Note: The output shown below is from the Communication Access 

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

generally unedited. The CART system was used to provide an 

accommodation to persons with hearing loss and persons who are deaf, 

and was streamed in real-time and available to the public on the internet 

during the meeting.

4

th Meeting - Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee (Day 1 of 2)

U.S. Access Board

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Start Time about 1 pm.

>> PAUL BEATTY: All right everybody. We are ready to 

start, CART is up, conference call is up. Marilyn a question? 

We are not ready to start?

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Administrative, go ahead.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. We are starting the rail vehicles 

access advisory committee good afternoon. And as the 

starting process we will go around and introduce themselves. 

So starting on Paul Beatty. Staff of the Access Board. 

>> PAUL BEATTY: Remember press green.

>> Uwe Rutenberg from Montreal.

>> Blair Slaughter, Amtrak.

>> JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Hearing Access Program.

>> Terry Soesbee, RailPlan.

>> ROBERT CARLSON: Community 

communication -- transportation association. 
>> Andre Gagne, Bombardier.

>> CRYSTAL LYONS: Southwest alliance association.

>> John Holbrook, Alstom transportation.

>> David Hughson, Maryland Transit Administration.

>> David Gayle, Hearing Loss Association.

>> Carol Tyson, United Spinal serving as Jim's alternate.

>> Ed Hoff, New Jersey Transit.

>> Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund

>> Clifton Perez, National Council Independent Living.

>> (inaudible)

>> James Lucas, alternate for Stan Hunter, Cal. Trans

>> Dave Martinez, Metro Chicago.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Billy Altom, the Association of Programs 

for Rural Independent Living or APRIL.

>> TERRY PACHECO: Terry Pacheco, American Council of 

the Blind.

>> Melissa Anderson, Access Board staff.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Marsha Mazz.

>> Susan Brita: Staff.

>> Lisa Fairhall, Access Board staff.

>> Rose Marie, U.S. Access Board.

>> Bob Reuter, Access Systems & colonial paralyzed 

Veterans.

>> Dan Viser, CH2ML.
>> Don Mebius, LTK.

>> Francis Mascarenhas, Metro Chicago.

>> Gricelda Cespedes, MTA New York.

>> Bob Franklin, BART San Francisco bay area.

>> Glenn Holland, BART.

>> Jennifer Hu, Texas central railway.

>> Larry, interfleet technology.

>> Jim Pecht, staff.

>> Lou with Virginia Railway Express

>> David Nelson, Amtrak.

>> Gary Talbot, Amtrak.

>> Thomas Fodor, Department of Justice

>> One second.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Rose

>> Rose Marie: I have people on the line one second. 

Okay. I have Keith Frasier, Glenn Millis, Melissa Shurland, 

Jonathan Michel, Calvin Gibson. Michael Chisena, Sid 

Goldstein and Bill Lay, Paul?

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Chris Hart Access Board liaison.

>> FRANK MALDARI: Frank Maldari, MTA New York

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

For the record we have a quorum. So, Rose anything that you 

need to do before I hit this list of stuff? Perfect.

 (LAUGHTER)
>> BILLY ALTOM: First on the agenda, we have approved 

the minutes by we sent those out May 9 E-mail for the from 

the summary of the meeting. Because the minutes are 

required bit federal advisory committee act to be certified as 

complete within 90 days of the committee meeting, the May 9 

E-mail asked for approval of the draft minutes, and majority 

of committee members responded all approving the draft 

summary minutes without change therefore they were 

accepted. Because the next meeting date is more than 90 

days away we will follow the same procedure to review and 

approve the minutes of this meeting. Watch your E-mail 

dockets they will be coming. Also, as a reminder the new 

meeting dates at the April --

>> We lost you.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Come on work with me. You are 

flashing green. Very good. All right. Thank you very much. 

For your patience. We have new meeting dates at the April 

committee meeting the Access Board asked the committee to 

select two additional dates as it appeared the advisory 

committee would not complete our work until by September 

12. So in April the committee directed the Access Board to 

send out dates from which the committee members would 

make selections. And by E-mail April 15 date options were 

presented to the committee. April 29 most of the committee 
organizations submitting votes on the dates the voting was 

closed the results were that write these down February 26 and 

27 of 2015 were the first meeting dates. And April 23rd and 

24th as the second additional meeting date. It was 

recognized that no one two-day period matched everyone's 

schedule but the schedules represented best available 

outcome we had to do what we could do. Secondly, the 

Federal Register lobbyist due to a recent change in the 

guidance from Office of Management and Budget. They may 

serve under some conditions if you have questions about the 

change talk to Lisa. All right. And continuing on with the 

updates. One of the things that I would like to mention to 

you we will be form willing an editorial work group. At some 

point in this process the committees will start writing it's final 

report to the Board, to get that process started I request the 

four subcommittee chairs form a working group to address 

the matter. Depending on the level of completeness to the 

subcommittee reports we will hear today we might be able to 

start laying out the final report. This working group would 

not establish any position for the full committee. Ultimately 

any report developed must be reviewed and approved by the 

full committee. And if any committee member is skilled in 

report writing and desire toss participate, please let me know. 

We will be having public comment period although a time of 
public comment is scheduled for today the public is reminded 

comments may also be submitted to the RVAAC electronic 

docket at regulations.gov. Since our last meeting comments 

have been submitted by Michael Chisena and under Emily 

Bacque's name at this point to plan for the public comment 

time is there anyone who plans on commenting from the 

audience? Do we have a --

>> PAUL BEATTY: Just to let you know this is Paul 

speaking. We have two people Mary Lamielle calling in and 

Michael Chisena. I noticed Bob Reuter raised his hand we 

would say plan for at least three people.

>> BILLY ALTOM: All right. We will plan for those at the 

end of the meeting today. We will allow time. So, if you 

have looked at your agendas up next, are there any other 

administrative matters that we have not looked at? I am 

looking around Marsha Paul? Chris?

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Just want to emphasize that we 

look forward to committee making progress between now and 

February on a draft report. And if we are expecting that the 

committee can present a final report in late spring or at the 

latest at the July Access Board meeting. So, that is your time 

line so please keep that in mind, I realize you guys have been 

working very hard, some of you have been on the call every 

week. We greatly appreciate that. But we also want to 
emphasize that we have to actually have a written document 

that is in some shape or form ideally by February full meeting 

and then we can revise from there.

>> (inaudible)

>> PAUL BEATTY: Somebody is.

>> (inaudible) 

>> PAUL BEATTY: Whoever is speaking on the phone,

>> (inaudible)

>> PAUL BEATTY: Those listening on the conference call 

line, would you remember to keep your phone muted? One 

other administrative matter. For those that are only 

participating in this meeting via the CART system, if they 

desire to make a comment make a statement, raise a 

question, please use the RVAAC E-mail address which we will 

be monitoring at RVAAC @ access-board.gov to communicate 

your desire to participate. That's it Billy.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you very much. As we have just 

finished our introductions we do have one other person who 

has joined us I would like to give you an opportunity Dennis

would you quickly state your name for the record

>> Dennis Cannon, National Disability Rights Network.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Awesome. Thank you. Good to see 

you too. Arty, if you looked at your agendas we have done 

introductions and administrative matters. We have scheduled 
brief reports on subcommittee conference calls of April 

through August but we are going it dispense with those in the 

essence of time. And go to item number 4 which is review 

and comment on boarding and alighting subcommittee 

reports and first up that would be Marilyn and Marilyn if you 

so choose you can remain there if you would like to come to 

the head of the table however you want to do it is fine with 

me.

Boarding and Alighting Subcommittee portion of the meeting

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: I am going to stay.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Perfect.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Appreciate everything that you are 

doing. Yes, so boarding alighting subcommittee happy to be 

up to share what we have done with the full committee. I

want to thank all of the staff, particularly Melissa, who has 

been tremendously helpful to us. I also want to thank a small 

group of our subcommittee made up of Dennis Cannon, Ed 

Hoff and Ed Steinfeld who maybe a proposal which Dennis is 

now going to go over for the full group. I would like to ask if 

you could hold your questions until he is finished because the 

different parts of our proposal, which in essence form our 

subcommittee report to the full group interrelate with each 

other so much that I think if we start -- if we start discussing 

one we will just be tied up in knots and we might as well hear 
the whole thing before we start discussion and questions. 

So, Dennis? Dennis Cannon, who really took the lead on this, 

told me he would be willing to report on it. Is that still true?

>> DENNIS CANNON: Yes.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: I am so glad.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Assuming that you can hear me.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Yes.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Okay. We basically started out with 

some scoping provisions and then added some technical 

provisions for the various things like lifts and ramps and 

bridgeplates and so forth. Most of which were taken from 

previous either the existing rule and changed or some 

additions because of kind of special things that we are going 

to do. If you have the document -- there it is. I can't tell 

whether that's red or not is that red?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Underlined it red.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: It's on the web too.

>> DENNIS CANNON: I can't read it any way. The general 

is to try to set forth some scoping provisions for the different 

kinds of rail that we are talking about.

Rapid rail high-speed rail for example which includes 

MAGLIN by the day purchased after the effective dates of the 

requirements that's determined by DOT. Shall be designed 
for full length level platform level boarding. Using the same 

definition of level boarding as in the DOT ADA issued in 2011 

I got a comment from somebody who thought we were 

referring to the 1991 DOT regulation that set out the first 

standards and we are not we are talking about the new one 

issued in 2011 about level boarding. We will get a direct 

citation for that section as we go along. But we don't have it 

right now.

I don't have it now. And I will meet the section the 

provisions of this section in stations constructed on or after 

January 26, that's the date at which the building and facilities 

requirements took effect, all car doors through which 

passengers board and alight much meet the gap requirements 

set forth below. Stations constructed before that time at 

least one door in each car. And the reason for that is that 

some old cars are old stations are on curved platforms and so 

we are not -- you are not allowed to do that if you complied

with the 1990 regulations. But we have to have some ability 

to meet these new cars and old stations. We have all doors 

on light rail cars and commuter rail cars operating exclusively 

at level boarding station platforms shall comply with the gap 

requirements, at least one door through which passengers 

board and alight on each side serving each on board seating 

area for wheelchairs and mobility aids on inner-city rail cars 
that's Amtrak and commuter rail cars operate at mixed high 

and low stations shall meet the requirements. So, not every 

door.

All doors on AGT that's people movers operating at speeds 

of 20 miles per hour or slower meet the special requirements, 

they are listed later on gaps and I will explain that in a 

minute. Other people movers that move at speeds faster 

than 20 miles per hour have to meet the same standard as 

rapid rail. Boarding alighting is the next section, all new rail 

cars and fixed guide way vehicles shall be compatible with all 

level boarding all steps incorporate and bring the car level to 

the doorway of the same level of the platform. Doorways you 

have a minimum vertical clearance of 74 inches. That 

number comes from measuring the height of the Acela we 

may want to discuss whether that's the appropriate number or 

not.

The section on gaps is where we talk about where you 

have a condition either or both of the conditions set forth 

below you have to have a bridgeplate, the car-borne 

bridgeplate or a car-borne lift I. and we will -- lift and we will 

discuss that later. Horizontal gap for I the horizontal gab 

between the boarding platform is greater than 2 inches. And 

or the vertical difference between the boarding platform 

height and the vehicle floor is plus or minus 5/8 inches. 
Whenever you meet those conditions and rapid rail we know 

you can meet those conditions without a device, we know 

several systems have actually retrofitted existing cars. If you 

can't make that requirement then you have to provide a 

bridgeplate a ramp or onboard lift. The section that says 

people movers is actually a subset of gaps that shouldn't be 

as set forth the way it is in the document. And this says that 

you have slow moving people movers they have further 

requirement they have to meet a 1 inch maximum horizontal 

gap. Faster ones need to be the -- need to be at the 2 inch if 

it's 20 miles per hour or less in speed it needs a 1 inch 

requirement. Then we have operation issues which is where 

car doors open automatically at platforms design for level 

boarding ramps and bridgeplates shall deploy automatically.

That's where the doors open automatically without 

intervention. In other words, like a rapid rail system, for 

example.

Deployment shall be integrated with the door opening and 

closing. We want the thing to come out when the door opens 

and retract when the door closes. Manually deployed ramps 

and bridgeplates shall be permitted where doors are open by 

train personnel and where the horizontal gap exceeds 12 

inches. We will discuss where that 12 inches comes from 

later.
There is one question that was raised by Ed Hoff about 

manually deployed, and not to preclude that it might be 

electrically operated but manually deployed. In other words, 

the operator would push the button and it would deploy. 

There is an advisory note we are asking the committee asking 

the committee is asking the board to require all entry vehicles 

to have automated technology bridgeplates and ramps after 

the year 2020. And the board is going to have to decide 

whether that's feasible. The rest of the provisions that start 

out with ramps and bridge plates are primarily the same 

requirements that currently exist with a few changes. So I 

will only go over the differences. Down on design load the 

old one was 600 pounds. We have upped that to 800 

pounds. The reason there is a half that amount in a short 

bridge plate is because a short bridgeplate will be partially on 

the platform and partially in the car, so the full width of 

the -- the full length of the chair is part of its resting -- is 

resting on the platform or the car. So we figured only half of 

the weight will be suspended by the ramp at any time. The 

next section starts with handrails. Currently there is a 

provision that says, where handrails are provided, and now we 

are going to actually require handrails in some conditions.

And we need to put the standards for handrails and 

stanchions recommending from buildings and facilities talking 
about gripping surface and diameter and mounting and so 

forth. So we need to include that somewhere. That might 

be with the -- in the on-board circulation section.

And they shall be provided on ramps and bridge plates 

with a horizontal gap between the platform and the car floor, 

exceeds 12 inches. This is where your going across a gang 

plank essentially and there is quite a operation in some cases 

I am told as much as 24 inches in some areas. We don't want 

somebody -- it's very uncomfortable to move across such a 

gap and have only a little two-inch edge protection. So, we 

want handrails to be required in that case. The clear width

has been increased to 32 inches because that's where the 

number where working with these days on this. Advisory the 

clear width we talk about wider is bet he ever. But the ramp 

or bridgeplate can be nearly as wide as the door. It has to be 

slightly narrower to fit inside if it fits inside but it can be 

from -- it can be something that deploys on the outside. 

And might be wider than the door. The attachment is 

currently in effect except there was some people felt it was a 

little weak in terms of the fact that some bridgeplates and 

operation tend to be dislodgable. So, we have a section that 

says ramps and bridgeplates shall engage to the vehicle in 

such a manner they may not shall not be dislodged by 

horizontal or vertical movement until activity disencouraged 
by an active member of the crew. We want something 

physically attached in time for that to happen. Under 

surfaces we need to include a section this is probably, again, 

for on-board circulation, a section that talks about surface 

discontinuities and so forth typically what you say in buildings 

and facilities gaps and maximum gaps and so forth. Or 

openings I think they are called in building and facilities the 

edge barriers that's current slope is current, transitions this is 

one where we talk about we need to add some provisions 

about tactical provisions about surface discontinuities you can 

have maximum vertical of a quarter of an inch if it's more than 

that, it's up to an inch it has to be a 1 in 2 slope over that it's 

a ramp. We need to add that provision as a general provision 

to cover lots of things. Let's see. The next thing is gaps.

