Note: The output shown below is from the Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) system used in the On-Board Circulation and Seating Subcommittee meeting #5 and is unedited, except it was corrected to note that since anyone may participate in subcommittee discussions, no time for public comment has been scheduled during the two-hour call. 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.

x--------------------------------x UNITED STATES ACCESS BOARD RAIL VEHICLES ACCESS

x--------------------------------x

***ON-BOARD CIRCULATION AND SEATING SUBCOMMITTEE***

TELECONFERENCE *DRAFT*

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

1:00 p.m.

Location: United States Access Board

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004

Reporter: Sandra Gartrell2

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S MR. BEATTY: Good afternoon. This is Paul Beatty. Welcome to the fifth meeting of the On-Board Circulation and Seating Subcommittee, which is part of the Rail Vehicle Access Advisory Committee. As you know, since anyone may participate in subcommittee discussions, no time for public comment has been scheduled during the two-hour call. Although the CART system chat box is available, to allow the cart operator to perform her duties and the fact she is working off site, for subcommittee participants who are only using CART to participate and desire to raise a question or make a statement, we request you use email address RVAAC@access board.gov. As a reminder the next meeting for the subcommittee is scheduled for June 12. Also please remember to state your name when you are speaking. Right now let's go to introductions. If we can go around the room where the Access Board staff is present. Again this is Paul Beatty. MR. PECHT: Jim Pecht with the Access3

Board. MS. BUNALES: Rose Marie with the access Board.From the teleconference I do see Sandy Gartrell, court reporter, Robert Reuter, Sid Goldstein, Marilyn Golden, Edward Steinfeld, Jonathan Michel, David Nelson, Melissa Shurland, Dave Roman, Ed Hoff, Frank Maldari, Ross Capon, Christopher Hart, Dennis Cannon, Glenn Millis and Terry Sosebee. MR. SLAUGHTER: Blair Slaughter from Amtrak. MS. MARTIN: Linda Martin as well. I'm not sure you can hear me. MS. BUNALES: And that it is all I have on the list. MR. BEATTY: I will turn the meeting first to Melissa Anderson. Go ahead, Melissa. MS. ANDERSON: This is Melissa Anderson. Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. This is a kind of heads-up for where we are and where we are going. Blair and I talked a little bit yesterday, but we have a lot of issues we need to cover and we have been kind of stagnated on just a few. So after this4

meeting, I want everyone to go back and look at our original issues list and realize we only have three meetings between now and October where we need to address all these issues. We have a lot of work to do so one of the things we need to watch -- I know everybody is passionate about this and we all like to talk about the things we care so much about, but we need to keep personal stories kind of to a minimum to keep it moving forward. I'm kind of a bossy pants here to say keep going and go to details we need to address. Blair, it is all yours and thanks for signing in. MR. SLAUGHTER: Hello, everyone. I'm working remotely from Elmira, New York, today. It is a little chaotic up here but we will make the best of it. First off, are there -- has everyone seen the information that was posted from the last meeting online? I'm just curious if there are any comments on the notes from the last meeting? MR. REUTER: We made one change on the draft recommendations during the last meeting5

and it didn't show up on the paperwork. On the interim technical requirements, Number 1, lift may be vertical or chair lift. Sometimes we added in the word "platform" or "chair lift style." MR. CAPON: There is a reference in one of the documents to the lower level of the Superliner diner not being accessible, just as information. The lower level of the Superliner diner is for the crew, the kitchen personnel only. It is not open to any passengers. <<<: Thanks, Ross. That is an employee only space and I expect the FTA would have questions about passengers down there as well, unless they are washing dishes. <<<: Is that what happens if you don't pay your bills? <<<: We tend to put you off in the middle of nowhere. <<<: I wish I could work my way places on the train like that. MR. SLAUGHTER: Bear with me, folks, a second. It took me a moment to get on the

Internet. MR. MALDARI: Blair, you were asking for6

comments on the mockup portion that was posted today. I have a couple of comments. May not be any restrictions on using any facilities or features until the train is stopped. I know we talked about this a couple of times, about whether it is good or not to be using a lift when the train is operating. Yeah, it does depend on how long you are on the train but ideally I don't think it is a good idea to be using an unintended lift during train operations. I don't know if we ever came to a decision on it but I know we discussed it at least once. MR. CANNON: One of the issues that came up for standards for vessels and whatnot, under certain conditions of sway and whatnot, elevators don't work very well in cruise ships, and that may be true with this. And I think one of the things we need to know from the manufacturers, especially from those who are using these things like in Canada, whether they can, in fact, operate during the moving train. They may not be able to. MR. MALDARI: I guess my point of view is not whether they are just physically capable of7

it. Means from a safety perspective. MR. CAPON: In the case of a train, if you have, as you frequently have, where heavy coal trains run on BSF in Iowa, you can have a huge jolt that would be much more sudden and short lived than what you would experienced on a ship in most cases. MR. REUTER: The alternative is when the long distance train can only stop every hour or so and the crew is usually pretty busy boarding passengers, they don't have time to take care of stuff like running the lift. I have been on that line across Montana and as a jolt it is very, it is -- it is only momentary and it shouldn't have any effect on operations. MR. SLAUGHTER: As far as those things go, I think everyone makes valid points. Where we are with vertical lifts has been tried obviously in a couple of instances on specialty land cruise but not on a more mass application that we would see if we did long distance train. And I think there is a lot of the technical details that we have to sort through and there is a lot of things that we don't know right now but we can suppose. And,8

unfortunately, we can suppose ourselves until the cows come home. I don't take any of those comments lightly at all. If you look at extreme modes, if you look at a bus versus a train versus a cruise ship, the shock force is the duration. The suddenness of movement across those three modes is very different. So I can't say with any certainty how bad it will be on a train. I know it would be much worse than being on a bus -- I'm sorry. Less an issue if you are doing it on a bus and much less of an issue if you are on a cruise ship because of the reactions times. So I don't know -- I think it is going to be difficult for us to nail down at this point particulars of what has to be -- not just the functionality, but the process, the operation process of these lifts. There may be -- it may be even route specific. It may be areas where it is just simply not appropriate anymore than it is appropriate for people to get up and walk around in an airplane when the fasten seat belt sign is on. We don't have that kind of turbulence but we have issues with rail and9

certain routes and exchanges of things that could create problems. So I don't know how we ultimately get to a good place. There is a reality that Bob mentioned. The stop time for the distance between stops are pretty extreme and may be longer than anyone would want to stay in any one position. So we have to sort through how we deal with that. I don't think we do it today. I think we crack that, keep those comments in front of ourselves so we don't lose them as we move down the path for recommendation. It is a very real concern. And I have been on trains where I have been tossed around on the Northeast corridor and out on the open ground in the country and it varies mile by mile. So we can't assume that they don't exist. Those situations do exist. We have to figure out how we handle that reality and yet provide the level of service we like to provide at the same time. MS. GOLDEN: I appreciate what everyone has said. I want to deeply appreciate what you said, which is, I think, gave us a context which is we can't know yet. And given the10

pressing nature of this issue for the disability community, which you acknowledge in a good way, what we would hope -- I mean, in rulemaking situation of this type that you don't include the limitation until you know that you have it. So you keep it as accessible as you can until you know you have to make a specific, exact limit that you carve out as specifically as you can but not just on a supposed it is a too much of a shaking -- MS. MARTIN: Can I make a suggestion, Blair? Can there be some sort of first part of that sentence that makes folks feel better about it in the sense of "absent significant," looking at what our DOT standard is for direct threat, significant risk to the health or safety of others. Can it just be a limiting clause at the beginning that says absent significant safety concerns, comma. I don't know.MS. GOLDEN: I think it is a good suggestion but I think the problem is those familiar with the applicability of that rule understand how specific and narrow an exception11

