Note: The output shown below is from the Communication Access 

Realtime Translation (CART) system used in the meeting and is 

unedited, except the spelling of Mr. Chisena was corrected. Plus, 

the CART output recorded that Terry Soesbee made a statement, but 

he was not present that day. The statement was made by Terry 

Pacheco and a correction was made. 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.

U.S. Access Board 

Rail Vehicle Access Advisory Committee

(Lunch recess taken.) 

Friday, January 10, 2013

Afternoon session to commence 1:15 p.m.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Obviously we have an hour left before 

public comment time. I would like to set up conference calls. 

The issue is what is the topic. The thought process was are 

there softballs I don't need an answer now, but something 

that is simple, doesn't sound super complicated that we could 

schedule conference calls around those topics looking at the 

issues list. What things might you say would be easy to 

accomplish. One thing at least have one in communications 

one in spatial I was thinking if I looked at signage for the thick 

signs do we use ADAAG for the scoping requirements but 

slightly modified. So, I just want you to think about in terms 
of the issues that we have raised are any softballs that we can 

test out for purposes of developing our inner relationships 

over our conference call. So, now you can go back to your 

private discussions.

(Discussion off record.)

>> Hi everyone, it's Janice Schacter Lintz from the 

Hearing Access Program. 

>> CART is getting a verbal? You are coming in good. 

And who else. 

Checking phone lines.

>> Mr. Perez, if you are on the line say hello for the 

CART. Mic check.

>> Cliff Perez, National Council of Independent Living.

>> I am trying to get Calvin Gibson. I am not getting 

Calvin Gibson, he is on the line I. Will leave a message.

(Checking phone sound quality for people appearing by 

phone.)

>> Calvin Gibson

>> Hello.

>> Good? Okay. Thank you.

>> I am going to mute.

U.S. Access Board

Afternoon session
Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee

>> BILLY ALTOM: All right. Folks, I think we can come 

back together. Can the folks on the phone hear me? Ready 

to rock and roll?

>> Yes.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Awesome. Thank you, Linda. How 

many folks need to leave early? Everybody here to 3? We 

have a couple. Justin needs to go. All righty. We can go 

ahead and let's get started. Recap where we went through we 

went that the issues list categorized stuff of whether they 

should be spatial or communicative. And then to determine 

which modality they go under. So, I need to figure out now 

how to proceed from here. We have looked at these and 

defined some of our issues. I have heard an idea of maybe 

picking low hanging fruit, some stuff we can work on 

immediately to kind of get a feeling of how this would work. 

Allow our committees to have a call. See how it goes before 

we come back for the next meeting, which will be in April. 

Where are my dates written down -- April 10 and 11 we will 

be coming back. But we have an opportunity to meet as a 

committee with some of the low hanging fruit by that I mean 

the easier things to tackle. Then whenever we come back in 

April we can see how that worked. What do we need to tweak 

on that. Whether we need more presentations from other 
folks to come in and give us more detail, more scoping, more 

technical requirements that we need. How does that sound 

to the group of kind of as an idea of --

>> Sounds good.

>> BILLY ALTOM: All righty. So, Jim says that assumes 

we are forming committees now. 

>> Your mics were turned off, you will need to turn them 

back on again.

>> Flashing red means it's off. Flashing green you are 

good. We were talking about forming subcommittee at this 

point anybody want to participate on that issue would show 

up on the call. And sort of our test case.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Yes. I misspoke. As opposed to a 

committee, a subcommittee, this will be a full group. Let's 

say we pick communication signage for one, let's have a call 

on signage. Then we can get a feel for how it will work out in 

the process we may say if it's signage we adopt what the 

ADAAG says about how signage should be it could be an easy 

fix. Here is what we suggest, that you follow the ADAAG on 

all of these things. ADAAG for the Americans with 

Disabilities Act accessibility guidelines for those who may not 

be familiar with ADAAG. I have learned a lot of new 

acronyms from you guys, not being totally familiar with all of

the rail stuff. I am getting my -- my education in the 
alphabet soup again. Paul, do you have an idea what we 

think of.

>> PAUL BEATTY: I will pass it.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Justin way down there.

>> Justin Vonashek: I think signage would be a good 

place to start it's fairly simple it's going to be consistent 

across all modes. That might be one of the topics.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Yeah, it does hit all modes.

>> Justin Vonashek: And I think it should be universal 

across all of them as well.

>> I am jumping in here, Janice Schacter, I'm sorry. I

apologize. My daughter was having surgery, I am jumping in 

late, and I apologize because I am not sure where I am coming 

in on this issue an signage but for people who are deaf and 

hard of hearing, there is right now is just an umbrella symbol 

part of ADAAG, and the graphics art skills came up with more 

precise signage. And I would recommend that we use the 

more precise signage. Unlike wheelchairs, the specificity is 

needed to provide clarity, for example, if for sign language 

interpretation versus assistive listening system the type of 

system needed that right now there is just an umbrella 

symbol, it sort of means there is some sort of hearing access. 

Good luck if you can figure it out.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Exactly. That's what we are hoping 
through meeting on the conference call that we would flesh 

out those ideas it might be something that we come back as a 

group and we recommend to the Access Board to say hey we 

want to add this pick signage issues in. Good point that's

what we want to address when we meet with the committees.

>> Bob Reuter: On the communication issue, an a 

conference call how do we include our hearing impaired 

friends.

>> BILLY ALTOM: We are going to do like we are doing 

now. And we will have they will have CART services, whatever 

it takes, whatever the preference so no one is excluded.

>> Bob Reuter: Any thought of setting up yahoo group? 

People can jump in as they have time between here and here 

we are going to discuss this issue. And then you join the 

yahoo group not necessarily yahoo but something like that 

whereas, as a closed group, you get in and discuss the issues 

in a text format only.

>> PAUL BEATTY: At this point that's not what we are 

currently considering, but I will raise it to senior management 

and see what is available.

>> Jon Holbrook: Billy, I don't consider it the lowest of 

apples, the induction loop, I started looking into it. Andre 

was seeing it's in the BART specification technologies out 

there. It's not without, you know, some issues. But I think 
that's one that wouldn't necessarily have to wait if you wanted 

another item for conference call. 

>> PAUL BEATTY: At this point I heard signage. It's more 

referring to the issues under communication 3, A through C. 

Rose, if you could bring up on the screen under 

communications 3-A through C which is legibility of signs, 

font case, style, location. Message signs that's new. B was 

scoping for certain types of signs and location number 

et cetera. And C was provide nonvisual such as an example 

is tactile, Braille, as compared to D, which is visibly and 

frequency of station name signs for persons seated on board 

wheelchair spaces and those standing meaning sight lines 

that windows to station platforms, which is more complicated. 

I just say A through C.

>> BILLY ALTOM: What we are trying to do Marilyn, I see 

you are looking at this, rather than establish subcommittees 

right now, we are going to say let's tackle the issue of signage 

the communication issue anybody that wants to call in on that 

particular call could call in to get a feel for how this will work. 

Before we start going okay everybody we have 9 or 10 

different subcommittees let's do one see how it works one 

two or three whatever we decide on. Then we will come back 

in April, we can report back and see how it worked. Then if I 

am correct, then look at the more in-depth things. Or maybe 
not

>> Jim Weisman: That assumes we are going it waste 

time between now and April if we only do signage.

