Note: The output shown below is from the 

Communication Access Realtime Translation 

(CART) system used in the On-Board Circulation 

and Seating Subcommittee meeting #7 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. 

UNITED STATES ACCESS BOARD

RAIL VEHICLES ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ON-BOARD CIRCULATION AND SEATING MTG #7 

SUBCOMMITTEE TELECONFERENCE

The RVAAC meeting will be starting at 1 p.m. webcasting from 

the Access Board in Washington, DC. 

July 10, 2014 

>> This is the operator just checking back with you. I

wanted to see if you are ready to begin or do you need another 

few moments?

>> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Yes, we are ready to start.

>> Okay. I am going to go ahead and move you to the main 

conference I will give a brief introduction and then I will move the 
call over to Miss Melissa Anderson.

>> Excuse me, this is the operator, I would like to thank you 

for standing by, all participants have been joined in on open line. 

We ask that you please press star 6 to mute your line when you 

are not speaking and do the same when you are wanting to 

speak. Our host is Melissa Anderson. If you have concerns 

press star 0 for the operator. You may now begin.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you operator. Good 

afternoon. This is Melissa Anderson and welcome to the 7th 

meeting of the on-board circulation seating subcommittee. As 

you know since anyone may participate in the subcommittee 

discussions no -- there is no time for public comments 

scheduled during the two-hour call. There is no CART chat box 

and since the CART system chat box is not available for 

subcommittee participants who are only using CART to 

participate and who desire to raise a question or make a 

statement please use the E-mail address RVAAC @ 

access-board.gov. Please remember to give your name when 

speaking, and as a reminder the next meeting of the 

subcommittee is scheduled for August 14th. And as a side note, 

since Paul Beatty is out of the office until July 28 some functions 

he performs may slip, I am reading a note he left for me.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We apologize in advance, request 
you contact staff leads if you need assistance. So, if anybody 

has any questions about the subcommittee and you would 

normally talk to E-mail Paul feel free to contact me at Anderson 

@ access-board.gov and I will be watching the RVAAC E-mail 

box. Rose is going to go through intrusions -- through the 

introductions of who we are on the line. The staff in the room 

it's Rose Bunales.

>> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Thank you Melissa.

>> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Our CART person for today is 

Beverly Early, starting with the people in the teleconference would 

you state your name and the agency that you are with when I call 

your name? First is Frank Banko. 

>> Right. Parsons Spingerhoff. 

>> Andre Gagne from Bombardier.

>> Calvin Gibson.

>> Hi. 

>> Calvin Gibson from Federal Railroad Administration.

>> Steve Roman?

>> Steve Roman LTK.

>> Billy Altom.

>> With the Association of Programs for Rural Independent 

Living.

>> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Operator boost Billy's line

>> You want me to try that again?
>> I am not sure. Operator, can you boost Billy Altom's line? 

Okay. Billy

>> It's a long ways from Little Rock.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Is that better? Okay that's better. 

Thank you operator. Dennis Cannon

>> National Disability Rights Network.

>> Operator, boost Dennis' line please.

>> Sid Goldstein? Transit Access.

>> Operator, please boost Sid Goldstein's line please.

>> Marilyn Golden.

>> This is Marilyn Golden Disability Rights Education.

>> Robert Carlson.

>> Community Transportation Association of America.

>> David Nelson.

>> Yes, David Nelson with Amtrak.

>> Blair Slaughter.

>> Blair Slaughter with Amtrak.

>> Blair -- I'm sorry, Kenneth Shiotani.

>> Hi, Ken Shiotani from National Disabilities Rights Network.

>> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Operator boost Kenneth Shiotani's 

line please. Gary Talbot.

>> Hi, this is Gary Talbot Amtrak. >> 

Melissa Shurland.
>> Melissa Shurland FRA.

>> Glenn Miller.

>> Glenn Miller, Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority.

>> And the last that I have here is Frank Maldari.

>> Frank Maldari, MTA, New York.

>> Ken Shiotani line check, please say hello.

>> Hi.

>> Much better, okay.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Like we said, welcome everyone and 

thank you for taking time to join us today. Blair has provided us 

with a great new agenda. And a chart that we are going to try to 

work through so we can actually get some crunching numbers to 

move forward with. If we get off track I am going to step in and 

kind of play moderator here to keep us on track so we can get as 

much accomplished as possible we are kind of running short on 

time. So I am going to turn the meeting over to Blair.

>> Blair, we can't hear Melissa.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Sorry guys. Sorry guys. I turned 

off my mic when shuffling papers. Welcome everybody. Blair 

has created a wonderful agenda for us, and provided us with a 

matrix so that we can museum forward and work on getting 

some crunching numbers out there so we can start making 

recommendations putting together recommendations for the 

board. So I am also going to act as moderator today so if we get 
off track I am going to interrupt people and try to get us back on 

track. So, it's not that we don't -- we don't care about your 

personal stories, it's we have a lot of work to do. And we 

appreciate everyone's passion on the subject. So, with that, I will 

turn this meeting over to Blair. Thank you.

>> Blair: Yes, I was originally planning on trying to send out 

some floor plans of vehicles. We had a little consternation over 

the copyrights and ownership of information and so I am 

defaulting to develop some more generic versions of each mode 

so that we have something to throw a dart at. But in the absence 

of that, I developed some floor plans for our Acela cars based on 

the PRIIA recommendations for single-level cars. I thought I can 

use that. Well, I thought it was probably wiser to take the regs 

and Melissa got me the current regs and I ferried through them 

and developed this spreadsheet, take the current regs the 

recommendation from PRIIA for each mode and then where they 

exist for each mode, and then what we want to do, we want to 

recommend to RVAAC. So, with the goal of getting some 

numbers, and then retreating with assignments for -- I am going 

to guess primarily the providers that are involved to generate 

some drawings to figure out what the impact -- what this would 

like if we applied it to vehicles. You know, based on what we 

know today and vehicles aren't getting bigger and those kind of 

things. And then we can come back and really crunch that up in 
the next meeting that would be the goal. So, the first thing that 

I would like to propose is to approve the agenda. If anyone has 

any questions about what we want to try to do today, please let 

me know.

>> This is Dennis Cannon, just want to correct one thing. 

PRIIA is PRIIA not PRIIA.

>> Yes I knew that too.

>> I was thinking RVAAC I suppose when I wrote that. 

Anyone have any comments on the agenda? If not I will assume 

by the silence that it's approved. Either that or I --

>> So moved.

>> Second.

>> Blair: Any dissenters? If not, it's unanimous. Thank 

you very much. Okay. Let's wade right into this, if we can. 

Does everyone have the matrix in front of them?

>> Yep.

>> Blair: What I have done down the left-hand side is the 

vehicle type, and then across the top is the features. Or the 

areas that we need to address. In some cases now either things 

aren't relevant or they weren't addressed in the previous 

regulations so we have some opportunity there. I will say it was 

a little bit of a learning process for me to see why some of the 

dimensions were smaller on some of the vehicles than others. 

But anyway, that was then this is now. Let's see what we can do. 
I would like to -- for this meeting, if we can -- the goal of filling 

in the blanks, if we can get through that, even if -- if individually 

as representatives of whatever organization company or whatever 

we may not necessarily agree, if we can keep the conversation to 

a minimum and get through it, then if we have time we can go 

back through it and pick at things but then ideally if we can go 

ahead -- go away and do some real spatial work and make sure 

that we take the information, plug it in, and come back with real 

information versus just verbal and supposition I think the next 

meeting to be -- could be even more productive.

And we can begin to really craft what our recommendations 

will be to the full committee.

>> Blair, this is Gary Talbot. If I could comment on row 9 

that should be bi-level. Yeah that was the bi-level if we made 

that change on. I don't know, Melissa is on the call I don't know 

if this is -- that is in the single level already that was the bi-level 

that we added the two inches above

>> That is -- this is Melissa Shurland --

>> Blair: The latest thing that Melissa sent me on the single 

level.

>> Then it's in there I wanted to make sure -- the bi-levels 

are in procurement that's why I said that.

>> This is Melissa Shurland. What is listed for the 

single-level cars those are the new recommendation space and 
has not been approved as yet.

>> Blair: Thank you, Melissa. My hope would be that that 

as part of our work here, we can begin to solidify those numbers, 

so they become -- either they do or don't become part of what 

we recommend back to RVAAC and ultimately the revisions. But 

it's the -- it's the latest and greatest thing there is right now for 

us to get (inaudible).

>> Blair, this is Gary again, you might want to list the bi-level 

PRIIA separate from the single level because the bi-level PRIIA the 

numbers you have listed those have all been an proofed for the 

bi-level.

>> Blair: Okay. Okay. I will add that note. I think the 

information is all the same. But I will add that row just so 

we -- I don't see why generally we would have any -- any 

difference in the features you know, within bi-level or single 

level.

>> Excuse me, this is Ken Shiotani. Maybe I don't 

understand what a vestibule is, but I mean I think I know what a 

vestibule is in a rail car where there are either end of the car, but 

on a bi-level car, many of them have entrances on the lower level. 