that it is.
MS. MARTIN: Yes. MS. GOLDEN: But if you get beyond that knowledge group, or however to say that, it is easy to say, "Oh, yeah, that seems really unsafe to me. We don't have to do it." I mean, I would be more comfortable -- I mean, to pick up on Blair's comment, I would hope if we have to limit it, it wouldn't be a general limit. It would be a very specific limit. Again, as Blair said, we can speculate all day but we don't know it. Can we wait and once we know, negotiate some kind of narrow exception and people who care about this as feeling it is too strong should keep a list or whatever for themselves to bring it back up again when that time comes. MR. HOFF: Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know if it is in our purview at this point to be making a recommendation or specifying about the use. That is more left to the DOT regulations and not necessarily the standards for the vehicle. The standards for the vehicle is about how to equip the vehicle, how and when to use it. Is that not a DOT12

regulation that would stipulate that down the road?MR. SLAUGHTER: Can someone from the Access Board speak to that? Hello? Ut-oh. MR. MALDARI: I can hear you, Blair. <<<: What was that again? MR. SLAUGHTER: The point that Ed made. We are starting to get balled up in the discussion about things that really fall into the operating practice side versus the physical device side, physical ability side of achieving something. Is that something that the Board needs to or the DOT needs to take up versus us looking at the vehicles themselves? <<<: Operations is outside the scope of the subcommittee. It is outside of the scope of the Access Board's duties so we can't really address any operational issues. And we really need to -- some of these details, we are being bogged down in the detail of this and a lot of the details will have to be worked out by manufacturers and transit agencies as the rule is put out there for investigation and trials. We need to look at size and operable parts and13

clear spaces and that type of thing. We know that this has been done. It has been done on the Alaska Rail. And I think somebody needs to find out what has been done there because there is no point in reinventing the wheel. They have been investigating the operational aspects and the safety aspects and even the size and weight issues. So do we have somebody who can get that information and bring it to us? <<<: Ken has been mostly involved. I don't know who else -- <<<: I did some investigation and I spent quite a bit of time. The fact that the manufacturer is out of business doesn't help. I have not been able to find anybody up in Alaska willing to comment on this. MS. MARTIN: Calvin Gibson, the director of civil rights here, went up to Alaska and did a compliance visit last summer. He probably could talk to people, if they are interested. MR. SLAUGHTER: I asked Josh to help me dig up some information on that and I think Josh has been inundated with a lot of14

activities, but I know he was going to contact Alaska again because he was involved with the director, with the mechanical operation. To that end, to Melissa's point, I think we need to steer away and back to some of the other keystone points we need to sort out in this committee. And I will say this, Melissa and I spoke yesterday and folks at Amtrak have been chewing on some possibilities of -- some of these things are big enough that we feel like we need to -- between the point that RVAAC makes its recommendation, this committee makes it recommendation to RVAAC and RVAAC makes a recommendation to the Access Board. There is a window of time the Access Board is reviewing and doing a lot of research. That in that time frame and possibly even before then, we are looking at within Amtrak the possibility of trying to look in some of these physical realities. So we are speaking not just as a provider, but looking to the community to see what the realities are. Right now we are all working from what we know and what we know about how well it works15

and how vehicles behave. But doing this process on a vehicle, we don't know nearly as much about in a daily operating environment. So we can go through some of the exercises and understand what things we are going to run up against, ideally come up with something we can maybe test on the active railroad, whether it is in service, to learn what we need to know so that will help the Access Board craft recommendations or proposed rules that stand a chance of working. MR. REUTER: I suggest we all take a field trip up to Alaska and find out. MR. SLAUGHTER: I'm up for all that, Bob. You set it up and we will go. <<<: I will set it up if someone else pays for it. MR. MALDARI: I'm up for the Access Board paying for it. MR. TALBOT: They also have lifts on board the cars in Canada too, on the dome cars. <<<: And the other questions are how are the dumb waiters working in the dining cars. MR. SLAUGHTER: The dumb waiters actually -- we have a dumb waiter system now16

that works pretty well. It came with great gnashing of teeth to get it to work as well as it does. In industry when you go from moving objects to people, it is a different world and yet you are only moving X numbers of pounds up and down. When someone's life, it is a little different. So I don't want to use the direct comparison. A lot of the problems are the same, Bob. But when we are dealing with live folks, I take it very differently. <<<: I was wondering how they were working in the rail environment and if they were proposing any problems. MR. SLAUGHTER: And, Bob, I appreciate that. We worked actually with Wheel-O-Vator for a while and finally had to go to someone in our industry to build a device that would tolerate the sides to sides and ups and downs. Again, I don't -- to Marilyn's point, I don't doubt there are technical solutions to these things. We have to match technical solutions with operating realities. I will, for all its worth, whatever my reassurance is worth, I don't want safety to be17

used as a crutch for not doing something. But at the same time, you want to make sure that we have -- we create a safe environment for people to enjoy the train. You can't compromise on that. We can't let it be an excuse for not doing something. So with that said, I think it is vital to work into some of the other areas on circulation that are really keystones, even for vertical access. When we start looking at spacial requirements -- not those just on the long haul side, but everybody in rail transportation, big or small way. With that said, unless someone has a big point, I would like to move into that aspect and pick up where we left off last meeting. MR. MALDARI: I'm agreeing with what you just said. I think the operational aspect shouldn't even be regulated, when you have to use it and when you don't have to use it. I think you should focus more on size and capacity. Even though you can learn stuff in what they did in one small railroad, I think the information comes more out of the work that Ed18

did in telling you what size of equipment is out there and what size you need. MS. MARTIN: I have another suggestion about one sentence because it does focus, you know, the operation of the lift and when it is used. Can we change it to say something like facilities and features should be designed to be operated when the train is not stopped? The principle is we would hope to design it, suggest a design or get to a design that could be operated when the train is running. But because that is our mandate; it is not to decide for railroads when it is operated. <<<: Good point. MS. ANDERSON: This is Melissa from the Access Board. You guys can make those kinds of recommendations and if it can't happen, then the industry will tell us that is not possible and why. So we don't have to solve all the problems because the recommendations will end up in a proposed rule that will go out for public comment by the industry and they will say, "We just can't do that" or, "It is not safe because." So we are not looking for the end all answers here. Just recommendations on19

how we should proceed. MR. CANNON: Remember too that the Board is going to develop some specifications and propose them and eventually get a final rule on what the dimensions and those kinds of things

are. As far as the operational aspect is, those guidelines, even in final form, that it is not the end all. They have to be adopted as standards by DOT. And during that process, there is another rulemaking ability at which time probably some part 37 will have to be modified to deal with the operational things. And there is an opportunity at that point to get into the operational issues and have DOT regulations speak to some of the operational things. So it is not an end process. At this point what the Board is going to be doing is creating the vehicle specifications that the manufacturer is going to be using to build the car. Once it is on the road and how it operates, that is really DOT's issue. MS. ANDERSON: We get a lot of good clear floor space on the second attachment that Ed20

Steinfeld presented. I don't know if that is the direction you want to go next, Blair. MR. SLAUGHTER: I would. It goes to where we left off in the last meeting. What I would like to do ahead of next meeting is provide back a revised draft with today's comments for the vertical lift and have another shot at it and try to incorporate some of the things we heard today, again, to keep us focused with achieving our goals for the subcommittee but not getting too wound up on that particular issue. I mean, I agree -- trust me, I'm at Amtrak, right. This is going to effect us most of all. There is a lot of time we could be spending on it and I don't discount that. But, again, if we don't get some of these keystone issues resolved, it will effect not just my rail, and the rest of you, we won't have done a good day's work or a good job for the committee. So if we could pick up on that. Unfortunately I don't have printed documents. I'm scrolling through here on the left to see what we have.21

