And you know, the 3 to 5 minutes headway is a real 

condition. The other thing that I wanted to make sheer is, you know, 

people say they see these things in Europe. I think you know from 

what I have heard they are not really the best place to judge what you 

can do for maintaining minimizing gaps. I mean, you know, it's one 

thing to say that the bridgeplate is coming out it's another thing to say 

that the bridgeplate results in a gap which is less than two cinches 

horizontal 5/8 of an inch at every station you stop. If you are trying to 

make a gap smaller that's much different than making it as small as 

possible. That's another thing to keep in mind.

>> Marilyn: Question for the small group. Does this require a 

self deploying device at every door or per car?

>> Dennis: This was intended to be door. Assuming that in 
something like rapid rail essentially every door is available as opposed 

to an Amtrak car where there is only one door that has to lead to the 

parking space or the seating space, sorry.

>> Uwe: This is Uwe. I think it's not only for you know persons 

in the wheelchair to bridge the gap. We have seen cases where you 

have four to six inch gaps horizontal gaps it's for the safety of all 

passengers. So the reason to put it on each door is to minimize the 

accident probability for every passenger that gets on or off the train.

>> Uwe. That's a good point that you brought up. At the 

Long Island we have gone through an exhaustive research of our 

platforms and our cars and we basically got our gaps up down to 3 to 5 

inches specifically for that reason. It's a safety concern for everybody 

getting on and off the train. I submit to you that a train that shows up 

without any device popping off of it is 100% safer than having things 

pop on and off of it for every door opening. We are down to 3 to 5 

inches which is pretty darn good. And that doesn't meet the standard, 

and I submit to you that if we have to put these manual -- automatically 

deploying bridgeplates on every single door on every single car we are 

going to have more safety issues than we currently have for the 

average passenger.

>> This is Ed Hoff. I hear the argument, I guess, unless 

somebody correctly -- somebody correct me. Is really from a safety 

standpoint. There doesn't seem to be arguments about finances 

necessarily. Whatever the issue is whether mixed fleet or otherwise it 
seals to be mostly a safety issue with the exception of Blair's comment 

about having a back up or contingency system in place which I think for 

most systems may be natural. They may have as we do bridgeplates 

on the platforms right now. As new vehicles are introduced we 

continue to have the manually deployed bridgeplates from the platform 

base well into that. So, I think those systems may be in place for a lot 

of places. But the safety aspect of it we are certainly guessing at it. 

We have some concern, we all agree there is a concern there we don't 

know to what degree it is. Some of us differ on opinion what degree 

the safety concern is. I don't think that we are going to be able to 

resolve it in this forum. None of us can resolve it. I think it has to be. 

It needs to be proposed forward. And it has to be some -- testing sore 

some kind of data driven that shows that the concern is so extreme that 

the proposal wouldn't be able to move forward. I think it's a very good 

idea to have bridgeplates on cars for the reasons stated before. I think 

the automation of the bridgeplates is a natural progression of 

technology and certainly something that we all want to see happen but 

we all want to see happen in a safe way. If it could happen in a safe 

way I don't think there is going to be anymore argument. I think we 

that we move the proposal forward. And if there is hard fact about 

safety issues, then that may either reduce it down by mode perhaps it's 

mode driven or eliminate it all together.

>> Blair: This is Blair. One other thing to consider, and it may 

be worth putting in as -- to request industry comment or something to 
put it in as an advisory, but right now I am dealing with a situation, a 

gap situation we are going to step in the -- where someone stepped into 

the gap which happens more often then I like to think about. People 

don't pay attention plain and simple. I think that one of the realities of 

people in the disabled community or have any sort of issues is that you 

pay attention probably better than the average American who just 

doesn't look at anything.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> And to the abyss.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> It boggles my mind. We do run the risk when you -- if I looked 

at our trains at Amtrak, and I have got four doors on the car two on 

each side, and I have got an accessible end of the car versus every 

door leading to an accessible space, I could say, well, we are only 

going to put on one automated ramp but people are used to that thing 

being there they look each less and step into the gaps so I will have to 

put them everywhere or nowhere. Because of that. And then, you are 

back into the situation, well, okay if something happens because 

machines break it's natural. And the door opens it opened 

automatically. And the device didn't deploy but people have got it in 

their heads it's there. They are just -- they are going to step into the 

gap. Now, if you are a wheelchair and you roll up you are expecting it 

to be there and it's not. Well, because you are paying attention to what 

is going on in your world. But the you know the typical am Beulah tore 
repassenger is on their phone doing other things whatever they are 

going to step into the hole.

So, it may be worth considering some kind of -- and I hate -- it will 

drive folks bonkers on the railroad some kind of interlock some other 

extra warning if the automated device doesn't deploy so that there is an 

extra attention getter so if the door opens and the gap filler whatever it 

may be doesn't deploy there is something that lets people hey pay at 

tense. Something is not completely right you are going to have to 

default to being careful. And step across the gap.

>> Marilyn: So, Blair you were suggested an automatic 

announcement if the device doesn't deploy for some reason.

>> Blair: I mean you could do multiple things. You could have 

a -- you could have a -- an interlock -- well you have to think about what 

the sequence of events are. If the bridgeplate is deploying and then 

the door is opening, or vice-versa or it all happens at once. If 

something inhibits the deployment of the bridgeplate do you want that 

door to open without overriding it someone actively over riding it for 

emergency issues. Or do you want to take a more passive route and 

say, okay, if the door opens and the bridging device doesn't deploy, 

because it's packed up with size or -- with ice or something, there is a 

flashing light and a tone or something that gets people -- that gets 

people's attention that there is, there is something missing that they 

need to pay extra attention before they bring themselves to a danger 

point. The problem -- the problem with having an interlock so the door 
ceases to function could create a whole other, you know, mess of 

trouble for the authority. Especially if you are in terribly inclement 

weather and everything is delayed anyway. But perhaps a tone or it 

could be part of the whole door tone flashing light signal system that 

alerts passengers that the door is closing or some issue. But it's 

something worth thinking about. Because we will -- you always run the 

risk when you get people accustom to something occurring if it doesn't 

occur that's when the problems crop up.