>> BILLY ALTOM: We are going to do more. I was saying 

with a we wanted to do first off is pick some of the low 

hanging fruit.

>> Jim Weisman: That's what we are trying to do now.

>> Terry Pacheco: Why do we think is signage is an 

easy fix it's a major issue.

>> BILLY ALTOM: I think all of them are major. I hate 

using low hanging fruit on any of it, I don't think any are any 

less important than the other but it's just trying to pick 

something to work on.

>> The point is that is one that does actually end up 

going into many areas here I don't see that that is easy at all.

>> BILLY ALTOM: You don't see any of these as quickies, 

honestly. I am hoping to, any topic we want to choose, how 

do we get the ball rolling where we can -- I don't know which 

direction to go I am anxious to hear the crowd speak.

>> (inaudible) I mean --

>> Terry Soesbee: I don't see why we don't set up 

committees as a matter of fact I would like to make a motion 

to the committee that we go ahead, set up three committees I 

would like to see us use the same three in the 
recommendations, and go ahead--this just seems like more 

killing of time we are all very familiar with--with pretty much 

with parliamentary procedures and serving on committees. I

don't know why we are doing a practice case here.

>> BILLY ALTOM: I am good with that.

>> Stanton Saucier: I was going to advocate maybe we 

should have -- set the rules. You know, what are the, yeah, 

we are going to form two or three committees, I was inclined 

to agreed with the colleague from New York on the number of 

committees. I thought two was better than three. It's a 

minor issue. The other piece, obviously, is clearly define the 

scope, and the standard of rigor that we want to approach the 

thing. You know, each one of these things you have to start 

with, you know, a little bit of research of what is existing. 

Existing standards and, you know, codes of practice that are 

already relevant to that particular subject. Then, you know, a 

little bit of research into the world as to where something like 

this might otherwise be used. And then have the debate 

about what should take place. That way everyone is educated 

on the subject, and all of the opinions can be heard and, you 

know, we press on. So, I would advocate at this point that if 

we have a little bit of time left today we should spend it on 

what the procedures should be to get this done just a 

thought.
>> BILLY ALTOM: So, when we spoke earlier we talked 

about communication, and spatial issues. So, do we want to 

break it into another mode? Then we looked at which modes 

does it fall into.

>> Right.

>> BILLY ALTOM: So we can --

>> Frank Maldari: We decided this already I am not sure 

why we go back over it again. It's a good idea what we have 

now. We need to clarify exactly what we are going to do we 

identified one item we are going to start working on, so you 

know whether you have 5 committees or 1 it doesn't matter 

everybody here -- a lot of the people here are going to want 

to be involved in signage that's the one we are starting with I 

don't see that as a problem I don't see we have to change go 

back and do anything else we are headed in the right 

direction.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Do we want to take it not as signage 

but that whole heading of communication and do it as a -- as 

our general issues.

>> I think you do one at a time, I'm sorry to cut in. I

think if you start off with signage like you said like Stanton 

was saying if you want to do something now focus on who is 

going to do some research, identify some tasks for some 

individuals to come up with something they can present the 
next time we meet that's the best we are going to do today I 

think.

>> Justin Vonashek: Yeah, I think we start with signage 

since everybody is going to be on the group if we finish 

signage early we say what's the next thing. We don't need to 

identify numerous things today.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Any other comments? Questions?

>> Ed Hoff: I think there is concern that we might do 

communication get done with it today there is no way to get it 

done now we start on it to see how it goes certainly it's going 

to carry over into the subcommittees there shouldn't be 

concern we are going it a short shrift it's a big issue 

absolutely.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Our goal was to arrange for topics for 

conference calls between January and April. And so, instead 

of discussing issues now it's more what's the topic, who wants 

to participate, when are people's schedules available to 

arrange a call that sort of thing within our limited time. So, 

right now we have had seems to be people are willing 

not -- to speak about signage. Maybe focusing on items 3-A 

through C. At least there is a basis of ADAAG requirements 

for signage that you can possibly build on versus very limited 

current signage requirements in the current guidelines for rail 

vehicles. So, at least it's something to build upon. And then 
the question is whether there is more than one topic you want 

conference calls on. Jon had mentioned induction loops in 

rail cars. So, he has done some research on which is good he 

is already interested in it. Is that another topic that we can 

arrange a conference call on? All right?

Then before I ask when people are available, is two 

enough topics? Or are there any spatial issues -- I mean we 

have two communications issues which is fine. We don't have 

to have more than two topics for this test run. Blair?

>> Blair Slaughter: I suggest this is only because right 

now Amtrak and State of California are working on the on 

board information system the data train line which is a big 

activity and it's live. If we can at least from include the 

communication side that is going to be assumed electronic in 

delivery, in some fashion, I think that would be very 

beneficial. Unfortunately Stan, who is knee deep in it, Stan 

Hunter is not here today, Stanton can maybe speak to that. 

That's an important thing Amtrak is trying to move forward 

with, it doesn't mean the door is closing or anything like that. 

But the more information that we have and we can share back 

with what we are finding out, I think, would be great. So, and 

that's a -- a huge topic within communication probably the 

most complex. But the most far reaching at the end of the 

day. But I would say, as a get our feet wet, non--or fixed 
nonchangeable signage is a good place to go. I know we 

have done a lot of work with that -- I would be happy to share 

what Amtrak has done with that what we have done right 

wrong or otherwise. Some of our thought processes that we 

use. So, I think that's a -- personally I think it's a good one 

to get our teeth into without getting into something that's 

long and drawn out. Again, Terry not to under rate that, it is 

extremely important and we realize that.

>> Terry Soesbee: I realize it as well. My point -- you 

are exactly saying what my point was. We are not 

talking -- apparently by doing this I am assuming we are 

doing this as a committee of the whole as opposed to 

subcommittees really. I agree with you that's the point. 

Whether Tess fixed signage, nonfixed, there is a lot to 

signage. That was my point. That's what I originally said. I

completely agree with you.

>> PAUL BEATTY: At this point on my list I have signage 

more focusing on fixed as compared to variable. And I have 

induction loop. Forget which issue it is on your list. I

believe it's -- Marsha?

>> MARSHA MAZZ: I just want to point out to the 

committee that the ANSI A117 provisions for variable message 

signs are actually the same as the provisions for fixed signs 

except that they pull out certain provisions and tweak certain 
provisions. So the technical criteria are very, very similar. 

So, you -- you may want to look at the VMS criteria and the 

ANSI the A117 and ADA standards are virtually identical. 

ANSI moved forward picking out which of the provisions in 

703 of the standard should apply to variable message signs. 

It's a matter of not necessarily requiring them but just saying 

where you provide them you use these technical criteria. You 

may not want to kick variable message signs out of the mix 

because you will talk about the same technical criteria again. 

For a second time.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Bob?

>> Bob Reuter: Not to jump around a little bit here but 

since the PRIIA cars are in the later stages of design maybe 

this is the time we should be looking at the bi-level access 

and say our bi-level cars.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Frank, did you have your hand up?