<<<: May I make a suggestion here. There is another committee that is spending a lot of time on size and dimensions. I think we should wait until that subcommittee is finished. We could work with the opticals. If we have to have a door, it has to be X plus two inches and that X will be whatever the X is from the other subcommittee. MS. ANDERSON: Those are things this subcommittee is supposed to address. There is a boarding and lighting subcommittee that will deal with lifts and ramps and such and we will have to coordinate, but we also have to address it inside the car. MR. SLAUGHTER: As we started out in the last meeting with the assumption that we have arrived in the doorway of the car, the light -- the boarding and the lighting -- the boarding side has delivered us to the vehicle. What do we do now. So we have to move from that doorway to a vestibule and through some other entrance condition, depending on the mode, to the seating area and there is restrooms involved from that seating area to restrooms or other amenities that are involved in particular22

vehicles. I am fumbling through the information that Ed has provided. Can anyone tell me in a quick form what we are looking at? MS. ANDERSON: Ed is on the call. MR. STEINFELD: Okay. You want me to go over it or do you want to -- MR. SLAUGHTER: I think that would be good because we gave you the biggest homework assignment, I think. MR. STEINFELD: Okay. So as everybody may know, maybe some people don't, that we did a study where we measured 500 wheel mobility users and we used manual wheelchairs, power wheelchairs and scooters. And among the many things that we did measure, we measured occupied length and width. And we used that to develop recommendations, clear floor space, the space that you provide near anything or where people need to reach or where people are going to be sitting in a wheelchair for a period of time or approaching things and so forth. So this is a basic part of accessibility codes for buildings. <<<: This is the same PowerPoint display23

that you put on at the last meeting? MR. STEINFELD: No. The document that I sent in, which was sent out to all of us, was my homework assignment. I was asked to take that data and present it with some recommendations for this committee. MR. CANNON: I believe you are talking about the document that is the attachment to the email; is that right? MR. STEINFELD: Right. MR. CANNON: It says CSS proposal of objects. MR. STEINFELD: But the research I refer to, this memo was the same as what was presented in the meeting. And current standard is the 30" x 45" rectangle and additional space of six inches in width and 12 inches in length when you have an alcove .and the alcove is defined by the depth of the recess and direction of the recess, whether it is forward or side approach or forward approach. So in the results, what we found was that the current standards really don't accommodate significant number of people, enough people .like the current standards are not24

accommodating about 50 percent -- they are only accommodating 75 percent of manual wheelchair users. And not even that, really, when you look at the width. And only about 50 percent of power wheelchair users and only about 50 percent of scooter users. And I show that data in the memo. In vehicles, the question then becomes what do you do in vehicles? What are the differences between buildings and vehicles? And it is important to know that you do need better tolerances, I think, in vehicles because there is a lot more maneuvering that goes on. It is a lot tighter space. To get between -- we have been studying buses so I will use that example, but I think it is the same in rail. To get between two rows of seats or to get through a doorway and then maneuver in a position, it is not like in a building, in a

room.So I think we really need to consider not just the size of the people, but also some tolerances for the larger spacing. Now, on rail, we don't have securement spaces. We do have something different and25

that is we have transfer spaces. That is sort of like in public assembly spaces where we require transfer spaces so people can get out of their device into one of the seats. And that means also you need to have a place to stow the empty wheelchair so it is not in the aisle, not preventing other people from getting by and so forth. That is an issue that is different in a vehicle than it might be in a vehicle. And another thing we know is from other research is that people bring a lot of large things on rail vehicles. There is a study of a bar system where people brought baby carriages, lawn mowers and plumb fixtures because people use rail vehicles to get them from shopping expeditions to their home. So at least on intra-city rail I think it is very important to think of all these other things. So even on long distance rail people come on with suitcases. You can't always get those suitcases back into the storage compartment and there is also the need for storage space for things like strollers and other kinds of stuff26

that people bring with them. Another thing to think about is if you are out of storage space, how is seating arranged? In some rail systems the seating is longitudinal seating where you are sitting where your back is against the exterior wall of the vehicle and facing to the center and others it is in rows where people are facing forward or backward or both. In some cars both types of seating are used. Also another type of seating is table seating you might have in dining and observation cars. So we need to think about having spaces where wheel mobility users can travel that provides equivalent experiences in terms of the direction they are facing or their relationship with other people in the vehicle. So, bottom line, we need to have requirements that will accommodate all these different conditions, which means they have to be flexible for all these potentially different situations. And then I gave a list of proposals to go through them. I think the clear floor space should be provided immediately inside, the27

accessible entrance. You need an accessible path to the clear floor spaces. They shouldn't be located in vestibules or other areas where seating is not provide for other passengers, although in some cases it is provided for other passengers. We have to think whether we want to require it there too or whether just in the main compartment. And we certainly need accessibility path or travel in those vestibules. The clear floor space should be based on our research, 32 x 54, unless the size of the clear floor space is bounded by immoveable objects. And then the question becomes how many should be provided. I think it is not unusual for people who use wheel mobility devices to travel with other people who do and I think we also have to recognize that there may be a lot of people who need clear floor spaces and are traveling all at once, maybe not in the same car, but in the same train. You have groups, for example, wheelchair basketball teams and so forth. So I think we ought to think about how these two clear floor spaces should be provided28

on each car and I think it is better to do it together because it creates more flexibility for other uses, for the other people. I wasn't talking about in packages and carriages or people traveling together. So where space abounds -- like in building standards, add another tolerance of 6 inches and 12 inches. I don't think we should do it like in the building standards because I think there are simpler ways to do it and it can be applied more generally .and if we affix it to those two types that is what we will get. It has to do with the size of the clear floor spaces that are bounded and I think we can write language that can deal with which sides are bounded and what the tolerances should be. I think we need to have illustrations for this. I didn't do them, but I think we need that.I have traveled on trains in Europe where the clear floor space is provided in a generally large compartment and I have seen this in South America also. It works pretty well because of rush-hour traffic. When you have rush hour, a lot of standing and operators29

may want more standing room. And flip-down seats are largely useful for that because you can use the seats for seated passengers that need them. They can be priority seats. But they can also be flipped up so they can be made into clear floor spaces and they also allow for companion kind of seating arrangement. So I really think every clear floor space should have flip-down seats because it increases the flexibility of how they can be used, both for groups traveling with people with disabilities and also for others who need more space for objects like luggage and things like, you know, kitchen sinks and stuff like that.And I think that there needs to be a clear floor space next to a transfer seat. But if we combine the flip-down seat with the transfer seat, that can easily be achieved. And I think we need to think about stowage space for unoccupied devices. I'm not sure how much space is required for that. We have data on unoccupied device sizes. A lot of wheelchairs cannot be folded and that includes manual chairs, like high-performance manual chairs30

that have rigid frames. They can be stowed. They can be folded in often different ways than a folding chair but that means taking them apart and that is complicated while you are on a vehicle and before -- and when you get on a vehicle and they want it to move fast. I'm not sure whether you need stowage space on intercity -- intra city -- and I don't know how you define that. Commuter rail and subways, do we need stowage space on those? I don't know. I don't think we do, but how do you define that and that is going to be an issue. But certainly needed on long distance trains, very much like what we now have on airplanes. And I think we should allow it to be combined with other things because a lot of stuff is brought on trains and ideally should be put on a protected place rather than just lying around. So those are my thoughts. MR. SLAUGHTER: Thank you for that. I'm sure we will have some questions for you coming into this as we talk about it more. One of the things I have taken the recommendations for PRIIA and applied them to31

existing car floor plan because of intercity cars. When you start looking at those hard definitions, you begin to consume a lot of space in the train. And when you throw in -- or define spaces for service animals and things like that, I know that from the provider side, we are always in the quandary between complying with accessibility requirements and just, you know, doing the right thing, so to speak, and the constant pressure to maintain and increase when we can revenue space. But I think that drives to the point that I made at one of our other meetings. I think the key going down the path is less about defining quantity of unchangeable spaces and more about ensuring that there is the flexibility within vehicles to accommodate and not accommodate in some, you know, half baked fashion. But to accommodate properly by being able to immediately configure the vehicle, whether it is the flip seats or some other devices, depending on the mode and the length of the trip, and those sorts of things so the people are properly and safely accommodated without fail and at the same time we could32

manage to keep the capacity of the vehicles up. One of the risks -- and not in a safe way. Well, sometimes it is. One of the things we run up against and it is very frustrating and I'm sure other modes run up against it as well, people do bring lots of things and they tend to pile them up. And unfortunately they tend to pile them up in spaces we define as accessible places and that requires a lot of policing. Because people just see if no one is there actually using the space intended, people just see empty space and it is just sort of a human thing, I guess. So those are always one of those troublesome things where you get someone who is used to someone bringing a lawn mower -- haven't seen it on our train yet. Amtrak, I know, is very actively trying to measure its carry on baggage better so that we don't have that sort of accumulation going on. We are trying to be very -- not quite as bad as the airlines, but more reasonable about the tonnage people bring on to travel with, because sometimes it is ridiculous. And where we have check bag provision, having people check bags, that has its onset of difficulties.33