I mean, there are multilevel cars that also have vestibules but I 

guess that's my confusion is, I thought the PRIIA bi-levels were 

presumed to have two sets of doors on either side on the lower 

level like the California cars, am I correct? So I don't know what 
a vestibule is in that kind of car would be.

>> Well Ken -- as a as a generic statement, I mean, Amtrak 

we sort of beaten up the old definition of the vestibule that sort 

of grew out of way back to wooden cars. And in a bi-level car it 

may -- it may function like a foyer but it's -- it really is of no use 

except for boarding or moving down the aisle ways. It would not 

contain, you know, a seating space or any other feature, it's just 

the element within the car that allows the space to get in and you 

make that first turn to move in. I will -- if we can treat it that 

way for now, perhaps I can insert a different column for those 

kinds of spaces for the bi-level cars just for clarity. But I know 

at Amtrak as I said, that's -- it's otherwise useless space. It has 

no value other than boarding the strain. Does anyone else have 

a thought on that?

>> This is Ken again. I guess the -- you know, in an end of 

car vestibule, you have like a fixed space. You can't go -- you 

know it's like in and turn into the car. And it's -- it's you know 

whatever the width is constrains everybody. But when you have 

either the double doors like in a California car or a single door 

like in a superliner I or II, you have -- you can have space on 

either side. So, I -- that's why I am confused about how we use 

the measurement. I mean, obviously the space around the door 

can't be seating space. But I don't know how you measure it 

when you either have a center door like in a superliner or two 
sets of doors in a -- like a California car and are the PRIIA cars 

that the core design thing?

>> Yeah, Ken, this is Gary Talbot. You still have a hallway on 

many of the superliners that are right off of that boarding door 

area. You would still have a vestibule. It's still a space where 

you have to make that maneuver like Blair said. You have to 

make the 90 to go left or right.

>> This is Dennis Cannon. In many cases in other cases you 

have things like modest tee panels and what not that create a 

space like a vestibule and it's not whether it looks like a vestibule 

on the end it's the requirement is that you have a minimum 

amount of space that you have to provide in there. When you 

have the double door on the lower level of those cars, that space 

is going to be well in excess of the minimum and that's fine as 

long as we make sure that we specify that you can't have it any 

smaller than that.

>> Okay. I guess I understand.

>> Yes, Dennis this is Gary Talbot. I mean that was exactly 

the idea. Is that we really felt that they were in excess of 42 

already on the bi-level cars but we felt that if they did have like 

the privacy panels or something that at 44 we would be able to 

make those maneuvers left or right whatever you have to do that 

was the idea to package protect that space.

>> Okay. Got it.
>> Blair: Thanks Gary and Dennis that was very helpful. 

But, yeah, I mean there is a transverse space that allows you to 

transition in longitudinal pathway whether it's down center of the 

car or offset, and the key is that that is protected space and 

doesn't get used for anything else. I mean, even from a safety 

concern, you know, you wouldn't use that space or shouldn't use 

it for anything else anymore than you would use the entrance or 

exit of a building for anything else. Okay. So, any other 

comments? And obviously if I miss something please let me 

know, but if we can we will start with the rapid rail and vehicle 

type. And -- across on the RVAAC line if that's okay.

>> This is Dennis Cannon. First of all, I don't expect we 

want to reduce anything. Is my opinion. Same thing is in 

the -- normally the doors on the rapid rail cars are much wider 

than 32, this is just an issue, again, of making sure that you don't 

narrow it down anymore than that. When we got to the 30 

inches on the end doors, that was, again, another issue that was 

raised by manufacturers long ago that you couldn't make it any 

wider than that because of collision posts. We now hear that at 

least in the PRIIA car it can be 32 inches and I don't know whether 

we got Bombardier is on the line that makes rapid rail cars that 

end door is still constrained or whether it's any bigger than that.

>> Yeah (inaudible), given a while back they can be made 

wider than 32 inches.
>> CHRISTOPHER HART: (inaudible) clearly in the designs that 

is 32 inch or (inaudible). So, as far as I know (inaudible) it 

should have no problem getting (inaudible).

>> This is Dennis my recommendation would be to bump it 

up to 32 and let the manufacturers tell us it can't be done.

>> This is Steve Roman one thing I would like to add to that, 

don't forget that the rapid rail cars are often narrower than any 

commuter rail or the PRIIA cars and when you throw a quarter cab 

in there making those collision posts wider is going to cramp 

down on the operator space also. With the narrower car it makes 

it difficult to make it much larger than 30 inches. That's the 

30-inch clear opening. So the collision posts already slightly 

farther apart than 30 inches.

>> This is Blair, thank you for that. That's a good point. 

Was the intention primarily on subway type cars because 

obviously you don't move a lot between subway cars for the 

emergency situations where you might need to trance for car to 

car was that the --

>> Yes. That was --

>> There are cars where people can in fact move from one 

car to another in rapid rail systems but yeah the issue there was 

not the assumption because of the gap the issue was not the 

assumption that people would actually move in a wheelchair for 

example from one car to another that in fact in many cases, you 
get when there is a stalled car in the terminal, Metro has these 

little carts that go around the rail that are positioned at various 

positions along the tunnel that you can place, and roll up to the 

end of the car, if you had to evacuate somebody. They are 

designed originally for moving people on stretchers but it could 

move people on wheelchairs too.

>> Okay. Let's see. Well, just to make sure I have my 

blanks filled in leaving the doorway exterior with the side doors 

at 32 as a minimum?

>> That shouldn't be a problem.

>> Most doors are 40.

>> Right. Well --

>> This is Gary, if most doors 40 why we list 32 for those 

doors?

>> Just because of the, again, you are looking for a minimum 

not ideal design. We want to make sure they don't ever get 

lower than that.

>> No, I understand that. But we had a similar thing 

with -- with the vestibule on the bi-level car that was one reason 

that we punched it out to 44 because we didn't want them ever to 

go back to 42.

>> It's just a question. I had it's rulemaking you want to 

establish the minimum that's fine I just wanted to understand, 

given that most of them on you know heavy rail light rail cars like 
that are far in excess of 32 that's where I was coming from. But I 

understand. Thank you.

>> Well, (inaudible) are we talking about (inaudible)

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Chris we are having a real difficult 

time understanding you.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: (inaudible)

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We were discussing the clear width 

of the doorway openings.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Okay. So, (inaudible) we need to 

discuss the (inaudible) size.

>> This is Gary that's a good point Chris. Whenever you 

have multiple leaves on a door then you would back to Chris's 

comment you would want to define that that minimum leaf width 

is 32 inches wide so you don't trap someone in the car in the 

event only one leaf opens. All of us have ridden or ride heavy 

rail are well aware of that issue. So, yeah, you are right it's kind 

of -- so maybe a better way to say it is minimum door clear 

space or clear opening, and then you would just make a note that 

that would apply to many leaves as you have. Often with subway 

car you have one stick open if they are less than 32 you can't get 

off the car. If they are packed you can't get to the other door 

and it's usually seconds not minutes.

>> Blair: This is Blair. Can I ask maybe Frank Maldari since 

he is from the world of lots of rapid rail. Obviously the goal with 
a rapid rail system is getting people on and off as quickly as 

possible so the train can go. If you were looking at the -- if the 

optimal space of door opening when it was fully open with both 

leaves assuming it's multiple leaves let's say it was 50 

pinches. -- 50 inches would you include a 32-inch leaf and a 

smaller leaf because you -- all you need is 50 for your maximum 

inflow and exit of people. And if you went to a double 32 you 

would be wasting space and maybe eliminate passenger space 

inside.

Is that a logical thing to have, you know, multiple door leaf 

sizes within the door space?

>> Gary: I have never seen that this is Gary. We pushed 

minimum of 32 inch per leaf. You are going to have some that 

are going to fail.

>> Dennis: This is Dennis Cannon I have been stuck in those 

cases too the problem is you now talking about is 64-inch wide 

door you lost probably a row of seats.

>> but you have that today in heavy rail cars, light rail cars 

today

>> They usually are about 45 inches wide you don't have 64.

>> I don't know it's 32 inch wide minimum for all of the door 

leafs on the MBTA system we weren't the only ones doing it I 

don't have anything at my fingertips maybe Chris does.

>> Blair: This is Blair. What you do have when you get into 
the doorway of a typical subway car you have got the stanchions 

and things versus seats maybe being right there. Think about 

WMATA there is maybe a modesty panel right by the door. I

guess the question is for the providers, does that -- is the row of 

seat or the floor space that can be occupied by people on the 

train standees and that sort of thing? What is the bigger -- the 

bigger impact?

>> Well, if I can, this is Glenn Millis from Metro. We are 

talking about the middle doors or the end doors?

>> Middle doors.