We have talked about a gap -- we don't want a gap 

between the vehicle and the bridgeplate. And we have added 

a section that says that that also applies to the connection 

between the bridgeplate and the station platform.

Stowage is current lifts again the only change is we 

changed the weight. 

I think that may be -- let me see everything. We have to 

fill in some reference or fill in something about surfaces, size 

of the lift platform has been increased. And let's see. Visual 

contrast deflection movement all of those are currently part of 
the current requirement handrails, we need to simply add 

again this is going to be a generic requirement for handrails 

stanchions and handholds we need to put that in a different 

section so we can reference that. I believe that is the end of 

all of the changes. Back to you Marilyn.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Thank you very much Dennis. So, 

the floor is really open for discussion, questions, Blair?

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Okay. Dennis, thank you and 

Marilyn. I had a couple of questions. One was on the issue 

around the width of the ramp or the bridgeplate. And the 

clear width of the door opening. Both being 32 inches. 

What's the -- what's the thinking there for managing that 

would that imply that the doorway clear is really going to be 

more than 32? Or that you are going to have a little insert 

but ultimately the pathway is the clear pathway is 32 inches 

through that transition from the through the door at no point 

you have anything that encroaches into that 32-inch-wide 

path at the floor level.

>> DENNIS CANNON: The idea was that the doorway has a 

minimum clear width of 32 but in the -- especially with the 

manually deployed bridgeplates and so forth, it has to fit in 

the door. So, that part of the door, the bridgeplate that 

actually goes into the doorway has to be a little bit narrower 

maybe a half inch or sore so -- or so it will fit inside the 
doorway. In some of the designs that we have seen. The 

newer ones that Gary Talbot has been working on, the edge 

protection, the edge barrier is actually outside of that area, in 

other words, there is a little lip on the end that slides into the 

doorway. And that part doesn't have side edges. The side 

edges start on the outside. So that gives pretty much the 

maximum width that you can fit in a 32-inch door.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: That takes care of it. We have 

done those kind of things I have seen them obviously with 

different ramps it works I thought it was worth clarifying.

One of the other questions that I had was on gaps it's not 

gaps as we typically think about them at the side of the train, 

but once you are inside the car, you have thresholds and then 

the transition area is between cars through diaphragms as we 

call them on the railroad. You can have elements that create 

small gaps, and I ran into it this year with new cars where you 

think about a threshold at home, or north mall building 

situation, it handles swinging doors but we often have sliding 

doors or big swinging doors that have to seal water tight. 

And so, you end up with in some cases needing a guide way 

or a door that has, you know, a depth and a width. And when 

we went looking we really couldn't come up with anything 

that -- that filled the void there. They gave us the answer. 

That might be something worth putting in there somehow 
because it was one of those questions we -- and it came 

about because we had a ramp or a threshold that was less 

than a half inch or right at a half inch then it had some shape 

to it we were looking at how wheels traverse those small gaps 

and what's, you know, what's a gap that creates an upset in a 

wheel as you move. Linda bar ton and I talked about it we 

came to a half inch. Which I think comes out of some of the 

architectural regs. That can create some problems 

depending on the door system. But we ultimately figured out 

ways to make it work because we didn't have anything else to 

go with so we did it. But having come up against that kind of 

void in the information that it might be worth filling that gap 

literally and figuratively.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: And then I had one other question. 

We seen the 800 pounds we all talked about it for a long time, 

what was the driver and the research or the science behind 

going from 600 to 800 pounds? That's just a question.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Yeah. That came primarily from Ed 

Steinfeld's research that's been collecting that kind of data for 

a while now. That was a recommendation from, that's not 

100%. I don't remember what percentage of chair that is 

covers.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: I know it's a higher percentage.
>> DENNIS CANNON: It's a higher percentage. Right now 

there is enough of those chairs in that range that they are 

being excluded from current design. So that's the issue. 

About the surfaces thing, yes we need to add a whole section 

on surfaces that will cover all kinds of things. Not just the 

ramps and the lifts and the bridge plates but the routes inside 

the car and all of that and we will have to come to grips with 

what that actually is going to be. We haven't put that 

together yet. That's a separate section but it's generic 

because it covers lets of things not just the ramps and the lifts 

so we that's still a piece that needs to be attached.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Something to think about too, 

some of those elements are dynamic. If you think about the 

pathway and the Acela which is one of the better path -- it's 

the best we have at Amtrak because it's fully connected. But 

that's a dynamic set of gaps. So if we could come to 

something that helps define that while respecting the 

dynamics of the train, I think that would be a good thing at 

least give us something to work toward and around.

>> DENNIS CANNON: I have gone from in the Acela from 

the seating area into the cafe car a number of times. And the 

platform there, the connection is kind of bumpy but it's 

doable. You get a cup of coffee you better make sure the lid 

is on tight when you go back.
 (LAUGHTER)

>> DENNIS CANNON: But it's not like the -- a number of 

people here went to Union Station a while back to look at 

some of the bridgeplates and so forth. And one of the things 

that we did is get on and off of cars and went to 30th street 

station in Philadelphia and so forth. And you can go through 

from one car to another when it's stop, not a good idea to do 

that when they are in motion and there are lots and lots of 

dynamic things going on. And a lot of bumps and what not 

that's probably -- could be improved but the amount that we 

can improve it is unknown at this point.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Okay.

>> Ed Hoff New Jersey Transit. You are saying the on 

board committee solves the gab issue it will solve it for 

the -- you accessible the chairperson for the on board -- if 

you can solve that gap issue we will apply it to our 

subcommittee.

>> Who says?

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Well and there are those gray areas 

where we have overlap between the different things but it was 

one of those things that I in sitting and listening to Dennis 

going through everything it occurred to me that we hadn't 

talked about that we talked about threshold height and you 

can do a lot to deal with that. But when you look at the other 
physical requirements of closing doors on trains, and sealing 

them for the water add snow stays out. It gets to be a 

challenge. But the more that we can put in and base it on the 

dynamic realities of moving a wheeled vehicle over those 

thresholds, and not just you know let's don't pull a number 

out of the air let's make it realistic, you can have a fair amount 

of gap and not upset a wheel but, again, lets -- if we can 

define it, it gives engineers something to work towards versus 

wondering if they are getting it right or not each thinking 

about it which is worse.

>> This is the add on section you were talking about a 

minute ago? Dennis or

>> Pardon me

>> You were talking about a section we need to develop 

that addressing the matter that Blair just discussed.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Yes in general, what we have is a set 

of technical in the rules you have a set of technical provisions 

some of which refer to other sections cross referencing 

whatever, we need rather than duplicating it we need to 

develop a section on surfaces that will cover all of those 

things. And that you will then refer back to, it will be you 

know a number that's referenced complying with XXX section 

and then that section needs to be filled sought. The same 

thing is true for controls and operating mechanisms. Which 
apply to a whole bunch of different things like faucets in the 

restrooms and doors on the cabins and buttons the call 

buttons and whatever that's a operate section that needs to be 

developed too. 

We can grab a lot of that from the proposed bus new bus 

update because we made some changes there to the old 

sections and we can take that out and stick it in here copy it 

essentially and look through it and make decisions as to 

whether we want to make changes into those things but we 

don't -- we don't have that section in front of us right now 

that's a section that still needs to be developed.

>> Handrails too

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Thank you. Yes, staff has -- staff 

has asked me to -- that we should remind ourselves when we 

think about the proposed bus update that they have maybe 

been changed now, but we don't know what they are. So, we 

would love to know.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Well --

>> DENNIS CANNON: I want to let me address that issue. 

I am not suggesting that we reference that regulation because

it's not in effect and we don't know what it is. But what I am 

saying is in the draft there were some things being proposed 

that we could look at and see if we think they are a good idea 
and if they are we can take them out and put them in this rule

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: If we disguise them the staff won't 

know.

>> DENNIS CANNON: If staff have made improvements to 

those sections we could leave it up to staff to, you know, pull 

those over into this section when the rulemaking takes place.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Thank you I have Chris let me let 

you go ahead you wanted to go to Marsha.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Yes, go to Marsha.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Gary wants to speak. He is after 

that.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: I wanted to let you know we sent the 

vehicle rules to OMB we don't know how long it's going to 

take for them to clear it. But I -- I do want to remind you 

that we really don't want to see you spend your really precious 

time wordsmithing, dealing with format, whether you 

reference something somewhere else it doesn't -- that really 

isn't your job. So, if you -- if you can identify a set of 

requirements that you want to work from, or set

>> Jack Andre: Of proposed requirements you want to 

work from go ahead and identify them. And then just let us 

know in narrative or in any form that you want how you would 

like them to change for rail. And that will be sufficient.

Please don't waste a whole lot of this committee's time to 
decide whether they are getting cross referenced or not or 

how it's going to happen. Because there have been format 

changes in the bus rule. And so, we -- we really would like 

to not have you feel badly or upset with us when we go to use 

your work and we don't necessarily use the format that you 

chose. So, the main thing is to get your ideas across to us.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Thank you. I have Gary and then I 

have Uwe was something else?

>> No, I have just been requesting it down here I wasn't 

doing it properly Terry also.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: And Chris.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: And Chris okay.

>> Thank you.

>> Here Gary.

>> Sorry about that thank you madam chair Gary Talbot 

Amtrak. I wanted if I could launch of what Dennis talked 

about on the side edge guards for just a moment the edge 

barriers O on a bridgeplate especially my comments would be 

more for a bridgeplate. I appreciate everybody's help to date. 

You guys have been wonderful to help us with our design 

work. In another week and a half we will show you the latest 

iterations of those. I think to Marsha's point to the big idea 

piece, I think we need some language in here that would 

better reflect like allowing the side guard to terminate once 
you get on the platform of a bridgeplate. And you will see 

why I don't need to go into that now I wanted to bring it up. 

The bigger issue for me is the slope. We have ramps and 

bridge plates I have slopes not steeper than 1 in 8. Boy, I 

wish I mean, you can make that anything that you want I 

suppose. What I have found with the ramp work that we have 

done, is that A, we don't often have the space at a station to 

have a super long ramp but the other problem that we have is 

it gets so heavy when you are using carbon fiber that it's too 

long too heavy nobody can deal with it you can't fit it on the 

vehicle. So, like a 1 in 8 if you look at a bi-level car like a 

superliner Amtrak has my comments are only for inner-city, 

often you will have 15 to 17 inch vertical from the surface of 

the floor of the vehicle down to the grade. So down to a 

grade crossing. To do that in a 1 in 8 you are talking 10, 11 

foot runs on a ramp that you may not even have space to 

deploy, let alone you won't be able to pick it up move it put it 

together and then carry the load. The other thing that 

happens is when you get that long, you have to support the 

load underneath the ramp it's just too long. And now you 

really have this like erector set you put together when you pull 

up. I don't know the right answer to that. 

We have the right answer that everybody can look at, I will 

ask you on the 1 and 8 we need to figure out something that 
is a little bit better for the rail environment, especially when 

you consider you know using the lightest weight materials we 

can find something that's got to go on the vehicle that can be 

deployed quickly and easily by one person and then a person 

with a disability can have better access to multiple cars that's 

a real problem. The harder we make it for folk toss deploy 

stuff the more we will get stuck in one car only, thank you 

very much.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Okay. Dennis, did you want to 

address that directly then I want to go back to the queue.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Yeah. It's a problem.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> DENNIS CANNON: I mean, it's clearly a problem that we 

can't do 1 in 12 that's without question. Many of these 

situations. But it relates to an issue that Dick Cogswell of 

FRA raised looking at one of the Earl question things and what 

we say in the scoping is the cars shall have either a car-borne 

bridgeplate or a car-borne lift. Now, if you are buying cars 

that you are going to run on the northeast corridor where they 

have a bunch of high platforms I think those are probably 

about 48 inches, you would order your cars with car floors 

that are 48 inches high and you would have short bridgeplates 

that were either kept in a compartment or maybe they are 

hinged out or automatically deployed. There are lots of 
situations or if you are running on some systems where you 

have got most of your platforms are at 21 inches say or your 

cars for that line to be 21 inches. Most, as far as I know 

railroads don't just move cars from one place to another. 

There are lots of places where the cars that run between here 

and Chicago, for example, can't run up and down parts of the 

northeast corridor because of tunnels and bridges and so 

forth. So you have to decide where they are going to go. 

And make them fit that. There are places where on a 

particular run, you are going to have some mixtures of high 

platforms, and low platforms. 8 inches above top of ground 

in fact Orlando there is no platform. The pavement simply 

runs straight out from the -- from the station to the rail at 

the -- the top of the rail itself. The conductor has to put 

down a stool for the passengers who are boarding by steps 

and they have a portable ramp -- portable ramp that they use 

for boarding wheelchairs. But if you are running in that kind 

of environment, then probably the only thing that is going to 

work is a car-borne lift. In those cases where you have got 

those really strange mixed plat form heights that may be the 

only solution. I know the -- some of the operators think, 

well, we'll just use these -- we had an exception in the old 

rule. The lift and ramp sections were always for car-borne 

lifts but then we had an exception that said, if you had a lift 
that met these requirements on the platform, or was portable 

that was permitted.

We are trying to get away from that because most of the 

people who have used those things find them difficult at best, 

and they are always locked away in some corner somewhere. 

I have been on a train as long as an hour waiting for 

somebody to go find the lift and bring it to the car. So, in 

those cases where you have got constrictions you are not 

going to have the room to deploy a long ramp, a long ramp is 

too heavy of. Too difficult to maneuver. The option is going

to be a car-borne lift.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Thank you Uwe? Uwe Rutenberg: 

Thank you Marilyn. This is Uwe. Just adding to what Dennis 

said and I think it was Ed and you as well in terms of ramp 

complications. I was recently in Europe, and I found a couple 

of instances where the platform is actually higher than the car 

floor. And I mean substantially higher. I saw some bi-level 

cars in Stockholm, and in Germany, and they had actually built 

in ramps that sloped into the car. Some were car-borne 

ramps and some were just per mentally 

installed -- permanently installed. The slope was such if you 

go there with a wheelchair you roll fast right into the center of 

the car. I was wondering if we had the situation here in North 

America and if we do, then how we address this?
>> DENNIS CANNON: I know there is a blog put around 

Ken Shiotani I don't know shared with the group or just on the 

subcommittee. A blog for the folks trying to develop the 

high-speed rail in California. The high-speed rail is required 

to have full platform level boarding. They are planning to run 

some of these -- some of these tracks on a bunch of different 

current railway with a bunch of different stations. The 

platforms all of which range from 48 inches and some of 20 

inches some are 22 and so forth. There may be 8 inch they 

are trying to decide how they are going to deal with this. 