>> I was going to talk to about the hearing lap we looked 

into it a little as well. I know BART has it in the specification, 

they were going to put it on every car, they did research and 

found out there was a lot of issue others with overlap and 

interference from motors and other things. Right now, I 

believe from my information they are in a test phase, they are 

going to put it on some cars and see how it works before they 

decide whether to go ahead with it or not. Even though there 
is baseline information it's not good enough yet to even 

require it in the car because they are not sure if it's going to 

work. So, that might be -- not be as easy as a task as it 

seems. The signage thing since we decided to go forward 

with, it we are starting off with the fixed signs and it flows 

into the, you know, the non-fixed signs. I think that flows 

really well together and we should focus on that.

>> Hi, this is Janice Schacter. I'm sorry, I am having 

trouble hearing. It's hard from the phone. I apologize in 

advance. Are you saying that you are not sure if induction 

loops are going to work? Because they are already working in 

New Zealand.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> But maybe I am misunderstanding what you are 

saying. I apologize in advance.

>> When BART looked into it there were issues with the 

induction loops that they had specified. Don't know if it's 

going to work or not yet. I am just saying it's not working at 

BART yet and they thought about it enough to remove the 

requirement from every car and do a test phase first. I think 

there is going to be a lot to be learned from what they do. I

am saying we should work on some of these other things 

while the other part of the hearing loop gets worked out.

>> That's okay, if somebody is having issues with it, I 
would love for them to reach out to me and I can help put 

people in touch with the right people in the right countries 

where it is working. And so, I make myself available to 

anyone who is -- needs more details, I can help you -- while I 

can't help with the technical, I am very thrilled to be part of 

the connection.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Jon?

>> Jon Holbrook: Let's retract induction as conference 

call, I will take it as an action. I just found one company 

British company that has induction loop driver for rail vehicle 

but in my initial investigation with, I call them the sparkies 

back home, as far as EMI you know there are issues in a rail 

car with it. And it's the -- will they be insurmountable? 

Probably not. I will do further investigation. And we want to 

bring it to the table I will have a little more ready.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Awesome. Thank you.

>> Janice: Prior to you bringing it to the table, I would 

appreciate it if you would give me so that we can be further 

along so when we come to the table that we have already you 

know vet it out. I would love for you to speak to the three 

major induction loop companies who have been able to 

accomplish this. And I saw this when I worked not on rail but 

with the intrepid, I know that's a stationary metal boat. But 

the intrepid and the Holocaust Museum, they thought they 
had too much metal and couldn't overcome it. Both were 

able to overcome it. It took speaking to the right person and 

I was able to make those connections. I would love it if you 

would give me that opportunity to connect you with people 

who I know who may be different from the people that you 

know. I am not saying it could definitely be done but rather 

than waiting until we get to the table, it would be great if we 

could do that ahead of time.

>> Jon Holbrook: I would certainly like to know all of 

the players I say the British outfit has a system for rail car they 

are showing it in the whole rail care I imagine BART 

downsized the area to overcome some of the power drop. 

But yes, Janice, I will figure a way to get my E-mail to you so 

that we can share that information.

>> Janice: Perfect. David will tell you if it can be done, 

I will get it done.

 (LAUGHTER).

>> Janice: I can hear David laughing from the 

background.

>> Uwe Rutenberg: I am coming back to what Stanton 

mentioned in terms of procedure, I think it's a very important 

point for the next meeting. Who is pulling all of this 

information together as kind of a base so we can discuss 

these different points. Jon mentioned information, we have 
the PRIIA information, we have ADAAG information. There 

are probably many other areas of information with regard--in 

regards to design and signage and whatsoever. But 

somebody has to pull this together to make it a discussion 

issue. Or otherwise we have to discuss who is presenting 

what I think it would be easier if we could kind of compile the 

existing information and then go from there and discuss 

these things.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Good point. Kind of what I was 

thinking if we had what is currently required send that to 

everybody so that we are on it and then what things are 

available to us kind of like what Janice was talking about and 

Jon was mentioning have that available to us prior to the call 

so we are all looking at it I was looking at Paul going, dude, 

you need some more stuff to do can you --

 (LAUGHTER)

>> PAUL BEATTY: Well, no. I mean, the -- we can 

provide you information, I guess it's more the thought process 

on how we feed it to you. And then for some of you there is 

no problem because you already know it so it's like three 

conference calls one for signage 101. If you already know 

the stuff don't even bother wasting your time. And then okay 

let's discuss the stuff at conference call number 2. And then 

we will probably have to have a third conference call because 
we will learn things about people are going to raise points and 

okay we need to look at that I am going to hunt this down. 

And then we sort of come to conclusions an conference call 

number 3. Of course nothing works as planned as you know 

we had the plan here. We had the subcommittee meetings 

and everybody had the priorities you have been walking out 

the door early. Well, that didn't work but that's the way 

things go. So, that's what I was going to propose. At least 

regarding signage. Which I have the knowledge of ADAAG 

signage. There are people on staff that have the knowledge 

of the current rail guideline provisions although limited 

dealing with signage. So we can easily do that signage 101. 

At least as it relates to the ATA signage requirements. 

Focusing either on specifically the fixed or using the ANSI 

provisions the variable signs. But establish that base for 

those who don't have it. Blair?

>> Blair Slaughter, from Amtrak. Paul, what I could 

envision is if you did signage 101 and looked at what the 

ADAAG provisions now and what is required of rail now and 

we segue into okay that's what it is today, but what does it 

need to be. And I would hope in that conversation I could 

share what we have done to maybe fill in blanks or that there 

were no firm answers to before just as a matter of going 

forward. But I think we have to segue from one thing to the 
other. So, if we look at what exists and then we start looking 

at okay how does that not do what we need it to do. And 

then start defining what needs to be done so we can 

determine that and move forward.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: I just want to remind you of a caution 

that we gave you in the early -- the first meeting. If you 

make recommendations to change something in the other 

portions of the ADA standards not the vehicle portions. You 

need to have a rationale for why it doesn't work for vehicles. 

And the example I will give you is you know that right now the 

ADA provisions for signs say that you have a -- you don't use 

unique forms like Serif fonts if you decide you use those fonts 

you have to present to us a reason why in rail Serif fonts work 

and they don't work in other types of occupancies in other 

types of facilities. Just to have that in mind, because the 

signage provisions in the ADA standards are fairly well 

developed there may be some gaps that--like variable 

message sign criteria which doesn't currently exist in the ADA

standards but does in ANSI A117. You can begin to discuss 

the gaps. I suspect that your substantive discussion will wind 

up back where to apply them -- the sign criteria in the current 

ADA standards is not explicitly referenced in the current 

guidelines for a lot of things.

>> If I could to give an example where I see some of 
these things coming out. This has been 10 years ago at 

least. When we were taking some of the ADAAG and the rail 

side and looking beyond what was required of rail, and trying 

to figure out what to do in some cases. And there are some 

cases where raised letter, the technology for making -- well, 

there is a requirement for the size of the raised letters. So 

they are more legible. In some instances on the trains, there 

is simply not the space to -- to have the size. And so we in 

looking into it because it wasn't firmly required, the 

recommendation that we got and I couldn't tell you who we 

spoke to it's been a long time. Said we will make them 

as--well make them as big as you can along with the Braille, 

and at least you are getting as close as you can to the 

requirement or the recommended practice, if something that 

is not absolutely required. Those kind of things, I think, are 

important discussions to have to know how that really works. 