>> Marilyn: That's a good point. Okay. Just in the interest of 

moving forward, what I have heard is a fair amount of support for the 

proposal, some concerns, especially from MTA and I think one 

other -- from Talgo if I remember correctly. Some skepticism about the 

concerns from the disability community, which sort of I have to agree 

with because we have always heard safety concerns for anything new it 

doesn't mean the concerns are wrong this time, but it would be typical if 

it was more just what Dennis described. But we can't know from sure I 

heard from Blair a number of discussions additional interlocks. Ways 

to get people's attention possible announcements. And what -- my 

understanding from the staff is that given that -- the concerns seem to 

be in the -- the wishes to change seem to be in the minority. The 

important thing -- most important thing is that we need to make sure 

that both viewpoints are represented in the report that we give to the full 

committee. And of course anyone who wishes will have a chance to 

make comments on the report and to talk at the full committee. And 
that it may even need to be resolved during the rulemaking. So, 

it's -- it sounds like we have -- we have not complete -- we have relative 

consensus but not complete unanimity are people okay with taking the 

steps that I described that I understand from staff, again representing 

disagreements in the report we are going to write, and for everyone to 

know at every level this comes up you know you can verbally also state 

your concerns. And I also thought that Ed's point was good, I think it 

was you, Ed, summarizing that the concerns were mostly safety other 

than Blair's which pointed out a number of, you know, more of the 

technical -- the thing is frozen. That seems to be to be -- that seems to 

me to be the best way to move forward. Questions about that 

clarifying questions. Staff, if I misrepresented it please say.

>> Well, let me make a suggestion. I mean there is two different 

viewpoints on this topic. Some people who want it some people that 

don't. If you can write a report you can put them both in there. You 

can see these are the reasons why we think it's a good idea. And 

these are the reasons why we think it's a bad idea. So, you don't have 

to start from ground zero every time we talk about it. It will be clearly 

laid out. And you know it will be easier for people in the full committee 

to get an understanding of what the issue is. It's a lot of things that we 

have done here that you have consensus on. There are a lot of good 

things moving forward that are going to make it easier for anybody with 

a disability to get on and off the train. And that's a plus for the entire 

group. This is one issue that I think there is significant difference of 
point on, and if you are going to go forward with this I think that you 

have to identify the dissending opinion as well as the one for it. So --

>> Marilyn: I think you are saying what I am saying both will be 

represented in the report and verbally nobody is stopping anyone in 

discussion on the full committee. But I am not sure that I would agree, 

necessarily, that we know yet -- I think I have a sense, I could be 

wrong -- of sort of the group as a whole. So, I would just like to hear 

from other people about wanting this to go forward or not. It seemed 

like we had two comments against and that's all. Of course a number 

of people didn't comment at all. I know that MTA has concerns Talgo 

has concerns. I don't want to really count numbers if we have a lot of 

people from MTA that's MTA just to get other organizations that haven't 

commented. Anybody on who hasn't commented and would like to?

>> This is Ken Shiotani I don't know if I count Dennis is our 

representative not only the -- I am only the alternate. It does seem like 

we are looking forward towards, and you know some of these things do 

exist in other systems. So, you know, in a rulemaking the effective 

date could be you know, two years out or something which has 

happened in some rulemaking or three years out or five years out. But 

it just -- it seems like it's within the realm of -- it's being done in some 

places, and you know, if a rule requires improved access for everybody, 

that is where you know, we should be going as we are looking to future 

rail cars.

>> Ken, this is Frank. I think you make a good point. It's done in 
some places. In some places for some operations it's a good idea. 

You are making a rule that affects every single operation. And I think 

that's where the problem is. We can argue about this all day but I think 

the idea is museum forward as Marilyn said is put both opinions down 

in the report, and -- because you know, you are not going to get -- when 

I am talking to the MTA I am talking for Metro north and I am talking for 

the TA and I am talking for the Long Island Railroad. That's a lot of 

cars and a lot of operations. It's not just me that has this feeling. And 

I have spoken to a couple of other operators and there is a consensus 

on our part which is a large amount of the people in the operating 

community that feel this is a problem. And not everybody is 

represented here. And I am only representing the MTA it's a pretty 

significant group of operations that I am representing, and it's a big 

issue for us. So, you know if you still want to move forward with 

recommending it, I think you have to have the dissenting opinion. And 

then we can move on to something else.

>> Marilyn: Well, no one is saying -- this is Marilyn. No one is 

saying the dissenting opinion will be in the report as a dissenting 

opinion I think I said that clearly a couple of times. If you have 

concerns it will be discussed in the report. But I am not sure it's really 

a 50/50 kind of thing. As we already said earlier if we have to we will 

vote. Just as an indicator of where we are. There is a number of 

people who haven't addressed their view. If you have that's good I 

appreciate that.
>> This is Melissa Anderson.

>> Any other thoughts for those who haven't been speaking?

>> This is Melissa Anderson, I think that we probably need to 

move on and just know that we need both opinions in the report and 

maybe this will be resolved during the rulemaking, and maybe the 

report could contain some questions for us to propose to industry to 

help sort this out.

>> Dennis: This is Dennis, I want to remind everybody that -- we 

did this with the 255 report where we combined -- instead of having a 

dissenting opinion or you know a dissenting minority report we included 

the -- the pros and cons in the bulk -- in the report itself. Saying, some 

people felt this some people felt that. And I would ask for one thing, 

that the problem -- or the issues that have been raised here by the 

industry that the industry Frank et al., needs to sort of make a bullet list 

of those for us. Don't try to make us remember them because I don't 

remember them all. So if you would send something in writing that we 

could include in the report to say, here are the issues pros and cons. 