And it's an issue that is not just for these new rules. But it's 

an issue there today. One of the issues of course is you can 

build a platform. You can create it. You can tear one down I 

guess if it's too high. But you may mean that you have to 

build essentially -- a mini low platform. Instead of a mini 

high platform at one end of the station you may have to build 

something that's lower at one end of the station that you pull 

up to and you may have to do then double stopping or 

respotting the train to do it it's going to be a problem until 

people start investing in things like building new platforms. 

The DOT rule the 2011, DOT rule talks about instances in 

which you are required will be required to build full length 

high level platforms but there are very few of those that meet 

their criteria. So, they are not going to happen very often. 
We are not likely to get a whole bunch of mini highs built 

around the country that's just not likely to happen. Minute 

me highs will be less likely full length platforms will be less 

likely. We may be stuff with lifts on trains or some time to 

come, if that's the case, until there is some kind of large-scale 

rebuilding project, which I don't see.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Dennis this is Blair. You make a 

very good point. Because you could have, and I would see it 

quicker in say California than on the northeast corridor, but if 

suddenly we started running superliner or surfliner bi-level 

equipment on the corridor mixed with the standard 

equipment and in the Acelas we would have to build low 

platforms that are stations that are all high platform now. 

Certainly into places that are traditionally low platform, if you 

start running single level high speed equipment that has to 

have full length level boarding you have -- somebody can't 

stop there anymore. So, it creates a problem. And I -- the 

most frustrating part, I think, is that we are trapped 

between -- we want to -- we want we all want to have 

accessibility but we don't want to generate conditions where 

service is either decided not to go to a certain place or deleted 

because you know something is seen as too onerous it's a 

quandary that we are up against. And unfortunately some of 

this stuff lasts too long there is not enough money put 
against it to fix it and change it. And that's very frustrating 

for all of us.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Our job is to make 

recommendations and the board write regs get comments in 

the end depending on the comments it gets from industry 

plus what OMB tells them to do which is the 800-pound 

gorilla. Those changes will be made and there will have to be 

a compromise.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Hopefully more than a grassy spot 

with a step stool.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Really Terry you had something?

>> TERRY PACHECO: I do. I am not sure this may be not 

be the most appropriate time for it, but I do believe it's 

appropriate in this committee. I just want to ask: Has this 

committee done any work on -- trying to come up with a nice 

way of putting this. Boarding issues for people with other 

disabilities. What I am thinking of in particular, is knowing 

where to board a vehicle. This is particularly the case as far 

as commuter and light rail vehicles are concerned. The 

issues of people accidentally going -- thinking that it's the 

end -- the door into the train car and it's actually the space 

between cars. That's kind of a misboarding misalighting.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: That's --

>> TERRY PACHECO: It seems to me it's a piece that 
absolutely needs to be addressed. And I am wondering if you 

have done anything with that?

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: I don't think we have talked about it 

isn't it already -- I mean --

>> DENNIS CANNON: It's one of the sections that we need 

to pick up from the current regulation and transfer over.

>> TERRY PACHECO: I would hope it would be

>> DENNIS CANNON: Requirement between car barriers. 

That needs to be -- there are a couple number of things in 

the existing rule that we weren't really worried about 

changing, so we didn't, you know, we are focusing on the 

things where we want to make changes and make different 

regulations in the current one but where there is a lot of 

things in the current rule that we just want to take and say, 

yes, keep that. There is a requirement for doors when doors 

close that the -- there is a requirement that be audible and 

visual. And that's obviously something that we have to take 

over. And that's probably in your committee, actually.

>> TERRY PACHECO: Yeah. The announcements would 

be our committee I was just more thinking about the actual 

physical chains whatever they are using between the physical 

equipment and hardware.

>> This is Uwe I want to add quickly to what you are 

requesting. There is a research project underway right now 
that we are doing for TCRP and it's addressing exactly the 

problems that you are mentioned. -- that you are mentioning. 

All of the safety issues that are happening at gaps between 

the platform and the train in between trains people falling off 

platforms, people stepping on to tracks, all of the safety 

issues. Not only for people with disabilities, but for all 

passengers because there is a big problem arising in all of the 

rail transit industry not only in inner-city LRT's and trams 

there is a great number of incidents that are happening 

because of these issues. And specifically what you are 

mentioning, people with vision impairments, they step 

between cars falling into the cars when there is a big gap and 

this is happening specifically in LRT situations where the cars 

are not kind of welded together and there is a gap of two or 

three feet. And there are some operators and transit 

operators who have found solutions or at least are trying 

some solutions to solve these problems. But this project is 

underway right now and will probably be ending mid next 

year.

>> TERRY PACHECO: Thank you. I just wanted to make 

sure that we -- though I do realize there are provisions that 

we carry them over into this. That this is also addressed in 

this, in our recommendations thank you.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Thanks Terry. I think that's a 
really important issue that you brought up and good 

discussion. And -- I don't know if I am right about this, but 

it just seems like the fact that there is a regulation on between 

car barriers doesn't mean everyone is following it today.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: No. They are not.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: They are really not. And it's really 

easy for people to think it's not in the rule because you see so 

many problems with it. So, thanks for raising that. I have 

Chris and after that Linda.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: I just a couple points. One is 

Uwe is correct to highlight the upcoming TCRP work. It is in 

some ways a decade late in the UK to (inaudible) it's a huge 

effort causing significant steps and that work the first step on 

behalf of the UK trains and injuries tied to that first step. 

And then University of (inaudible) up in is it Belgium or the 

Netherlands started to do a huge research looking at boarding 

and alighting of not just trains but buses and trying to figure 

out what was (inaudible) door and step height to improve low 

time and reduce injuries. So, there is a fair amount of 

research albeit overseas. The one thing that I do want to kind 

of highlight, aside from Gary's accurate point about the 

bridgeplates and ramps getting too long, some rail systems 

actually bring the platforms into compliance. You won't 

necessarily have (inaudible) vertical gap. And so, one may 
not necessarily want to put the onus on the vehicle to solve 

that issue. It may actually be the railroad that needs to -- to 

actually spend some money on its platforms and not on 

unnecessary upgrades to other things in the system. And 

that is said because at some point you may end up asking 

bridgeplates in vehicles to do more than is reasonable and 

then ultimately as Gary has shown with his gap mitigation plat 

form, it may be better to solve it on the ramp and not on the 

vehicle. Finally, I want to turn to where we started some time 

ago and that was the diaphragm question. And I would 

suggest that all of you may want to think some more about 

what diaphragms look like and what is expected. Because 

while the Acela diaphragm is somewhat viable if I use this 

chair that I am sitting in as an example, I will get hung up on 

that diaphragm, basically 3 or 4 times and need a push to get 

through the diaphragm. And so, my chair is a very typical 

power-based chair. So, there is some need to think if I put 

on my international rail hat and I think about what is available, 

particularly in Japan, in high-speed rail, as well as in Europe, 

you have absolutely flat diaphragms. And certainly Jon and 

our friends from Bombardier as well as Ivan and Patrick 

can highlight what they have done overseas. Partly because 

of tripping hazards but partly because of it's a pain to roll 

your luggage up and down these areas so I put that out to all 
of you to think about. Finally a part of the diaphragm 

discussion you might want to think about handholds and 

where and what FRA currently requires for handholds. And 

where you need to make recommendations related to those 

hand holds or lack thereof.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Let me respond to two points. One 

is, later on when we are talking about rooms and spaces I am 

going to show a photo and a video that shows what happens 

between a fixed (inaudible) car mission consist for example 

you will see there is a very clear difference between the kinds 

of things and the surfaces issue though is one that is going to 

be a little tricky we are going to have to work on that 

separately. I just realize the that I forgot, there is something 

on the proposal that I forgot to highlight. It's not in red. It 

is a change in terms of the edge barriers, on a ramp or 

bridgeplate, the current rule is a 2 inch high barrier the full 

length of the bridgeplate. The problem with that is that 

implies that it may be inside the door as well which you really 

don't need it. Then there is issues when it's on the end on 

the platform when you want -- might need to turn or move. 

And the fear is that you could trip over that edge barrier and it 

also restricts your ability to turn off and so what we added on 

the edge barrier was that the barrier the 2 inch high barrier 

can stop essentially 6 inches from the end and taper down to 
zero with some kind of taper which we didn't define. That is 

a difference to address the issue that people have already 

raised about the edge barrier requirement going all the way to 

the end of the bridgeplate which can be a tripping hazard.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Okay. I just want to ask if it's a 

response to this before I go on the with the queue or --

>> (inaudible)

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Let me put you in queue James. 

Linda?

>> LINDA MARTIN: I just wanted to point out that there is 

no requirement in the inner-city regulation for the between 

car barrier. Maybe you know historically why that's too Blair 

it's in the commuter rail and subway light rail requirement. I

mean maybe you provide it anyway out of an abundance for 

caution but for some reason it's missing from that section.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Yes.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Can I address that issue because you 

are right. What the current requirement is, the real problem 

for between car stepping off of platforms is A, a high platform 

if it's at grade, you don't fall anywhere although you might get 

in between cars accidentally. The -- between car barrier 

requirement is mostly a light rail and rapid rail requirement it 

applies when written only to new cars so you had a lot of 

instances where new cars were attached to old cars and the 
question is: Was there a requirement to put 

something -- you know that attaches to the old car I am 

happy to say lots of rapid rail systems that is in fact what was 

done. Which is good. The requirement does not generally 

apply to inner-city rail first because it only applies in high 

platforms where we have a problem. And because what 

happens in the -- in a lot of rapid rail there is a window at the 

end of the car so the light from the window shows into that 

gap and to somebody that has vision, most people have most 

people with vision impairments have the ability to see some 

light, that looks like other a doorway. When you don't have 

lights on the end that area is dark. The same thing is true in 

the existing rule that said, when you had the typical 

diaphragm accordion diaphragm between an inner-city car 

that acts as the between car barrier. So, with respect to 

inner-city rail, you don't need to have a between car barrier. 

We may want to think about that.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Okay.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Did you have something further 

Linda?

>> LINDA MARTIN: I wanted to add the way the rule is 

written now it applies to inner-city section the high-speed 

rail. So, you would also need to consider what to do with 

high-speed rail with regard to barriers.
>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Marilyn can I jump in there Blair 

from Amtrak.

In my brief almost 25 years now at Amtrak, I only plan to 

work there five years and go do something else that didn't 

work out.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: The -- I have never heard of -- we 

have had gap issues or gap incidents where people stepped 

into the gap and that sort ever thing but never that I am aware 

of did we have anything where people actually stepped 

between cars into the gap. It's been more they were -- they 

missed a step, they slipped something to that order on the 

inner-city trains that would include the Amfleet cars the 

regional cars that we run. And I -- going back in time, I read 

somewhere that the origins of some of those between car 

barriers were to keep people from trying to ride between the 

cars and avoid you know trains that they had missed or 

craziness like that to get to the next station. Instead of just 

waiting for the next train. But I am not aware of any sort of 

raging problems with that on inner-city trains or we would 

have -- I have a hot line from our claims department they 

would have called me so I don't know.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: If someone is jumping on the train 

and riding I want that to be accessible.
 (LAUGHTER)

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: We will provide -- maybe rapid rail 

should have to have appropriate gripping surfaces for holding 

on.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: I am going to hold you to it. Let's 

see I had James next did anybody -- did I miss any other 

hands? Yes okay. Frank James Frank looking around behind 

me go ahead James.

>> Testing testing. Okay. Hi there. I noticed object 

the -- I noticed on the proposal the platform plate for the 

wheelchair lift has increased 2 inches in width from the PRIIA 

specification. So, I guess my question -- I think this is 

similar to the bridgeplate discussion where we said that had 

to be 32 but noting some doors may also be 32 and how you 

reconcile that. Now, that's not an issue for the PRIIA vehicles 

the door width is much greater possibly there are vehicles out 

there where the door width is narrower I am not sure. But my 

question is: Do we -- that may create issues for some 

vehicles, and for obviously compliance of the PRIIA 

specification. I know Linda actually came to test the 

wheelchair lift on that project, perhaps Linda could 

commented on about the 30 by 54 was acceptable and 

whether we really need the 32 by 54 whether we could keep 

the PRIIA specification.
>> LINDA MARTIN: I --

>> DENNIS CANNON: The 32 by 54 was based on, again, 

research by Ed Steinfeld we felt it needed to be -- the current 

standard of 48 by 30 doesn't really fit an awful lot of chairs 

these days. Excluding more and more.

When the -- when the comment period takes place, 

manufacturers will be able to chip in and say, chime in and 

say we can or cannot do that. Remember, one of the things 

that the board has to do when it issues its reg it has to do a 

regulatory assessment, which is essentially a cost benefit 

analysis. And so, in doing that it will have to look at things 

like if current devices don't meet that standard what would it 

cost to change it. Of course manufacturers will give 

information on what it might cost them to do it and so forth. 

It's very difficult for somebody to evaluate something like 

what's the cost of R and D to do an upgrade. So those are 

the issues that come up when the regulation actually goes out 

for comment before it's made into a final rule. And so, you 

are right, at that point I am sure that there will be a number of 

manufacturers. When the original bus lift requirement was 

put out it had a requirement for 48 by 30. There was a 

protest by General Motors which had a platform which was 

wider but shorter. And they got from DOT a postponement 

of that particular piece of the puzzle for them to make 
adjustments. They claim they were going to need two years, I 

think, to do that, DOT gave them a year I believe. And so, 

that's an issue that when DOT adopts guidelines and puts 

them into standards, it can make those kinds of adjustments 

and say, this particular provision doesn't take effect until such 

time. So, those are things that are available for the 

manufacturers in case there turns out to be a real problem. 

On the other hand if one manufacturer says I can do it -- it's 

pretty clear that the others are going to jump in to try to do 

that too.

>> The point I was trying to make here is that the PRIIA 

spec is a clear -- big step increase from the 30 by 48 which 

you mentioned and referred to. But it just seems that this 

specification in this proposal is almost that but not quite. 

Just 2 inches off on the width it's so close and it's going to 

create inconsistency issues and seems like if we are going 

to -- if the PRIIA spec has already been gone through the loop 

that's acceptable, you are almost there I just didn't understand 

why it was 2 inches difference.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: James, one thing that may not be 

relevant or may be not apparent for folks in rail, is in the 

paratransit world a lot of lifts have already standardized to 32 

by 54. And they have long since gone to 800-pound 

capacity. So, it may just be a question of rail catching up and 
connecting the dots with (inaudible) and the other 

manufacturers. And saying, okay oh, okay you guys are 

making 5,000 of these a year. So, there will be that little bit 

of a loop that hasn't been closed. So, you know, 2 inches I 

guess you guys can several discuss that 2 inches but I would 

just remind you if the big lift manufacturers are already there. 

It may not be -- it may not actually be an issue that folks 

think is an issue.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Okay.

>> LINDA MARTIN: You want me to comment to I wanted 

to comment to James' point. I found it adequate with my 

individual wheelchair. As Dennis mention that's the point of 

the rulemaking process is that it will take into account you 

know all sides the industry and people with disabilities 

and -- so I am not a -- while I am a pretty good example of a 

rather large wheelchair I am not the -- I am not everybody.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Yeah, this is Marilyn. You are not 

a scooter user. You are not -- you really can't go from one 

wheelchair no matter what it is anyway, my state may need to 

catch up just a little bit.

