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 >> Thi s 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 thecall 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 mu te your line when you are not speaking and do the same when you are wanting to speak. O ur host is Melissa Anderson. I f you have concerns press star 0 for the operator. You may now begin. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you operator. G ood afternoon. T his is Melissa Anderson and welcome to the 7th meeting of the on

- board circulation seating subcommittee. A s you know since anyone may participate in the subcommittee discussions no

-- there is no time for public comments scheduled during the two

- hour call. T he re 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. A nd as a side note, since Paul Beatty is out of the office until July 28 some functions he performs may slip, I am readin g a note he left for me. (LAUGHTER) >> MELISSA ANDERSON: We apologize in advance, requestyou contact staff leads if you need assistance. S o, if anybody

has any questions about the subcommittee and you would normally talk to E

- mail Paul feel free to c ontact 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. T he 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? F irst is Frank Banko. >> Right. Parsons Sping erhoff. >> 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. O perator, can you boost Billy Altom's line?

Okay. B illy >> It's a long ways from Little Rock. (LAUGHTER) >> ROSE MARIE BUNALES: Is that better? O kay that's better. Thank you operator. D ennis Cannon >> National Disability Rights Network. >> Operator, boost Dennis' line please. >> Sid Goldstein? T ransit 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. G ary Talbot.
>> Hi, this is Gary Talbot Amtrak. > > Melissa Shur land.>> 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 t oday. B lair has provided us with a great new agenda. A nd a chart that we are going to try to work through so we can actually get some crunching numbers to move forward with. I f we get off track I am going to step in and kind of play moderator here to ke ep us on track so we can get as much accomplished as possible we are kind of running short on time. S o I am going to turn the meeting over to Blair. >> Blair, we can't hear Melissa. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Sorry guys. S orry guys. Iturned off my mic when s huffling papers. Welcome everybody. B lair 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 reco mmendations for the board. S o I am also going to act as moderator today so if we getoff track I am going to interrupt people and try to get us back on

track. S o, 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. A nd we appreciate everyone's passion on the subject. S o, with that, I will turn this meeting over to Blair. T hank you. >> Blair: Yes, I was originally planning on trying to send out some floor plans of vehicles. We had a little consternati on 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. B ut in the absence of that, I developed some floor plans for our Acela cars based o n the PRIIA recommendations for single

- level cars. Ithought 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. S o, with the goal of getting some numbers, and then retreating with assignments for

-- I am going to guess primaril y 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. A nd then we can come back and really crunch that up inthe next meeting that would be the goal. S o, the first thing that

I would like to propose is to approve the agenda. I f 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? I f not I will assume by the silence that it's approved. E i ther that or I

-- >> So moved. >> Second. >> Blair: A ny dissenters? I f not, it's unanimous. T hank you very much. O kay. Let's wade right into this, if we can. Does everyone have the matrix in front of them? >> Yep.
>> Blair: W hat I have done down the left

- hand side is the vehicle type, and then across the top is the features. O r the areas that we need to address. I n 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 c an -- 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, t hen 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. I f I could comment on row 9 that should be bi

- level. Yea h 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

-- >> Bl air: T he 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. W hat is listed for the single

- level cars those are the new recommendation space andhas not been approved as yet.

>> Blair: T hank you, Melissa. M y 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. B ut 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 th e bi

- level PRIIA the numbers you have listed those have all been an proofed for the bi

- level.
>> Blair: O kay. O kay. I will add that note. Ithink the information is all the same. B ut 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. M aybe 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 ei ther side on the lower level like the California cars, am I correct? S o I don't know whata 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. A nd 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. I t 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 j ust for clarity. B ut I know at Amtrak as I said, that's

-- it's otherwise useless space. I t has no value other than boarding the strain. D oes anyone else have a thought on that? >> This is Ken again. Iguess 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. A nd it's

-- it's you know whatever the width is constrains everybody. B ut 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. S o, I

-- that's why I am confused about how we use the measurement. Imean, obviously the space around the door can't be seating space. B ut I don't know how you measure it when you eit her have a center door like in a superliner or twosets 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. I t'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. I n 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. W hen 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 Tal bot. I mean that was exactly the idea. I s 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 r ight whatever you have to do that was the idea to package protect that space.
>> Okay. G ot it.>> Blair: T hanks 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 tha n you would use the entrance or exit of a building for anything else. O kay. S o, any other comments? A nd obviously if I miss something please let me know, but if we can we will start with the rapid rail and vehicle type. A nd