And there will be a comment period when the regulation is issued plus 

the board has to do a regulatory assessment which is basically a cost 

benefit analysis at which time it's going to have to look at a whole 

variety of issues like when the -- whether something is feasible when 

it's going to cost, and those kind of things. All of those issues will be 

addressed at some point in the rulemaking. So, I don't want people to 

think that what we say or recommend is necessarily going to show up 
as we recommended.

>> Marilyn: That works for me. We are going to be talking about 

the report, so at that time it makes sense for those who want to send in 

pros and cons and the people that you know the small group et cetera 

the group that wanted automatic deployment also need to send in the 

pros that you see. The benefits -- the arguments for having it. One 

thing I am glad to observe is that other than automatic deployment, it 

seems to be that we have consensus full consensus in fact unanimity 

on everything else in the proposal so that's a good thing.

>> Could I just speak to that one point? Under --

>> Who is this?

>> I'm sorry Ed Hoff, New Jersey.

>> Hi go ahead Ed.

>> Ed: On the issue of scoping, I don't know if it's necessarily an 

issue or not. I read it I don't know many, many times under scoping 

but I am still not sure. If you have at the time let's say 10, 15 years 

from now these vehicles hit the rails, and you have a mix of high level 

platforms and still maybe a few low level platforms. The requirement is 

written, correct me if I am wrong, requires that the new vehicles be able 

to provide boarding no matter what level the platform is at. So if you 

have high level platforms you may have bridgeplates that simply are 

used to bridge the 3-inch horizontal and some -- I'm sorry 3-inch vertical 

and horizontal gap if you travel to the next station there is no 

accessibility because the station has not been altered yet you simply 
have a low-level platform. Are we then required to provide lifts as well 

on board to serve that station?

>> Dennis: This is Dennis. That was in fact the issue that you 

basically have a choice, you can get -- and you have more or less have 

a choice of where you deploy these new vehicles at least from the 

beginning on various routes and so forth. In Amtrak we have double 

deckers that can't run down the Florida because of tunnels and so forth 

they only run in certain parts of the country and there are other trains 

that are designed because they only work in the west coast or they only 

work on the east coast. And so, there is a whole variety of things like 

that. The issue was that if you have got a set of stations where you 

have platforms that are all relatively at the same height, and you have 

cars with floors that are all say new ones all have the same height you 

are going to order them to run on that corridor and you probably use 

bridgeplates. If you are running trains in a variety -- in a mixed station 

environment where you have got some that like in Orlando for example 

where you have no platform that is asphalt runs up to the rail. And you 

have other kinds of stations where there may be an 8-inch above top of 

platform. And a few 21-inch or something like that it makes -- the only 

solution that you are going to have in that issue is you are going to 

have to run train with lifts on them. That's the only thing that will work 

for all of those various platforms heights or you can start some 

modifications built mini highs build full height platforms and do some 

alterations like that. There is going to be quite sometime before it 
actually occurs. These cars probably won't be in service for another 

10 years I hate to think of that but that's the reality. So, there is a lot of 

opportunity to decide how you are going to deal with that issue. But, 

yes, the issue here was you either have cars that are going to operate 

in platforms that are reasonably the same and you can use bridgeplates 

or you are going to have a have to have a lift on board.

>> Just using New Jersey Transit as an example I don't know if it's 

a good example of commuter railroads obviously we are one of the 

larger ones. But certainly not in the middle of things. So, I don't know 

what good example it is. But we have high level platforms 

approximately I am going to say 65 of the 150 commuter rail stations in 

the state that we have. So we still have quite a number of low level 

platforms that will in all likelihood still be a good number of those 

around. And I will push it out even 15 years I don't think the cars will 

be on the rails in 10 years I think it will be more than 15 years. I am 

pretty certain that we are going to have quite a few low level platforms 

still out there at the same time that have yet to be all interested when 

they do get altered they will be full level high platforms. There is no 

chance to make them mini high level platforms at this point. And even 

if we were to start construction tomorrow, it's unlikely that we would be 

able to provide level boarding at all stations in 15 maybe not even in 20 

years. The thing that I am worried about though is that the 

vehicle -- that we will have to decide as the vehicles -- perhaps we don't 

buy vehicles for a while. Perhaps we hold off on buying them because 
our system has a mix until the system is all high level. Or until it's 

nearly high level and we close a station or something like that. I think 

that's -- my concern is though that the vehicle is driving the station 

issue. When the station issue has been well addressed in the 

regulations stating that you know whether the station gets altered like 

everywhere else in society as something gets altered you have to make 

it accessible. This vehicle may, depending on timing, push that issue 

ahead and say, okay, you are not there yet well the vehicle has to be 

there and be able to serve that station. And I think that perhaps that if 

there is a -- if you have a majority let's say I don't even know what the 

number is, if you are going to equip it with bridgeplates you are doing it 

because you have a certain number of stations that have level 

boarding. And you are not going to do, obviously, bridgeplates and lifts 

on board. But you may -- what you are saying is you may have to do a 

combination of things. Either rush to get something in place or 

perhaps do wayside lifts or the low level platforms. I just -- I haven't 

fully thought it out but I am making note that the regulation does--the 

proposal pushes the issue about station accessibility.

>> This is Dennis. One of the things that we are try to go get 

away from is the portable lifts which have problems for a whole variety 

of reasons. And wayside lifts have been tried, I think in San Jose light 

rail, I think and I don't know what the success of that is. But I am 

not -- I am not sure that it's ever been tried anywhere else. And the 

issue is to -- we don't -- the portable lifts are very difficult to deal with. 
Not only are they not very accessible, although they can be used. But 

the big problem is they are never available. I have been on trains as 

long as an hour waiting for somebody to get the stupid lift at Union 

Station which is you know a big station not some Podunk station out in 

the boonies. So, that's the big issue. And the point is that if you are 

going to serve a variety of platforms, different heights, there isn't any 

other solution that I know of unless you have got a car that, you know, 

like a low riders where you can raise and letters cars. Other than that I 

have no idea what you would do other than a lift.