Frank.

>> FRANK MALDARI: Yes. First question had to do with 

the change from 3 to 2 inches for the horizontal gap I was on

the call I know we discussed it. The example that I remember 
was that if WMATA can do it you should be able to do it just 

about anyway. In our operation --

 (LAUGHTER)

>> FRANK MALDARI: In some of our service we can get 

down to 3 inches. And the change from 3 to 2 requiring on 

board bridgeplates is big, especially in a subway operation 

where you have so many people going in and out of door 

openings during rush hour -- I know it's an advisory for the 

automated one, it's a requirement for an on board one. That 

change is significant it's really going to affect the ability of 

people to get in and out of the train. So, if I remember 

correctly, I thought that one of the things that WMATA had 

done was put the rubber bumper gap filler in to achieve the 2 

inches it's not an extension of the thresh hold plate as much 

as it is to prevent somebody stepping in between the 

threshold plate and the platform and falling in between. It's 

not meant to support vertical load in the sense of a wheelchair 

wheel or something like that. I would think that you know, if 

there was a good standard that could be used that could be 

justified by saying a wheel an average wheelchair or 

something like that requires that would be one thing. But 

just to write the standard based on what WMATA could do 

with a rubber bumper may not be the best way to justify a 

reduction that has a significant impact.
>> DENNIS CANNON: Admittedly I mentioned two systems 

the rubber bumper in WMATA does reduce the gap to about 2 

inches maybe a little bit less it's not the solution. The much 

better solution is the extension developed by MARTA in 

Atlanta it's a retrofit that they added to all of the older cars 

and now it's part of the spec for the new car. It's actually a 

metal plate that is bolted to the outside and extends the 

threshold out from the car edge. The fear originally was that 

it would get knocked off from the platform, so far that hasn't 

happened. And MARTA has been running that for many 

years. There are probably other extensions too. The reason 

for the 3 inch, originally, was because we were convinced that 

you couldn't do any better than that. In the rapid rail 

situation. And we now know that you can. 2 inches is 

actually a bigger than we should have for wheelchairs wheels. 

The standard for opening in building and facilities, I think is 

an inch or inch and a half I don't remember. If we were doing 

it on the basis of accessibility requirements and what's in the 

building in the facilities it would be even less than 2 inches. 

2 inches is there because that's doable. As opposed to you 

know just guessing that it might be a nice number. We 

would like to make it smaller than that. We would like to 

have if the same as an elevator which is a half inch but that's 

not going to happen.
>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Did you have an additional point 

Frank something else?

>> FRANK MALDARI: The other comment that I wanted to 

make, I know it's only an advisory at this point is the 

automatic deploying bridgeplate. I know it's a nice thing and 

it may have some benefits. But if you think of the big picture 

and you take into consideration certain operations what you 

might have one station possibly a large fleet of cars that 

doesn't meet the requirement you have to equip your entire 

fleet with an automatically deploying mechanism. And 

from -- I mentioned it before, and my experience the more 

complicated that you make any operation the more likely it is 

to have a failure. Right now, the safest way to board would 

be a minimal gap and no mechanical manual or automatically 

deploying device anywhere. Everybody would agree to that. 

For the most part we have tried to do that to the best that we 

can. And we do achieve that and in some areas we have to 

use a bridgeplate. The manually deploying bridgeplate does 

work. You would do require special attention but it's not the 

norm. The major passenger stations that we operate in the 

gap is very small you typically don't use it but you can apply 

the same criteria to areas where you have mixed operations 

with freight which require greater clearances to the platform. 

So, the point that I am making is: Every layer of complexity 
that you add to a vehicle is another layer of unreliability that 

you are suggesting -- subjecting it to. The suggestion is 

allow for the manual bridgeplate do not require it. If the 

operation is such an automatically deploying one works for 

that operation that's fine for them. Some operations it may 

work for some it may not. It's not a good idea to require all 

transit authorities to use the same feature for deploying a 

bridgeplate.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Frank on that point. I don't get 

why -- these are new cars. So your new cars might have 

automatic deploying bridgeplate. What makes that drive you 

to need to equip the rest of your fleet of older cars? That's 

what I thought you were saying.

>> FRANK MALDARI: No. It's just older platforms maybe 

it was misunderstood.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: I see.

>> FRANK MALDARI: The platforms and freight territory 

are going to continue to exist and the ones in nonfreight 

territory -- but I wasn't talking about not being able to do it 

on existing cars.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Okay. And just I know there is a 

queue here and I have David Nelson in it, and then I want to 

go to people on the phone. But Gary wanted to respond so 

go ahead Gary.
>> Gary Talbot: Thank you Madam Chair, Gary Talbot 

Amtrak. I wanted to respond on the manual versus 

automated on new cars. Any time there is a manual 

something manual where a human intervention is required, I 

mean, it's just -- I can't begin to tell you how many times I 

have waited. And others of us have waited, and will continue 

to wait. That's the whole reason behind the automated 

deployment. If you need to mitigate that gap, whether it's 

vertical or horizontal and you are going to do so with a 

bridgeplate of some kind, I think what the -- what you have 

got there today says it's going to be automated. I think that's 

a huge win for us going forward on new cars. Because 

otherwise you are waiting for -- we are getting fewer and 

fewer head count on the trains fewer head count in the 

stations if it's manually deployed somebody has to if it's on 

the platform they may have to walk to the platform and get it 

all of that time you are just waiting. If they forget about you, 

you are still waiting that's what happens. At least from my 

perspective and people I have talked to that's the reasoning 

behind it.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: It's also boarding not just getting 

deboarding but boarding. And any way there is a lot of 

reasons to get away from platform born devices. David did 

you have something? David Nelson?
>> David Nelson: Yes, just a comment. Now, Blair 

maybe you can help me with this. You know, we have been 

here for a brief 24 years or so yeah.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> David Nelson: Amtrak borrowed two European train 

cars to -- to do some kind of experimentation. I can't 

remember which train whether it was in Sweden or Germany. 

And I was standing on the platform one time the train pulled 

up, the door opened, and then when the door started to open 

automatically the bridgeplate was instantly deploying itself. 

It was already on

>> it was the Swedish one.

>> David Nelson: Okay, okay, thank you.

Sorry I lost my train of thought. Okay. What I was saying 

was that the bridgeplate reached the platform before the door 

was fully even opened. So, I think that somebody had the 

concern about time and I don't think that would be too much 

of a concern if it was something like that.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Okay, thank you. Who was just 

asking --

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Thank you. I remember watching 

the ICE train I believe it was with that and one time we had

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: In Germany?

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: I think the -- ICE train inner-city 
express in the U.S. demonstration

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Sorry.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Yeah we ran that around the 

country and on the corridor for a while as well as the X2000 

from Sweden before we wrote the specifications for the Acela. 

But when you look at those types of devices, most anything 

can be made to work, but when you get into inclement 

weather and things like that that's when they get -- when it 

gets dicey. But that should be extreme situations. If you 

have ice and snow and things frozen up, and I think the 

authority would have to be prepared to deal with that if 

something is not functioning correctly because of weather. 

But those things happen. We fight them all the time. We 

think about what works in fair weather and then it 

shows -- snows and then you get freezing rain and then it 

stops.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: We are hoping they will test it in the 

snow.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: I think it's probably worth looking 

at is because IRE and a couple of other major door 

manufacturers have offered these retractable step or 

bridgeplate systems for probably a dozen-plus years in 

(inaudible) it may be unheard of in the U.S. rail market right 
now, and so some of the product testing cycling has occurred 

in Europe will ultimately need to occur in the U.S. deployment.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Okay. Did someone on the phone 

have a comment?

>> Can I make a quick comment Marilyn? Yeah I have 

him on the queue. I don't hear anybody on the phone saying 

that they do. So, I will go on Bob Reuter?

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: I'm sorry, are you there now?

>> Yes, I am. This is okay for public comment?

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: No. Paul Beatty, our staff is saying 

no. I guess if you are on the committee.

>> No, I am not a member of the committee.

(Discussion off record.)

>> I can wait.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: I thought we said during --

(Discussion off record.)

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: If it relates to the issues that we are 

discussing then go ahead. Relatively focus comment not like 

a long public comment.

>> It relates to the

>> Who is this?

>> (inaudible) proposal.
>> MARILYN GOLDEN: If it relates to the proposal of the 

issues we have been discussing.

>> Thank you. I had several comments I put them in 

writing to the committee

>> Sorry. Who is this?

>> Michael Chisena.

>> Thank you.

>> My first comment relates to the proposal on the 

scoping on page 1 where the reference is to rapid rail and 

high speed rail concerning new cars where by the level 

boarding definition is related back to the 2011 DOT ADA 

regulation. My concern there is that if you go to that 

regulation, more particularly 49 CFR 37.42F then it only 

relates to a situation where mitigation is required when the 

gap is more than 3 inches. But it also states that mitigation 

must be accomplished by a bridge plate ramp or other 

appropriate device. And it references other titles 49 CFR and 

certain sections. When you go to those sections, there is no 

reference in there that the mitigation device the plate the 

ramp need be automated or car-borne. And that, to me, 

seems inconsistent with the central proposal made by the 

subcommittee that you deal with an automated on board 

mitigation device where the gap exceeds 2 inches. Unless I 

am misleading -- misreading something. 
>> DENNIS CANNON: You are reference -- you are 

references the wrong DOT rule it's the 2011 you are 

referencing the one adopted in 1991. We will get the actual 

citation for that later but that's not the one. And by the way I 

have your written comments already and they will be included 

in the next round when we work on finessing this after we get 

the comments from this committee meeting.

>> Okay.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Dennis Cannon Michael. The other 

thing is that we have been encouraging -- we have been 

encouraged to invasion innovation particularly at this 

stage -- this is staff is really encouraged us to -- to come up 

with whatever new ideas we are not now try to go narrow 

down, maybe soon we are beginning to. But in this initial 

stage we are really beginning to try to see what creativity we 

can pull from the group that I think has been named in order 

to try to find people that will have such ideas. And if 

previous regulation whether it is or not I will leave that to be 

decided, constrains us then the board will do that 

constraining. But we are not constraining at this point with 

anyway with -- we are going beyond all kinds of things. So, 

go ahead though do you have more?

>> Yes, I do. Mr. Cannon, that in my comments when I 

reference the 37.42 with all deference that is the new 
regulation. I am quoting right out of the 76 federal register 

number 181 at page 57935. So, that is the--that is the new 

reg I am not referring to the 1991 reg. But you certainly can 

check it out.

My second comment deals with, again, under scoping, 

operation where you reference to a manually deployed ramps 

and bridgeplates shall be permitted where doors are opened 

by train personnel. It's my comment that first choice of 

language can possibly give the impression that, again, we are 

dealing with manual deployment in all circumstances is 

authorized as long as the personnel involved in the opening, 

closing of the doors and the manual deployment of the 

device. Again, am I misreading that?

>> DENNIS CANNON: The issue was to allow a manual 

deployed lift where you had this exceptional wide gap that 

you were therefore going to have to deploy something that 

also has handrails. Because there is a requirement for 

handrails on any bridgeplate where the gap exceeds 12 inches 

from that standpoint we didn't believe automatically deployed 

bridgeplate that long with handrails was going to be feasible. 

It may be. Somebody may come up with that idea. But at 

this point we didn't we haven't seen anything like that. The 

ramps deployed on buses are about 48 inches long or 

something like that. But they don't have handrails and you 
can't fold those into the floor conveniently. So, it's very likely 

that something that big is it going to be something that is 

going to like the one tested right now it's going to have -- be 

in a compartment somewhere and somebody is going to have 

to take it out and assemble it and attach the handrails it's 

unlikely it's going to be automatic.

>> The choice of the 12 inch situation where manual 

ramps and bridgeplates can be utilized that I think you stated 

during the last subcommittee conference call was a number 

that you had picked out.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Right. I came up with that off the 

top of my head and asked questions about whether that's the 

appropriate number. The issue is

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Nobody said it wasn't

>> DENNIS CANNON: Bridging a large gap on a gang plank 

with only a 2 inch side gap and whether or not you would feel 

safe doing that without handrails. That's where the 

requirement is when the gap is that big, you have to have 

handrails. Now, is a smaller gap appropriate? Or a larger 

gap and I don't know I am asking comments from the 

committee and what not as to whether that's the right 

number. But that's kind of an editorial thing that we will deal 

with at some later time when we do the actual write up of the 

report. The same is true for the 74-inch door height which is 
only from the Acela, the question is, is that the appropriate 

number?

>> With respect to the 12 inch number, I would think it's 

more appropriate to provide in lieu of 12 inches I think 

Mr. Shiotani mentioned it on the August 28 telephone call I 

agree that instead of picking a certain number like 12 inches, 

wouldn't it be more appropriate and progressive to pick a rule 

that say my thoughts were I put it in my written comments I 

quote, in circumstances where actual utilization of an on 

board automated ramp or bridgeplate has not mitigated the 

horizontal gap to at least 2 inches close quote, wouldn't be it 

more progressive to provide such language instead of picking 

out an arbitrary 12-inch rule to allow for manual deployment? 

Why wouldn't you let technology run its course and say if the 

device technology doesn't permit the gap to be closed if it's so 

big then and only then can we have manual deployment. 

Other than that I think you are leaving it to the discretion of 

the rail carrier some of whom may not have the funds some 

who may be not technologically advanced saying if it's 12 or 

13 inches we can manually deploy maybe there are devices 

out there that can bridge the gap to a larger extent. I just 

don't think that's progressive enough in my opinion. My next 

comment deals with attachment under ramps and bridge 

plates. Where you -- there is a sentence there which talks 
about ramps and bridgeplates shall engage to the vehicle in 

such a manner that they may not be dislodged by horizontal 

or vertical movement until actively disengaged by a member 

of the crew. Again, it seems like it's blurring the line between 

authorized manual deployment of the bridge plated or ramp 

and I would suggest, I know that's not the intent, but I would 

suggest language to -- to the extent bear with me I quote, 

ramps and bridgeplates shall engage with the vehicle in such 

a manner that they shall not be dislodged by a horizontal or 

vertical movement unless purposefully disengaged by crew or 

authorized rail system personnel during manual operation as 

defined below or for maintenance. End quote. Such a 

language, I think, would make it very clear that manual 

deployment is not what is being called for and that is only 

authorized when you have a maintenance issue or you have a 

brown out or the electricity goes out and the device cannot be 

automatically utilized. I would ask you to kindly take that 

into -- into your thoughts. My last comment Madam Chair is 

that with regard, again, to attachments of the automated 

device to the vehicle, I think it's lacking from the standpoint 

of the definition where by it doesn't take into account in that 

device is attached to the exterior of the vehicle there has to be 

some principle or some rule that pre vents the device in the 

sole position from affecting necessary side clearance distance 
between train and platform side edge to avoid the 

catastrophic collision. I think last May, Mr. Cogswell of the 

FRA spoke to the subcommittee on the necessity for that 

necessary side clearance and even mentioned 7 inches would 

be appropriate to be safe that safe clearance distance yet in 

the attachment definition for the on board device in the 

revised proposal being considered today, nothing is stated 

about the application of the device the attachment of the 

device if it's touch attached to the exterior of the car it can be 

attached to it. But what about the impact that it could have 

upon the necessary side clearance? So, I think there should 

be language added to the definition to the following and then 

I will be finished I quote, if either ramps or bridgeplates are 

attached to the exterior of the vehicle, neither shall impair in 

their stowed position necessary side clearance between the 

train and platform side edge close quote I would ask you to 

give that consideration. Madam Chair, thank you for allowing 

me to comment.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Good. Michael send us that 

sentence, okay?