Anyone else have any thought on what Ed's just talked about? MR. REUTER: Over-the-road bus industry has developed a sliding track seat so that two or three people can be slid together to make space when needed. This may be something to consider. MR. SLAUGHTER: Bob, you are thinking along the same lines about things we discussed internally about how we can achieve -- maybe we can't achieve all things but we can achieve most. And we talked about seats that will slide together, seats that can readily be removed from the train if the situation requires so that you can accommodate people quickly and easily without compromise. And at the same time where the space is not needed, you know, you have other revenue seats there for folks to sit in. So it is a challenge. I don't think it is insurmountable. Again, like anything else, it is a technical challenge and those of us in the technical world that is what we do. Sometimes we forget that. We do need to get back to defining some34

rigid numbers, at least as a starting point to work around. MS. GOLDEN: I would like to -- I think -- I just want to thank Ed for his report. I thought it was extremely helpful and really anticipated a lot, all the different eventualities we have to face, and also suggested numbers and appreciated the reasons for them. I would hope we would implement his recommendation until we learn that we can't. That is at least our suggestions. Two other quick comments. Bob, I hear you about track feeding and also, Blair, on over-the-road buses, we discovered -- maybe there are other generations of that and recent ones are better. But some of them jam up with debris. Removable seats that Blair talked about is very interesting. Tinshi Toni (ph) could not be here today, suggested an issue that is not on the agenda, that the disability should add for future cars we look at the possibility of removing seats so again you could have people ride together. And we have to figure out how to finesse that. And35

I think removable seats is a great idea. But track seating, unless it has gotten better, it gets better. Back in the days with over-the-road buses before 2012 when they were allowed to ask for 48 hours notice, people who set up equipment and sent it out to the driver, I don't know the details of that, sort of the advance people in the garage took expanded seats when you needed a bus to be accessible. But with removable of advance notice, which brings it to the situation on the train, you don't know who is coming on when, some of the divers can't move the seats quickly because they are jammed or messed up. So it worries me to do that unless we know the technology is better now. MR. STEINFELD: I think at this point it might be best to talk about the principle of making more space by adapting existing things. I only put in, you know -- I should have thought more broadly about it because I just wrote flip-down seats. And I was very specific. I didn't say flip-up because we found in our research on buses that flip-up seats are not the greatest because they are36

hard to manage. Like if you come on a train and compartment and there is not anyone to help you or your fellow passengers have to help you, if you don't know how to release it and let it flip up, then it may be impossible to use it. But flip-down seats are the kind of seats you just push the seats down, like you see in a theater, and those are much more intuitive and easier to do. I don't know if we should get into it, but I didn't think about removing or shifting seats. I think there are probably a lot of ways it can be done. The whole idea is you have flexibility seating for spaces. I think we can look at what technologies work and what performance technologies might be needed to encourage innovation on this. I have seen seats on paratransit buses -- paratransit buses a lot of them have tracks with removable seats to accommodate different ridership at different times. I have seen a new kind of seat -- I don't know if it is actually new. I have seen a seat I have not seen before, basically very comfortable kind of captain chair seat. It folds up on the side of the van. It does take up some space, but it37

looks quite comfortable and very easy to fold up and it is much better for longer distance rides than a typical flip-down seat on a subway train. MR. MALDARI: I just want to make the quick comment about this. I think we are getting too much into the details. I really think you want to say you want a space, the size of the space and accessible path. Whether the authority wants to make it a flexible space or not, should be up to them, whether they think it is necessary or not. And the only thing you might want to specify if you have flip seating, it always has to be in the up position because you don't want the person in the wheelchair to put it in the up position. I would agree with that. I think we are getting way too deep in details of what kind of configurations and making the cars flexible and requires the seats to be flip-up. I think that is much more information and more restrictive than you want it to be. You want clear floor space and accessible path. How that is achieved with the seating arrangement should be up to the38

authority to figure out and the need for flip-up seats should be up to them to figure out whether they want them or not. You want to say you want them in the up position so no one has to flip them up to get in the space. MS. GOLDEN: Agree with that except with the point the Board is doing now, which is great, which is presenting minimum standards .they are very specific than having advisory language. And my understanding is advisory committees are places that can generate suggestions for advisory language and insights like Ed presents -- I like actually what you said, Frank, about saying flip-down versus up, we are suggest a removable seat and maybe discouraging a track seat is a good possible -- a good nominee for a little piece of advisory language. MR. CANNON: The current language for buses and trains and whatever specifies the clear floor space and then simply says you are permitted to have removable or whatever seats in that space for the use of people who -- as long as they don't interfere with floor space. MR. MALDARI: That is the way it should39

be. MR. CANNON: With the performance standard right now it doesn't say it should be flip-up, flip-down, sliding, removable, just that they are allowed to have them in there as long as they don't obscure the clear floor space in their up or folded position and then let the designers or whatever figure out what to do. In the Talgo cars in the area where you have table seating, they have a seat that the seat itself flips up and then the whole thing slides back into an alcove behind you and you can pull in with a wheelchair. It is a very interesting design. I don't think we need to get that specific but if someone comes up with a design like that, I think that is great. MR. SLAUGHTER: Dennis, I think that is a very good comment. And also, Frank, I appreciate your comment as well. I think that -- if someone on the Board can clarify this. I thought at the last meeting there was a comment that we can no longer or that the Access Board can't put in advisory language anymore. Is that true? MS. ANDERSON: We are moving away from40

advisory language and we are providing technical assistance guide. And we can't publish advisories in the CFR, in the Federal Register because they are not actual standards or regulations. So we can provide it as part of the technical guide. MR. SLAUGHTER: Okay. Very good. I think that, again, to try to bring us back into focusing. One of the things that Ed said and I think is very interesting is that if we define clear floor space minimums and there are caveats that go with that based on how that space is bounded, I think that is largely critical with vehicles I don't deal with. But transit vehicles where there is not a lot of bounding, there is more open space and that is a more easier accommodation because you are not bounding the space so rigidly. MR. STEINFELD: I think we also have to consider things like toe clearance you could have under seat and so we have to define what bounded means and different kinds of conditions that would apply. MR. CANNON: The current standard does41

have requirements or some allowance for clear floor space to go under a seat, a minimum, I believe, is 9 inches of vertical clearance and you allow 6 inches max of clear floor space under something like that. The other issue is when you say define the space, and, as Ed has pointed out, talk about immoveable objects on a bus, for example, when you go down the aisle from the front door you go between the wheel wells. You can't do anything about that. You can't move those because the wheels have to be able to turn and so forth. So there are limitations and they usually are not the kind of thing in rail cars, at least if we design them properly like the Acela that has a much wider aisle than the older cars. We talked about the vestibules, that is, where you enter on the side and you have to make a wide angle turn down the wall and the aisleway. That is typical of Amtrak and whatever car. It is not usually the case in some of the intercity commuter rails, at least. I was told that the PRIIA vestibule width is -- the current ADA guidelines say 32 clear. And42

I'm wondering how the 44 is measured. It is measured from the outer wall to the bulkhead or is it measured clear space, meaning from any protruding object like the crab (ph) latch, for example? MR. SLAUGHTER: I think the 32 is the doorway opening and the vestibule measurement is clear over any obstacle, such as latch or something sticking out of the wall. MS. MARTIN: The old vestibule number was 42 and the newer one and the 305 spec is 44. MR. STEINFELD: One of the things -- I'm glad this is brought up because I forgot to put it on my list. Turning into a vestibule into the passenger compartment is what we call an L turn maneuver. And in our research we found that we have data on how wide each leg of that L should be. And going into a 32 -- although we didn't study going into a 32 inch opening. What we did find, though, if you have a 43 x 43 turn, so essentially going from the vestibule that is 43 inches wide and then you turn into a space that is 43-inches wide, meaning the doorway, then that would accommodate everyone in our sample. When you narrow the doorway to43