>> the issue though is where we have a majority of level boarding 

platforms full high level platforms I can't imagine putting lifts on the 

vehicles to bridge a 3 inch vertical gap that the bridgeplates make the 

most sense. So, do we do with those stations that we are not going to 

put lifts on board for those stations that we have and there might be 

quite a few or handful left by the time the vehicles we finally purchase 

those vehicles. But you know, those stations are there is no obligation 

to make those stations level boarding until we alter them. And so, you 

know, could we -- the only thing left for us to do is to use a wayside lift 

to provide level boarding. Mini high level platform in a lot of instances 

is an alternation of the platform and puts us into the scenario where we 

would then have to make it a full high level platform without freight 

nearby or something. So, you know beings it's just that the vehicle 

environment is pushing the station accessibility issue and I don't know 

industry wide if that's the right thing to do.
>> Ken: This is Ken, it's a small system but it's a new system 

and I just--I want to raise this just because I don't know if people are 

aware of this. The Minnesota north star system which runs out of 

Minneapolis and goes north on the same route as the empire builder, 

maybe 40 miles out from Milwaukee it goes to the middle of nowhere 

they ran out of money and couldn't build it further. They use all low 

level platforms because it's also a major freight line. They do have 

mini highs that were built as new mini highs which you know I think 

because it's freight owned that's what they had to do. But they also 

use the Bombardier cars the -- bombardier octagonal shape cars that 

have 25 inch above rail floor car. But all of the cars also have lifts. 

And you know I talked to the conductor and they said when they do the 

trains to the ball games, you know, they often have a large hand -- a 

large handful of people in the chairs in the trains they are like 

four-five-car trains. So the first car the southbound the first end car in 

the south goes to the mini high. If they have other wheelchair users in 

the other cars, they use the mini -- they use the car born lifts to get 

people on and off the other cars. I am just throwing that out as a piece 

of information. They bought you know a set of cars that have 

car-borne lifts, and they used mini highs on the south end of each of 

their station ins a new system.

>> This is Ed from am fracture -- Blair from Amtrak I am going to 

have to jump off because of another obligation I wanted to throw 

something out. This is one of the situations where when I look at the 
fleets of Jersey Transit and Metro north or the entire MTA some of the 

other operations in the country Metra what not Amtrak in a lot of 

situations ends up being the minority operator from a vehicle standpoint 

because we don't have as many cars as MTA to begin with. And we 

are looking at you know a total of about 500 stations. When we look at 

a station out in the -- out in the woods as I like to say, that you know, 

uses a wheelchair lift today, there is an operational reality that a lot of 

people even here at Amtrak forget. And that is would we stop at one of 

those stations we can only open the number of doors that we have 

crew to occupy the steps because it's our rule. You can't have a set of 

steps without approved person to help folks in and out of the train. 

That's a long time-consuming process. When you throw the presence 

or absence of someone in a wheelchair that needs the lift is almost a 

nonissue just because it takes so long to board people up and down the 

steps. And in some of the stations that have gotten busy yes, sir 

where you have 100 folks cued up at two or three doors it can be quite 

an arduous process. When we look at you know new cars coming on 

saying okay they have to have lifts those stations are still going to have 

car-borne lifts until the last, I mean wayside lifts until the last vehicle, 

you know, rolls to the grave yard. And that's why I think I have come 

to believe that the movable platform for a lot of the remote stations will 

the matly be a huge improvement for our operation generally. And 

reduce a lot of the safety risk that we face every day with just 

ambulatory folks moving up and down the steps on trains out in the 
woods. So, you know, it does leave us at Amtrak in sort of a different 

position from a lot of the commuters, but I just wanted to throw it out. I

think that as some of these designs mature, and get the bugs worked 

out, that more folks on my side of the world the inner-city side will see 

the benefits in our operations out there. Anyway, with that said I am 

going to have to jump off. Everyone take care.

>> Marilyn: Thanks Blair. Okay. I just want to take a note 

here. Pardon me for the delay. Well it's -- this has been a very good 

discussion I want to try to move on and get other things done today. 

But definitely all points of view will be in the report. You know, not 

everybody agrees on automatic deployment and those who don't need 

to send in text for their point of view for the report. Melissa, Paul any 

staff, is the subcommittee writes a report to the full committee or the 

whole committee writes a report to the board or both.

>> Both. It should be both Marilyn. I mean, we should be able 

to -- the report that is written by each subcommittee should -- we should 

be able to put those together for the most part and have --

>> Melissa hard to hear I am having trouble hearing you.

>> Yeah, I can't hear you at all.

>> Is that better?

>> Group to staff. Okay. Well

>> There you are.

>> My mic was on alive but I think it was --

>> Thank you.
>> Melissa: We really need both. The subcommittee should all 

be making reports to the full committee.

>> Marilyn: Okay.

>> Melissa: And those reports really should form the basis of the 

full committee report to the board with whatever amendments come you 

know from the full committee.

>> Marilyn: Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, I think we are going 

to move forward and just make sure that our subcommittee report to the 

full committee reflects the fact that there was some concern by some 

members about automatic deployment. I think that's the best we can 

do here. Nobody's view will be lost. The next item was to review the 

issues list. This was the list that we put together at the very beginning 

of forming you know of the RVAAC coming together. And the 

document sent out subsetted you know took a subset of that full issues 

list that applies to this committee. I should say this subcommittee. A

lot of this we have dealt with, we have proposals on some we don't 

some may be inappropriate for proposals we just want to be sure that 

there is nothing missing. So, I just want to go through and maybe 

quickly get views that whether we have dealt with this fully or not. One 

was on vehicles versus platform based that seems to be very dealt with. 

Please say if you disagree. I don't know if there is any of these details, 

I think one is fine with our proposal. Right? Anybody? Different 

feels differently?