>> Middle doors. Let me tell you what we do I am not sure 

it's germane but I think the question was asked. What we have 

in the middle doors are accessibility seating. On either side of 

the door catty-corner diagonal from each other we have a pair of 

priority seats. Those have a modesty panel attached to them. 

They are there because our community here in numerous public 

comment sessions told us they wanted something because 

people coming in the doors were hitting them coming in they 

wanted protection shun on from the traffic on the diagonal 

corners we have clear areas no seats this is our new design we 

have in 6 thousand cars we are putting it in the new cars clearly 

marked for wheelchair parking. What we have done, we know 

about the 30, 48 we used to have poles in the middle of the cars 

what we heard from the public, especially people using 
wheelchairs is get the poles out of the way I can't get from one 

side of the car to the other. I can't go in this side come out that 

side people hold on to the poles. We took it out. It's a big wide 

open space there at the middle of the car and we do have reserve 

parking areas for people who use wheelchairs right next to the 

doors. So, you know, for us we have gone to an open design 

that's the bottom line for us. Our customers said we want open 

we said okay.

>> Glenn, this is Blair. What did it do for standees?

>> Well, actually, it helps. Because you know, the thing is we 

have -- that is a good question. There is some real tension 

between people who wanted to keep the poles in and people who 

wanted to take the poles out disability community wanted the 

poles out people wanting to stand in the doorway and hold on 

the doors obstruct traffic impede flow the ones who do not move 

when asked they wanted to leave them in they lost that 

discussion. What we did to accommodate people who need 

something to hold on to we more than doubled the number of 

handholds in the car at every seat along the left of the train. 

There are more places to hold on to but you can't do it in the 

middle of the car in the middle of the doorway and obstruct 

traffic. So, you know that's how we resolved that discussion. 

We did it with the 6000 car came up again with the 7000 car. 

And the disability community has won twice. We really 
considered it sort of a dead issue now. But the fact of the matter 

is it helps everybody because you know, moving people requires 

throughput. That means, you -- you know the number of trains 

a system a station hit the end. You can't do that if you can't get 

people in and out of the cars because people are standing in the 

doorways we think it helps that as well.

>> Blair: Okay. That seems very logical. You have 

managed the -- to get the cattle away from the doors. I know 

that's a very frustrating thing when you are when you are a little 

panicked trying to get on or after off the car and people refuse to 

get out of the way.

>> Well, and I think it's the way that I look at it is it's 

universal design it's good for everybody.

>> Blair: Right. That's a little more subtle at the end of the 

day it works.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Blair: Anybody else have any thoughts? I mean we can 

go in and leave this at 32 and call that for the panels and then we 

can see what the -- we can do our homework and see what 

adverse impact can be

>> Hello can you hear me this is Frank. I did want to add 

something to the 32 inch panel. One of the questions you asked 

can you have an asymmetrical panel one big one small. Well that 

only works if you assume that the one is going to fail is going to 
be the small one.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Generally speaking, you know, you are talking about a 

failed condition. You are not talking about normal operating 

condition. And for us at the Long Island we typically use single 

leaf doors have 52 inch wide door opening because you get on 

doesn't guarantee that the door is going to work when you get 

off. If it's not working we lock out the door if someone needs to 

leave they have to go through another door. The problem is I 

don't think you should be regulating by panels. It's the door 

opening. And basically you are talk about normal operating 

conditions. Not, you know, abnormal, you know, failure 

conditions. The door should be locked out they should both be 

locked out if it's a failure of a single panel. A the lo of the cars I 

have seen not that I have seen a lot of them are connected on one 

screw. Typically it's unusual depending on the door design. It 

does depend on the door design. We have bi-parting doors on 

some of the equipment you can have failure of one of the leafs 

but we lock out both when it happens. It's a operating practice 

more than the width of the door. My suggestion would be not to 

go down to the detail of the panel dimension, and just identify 

the clear opening as 32 inches minimum.

>> This is Gary, I would just add to that that I have been on 

cars that I couldn't get off where only one leaf opened. And 
nobody looked out anything that -- locked out anything 

everybody walked on and off less than 32 inch I couldn't get off 

the car that was the most common complaint we had. I bet in 

other cities where I have seen the exact same thing happened it 

didn't impact me I saw the same thing happen the car get came 

up and one leaf open the other didn't. It is a common thing. 

And so that's why we were trying to address that by saying if you 

are going to do multiple leaves then you have to plan for real and 

real is one of them isn't going to open always. When they don't 

both open then it's a little bit easier thing I think you are right 

then usually you shut the thing down and lock it out so it doesn't 

do more damage to itself. Oftentimes one opens ambulatory 

people get on and off we are not

>> Gary, let me throw out an idea. And it gets back to what 

Frank said about where they have doors on a common screw a 

common operator so if one works they Beth work they sort 

of -- is there any advantage to that? And then that would 

address -- if you have a failure you are losing the door the door 

is going out of service. Then it gets back to the flexibility as far 

as managing the doorway width and keeping the doors a 

common size regardless of what the width is.

>> Now, to me -- this is Gary. I think it's better to regulate 

what the minimum width is of any element. Like of a leaf. 

Because then if you choose to do multiple leaves then something 
bad can happen and if one of them is still open we can get on 

and off the vehicle in case of emergency or whatever the case 

may be. If you choose to do is 40 inch wide plug or whatever 

else other style door you prefer to use that's fine you are in 

access of the single leaf requirement that's just a single leaf it 

would could be 32.

>> Ken, this is Marilyn for DREDF. I just -- I can understand 

why people are arguing for 32-inch open period and leaving the 

details. And -- and why operators might say that it should 

just -- that we should be recollecting normal operating 

conditions. But it seems to me that that depends on how 

frequent abnormal operating conditions occur. If we are talking 

about you know, accidents that happen once in 10 or 20 years 

that may not make sense to regulate that. It seems like people 

on the call have on a steady regular basis encountered an 

inability to exit the train because the leaf doesn't work. And if it 

happens that often, then I think we really have to regulate per 

leaf. In the built environment we certainly do that. And I know 

that not everything in a train can equal what is in a building but I 

am just -- so don't like have everyone say that because it will 

take up unnecessary time because we know it. But just for 

comparison sake, we would never, in a building, do that. And I 

think the level of -- you know, the failure rate is as high as I am 

hearing it is we need to do it on the train as well.
>> Yeah, but -- this is Frank again. I don't know if you can 

regulate based on past experience with older equipment. Look, 

you know, anything that fails on a car when you buying a new one 

you are trying to make it more reliable which is why we like to 

keep things simple. The most complicated you make them the 

less reliable they come. As far as doors there are strides the 

major manufacturers I trying to make them more reliable all the 

time. One May of making a door more reliable attach one screw 

if one fail they both fail. I think you are getting into a lot of 

detail. I understand you are what saying you can get into a 

single leaf door and it will fail to. You are regulating the size of 

the leaf. The leaf size dictates a single leaf door not by parting 

door which slows down entry and exit time for the door to open 

and close now you go to single leaf instead of a single door you 

have a single door that can't open you are still stuck. Maybe it's 

a little bit more obvious because people are not confined to the 

wheelchair can get out of they can get out on a bi parting door 

and can't get out on a single leaf door. I don't know if you really 

want to recollect the type of doors that are being used. There 

are consequences to it but I don't know if you are getting out of it 

what you want. If you want the ability to make sure you get out 

at a particular stop a single leaf door may fail too you can't get 

out. 

>> This is Ken Shiotani. I have a question about people have 
on other calls talked about transit systems in other places, 

I -- the last time I have seen a single leaf door on a subway car 

was like in 1930's RIT subway car in New York City. I think most 

use double doors. But when you get into two 32 inch things you 

have a 64-inch wide entrance if you choose double doors or 

double leafs. Does any other system use width more than 50 

inches?

>> That's a good question. I am not sure myself. I know 50 

inches is more of a standard. Well at least for our operations 

more of a standard probably a little bit less than that typically. 

But you are right, I mean if you are going to regulate the panel 

size it's bi parting and two 32-inch doors or you a single leaf 

door that's 32 inches wide

>> Or could be 40 or 50.

>> Like you do today.

>> It could be single leaf door.

>> It could be one of those you talking on subways where 

people are piled up at the door typically you want the bi parting 

door it's faster entry and exit faster door opening. That's what 

you are -- that's what your getting -- every time you look at 

changing the rule, you got to look at what are the consequences. 

It's not always obvious what the consequences are. But the 

consequences of dictating the panel size is that you are going to 

wind up with more single leaf doors and I am not sure if you 
really are going to get what you are looking to get which is 

reliably getting out at every stop that you want to by dictates 

that -- dictating that you go to single leaf door the likelihood of 

using two 32-inch doors is significantly larger you lose seating 

space a lot of subway cars have a lot of openings you are cutting 

into the available seating space for every door opening. So, you 

know, I am just saying that you may be -- you may be not 

achieving what you want and creating other problems.