32, then a lot of people won't be able to make that turn, unless the vestibule is a lot deeper. MR. MALDARI: Or the doorway is wider. MR. STEINFELD: Yeah, you can make the doorway wider. You can have a two-panel doorway. MS. GOLDEN: Is that why the (inaudible) through dimension is what it is? Did we discuss or I can't remember where it was discussed but I was in a discussion. It might have been -- MR. SLAUGHTER: It was discussed at the last meeting and we talked about the 42 inch clear on the existing rules. Forty-four is what was proposed in the PRIIA. And someone else mentioned in Canada there is 60-inch wide vestibules and we talked about the turning into the aisle, the L turn as well, just looking back at my notes. <<<: Again, what are we doing right now? What was the last rule on the buses? What was the number, not on the vestibule, but on the clear floor space as well? MR. STEINFELD: You mean between the wheel44

wells on buses? <<<: No; the clear floor space allowances for parking. MR. CANNON: In the proposed update it is the same as it was before, 30 x 48. MS. GOLDEN: But that is not the right comparison. <<<: Looking at a jump off point, Marilyn, I don't doubt we need to increase that size, but I thought -- if you are looking at transit versus intercity stuff, if I'm making a transfer from a bus to a light rail or subway, I have to expect to find, I hope, the same minimum accommodations at least. MS. GOLDEN: I thought we had decided not to go below the PRIIA car recommendations or requirement? MR. STEINFELD: Before we get to that, the bus requirements are really old. I mean, those are based on the 30 x 48 clear floor space in the ICC NC meetings. We agreed to increase the clear floor space because it is inadequate. Because now the buildings will be designed to have a larger clear floor space and the buses should be too.45

In our experiences the transit operators are using a deeper, 60 inches of clearance and the width is open because, you know, because it is wider than that because it the width of two chairs, two seats in a forward facing row. The actual reality on buses is they provide more space. MR. REUTER: I remember in the original meeting, that 30 inch was with a door with a company that is out of business that couldn't do it. No reason to have anything less than 32. <<<: I thought we were talking about the clear floor space? MR. REUTER: And 30 inches was the maximum the old bus could get in. MR. STEINFELD: You are not referring to the clear floor space. Secure -- MR. REUTER: Not the clear floor space there, but the clear opening through the door. MR. STEINFELD: Yeah, the door is wider

now. MR. SLAUGHTER: I think we are getting a little muddy here, but these things interrelate. The clear floor space, correct me46

if I'm wrong, the way I look at it, that defines the cubic measure, the static measure that we need to make sure we can move through from the doorway down the path to where the parking space is. Realize the path may be very different, depending on the mode. May be nonexistent, depending on the certain transit vehicle. Again, to put some hard numbers against defining that space, that would let us lean back on do we go with the PRIIA recommendations for the vestibule clear space? Do we need to define the cubicle or (inaudible) space and then define that you simply -- you give some basic definition and then some performance definition for moving from the entrance area to the defined parking space, rather than getting tied up like the original rules gave a specific dimension. I guess we need to decide how do we want to do that. Do we want to say you must provide the condition or do we want to give specific dimensions that can be good/can be bad? MS. ANDERSON: In the rule that was proposed we kept the regular 30 x 48".47

MR. REUTER: I think it is a performance standard. I have always been a big fan of performance standard. MS. GOLDEN: They added the maneuvering

space. <<<: Melissa, you dropped off. MS. ANDERSON: Our mics are dying here. We added 6" for maneuvering space. If you are parallel parking and you are confined on three sides then you need more space to wiggle your way into that wheelchair securement or just the wheelchair location. MR. STEINFELD: So the length of the space was increased to 54, 48 plus 6 inches? MS. ANDERSON: The length gave it 48, but maneuvering space was added to it. MR. STEINFELD: So effectively you have 30 by 48-inch space? MS. ANDERSON: Right. Maneuvering space in one mode may be different than maneuvering space in another mode? MR. CANNON: Let me clarify what some of the issue is. Performance standards are great until somebody tries to perform and they don't know what they are doing. We used to have a48

provision in the original bus rule that set out the minimum requirements to clear floor space where the wheelchair was going to be secured and then there is a minimum width for the lift, the ramp, which essentially fits in the doorway and sort of we didn't define the doorway, but the lifts defined how wide the doorways were going to be. Then we had a performance requirement that said sufficient maneuvering requirements to get in the door and into the clear floor space. And we found that was not adequate for people to adequately design buses. They didn't exactly know what, quote, sufficient clearance space was. In the new rule we tried to clarify that a little bit by specifying some minimum distances measured at all points along that path. That is probably a little better than some of the other provisions. But just saying "provision space", is usually not enough for a builder to design something because then the builder has to go out and sort of measure wheelchairs and come up with some idea of what and how wheelchair maneuvers, when that shouldn't be the case. We as a guideline provider should tell49

them how to design the space. <<<: One question is the 32 x 54 are a 90 percent drop? MR. STEINFELD: Let me look. Yeah, it is roughly. <<<: Approximately -- MR. STEINFELD: It is a little complicated. There is width and there are -- <<<: Right, a 32 x 54. We could accommodate at least 95 percent. MR. STEINFELD: Roughly, I would say. <<<: I think that is an excellent piece of information. MS. MARTIN: That is the clear space required of the bilevel 305 compliant car, is 32 x 54. MR. MALDARI: I like the idea of performance standards of giving flexibility to the designer. I think what is lacking once you get in the car is defining how the wheelchair maneuvers. Is there any way you can think of to restrict or guide the person in maneuvering of the wheelchair that can be added on top of the performance standard? MR. CANNON: First of all, we had50

manufacturers doing things like building a box that was 40 inches tall and pushing it through the aisle and saying, "If you can't push it through the aisle it is not accessible." But wheelchairs are not rectangular. The fact if you could push the box through the aisle, it is probably accessible. If you couldn't do that, it didn't necessarily mean that a wheelchair couldn't make that turn in maneuvering. So we found all sorts of interesting ways. Now, we had hoped that maybe -- I think this is part of what is coming up from Ed's work. We had thought there might be a computer generated model that you could actually essentially in virtual reality maneuver a wheelchair through a design and check your design before you actually started building something. I'm hoping that something like that will come along. That is not something we will put in specification for the Access Board, but it is something included in technical assistance. MR. STEINFELD: That is something we want to do, but it is not as simple because you have to look at the different wheelchairs. You51

can't have one model, but you need to have a lot of models and we need funding to do that, which we don't have right now. In response to what Dennis said, when you look at whether you have a trapezoidal shape rather than rectangle, we found we could not. A lot of people are wider in the front than the rest of the chair, and they may have feet dangling out. In scooters, when they sit in resting position they actually have their feet on the floor in the front of the scooter. So there is a lot of complexity to this. One thing we might want to consider in terms of guidance is marking the clear floor space in the floor in some ways so people know the areas that has to be kept clear.