>> Dennis: Yeah this is Dennis. We have to remember too that 
some of these things are sort of operational and some of them will be 

dealt with by DOT in it's part 37 which it am mends when it adopts the 

new rules anyway. There are issues that have been somebody 

mentioned earlier that have been done before in terms of setting 

requirements for example, in the bus rule we had a rule about the size 

of the platform. And General Motors complained that it couldn't 

make -- its current lift didn't meet the requirement. It would have to 

retool and redesign and whatever and DOT asked them how long it 

would take. They said three years and DOT said we will give you a 

year. So, they didn't buy the three years. But the issue is so there 

was a specific requirement in the DOT rule that postponed the 

implementation of a particular provision based on what industry said it 

could or could not do. So, some of these issues about things like what 

you do in the interim, what you do with temporary conditions, those are 

more likely to be part of the DOT rule than they will the Access Board's 

guidelines.

>> Marilyn: That is helpful because I am trying to keep a list of 

DOT issues that we hopefully will transmit to them. Temporary versus 

permanent installation. What does that mean even?

>> Dennis: This is Dennis I think it means basically what -- the 

way I read that is what you do in the interim between the time when you 

have fully I am -- fully implemented all of the provisions and so forth. 

But I also think there is an issue about you are in the midst of saying do 

alteration to the station and raising the platform that obviously doesn't 
happen overnight. So there is obviously a period of time when you 

have something going on that you need to take care of the situation and 

while there is construction and while the cars are being outfitted or 

something. And all of those things really kind of operational issues 

more than they are design issues in my opinion.

>> Marilyn: Operational issues are DOT issues where design 

issues are Access Board issues. Okay. Thanks, good comment 

helpful comment. Anything else on one before we go to 2 on the 

issues list? Just to make sure that we have dealt with them or decided 

that they shouldn't be dealt with.

>> This is Frank again I know there is a lot of people that like the 

devices on the vehicle, and I think I mentioned it once maybe before 

that I don't think that a one size fits all approach is always the best one. 

I think I said that a few times. But let me give you a circumstance. If 

you have 100 stations and only one of them doesn't meet the 

requirements for gap and that happens to be on a curve, do you really 

need every single car to have a bridgeplate for one of 100 stations that 

requires it? You know, most -- you know, most platforms being built 

today because of recognition of the gap are all going to be on straight 

track. Nobody wants to put a station on a curve. But inevitably there 

are some stations on a curve. And if the authority does everything that 

they can by getting paying attention to tolerances because as I said 

before, minimal gaps are good for everybody. In the just the disability 

community, but everybody. And it's -- it's the everybody who is likely to 
fall into a small gap anyhow because they are not paying attention. 

So, I just don't think that you need to require it beyond the trains all the 

time. I think that you need to require it be available and maybe we can 

put some words in about not having to wait for you know, a ramp and if 

you are going to have you know 10 doors at a platform then you have 

to have 10 bridgeplates at that platform if you plan on leaving it on the 

platform. You could put words in to that effect. You shouldn't require 

it be exclusively on the car.

>> Marilyn: This is a decision I thought we had already made to 

require car born devices. It's now all of a sudden we are undoing 

everything here. I -- we -- we have had meeting after meeting where 

nobody has disagreed with that.

>> Frank: I think I made that comment before. I can't say I have 

been on every single meeting. I do know I made that comment before. 

I mean, I think you can understand what I am saying. I don't know why 

it would be an argument for somebody to require you know a fleet of a

thousand cars to have you know, 4,000 self retracting retracting 

extension plates for one station. The cost of that is ridiculous in 

comparison to the benefit that you are going to get of having them 

where you need them. So, you know, I know you would like to have it 

so it's always the easiest way. But it's not always the best forever -- for 

everybody when you only consider one way. Like I said, I don't 

believe -- I mean, at Long Island Metro north we have them on the cars 

but I don't believe just because we do that everybody should be forced 
to.

>> Marilyn: Okay. Noted. Others. This is not to open 

everything up. This was, I mean there is always it's always fine to 

have fews -- views expressed we are trying to move forward and make 

sure the issue was addressed. I think we addressed this issue. Any 

disagreement people can send in their view. Anything else before we 

go on?

>> Dennis: Well this is Dennis this is not something else we 

addressed in part of the issue of when you get gaps, I think it's in the 

proposal already it was intended to be that-- it talks about stations built 

after the 1992. We know that there are plenty of old stations out there 

that don't work. It's not -- it's not -- if you comply with ADAAG it's been 

in effect since 91 or 92 I guess. You can't build a curved platform and 

people -- some people haven't realized that I think most people do. 

That's not to say that there aren't some out there. That's why the issue 

of things like one door versus all doors et cetera was keyed to stations 

that were built after the ADA guidelines were issued.

>> Marilyn: Okay. Helpful that's helpful. Anything else? 

Anything else? Okay. Melissa are these really our committee? 

We -- I think we looked at most of these the ones that are. A lot of 

these are more operational. Actually.

>> Melissa: The --

>> Dennis: This is Dennis it looks like the first one really is 

talking -- because boarding devices on shared platform that's the issue 
of having the device on the platform and how it works with bus and light 

rail vehicles when they share the platform. I am not sure there are any 

of those. But yeah there probably are. But it doesn't seem to be the 

issue of what is on the vehicle. Which is what we are addressing. So 

I am not sure this is even our --

>> Marilyn: That's what I meant a lot of these are not car based. 

About the cars. We definitely addressed the size of gaps. We 

evaluate different car types -- I think a lot of this is platform. I think 

Dennis your point about serving different size platforms addresses 

some of this.

Any other concerns about too that haven't been addressed? I

don't think there are any. Unless they are not about the car. We are 

just making sure that we followed our chart to deal with the issues with 

the full group gave us. Not hearing any comments wheelchair lifts we 

dealt with capacity.

We dealt with self operations for an hour today. D and C 

anything that we need to look at? -- B and C anything that we need to 

look at? Okay. Looking at ramps. I think that we have done most of 

that. Any comments? I am on 4. Looking at 5 bridgeplates.