We understood it was octet but -- maybe it becomes included 

in things that have to be done for rail which is fine. But, 

again, it's just based on what we have -- what we have done 

so far and what is required and how we expand that or revise 

that or whatever so it works at the end of the day.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Crystal.

>> Except we are talking new vehicles.

>> Blair Slaughter: Yes. In the case of new vehicles in 
the case of signage because signs don't last forever in my 

world at Amtrak, I look at signs as things that are typically 

renewed at some interval or they are because they get 

damaged or something like that. When it goes forward for us 

once we change a sign, it becomes the sign it's not the sign 

for new or old cars it's "the" sign.

>> PAUL BEATTY: I would say that's a discussion to 

have during the conference call. I mean, valid, in the interest 

of our time right here at the meeting, it's more let's say what 

are the topics and when are we going to have the conference 

calls, and do we have sufficient time on the conference call to 

be able to discuss like the point that you just raised Blair.

>> Blair Slaughter: I said that only to give an example 

but also to Terry's point to not under play the amount of work 

or discussion that there can be in what seems like maybe a 

fairly simple thing.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Right. At this point I have on my list 

signage both fixed and variable. Okay? Is there anything 

else that we want to set conference calls for? Would I be 

radical to say can we pick a topic that a smaller working group 

maybe within or two people from each of the food group 

providers manufacturer, disability and other could get 

together on to at least collect information?

>> What do you have in mind?
 (LAUGHTER)

>> PAUL BEATTY: Vertical access has been much 

discussed. And we had a good presentation from people. 

But it might be good that a small group could discuss it and 

see what needs to be brought to the table to then educate 

others. Instead of having 20 people on the phone call or all

of us sitting around the table

>> Can you clarify what topic you mean?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Vertical access a lift in a bi-level.

>> Okay. Because just to be clear.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Sorry. My shorthand way -- our 

shorthand way in the office. Not to say you do it a small 

group someone surrender no decision making it's like let's 

discuss it. And what information needs to be brought to the 

table so that Crystal you talked about your son. Well, can we 

bring information to the table so Crystal can understand the 

position of Amtrak on this issue. Not to say she will agree 

with it, but at least there will be -- what would you present. 

Without discussing it. I mean for me I know nothing about 

the subject. But when Josh was doing his presentation there 

were a number of questions okay how -- I am sure there were 

answers I didn't want to talk the time. He might have 

changed his slides slightly to deal with that who knows. That 

would be a smaller group which obviously less people talking. 
So I want to throw it out. I know that lift in the bi-level is 

very important.

>> Gary Talbot: Okay.

>> PAUL BEATTY: At a certain point I want to stop it so 

we can schedule the calls.

>> Gary Talbot. Paul, I wanted to ask about the exterior 

door size. I don't know if this is the right place to ask that or 

not.

>> PAUL BEATTY: I was hoping to give people to 

comment back more dealing with key issues.

>> Gary Talbot: Okay.

>> in response to Paul's suggestion I can say Cal Trans 

would certainly be interested in being a part of that 

discussion. I think they could probably provide some useful 

information to the background of the situation. Yesterday 

you talked about cost benefit analysis, and I think obviously 

Cal Trans and perhaps Amtrak and others would be able to 

talk about cost impact and such so you can understand facts 

for example. I would just like to clarify one thing. The PRIIA 

bi-level car project is active procurement with a signed 

contract. That means the contract has been signed and in 

effect based on a set specification. That does not include 

this feature. So, just to manage expectations here. I don't 

know if this, a change of this magnitude would be feasible to 
include in the PRIIA bi-level car project that's just -- I think 

only fair to state that. Of course it could be challenged 

obviously there would be astronomical cost impacts to that. 

Going forward, for future specifications whole different 

matter. Signage on the other hand is something which could 

feasibly be included in the project at this stage if we were very 

quick about it. Because the cost impact of design changes of 

this nature size of a sign size of the letters on the sign is 

minimal. Again, Cal Trans would need to be involved in the 

signage discussion for it to be of any use to the PRIIA project.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. >> 

Stanton Saucier: I just wanted to -- I am not sure where I 

ended up in keeping with my own suggestions about making 

sure that we are, you know, aware of the current state of the 

art. I know a couple of things about wheelchair lifts and 

could probably help to bring some of that to the table. Yeah 

we happen to be the company that is providing the equipment 

for the PRIIA project. So, you know a summary of what is 

available currently as well as, you know, maybe what some of 

the other solutions brought in the world just the discussion 

that we had yesterday about vertical access inside the car, I 

reached out to a few people I know elsewhere in the world and 

got a couple of pictures already. So, this is something that 

we could do. But, you know, in the context of a smaller 
group, mostly with the aim of research, I am sure we could 

come up with something.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Okay.

>> Stanton Saucier: I guess in a round about kind of 

way I am volunteering.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Stanton Saucier: I don't know publicly --

>> PAUL BEATTY: When I made the proposal of the 

small group, it was more thinking it be sure to talk on the 

phone, and if the group keeps increasing in size--to speed us 

up, people are liking that idea. The question who is going to 

be on who is not going to be. -- going to be on. So, can I 

just -- we won't schedule that right now we are focus on 

scheduling signage and get it out of the way. But I could go 

out over the Internet we have mimi dot functions, and it would 

be who wants to participate, everybody. It's this research 

group. I am not sure what it will turn out. It may not turn 

out anything but hopefully it can refine some things for 

purposes of developing a presentation to present to the full 

group and we want to have at least one organization from 

each of the four categories on it. But keep it small. And so, 

those who want to participate then I will go out and say, who 

do you vote for you got one vote something like that. So, 

and you can't vote for yourself.
 (LAUGHTER)

>> PAUL BEATTY: Hopefully I will come out with a 

reduced number that could then participate on the phone to 

explore this possibility --

>> Can you unmute Lisa Fairhall's line, please?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Why not.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Please unmute.

>> PAUL BEATTY: I will still allow people to listen in it's 

not the question of participation in.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: This are protocols for electing 

members of subcommittees.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Well, all --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Let's set that notion aside, and look 

for another solution.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Protocol allows Billy to form a 

subcommittee and appointment people to be on the 

subcommittee this is his process of collecting who he decides. 

I would have -- I think under the requirements I have to make 

that open to the public in other words, you can listen in but 

you may not be able to participate and hopefully Lisa is on the 

line.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: We always permitted open 

participation.

>> PAUL BEATTY: It defeats the purpose to have a haul.
>> Suggestion, you talked about research this is a group 

for research, why don't we agree what pieces categories of 

information that you need and decide who is best to provide it 

right? We clear that's all we are doing is gathering 

information.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Makes perfect sense.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Good idea.

>> As I mentioned, cost benefit analysis he talked about 

that yourself. I suggest including that. Technical solutions, 

option to technical solutions, that's another one. Benefits we 

have heard a little bit about the benefits today but we need 

that written up in some shape or form. And then you assign 

a person to each of those things.

>> Structural feasibility is that built into the categories 

you mentioned.

>> The technical side.

>> Human factors.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Human factors

>> Characteristics of the people who are actually using 

the lift.