MR. REUTER: As a strawman so we can move the agenda, maybe we should set the 32 x 54 as a work standard until we find it needs to be changed and move the agenda to the other items. MR. CANNON: I don't think you need to -- I'm in favor of saying 32 x 54 is a clear floor space needed in the space where the wheelchair is going to be sitting. The issue we are trying to wrestle with is how to get from the52

door to that space, if you have to go down an aisle and make a right angle turn in the vestibule. And that is a different issue than saying, I think, clearly -- especially since we are told that the PRIIA car already does this, that we should settle on the clear floor space being 32 x 54 and then move on from there. <<<: Four wheel scooters take up a lot more maneuvering room. <<<: I think we need to have more space than 32 x 54 in order to get into it. I think setting that as the clear floor space, that is one thing. But as far as the space needed to get into it, we need more maneuvering space. In order to figure out what that should be, it would be useful to get a bunch of plans of different types of rail vehicles and look at them because actually may be more space available than we think. MR. MALDARI: When we did our evaluation, we got a wheelchair made like a box, kind of like what Dennis was talking about before, and you just tried to maneuver yourself in the space using the wheelchair and see if you can do it. That really seems like the most logical53

way to do it. If you say it is 32 x 54, you make a 32 x 54 box and try to maneuver that in a wheelchair, get into a space. In our equipment we have wide side doors. We have relatively wide opening into the passenger compartment in the vestibule, which is in quarter point. And we made them even wider when it was necessary because you didn't have enough maneuvering room to get in there. If 32 x 54 is a good parking area -- the maneuverability to me, I don't know, if I was doing it I would make a 32 x 54 box and try to maneuver it in the space, what is wrong with that approach? What am I missing by doing it? MR. CANNON: One of the things people using the box is they moved it down the aisle and slid it around and wheelchairs don't turn that way. It depends on if the wheels are in the front or back or middle and you can't move the wheelchair sideways into an alcove, for example. The additional maneuvering space added to the bus requirement in the proposed rule takes into account the alcove issue, which is if it is bounded on three sides in order to get into that space, in order to get a 54-inch54

wheelchair into a typical space on a bus, for example, you have to be able to have more room to be able to turn. The same is true with the Acela, which has a post underneath a seat -- excuse me, underneath a table, which is added. It was not part of the Bombardier design, which prevents you -- me, at least, from turning into the space. So I have to have my feet turned out in the aisle because that post is in the

way. So you need, I think, some additional space and maybe six inches, a number with the alcove provision in the sense if it is bounded on three sides, and it depends on the depth of the alcove and so forth as to how much space you need, it might be as much of a foot extra, if you actually have to maneuver into the tight

space. We also need to introduce something like clear knee and toe space, which is currently in the ADA/ABA guidelines itself to make sure the tables and whatnot in trains, especially in Amtrak type cars, are actually usable. MR. ROMAN: I agree with setting the parking space area to 32 x 54 for the55

wheelchair, but I don't think you are going to be able to tie down the maneuvering space because each different mode of car, different size. I think what possibly could be done is to specify the parking area and then require adequate maneuvering space to get in and out of that area. Typically a study is required for maneuverability for wheelchair in the parking area and it is confirmed on the car mockup, where the car builder brings in different types of wheelchairs to be able to get into that

space. MR. MALDARI: Right, but you need to define the size of the wheelchair. Is the size of the wheelchair 45 -- <<<: Absolutely. MR. MALDARI: So is it the 32 x 54 or the 30 x 48? MR. ROMAN: Well, if we are going to go with scooters, it will be 32 x 54. MR. MALDARI: Okay. I'm saying the same thing you are, Steve, only I'm thinking if you take the box and put it on the wheelchair, it limits the maneuverability you have. You can't move perfectly laterally in a wheelchair and56

you use that as your guideline hoping that a scooter is as maneuverable as a standard wheelchair is. MR. SLAUGHTER: The difficulty is that, again, you get back to the geometry. If you are looking at a rear axle of a scooter being at the extreme end of the 54" and the steering wheel being at the other extreme end versus a wheelchair where the main axle somewhere just slightly before or after the middle of that box and much more maneuverable device, your geometry is going to be very different and your maneuvering space could be quite extreme. Obviously every time you add any dimensional space to the clear floor space or the rectangle, when you start taking that dynamic, it is increasing the maneuvering

space. So on one hand, Frank, based on what you said, if you took a typical -- I hate using that term, a typical wheelchair that is a pretty maneuverable device and surrounded that with a 32 x 48" box you could do things with it. But if you took the same box and gave it scooter wheels, my understanding is you would57

have a different -- completely different maneuvering footprint. I think part of what we -- somehow we have to define which footprint are we going to maneuver for because that will define sort of the worse case that we are designing for. MR. REUTER: You design for the worse case scenario, then everybody else's works. MS. GOLDEN: That is right. And also we have to think about whether we can craft a guideline that, as Dennis was saying, doesn't invite designers to do something that is working for us and it ends up not just to make a box and see if we can slide it down their aisle even on paper or maybe they do it actually physically once it is built, I don't know. Because different types of devices move in different ways, scooter versus et cetera, et cetera. And you can't follow a model that way. And Dennis was saying to keep people from designing that way, they had to simply not use a performance standard. They had to specify it the way they did it and that was specifying additional maneuvering space. We have to just craft -- you know, performance standards will58

work for some things and not for others. This seems to be one where it does not. MR. SLAUGHTER: Marilyn, I understand you are -- I think we are saying the same thing, to a point. And, again, I ask that question: If it is a performance spec, then you have to define -- if we define the clear floor space and that drives what we are saying, the shape of the side of the vehicle, then we have to go further from a performance standpoint and define the wheel geometry, the axle geometry, the steering geometry of that device, that rectangle. That is why I say, do we define it as a scooter, which is the most restrictive. And then you could say to a car builder and designer, you are going to take these things with these parameters. And when you give axle and wheel conditions, because wheels stick to the floor and you don't slide them side to side, that is where we get to trouble with the box, as Dennis said. The box will move randomly where the wheelchair will not. Does that become part of what we define in order to make the performance standard work? I mean, I would -- imagine this. Let's59

say we said we are going to work around the clear floor space for parking a wheelchair at a fixed 32 x 54 and then maneuverability to that space is that 32 x 54 with a fixed axle so many inches from the center line to the rear. And a steering axle so many inches from the center line to the front with a steering radius of X, whatever we decide that should be. And then you can literally take that set of controls and build a path. I think -- and please, Steve Roman, I'm glad you are out there because you are on the thinking side, designing side of things. Does that make sense? MR. ROMAN: Blair, I think if you define the space that -- well, let's see. If you define a parking space that can accommodate a wheelchair that will fit in a 32 x 54" space and say that you have to provide adequate space into that area to maneuver into that parking space, there is your performance spec. Those are going to axle spacing and turning radius. There are so many different variations of wheelchairs and scooters out there, you will never cover them all.60

MR. SLAUGHTER: Right. And that is the problem. Because if you take a typical wheelchair geometry of fixed axle that is somewhere in the middle of that 54", just off the center of it and caster type wheels that provide a lot of maneuverability in a very short space versus a four-wheel vehicle that is steering like an automobile fixed axle way toward the wheel of it, those are creating very different geometries. And what I worry about is that we will have lack of definition. We will not have set enough criteria for the conditions. In other words, you may then be able to -- like Frank said, if you take a foam core box and impose it on a more common wheelchair geometry, you can maneuver that pretty well. And if you say, "Okay; now let's define our maneuverability." Okay; the first time someone shows up in a device that is a four-wheel scooter, their geometry is completely different. They may not have the maneuvering space that we require. MS. GOLDEN: That is exactly right. That is what Ed's recommendations say and rules say.61

You have to decide what percentage of people you are willing to exclude. And I think Ed's recommendation exclude a small percentage and allow others. That is why you have to adopt a number -- I think it was Frank who said you can't design for every wheelchair, that is right too. You can't say for this chair you do this and in this case you do this. The way out of it is what Bob said. You have to pick what is the greatest need, maybe not to the 100th percentile. You pick that and that is your basic requirement. MR. SLAUGHTER: Let me throw this out so we can at least have a goal here or path to a goal.If we take -- back to my last conversation. If we take the 32 x 54 and do some studies and say, okay, let's see what space that requires, is that what we have to do next to come up with the numbers? MR. STEINFELD: I don't think we need to do that. I think we need to take a little look -- there are not that many, but some floor plans of different type of rail cars; light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail and inner-city.62