>> Blair: This is Blair. I have a question Melissa. If you can 

help me out here. And then I have a comment. Is it within our 

realm to discuss the, along with these aspects the safety aspects 

that go along with it? With the -- I mean, we are talking about 

interior circulation it seems appropriate, for example, if -- if a 

door fails to open, automatically, as it should, is it within our 

realm to require a emergency button or something that alerts the 

operator or someone that you got a failed condition? And this 

would be relevant whether it's a bi parting door or big single leaf 

or anything? So that the train doesn't leave and leave someone 

you know headed off to someplace they don't want to be.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: I 

am -- >> Blair: Is that within 

our realm to discuss.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: I am not sure whether it is or not. 

We --
>> This is it Steve. To Blair's comment, most modern cars 

do have passenger emergency intercoms at doors. And there is 

always one at the wheelchair parking area.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: And I am not sure --

>> There is some form of communication to the operator of 

the train should there need to be.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: I am not sure it's an accessibility 

issue just as a general passenger and operational issue.

>> This is (inaudible) here. David from Amtrak, now, my 

understanding that's more of an operations policy. So, 

unfortunately, I think that that is outside of the scope of this 

work.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: It would be outside of the scope of 

this committee because it would be a communications issue.

>> This is Dennis Cannon, I wanted to say the issue of 

controls and operating mechanisms I believe is under the 

communications committee and there is currently in all of the 

WMATA cars an emergency button at the end of the car, 

unfortunately, it's not accessible. One of the things would be it 

is within the realm of the -- the overall RVAAC committee 

whether it false under communication subcommittee or not I 

think it does. (inaudible) it would have to be accessible 

requirement for controls and operating mechanisms I am 

assuming we are going to have inner-city car Amtrak car we are 
going to have a call button at least to the (inaudible) a whole line 

of things.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: You are fading Dennis.

>> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Dennis, I think your beard is 

scratching your mic.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: And the committee, the 

subcommittee can make whatever recommendations they like. 

We don't have to get too stuck on some of these we can make a 

note that the committee seems to be split on this. And discuss it 

further later on as we go through some of the other issues. And 

we can also put it before the committee. The full committee in 

September and get conversation from the committee. And the 

committee can make recommendations that we take out to 

industry and let industry say yes we can do this oh, my God we 

are going to loose half the seating. We will deal with that at the 

time to.

>> This is Frank. I want to make one more comment with 

regard to the failure of the doors.

you know, if your policy is you lock out a door if it doesn't 

work. That prevents somebody getting caught when somebody 

gets into the car and it's not working on most commuter rail cars 

and stuff you have to get in the door and it's going to fail only 

after you have gotten in there in order to get locked in. So, it's 
not just the likelihood of a failure, it's the likelihood of a failure 

on the door in service on a particular door that you happen to 

have entered in.

>> This is Robert Carlson, I have two comments on that. 

One is there is doors on both sides of the car. And you can 

enter on one side and then not be able to get out the side that 

you want to get out and the second thing is if I am not mistaken 

on the WMATA cars the emergency release on the door is a single 

panel release on the center of the car am I correct on that? So, 

you have a bi-panel door you only get to open one side of it.

>> Typically, if there is an emergency door release, it unlocks 

both leaves it separates an inch or two, so you can push them 

both back.

>> Okay. I have never had the occasion to use one. It just 

says slide panel to the left. It's not going to be moving because 

it's manually releasing it.

>> This is David here real quick. You know, I feel like those 

type of things are out of the scope of this. And I feel like it's 

really important that somebody should probably make a note of it 

for -- you know, not just what we brought up but any other types 

of issues as well. That can be brought to the attention of the 

board and they can do a separate notice of rulemaking.

>> Gary: Well, this is Gary. I want to come back to the leaf 

issue for a moment having been someone stuck on a car or been 
on a platform and couldn't get on a car and had to deal with that 

complaint numerous times in my time. And also being on other 

systems and witnessing the same exact thing. I -- I just want to 

make sure that the 32-inch minimum width doesn't get lost. I

think if that's a minimum width however many panels you want to 

use you make it whatever panel size you want. If it opens we all 

get to get on and off. If it doesn't nobody gets on and off 

through the opening.

>> Blair: Gary, this is Blair. I think we have to have to be 

bold enough in our recommendations to cover that you just said. 

And I would say that -- we hold for the 32-inch clear opening 

when the doors are open. And the include language in the 

Access Board can put it back at some point but include language 

that addresses the safety concerns and at a minimum the 

inconvenience. But really safety concerns to make sure that that 

they are not -- that they are not running cars where you know 

every time the train stops one door is opening and the other one 

is failed. As long as you got the ability if you are on the car to 

keep that car from leaving because you called the driver, you 

have an emergency situation then I think we are covered. From a 

purely mechanical standpoint, I think the larger the door is the 

more likely the failure. Especially when you get into bad weather 

conditions. And managing two smaller leaves versus one big 

leaf is probably going to help get folks off in an emergency 
especially if you are in a wreck if you start wracking the car 

around binding up a big door is a lot easier than binding up a 

small door. What I would propose we do for now is we are going 

to -- we will hold for sure the 32 inch clear opening and put a 

recommendation over to the communication subcommittee to 

address that where if a condition -- where any door opening can 

in a failure mode be reduced below the minimum there has to be 

a provision there for communication to the operator to not 

museum the train until the person is safely where they need to 

go. I think that's maybe one way of thinking about this. And I 

can put in as well a recommendation for our next meeting that 

it's a 32-inch panel, and we can -- we can chew on that and see 

what the affects are. I think with any of this stuff, there is no 

magic bullets to any problem, it takes the interrelation of things 

what we have to be sure that we do is you know, optimize the 

condition based on the system. I know if I made all of my 

decisions based on what I see every day at Amtrak. It would be 

awful. But it's usually when you dig into it it's a systemic failure 

not a single point failure within a vehicle. So, I think thinking 

about new cars, we can certainly with all of our experience, we 

can -- we can add those caveats that give everyone the best 

possible chance for moving on in normal conditions and 

absolutely getting off the trains in emergency situations.

>> Blair, this is Andre from Bombardier I was looking at a 
couple of projects that we are working on right now it seems like 

for rapid rail there is a benefit to the operators and maybe we can 

confirm that, that having a larger doorway is a benefit to get 

people in and out. Looking at the New York subway cars, I see 

50 inch has a -- as a clear open for San Francisco it's 54. It 

looks like for this type of vehicle type at least these type of 

vehicle it's benefit. Maybe not for commuter rail and others but 

at least for rapid rail it is.

>> Dennis: This is Dennis Cannon in the WMATA cars and 

the BART as well, there is three doors on one side is that a 

standard? >> 

Andre: It varies from one transit authority to others. There are 

four doors per side BART has 3 it varies between 3 and 4.

>> In New York City you have RIT cars only have 3 sets of 

doors but the -- I mean, they use two lanes of cars the longer 

cars have four doors a side and the shorter cars have three doors 

a side.

>> But you can't -- this is Marilyn. You can't always get to 

all of those sets of doors. And as someone was saying earlier 

sometimes with Bob I think that you -- you get in on one side 

you need to exit on the other side. So, it remains a concern 

about a leaf not opening.

>> Exactly. Marilyn, this is Gary. That's why I stated that I 

hope the conversation comes back to the minimum clear 
opening. Because then, like everybody said, if you have 50 inch 

opening and you are doing it with a single leaf like many do that's 

great. If you want multiple leafs they have to be in 32-inch 

increments if only half of the thing opens we can get on and off 

the car.

>> This is Marilyn. I agree with that Gary, although in terms 

of the language if you say 32-inch clear opening, it can be read 

to mean that you can do that with two leafs. And then one 

doesn't open and you don't have the width. If you really need 

each leaf to be a certain width you have to explicitly say each leaf.

>> I got you. Thank you.

>> Let me throw something out. And maybe this would 

cover that. This is Blair.

If we have a 32-inch minimum and stayed where only a single 

door is used the leaf must be at least 32 inches. And then that 

takes away the issue of you know the 32-inch wide door with two 

16-inch panels. The other thing that I think is critical though if 

you designed a door system as Frank described where if the two 

doors are interlocked you don't have a single failure. They are 

failed. You can't have the condition you get in on one side the 

right platform you don't know that the door on the other side is 

failed. Now, maybe there needs to be -- when the door is 

locked out these things may already exist. Maybe there needs to 

be a clear obvious indicator that that door is out of service. Gee 
whiz, you may not see it until you are on the train then I am not 

sure what you do then. If a door fails en route on a subway car, 

and you happen to get in on the right platform you want to get 

off on the left that door is out of service you are out of luck. I

suppose if -- if the burden -- if the system design is such that 

that when a single door fails they both fail and locked out, then 

that really puts an incentive on the operator to get that car out of 

service or get a mechanism on it and get it fixed and don't 

continue to run it all day or day after day in that failed condition. 