-- across on the RVAAC line if that's okay. >> This is Dennis Cannon. F irst of all, I don't expect we want to reduce anything. I s my opinion. S ame 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. W hen 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 b e made wider than 32 inches.>> CHRISTOPHER HART: (inaudible) clearly in the designs that

is 32 inch or (inaudible). S o, 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 t here making those collision posts wider is going to cramp down on the operator space also. W ith the narrower car it makes it difficult to make it much larger than 30 inches. T hat's the 30

- inch clear opening. S o the collision posts already slightly farth er apart than 30 inches. >> This is Blair, thank you for that. T hat'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. T hat 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, youget 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. T hey 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 m y 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. B ut 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. Ihad 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 likethat are fa r in excess of 32 that's where I was coming from. B ut I

understand. T hank you. >> Well, (inaudible) are we talking about (inaudible) >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Chris we are having a real difficult time understanding you. >> CHRISTOPHER HART: (inaudible) >> MEL ISSA ANDERSON: We were discussing the clear width of the doorway openings. >> CHRISTOPHER HART: Okay. S o, (inaudible) we need to discuss the (inaudible) size. >> This is Gary that's a good point Chris. W henever 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. A ll of us have ridden or ride heavy rail are well aware of that issue. S o, 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 le ss than 32 you can't get off the car. I f they are packed you can't get to the other door and it's usually seconds not minutes. >> Blair: T his is Blair. C an I ask maybe Frank Maldari since he is from the world of lots of rapid rail. O bviously the goal w itha rapid rail system is getting people on and off as quickly as

possible so the train can go. I f 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 p inches.

-- 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. A nd 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: T his is Dennis C annon 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 h ave 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: T his is Blair. W hat you do have when you get intothe doo rway of a typical subway car you have got the stanchions

and things versus seats maybe being right there. T hink 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 th e floor space that can be occupied by people on the train standees and that sort of thing? W hat 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 door s. >> Middle doors. Let me tell you what we do I am not sure it's germane but I think the question was asked. W hat we have in the middle doors are accessibility seating. O n either side of the door catty

- corner diagonal from each other we have a pair of priority seats. T hose 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. W hat we have done, we know about the 30, 48 we used t o have poles in the middle of the cars what we heard from the public, especially people usingwheelchairs 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 p oles. We took it out. I t'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. S o, you know, for us we have gone to an open design that's the bottom line for u s. O ur customers said we want open we said okay. >> Glenn, this is Blair. W hat did it do for standees? >> Well, actually, it helps. B ecause you know, the thing is we have

-- that is a good question. T here 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 th em in they lost that discussion. W hat 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. S o, 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 reallyconside red it sort of a dead issue now. B ut the fact of the matter

is it helps everybody because you know, moving people requires throughput. T hat 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 pe ople in and out of the cars because people are standing in the doorways we think it helps that as well. >> Blair: O kay. T hat 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: R ight. T hat's a little m ore subtle at the end of the day it works.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Blair: A nybody else have any thoughts? Imean 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. Idid want to add something to the 32 inch panel. O ne 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 tobe the small one. (LAUGHTER) >> Generally speaking, you know, you are talking about a failed condition. You are not talking about normal operating condition. A nd for us at the Long Island we typically use single leaf doors have 52 inch wide door o pening because you get on doesn't guarantee that the door is going to work when you get off. I f it's not working we lock out the door if someone needs to leave they have to go through another door. T he problem is I don't think you should be regulating by panels. I t's the door opening. A nd basically you are talk about normal operating conditions. N ot, you know, abnormal, you know, failure conditions. T he door should be locked out they should both be locked out if it's a failure of a single panel. Ath e 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. I t 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. I t's a operating practice more than the width of the door. M y suggestion would be not to go down to the detail of the panel dimension, and just identify the clear opening as 32 inches minimum. >> Th is 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. A ndnobody 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. Ibet 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. I t is a common thing. And so that's why we we re 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. W hen 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. A nd it gets back to what Frank said about where they have doors on a commo n screw a common operator so if one works they Beth work they sort of

-- is there any advantage to that? A nd then that would address

-- if you have a failure you are losing the door the door is going out of service. T hen it gets back to the flexibility a s far as managing the doorway width and keeping the doors a common size regardless of what the width is.
>> N ow, to me

-- this is Gary. Ithink it's better to regulate what the minimum width is of any element. L ike of a leaf. Because then if you choose to do multiple leaves then somethingbad 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. I f 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. Ijust