>> Jim Weisman: Quick question: Marsha said we can't 

change ADAAG standard without rationale is the rationale 

good enough that technology improved since it was written 

and not that there is something unique about rail?
>> MARSHA MAZZ: Um --

>> We are revisiting it.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: I think it's important that you know 

there is new technology that impacts the viability of the 

existing ADA standards to let us know that. And perhaps to 

make a recommendation to jump to that technology. But this 

was not so much on the matter of technology it had to do with 

form, character size, you know those kinds of things that have 

been in the ADA for quite a while. For example, the current 

ADA standards don't have a contrast ratio. They don't say 

how much the sign has to contrast. So, that would be not 

changing an existing provision from 70 to 75, because you 

think it's better. But it would be adding a contrast ratio 

should you believe that that one should be included. And 

that's fine. We try not to have standards that are inconsistent 

from one rule to another just because different hands were 

put on them. So, another recommendation you might make 

is that a provision in the existing standards is dated it should 

be updated along with this rule.

>> Jim Weisman: You might have to do that with lifts in 

general.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: That's a possibility, yeah. But there 

are specific requirements for lifts in the rail rule that are 

already on the table for you.
>> Jim Weisman: Okay.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: But mostly this is in reference to the 

things that are not in the rail rule but are the Province of 

another standard or another guideline. And so we don't like 

to use, you know, any work we do on the restaurant 

occupancies to drive everything for every other occupancy 

under the sun unless there is something unique to that 

occupancy you see what I am saying?

>> Jim Weisman: Yes.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. I think to help Paul out what we 

need to do first off is decide when we want to get some of 

these calls established before we run out of time. How do 

you want to do that Paul.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. So the first I guess signage 

101 for those who feel pretty comfortable with the ADAAG 

signage provisions which would essentially use one of the 

PowerPoints for land side modified. When do we start 

looking at calendars. Imagine some people need a little 

breathing room between this meeting and when you can start 

seriously looking at things? Let me get a calendar can we 

start to look a the month of February? The remainder of 

January is left out.

>> Terry Soesbee: Paul, would it be possible for you 

folks to send us the in files just E-mail out the ADAAG and 
ANSI portions that apply to signage. To look at that long 

before --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: I have sent a request already to ICC 

which holds the copyright of the ANSI A117 asked permission 

to give information on variable signs to the group. We can't 

copy it without permission.

>> Is it available on the web

>> MARSHA MAZZ: It is not it's a document you must pay 

for.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. Looking at the month of 

February, if anybody has their calendars there in the first week 

of February, February -- well let's leave out Monday and 

Friday if we can since how about Tuesday Wednesday 

Thursday the 4, 5 and 6 could we have let's say since there 

are people on the west coast east coast 1 clock to 2 clock 

conference call for signage 101 is there any particular 

problem with me picking a specific day in February Ed? No? 

The 5th? Okay how about the 6th then which is a Thursday? 

Okay the 6th at 1 o'clock east coast time to 3 o'clock east 

coast time.

>> 1 o'clock until what time?

>> PAUL BEATTY: 1 o'clock to 3 clock p.m. east coast 

time. On February the 6th that's signage 101 pretty much us 

talking and then a time for you to ask questions about the 
provisions we are talking about not what you are going to 

develop and not about problems with the provision that's later 

on.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: I may be able to expedite this for you 

Paul we have archived webinar on signs on the technical 

criteria as well as the scoping. The group could actually for 

free view that archived webinar and could skip over the 

scoping which applies to buildings, but it does give very 

complete technical information on the technical requirements 

in the ADA standards for signs.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Well, tell you what --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: We will send the link.

>> PAUL BEATTY: We will send the link out if you don't 

want to participate in the conference call that's fine of the 

webinar if you want to ask questions that will be the latter half 

of the conference call you can join on that.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Why do you want to -- why do you 

want to reinvent the wheel.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Well because there is actually scoping 

they may want to look at.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: All of that is in the webinar. And if 

they want to

>> PAUL BEATTY: For the vehicle aspect.

>> The ICC standard you mentioned before though there 
is that would that be also beneficial to have the ICC standard.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Actually, I can probably quickly do a 

table telling you these provisions in the ADA standards would 

be applied and do it in summary format if they don't give me 

the text to share with you.

>> I, at least, find it helpful having reviewed these 

documents and I have been involved with signage for a very 

long time I would find it helpful; however, to discuss them 

amongst that conference call group. Having reviewed the 

information individually, I think there is some value in 

discussing those -- that information that we are gaping. So 

we don't have a two-hour conference call we set it up two 

hours we cut it short I think --

>> PAUL BEATTY: The understanding is we will send 

you the link to the webinar you can look at it and then for 

purposes of conference call starting at 1 o'clock it's discussion 

question and answer as it relates to the provisions not as it 

relates to how do we take these and apply them to the vehicle.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: You could spend your time talking 

about the unique provisions in the vehicle standards for 

scoping.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Something is going to occur Rail 101 

tune in I am send you a request okay?

 (LAUGHTER)
>> PAUL BEATTY: It's just focusing on the existing 

signage right? It may be a combination of webinar question 

and answer I am not sure at this point.

>> The bottom line is -- Blair Slaughter from 

Amtrak -- the more information ahead of the call obviously 

signage is very visual, so everyone can get their heads around 

it the more productive the call will be. Whatever it produces 

more productive it can be.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Then the second call, the purpose of 

that is to take what we have learned and see how we can 

apply it for pups of the rail vehicles. All right? And so, 

hopefully people don't forget real quickly what they might 

have learned on the 6th. Can I push it for the week either the 

11th, 12th or 13th? Maybe the 13th that's a Thursday?

>> One week later.

>> PAUL BEATTY: One week later? Hopefully you will 

not have forgotten too much 1 o'clock east coast time 1 to 3

>> What is this for?

>> PAUL BEATTY: To take the provisions that we trained 

you on or discussed on the 6th and see how we can apply 

them to rail vehicles and whether any modifications are 

necessary.

>> Janice: Okay.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Then so that's the 14th.
That's why I said it out loud 1 p.m. east coast time on 

the 13th, Thursday the 13th. Okay. Then the third call is 

assuming we need more time from the second call all right? 

So, now we will give you how about a week to calm down well 

let's see, I don't know. Let's go how about the 27th of 

February which is a Thursday also at 1 p.m. east coast time. 

Is that -- that's if we need more time? Okay? Hearing the 

27th at 1 p.m. east coast time for the third call. Not sure 

what that agenda will be but continuation of the second call. 

And then we will be able to assess better whether this is a tool 

and how we need to improve it for purposes of handling more 

difficult issues.

>> Janice: The same thing 1 to 3?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Yes 1 to 3 east coast time on the 

27th. I will send out an E-mail to tell people. You have 25 

minutes before the public comment time so I will turn it back 

to Billy.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> PAUL BEATTY: Well, it's 15.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Yes, I just wanted to note for 

folks again -- we are going it want more information on gap 

fillers plates, that type of issue. There are discrete things 

that let's just say that we do as a group for XYZ that -- that 

you would begin to think about what you would present. 
(inaudible). Maybe you could present and light rail and heavy 

rail. Folks should think about that even as we begin to figure 

out the conference call sequence because, you are access to 

the information the earlier you can begin to think about that 

then the better for all of us. And it would be great if 

someone would volunteer and let us know what you want to 

take on first.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you, Chris.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: And I am counting on Paul on 

the light rail to help out on that as well.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> BILLY ALTOM: Melissa.