Because I see as a, a potential percentage of time having the big 

leaf is compared to outright failure of the door system. I am not 

sure just looking at the history if we look at it going forward I am 

not sure if there is going to be that raw benefit. We can talk 

about this all day but for the sake of -- for the sake of moving on 

I would say let's leave it at 32 inches, write in there that it's 

recommended that it be a single -- that the minimum be a 

32-inch panel and if we can apply that and look at how it affects 

vehicles and have more discussion on it I think that's worthwhile. 

But, again, I think if we get too much wrapped up in what 

happened before we have to take what we seen and know exists 

every day. Somewhere. And ferret that out. And write our 

recommendation that ultimately the regulations so that those 

kind of designs don't fin to -- don't continue to exist. And there 

is a process that keeps that from being an accepted occurrence. 
Except in an emergency.

>> This is Dennis Cannon. I want to remind you it's already 

been an hour.

>> Yes.

>> All of the time spent on this one issue, I think we need to 

move on.

>> Thank you. If we could, I will write that up in a, we will 

chew on it more if we can move on to column number 3 the route 

to parking seating clear width. Now it's 32 inches are we 

satisfied to leave that at 32 for the moment

>> Excuse me Blair this is Marilyn are we skipping the 

doorway between two cars.

>> We raise that in 32 inches.

>> I understand.

>> I have a note about narrower cars. I will include that in 

this cleaned up revised matrix when it goes out back out what the 

notes associated with it are that I captured.

>> Good. Got it. Thank you.

>> Thank you Marilyn. So any thoughts on the route to the 

parking or seating area?

>> I think it should be the same as the doorway issue that's 

32 if it's staying at 32 the route should be the same.

>> This is Dennis Cannon in writing it 36 is accessible loop 

minimum clearance in a building in writing this we realized there 
were constraints because of the size of the vehicles and so forth 

we decided that 32 would work again it's not like a hallway it's 

basically to get from the doorway to a space where you can have 

clear floor space for you to sit many cases is right inside the door 

on the rapid railway.

>> This is David here. So, I was actually recently in Atlanta 

using their subway, and they have like a wheelchair space in 

between like a glass wall and a cab. And it was extremely, 

extremely tight. Maybe it was 32 inches but the person would 

have to back up into it. I mean, I would recommend 

reconsidering, you know, maybe 33, it could be 32 but 

recommend 33 or something like that. Because it's -- it's a 

pretty tight space. You know, especially if there is a wall 

enclosure around it.

>> This is Dennis Cannon. If you -- if you look at 

the -- what we did with the proposed bus, we changed -- we 

have the clear floor space for the parking area. We added 

additional space for confined areas which is typically in the 

building and facilities it's called the alcove provision. And we 

didn't have anything like that in the vehicles before. It's now 

included in the proposed bus regulation that says, when you got 

a wheel well and a seat and a modesty panel that you have to get 

in -- you have to add additional space so that's what is trying to 

take care of issue of the space itself. In getting into it. Not 
necessarily the aisle or the access path to get to it.

>> Blair: Dennis this is Blair I included that maneuverability 

of the parking space several columns over maneuverability with 

doors where they were or were not covered before we can 

address that when we get over there. But that's a good point. 

But if we are talking strictly about the packet, you are -- path you 

are not trying to get into a restroom parking space or anything 

like that traversing from the vestibule or the door opening to the 

space, I would expect in most rapid rail situations, that that 

should be a relatively short path anyway.

>> Dennis: Yeah this is Dennis. One of the things we did 

early on is we tried to -- when you have a case like a rapid rail 

where you are moving into the car, and it's typically short trips 

and what not. Same with light rail. We didn't necessarily want 

you to have a parking space that you had to get into that space. 

You wanted the ability to be to be able to get especially when the 

cars are crowded to get to a space where you can sit safely have a 

clear, open space but not have to maneuver around and through 

and all of that to try to get into a designated area. So, that's why 

there aren't -- as opposed to the bus requirements which has 

specific requirements about where you are in a bus you have the 

securement system. You have to get to that space because that's 

the only space where the securement system works. Rail 

vehicles you should be able to get anywhere in the cab or car that 
you can find a clear open space and that should be relatively 

close to the doorway. And all of the doorways on a rapid rail car 

are required to be accessible.

>> Blair: Okay. I guess the idea Dennis on the 32 inches is 

to be sure that to facilitate that condition that you wouldn't have, 

say, a moxie panel and then 25 inches away from that a 

stanchion that you could get tangled up in.

>> Yes, there was the point.

>> Blair: Okay. If no one has any other thoughts on that we 

will leaf that -- leave that at 32 with that understanding if that's 

okay.

Silence means yes, right?

>> Yep.

>> Absolutely.

>> Clear parking space we are going to increase.

>> Blair: Right, right. That was my assumption, yes. So, 

the vestibule width doesn't apply -- do we want to -- do we need 

to add anything to that for clarity it's not relevant from a strict 

vestibule as we described the vestibule earlier that may be 

defined by modesty panels and things like that do we want to 

have a clear unencumbered space with no stanchions and panels 

and things like that across the width of the car?

>> Blair this is Gary so I understand the question do you 

mean where you have to -- (inaudible) listed now.
>> Blair: Yes. And perhaps it really is applicable but do we 

want to define something that hasn't been really defined? You 

know, you open the doors on the side of a subway car, and a 

44-inch wide box all the way through the car could you push it 

through to the other side without running into something kind of 

thing

>> I think that's a great question. I think that you would 

want a package protect for that and just make sure that you 

didn't end up with a stanchion 3 foot inside the door opening.

>> This is Marilyn. I think that would be great to put, I have 

been following that particular part of the discussion exceptionally 

closely because it's just been a big traumatic political battle in the 

bay area over new cars on BART where they want to put a pole. I

appreciated Glenn's comment how they took the pole out. Which 

I would love to know before, before and I know it now. So we 

will try to fold it into our advocacy. But to be able to say that, 

you know, people working on the next set of federal standards of 

thinking of doing that and that major cities have done that, you 

know, is very important. It is an obstacle, and it's great to hear 

transit agencies to think overall it really serves everybody to have 

that clear space rather than saying it's disadvantages other 

groups of users of the car.

>> This is Dennis, if you -- if you read the current regulation 

down, that I think it's clear down below it actually specifies that 
you can't have stanchions that interfere with those maneuvering 

space.

>> The thing that is challenging is that -- it doesn't say how 

far away. So, there was something about you can't have 

stanchions near the doorway so what is near? What counts as 

near? Anyway --

>> Right. It can interfere and in the city there is both kind of 

mushy terms.

>> Right. Exactly.

>> Well, I --

>> Well-intentioned but we ran into that issue.

>> Do we -- I mean, I would hope that in all of the years of 

learning that have occurred, with the existing ADA, if there is an 

opportunity here to fill in a blank that we -- that we didn't 

before, that maybe needs -- that we have seen by experience 

needs to be filled in, now is the opportunity, so do we want to 

put something in the spot and -- and you know obviously 

anything we put in we can change later, but if we want to put 

something there --

>> This is Frank how do you put a pole in the way when you 

have a 32 inch wide opening path.

>> I am sure somebody could figure out a way

>> Simple Frank Gary 3, 4 in the vehicle you put stanchions in

>> Then you don't have a 32-inch clear route to the seating 
areas.

>> Right. That's why what Marilyn said is so critical.

>> You do have -- it's like here is the problem this is Marilyn. 

This is what happened with BART. You do have like if the car is 

empty which it isn't, under just about any usage conditions when 

the car is empty you do literally meet the standard. As soon as 

you start putting -- stance you start having people in the car, and 

if people, you know, this was very critical in the debate people 

said sometimes people don't move. You want everybody to be 

cooperative but they aren't always. And you could have a 

problem. And I don't want to belabor with one city. But just 

because it's markedly noticeable how similar this is to an issue 

we had a big fight about. And I don't think everyone is 

benefiting from the lessons Blair that you and I too are wishing 

we had all had.

>> This is Dennis. You are right both Ken and Marilyn about 

the squishiness of the current regulation that says sufficient rail 

and so forth. That's the problem that we ran into on the buses is 

defining the quote sufficient room maneuvering space to get 

from the entrance to the securement location. The difficulty is 

trying to write that down and trying to specify it in some way that 

can actually be tested and measured. And I don't know how to 

do that. And there was discussion in some of the -- in one of 

the -- I think Ed was Ed Steinfeld was going to talk about the idea 
of performance standard, which was to make a box that you had 

to maneuver through. But even then, I am not sure that you 

could address the issue of what happens when the car is 

crowded. So, I mean, it's an issue but it's very, very difficult to 

try to define what it is. In a measurable way somebody could 

actually go out and test to see whether --

>> This is Frank I thought we were doing that this is this 

group that we talked about it. The idea was to come up with a 

cube and put restraints on its movement. I mean it doesn't 

address -- that doesn't address people not getting out of your 

way unfortunately. But you know, it's hopefully a measurable 

way to validate that you met the requirements and having them 

put a pole in the way that you didn't think was blocking the path. 

And I think that's the key. And you know, I think that -- I think 

that thing will solve that problem.