>> MARSHA MAZZ: It's in the comments he sent.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Okay. Okay. Bob?

>> Bob Reuter: Very quickly, I have a concern about the 

400 pound weight limit on 30 inch ramp where 90% or more 
of the weight can be on single axle I think that may be a bit 

light it should stay at 800 pounds like the rest.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Does anyone have further thought?

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Marilyn just a note that the 

committee may want to consider referencing the standard 

engineering safety factor at least. So, whether it's 400 or 800 

the safety factor really is 12 or 2400 pounds.

>> It's three times the passive --

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Yes.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: We have to make sure that 

engineering document is in there.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Speaking of engineering your 

(inaudible)

>> DENNIS CANNON: There is already a requirement for 

safety factors in both the lifts and ramp so, yes, that's 

something people often miss it's like 2,000 pounds not 2,000 

but I don't remember. 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Again, this is minutia, and we are 

trying to get overall intent.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Right.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Gary you wanted to? Okay, what 

else. That's it?

>> FRANK MALDARI: I will make a comment if you want.

 (LAUGHTER)
>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Here is your question, are you 

going to tell us about your gap mitigation standard for your 

platforms?

>> FRANK MALDARI: No. I was just making a comment 

the way the regulation is written, and I am just giving you 

a -- the proposed wording, if you have a hundred stations on 

your system and you have a thousand rail cars if one station 

has a gap bigger than 3 inches then every single car would 

have to have an automatic gap mitigation device. Just seems 

that you would be better not something anything except the 

one station and it could have it on board 99% of the time it's 

not used why would you want to require 100% of the cars to 

have the device.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Well, on that happy note.

>> DENNIS CANNON: First of all, we do have different 

provisions for what happens in stations that were built 

according to the 19 -- after 1992 when the ABA -- when the 

ADAAG essentially took effect versus what happened in the 

other one. That has to do with one door versus all doors and 

so forth. So, that's an issue that we may want to address in 

terms of other kinds of exemptions with what happens with 

these new cars when you operate them in old stations some of 

way may have been built on curves and you can't get. That 

why it says one door instead of all doors in that station 
because if it's -- the car is straight the platform curved if it's 

inside curve you get indoor two doors closer than the middle. 

If it's outside the middle door is closer than the two end 

doors. That's one of the reasons about the difference in 

those stations we may want to refine that a little bit further.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: This is a -- (inaudible) there 

remains considerable work nation wide on track maintenance 

and track leveling, horizontal vertical positions. Which 

operators are either not undertaking because they don't know 

they need to do it or they just don't have funding to do it. 

But much of the for better or worse clearance that exists in 

rapid rail are really tied to requesting of (inaudible). And if 

the covered entity was able to do more track maintenance the 

vertical gap would certainly be reduced. Not necessarily 

horizontal but the vertical gap and I don't think we want to 

take on any entity, we simply have stations where upwards of 

half a million people a day are using platforms with 5, 6-inch 

vertical gaps and that's ultimately an overall safety issue. It's 

not just an access issue. And that's why I go back to my 

statement some time ago, to a degree, it may not be 

appropriate to ask the entire (inaudible) to solve every gap. 

And it ultimately comes back to physical station 

infrastructure.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Okay. I think we are ready Billy to 
go to the next --

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you very much I have a couple of 

quickies for us thank you Marilyn awesome presentation 

Michael are you still on the phone?

>> Yes, I am.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Were those comments do you have other 

comments that you want to propose at end during public 

comment period?

>> No, I do not.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Because I wanted to make sure I don't 

miss you I want today make a note going back to you. We 

are fixing to take a break look at our watches 2:30 we are 

going to take a 5-minute break turns into 15 -- let's go. We 

have 15 minutes.

(Short recess taken.)

>> BILLY ALTOM: Ladies and gentlemen, will you start 

migrating back to your seats please? We will get started in a 

moment. Apparently I have a lot of weight with this 

committee. Would you please join me back here at the table 

and let's get started so we can hopefully knock this out this 

afternoon. I like it people are starting to come

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Does that mean that I am done 

what a relief.
>> BILLY ALTOM: You are done.

>> DENNIS CANNON: I can actually read that.

>> BILLY ALTOM: All right. Thank you for coming back 

we do have a couple of empty spots but we are going to go 

ahead while I have your attention it's quiet in the room. Let's 

go ahead and start again I have one announcement I failed to 

make earlier. And you are just going to love it when you 

make this announcement if you would please refrain from 

making as many cell phone calls out here in the hallway as 

possible. There are two other organizations that have office 

space right there it's as if there are no walls it goes right in 

their office. So, we have a couple of rooms behind me, that 

folks could go into to make phone calls if they need to or if 

you just want to it's a beautiful day outside you could step 

outside on the sidewalk for a moment and make a call.

>> Billy is that trip --

>> Low bidder got the deal for the walls so we can hear in 

there.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Very nice building.

Rooms and Spaces Portion of the Meeting

>> BILLY ALTOM: It is a nice place. Having said that keep 
in mind our neighbors and they will treat us the same way 

with the same hospitality next up on the agenda we have 

rooms and spaces. And that subcommittee is chaired by 

Dennis Cannon I will going to turn it over to Dennis.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Okay. I want to do like Marilyn did I 

want to try to go through this document all the way through 

otherwise we will get stuck in the we understand if we stop 

and do everything -- stuck in the weeds if we stop and do 

everything. If you have questions or whatever about a 

specific section please make a note of it and then call -- let 

me know after we get through it to try to get to it there are a 

couple of things that I am going to talk about how we are 

going to explain some -- fill in information after I get through 

it. But I wanted to try to get through the entire document 

first. The first part has to do with restrooms we have a 

scoping requirement where restrooms for the public are 

provided in a car, a restroom meeting the following technical 

criteria will be provided. That's basically the current 

regulation right now. And it says a car that does not have a 

restroom for the public does not have to have an accessible 

restroom. ADA is a nondiscrimination provision. Where you 

don't provide facilities for anybody you don't have to provide 

accessible facilities. Currently, there are a couple of different 

provisions scattered in the regulations with the -- that differ 
between commuter rail and inner-city rail. And partly it's a 

result of trying to write the inner-city rail provisions in such a 

way that we didn't make every car Amtrak currently owned 

have to be replaced immediately. So, some of the things that 

were done were done specifically to try to grandfather in some 

of those cars so we would have some kind of accessibility.

The next provision it says, accessible restrooms shall be in 

close proximity to the spaces for wheelchairs and mobility 

aids. Currently, in the inner-city rail requirement it says, the 

spaces shall be adjacent to, not defined really. And in the 

commuter rail it says in close proximity. Again, the question 

is why is that different and I said we were try to go make 

some of the grandfather in some of the provisions. I have 

been in lots of Amfleet cars and frankly adjacent to the 

restroom is not a pleasant place to be.

 (LAUGHTER) 

So, we think close proximity is a better definition of what 

that means. And then the next provision is the one I am 

going to explain in some detail a little later in fixed consist 

trains that's a specific definition not the typical car that you 

have with two coupled cars that have a lot of lateral 

movement. It says in fixed -- fixed consist trains where a 

restroom is not provided in a specific car an accessible 

restroom shall be permit the in a adjacent car provided, A, 
required wheelchair spaces in the car without a restroom are 

located in the end of the car closest to the connection with the 

car that has an accessible restroom. B the accessible 

restroom is as close as practicable to the connection between 

the cars. C, the doors along the path are automatic and D, 

the floor surface across the transition is smooth. And that 

means we are going to have to define we are talking about 

riding a -- writing a standard for what surface requirements 

are we need to fill that in at some point it will get back to this 

point after the regulation. I will videos and pictures to show 

you. The technical requirements recommending for the 

restrooms are that there be a -- oops. Don't go too far.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> DENNIS CANNON: That there is a 60-inch turning 

circle. We want the board to solicit comments from 

wheelchair mobile aid users whether there are other 

configurations without a turning circle which are nevertheless 

accessible. I happen to like the accessible restroom in the 

Acela. You can, in fact -- I can make a complete 360 turn. 

It has a side transfer part of the reason that you can make a 

60-inch turn -- I mean a 360-degree turn is because it's kind 

of L-shaped. There is another restroom that Bombardier 

made for trains that are currently running at -- in California, 

that is smaller. But, again, I was able to turn around. The 
question is whether there are other configurations, the 

California car has a big bathroom. We talked about in the 

subcommittee the possibility of a T-turn which is permitted in 

the facility side. Unfortunately, because the trains are 

moving it makes some of those things less usable. So, we 

like the board to try to collect information maybe before a 

comment period on what kinds of configurations there might 

be which are usable given the fact that we have constraints of 

space. That are usable though not necessarily in full 

compliance with what you would find in a building.

The second thing is has to have side transfer to the toilet 

or the water closet. It's what it's called in the building trades. 

That's, again, why the Acela works for me the a least. We 

need a power doors we want controls to -- a section we 

haven't completed that's generic and cover a lot of things 

other than that. And controls 12 inches minimum from 

inside corner. So, that you don't have to when you are trying 

to push a button or whatever it's all the way in the corner near 

the door it's very difficult to get there because your footrests 

are particular sticking out in front of you this doesn't apply to 

the handle latch on the door that you use in case the power 

fails. We have grab bars on the side and behind the water 

closet. And we want to use the building's standards there 

was also discussion of possibly picking up the requirement 
that is currently in ANSI for a vertical grab bar. Near the 

toilet as well. In fact, vertical grab bars are probably very 

desirable in a variety of different places, and we may want to 

think about whether we want to require some of them. Grab 

bars along the front of the lavatory, they may serve as the side 

of the -- the side grab bar for the water closet as it does in 

the Acela. We want the fold down grab bars are permitted. 

But this is going to be a tricky way to specify them because 

they have to meet all of the force requirements to be able to 

put them up and they have to latch positively up so that they 

don't accidentally come down again. This is in a moving 

vehicle so it's swaying back and forth. It's going to be tricky 

to specify those things in such a way that they can be easily 

operated by a person who is using a wheelchair.

The ones that I have come across in the Netherlands are 

not. You have to really have a lot of strength to get them to 

fold up. We will have to write that provision carefully. 

Lavatory faucets and controls shall be proximity operated 

that's typically infrared you put your hand on it, it comes on 

move your hands away goes off. When feasible it should be 

within reach of the person sitting on the water closet. That's 

a desirable design function. It may not be possible in all of 

the various configurations but it would be nice to have it close 

enough that you can actually reach it. Where 
feasible -- table space for two -- that's in the wrong 

provision.

 (LAUGHTER). 

We lost -- we lost a division there. This is for I believe this is 

for the anyway it's mixed up. Let's go down to the 

next -- no. Lavatory should be within reach of the person. I

don't know where the tabletop that's from the inside -- that's 

from the sleeper car.

Right after where feasible that should be now all of these 

next provisions are for the compartment. It should be there. 

I don't know what happened to the heading. We have table 

space this is for -- this is actually for a dining car. Table 

space for two wheelchairs and transfer seats for two. I

believe it also requires storage in the current regulation. The 

tabletop needs to be 34 inches max, 29 inches minimum 

under the table extending 17 inches minute mum back from 

the front surface. 32-inch width if you have legs for example 

they got to be at least wide enough for the chair to fit in the 

front these are all from the building standards. And then the 

next section side transfer to toilet. That's now compartments 

the next part is compartments which have interior toilet room. 

So the toilet room meets most of the same requirements for 

restrooms in general which is side transfer to the toilet. 

Shower chair. Meets requirements for restrooms. In the 60
inch turning circle in the sleeping area with the bed deployed. 

You can turn around in the room until the bed is deployed 

then you can't move. We want the controls for all lights H 

VAC call button within reach that's part of controls and 

operating mechanisms that we need to work on. We think 

they could be a remote that's hard wired so it's tethered so 

people can't walk off with it accidentally or on purpose. We 

want to make sure that there are you could have redundant 

controls. There are currently in the sleeper compartments 

that are accessible there are lights for the upper bunk. And 

controls are up by the upper bunk which is fine for the person 

in that but then you find out in nighttime all of a sudden you 

can't turn the lights off. We want to make sure all of those 

things meets some kind of standard. We have a -- we want a 

positive door latch so the door actually latches instead of 

swinging free. It has fob openable from the outside by 

trained -- by train personnel. We suggest using the VIA rail

design as a model. And that diagram was sent around to the 

committee. I think it's in the docket but I am not sure that 

the full committee is actually seeing that drawing. -- has seen 

that drawing. We will have to make sure that that is available 

for everybody. We want the bed at the wheelchair seat height 

18 inches. We want a table that's usable by wheelchair users 

and has all of those things about the max height and space 
under neither and in the next section there is dining, single 

level dining car which we lost. Okay.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> DENNIS CANNON: I see. They got jumbled together. 

Okay. Single lively dining cars this is already screwy. Table 

space for two is -- that's the lounge car now. Ah. The 

fourth one up from the bottom table space for two. That 

starts -- that's lounge it's lounge car.

>> Uwe: After the sleeper you have another section there 

go up

>> (inaudible)

>> DENNIS CANNON: They just got duplicated for some 

reason some of these don't belong in there. He I think that's 

all -- -- I think that's all go down to the sleeping 

compartment see if we miss anything. The scoping of 

sloping is at least one compartment in each sleeping car 

meets these technical requirements we gone over those 

technical requirements for turning circle and so forth. Let's 

try lounge car now. I don't know how the other things got 

moved up there. Okay. Single level lounge car shall comply 

with the following technical bi-level lounge cars shall comply 

on the lower level. A bi-level lounge car shall have direct 

access to the station platforms on the lower level. Now, here 

is the new provision that says where Vertical Access is 
provided I believe in the on board seating the on board route 

is going to be the discussion of where that may be required. 