>> We want to schedule a preliminary meeting on vertical 

access also? Or do you want to wait and try to do that later?

>> BILLY ALTOM: It's up to the group

>> PAUL BEATTY: Do we want to look at the month of 

March? And follow the same format that we are using for 

signage? Although -- we just scheduled three calls try to 

send out on agenda maybe working with the chair to develop 

an agenda you don't have to accept it's preliminary. A

meeting of the full committee or well, we'll have to figure out 

the federal advisory committee requirements. Okay. 

Looking at --

>> Janice: What is this topic I'm sorry I am having 
trouble hearing you.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Vertical access connection of bi-level 

cars with -- elevator or some other means of vertical access. 

Okay. So, looking at the March schedule.

>> The 6th will not work Paul.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. And I know the Access Board 

has meetings the 10th and 12th. So the 13th is a Thursday 

so far we have been on a Thursday roll. How does that look 

for 1 to 3 on Thursday

>> Second week of March is not good for me.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. Well, that's the committee's 

decision first the committee members make the decision for 

their convenience, they are welcome to listen to the public.

>> They are closed.

>> PAUL BEATTY: At this point Bob has a problem with 

the 13th and he would like to be involved. So, hearing no 

objection, I will move ahead to look at another week. 

Looking at the Thursday again the 20th of March.

>> Why do you have to stick to Thursday back up so you 

have more time.

>> Why did we rule out Monday and Fridays.

>> It's a conference call, no travel involved, why can't we 

have those days.

>> PAUL BEATTY: That's fine. Okay. Going back to 
the 18th, Thursday the 18th.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: There is no reason to eliminate the 

first two weeks of March unless you are on vacation. We have 

a board meeting 10, 11 and 12.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: That's true. But we have the third 

the week of the third.

>> PAUL BEATTY: I was going to take a vacation.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> MARSHA MAZZ: That's legit.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. Let's go to the 4th. 4th of 

March. Well, actually, I would like a week I don't know how 

the signage stuff is playing out. And if anything I think --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Last meeting is left overs anyway. 

You have several weeks from when the bulk of the work 

should have been done on the 20th your meeting on the 13th. 

And then you are not meeting again unless the 27th just that's 

a placeholder in case there are a few things left over.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. So I am looking at the 4th. 

Tuesday the 4th maybe have a problem with that

>> 4th of March

>> Tuesdays are bad days for me.

>> PAUL BEATTY: In general Tuesdays are bad. What 

about Wednesday the 5th? Hearing no objection, okay, 
Wednesday the 5th. At 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. east coast time. 

And we will try to do some brainstorming and pull out a 

preliminary agenda for the first meeting. And maybe 

contacting some of the people that already voiced the ability 

to provide information before -- so bear with us on what we 

put together. To organize a second meeting looking at the 

week of the 16th. Looking at the 18th a second conference 

call on that issue. The 18th -- I'm sorry, thank you, I mean 

the 19th a Wednesday.

>> No.

>> PAUL BEATTY: How about the 20th, Thursday. 

Hearing no problem with Thursday the 20th of March.

>> Same timeframe.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Same time 1 to 3 east coast time. 

Should I schedule a third meeting?

>> MARSHA MAZZ: On a roll.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. We are on a roll at least for 

scheduling calls. Okay. Wednesday the 25th, 26th. 

Hearing no objections. Okay. Wednesday the 26th of March 

1 to 3 east coast time we will have our third conference call 

on vertical access. So, if my notes are correct here signage 

all of the signage all of the calls will be from 1 to 3 east coast 

time. Our first signage call signage 101 is the 6th of 

February. The second will be the 13th of February and the 
third will be the 27th of February. And then for vertical 

access, we will start March the 5th, March the 20th, and March 

the 26th.

>> Can I come back to a point I made before I find 

vertical access a confusing term, it could be level boarding 

issues you are talking about --

>> PAUL BEATTY: I will accept a term, what do you want 

me to use.

>> I have called it upper level access discussion. 

Because I mean --

>> Internal? Internal? Internal vertical circulation to 

borrow from the ADAAG. Vertical circulation.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. Now, is this considered a 

committee of the whole meeting? Or is this a -- is this 

considered a subcommittee meeting. I am considering it a 

subcommittee meeting. I will have to talk to our lawyers 

about that. All right. But that's not your concern. That's 

more in terms of how we advertise it. Okay. But at this 

point I am leaning to be called a subcommittee meeting 

conference call. On vertical access. All right. So I think 

that's --

>> Is it the 26th or 28th.

>> PAUL BEATTY: March 26th I will send this out in 

E-mail. So, now, I can turn it back to Billy.
>> BILLY ALTOM: All right. I think we have covered a lot 

of stuff in the past couple of days I thank you all for being 

here and for your participation. All right. It's about 5 

minutes until -- well, 5 minutes to 2:30, how country is that. 

It's 2:25.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> BILLY ALTOM: I think we are tired too. But we will 

have public comment period. I know we are expecting a 

person to call in I am not sure if they have joined us yet. But 

what I would like to do then if they are on the phone with us, 

and you have a public comment, now would be the op tore 

tune time if you want to speak.

>> Operator, poll the teleconferencers to see if anybody 

wants to comment.

>> Would you like to ask a question, please press star 1.

>> BILLY ALTOM: This is our public comment time if you 

want to speak and you are on the phone, please go ahead.

>> Michael's line is open one moment. Michael, your 

line is open.

>> Thank you. May I address the committee?

>> Yes, please.

>> Good afternoon members of the committee my name 

is Michael Chisena, I thank you for this opportunity to address 

you today. At the outset, I am not a patent attorney, I am not 
an architect, I am not an engineer, I am just an entrepreneur 

trying to solve a particular crises that I believe affects the 

disabled in our country. My 

remarks today pertain to the boarding and alighting issues as 

set forth on the committee's I think it's called refined issues 

list entitled new vehicles all subparts and more particularly on 

page 7, subdivision 1 dealing with use of devices on vehicles 

versus platform-based boarding devices. Subdivision 2 as to 

platforms from the perspective of the definition of level 

boarding as to its horizontal components only. And very 

important subdivision 7 dealing with gaps in the examination 

of the potential for gap filler devices on vehicles or platforms. 

I am sure everyone appreciates the committee's duty to 

ensure that its guidelines and existence and proposed 

guidelines to come make certain that transportation vehicles 

are covered -- covered by the ADA are readily accessible to 

and usable by individuals with disabilities. I believe we all 

agree that the key objective of the ADA is make certain and to 

ensure that nondiscriminatory provision of transportation 

services to those who, unfortunately, may be disabled.

I believe and I think everyone believes that those who are 

disabled cannot be eggs clued in any manner from access to 

transportation services otherwise available to those who are 

not. I am the sole inventor of two U.S. patents, one which 
was awarded to me in 2010 and the other awarded in 2011, 

both of them are entitled the train to platform gap mitigator. 

Railway stations built prior to the magic date of February 1 of 

2012 I believe the ADA standards for accessible vehicles 

identified as you probably all know in 49 CFR Part 38 which 

reacts to the committee's guidelines provided for in 36 CFR 

part 1192. That is the horizontal gap width can be no 

greater than 3 inches between threshold plate of the train car 

door and the side of the rail platform edge. I am sure you all 

have studied the recent history by the U.S. DOT where it has 

determined that the 3-inch standard is supposedly I quote, 

infeasible due to numerous factors but which substantially 

boil down to the rail carriers mandated side clearance 

mandates. From my own study, I am not an expert, each rail 

carrier has developed its own man dates for these side 

clearance requirements, but I think they are general -- but 

they are generally dependent on the class of track somewhere 

between 7 to 8 inches. That's the required distance between 

the side of the train and platform edge to allow for the safe 

passage of a train for a rail station at its highest authorized 

speed. Thus, we come down to the dilemma, I think, which 

plagues our country play plagues government and ray 

industry how can carrier comply with the ADA 3-inch gap 

width rule which substantially and simultaneously adhering to 
its own side clearance safety mandates to avoid a catastrophic 

platform strike. Solutions continue to be searched thus the 

committee has placed it on the agenda thus as I stated in the 

letter that I sent to the committee on January 6 of 2014 in 

2008 U.S. government and congress passed a law known as 

public law 110-432 in October of 2008 by which the U. S. T. 

was asked to study the necessity for solutions to the platform 

gap situation and come up with possible technological 

solutions which would for the first time allow rail carriers to 

possibly come into compliance with the ADA's 1990 standards 

of the 3-inch gap mandate. Unfortunately, the U.S. DOT 

changed its platform accessibility standards from the 1990 

rule of 3 inches and now for stations built or altered after 

February 1, 2012, I believe it's now 10 inches on tangent track 

and 13 inches on curved tracks. 

I think, for the record, that's contained in I think it's called 49 

CFR section 37.42 subdivision F. 

And, however, the DOT stated that no rail carrier is to rely 

upon this as the norm when building or altering stations. I

believe this is contained in, I think it's called the 76 federal 

register number 181 where the new rules were announced to 

the public, there is a statement there on page 57928 to the 

effect that I am quoting, that the department expects 

transportation providers to minimize platform gaps to the 
greatest extent possible by building stations on tangent track 

and using gap filling technologies. The bottom line is that 

for these new stations the new performance standards is 

contained in 49 CFR 37.42 which mandates that those with 

disabilities have access to all accessible cars available to 

passengers without disabilities in each train using the station. 

Thus, it's the duty of the rail carrier and government to make 

certain where at all possible level entry boarding through all 

accessible cars and the train that serves the station be 

provided to those who are disabled. In my opinion the 

bottom line when you go through the maze of these federal 

regulations, the bottom line is that government and the rail 

industry must minimize platform gaps to and I quote, the 

greatest extent possible by using gap filling technologies. A

disabled person has the right that guaranteed by the law and I 

quote and integrated safe timely reliable and effective means 

of access. Contained for the record in 76 FR number 181, at 

page 57927. Now, to the device of my patented invention if 

you would please my device is an on board mechanism, no 

part of which is an attachment to the platform for its track 

side edge. The patent discloses what patent lawyers refer to 

as two preferred embodiments. The first one disclosed in 

each patent is that the device consists of one plate or a series 

of plates which in their stowed position are co-planar to the 
exterior of each train car doorway below the threshold plate. 

It consists of within plate or a series of plate and the width of 

each plate is determined and manufactured in accordance to 

each carrier's specific needs. Each carrier I am certain has 

already developed a study as history on all gap widths now 

existent at every train car doorway or every train in its train 

set stopping at every station on its particular line. That 

information can easily be input into the mainframe of the rail 

carrier's computer such that when the rail carrier is now 

desirous of mitigating any size horizontal gap width, any size 

gap, the rail carrier can cause to be manufactured are this 

plate or series of plates which when activated can come from 

their stowed position from below the train car doorway, out 

and upward into the horizontal gap such that it joins the rail 

station platform edge. This will take into account for the fact 

that we all know that gap widths are not the same even at the 

same station for the rail carrier. Therefore whether the gap 

width 3, 10 or 13 ins that rail carrier can mitigate any size gap 

to the mitigation point that it desires to a second preferred 

embodiment of the invention is where it is stowed under the 

train car vestibule. And at time of activation or called again 

by the computer program the device can be activated to come 

out from under the vestibule floor and out towards the rail 

station platform edge to mitigate the gap again to the 
distance as desired by the rail carrier. Once this is 

accomplished this will accomplish now for the first time that 

the rail carrier can mitigate any size gap that it wishes while 

this is extremely important, maintaining full and complete 

adherence to the rail carrier clearance mandate. This is true 

regardless of the variance of gap sizes at any rail car doorway. 

In my opinion there now will be absolutely no necessity to 

change the definition of level entry boarding to 10 inches on 

tangent track and 13 inches on curved track as the U.S. DOT 

did in platform accessibility standards in 49 CFR section 

37.42. The committee is being requested to propose where 

it is possible to the U.S. DOT, FRA, FTA or any other 

governmental agency that a cost analysis of the patent 

invention device be undertaken by a rail designer and 

manufacturer of its choice with hopefully research and 

development funding to potentially follow for the actual 

design and manufacturer of the device which can be 

retrofitted potentially on all existing rail vehicles and then to 

be installed on all new rail vehicles. It is my hope that the 

committee has reviewed a letter from Bombardier 

Transportation I believe Bombardier is a member of the 

committee which was dated May 15, 2011 addressed to me 

wherein I had referenced patents providing copies to them, 

and in essence a Bombardier concludes that they find our 
concept to have a potential. And that's what I quote. 

However, Bombardier stated that they would only get involved 

in the process only if called upon by its customers to supply 

such a device. So, here is the dilemma that I find. Certainly 

it may cost quite a sum of money to do a cost analysis, no 

railroad carrier would want to become involved in today's 

budgetary crunch, I fully understand it to put the funds out 

for research and development. Thus, the only solution is for 

federal government intervention to -- to become involved in 

the process and hopefully to at one point cause a cost 

analysis potentially research and development funding of a 

device as this is the only device known the only patented 

device known which, in essence, again, will allow the rail 

carrier, extremely importantly, to be in compliance at all times 

with side clearance mandate for the first time in almost 25 

years truly come into compliance with the ADA's original 

standard of 3 inches for gap width. Members, committee, 

thank you very much. I look forward to further 

communicating with you by E-mail or again by phone if 

necessary. And I hope you find the time to review the 

documentation which I have submitted to the committee by 

letter dated January 6, 2014. And if you kindly have the time 

to review both of US patents made reference to in the letter in 

the best interest of the disabled. I wish you well. Enjoy your 
weekend, and safe passage to your homes. Thank you very 

much.

>> BILLY ALTOM: You are welcome. Thank you, Michael. 

Now, back to the room for our public comments? We have --

>> MARSHA MAZZ: (inaudible)

>> BILLY ALTOM: You have the good news.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: The ICC staff International Code 

Council staff who run the ANSI A117 are incredibly 

responsive. They responded, they will mail me the 

appropriate documentation to sign so we can share that 

section of the standard with you on signs. So, thanks to ICC.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Awesome. Thank you. First up we 

have Gary.