>> It would help. It certainly helps even though it can't solve 

every problem of people not moving et cetera. Having more 

space does definitely help.

>> Well, this is Dennis. One of the things that Marsha Mazz 

mentioned, and I think we need to keep in mind, even if you have 

that performance kind of thing that says you move this box 

through the system, it's helpful to have in addition some specific 

minimum for various kinds of spaces so you could actually get in 

and get out and measure with a tape measure. It should be a 
combined approach not relying just on the maneuverability of 

some device through the system.

>> This is Blair. Can I recommend that we -- because as I 

am visualizing this, and I am visualizing standing on the platform 

looking into a subway car and looking across to the open 

doorway on the other side, and the notion of having a stanchion 

standing there in the middle but yet meeting the regulation 

seems very possible. You know, you can still have the clear 

pathway theoretically. But you planned -- planted a tree in the 

middle that someone wants to lean on and get in the way Glenn 

made a good point of what WMATA has done let's put a number 

in there and apply that and see what it looks like. Maybe it has 

unintended consequences. But maybe it just ensures that 

somewhere down the line some well-meaning but misguided 

industrial designer or engineer doesn't plant a stanchion in there 

because there is no definition.

>> Hey one thought is if you have doors in a go clear across 

why not require there is no pole in the middle between two 

doors.

>> Then you would have effectively done -- you would have 

established sort of that vestibule space and I would say -- that 

vestibule space I would say it's not unreasonable thing to do in a 

50-inch wide door it's more than the 44 inch vestibule but it 

would achieve the same thing.
>> It's good to not have that pole there for reasons that 

Glenn mentioned before. I think that you can get by if you have 

to put something you could hang it off the ceiling if you wanted 

to. I think it's a good thing not having the pole for passenger 

flow purposes as well. I think -- I don't know maybe that's an 

old-fashioned way of looking at it, I don't know, but I would think 

you wouldn't want a pole there it would be good for everybody.

>> This is Andre Gagne from Bombardier. And I on recent 

projects we put poles in the entrance because there is a bunch of 

people standees that will be there when the car is full they have 

no way to hold on to something for short people who cannot 

reach anything that's attached to the ceiling that's why we have 

had it tri-bar there for the most part. It's true when there are 

tripods provide enough space for the wheelchair at 32-inch, but 

again it was a hindrance for maneuverability and getting to the 

place reserved space so this is why we are considering moving 

the poles down the center of the vehicle.

>> This is Dennis. Vertical poles on the modesty panel that 

allow you to stand instead of having a pole in the center of the 

space you have them on the sides.

>> That's exactly what I was thinking.

>> You put quite a few in there the 6000 bars have some 

additional poles that or handles actually mounted on the side of 

the door, you know, around the door frame.
>> We have that too.

>> You can provide all kinds of spaces without having 

necessarily put a pole in the middle.

>> This is Glenn Mills from Metro we doubled the amount of 

handles in the car everything from stanchions at every seat to 

stanchions on the ceiling. We understand that you may not be 

able to reach a stanchion on the ceiling, but ceiling-mounted 

stanchion if you are short, but what we have done is opened up 

the car so that you can get to a stanchion. Before you know you 

could argue that the poles are useful but if there are people 

crowded around the poles and you are short you can't get to 

those either. What we did increased access and increased the 

number of handholds provided more things to hold on to it 

seems to be working for us.

>> Glenn you created ways to have insensitive to get people 

in the cars that's where you want anyway getting folks on and off 

for their own safety tee.

>> That was not our primary consideration but with the 6000 

that's what we found was happening. Our concern we carry a lot 

of people with disabilities at Metro really amazing number of 

people use wheelchairs part of that is we have elevators in every 

station and all of our rail cars are accessible. I know that this 

past year about 1.6 million paratransit trips were taken by 

paratransit users on bus and rail system instead of the 
paratransit system because it works. I am not bragging I am 

saying that's a fact. What our customers that use wheelchairs 

are saying is we just can't get in and out of the car. We can't get 

in and once in we can't get to the other side. That was your 

basic starting point. What we found with the 6000 when we took 

out the poles, people talk a lot about all of the problems and 

issues that they are going to have, you know, they did about the 

removal of the poles but what we found out was that there was 

more talk than substance. It really just helped everybody. 

That's about all I have to say with it. We started out with 

accessibility and found out doing the right thing is good for 

everyone.

>> Blair: This is Blair again. To what Frank said earlier 

could we take a number rather than putting an inch number you 

want to take equivalency to the clear door width across the car? 

Or do we want to put a number on that?

>> Here is -- Dennis. I have got an idea. That is what we 

are trying to do is make sure this maneuverability is clear and I 

am not -- I think what you should do is say whatever the 

doorway width is not just the minimum whatever it is it should be 

a clear path assuming that you have doors on both sides of the 

car there should be a clear unobstructed path of the width of the 

doorway across the door to the other doorway.

>> This is Gary Talbot I completely agree. To me that gets 
to Marilyn's comments on the BART system and comments that 

others have made. 

There are ways to do that on the privacy panels and keep the 

clear width open. That's what Dennis said we have to weave it 

in.

>> I think exactly what Dennis said it should be written

>> Isn't that something the guy who writes the first one 

writes the second one.

>> Good. He is here.

>> Better not wait 24 years for the next one Dennis.

>> I hope you are still cranking them out but I am just saying.

>> Not a surprise. Dennis how -- could you say that one 

more time?

 (LAUGHTER)

>> You should have a clear path the width of the doorway 

across the an unobstructed path the width of the doorway across 

the guard to the opposite side of the doorway

>> Dennis this is Gary that works in inter-city cars. That 

would work even in an inter-city car or commuter rail car if you 

made that statement. That would say that on your accessible 

end anyway, an area that you are saying is accessible you would 

have to maintain the clear space like if you are saying vestibule is 

42 you wouldn't allow the other side to get buggered up with 

something and it would maintain the clear space across the clear 
through to the other however you to -- you said it to the other 

door.

>> Gary, Blair. Typically once you get inside the door things 

should get wider not narrower. We shouldn't always do that. 

Say a 32-inch side door and 44 inch wide vestibule, yeah, 

that -- yeah, that would be a good suspender to make sure that 

it doesn't get buggered up. From a design standpoint it's nice to 

have the bumping post for design. 

If you know what the restrictions are not to make it a negative 

term it lets you not worry about them. When things are under 

defined and have to wonder are you getting it right or spend a lot 

of time researching, it can really be frustrating. For me anyway, I 

would rather if we established some of those things, then that's 

what -- that's what you work around.

>> Yeah I appreciate it Blair I agree. I think it's a great way 

to close the loop and we are very clear with people whether it's 

bi-level application commuter rail city rail heavy light whatever. 

You have the clear path of travel so you can get from one side of 

the car to the other in and out the door.

>> Okay. What I will write -- I will consider adding that even 

where when we get to some of the other points, I will include that 

caveat that where doors are on opposite sides of the car that the 

clear path remain all the way across the car, so -- and 

somewhere down the line someone will have a bright idea and do 
something different but when they see that it will avoid the 

problem.

>> This is Dennis again one of the things we need to make 

sure happens people don't always quite get this, clear means 

clear. When you say a clear unobstructed path in the vestibule 

for example, that doesn't mean necessarily from the wall to the 

wall. It means from whatever is the protrusion on the wall to the 

other side. So, the path is clear all the way across. So, for 

example, in a typical Amtrak car the older style right now when 

you get in the car, in the door, that's a very narrow vestibule we 

have made it wider. But there is also trap latches that stick out. 

When you talk about 42 inches, the existing specifications for 

new cars. You measure it from the protrusion not from the wall. 

And we need to make it clear that's more technical assistance 

than anything else. It needs to be sure that when you have a 

clear path, you mean clear not just from wall to wall.

>> Dennis, this is Blair. What I have just jotted down is that 

that should be from the most restrictive protrusion in the space. 

So, in this case, if we were designing you know a new Amfleet car 

for the corridor, and we had that trap latch, that would be the 

measuring point across to the next most intrusive protrusion on 

the other side. So, that -- so wall to wall may end up being a 

much different far beyond the minimum. But the clear space the 

pathway is held open. So, yes.
>> This is Andre maybe you could measure it from the door 

opening all the way across, and it would be I think the best way 

because you go the first thing you go across to is the door 

opening.

>> Yes.

>> Well, yeah. And if you -- if you think of it as if the door 

is the extrusion die and you push play dough through the door 

across to the other side the play dough should come without 

scratches or gouges.

>> Exactly well said.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> That's a performance specification you take a hunk of 

Play-Do.

>> yes it shrinks when it comes out. So you have somebody 

using the dry Play-Do.

>> What's the density? The chemical composition. Okay.

>> Blair, this is Andre again. What did you put down for the 

doorway width exterior, I didn't quite get it.