But where it's provided accessible seating spaces shall be 

provided on the upper level of the lounge car where a bi-level 

dining car is provided an accessible bi-level lounge car shall 

be directly connected to it. Now, the statute prohibits us 

from making any requirements for space and seating a and 

whatever in the dining car. The bilevel dining car congress 

didn't want us to inadvertently require Vertical Access. We 

have to decide what to do about that. My idea is what you 

would have happen since you got space in the upper level of 

the lounge car they are coupled together, you would simply 

provide dining in the lounge car for people in wheelchairs who 

otherwise couldn't necessarily get into the upper level of the 

bi-level dining car. Technical provisions are pretty much the 

same table space for two, the same as the dining car and 

accessible restroom this is on the lower level of a bi-level 

lounge car. The self-service areas that have vending 

machines and so forth or the service counters should meet 

the guidelines from the facilities for cafeterias, talk about tray 

rails and so forth. Vending machines have to meet 

requirements for controls and operating mechanisms. We 

generally in a building don't cover vending machines because 

they are not fixed. But the vending machines in trains are 
pretty much fixed. You don't wanted them bouncing around 

when the train moves. Okay. Let's see is there more? 

That's the end? Okay. I think we have covered them all 

then. Let me go back now and briefly talk about this issue 

about the fixed-consist train. Most -- when you think about 

the cars today you have they are coupled together. We have 

a -- they have a flexible diaphragm between them. When 

they go through a curve there is a lot of lateral motion 

sheering action occurs because of end of one car moves in 

one direction the end of the other car moves in the other 

while it's going through the curve. And the result of that is 

that space which might have been accessible in the beginning 

when the train was stopped, can reduce to sometimes as little 

adds 12 inches or less. Obviously you don't want to be in 

that position when there is a train moving a fixed-consist 

train has a different situation. The cars are not coupled 

together they are physically joined. You cannot take them 

apart. The result of that is very different in terms of the 

motion that you find between cars. And there is also in -- I 

am talking in this case one of the models that's being 

proposed for high speed in Texas is the Japanese bullet train 

and the first thing that I want to show you is the plate that 

covers the transition between the cars. There it is 

(indicating). What you see is a kind of a if you move away 
from us going into one car if you move toward us you are 

coming into the second car. And what you see is a very 

smooth plate that's I don't know oval shape perfected a little 

bit. This joint rotates but it does not have lateral or vertical 

or horizontal displacement. And the edges of those plates 

are all bevelled. They meet or probably will meet and can 

meet surface requirements that we specify. This is a lot 

different than the connection between the Acela car which is 

quite rough. The next thing that I want to show you is videos 

that were actually taken of the train in motion and let's pull up 

the video and pause it. Okay. What you see here is a 

camera looking from one car directly into the other. In the 

very back in a door that goes into the compartment of the 

next one. We are looking from the compartment door of the 

car that we are in. You can see the transition plate down 

there at the bottom. Off to the right that door that's open 

that's the restroom. Which is not in the car in the back. The 

car in the back does not have any restroom for the public. So 

the idea is that the restroom for the public are all in the 

second car. And there is an accessible restroom and there 

maybe inaccessible one too. The insert in the upper right 

corner is from a camera that's located in the cab and so it's 

going to show you exactly where you are going 

while -- excuse me. While a person in a wheelchair comes 
rolling through I believe he is going to come out of the car 

door behind in front of us. He may come through the other 

way. Let's start the video you will see this is 240 kilometer 

per hour and you can see (Video plays.)

This is straight there is a gentleman in the wheelchair who 

goes through very smooth, door opens automatically into the 

next compartment. The train is zipping along at 240 

kilometers we are hour you see how smooth it is on a 

relatively straight track. You can see there is virtually -- let's 

try the next one. Again, the insert showing what your 

looking at from the standpoint there is a wheelchair empty 

wheelchair sitting in the space between the two cars right on 

top of that now it's going around a curve with the radio of 600 

I believe meters it doesn't say but you can see from the upper 

right insert that the train is going around a curve. You can 

see that the chair basically is quite stationary. There is a 

couple of different curves let's see if this is a different one. 

Here is a different curve here is a machine in the wheelchair. 

We are going through now I believe a tighter curve. As you 

can see, he doesn't have any problem. This is very different 

from what you would find in a typical coupled-consist where 

the cars are only coupled together. Here is a 1200 radius 

curve. More gentle than the other one. I believe last this is 

400 this is the sharpest curve. As you see there is twisting 
the cars rotate about the center plate but there is virtually no 

vertical or horizontal displacement of that space so the cars 

are rotating around the space here goes our wheelchair user, 

and he sits in the doorway for a if you minutes while it's going 

through the 400 meter radius curve. I believe that was the 

last one. Is that right? Or was there one more? The turn 

out is the tighter one. This is where -- this is 1100. What 

happens here is the train -- they created a gauntlet 

track -- this isn't particularly gauntlet track it's a shift to the 

other track.

There is some idea in the Texas proposal that that the 

stations would be off to the side a little bit and you would 

have gauntlet track at the station so that the -- which means, 

parallel track the train would move off the main track closer to 

the station platform for the stopping and then would move 

back away from the platform before going through. A train 

that went through the station and didn't stop which would go 

through at high speed would go through the straight curve or 

the straight track away from the platform. So that's the 

concept of having the ability to put the restroom in the 

proposal in Texas the restrooms are only going to be in every 

other car. So the idea is can we put accessible restroom in 

every other car as well provided that the wheelchair space is 

closest to that end of the other car that you can just go 
through that connection. The -- I believe the Talgo is the 

same way in the cascade line. Is Talgo here? It does not 

have a restroom in every car; is that correct? It has one in 

every other car. It's the same -- it's the same idea. The 

Talgo cars are very short. Putting a restroom in every car 

would have taken up lots of space. Okay now that's the 

presentation do people have comments on the specific -- let's 

go back to the proposal Paul. Questions yes? Can you 

take -- (inaudible).

>> Did I hear you say Dennis this proposal, if you put a 

restroom in every other car the restroom has to be at 

end -- the nearest to the end without a restroom? So 

that -- I am thinking in a multiple car train consist at one end 

you are going to be the furthest end from the restroom.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Right. The proviso that we have 

that provided that is that you have the accessible restroom in 

the end of one of the cars in that car there is a space for 

wheelchairs there essentially at cross proximity to it. In the 

other car that doesn't have the restroom sorry.

>> (inaudible)

>> Lights back up for the interpreter she is in the dark.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Sorry about that.

>> Thank you.

>> DENNIS CANNON: The idea is that the restrooms in one 
car the space for wheelchair users is in close proximity to that 

in that car. That the space in the second car that doesn't 

have a restroom has to be in that end of the car that's closest 

to the connection. So, that's one of the provisos of 

the -- that's B, I think. Right? So, proviso B up there in the 

proposal. The idea is we don't wanted you have to go 

through the length of the car to get to the restroom at the 

other end.

>> FRANK MALDARI: I believed the fix-consist to be clear, 

it's known as articulated train where you have two cars 

sharing a bogie that allows you to have the motion around the 

curves without the offset between the ends of the cars you 

might want to include that language in here when you write it 

so it's clear what it means the fixed-consist are cars 

permanently coupled together but don't share a common 

truck where you don't have this condition.

>> James: That's not necessarily the case.

>> DENNIS CANNON: I think the fact is the Japanese train 

does not have a shared bogie.

>> They don't.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Whoever is speaking use the mic.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: This is Blair Slaughter. Yeah 

the -- I think the train that Dennis was looking at was 

a -- was individual cars and trucks versus articulated like the 
TGV where it's a shared truck.

>> Looks like a shared truck.

>> DENNIS CANNON: My recollection from the folks who 

are working on this thing is that it's not that way. But we can 

both probably work. We can check that.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: A lot of that is driven by the 

geometry how much swing they have on the end how 

generous the turn outs are. For us the worst case is we call 

them back to back switches with the limited tangent between 

them you get the sheering action. But I think the challenge if 

we have something like the Acela is come up with a smoother 

floor transition. We handle the continuities pretty good we 

have a lot of vertical difference that I think needs to be 

worked on.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Could we pause one second just 

to help our wonderful CART reporter with a term. 

 (LAUGHTER) 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: However if we want to do the 

boogie, we can wake up.

>> DENNIS CANNON: We can say trucks too, if that's 

clearer.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Okay. Carry on.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> DENNIS CANNON: Let's get the people on the 
committee first before we do Uwe?

>> Uwe Rutenberg: Thanks. This is Uwe. Just a 

clarification here Dennis on the first on the scoping the first 

sentence reads where restrooms for the public are provided a 

restroom meeting the following requirements shall be 

provided is it always necessary to have two restrooms.

>> DENNIS CANNON: No.

>> There could be a universal design restroom.

>> DENNIS CANNON: That's right when we are going 

through this early on and writing the provisions Amtrak was 

adamant that there had to be two. Period. And we couldn't 

have -- we said the original writing of the -- of the statute 

working with (inaudible) whatever the folks that were there 

from Amtrak no, no, we can't have just one we have to have 

two so we said okay we will let you have two.

>> But it's not a requirement?

>> DENNIS CANNON: There is two in every car the old 

ones. The Acela has two one is accessible one and one is the 

phone booth. You couldn't fall down in if you tried.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> DENNIS CANNON: We don't say there has to be two. 

In our view in my view at least I think having one accessible 

one restroom is universal is just fine I guess the issue was the 

fear there wouldn't be enough capacity.
>> Uwe: Actually I saw one they have two one for men 

urinals and lavatory only and then the general one. So it's a 

different culture there. Another question that I have for the 

second bullet, which says allows side approach to the toilet 

close WC. Should we specify also a space for assisted 

transfer? Is that included in here?

>> DENNIS CANNON: The things that -- there was a big 

study done on assisted transfer in light of trying to design 

restrooms for single level single aisle air craft some years 

back. The idea of the assisted transfer was that you could 

transfer essentially from the front essentially reach forward 

and grab somebody and swing them over to the side so you 

didn't need to have space. We get -- during the writing of 

the facilities guidelines we always got people who say, we 

want to transfer on the right side and then you would have a 

bunch of people wanting to transfer on the left side you can't 

solve that unless you may be put swing down guard grab bars 

on both sides and then you have this problem of having the 

grab bars -- because you have got to get rid of one side 

because that's where your wheelchair goes. The idea of 

being able to do that with somebody with a disability who is 

not strong to do that is tricky. Specifying swing down or 

folding grab bars is one of our we are going to have to deal 

with at some point to make sure. Remember, when you have 
a grab bar in a wall anchored on both ends, you have got a 

swing down grab bars anchored only on one end. And it's 

got to be a lot stronger. You have got possibly maintenance 

problems and liability if it comes -- anyway, never mind.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Thank you Dennis Blair Slaughter 

from Amtrak on the issue of the dining rooms in the dining 

cars just so I understand we are looking at two accessible 

spaces for wheelchairs at dining tables and if you have that 

the transfer seats are easy. But there was a note about the 

storage for the wheelchairs. My concern is I will go back 

what we did with the new dining cars they are the simple -- at 

the end of the day the simplest design to get most capacity in 

the car is four-person booths down the length of the room. 

If you get too exotic you lose some space in there. 

And -- but when you get a table that's accessible to easy get 

into, so you don't have to raise the table and create what was 

described by folks looking at it you don't want to become a 

spectacle. You want -- you don't want to draw attention you 

want to go eat like everyone else with no issue. It doesn't 

consume a lot of floor space in the car to make that transition 

in. So, I was sitting here thinking how could we do it and do 

it so it's maybe like a lot of the other things that happens on 

long haul trains. If you are in a sleeper, a sleeping car, you 

are attendant no matter whether accessible room or one of 
the other rooms, comes and says while you are at dinner 

would you like me to make your bed down for the evening. 

And you come back and your room is transformed. They also 

come through and take dinner reservations. Would 

it -- would it be inappropriate or at least worth considering 

that when they take your reservation you are coming at 6 or 

6:30 or 5 whatever it is, that some of that space maybe not 

both but one of those case spaces has convertible feature and 

they are prepared for you just like they were making down 

your room or anything else. And they convert that space so 

that you come in, you pull in and have your dinner, with no 

issue. Versus having that space lost when there is no one 

there to utilize it as it was intended.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Right. Right now you can't get into 

dining cars when you are in the sleeper car because for 

obvious reasons.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: I have been in them a number of 

times you get served in your room.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: We are curing that part of it for 

sure.

>> DENNIS CANNON: That we are try to go get rid of 

because you know you kind of are isolated and you never get 

a chance to get into the dining room. The idea of convertible 

spaces is of course -- we don't preclude it maybe we should 
say something about encouraging it, because I am thinking of 

the Talgo that I was in the cafe car, it has a chair that sits 

against a wall in the corner and two of them I guess on one on 

each side of the table. And then it slides back into the wall. 

And that's where the wheelchair can pull into the same table. 

It's quite an interesting design. So, things like that, I think, 

are great where you can actually get double duty and you are 

right because in typically in the -- in the -- they have 

different times for people to go to the dining room. You sort 

of have to sign up or something advances I am going to go 

between 7 and 8 or 7 and 8:30, whatever. So, theoretically a 

person could make a specific time arrangement that they are 

going to be in and whoever it is the conductors can configure 

the space appropriately for that time. And would have it in a 

different configuration the rest of the room.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Right. And that's -- I want today 

make that a point that we -- if we can include if somehow so 

it's understood. And --

>> DENNIS CANNON: The issue of storage is tricky 

because you can say -- I mean, you could say, well, there has 

to be a transfer seat and a place to store it. The alternative is 

that the storage is in a different car. And the question is: 

How would you get it -- your chair there.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: I know that everyone's concern --
>> DENNIS CANNON: You move to your end of the train 

and transfer you need to put your chair where you are and not 

assume that there is going to be personnel who are going to 

be able to take your chair somewhere.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: That brings up another level of 

space complexity you could have a situation where someone 

comes in and realistically the number of folding or foldable 

wheelchairs you know the old fold and store. How many 

really fold and store anymore.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Right.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: No one wants to have -- that was 

our thinking too originally. Okay. I only have -- I have 

accessible vestibule next door to the diner we can put the 

wheelchair back over there for storage no. That's -- that 

sunk. That didn't work. It needs to be close to the person 

who owns the chair. So, we could have two positions for 

people who are remaining in their wheelchairs two positions 

for people who transfer. We are going to run out of car if 

we -- if everyone is there. So I don't know quite how to 

handle that. I just know from -- from the long distance side 

there will be a lot of what do we do how do we manage to 

have -- I don't know that we could put enough convertible 

conditions in to handle that. So, if we did two spaces for 

people who wish to stay in their wheelchairs, or transfer so 
you could have either one person is in their wheelchair one 

person transfers they both transfer. But there is dual use of 

the space where the wheelchair is sitting. Or something 

along those lines. I have not tried to apply it dimensionally 

to see what it does I can do that and we ask discuss it more. 

There those are concerns I know will be raised from that side 

of the industry.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Right there are some questions I 

don't have it in front of me there is language in the statute 

that says some things about what -- what you have to have. 

And so, I am not sure that you can do double duty like that 

but we will see.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Okay.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Yeah. And the folding chairs is 

in the statute.

>> ANDRE GAGNE: Andre Gagne From Bombardier. To 

answer one of Frank's comments from before I looked on the 

Internet for the

>> Speak up a little, please.