>> Yes this is Dennis I am not quite sure what A is about. Oh, I 

think it has to do with the issue of a crowded platform and the ramp or 

bridgeplate coming out and having a side barrier that people might trip 

over. I think that's what that is about. We talked about not having the 

barrier go all the way to the end and so forth.
>> Oh, right, correct.

>> Dennis: I think that's what it is.

>> Marilyn: Okay. Anything else about 5? We talked about 

some of this today already actually. Okay. I am not hearing anything 

people are concerned about we are missing. Oh, who was that

>> I don't remember talking about detachable warnings on the 

platform.

>> Detectable.

>> Marilyn: Detectable.

>> Dennis: Right.

>> the truncated domes are detectable warnings.

>> This is Dennis there is an issue that was raised I think from 

Portland that had to do with the ramp -- the bridgeplate or ramp it's 

automatic I believe in the light rail vehicles in Portland that comes down 

and lands on the detectable warning because the detectable warning 

takes up the first two feet of the platform. The issue there was that 

the -- they wanted to allow a space on the detectable warning where 

the -- where there were no dome society ramp could land on that 

space. The issue had to do with the lip that you get when the ramp 

edge lands on the detectable warning, and I am -- there was some 

issue about whether taking out some of the domes in the middle was a 

good idea which I personally don't think is. The domes them selves 

are 2/10 of an issue much above the height for vertical barrier is a 

quarter of an inch that is less than that. You put -- the ramp down on 
top you get less than a quarter of an inch vertical and that's accessible. 

Also in Boston, when we rode on the light rail vehicles up there for 

board meeting some years ago, the ramps that came out of the light rail 

vehicles there had a hard rubber outer edge when it landed on the 

domes it kind of conformed slightly and when you rolled up there was 

no problem. So I don't think that's a real issue. There is a solution to 

it.

>> Okay.

>> Short of taking out the detectable warning.

>> This is Crystal. This is Crystal. That is what the streetcar 

subcommittee adopted that brought that issue up just is to help refresh 

folks. They have talked to Dennis and Dennis told them some of the 

solutions that's one of the issues for the streetcar.

>> So, it's -- so Dennis your opinion is it's not an issue because 

it's only a quarter inch step anyhow.

>> Correct.

>> Okay. I think that's good to know. Thank you.

>> Okay. So, I think our -- is everyone satisfied that we have 

addressed the issues that we need to address in size? Okay. Moving 

on to 6. I know that we have, you know, our scoping so to speak. I

shouldn't say so to speak our scoping in the beginning which is not 

written like a rule but written in a descriptive way. Does address mode 

by mode. We have all doors anything any concern about 6? I am not 

sure where the issue came from.
>> This is Dennis. I think it came from the streetcar committee 

from APTA and the issue is when we say 60 to 70% low floor versus 

100% low floor this doesn't mean the fleet. It means the vehicle itself. 

In which there are light rail vehicles which have a center portion which 

is low and then there may be portions on both ends over the trucks 

which are higher. And in some cases, with a -- with 100% low floor 

vehicle which everything is essentially low floor at the same level and 

you have all of the doors available that you can roll in and so forth. 

That's fine. There are some cars in which the center port there might 

be two doors for example in the center portion which is low doors and 

then maybe two doors on the ends which are higher. And the question 

raised by the light rail committee was how do you deal with that. It's 

been dealt with in part with a ruling from FTA about a platform design, 

which essentially has a higher -- higher center part than it does for the 

lower part you have boarding in the lower door but not not the two end 

doors. MTA ruled in a -- FTA ruled in a -- I don't remember the 

case -- that's a mini high platform situation and it's fine. So the issue 

they were trying to resolve is what do you do with the two end doors 

and do you say that they don't have to be accessible or do you have to 

have a lift at those doors. I am not sure what the answer is. I think 

we have taken care of it okay. And I think FTA's ruling solves that 

issue. But maybe it's something that the -- that we can think about it. 

Maybe the light rail committee or the streetcar committee can give us a 

little better idea of what the issue is.
>> Marilyn: That was dramatic.

>> This is Frank I wanted to ask Dennis a question if I could on 

that it sounds like Dennis you understand the issue that is the problem 

with the light rail vehicles that you can't have all of the doors have the 

level boarding. So, I think that's what the issue is when you mentioned 

it it sounded correct to me. But right now the way this is written it 

requires all doors on light rail vehicles to have to meet the gap 

requirements. For those vehicles that are not 100% low floor that is 

going to be a problem. So, I am just not -- it's not clear to me how you 

think we should address that issue.

>> Dennis: The one issue that the APTA rail folks thought -- their 

concern was about streetcars not light rail vehicles per say. -- per se. 

They wanted a special section on streetcars that addressed this issue. 

And that may be the answer that we need to do is to define something 

peculiar to streetcars as opposed to generic light rail vehicles. And I 

am not quite sure how to address it at this point.

>> Frank: Well if we could distinguish the cars that would be a 

way of addressing it right?

>> Dennis: Right.

>> Frank: I will take an action to get in touch with APTA and try 

to understand if there is a specific car this applies to and I will get back 

to the group does that sound okay?

>> Dennis: Sure.

>> Marilyn: Sure. We may need to think mode by mode. 
Okay. Gaps. Does -- go ahead.

>> Chris: This is Chris Hart. Part of the issue here is two fold 

issue. One is the 100% low floor (inaudible) does not work on the 

shared freight light rail because of FRA classifying it. So if you 

consider there you can't require 100% low floor on light rail for freight. 

(inaudible) all of the systems like Boston, where you cannot necessarily 

have a -- necessarily any kind of vehicle passing into a (inaudible) low 

floor vehicle. So, there is some crashworthiness issues as well. Plus, 

that was discussed at APTA among several of us was whether there is 

reason to think about 100% low floor being only two-car environments 

as acceptable versus trying to mend across all of light rail. So I put 

that out for you guys.