>> Okay. What I have is, let's see, the doorway width 

exterior is a 32-inch minimum clear opening. Where we were 

wrapped around the axle was on the definition of the panels and 

things, so --

>> Because I thought there was a mix of that and the 

doorway width between cars.
>> Yes -- well, yes, we took the side door was the 32 

minimum but I thought we -- we decided that we could, we 

would go for a 32-inch minimum for the doorway width between 

cars. And I was -- I had noted that let's see subway many 

subways vehicles are narrower that may be restrictive for the 

collision post just so we don't lose that for the next conversation.

>> One comment I would like to make Steve Roman 

mentioned the cab and there can be restrictions because of the 

driver visibility through the windshield which would be affected 

by the width of the door. So could we have two requirements 

one or cab ends with narrow door and for all of the other ends of 

the vehicles which could be a little wider that could be one way of 

looking at it and providing more space there.

>> This is David here. I think I disagree -- I disagree with 

that. Because recently when I was in Atlanta and their subway is 

interesting that the cab was in the middle of six or eight cars. 

So, it wasn't like Metro which is usually at the end of the train set 

up. So, I would be careful on how we use the cab measurements 

with the understanding that if it's at the end then at the end of 

the car set then that's fine something like that.

>> Rapid transit cars are A and B there is cabs at both ends 

you never know how they are going to make up the (inaudible). 

What Andre was saying is correct due to space limitations the 

width at the cab should be narrower so that you get the full 
benefit of the space for the operator and the windshield. The 

cab in the center was probably a car in the middle of the com sys

>> This is Andre again some Metro cars only have a cab at 

the end of a train set so when we have very large vestibules then 

there is a benefit to that I think that's why it should be two 

different requirements. I understand you are going to have cabs 

in a middle of the train set trying to provide more space for those 

ends that don't have a cab would be a benefit I think.

>> This is Blair. Again, the intention of if the doorway 

between cars is not for normal movement but in cases of failure 

of one car? That is correct? -- is that correct?

>> This is Andre it depends on the vehicle in some cases, 

yeah it's used in emergency conditions only. But for other Metro 

cars with open vestibules inside the train sets it's for normal use 

by everybody you have a large gang way there are articulations 

there. So --

>> There are gang ways in the cab as well in those conditions 

Andre?

>> You wouldn't have a cab at that end.

>> Okay.

>> You would have a large vestibule and a gang way and 

articulations so that you can go through between cars very easily.

>> Okay. If we put this in the context of a single unit 

subway car, where you are not -- you are not normally moving 
between cars as a matter of transportation. But you might have 

to if there is a failure of a car. I think that's what I heard Dennis 

say before. I am just trying to see what the balance is between 

the operator's cabin and access between the cars what's the 

intent of the access between the cars where there is a cab.

>> This is Dennis. The original discussion way back when 

was that, yes, there are some systems that allow passengers to 

move from car to car we weren't necessarily assuming that the 

wheelchair users would need to do that. And we couldn't say, 

for example, we couldn't specify a 36 or even at that point a 

32-inch clearance because of collision posts so then the question 

was, okay, what can we specify that applies to all cars and that's 

when we came up with the 30 inches that was doable on the cabs 

on the connections between the A's and B's and so forth. If you 

want to -- I mean you could certainly set a specification of 30 

minimum on the cab end and 32 on all others. And then if it 

happens to be wide enough and available for passengers to move 

freely from one car to the another it can be wider but at least you 

set the minimum. There is no reason you couldn't have a dual 

provision, either with a 32-inch clear opening with an exception 

for the cab end which is one way to do it. Or to have two 

separate provisions one for cab end one for non-cab end. 

Remember, that all of these whenever the RVAAC comes up with 

at end is translated into reg-babble by the board and then open 
for public comment. It's not like the manufacturers come back 

and say we can't do that that will be a comment the board can 

take into consideration and defined by the rule.

>> This is David here. Blair I was wondering if maybe we 

should add another column. Because you are talking about in 

between cars or vestibules in between them. So, a lot of our 

train cars -- well, I am talking about commuter trains and 

inter-city I am not sure if this would apply to others, but I think 

the other column should be with train or transit cars that are 

coupled. So for example the Acela it's wider, and I know buses 

have that as well. When two buses are coupled together. So, 

should we have a column that should say, something about the 

width of coupled vehicles?

>> David this is Blair. We could -- I would say when we get 

down to that point and we certainly could consider it in of the 

light rail vehicles where articulated we could have a caveat I 

would leave it in the same column. We could add it's a column 

spreadsheet it doesn't matter how we do it. But, for now, I can 

split the column and say, for articulated vehicles, versus single 

cars, and we tend to think about single cars that are coupled 

together in a traditional way but articulated vehicles allow for as 

you said a very safe transition between cars that are essentially 

semi-permanently coupled together. I think that following along 

with what Dennis said where you have the conditions, you could 
have provisions for wider pathways without doing any harm.

>> So, I also -- I think that that type of car is going to be, I 

think prevalent in the future more popular in the future I think it 

would be nice to have another column that would handle that, so 

that way eventually when maybe some of the single cars that are 

coupled with another single car are phased out then hopefully we 

will have a mechanism that cars are pulled together in a better 

fashion. That is something I was throwing in there sorry I am 

getting off the point.

>> I understand I made a note about it. It goes along with 

what we were discussing about the cab ends versus non-cab 

ends of vehicles. And where we can -- there is a greater a large 

benefit if you look at some of the light rail vehicles where there is 

no discernible collision post between articulations it's virtually a 

full width vehicle all the way through there is a lot of benefit for 

passengers moving through the car. And a lot of space saving. 

So I will -- as I said for now I will split the column and make a 

note have that and write that in. But yeah maybe we end up with 

a, an alternative column as well that gives us a firm spot for that. 

Okay. We got through we solved our door issues we are back to 

the vestibule width where there is no true vestibule but we have a 

true definition for that. And now we are at the clear parking 

area. Which was 30 by 48. Dennis I know you mentioned from 

the bus side before what happens there and I would I would 
argue maybe the rapid rail is the dimensions are very relevant to 

one another. Where did we end up with -- with the bus space or 

is that relevant in your mind?

>> In the proposed rule the bus space we left at the same. 

And that may or may not change with the final rule gets through 

supposedly it's somewhere near that point. Right now. But the 

discussion here for things especially where you have rapid rail 

systems where you are just sort of rolling into the car and you 

want clear floor space and Amtrak and all of that. The 

discussion early on was to bump that up to 32 by 54. The other 

point in the bus proposal had to do with what you had to do 

additional space you had to create and add to that when you are 

confined on three sides. And that is an concern issue that gets 

into a lot of things with how you can get into the space. And I 

think that -- I don't remember who said it, about the PRIIA spec 

that has 59. I think it was Linda. Said that if you -- the 59 

while it's talked about as a space, it's also in the area of 

maneuverability she thinks that that probably was intended to 

include maneuverability space. Not the actual overall. So what 

happens with the bus idea is that you would set the specification 

for the minimum space that you need for the clear area in a the 

wheelchair mobility sits in and then you add additional inches on 

length or width depending on how you maneuver into the space 

whether it's confined or not.
>> Okay. When I read the PRIIA document that's what I got 

because it -- it referred to it -- it wasn't as clear as I thought it 

could be. That was my assumption was that the space -- the 

space it included a then undesigned parking space with 

maneuvering space that space was all just defined as one. In the 

32 by 59 on PRIIA. Because right now, I think in rapid rail, there 

is no definition about maneuverability around the parking space 

but there is maneuverability referenced in doors it says attention 

to ensure maximum. Which is, which is squishy enough I guess.

>> Okay.

>> Blair: So, do we want --

>> Dennis: And that's because in the rapid rail as opposed 

to buses and maybe even Amtrak but at least in rapid rail the 

assumption is not that there is a designated space that has to get 

to but there is only a clear floor area that's available close to the 

door.

>> Blair: Okay. Do we want to go with 32 by 54 near the 

door? Because I think that you don't you don't tend to have that 

confined space as you say that we would find on maybe the 

appear track -- the Amtrak trains. Anyone have any other 

thoughts on that?

>> This is Frank 32 by 54 we talked about a couple of times 

are you asking where it should be located?

>> Blair: No. Just as a definition of the, you know of that 
footprint that has to be provided.

>> As -- this is Marilyn. As a terminology issue when I saw 

parking I get thinking hmm are they talking about parking for 

cars that's not, you know in our purview. I think we usually call 

it -- what do I usually call it. We don't call it parking it's just a 

wheelchair space.

>> or Marilyn this is Gary we often called it occupied wheeled 

mobility space. You know something like that.

>> Marilyn: I am not sure if the board does.

>> I call it accessible space.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: You guys don't have to worry about 

terminology we know the space that you are talking about. And I 

mean there is terminology that is used it may or may not change 

as we go through.

>> Well, we also -- this is Gary Talbot. There is also a space 

that is not captured here and that's on inter-city cars. I don't 

know about the requirement for commuter rail I don't remember. 