-- I can understand why people are arguing for 32

- inch open period and leaving the details. A nd

-- and why operators might say that it should just

-- that we should be recollecting normal operating conditions. B ut it seems to me that that depends on how frequent abnormal operating conditions occur. I f we are talking about you know, accidents that happen once in 10 or 20 years that may not make sense to regulate that. I t 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. A nd if it happens that often, then I think we really have to regulate per leaf. I n the built environment we certainly do that. A nd 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 be cause we know it. B ut just for comparison sake, we would never, in a building, do that. A nd 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. T he most complicated you make them the less reliable they come. A s far as doors there are strides the major manufacturers I trying to make them more reliable all the time. O ne May of making a door more reliable attach one screw if one fail they both fail. I think you are g etting 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. T he 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. M aybe 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. Idon't know if you really want to recollect the type of doors that are being used. T here are consequences to it but I don't know if you are getting out of it what you want. I f yo u 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 haveon other calls talked about transit systems in other places,

I

-- the last ti me 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. B ut when you get into two 32 inch things you have a 64

- inch wide entrance if you choose double doors or double leafs. D o es any other system use width more than 50 inches? >> That's a good question. Iam 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. T hat'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. B ut 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 youreally are going to get what you are loo king 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. S o, you know, I am just saying that you may be

-- you may be not achieving what you want and creating other problems. >> Blair: T his is Blair. I have a question Melissa

. I f you can help me out here. A nd then I have a comment. I s it within our realm to discuss the, along with these aspects the safety aspects that go along with it? W ith 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? A nd this would be relevant whether it's a bi partin g door or big single leaf or anything? S o 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: I s 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. A nd there is always one at the wheelchair parking area. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: And I a m 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. D avid from Amtrak, now, my understanding that's more of an operations policy. S o, 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 communication s 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. O ne 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 ope rating mechanisms I am assuming we are going to have inner

- city car Amtrak car we aregoing 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 be ard 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 thi s. A nd discuss it further later on as we go through some of the other issues. A nd we can also put it before the committee. T he full committee in September and get conversation from the committee. A nd 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. T hat 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 gotte n in there in order to get locked in. S o, it'snot 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. A nd 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 pa nel release on the center of the car am I correct on that? S o, 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. I t just says slide panel to the left. I t'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. A nd 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. T hat can be brought to the attention of the board and they can do a s eparate 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 beenon a platform and couldn't get on a car and had to deal with that

complaint numerous times in my time

. A nd 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 thin k if that's a minimum width however many panels you want to use you make it whatever panel size you want. I f it opens we all get to get on and off. I f it doesn't nobody gets on and off through the opening.
>> Blair: G ary, this is Blair. Ithink we have to have to be bold enough in our recommendations to cover that you just said. And I would say t hat

-- we hold for the 32

- inch clear opening when the doors are open. A nd 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. B ut 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. A s long as you got the ability if you are on the car to keep that car from leaving b ecause you called the driver, you have an emergency situation then I think we are covered. F rom a purely mechanical standpoint, I think the larger the door is the more likely the failure. E specially when you get into bad weather conditions. A nd managing two smaller leaves versus one big leaf is probably going to help get folks off in an emergencyespecially 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. W hat 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 mi nimum 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. A nd 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 k now, 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. I t would be awful. B ut 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 situatio ns. >> Blair, this is Andre from Bombardier I was looking at acouple 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. I t looks like for this type of vehicle type at least these type of vehicle it's benefit. M aybe not for commuter rail and others but at least for rapid rail it is. >> Dennis: T his is Dennis Cannon in the WMATA cars and the BART as well, there is three doors on one side is that a standard? > > Andre: I t varies from one transit author ity to others. T here 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. A nd 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. S o, it re mains a concern about a leaf not opening. >> Exactly. M arilyn, this is Gary. T hat's why I stated that I hope the conversation comes back to the minimum clearopening. B ecause then, like everybody said, if you have 50 inch

opening and you are doing it wi th a single leaf like many do that's great. I f 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. A nd then one doesn't open and you don't have the width. I f you really need each leaf to be a certain width you have to explicitly say each leaf. >> I got you. T han k you. >> Let me throw something out. A nd maybe this would cover that. T his 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. A nd then that takes away the issue of you know the 32

- inc h wide door with two 16

- inch panels. T he 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. T hey 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. N ow, maybe there needs to be

-- when the door is locked out these things may already exist. M aybe there needs to be a clear obvious indicator that that doo r is out of service. G eewhiz, you may not see it until you are on the train then I am not

sure what you do then. I f 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 mechan ism 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 looki ng 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
reco mmended 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 be fore we have to take what we seen and know exists every day. S omewhere. A nd ferret that out. A nd write our recommendation that ultimately the regulations so that those kind of designs don't fin to