>> ANDRE GAGNE: I found pictures on the Internet it's not 

an articulated car. 

>> DENNIS CANNON: Next Terry, then Marsha, then Cliff.

>> TERRY PACHECO: Very quickly. As far as the table 

space is concerned, can -- what I am concerned about is 
space for service animals under the table so that there isn't a 

leg blocking area for the dog to get in under for dog to get in 

under that perhaps has like a guide dog harness that does 

take additional space beyond the dog something to take into 

consideration. The other point, also, is you were talking 

about the possibility of a remote control for all of the lights 

and accoutrements particularly in a sleeping car a sleeping 

room that remote control also needs to be accessible. 

Thanks.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Right. And that controls operating 

mechanisms would cover things library the fact that buttons 

are discernible if you use a mic -- if you use a membrane 

switch, my controls on my chair are membrane switch. But 

each one of these has a raised circle around it so by feel I can 

find them and I can find them without activating them. And 

as long -- once I know what the sequence is they 

don't -- they are not marked. These are not marked but at 

least they are discernible. It's a fairly simple arrangement so 

I could learn that. You are right we need to make sure that 

the buttons are labeled in some way.

>> TERRY PACHECO: They need to be labeled someone 

would not necessarily, no they have turned the lights on or 

off.

>> DENNIS CANNON: That's part of the controls and 
operating mechanisms sections that we need to incorporate. 

Mostly from the buildings and facilities sections.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Marsha Mazz. Yeah, I was just 

wanting to respond to the earlier discussion about space for 

transfer fold down grab bars. Georgia Tech is doing a further 

study on the issue of assisted transfer and space 

requirements along with some very serious study of the 

structural capacity of fold down grab bars particularly when 

you put a point load on them. So, that -- and looking at 

exactly how people in fact do use those. So, hopefully that 

study will be available to you and if it isn't we will certainly 

consider it at the time that we eventually do some rulemaking 

in this area. If your intent is to ensure for assisted transfer in 

those toilet rooms.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Okay. Cliff you are on deck ready 

to go.

>> This is Cliff from the National Council Independent 

Living. This is an issue that my mother told me I needed to 

raise here. It may not necessarily --

>> Uh-oh

 (LAUGHTER)

>> My mother took the Amtrak from Florida to visit me. 

And I said to her I was on this committee oh, really? So, the 

sleeper car she told me there were two things one who is it 
with them there are two doors the door you come into the 

room and bathroom door they are sort of she described 

horizontal to each other. In the middle there is let's say a 

little wall between the two doors they put the electric plug 

there with no platform to put anything on but the doors open 

up into it it's not practical at all you couldn't plug anything in. 

She told me to address that issue I am addressing it. The 

second one show told me she got up and walk from the bed 

to bathroom because the train was shaking so much she 

would like to have something to hold on to there was nothing 

to hold on to she told me to raise now I can tell her I raised 

them, thank you.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> MARSHA MAZZ: If we do nothing else.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Dutiful son.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Cliff, I say we could call and in 

turn deny (inaudible). I don't know what you call the other.

(Discussion off record.)

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Is that how you save on gas?

 (LAUGHTER)

>> FRANK MALDARI: Yeah quick question on the 60-inch 

turning circle for the bathroom. I know that you put in the 
question about there may be other criteria that would result in 

a good bathroom the 60 inches is -- it's in looking at the car 

layouts that we have it really affects seating. It's not an 

insignificant amount of seats that you lose the impact is going 

to be fairly big. I looked at that Amtrak toilet you mentioned 

it too it seems functional the one in the Acela car. When I 

look at it, to me it seems like having a lot of space adjacent to 

the bowl is the key to making it accessible. Is that -- the 

question is: Can you put into words what the Acela 

bathroom does and maybe that's a little gives you the benefits 

you want without tying up the amount of seats that the other 

requirement does.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Yeah. The Acela actually was 

built -- I thought it had a 60-inch circle but Blair -- um, 

Andre sent me a diagram we could share with the folks that 

shows what a 60-inch circle in there it does not have one. It 

actually complies with the current regulation in that there is a 

rectangular open space that meets that requirement. The 

difference is, in addition to that, because there is -- there is 

space for side transfer by the water closet it's actually an 

L-shaped space that's what allows you to make the turn. The 

question is, now I raised in one of the earlier reports with the 

subcommittee that the Acela restroom could be a model and 

several people said, well, they weren't that 
happy -- wheelchairs users weren't that happy with it. It was 

not necessarily usable by them and cited the California car for 

example which has a much bigger and better designed 

restroom. I think Bombardier sent or Ken Shiotani had some 

pictures taken of a Bombardier design that was in a commuter 

rail car in California, and it's smaller than each the Acela, I 

think. And said oh, don't use that it's not that good. I have 

used to restroom before it's really quite usable. You do have 

to jockey back and forth to turn around you can turn around. 

The key is it allows the side transfer to the water closet. So I 

am convinced though others may not be that there are in fact 

designs that don't have a 60-inch turning circle which are very 

usable and, again, given the space constraints we really need 

to try to figure out what those are and be a little more specific 

about -- I am hoping that we will gets lots of comments and 

somebody from people with the disability community who 

actually used some of these things will be able to recommend 

certain designs and we can maybe even someone will do 

mockups but at the very least set minimum criteria. I think 

the 60 inch circle maybe difficult because of lots of 

constraints of space. It works in the California car but that's 

a bi-level car. So you have seating on the upper level and 

lower level you have restroom plus seating you don't loose as 

many seats proportionally you don't loose as many sheets.
>> Uwe Rutenberg: Adding to what you are discussing 

now I agree maybe the 60-inch circle is not always achievable 

let's put it this way. I think the criteria here should really be 

that the person in the wheelchair should go into the wash 

room facing inward and going out facing outward. Because 

very often you see wash rooms that seem to be accessible and 

the person in the wheelchair has to go in and goes in but they 

have to back out to come out. And to me this is not 

accessible wash room. So, yeah there might be other ways 

that you can turn around without the 60-inch circle as long as 

you can turn in such a way that you can face out again

>> DENNIS CANNON: The trick will be specifying it in such 

a way that people can actually do it so -- that's going to be 

difficult, I think.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Okay. Cliff at some point if you 

can let me know tell me the room your mother was in I want 

to look at room.

>> Yeah okay.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Please.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: You know, I forgot what I was going 

to comment on never mind.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Blair that was it was accessible 

room what use is --
>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Oh, restroom. I forgot I had a 

senior moment.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> I was going to speak to accessible room smaller than 

60-inch turning circle but I was on a car and in Paris years 

ago I was trying to find the picture it was a curved power 

door, and you the -- there was just enough room for the chair 

to go in you did the side transfer. Definitely you would be 

backing out of it. But a 60-inch turning circle toilet room in 

a commuter -- like a commuter car, sight line you are going 

to have sight line issues there it would be back to the 

wheelchair community to tell us if it was -- you had a power 

door how important is it that you exit facing out.

>> BILLY ALTOM: I think it's very important from a 

personal standpoint of being a wheelchair user. Coming out 

backwards I have -- you may have some tip opportunities to 

get a chance to look at what the ceiling of the train looks like.

>> This is Robert Carlson, a regular commuter on the 

Marc train system and having used restrooms occasionally 

backing out is always a problem particularly in the morning 

when people are outside the door waiting to run off the train 

when you get into Union Station and you are backing into 

them and going over their feet and say why are you standing 

there.
 (LAUGHTER)

>> DENNIS CANNON: And we do have to remember with 

respect to as opposed to buildings, this is a moving device 

that makes everything more complicated. In one of the 

earlier versions of this, I suggested the possibility of a T-turn 

which is a T-turn is permitted in buildings and facilities and 

several people pointed out that that is really problematic when 

you are in a moving vehicle rocking from side to side. If you 

were in the Acela is so much better in part because it's 

stabilized and has the tilt mechanism very much different in 

terms of riding in a standard older car. So, again, I -- I don't 

know the answer to that, and I don't think anybody in your 

committee knew exactly how to specify the issue so, we are 

going to have to -- you know, you are going to have to 

depend on commenters to tell us the standards I agree it's 

difficult to back out of anything even in a building. In a 

moving train it's even harder.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: One thing that I kind of put out 

and I think the committee had discussed previously is that 

there may be a need to consider a different way out for 

commuter rail (inaudible), it's a different operational piece 

than, say, the sitting -- sitting on a train 6 hours going from 

point A to point B. And are there things that folks can live 

with in the 40-minute commute that is much different than 
you are on the train for a day going to Chicago or you are 

doing the Boston to DC run. And that may be one thing that 

all of you want to think about. I think that (inaudible) to 

piece together is that there are some good types of the Acela. 

And if you begin to merge that with the California bathroom, 

and the VIA rail bathroom and possibly the newest ICE 

bathroom, then maybe you have got something that is 

actually viable in the long-term. But you all can think about 

it and input from Andre, Jon, Talgo and others to help inform 

that discussion.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Next question, David.

>> Yes, David Nelson here from Amtrak. So, language 

was brought up, you know, to be -- to specify and language 

you know maybe in saying -- current regulations say there is 

already a definition of a, I think it's a common wheelchair is 

what they put in there. I think that a common wheelchair 

needs to be revisited. Especially with specific -- is it gone c 

it's long gone from the reg.

>> How long?

>> A couple of years. C2008 was it 2006? Yeah

>> David Nelson: Okay. I thought I read something 

recently with the wording in there yeah I will re-look at that.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: If you did we should report 

that --
>> DENNIS CANNON: People are still using that definition 

in many ways, again, it was taken out because it was being 

used inappropriately. And we decided, the Board decided a 

long time ago not to include it in its revisions of the 

guidelines for buses and vehicles. DOT still had it in its 

definition list. And so in the proposed bus revisions it didn't 

mention it, it just said all of the definitions are in DOT. And 

then DOT is self -- itself decided that the definition was 

problematic enough to get rid of it. So, there are, of course, 

people still using that definition, but they are not really 

correct. Blair and James.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Okay. Blair Slaughter from 

Amtrak. I know in the circulation side we were talking about 

it one time was there any way to come up with a not a device 

that exists not that it's -- it would be this wheelchair or that 

scooter or anything but some sort of a test fixture that when 

you are in the design phase and in the testing and mockup 

phase that you could actually take something through that will 

give you realistic geometries and behavior coupled with the 

guidelines and the rules you can say, okay, I have done these 

things now let's see if it works kind of thing. As a -- on the 

engineering and design side you always want to make sure 

that -- that you are doing things right. And you can follow 

the rules all day long but it might not work. That's -- that 
can be very annoying. And at the end of the day we want to 

do what is required and what is right. You know, those are 

not always the same thing in doing what is right is critical. 

So, that was something that we discussed. We didn't get very 

far with it, but I know that for Frank and I looking at it from 

the design perspective, creating such a tool and maybe some 

of these researchers are going to come up with something it 

would be awesome to say that, you know, if you can get this 

through you are going to take care of X percentage or 

something to know that you -- and it would be, like I said it 

wouldn't with anything that anyone could get in and really use 

but it would have the appropriate clearances and things that 

you could say when you run through the mockups or the 3D 

models in the computers you run it into thing oh, my God we 

missed something let's fix that while it's still cheap and not a 

change order. Those kinds of -- that kind of device or tool 

would be an awesome thing to have it would be -- it doesn't 

need to be developed by the thoughts it needs to be a joint 

situation.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Some transit agencies have in fact 

created a box 30 by 48 in I forget how high --

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: We have all done that --

>> DENNIS CANNON: Push through a bus to see if it's 

accessible. The difficulty is that if it doesn't go through if 
that box doesn't go through doesn't mean it's not usable. 

Because wheelchairs aren't boxes. Sore not shaped square 

and what not. There have been attempts to do that. My 

understanding was that one of the things that Ed Steinfeld 

was trying to do was to create not a physical device but a 

computer device that you could run on your design and I 

forgot what he said the last time I mentioned it I think he said 

maybe that they had run out of money to do it or time or 

something. But that was one of the ideas that you could take 

a program essentially apply it to the design and determine 

whether or not a wheelchair could actually get in and out of 

that and maneuver probably you would know that when you 

had the design on paper as opposed to when you built it 

already. So, yes, those things are nice and performance 

specifications are good but, unfortunately, you need sort of 

both performance and design so that you can fall back on 

something they know exactly what they have to do is a 

minimum. So, it's possible that Ed and his group would 

create something like that which is probably the vehicle that 

that is going to happen from.

>> James: I wasn't going to comment on this in response 

to Blair isn't the best test to actually do a physical trial with 

someone in a wheelchair? I mean, you could even simulate 

people in wheelchairs on a computer now I would think that 
you could have a model of a representative person you do 

things like the 95th percentile percent in the -- person in the 

biggest wheelchair rather than boxes and crude measures.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: So, along that lines just share, we 

recently were giving a demonstration by a manufacturer who, 

a lot of their product would fit 95% of the chairs. And we had 

12 chairs here, and four of them failed.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: He -- the manufacturer 

wondered what chairs were 30-plus years and to have four fail 

out of 12 I think was a real eye opening for him.

>> That's a successful outcome of the test.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Yes it is. But -- but you know 

that gives you an idea of the variety of equipment -- James: 

Yeah sure.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: It's very different to figure out the 

right way to test for only one or two.

>> James: It's just a thought my actual comment was 

going to be on the proposal one of the bullets says where 

feasible lavatory should be within each of persons seated I 

wondered was there a plan to tie down that requirement a bit 

more specifically and how that was going to be done because 

obviously any requirement that says where feasible is -- is 

not really a tight enough requirement to prove compliance 
you are basically not going to get it.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Yeah. It's a tricky one to -- to tie 

down because the -- I will take the Acela because it's the one 

that's easiest. The water closet is in one corner right against 

the cabinetry or whatever that the lavatory is in. So the 

lavatory is right there. I am not sure that it's, quote, within 

reach if you got long arms maybe. If you moved it any closer 

to the water closet then you might not be able to approach it 

from your wheelchair. So, you can't have it right beside the 

water closet. And tying down the issue of how close it is I am 

not sure we can -- we can specify a number. My hope is that 

designers will kind of play with the designs and see if they 

can't come up with something that works. And I don't want 

to make it too restrictive where they can't do that. I also 

want -- we didn't want to necessarily outlaw the possibility 

that the lav was in a different corner because that may be the 

only place that you can put it. So, we wanted to encourage 

designs to get it close but we didn't feel like there was a way 

to actually require it. And if we required it, no way to actually 

specify that somebody could use. By the way I wanted to 

mention the national highway traffic safety administration 

also developed lift standards based in part on ours and one of 

the things that NTSA does for the barrier requirement on the 

lift has a test specified test vehicle that's weighted. It has a 
specific size. Has wheels specific diameter. It's -- the 

design is that vehicle is essentially run, driven into the barrier 

and the barrier has to stay intact when that test vehicle is 

used. So, there is precedent for the idea of trying to design 

some kind of test vehicle I am not sure how to do it though. 