For inner-city cars we also have space for unoccupied wheeled 

mobility device which is separate from the occupied space. So 

you have clear space for someone who wants to stay in that 

device and then transfer seats once you transfer you have to have 

a space to put your unoccupied device.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We don't have that on rapid rail. 

And this is --
>> You don't have it on rapid I am saying we have everything 

on Blair's matrix but we don't have the space captured that's the 

requirement today the space isn't defined it's called out for 

folding wheelchair today.

>> Yeah.

>> Right. The -- there is no --

>> the rapid -- go ahead sir.

>> Sorry. Go ahead.

>> Well, this is Marilyn. I was going to say I think just for 

educational purposes on the committee and all of the people 

connected to the committee it makes sense to change the term 

sooner than later. I don't want all of these rail people thinking 

it's parking -- you park a car. You know, a wheelchair space it's 

a wheelchair seating space for clear wheelchair space something 

to that effect.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: The current regulations just state.

>> The current regulation is mobility aid seating location.

>> That works.

>> This is Blair I was going to say my computer charges me 

extra for extra words. So --

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Maybe sub-column space. Maybe there is a good 

acronym that we can use just for the sake of typing. Most aid

>> Seating location is what the current reg says.
>> I would just ask for inner-city cars we need to capture the 

space required for the transfer seat. You know, so that for your 

device. So we don't lose that.

>> That's a good point.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We are -- we have got about 11 

minutes left we probably need to start winding down we need to 

stop precisely at 3 or a little before if possible today.

>> This is David here, I would actually prefer to call it a 

transfer space. Or transfer accessible space something like that.

>> But we are right. But that's -- we are still on rapid rail, 

right?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Sorry.

>> Did you mean Melissa not go forward and look -- I mean 

seems like the space we just talked about 30 by --

>> 32 by 54.

>> Did we lose people?

>> Hello.

>> It went very silent. Somebody put 32 by 54 that sucked 

all of the air out of the room.

>> 32 by 54 is supported by the research that we have been 

using as a reference too.

>> We would back off the 32 by 59 we did for the PRIIA cars?

>> Not necessarily we are still on rapid rail.
>> Right.

>> The issue is that 59 in the PRIIA car is intended to include 

some of that maneuverability space which I think we need to add 

from the alcove provision and as you end up with more than 59.

>> Blair: Yeah, when we get to the maneuverability column, 

again, pay attention to assure maximum. That can be a little too 

soft. Little too open to participation. I mean, not participation 

to interpretation. But we will get to that one. So, okay. We 

have the mobility aid seating location.

>> Seating location.

>> We will all chip in to help pay for the extra words. Blair.

>> Blair: Yeah it's like Vanna White, you have to pay her for 

all of the extra vowels and consonants. Overlap of clear space 

there was nothing about that in rapid rail but it's not as relevant. 

Do we want to add anything in for -- do we want to leave that as 

it was?

>> Dennis: This is Dennis. That was the ability to include a 

maximum of 6 inches of that 54 length it was 48 before, but of 

the length under something that was at least 9 inches of 

clearance I believe the 9 inches right? And that's probably still 

reasonable but I think Ed Seinfeld said it should be more than 9. 

I think we should start with like 12.

>> Blair: I was going to say 11 but I can take 12 Dennis

>> We need to add knee and toe clearance so tables don't 
have protrusions underneath that make it impossible to get under 

them. But that's for inner-city. We don't need to deal with that 

right now.

>> Blair: Okay. Well I think filling in the blanks they are 

going to trickle down and fill in the other blanks. Based on what 

I have seen in reality, 9 inches is way too short for comfortably 

getting under anything. Knowing that typical thing you run up 

against is a seat, and if a regular seating situation is 17 to 19 

inches off the floor there should be enough room to have 

reasonable seat frame in say 5 inches. Or more. So, I 

would -- I would say let's go at 6 inches and 12 inches high if 

that's okay with everyone.

>> this is Frank again 12 inches you are cutting it tight. If 

you are 16, 16 and a half is the top of the cushion top front of 

the cushion. That's about 5 to 6 inches when you include the 

frame and cushioning depending on the seat and how 

comfortable it is. 12 inches you are right at the limit. I would 

think that 11 might be more appropriate if you are trying to get 

underneath the seat.

>> This is Gary just a quick question on that as far as under 

the seat. Do we want to try to specify anything for service 

animals in the -- in the priority seating area? So that they --

>> Well I was just -- this is Marilyn Gary. What I was just 

thinking was about the service animal issue and related issues 
that might apply to the clear floor space as well. Suggesting, 

you know -- what I was thinking about was the PRIIA dimensions. 

I don't know where the 59 comes from but I guess it includes 

maneuvering and also might include the service animal space. It 

might be important to get keep the 59 all the way through.

>> We were definitely trying to include some of that in that 

number. But I was just thinking about Frank just mentioned 

under the seat I know in Boston we carved out some space on the 

priority seating locations where we tried to make sure that there 

were no heater elements under those seats because that's a 

typical thing done on heavy rail cars. And trying to keep them 

clear so if you had a service animal your service animal could get 

a little bit out of the way. Because you are not always at clear 

space or unoccupied device but rather in transfer seating location 

or priority seating location.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: We have 5 minutes.

>> Blair: Okay. I would say this: Let's -- Frank I think we 

need to do our homework on the seat. Let's leave it at 12 I say 

that only because I know there is a lot of advances with materials 

and things that might make that possible. But I think it would be 

worth digging into some of the seat manufacturers and seeing 

what is possible. I can tell you for inner city seat 12 inches is 

really pushing it because of you try to deal with a seat. It's 

restrictive. But I think it's -- if I looked at -- if I could do 11 or 
12 inches and that overlaps a service animal space comfortably 

for the animal. And that lets me have some more square inches 

in the car that maybe ultimately let me get another seat in I figure 

out that 11 or 12 inches without fail. But so I would say let's 

look at that let's put it at 12, we are not setting anything in 

concrete right now, and go and see what we can find. The 

number of mobility aid seating locations was defined as two. Do 

we want to keep that at two?

>> Well this is Gary. I know we are running out of time. 

The only thing -- the seed I like to plant two might be the right 

number I don't really know. I would say that some of the 

seating -- it's not going to apply to like heavy rail. But on some 

of the seating we would want to require that the seats could be 

easily removed to accommodate a larger group of people that are 

traveling together. If there is a way that we could do that.

>> I can write that up.

>> That is a good -- that's a good way to deal with the 

problem.

>> Yes, I agree with that.

>> Yes.

>> The well intended but -- you know early and uneducated 

things that was done for good reasons during the statutory 

phase, you know, limiting groups traveling together.

>> Yes.
>> Yeah, we tried it as -- explained to me many times 

Marilyn we tried to avoid the cattle car thing where we went into 

one car it became the mash car now we have groups large groups 

of folks like Chicago to, I think spring field every month that are 

trying to go and fight for civil rights and things like that. Or you 

might have groups on vacation or whatever, and they want to stay 

together. And if we can just make sure in the reg that we say 

seating got to be easily removable on vehicles like this. That's 

fairly easy for the manufacturers to do. We have much more 

flexibility.

>> This is Frank --

>> That restriction only applies to inner-city rails we don't 

have that problem on rapid rail primarily because every door is 

accessible on the rapid rail system. You can cram you know I 

have seen when adapt comes into town you have got you know, 

12, 13 chairs getting on the subway system. So we don't need to 

worry about that until we get to the -- when we get to the 

inner-city.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: It is Melissa I am going to wind us 

down here because I think this discussion could go on for -- for 

a little while longer. So let's save it for next time is there any 

homework this time for anyone Blair?

>> Blair: Yes. Actually, there is. I would like a volunteer or 

maybe from Bombardier or perhaps from Frank or Glenn to take 
some of these numbers and drop them in, if you have access to 

vehicle drawings and see what the impact is so that we can revisit 

that.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: I am going to add to that if you do it, 

please use a somewhat generic drawing and we need copy right 

permission to use it, it will be posted to the web.

>> This is Andre I can do the check without providing 

drawings it's easy. Very simple I can tell you, Blair, if it's working 

out or not.

>> Okay.

>> Talking about rapid rail now we haven't gone through the 

whole list if I go through rapid rail punch in the numbers and see 

on four or five different vehicles what it looks like yeah I am sure.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Great.

>> And Andre, I will be in touch with you because I think 

maybe to save some time if we can cascade some of the numbers 

to begin to see what they do. That's the assumption that some 

of the numbers will cascade into the other blocks as they are. 

So, everyone I appreciate your time. And your diligence.

>> Okay.

>> I hope that we could at least get across one row.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> I think it will help us move more quickly through the list. 

If anyone have thoughts forward them to me. Melissa I guess 
through your guys directly or whatever is appropriate. And 

anything that I can do to -- to push this along I will do.

>> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you everybody for 

participating today. And we will sue again the next meeting is 

August 14th see you then. 

>> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Thank you operator for all of your 

help today.

>> You are welcome. Enjoy your day. (End of meeting.)