>> Dennis: This is Dennis. Again, the issue had to do with 

streetcars we don't have any streetcar and freight trains running on the 

same track. I am not even sure I have any light rail vehicles in freight 

now I don't think it's an issue the streetcar was the one basically 

running in the roadway and are usually loading unloading at a sidewalk 

curb or maybe a curb extension. And the issue there was building 

platforms where you -- where you might not have enough room to build 

in the bus rapid transit system that some of us saw in Las Vegas it raise 

the sidewalk up to the bus level where the buses board and then it's 

ramped up on both ends so if the sidewalk goes up the 

platform -- platform went down. There were some issues raised about 

the streetcar issue where you don't have enough room to be able to do 
that because of various other constraints with buildings and so 

forth:and so, -- so forth, and so there are issues about how you build 

platforms and what you do with streetcars running on the street with lots 

of impediments for buildings that are already there. Very much like we 

have problems with right-of-way requirements because there are lots of 

things that stop you from making the kinds of requirements that you 

would like to have if you were building a new town in the corn field in 

Iowa.

>> Marilyn: Okay. Thanks. Anything else we need to consider 

about that? All right. Thanks for all of the comments. All right. 7, 

gaps. We also talked a lot about this. Any -- anyone who thinks we 

have not addressed 7? I think we have addressed it a lot. I am not 

sure that we examined every European possibility but we talked about 

a lot of them. I wish sometimes we could see some of what they have 

done. There are many of you who know more about those systems 

than I do. Anything about 7? Okay. Let's look at 8. I think it's -- I 

am feeling reassured as we go through this that we have -- we have 

really looked at the overwhelming preponderance of these issues 

anything on 8.

>> Most of 8 is already covered by the on-board circulation 

issues.

>> Marilyn: That's true. That's not us maybe.

>> Yeah I think more off our agenda because it's handled by the 

other group.
>> Marilyn: 9, other. Oh, this was philosophical statement 

which I think we have -- I think our proposal reflects it. I think 9 we 

have done. So, anything on the issues list at all or otherwise? We 

will -- we have done our job. Okay. I am not hearing anything. I am 

glad that we got through that I wanted to make sure that we did it at this 

meeting. Our next agenda item was to review what is being done by 

other subcommittees and fills the question whether there are questions 

of overlap. Melissa suggested that they might include doors lighting 

and communicating boarding alighting messages et cetera. Make sure 

there is agreement and things aren't missing. Do we have any overlap 

areas that we need to think about anybody?

>> This is Dennis I don't know what -- I haven't been participating 

in the communications issue. I am assuming but I don't know that 

there -- that they are dealing with things like they are in the current rule 

that says that automatic doors have to have both a visual and an 

audible indication of both opening and closing so I am assuming that is 

taken care of under the other subcommittee but I am not sure. -- but I 

am not sure.

>> Yes, it is Dennis I am on the other subcommittee and we did 

address it very well actually.

>> and what about the issue of between car barriers where does 

that reside?

>> Frank: I don't remember talking about that anyone where.

>> Yeah.
>> Marilyn: Melissa you were addressing it as a DOT issue the 

other day with me

>> It falls under the subcommittees it goes with boarding and 

alighting it's where you want to prevent people from trying to board.

>> Marilyn: Right.

>> There is a DOT regulation out there I can't remember if I sent it 

to you or not so it would just be a matter of looking at that and seeing if 

it's still adequate or if you want to make changes to it.

>> Marilyn: That's a good point. Dennis were you going to say 

something.

>> Dennis: Yeah I think we should say that the current rule 

requires between car barriers when you have high platforms and so 

forth. It doesn't require them on things that have like the typical 

Amtrak connection because you don't get the false impression that it's a 

doorway because there isn't in light coming into it which is a real 

problem. We don't say that they have to be where you have a low 

platform. Because you know, that's not considered to be a particular 

issue. That may be -- there may be a need to do that but I want to 

make sure that it's contained somewhere that we want to say we are 

not going to lose that provision and because it's related to boarding, 

and alighting that probably this committee should at least say it 

somewhere between car barriers have to be provided.

>> Marilyn: Should we add -- it's easy to add a point between car 

barriers should be provided per the existing rule. Where would it go? 
Where would that go?

>> Do we really need to affirm every existing rule or are we just 

looking to update the rules? I would think if we don't address it then it 

shouldn't change. What is the FRA's opinion on that? I mean you 

don't plan on retracting something that we haven't addressed do you?

>> Marilyn: I think it's for the board --

>> Dennis: The question is -- I don't know what the board's 

decision is the way in which the bus rule is written it was written in such 

a way that there was a section, instead of having mode by mode rules it 

was going to be one rule for vehicles and so there is a section I think it's 

chapter 7 or chapter 8 or something that's reserved in the proposed bus 

rule that was originally going to have the provisions for rail vehicles 

inserted into it. I don't know that the board is planning to do that or not. 

Or whether it's going to issue a separate rule. But the issue is 

because it was going to be a new written provision, you want to make 

sure that you take stuff that's already in the rule that you want to keep 

and make sure it doesn't get lost. So, it isn't necessarily a question of 

duplicating -- in other words, depending on how the rulemaking goes 

forward, some of those things in the existing rule may get lost. So, this 

is just we want to make sure that it doesn't. I mean --

>> One way is making a list of bullet points that may or may not 

be in different sections of where it goes. I don't think we have to 

decide how the rule looks in terms of what section it references or 

something just to make sure there is a bullet point that says between 
car barriers, I think if we just do that say between car barriers should be 

provided according to the existing rule. We are done. Unless people 

want to look at that provision and see whether we think it needs to be 

fixed.

>> This is Chris. I am requesting to you whether the existing 

between car barrier language is -- is adequate for manufacturers 

standpoint, and from a user's standpoint.

>> Marilyn: Does anyone think the in between car barrier 

language is not adequate?