And not the old cars because no one is building those anymore, the newer type, the newer model and see what the issues might be in fitting these spaces in. I think one important issue is whether these spaces are together, whether they are two or one or whether they are together or could they be separated. I think those discussions have to be had. And then we can look at where -- I think we need that six inches at least for maneuvering space. But the question is where do we need it and then how much space can be allocated -- how much toe space could be used.We have data on the toe clearance needed and we know that the nine inch is too low to accommodate a lot of people. And that is another issue. I didn't get into that level of detail. MR. MALDARI: I think the problem of going about it that way is what Steve said. The design of the rail cars is so variable. We have a rail car that has two and a half walls. So do you really need to have six inches available on an area that is only three inches63

wide on one side? You are only going to know that if you try to do the maneuvering. And I'm leaning toward what Blair is saying. If you take one or two different types of axle positions and one is a standard wheelchair and one of them may be a standard mobility device and you say, okay, look at these two devices and see if you can make an accessible path using these two types of maneuverability defined by the axle spacing. <<<: This is not just an engineering problem; it is a user problem as well. A lot of people can't maneuver very well. So you really have to look at the ability of the individual as much as the engineer. MR. MALDARI: That is variable. MR. REUTER: Right. I think this discussion is not grounded in what the realities of these cars are out there. So I think if we can get an assortment of different cars, even if it is 10, let's see what is out there and what the issues are and try to figure out what the best places would be. I think the concerns -- I think there is a64

lot more space than we might think. I might be wrong about that. In some cases I think there won't be enough space and we need to think about that. In other cases I think we might actually find this is not an issue. I know on a lot of the heavy rail rapid transit cars and the light rail cars, I don't think this is an issue. I think it is really about intercity, maybe commuter rail too. MR. MALDARI: For the most part in commuter rail, there is only as much space as you need, rarely more than you need, because every square inch of space is for seating

passengers. MR. STEINFELD: One of the points I was trying to make, better articulated by others than me, if we talk about it in terms of where flip-down seats or other types of arrangements could be made, then it will only benefit passengers, all passengers. Like I pointed out, where you have adjustability, you also could have more standing room when you don't need to accommodate someone who is using a wheelchair. So I think we need to look at this from a65

holistic perspective, not like where will we put the clear floor spaces, but where will we put the baggage and this and that. Very well to say there is no room, but the point is people do bring stuff on the train. You can't stop them from bringing in a lawn

mower. MR. SLAUGHTER: To that end, I think we had some limitations on fuel powered devices. MR. STEINFELD: The point is you can't very well say, "Okay; no luggage on a train."

(Simultaneous Discussion) MR. SLAUGHTER: We sell spaces to people carrying violas and cellos and big instruments they love more than anything else and they buy a ticket for it. Again, we get back to the geometry. And the geometry is real but you made a very good point, Ed, and Dennis made a very good point. If you look at it purely from maneuvering a device, I can take -- I'm not a good parallel parker. I can park some days. Really good with automobiles. And other days I feel like I'm just in driver's ed. But there is a reality that some folks will be able to come up66

and maneuver into an extremely confined space. And other people will, for various reasons, will have to do a lot of maneuvering, maybe even with the exact same device to get into that space. So I think it is a safe thing to say that over-maneuvering has to be avoided because it doesn't work for so many people. MR. MALDARI: Maybe this big box we build has to be radioed controlled. MR. SLAUGHTER: You could take a box with scooter geometry and wiggle it back and forth enough times to put it into almost any space. You wear the carpet out in the process but you can do it, but that doesn't mean it is a very practical maneuvering process. And then we get into, I think what we have seen where we have defined spaces and geometry devices could change. We have maneuvering issues that have grown and have ferreted out such things as the toe clearance dimensions not being adequate and those sorts of things. We have tended to rely on overlapping dimensions to preserve space in the vehicle. And now we know after watching it for 20 years that that67

doesn't always work very well. So I don't have a problem with the concept of increasing the unencumbered space or raising the toe space. It makes us have to be a little more creative about some of the overlapping devices. But, again, I think the critical question is how do we go forward? Is the next exercise to graph out a path? This path would be -- realistically, if you are entering the side of a train and go to any position, whether it is 5 feet away or 15 feet away from that door, there is geometry that is going to occur and it is going to establish space on the floor that can't be encumbered. So is the next exercise to nail the space down? Again, do we nail down a performance spec or do we nail down space? If we nail down space, we need to do the homework of running the geometry, and running the wheel geometry and not "if I wiggle this thing back and forth enough I will get into the space." MR. STEINFELD: Marilyn and I are both on the ICC/ANSI building standards committee. And this has been dealt with quite well, I think, in buildings with the term "accessible route",68

defining accessible route and identifying the features along the accessible route, what constitutes the nature of that accessible route. Maybe we can have a subcommittee grapple with this, and maybe Marilyn and I and Marsha, who is also on the committee, and others who might want to be on that, so we can draft some language. MR. MALDARI: Does that make it a sub-subcommittee? MR. SLAUGHTER: Someone in the Access Board tell us what does it do to us. MS. ANDERSON: We may call it a task

group. MR. SLAUGHTER: Or working group. MS. ANDERSON: Or working group. <<<: For purposes of working on this it is --<<<: We don't have to call it anything. People can get together and do the homework. I need to ask a favor of our good friend on the transit side from Jersey Transit. You guys have access, ready access -- maybe Steve Roman -- to some dimensional floor plans or some of the light rail and other than69

intercity rail vehicles to give some basic floor dimensions? MR. ROMAN: We might have some plans for those. They are basic, but they do show the floor arrangement. MR. STEINFELD: If we can get as many as we can and put them on a drop box or Board site and we can access them that would be great. <<<: We have two different vehicles and (inaudible) and they are very generous. I don't know if they will be assisting because the space is very large. MR. STEINFELD: Just so we can look at them and know what we are talking about. MR. ROMAN: Even on the large space, in San Francisco they have -- group of people upset over transit entryway on BART. Even with the joy about amount of space you can get hung up on things. MR. CANNON: We need to talk about clear floor space and not just space. And (inaudible) is not a part of clear floor space. I have seen a number of diagrams of number of cars and very few, if any, I have seen have dimensions on them.70

So we really need something that has numbers associated with it. MR. SLAUGHTER: Thanks. That is why I said we need either dimensioned, or dimensionable documents. It is easy enough if it is a truly something with dimensions on it. It is easy enough to drop a grid on it so people understand the space. The reason I say that, if we form this working group to look at the building side and report back, some hallways in buildings are as wide as transit vehicles in public spaces. You can very quickly lose touch in reality with a rail vehicle. The typical floor space on intercity car is somewhere in the foot range, without structuring and those sort of things. That is really best case position. (Inaudible) is more because the car outside is (inaudible) at the widest and you take away structure and (inaudible) you are at the nine to six foot range on the floor. And then there is other things obviously that occur on the car that can effect the usable width. There are light rail vehicles out there,71

street cars, things like that are much more diminutive with that width. So I don't want to run too far without looking back at that. So anything that folks can contribute is appreciated. I don't know -- I tell you what. If you can email them and I will let Melissa or someone else tell us if they want to go to the Board and then to me. If I can get them and they are dimensioned or already CADD data, I can drop them into a PDF with one foot floor grid dimensions on them and look at them. MS. ANDERSON: Let's email those to Paul since he is our point of contact. And also David Nelson is wanting to speak and has not had a chance to jump in. MR. NELSON: This is David Nelson. I have been trying to get in for almost the last 20 minutes. I don't think it is fair other people have been trying to get in. So I was wondering if we can give the remaining 10 minutes if there is anyone else on the phone if they have something else they wanted to say. There are two things I wanted to say and I forgot them, to be honest. I'm sorry. MS. ANDERSON: When you remember, let us72

know and speak up. MR. BEATTY: Forward it on and I will send it on. MR. NELSON: I did forget because I tried to speak for the last 20 minutes and didn't get a chance. MS. GOLDEN: Just to speak to David's dilemma, which should not be. I understand the committee is trying their best to provide for everybody, I want to take that into account. Maybe we can find a better way to not put David and other people -- other similarly situated participants in that position. MR. BEATTY: At the beginning of the call, I reminded people to send an email to RVAAC -- in fact that is what David did about five minutes ago -- and I let Melissa know. For those who want to jump in and there is a problem, please remember the RVAAC email address and say, "Hey, I want to jump in" even if you are tied to the CART system. MS. BUNALES: If you have to hail the operator to do that, you can still do that. I want to say it is star or pound zero? That is an option as well.73