And it seem toss me probably that is something that's going 

to come from Ed and others.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Next up Marilyn there you are.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Sorry. Marilyn Golden DREDF this 

might be ex post facto now. I wanted to say in terms of 

studies and speaking to Frank's comments and all, there you 

know the Ed Steinfeld study we call it that like this guy did it 

in 5 minutes at his desk. Ed is one of the most reputable and 

well deservedly well-known and expert architects on 

accessibility in the country he did his shop at the university 

did a very large multi-year human factors research project 

with hundreds of subjects. And human factors research is 

very expensive. And complex. And a lot of time study 

human factor studies have 5 subjects or 15 subjects. He had 

300 or 500 subjects. So, it's -- you know it's a lot better 

than getting a few people to try something. Anybody else 

with questions from the table? If not

>> Anybody else with questions from the table if not Bob 

has one right behind us.
>> Bob Reuter Access Systems my first note power access 

at the seats of all sleepers. I wrote on the same car your 

mother did.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> The other thing is my concern with water closets and 

making them so big is they are not required. So if you make 

them big enough, people are going to stop putting them in 

the cars. And we will have none. And some commuter runs 

are quite long if you ever run from south bend into Chicago 

you are talking better than two hours. On a commuter train 

and coming from New York to Washington, DC when Marc 

gets extended I am concerned about that. I was going to 

throw in here I don't know how many people are as old as I 

am remember the original Metro liners they had accessible 

restroom and they had a folding tapered seat that you went in 

and the seat folded down and you put your wheelchair 

basically as far in as you could because the seat was tapered. 

But the widened came out at the wear closet and wrapped 

around the water closet you could transfer on to the seat and 

slide up to the water closet. It was a long narrow thing. And 

the -- it was side entry the door was so long, that when it 

opened, you just turned to the right and pulled out. You 

didn't -- it died. Battery. Oh, okay. You just turned to the 

side and pulled out. So it was, yes, you were coming out side 
ways but you could see where you were going. You were 

weren't backing out. As far as, I think something my mic is 

mall functioning it isn't? It's me I am malfunctioning today. 

I am concerned -- I think we need to consider something 

besides that big 5-foot circle. It's -- it really concerns me 

where we are in a 90-foot long by 9-foot wide box we can't 

make it bigger. If we start eating up space they will say the 

heck with it throw it out. The other thing that I had here, was 

VIA sleeper. I don't know how many people seen it, used it, I 

think it's won of the poorest designs I have ever seen or used. 

That's just a personal opinion. Appear track super line 

certificate is 10 times better. It takes up less space less floor 

space. So, yeah, they it needs tweaking but I think the VIA 

sleeper is really very poor design I don't think we should use 

it. The other concern in the sleepers they have the water 

closet turned at a 45-degree angle there is no way to make a 

90-degree side approach to that I think that needs to be 

addressed.

>> DENNIS CANNON: One comment. The design you are 

talking about in the restroom with the triangular fold down 

seat the seat never folds up or down one or the other that's 

the current standard that's the one that's currently specified in 

the guidelines itself which has been deemed by, I think, 

everybody you are the only person that I have heard who likes 
it, as a totally unusable device it depends on you either have 

to do a standing transfer because you are facing the water 

closet or you try to do that pivot slide around whatever and 

there are lots of people who cannot do that. And so, that's 

generally been decided from everybody I have heard other 

than you, that

>> (inaudible) brought up it up as idea.

>> DENNIS CANNON: It's a horrible design we have to get 

rid of it.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: I remembered what I was going to 

say now. Two things just as a matter of information. Earlier 

there was conversation about Amtrak and you know 

screaming about two toilets. Two restrooms in each car. 

There was also our marketing folks were convinced that the 

world was going to implode if we had unisex restrooms if we 

didn't have men's and women's rest womb the world was 

going to end it did not. To the point we are looking at some 

cars and going how about we put one really nice accessible 

restroom in, with all of the amenities and forget the other 

one? And that helps take care of some of the pressure on the 

space. The other thing and this is a big concern when we 

start talking about tables remember the FRA has in the tier 2 

requirements for high speed trains the requirement for the 
strength of the tables because it's not the table has to exist it 

has to keep facing people away from each other in an 8G 

crash we know about that from our single table issue on the 

Acelas, that's a favorite bone for Dennis and I to pick because 

it used to be really nice before that was imposed. But so 

keep in mind when we talk about tables in dining cars, if that 

is applied to a high-speed train that issue is going to come up 

again as far as the structure that supports the table. It 

becomes very big.

>> Uwe Rutenberg: I just want to respond to your 

comments about the VIA wash room. I don't know which one 

you used the sleeper I mean. Because the new sleeper has 

not even in service I don't know which one you have used. 

And you know we are just in the process of finishing it. So it 

hasn't been in service at all. So, I am not sure what type you 

have used

>> The Renaissance car.

>> That's a very old one. The newer ones are I think you 

have a drawing of this and specification for that Dennis. And 

because it's not in service yet so you know no comments can 

be made regarding --

>> DENNIS CANNON: The diagram of that new design was 

given to the subcommittee members not to the full 

committee. I am thinking we can get it posted on the for the 
full committee to see rather than just us there are a couple of 

things given to us a lot of photographs that were shared with 

the committee subcommittee by Ken Shiotani, pictures he has 

taken of restrooms all over the different kinds of cars and 

whatever, and I think we are going to try to get some if not all 

of those available so people can actually see what's in service 

so that they can make some judgments about that.

>> MARSHA MAZZ: Dennis all subcommittee materials are 

posted on the website you just go to the subcommittee. If 

you exchanged them among yourselves but not made them 

part of the formal then they are not. All subcommittee 

materials are posted already.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Any other comments

>> BILLY ALTOM: Anything from the audience?

>> Gary Talbot: Thank you Mr. Chair Gary Talbot Amtrak 

I wanted to comment on the restroom issues that have been 

raised and really just to chime in on Dennis and support his 

comments about that little shelf and just hope that 

subcommittee doesn't come up with other grand ideas like 

that. Because I am not really sure who could or would ever 

use that but I know having actually deployed it a couple of 

times looked at it thought about it and realized I had done a 

lot of silly things in my life I wasn't going to add one more to 

it I am just hoping that we kind of like create access to the 
toilet and not have to go through secondary calisthenics to 

get there.

>> BILLY ALTOM: All righty. Any other comments on this 

particular topic? If not, thank you very much Dennis, I 

appreciate it. What I would like to do now do we have 

anybody on the phone that had a comment too I don't want to 

leave those folks out.

>> Give me two seconds operator can you pull the 

participants -- poll the participants if anyone is willing to 

testify at this point in time? And -- people on the lines for 

purposes of this particular segment your lines are muted so 

that you can respond to the operator, operator go ahead.

>> if you wish to testify press star 1 on the phones. 

Anybody in the back in the meantime want to --

>> BILLY ALTOM: Seeing none anyone have anything for 

the record for public comment.

>> That is a negative I do not hear you.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Anybody in the audience anybody with 

public comment for the day? I don't see anything there. 

What I would like to do quickly before we move on today. It 

is September 11th it is the anniversary date of 9/11 what I 

would like to do is just take a moment of silence in 

remembrance of that occasion. If we could we will do that 

right now. (Moment of silence for 
9/11, remembering.)

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you all. All righty it is what time 

is it 4:15. If you look at your agenda what I have done we 

asked for public comment. Because I made an executive 

decision we are going to have Blair start us off tomorrow. 

What time you start to start 7 sound good to you?

 (LAUGHTER) 

We have got 9:30 a.m. what we will do is convene in the 

morning at 930 and we are going to start right off with your

on-board circulation. And seating subcommittee. Sound 

like a plan for everybody? Awesome. Well,

>> (inaudible)

>> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. All right. You can sneak it in.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Blair Slaughter, Amtrak. Right now 

in the United States in North America for that matter, if a 

railroad person that's in the operating crew hearing three 

whistle blasts he knows that the he or she knows the train is 

going to back up two whistle blasts they know the train is 

going forward typically they know if the train blows one time 

the train is stopped and secured. Is there I am not aware of 

anything but is there anything for door opening and closing 

notices that is standardized for the number of Bing bongs and 

the stones it would seem in the effort to have seamless 

society when a bus pulls up its doors open if there is a chime 
train light rail whatever pulls up that the noises are universal 

and what they mean is universal is there anything around that 

certainly I would say that the Access Board if anyone has an 

opportunity to control that this is the place. So, are we -- we 

should start in the communication side.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Board requirements are only there 

be audible and visual announcement when doors open 

automatically. And so what has been done is in the original 

Metro cars, for example, they had two tones that everybody 

claimed was the first two tones of swing low sweet chair I 

don't think now it's a choice announcement of a woman who 

says, doesn't say the doors are opening I think she says the 

doors are about to close. And there is a red light over the 

door that flashes. Those are the only two requirements from 

the accessibility standpoint we want to make sure there used 

to be an audible tone when the doors close and blind 

people -- excuse me deaf people didn't know what the doors 

closed we said no there has to be a visual one too. So the 

requirement about standardizing the signal seems to me that 

something that APTA would want to do. Maybe there is 

something in the RIMA specs I don't know my guess is APTA 

should if anything should maybe convene some signed kind of 

a committee to standardize that.

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: Along with the visual side if you 
have two tones for one function and three tones for another 

you could have lights that flash with the tones that would 

indicate --

>> DENNIS CANNON: There are requirements or elevators 

for telling whether it's -- when it's going up and down. One 

for up one up two for down so elevators have a standardized 

requirement. But I am not aware of anything on the train side

>> BLAIR SLAUGHTER: As we were talking about the on 

boarding and alighting that seemed to be a painfully logical 

standardization no matter what mode you went to when you 

heard those sounds, you knew that what was going to 

happen, yeah. No matter where you went in the country. If 

you are in LA or New York they all mean the same thing. 

There is no confusion.

>> TERRY PACHECO: Dennis,

>> DENNIS CANNON: Yes.

>> TERRY PACHECO: Am I -- I could be remembering this 

wrong but I thought that there was -- I know there was at 

least discussion if not a determination on what was more 

important at the time was a short period a length of time 

prescribed between the time that it dings and the doors 

actually close. So that it wasn't dinging as the doors 

were -- saying doors closing at the same time. I thought 

there was like a -- I want to say a two or three-second delay. 
I am talking about on subway, particularly --

>> DENNIS CANNON: I am not aware of anything. There 

is nothing like that tar

>> TERRY PACHECO: I thought there was a discussion.

>> DENNIS CANNON: There may be something in 

elevators I don't remember there are requirements for timing 

of doors closing and so forth that's for buildings as far as I 

know there is nothing.

>> There is something in rail cars that it has to ding and 

flash prior to the doors closing the time element I don't 

remember

>> TERRY PACHECO: I know I thought there was

>> It's a warning not like okay I am going to do it right 

when the doors are closing it has to be before the doors begin 

to close there may be a time element in there as well. That's 

a -- on some light rail vehicles with operator intervention, 

what could happen and what does happen every day the doors 

will begin to close the operator will open them again see 

somebody else wanting to get on board close and open again 

real quick it could get confusing if I am like giving a signal for 

the doors to open and close. That what happens now. If it 

was a -- if it was a standard signalization that you wait for 3 

horns two horns or two flashes you are going to have a lot of 

flashing and sound going off and very difficult to interpret 
when the operator opening and closing the door several times 

but it was designed specifically you are right specifically to 

allow people to know the doors are about to close so either 

get in or get out.

>> TERRY PACHECO: The other issue with this also is that 

in some -- in some systems, there is -- there are electric eyes 

so if there is something blocking the door it won't close. 

Unlike WMATA where literally my pocketbook wrote from 

Silver Spring to Tacoma.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> TERRY PACHECO: I was very pleased it made it.

>> DENNIS CANNON: With respect to -- they warned you 

sensitive he edges are not like elevators. My recollection is 

that the Metro -- the system rapid rail system in Baltimore did 

have and may still have sensitive edges on the doors, the 

problem is so that the doors would rebound when they hit 

something and close it. The problem is that the doors 

opening or closing stops the train and so what was -- what 

was happening is kids had a great idea of pushing their fist 

through the sensitive edge of the doors and essentially 

stopping the train. So, I think they took those out.

>> TERRY PACHECO: Like the MBTA in Boston have them I 

thought it was much safer. Especially I saw some -- there 

was a woman actually not too long ago who she -- I mean her 
child got on and the door closed before she could get on. 

And the train just went. 

>> DENNIS CANNON: In theory the operator is supposed 

to be watching.

>> TERRY PACHECO: The operative word is theory.

>> Bob Reuter: I wasn't talking about the folding seats. 

It just happened to be in the car I was talking about the huge 

door that opened the whole side up. It was like four foot 

long. And it allowed you to turn 90 degrees to come out you 

didn't have to back out of the water closet. And that was 

what I was really discussing. I -- I don't like that seat either. 

It just happened to be in the same restroom.

>> DENNIS CANNON: Okay.

>> Andre Gagne: This is Andre. I have a comment on 

boarding and alighting if possible this is a bit late but 

something that popped up in my mind. It's about the gap 

mitigation device we don't say exactly what they are supposed 

to do and they could bridge the gap so go over the gap and 

extend beyond the gap and allow people to get in I think it 

would be good idea to accept devices that reduce the gap 

without touching the actual platform so you would let's say 

reduce the gap to something that would be now acceptable 

something like two inches or less for instance. And those 

device exist those divides exist elsewhere in the world it 
would be a good idea to accept those at least make them 

acceptable.

>> Can I ask a follow-up question to that. Does 

that -- does that come under the general category of gap 

fillers?

>> Andre: Yes.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Right. And I am not sure we --

>> DENNIS CANNON: If we could get pictures of that as 

you described it would be even better to get a video.

>> Andre: I have video pictures it's a technical drawing 

so there is IP it's there is an IP on it. But I have a video of the 

device in function so I could present it tomorrow. And --

>> DENNIS CANNON: That would be terrific.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: Not something that is just keeping 

you from falling down it's something that you could actually 

put weight on?

>> Andre: Exactly.

>> MARILYN GOLDEN: That's great.

>> Andre: If I have a chance tomorrow I can present a 

video it's not long 30 seconds something like that. Thank 

you.

>> BILLY ALTOM: You are welcome looking around I don't 

see any other hands. Before anybody gets their hand up let's 

call this day.
 (LAUGHTER)

>> BILLY ALTOM: I want to thank you all, all of the 

committee chairs and Blair we haven't heard your report I 

know it's going to be spectacular because the others were.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Blair don't leave because Billy and 

I and staff need to talk to you.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Awesome. Well I will see we are going 

to adjourn and see everyone at 9:30 in the morning.

>> Ladies and gentlemen on the teleconference the 

teleconference codes are the same as they are for today 

please call back then. Operator thank you for all -- all of 

your help please disconnect all lines thank you.

>> Please everybody here take your expensive things with 

you. Otherwise you can leave things at your places.

(End of meeting around 4:30 pm.)