>> Dennis: Unfortunately we don't have people with visual 

impairment on this committee that's who it is really geared to so we 

need input from somebody else.

>> Marilyn: Has there been discussion it's not examination 

communicationings. Why don't -- I think if we add a section I dashed it 

off on my copy of the proposal that I -- that I will now put in red. I just 

added a section between car barriers with one point existing 

requirements between car barriers should stay enforce. I think anyone 

who is concerned about whether or not they are adequate should look 

at them and bring specific concerns back to the next meeting. It may 

be that some of the people on our committee think they should be 

beefed up in some way which is fine. We haven't talked about that 

before. Until then, I don't think it hurts anything to say they should stay 

enforce. People should say if it does. I think Frank's point is are we 

going to reiterate everything but I think it's valid if somebody has a 
specific concern about something it doesn't hurt to say it the most, you 

know at least the board will know it could be a reminder to them. 

Anything else about the train car barriers with the understanding that if 

you review them between now and the next meeting and you think 

there are -- there is a short fall with the current rule that you would like 

to improve upon, send it in or just talk to us about it and we will discuss 

it. Anything else about that issue?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Marlin this is Paul Beatty I have one 

question. So, I can convert the document for our electronic docket 

does your red markings indicate that's new text?

>> Marilyn: Red is -- are things that material it's no the notes at 

the top of the patrol Sal indicates new material that differs from current 

Access Board guidelines.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. But we need a way of marking it we 

can just do that but I guess when you update it if there is going to be 

some sort of marking for purposes of screen readers so forth that they 

would know for somebody who is blind they can't see the red and how 

we distinguish that we need some sort of methodology.

>> Marilyn: Sure. Whatever staff suggests we can do.

>> PAUL BEATTY: I would say at this point underline it since 

you are not using underline strike out for purposes of the document if

it's strictly something different than Access Board current material and 

just underline it and state that in the you know opening statement. You 

can still have it in red.
>> Marilyn: Understood. All right. I can certainly do that before 

the next meeting. Okay. Anything else other the whole overlap of 

issues overlap of subcommittees. Seems like between car barriers 

was thought to be the main issue we need to discuss. Sounds like 

there isn't anything else out. -- else now. Do we have -- can we do 

anything -- can we do 4.4 in the minutes remaining is international 

Melissa this was yours I think international standard for the -- is there 

international standards for the lift is meant or is there another safety 

related standard do you want to say what you want discussed on that?

>> Melissa: I am wondering if the manufacturers and operators 

when you order a new vehicle there is more to the specifications of a lift 

than just the accessibility requirements and I know when we put out the 

proposed rule for buses we asked questions about using an 

international standard. That was available for lifts on buses. And the 

federal motor vehicle safety standards do have one for bus mounted 

lifts. Is there something similar that we could used as a reference for 

trains lifts or ramps or you know if there are -- if there are professional 

industrial standards out there, you know, whether they are ISO or ANSI 

or whatever we -- we would like to know that so that we can -- we can 

make sure that we coordinate with them or reference them. Anyone 

who orders buses or manufactures buses are you aware of a standard 

for a lift even if it's safety based?

>> Marilyn: Hearing none.

>> Melissa: Hearing none we will make something up.
 (LAUGHTER)

>> Well, I don't think that means it doesn't exist. As standards. 

It's just nobody on the call knows of one.

>> Marilyn: We should ask the full -- go ahead finish.

>> There might be an international standard I don't think Andre 

Gagne is on the line I can send him an E-mail and ask him if he is 

aware of anything like that other car builders might be aware of that. I

am personally not aware of it.

>> Josh Coran are you still on the phone?

>> I am not aware either but I can find out.

>> Melissa: That would be greatly appreciated thank you.

>> Marilyn: Okay. We are doing great on our agenda 4.5. 

Okay this is an item that staff has requested of us. About developing 

reasons and information about benefits and costs for the guidelines that 

are changing. And reaching out particularly to manufacturers. On 

our -- in our group. Melissa do you want to say more about what you 

want us -- you feel like we need to do on this?

>> Melissa: One of the important things that the Access Board 

has to do when we present a rulemaking to the Office of Management 

and budget, is do a regulatory assessment to help determine the impact 

on industry and society and we have to list the benefit and the cost. 

So, anywhere that we have made changes if we have you know more 

robust lift or ramp that has to have 800 designed pound instead of 600 

we somehow have to find out what the impact of that change is on the 
cost of providing that device. So, right now we got a really great group, 

you know, as part of our full committee and subcommittee you guys 

have access to that information. It would be nice to get it now rather 

than have to dig around and -- and try to work around it for the next five 

years trying to figure it out as we go forward with the rule. I mean in 

the next two years.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Melissa: So, anybody -- anybody who has that type of 

information whether it's -- whether it's Amtrak or Bombardier or Talgo 

could be our best friends in determining what that information is.

>> It's on Talgo's list.

>> Melissa: Thank you. 

>> Anybody else?

>> We have one minute.

>> Sorry?

>> We have one minute.

>> We just have a minute. We probably -- we probably can't 

smush anything into that. Talgo is going to help you. Bombardier isn't 

on the call. But I bet they will we have to repeat it. Let's -- why don't 

we start there again and maybe we hope to have Andre on 4.5 on the 

next meeting.

>> Melissa: We can go ahead and firm updates I get E-mail from 

Ed Steinfeld he doesn't have preferences because school is out of 
session during the next couple of months. So sticking to Thursdays 

are fine.

>> Marilyn: All right. Any problem with that group? This is 

Marilyn. All right productive meeting thank you very much. Thank you 

everybody. We will next meet December is it 18th?

>> Melissa: Yep December 18th.

>> Pre-holiday meeting any final words? Okay, thanks to 

everybody who called in. Thanks to staff. Very productive meeting.

>> Thank you guys.

>> Thank you operator for your help today please disconnect the 

phones.

>> Thank you.

>> At the everyone for your patience all participants may 

disconnect at this time. (End of meeting)