MR. SLAUGHTER: What I want to suggest, because we are running up against the 3:00 hour, if David remembers what he was going to say, jump in, please. I will have to harass him about that later because we are not too far away from one another. What I would like to suggest is that we have a number of items on the agenda, on board circulation, that we have not even touched. What I would like to give is homework to everyone, following Jim's lead on the communication side. If you look down on the list of items and jot down some notes about them, what you think they should be and what the biggest concerns are, I would be glad to compile those and get them to where we can really start to chew on them and maybe be a little more productive the next time around as we get to those particular items, we will have that information in front of us. So as far as this Working Group goes, is what we want to do is have this Working Group look at the clear path requirements based on what is going on with the ICC ANSI work?74

<<<: Blair, which list were you referring

to? MR. SLAUGHTER: Onboard circulation. It was Item 5 and 5.1 and 5.1.2 and so on. <<<: In the agenda? MR. SLAUGHTER: In the agenda, yes. We have talked about vestibules. We have not gotten out the entrance and the path to the accessible area and floor space. But there are other items in there that hopefully won't consume as much time. If folks can give some thought to that, jot some notes down, forward them back, we can build a list of that information ahead of the next meeting so we can be -- you may be working through some of these things a little quicker. <<<: Blair, what is the 5.1.3 inner car passage? MR. SLAUGHTER: The passage between two vehicles. That varies. If you have an articulated car or transit car, typically the space in the middle. Long distance car or inner-city vehicle or heavy rail transit, it is going to be between two vestibules. So it is the moveable space. It changes depending on75

what kind of vehicle it is. <<<: Quick question to Paul. The idea is to get from the seating area to dining car, for example?

<<<: Yes. MR. NELSON: That is why I was trying to look for the right terminology. Now I know it is 5.1.3. Does anyone know what the PRIIA 305, what the new standard is for that doorway, the door measurements for the exit of the vestibule? MR. CANNON: I asked that last time, I believe, at the meeting, and I was told it was no longer restricted to 30-inches. It was more like 32; is that correct? <<<: That is correct. It is 32. <<<: Can we get a copy of the floor plan of the PRIIA car? <<<: Or even the list of rules? MS. MARTIN: You can find it online at the APTA website. The 305 committee has a web page and you can find all the specifications. I don't know about how accessible they are from the Access Board standpoint, but they are available publicly online.76

MS. GOLDEN: Would it be possible for staff -- instead of us all searching -- to make it be a material that we have? <<<: At the very least to get a link? <<<: A link would be great. MS. ANDERSON: We can do that for you. MR. NELSON: Is 32-inches wide enough? Because I don't think so. <<<: Even -- if it is just a doorway. MR. STEINFELD: We did a study of doorway use too and we think as long as it is enough clearance outside, we think people can squeak through the 32. Often it is the things that are hanging off -- outside the bound of the wheelchair that get in the way. The problem with the door, it is really part of the maneuvering space where you are making a right angle turn into the car. So it if is only going to be, say, 42" in the vestibule, 42" wide, that is not a lot of space to get into a direct perpendicular position to the doorway. I think it would be better if the doorways were wider. I don't know how feasible that is. We can look at our data.77

I'm trying to remember what we worked out with the L-turn. What we did in the building standard, in the revisions to the building standard, we actually adopted a number of different options. So if it was wider out in front, then the doorway -- the width of the passenger passing into could be narrower. So there are ways to do that. MR. MALDARI: ADAAG is 36 with a 32 point. <<<: Yes, that is the current ADAAG. But we have -- that was before the research we did. <<<: That is very helpful. Thank you. So, David, it seems like your intuition is right on that. MR. NELSON: My concern is a lot of times when we are going around a curve or something like that, I'm concerned the wheelchairs might be getting stuck between the two cars or damaging the wheelchair. They are going through -- passing through the vestibules while the train is making a turn or going around a curve. I don't know if 32 is wide enough. MS. GOLDEN: Anyway, the 32 is just for the door, not for the passageway or clear floor space, not for anything but the one point you78

are going through the door. Dennis, were you saying something? MR. CANNON: I was going to say in the original discussions way back when, this issue of the fact that those areas are straight considering when the train is maneuvering, moving through a curve or anything else, in a squish it is really bad. Even going through curves the dimensions changes because of how the bellows work. One of the issues is you can't make it much wider because there are collision posts that have to be there for FRA regulations. And the other one was that the FRA and others wanted to restrict it so you couldn't move through that, except when the train was stationary. We did not include it in the guidelines but things in technical assistance manual that says it is not a good idea to go through that area especially when the train is going around the curve. MR. SLAUGHTER: It is not so much the curve. It is when you are moving through reverse curves. The geometry gets really bad and you can actually have what the diaphragm.79

You can have those create sort of a scissor action and that is not improved a whole lot by making the pathway wider. That condition will occur, the function of the vehicle. It will be less the bigger the pathway is. MS. ANDERSON: We are out of time and we need to clarify people's homework. And if you are going to send vehicle plans to Paul, I don't know exactly -- I mean, Blair, you mentioned you could put a grid on them so we could have the dimensions? <<<: Melissa, there are two ways to manage it and one is -- well, it needs to be a written dimension. If it is a CADD file, a BWG file and they are dimensionable. You can scale them and click on them and the programs will give you numbers. But there still needs to be a dimension there of something that can be checked. Say, if it is in the doorway, it is 32-inches. I can scale it upwards. Same thing with a PDF. As long as there is a dimension called up on there through the picture, I can scale from that and bring everything to a common scale, add in grid lines and those sort of things.80

MS. ANDERSON: And we can handle CADD drawings and certainly PDFs. So anybody who has vehicle specification and drawings, please send those into Paul and we will pass them to Blair. That way we can keep track of what we have and Blair can try to get that together before our next meeting. I found the APTA website and I will get that sent out to everybody. I think this working group probably needs to be relatively small. We don't want to exclude anybody but it needs to be a pretty focused group. We are going to have to set up a conference call for that group. We will give that information to everyone because we can't -- we don't want to exclude people. But we really want it to be a smaller group that is very specifically focused. MR. SLAUGHTER: Ed mentioned himself and I think two other people who are already working on some of the work for the building side. Is that a reasonable core group to start with, if those folks agree? MS. ANDERSON: And I think Ed mentioned himself and Marilyn and Marsha. We have to81

make sure she is available to do that. <<<: Just going to volunteer her? <<<: Going to try. <<<: I think that she will be happy to do it. Of course you should ask her. MS. ANDERSON: We will double check that with her. At least Ed and Marilyn and anybody else who feels they have a lot of resources to contribute would be great. And whatever they come up with, we will come back to the group with the discussion. So don't think you will miss something if you are not part of the

group. And our next meeting is -- MR. CANNON: I don't know if people really looked at it closely but the document that Ed put out when he has the proposal, which has 12 points, people can look at the document again. MS. ANDERSON: I agree. You can use that as a basis for a strawman recommendation. <<<: We start with that. MS. ANDERSON: Start with that and before the next meeting if someone has something that they would like to change or make different recommendations, the Word version of this is82

available on the website. Feel free to do track changes and we have Ed's original as the original. If you have other recommendations we can gather all those up and maybe come up with final recommendations and move forward. MR. MALDARI: Isn't Blair making the strawman, though? I see the current regulations that are outlined very well and probably the best jumping off point. I don't know.MR. SLAUGHTER: What I would like to do is take the two and look at them and generate that strawman. I think it is a good place to start. It is more written down than we have anywhere else. But I will go through it and look at it relative to what is there now. So we have a clear understanding of what we are changing and what the possible effects might be. Then we can chew on it. MS. ANDERSON: That is great, then. Give Blair a shot at it and move forward after that with the recommendations. MR. SLAUGHTER: I would like to thank Dennis Cannon. I have known Dennis for a long, long time. I really appreciate his historical83

knowledge and sharing all of what he has learned through the years with us. I think he is absolutely invaluable. MS. ANDERSON: I think we need to cut it off. We will send out information you need and you can send what we asked for and we will talk to you all again in June. (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned)