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, t he 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 person s 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. T he thought process was are there softballs I don't need an a nswer 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. W hat things might you say would be easy to accomplish. O ne thing at least have one in communi cations 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. S o, I just want you to think about in termsof the issues that we have raised are any softballs that we ca n

test out for purposes of developing our inner relationships over our conference call. S o, 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? Y ou are coming in good. And who else. Checking phone lines. >> Mr. Perez, if you are on the line say hello for the CART. M ic 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. W ill leave a message. (Checking phone sound quality for people appearing by phone.) >> Calvin Gibson >> Hello. >> Good? O kay. T hank you.
>> I am going to mute. U.S. Access Board Afternoon sessionRail Vehicle s Access Advisory Committee

>> BILLY ALTOM: All right. F olks, I think we can come back together. C an the folks on the phone hear me? R eady to rock and roll? >> Yes. >> BILLY ALTOM: Awesome. T hank you, Linda. H ow many folks need to leave early? Everybody here to 3? W e have a couple. J ustin needs to go. A ll righty. We can go ahead and let's get started. R ecap where we went through we went that the issues list ca tegorized stuff of whether they should be spatial or communicative. A nd then to determine which modality they go under. S o, 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. S ee how it goes before we come back for the next meeting, which will be in April. Where are m y dates written down

-- April 10 and 11 we will be coming back. B ut 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. T hen whenever we come back in April we can see how that worke d. W hat do we need to tweak on that. W hether we need more presentations from otherfolks to come in and give us more detail, more scoping, more

technical requirements that we need. H ow does that sound to the group of kind of as an idea of

-- >> Sounds g ood. >> BILLY ALTOM: All righty. S o, 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. F lashing 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. A nd sort of our test case. >> BILLY ALTOM: Yes. I misspoke. A s opposed to a committee, a subcommittee, this will be a full group. L et's say we pick communi cation signage for one, let's have a call on signage. T hen 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. H ere is what we suggest, tha t you follow the ADAAG on all of these things. A DAAG 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 thealphabet soup again. P aul, 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. T hat might be one of the topics. >> BILLY ALTOM: Yeah, it does hit all modes. >> Justin Vonashek: A nd I think it should be universal across all of them as well. >> I am jumping in he re, Janice Schacter, I'm sorry. I apologize. M y 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. A nd I would recommend that we use the more precise signage. U nlike wheelchairs, the specificity is needed to provide clarity, for example, if for sign l anguage 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. T hat's what we are hopingthrough 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. G ood point that's what we want to address when we meet with the committees.
>> Bob Reuter: O n 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. A nd we will have they wil l have CART services, whatever it takes, whatever the preference so no one is excluded.
>> Bob Reuter: A ny 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. A nd then you joi n 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: B illy, I don't consider it the lowest of apples, the induction loop, I started looking into it. A ndre was seeing it's in the BART specification technologies out there. I t's not without, you know, so me issues. B ut I thinkthat'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. I t's more referring to the issues under communi cation 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. M essage signs that's new. Bwas scoping for certain types of signs and location number
et ceter a. A nd 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 plat forms, 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 communicati on 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 deci de on. T hen we will come back in April, we can report back and see how it worked. T hen if I am correct, then look at the more in

- depth things. O r maybenot >> Jim Weisman: T hat assumes we are going it waste

time between now and April if we only do sign age. >> 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: T hat's what we are trying to do now. >> Terry Pacheco : W hy do we think is signage is an easy fix it's a ma

jor 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 actuall y 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 dire ction 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 li ke to see us use the same three in therecommendations, 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 practi ce case here. >> BILLY ALTOM: I am good with that. >> Stanton Saucier: I was going to advocate maybe we should have

-- set the rules. Y ou 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. I t's a minor issue. T he other piece, obviously, is clearly define the scope, and the standard of rigor that we want to approach the thing. Y ou 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. T hen, you know, a little bit of resea rch into the world as to where something like this might otherwise be used. A nd then have the debate about what should take place. T hat way everyone is educated on the subject, and all of the opinions can be heard and, you know, we press on. S o, 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. S o, d o we want to break it into another mode? T hen 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. I t's a good idea what we have
now. W e 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 signag e 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 communicatio n 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, identif y some tasks for some individuals to come up with something they can present thenext time we meet that's the best we are going to do today I

think. >> Justin Vonashek: Y eah, 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. W e don't need to identify numerous things today. >> BILLY ALTOM: Any other comments? Q uestions? >> 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
c onference calls between January and April. A nd 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. S o, right now we have had seems to be people are willing not

-- to speak about signage. M aybe 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. S o, at least it's something to build upon. A nd thenthe question is whether there is more than one topic you want

conference calls on. J on had mentioned induction loops in rail cars. S o, he has done some resear ch on which is good he is already interested in it. I s that another topic that we can arrange a conference call on? A ll right? Then before I ask when people are available, is two enough topics? O r are there any spatial issues

-- I mean we have two commu nications issues which is fine. W e don't have to have more than two topics for this test run. B lair? >> 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 trai n line which is a big activity and it's live. I f 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. U nfortunately Stan, who is knee deep in it, S tan 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 wh at we are finding out, I think, would be great. S o, and that's a

-- a huge topic within communication probably the most complex. B ut the most far reaching at the end of the day. B ut I would say, as a get our feet wet, non

-- or fixednonchangeable 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. S ome of our thought processes that we
use. S o, I think that's a

-- personally I t hink it's a good one to get our teeth into without getting into something that's long and drawn out. A gain, Terry not to under rate that, it is extremely important and we realize that. >> Terry Soesbee: I realize it as well. M y 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. T hat was my point. T hat'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. A nd I have induction loop. F orget 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 provision s and tweak certainprovisions. S o 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. Y ou may not want to kick variable message signs out of the mix becaus e you will talk about the same technical criteria again. For a second time. >> BILLY ALTOM: Bob? >> Bob Reuter: N ot 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 ev ery car, they did research and found out there was a lot of issue others with overlap and interference from motors and other things. R ight 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 wo rks before they decide whether to go ahead with it or not. Even though thereis 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. S o, that might be

-- not be as easy as a task as it
seems. T he 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. I t's hard from the phone. I apologize in advance. A re you saying that you are not sure if induction loops are going to work? B ecause 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. D on't know if it's going to work or not yet. I am just saying it's not working at BART ye t 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 th e hearing loop gets worked out.
>> That's okay, if somebody is having issues with it, Iwould 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. A nd so, I make myself avail able 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: L et'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. A nd it's the

-- wil l they be insurmountable? Probably not. I will do further investigation. A nd we want to bring it to the table I will have a little more ready. >> BILLY ALTOM: Awesome. T hank you.
>> Janice: P rior 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. A nd I saw this w hen I worked not on rail but with the intrepid, I know that's a stationary metal boat. B ut the intrepid and the Holocaust Museum, they thought theyhad too much metal and couldn't overcome it. B oth were

able to overcome it. I t 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 imag ine 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: P erfect. D avid will tell you if it can be done, I will get it done.

(LAUGH TER). >> 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. W ho is pulling all of this information together as kind of a base so we can discuss these different points. J on mentioned information, we havethe PRIIA information, we have ADAAG information. T here

are probably many other areas of information with regard

-- in regards to design and signage and whatsoe ver. B ut somebody has to pull this together to make it a discussion issue. O r 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 thi ngs. >> BILLY ALTOM: Good point. K ind 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 t hat 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 t hought process on how we feed it to you. A nd 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. I f you already know the stuff don't even bother wasting your time. A nd then okay l et's discuss the stuff at conference call number 2. A nd then we will probably have to have a third conference call becausewe 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. O f 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. W ell, that didn 't work but that's the way things go. S o, that's what I was going to propose. At least regarding signage. W hich I have the knowledge of ADAAG signage. T here are people on staff that have the knowledge of the current rail guideline provisions although l imited dealing with signage. S o 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. B ut establish that base for those who don't have it. B lair? >> Blair Slaughter, from Amtrak. P aul, 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
nee d to be. A nd 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. B ut I think we have to segue from one thing to theother. S o, if we lo ok at what exists and then we start looking

at okay how does that not do what we need it to do. A nd 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 yo u in the early

-- the first meeting. I f you make recommendations to change something in the other portions of the ADA standards not the vehicle portions. Y ou 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. J ust 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. Y ou 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 ofthese things coming out. T his has been 10 years ago at

least. W hen we were taking some of the ADAAG and the rail side and looking beyond what was required of rail, and trying to f igure out what to do in some cases. A nd there are some cases where raised letter, the technology for making

-- well, there is a requirement for the size of the raised letters. S o they are more legible. I n some instances on the trains, there is simply no t the space to

-- to have the size. A nd 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. S aid 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. T hose 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. B ut, 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: Y es. I n the case of new vehicles inthe case of signage because signs don't last forever in my

world at Amtrak, I look at s igns as things that are typically renewed at some interval or they are because they get damaged or something like that. W hen 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 su fficient 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. O kay? I s there anything else that we want to set conference calls for? W ould 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 ac cess has been much discussed. A nd 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. I nstead 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. B ecause just to be clear.
>> PAUL BEATTY: Sorry. M y shorthand way

-- our shorthand way in the office. N ot to say you do it a small group someone surrender no decision making it's like let's discuss it. A nd what information needs to be brought to the table so that Crystal you talked about your son. W ell, can we bring information to the table so Crystal can understand t he position of Amtrak on this issue. N ot 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. B ut when Josh was doing his presentation there
were a n umber of questions okay how

-- I am sure there were answers I didn't want to talk the time. H e might have changed his slides slightly to deal with that who knows. T hat would be a smaller group which obviously less people talking.So I want to throw it o ut. I know that lift in the bi

- level is

very important. >> Gary Talbot: O kay.
>> PAUL BEATTY: At a certain point I want to stop it so we can schedule the calls. >> Gary Talbot. P aul, I wanted to ask about the exterior door size. I don't know if this i s 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: O kay. >> 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. Y esterday you talked about cost benefit analysis, and I think obviously Cal Trans and perhaps Amtrak and others would be able to t alk about cost impact and such so you can understand facts for example. I would just like to clarify one thing. T he PRIIA bi

- level car project is active procurement with a signed contract. T hat means the contract has been signed and in effect based on a set specification. T hat does not include this feature. S o, just to manage expectations here. I don't know if this, a change of this magnitude would be feasible toinclude 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. S ignage on the other hand is something which could feasibly be included in the project at this stage if we were very quick about it. B ecause the cost impact of design changes of this nature size of a sign size of the letters on the sign is minimal. A gain, 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. Y eah we happen to be the company that is providing the equipment for the PRIIA project. S o, you know a summary of what is available currently as we ll 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. B ut, you know, in the context of a smallergroup, 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 volu nteering.

(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. T he question who is going to be on who is not going to be.

-- going to be on. S o, can I just

-- we won't schedule that right now we are focus on scheduling signage and get it out of the way. B ut I could go out over the Internet we hav e mimi dot functions, and it would be who wants to participate, everybody. I t's this research group. I am not sure what it will turn out. I t may not turn out anything but hopefully it can refine some things for purposes of developing a presentation to p resent to the full group and we want to have at least one organization from each of the four categories on it. B ut keep it small. A nd 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: W hy 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 MAZ Z: 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 t he 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 purpo se 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? W e clear that's all we are doing is gathering info rmation. >> MARSHA MAZZ: Makes perfect sense.
>> PAUL BEATTY: Good idea. >> As I mentioned, cost benefit analysis he talked about that yourself. I suggest including that. T echnical solutions, option to technical solutions, that's another one. B enefits we have heard a little bit about the benefits today but we need that written up in some shape or form. A nd 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: Q uick question: M arsha said we can't change ADAAG standard without rationale is the rationale good enough that technolog y 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 st andards to let us know that. A nd perhaps to make a recommendation to jump to that technology. B ut 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. F or example, the current ADA standards don't have a contrast ratio. T hey don't say how much the sign has to contrast. S o, that would be not changing an existing provision from 70 to 75, because you think it's better. B ut it would be adding a c ontrast ratio should you believe that that one should be included. A nd that's fine. W e try not to have standards that are inconsistent from one rule to another just because different hands were put on them. S o, another recommendation you might make is t hat a provision in the existing standards is dated it should be updated along with this rule.
>> Jim Weisman: Y ou might have to do that with lifts in general. >> MARSHA MAZZ: That's a possibility, yeah. B ut there are specific requirements for lifts in th e rail rule that are already on the table for you.>> Jim Weisman: O kay.

>> 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. A nd so we don't like to us e, 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: Y es. >> 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. H ow do you want to do that Paul.
>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. S o 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. W hen do we start looking at calendars. I magine some people need a little breathing room between this meeting and when you can start seriously loo king at things? L et me get a calendar can we start to look a the month of February? T he remainder of January is left out. >> Terry Soesbee: P aul, would it be possible for you folks to send us the in files just E

- mail out the ADAAG andANSI 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. W e 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. L ooking at the month of February, if anybody has their calendars there in the first week of February, February

-- well let's leave out Monday an d 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 sp ecific day in February Ed? N o? The 5th? O kay 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 theprovisions 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. T he group could actually for free view that archived webinar and could skip over the scoping which applies to buildings, but it d oes 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 partic ipate 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: Wel l because there is actually scoping they may want to look at. >> MARSHA MAZZ: All of that is in the webinar. A nd if they want to
>> PAUL BEATTY: For the vehicle aspect.
>> The ICC standard you mentioned before though thereis that would that be also bene ficial 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, fi nd 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. H aving reviewed the information individually, I think there is s ome value in discussing those

-- that information that we are gaping. S o 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 lo ok 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 t alking 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? I t may b e 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. W hatever 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. A ll right? A nd so, hopeful ly people don't forget real quickly what they might have learned on the 6th. C an I push it for the week either the 11th, 12th or 13th? M aybe the 13th that's a Thursday? >> One week later.
>> PAUL BEATTY: One week later? H opefully you will not have forg otten 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. >> Janic e: O kay.
>> 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. O kay. T hen the third call is assuming we need more time from the second call all right? So, now we will give you ho w about a week to calm down well let's see, I don't know. L et'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? O kay? H earing the 27th at 1 p.m. east coast time for the third call. N ot 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: T he 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. Y ou 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: Y es, I just wanted to note for folks again

-- we are going it want more information on gap fillers plates, that type of issue. T here 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). M aybe you could present and light rail and heavy

rail. F olks 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 ab out that then the better for all of us. A nd 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? O r 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? A nd follow the same format that we are using for signage? A lthough

-- 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 co mmittee or well, we'll have to figure out the federal advisory committee requirements. O kay. Looking at

-- >> Janice: W hat is this topic I'm sorry I am havingtrouble hearing you.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Vertical access connection of bi

- level cars with

-- elevator or some other means of vertical access. Okay. S o, looking at the March schedule.
>> The 6th will not work Paul.
>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. A nd I know the Access Board has meetings the 10th and 12th. S o the 13th is a Thursday so far we have been on a Thursday roll. H ow does that look for 1 to 3 on Thursday >> Second week of March is not good for me.
>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. W ell, that's the committee's decision first the committee members make the decision for their convenience, they are welcome to lis ten 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. S o, 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. O kay. G oing back tothe 18th, Thu rsday the 18th.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: There is no reason to eliminate the first two weeks of March unless you are on vacation. W e have a board meeting 10, 11 and 12. >> MARSHA MAZZ: That's true. B ut 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. L et's go to the 4th. 4 th of March. W ell, actually, I would like a week I don't know how the signage stuff is playing out. A nd 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. S o 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. W hat about Wednesday the 5th? H earing 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. A nd maybe contacting some of the people that already voiced t he 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. L ooking at the 18th a second conference call on that issue. T he 18th

-- I'm sorry, thank you, I mean the 1 9th 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. W e are on a roll at least for scheduling calls. O kay. Wednesday the 25th, 26th. Hearing no objections. O kay. W ednesday the 26th of March 1 to 3 east coast time we will have our third conference call on vertical access. S o, if my notes are correct here signage all of the signage all of the calls will be from 1 to 3 east coast time. O ur first signage call signage 101 is the 6th of February. T he second will be the 13th of February and thethird will be the 27th of February. A n d 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? I nternal? I nternal vertical circulation to borrow from the ADAAG. V ertical circulation.
>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. N ow, is th is considered a committee of the whole meeting? O r 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. A ll right. B ut that's not your concern. T hat's
more in terms of how we advertise it. O kay. B ut at this point I am leaning to be called a subcommittee meeting conference call. O n vertical access. A ll right. S o I think that's

-- >> Is it the 26th or 28th.
>> PAUL BEATTY: March 26th I will send this out in E

- mail. S o, 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. A ll right. I t's about 5 minutes until

-- well, 5 mi nutes to 2:30, how country is that. It's 2:25. (LAUGHTER) >> BILLY ALTOM: I think we are tired too. B ut 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. B ut 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 pres s 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. M ichael, your line is open.
>> Thank you. M ay 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 notan architect, I am not an engineer, I am just an entrepreneur

trying to solve a part icular crises that I believe affects the disabled in our country. M y 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 al l subparts and more particularly on page 7, subdivision 1 dealing with use of devices on vehicles versus platform

- based boarding devices. S ubdivision 2 as to platforms from the perspective of the definition of level boarding as to its horizontal component s only. A nd 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 g uidelines 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 whichwas 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. T hat is the horizontal gap width can be no greater t han 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. F rom 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. T hat'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 auth orized speed. T hus, 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 toits own side clearanc e safety mandates to avoid a catastrophic

platform strike. S olutions 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 congre ss 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 ca rriers to possibly come into compliance with the ADA's 1990 standards of the 3

- inch gap mandate. U nfortunately, 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 t he 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 thegreatest extent possible by building stations on tangent track

and using gap filling technologies. T he 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 tra in 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. I n 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 per son has the right that guaranteed by the law and I quote and integrated safe timely reliable and effective means of access. C ontained for the record in 76 FR number 181, at page 57927. N ow, to the device of my patented invention if you would please my de vice is an on board mechanism, no part of which is an attachment to the platform for its track side edge. T he patent discloses what patent lawyers refer to as two preferred embodiments. T he first one disclosed in each patent is that the device consists o f one plate or a series of plates which in their stowed position are co

- planar to theexterior 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. E ach 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. T his 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. T herefore 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 th e invention is where it is stowed under the train car vestibule. A nd 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 mit igate the gap again to thedistance as desired by the rail carrier. O nce 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 an d complete adherence to the rail carrier clearance mandate. T his 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 inche s 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. T he committee is being requested to propose where it is possible to the U.S. DOT, FRA, FTA or any other governmental agency t hat 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
retro fitted potentially on all existing rail vehicles and then to be installed on all new rail vehicles. I t 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 ourconcept to have a potential. A nd that's what I quote.

However, Bombardier stated that they would only get involv ed in the process only if called upon by its customers to supply such a device. S o, here is the dilemma that I find. C ertainly 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. T hus, 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 researc h 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 t ime in almost 25 years truly come into compliance with the ADA's original standard of 3 inches for gap width. M embers, committee, thank you very much. I look forward to further communicating with you by E

- mail or again by phone if necessary. A nd I hope you find the time to review the documentation which I have submitted to the committee by letter dated January 6, 2014. A nd 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 wi sh you well. E njoy yourweekend, and safe passage to your homes. T hank you very

much. >> BILLY ALTOM: You are welcome. T hank you, Michael. Now, back to the room for our public comments? W e have

-- >> MARSHA MAZZ: (inaudible) >> BILLY ALTOM: You have t he good news. >> MARSHA MAZZ: The ICC staff International Code Council staff who run the ANSI A117 are incredibly responsive. T hey responded, they will mail me the appropriate documentation to sign so we can share that section of the standard with you on signs. S o, thanks to ICC. >> BILLY ALTOM: Awesome. T hank you. F irst up we have Gary. >> Gary Talbot: T hank you, Mr. Chairman. G ary 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. P erfect, thank you. >> BILLY ALTOM: Paul. >> Not required.>> Paul Grether: T hank you. C an everybody hear me?

My name is Paul Grether, I am with the South West Ohio Regional Tran sit 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 writte n, low floor either 70 partial low floor or 100 floor light rail vehicles, that technology didn't exist. T he regulations don't take the vehicles into account. A nd 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. P rimarily around issues of bridge plates or what we call near level boarding ve rsus 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 ligh t rail streetcar perhaps that's asubcommittee 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. A nd you know, we operate in the street. A nd I think that's our biggest difference. S o, we interface with bus. S o, to the extent that the committee would entertain a presentation we have got one ready. We have done it for a lot of groups. A nd 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. A nybody else? D o we have

-- yes, sir. >> There we go. O kay. J o hn 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. B ut 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. S o, 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: T hank you. A nyone else? L ook at

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

-- >> Jackson Xue: T his 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. I f I could make a suggestion to actually for the purposes of this committee break down high

- speed rail from i nter

- 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 persp ective or from the technical perspective that

-- there are new language being developed for these new types of equipment. T hat are certainly different from what we see in the from the inter

- city perspective. W hen we look at impacts to from the technical perspective for example, it would be different that they would impact inter

- city vehicles. I f 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 goo d to the group? Awesome. >> Bob Reuter: W here 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. T hat'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 ALTO M: 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. F or simplicity that was the only reason I wonder in practice for the passenger if it's necessary to separate it out. I t 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: F ollowing what James is saying, the modes are covered in each group so if you feel for any particular aspect tha t needs to be handled differently for high speed you can bring it up then. A nd 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 Xu e: Well, my

-- my suggestion was actually more in the context of how the language is currently writtenwhere the requirements for high speed equipment actually

refers to inter

- city requirements. S o, 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 de finition for high

- speed rail in 49 CFR part 37, 37.3. I t 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. S o it sets it apart from freight and all of the complicating issues of freight. T here is a particular definition being in part 37 can't just randomly be changed without OST, DOT changing it. >> BILLY ALTOM: Good. T hank you Linda.
>> Sure. >> Ross Capon: I wanted to put a footnote on the discussion of the VIA is that appropriate to do that? T he question was about ridership in Canada and the Amtrak benefitted from the fact the c ongress is an independent body in Canada the parliamentary system is essentially a rubberstamp for the government for the prime minister so VIA has

been going downhill almost since it's been created. T he 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 ou r 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. T hank you all very much. Do I see other comments or questions? A gain, thank you all for bei ng here. I want to remind you April 10th at 10 a.m. we will be right here Sam bat time same bat channel. U ntil then have safe travels home. A nd 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. A lso 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 theAccess 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.)