-- don't continue to exist. A nd 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. I f 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. N ow it's 32 inches are we satisfied to leave that at 32 for the moment >> Excuse me Blair this is Marilyn are we skipping t he doorway between two cars. >> We raise that in 32 inches. >> I understand. >> I have a note about narrower cars. Iwill include that in this cleaned up revised matrix when it goes out back out what the notes associated with it are that I captured. >> Go od. G ot it. T hank you.
>> Thank you Marilyn. S o 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 wri ting it 36 is accessible loop minimum clearance in a building in writing this we realized therewere 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 doo rway 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. S o, I was actually recently in Atlanta using their subway, and they have like a wheelchair space in betwee n like a glass wall and a cab. A nd it was extremely, extremely tight. M aybe 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. B ecause it's

-- it's a pretty tight space. You know, especially if there is a wall enclosure around it.
>> This is Dennis Cannon. I f you

-- if you look at the

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

-- we have the clear floor space for the p arking area. We added additional space for confined areas which is typically in the building and facilities it's called the alcove provision. A nd we didn't have anything like that in the vehicles before. I t'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. I n getting into it. N otnecessarily the aisle or the acces s path to get to it.

>> Blair: D ennis 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. B ut that's a g ood 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 sit uations, that that should be a relatively short path anyway. >> Dennis: Yeah this is Dennis. O ne 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. S ame 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. S o, 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 thatyou can find a clear open space and that should be relatively

close to the doorway. A nd all of the doorways on a rapid rail car are required to be accessible. >> Blair: O kay. 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: O kay. I f 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: R ight, right. T hat was my assumption, yes. S o, the vestibule width doesn't apply

-- do we want to

-- do we need to add anything to that for clarity it's not releva nt 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? >> Bla ir this is Gary so I understand the question do you mean where you have to

-- (inaudible) listed now.>> Blair: Yes. A nd 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. Ithink 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. W hich I would love to know before, before and I know it now. S o we will try to fold it into o ur advocacy. B ut 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. I t 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 actual ly specifies thatyou can't have stanchions that interfere with those maneuvering

space. >> The thing that is challenging is that

-- it doesn't say how far away. S o, there was something about you can't have stanchions near the doorway so what is near? W h at counts as near? A nyway -- >> Right. I t 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 lea rning 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 so mething 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 figu re 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 seatingareas.

>> Right. T hat's why what Marilyn said is so critical.
>> You do have

-- it's like here is the problem this is M arilyn. 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. A s 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. A nd you could have a problem. A nd I don't want to belabor with one city. B ut just because it's markedly noticeable how similar this is to an issue we had a big fight about. A nd 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. T hat'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. A nd I don't know how to do that. A nd there was discussion in some of the

-- in one of the

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

to maneuver through. B ut even then, I am not sure that you could address the issue of what happens when the car is crowded. S o, I mean, it's an issue but it's very, very difficult to try to define what it is. I n 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. T he idea was to come up with a cube and put re straints on its movement. Imean it doesn't address

-- that doesn't address people not getting out of your way unfortunately. B ut you know, it's hopefully a measurable way to validate that you met the requirements and having them put a pole in the way th at you didn't think was blocking the path. And I think that's the key. A nd you know, I think that

-- I think that thing will solve that problem.
>> It would help. I t certainly helps even though it can't solve every problem of people not moving et cetera
. H aving more space does definitely help.
>> Well, this is Dennis. O ne 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 hel pful 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. I t should be acombined approach not relying just on the maneuverability of

some device through the system

. >> This is Blair. C an 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 standin g there in the middle but yet meeting the regulation seems very possible. You know, you can still have the clear pathway theoretically. B ut you planned

-- planted a tree in the middle that someone wants to lean on and get in the way Glenn made a good poi nt of what WMATA has done let's put a number in there and apply that and see what it looks like. M aybe it has unintended consequences. B ut 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 esta blished 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 t here 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 do n'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. A nd I on recent projects we put poles in the entrance becau se 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. I t'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 ad ditional 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 do ne is opened up the car so that you can get to a stanchion. B efore 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. W hat we did increased access and incre ased 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. O ur 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 a ll of our rail cars are accessible. Iknow that this past year about 1.6 million paratransit trips were taken by paratransit users on bus and rail system instead of theparatransit system because it works. I am not bragging I am

saying that's a fact. W h at 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. T hat was your basic starting point. W hat 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. I t really just helped everybody. That's about all I have to s ay with it. We started out with accessibility and found out doing the right thing is good for everyone. >> Blair: T his 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 t he clear door width across the car? Or do we want to put a number on that? >> Here is