>> Gary Talbot: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gary 

Talbot. I would ask the -- I would ask the committee to 

consider, you have one section where you detailed boarding 

and alighting of the rail vehicle. I would just suggest maybe 

the committee would consider putting something in like full 

level boarding all doors and all cars should be provided and 

then when that is not required, I believe you add ramps, 

bridge mates, that kind of thing, I would ask the committee to 

consider something like that. Perfect, thank you.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Paul.

>> Not required.
>> Paul Grether: Thank you. Can everybody hear me? 

My name is Paul Grether, I am with the South West Ohio 

Regional Transit Authority representing the streetcar 

subcommittee. Wanted it make an offer for the April meeting 

to present on the boarding issues for light rail and streetcar. 

Some of you have given a copy of our white paper I have a 

couple of copies left if others are interested. We have done a 

lot of research and a lot of work at both APTA the community 

streetcar coalition TRB and others looking at issues of 

accessibility for light rail vehicles the primary challenge is that 

when the original subpart D was written, low floor either 70 

partial low floor or 100 floor light rail vehicles, that 

technology didn't exist. The regulations don't take the 

vehicles into account. And a result of that is that we are 

running into challenges where systems that are implementing

light rail especially streetcar systems are finding that the 

current regulations are actually precluding or hindering their 

ability to provide certain types of accessibility. Primarily 

around issues of bridge plates or what we call near level 

boarding versus full level boarding with the low floor vehicles. 

We would like to put an offer on the table to present in April 

or whenever is appropriate and perhaps suggest that that 

might be a nice segue into a group that examines that issue 

specifically for light rail streetcar perhaps that's a 
subcommittee or something. I do believe based on the 

discussions that I have heard here that our issues with bridge 

plates and our issues with fully level boarding are very, very, 

very different than the issues with inner-city and commuter 

rail. And you know, we operate in the street. And I think 

that's our biggest difference. So, we interface with bus. So, 

to the extent that the committee would entertain a 

presentation we have got one ready. We have done it for a 

lot of groups. And would entertain distribution of our white 

paper in a group to discuss that specific issue that would be 

incredibly helpful for us, thank you.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you, Paul. Anybody else? Do 

we have--yes, sir.

>> There we go. Okay. John Day, FTA. I was 

wondering if that white paper is the same one presented to us 

a couple of years ago because I have given I think three 

separate presentations to APTA and the streetcar committee 

on those types of issues and you know I would be happy to 

come talk about that to the group as well. But you know, 

there is the fact that a lot of the requirements that apply to 

light rail don't -- there are exceptions for street running. So, 

you know, that's something that also needs to be addressed 

and I can certainly come and give the same presentation that I 

have done before.
>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you. Anyone else? Look at 

the crowd out here. I do not Jackson do you have --

>> Jackson Xue: This is Jackson. I have one suggestion 

moving forward I know in the past we have looked at you 

know the different modes of transportation are divided and 

we have rapid rail light rate commuter and inter-city. If I 

could make a suggestion to actually for the purposes of this 

committee break down high-speed rail from inter-city rail so 

we do move forward with 5 modes of transportation. 

Primarily because especially with the onset of new technology 

and high-speed rail in the U.S., we want to take advantage of 

what technologies are out there but also from the safety 

perspective or from the technical perspective that -- there are 

new language being developed for these new types of 

equipment. That are certainly different from what we see in 

the from the inter-city perspective. When we look at impacts 

to from the technical perspective for example, it would be 

different that they would impact inter-city vehicles. If we 

could move forward with 5 modes with high-speed rail as its 

own mode of transportation, I think that that would probably 

be helpful.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Sound good to the group? Awesome.

>> Bob Reuter: Where do we define distance between 

high speed rail and higher speed rail.
>> We are looking at difference with tier one being up to 

125 miles an hour operation and then higher speed rail being 

the tier 3 from 125 up to 200 miles an hour. That's the 

differentiation in a is currently being evaluated now

>> I mean MARC commuter trains run 125 if they add a 

couple extra miles they are allowed 135 on the route

>> I am not sure the FRA is --

 (LAUGHTER)

>> BILLY ALTOM: Do I see any other comments hands?

>> I just I thought that the we were just trying to keep 

the number of subgroups to three. For simplicity that was 

the only reason I wonder in practice for the passenger if it's 

necessary to separate it out. It just depends how we come to 

split out the subgroups really if we can accommodate 5 

modes or practically need to keep it to three.

>> Frank Maldari: Following what James is saying, the 

modes are covered in each group so if you feel for any 

particular aspect that needs to be handled differently for high 

speed you can bring it up then. And explain as you have to 

do with everything else exactly why it needs to be different for 

high speed. I don't know see it needs to be dedicated 

separate group now.

>> Jackson Xue: Well, my -- my suggestion was actually 

more in the context of how the language is currently written 
where the requirements for high speed equipment actually 

refers to inter-city requirements. So, it was more as we -- as 

the discussions mature if there are technical issues that come 

up that -- -- are solutions for inter-city but may not be 

applicability for -- applicable or optimal for high speed then it 

comes up then.

>> This is Linda, I have a comment.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Go ahead, Linda.

>> There is a definition for high-speed rail in 49 CFR 

part 37, 37.3. It has a particular definition. I think the way 

that we traditionally meant it at least in the context of the 

ADA I realize this are other definitions based on tiers and but 

in the ADA it's currently sort of the idea there is a dedicated 

guide way or track not used for trade. So it sets it apart from 

freight and all of the complicating issues of freight. There is 

a particular definition being in part 37 can't just randomly be 

changed without OST, DOT changing it.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Good. Thank you Linda.

>> Sure.

>> Ross Capon: I wanted to put a footnote on the 

discussion of the VIA is that appropriate to do that? The 

question was about ridership in Canada and the Amtrak 

benefitted from the fact the congress is an independent body 

in Canada the parliamentary system is essentially a rubber 
stamp for the government for the prime minister so VIA has 

been going downhill almost since it's been created. The cars 

were acquired from the UK in 2000 entered in service 2002 as 

a result of a lawsuit filed by council of Canadians with 

disabilities, well by a victory by that council in a lawsuit 

against VIA, that I presume is what resulted to the 

improvements in accessibility that were signed yesterday. 

But from our point of view as advocates for more passenger 

trains the bad news is the overall climate in Canada for 

passenger trains is very bad.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you. Thank you all very much. 

Do I see other comments or questions? Again, thank you all 

for being here. I want to remind you April 10th at 10 a.m. we 

will be right here Sam bat time same bat channel. Until then 

have safe travels home. And we will speak with you on the 

phone in just a matter of weeks I know I wrote it in ink in my 

calendar we will do this.

>> Uwe Rutenberg: We owe Billy and Paul owe them an 

applause of thank you for -- forgetting us through days which 

were not always easy on timely base and efficient way to 

address the issues it's very much appreciated. Also want to 

thank you the marvelous people behind who are doing an 

excellent job of running the technology and making sure that 

we actually see what we hear or what we speak of and the 
Access Board staff here as well thank you very much.

 (APPLAUSE) 

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you. Good point. I appreciate 

that.

>> Operators we are formally adjourned thank you for all 

of your help today.

>> Thank you.

(End of meeting.)