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 Gartrell
2

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 Access
3

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 this
4

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 meeting
5

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 for
6

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 of
7

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 and
9

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 the
10

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 exception
11

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 DOT
12

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 and
13

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 of
14

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 works
15

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 now
16

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 be
17

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 Ed
18

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 on
19

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 Ed
20

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 particular
22

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 display
23

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 not
24

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 and
25

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 stuff
26

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, the
27

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 provided
28

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 operators
29

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 chairs
30

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 to
31

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 could
32

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 some
34

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. And
35

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 are
36

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 it
37

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 the
38

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 should
39

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 from
40

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 does
41

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. And
42

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 to
43

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 wheel
44

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 me
46

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 a
48

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 tell
49

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 had
50

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. You
51

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 the
52

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 logical
53

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-inch
54

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 the
55

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 and
56

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 would
57

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 will
58

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's
59

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 inches
63

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 a
64

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 a
65

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 up
66

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 that
67

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 than
69

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 us
72

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 on
75

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 you
78

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 to
81

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 is
82

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 historical
83

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)