-- Dennis. I have got an idea. T hat 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 getsto 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. T hat'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. H e 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. D ennis 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 sid e of the doorway >> Dennis this is Gary that works in inter

- city cars. T hat would work even in an inter

- city car or commuter rail car if you made that statement. T hat 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 clearthrough 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. F rom 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. W hen things are under defined and have t o wonder are you getting it right or spend a lot of time researching, it can really be frustrating. F or 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 agre e. Ithink 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. W hat 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 dosomething 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. W hen you say a clear unobstructed path in the vestibule for example, that doesn't mean necessarily from the wall to the wall. I t means from whatever is the protrusion on the wall to the other side. S o, 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. B ut there is also trap latches that stick out. When you talk about 42 inches, the existing sp ecifications 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. I t needs to be sure that when you have a clear path, you mean clear not just from wall to wall.
>> Dennis, this is Blair. W hat 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 wo uld be the measuring point across to the next most intrusive protrusion on the other side. S o, that

-- so wall to wall may end up being a much different far beyond the minimum. B ut the clear space the pathway is held open. S o, yes.>> This is Andre mayb e 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. A nd if you

-- if you think of it as if the door is the extrus ion 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. S o you have somebody using the dry Play

- Do.
>> What's the density? T he chemical composition. O kay. >> Blair, this is Andre again. W hat did you put down for the doorway width exterior, I didn't quite get it.
>> Okay. W hat I have is, let's see, the doorway width exterior is a 32

- inch minimum clear opening. W here 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. A nd 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. S o 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. B ecause 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. S o, 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 fullbenefit of the space for the operator and the windshield. T he

cab in the ce nter 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 no rmal movement but in cases of failure of one car? T hat is correct?

-- is that correct? >> This is Andre it depends on the vehicle in some cases, yeah it's used in emergency conditions only. B ut for other Metro cars with open vestibules inside the train s ets it's for normal use by everybody you have a large gang way there are articulations there. S o -- >> 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 a nd a gang way and articulations so that you can go through between cars very easily. >> Okay. I f we put this in the context of a single unit subway car, where you are not

-- you are not normally movingbetween cars as a matter of transportation. B ut you might have

to if there is a failure of a car. Ithink that's what I heard Dennis say before. Iam 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. T he 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. A nd 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 cab s on the connections between the A's and B's and so forth. I f you want to

-- I mean you could certainly set a specification of 30 minimum on the cab end and 32 on all others. A nd 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. T here 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. O r to have two sep arate 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 openfor public comment. I t's not like the manufacturers come back

and say we ca n't do that that will be a comment the board can take into consideration and defined by the rule.
>> This is David here. B lair I was wondering if maybe we should add another column. B ecause you are talking about in between cars or vestibules in between t hem. S o, 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. S o for example the Acela it's wid er, and I know buses have that as well. W hen two buses are coupled together. S o, 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. B ut, 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 co upled together. Ithink that following along with what Dennis said where you have the conditions, you couldhave 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 mechan ism that cars are pulled together in a better fashion. T hat is something I was throwing in there sorry I am getting off the point.
>> I understand I made a note about it. I t goes along with what we were discussing about the cab ends versus non

- cab ends of vehicles. A nd 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. A nd 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. B ut 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. A nd now we are at the clear parking
area. W hich was 30 by 48. D ennis I know you mentioned from the bus side before what happens there and I would I wouldargue maybe the rapid rail is the dimensions are very relevant to

one another. W here did we end up with

-- with the bus space or is that relevant in your mind? >> In the propose d 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. R ight now. B ut 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. T he discussion early on was to bump that up to 32 by 54. T he other point in the bus proposal had to do with what you had to do additional space you had to creat e and add to that when you are confined on three sides. A nd that is an concern issue that gets into a lot of things with how you can get into the space. A nd I think that

-- I don't remember who said it, about the PRIIA spec that has 59. Ithink it was L inda. S aid 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. N ot the actual overall. S o 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. W hen 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. T hat 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. I n the 32 by 59 on PRIIA. B ecause 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 ens ure maximum. W hich is, which is squishy enough I guess.
>> Okay. >> Blair: S o, do we want

-- >> Dennis: A nd 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 desig nated space that has to get to but there is only a clear floor area that's available close to the door. >> Blair: O kay. D o we want to go with 32 by 54 near the door? B ecause I think that you don't you don't tend to have that confined space as you say th at we would find on maybe the appear track

-- the Amtrak trains. A nyone 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: N o. J ust as a definition of the, yo u know of thatfootprint that has to be provided.

>> As

-- this is Marilyn. A s 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. A nd 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. T here 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 occup ied space. S o 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. T he

-- there is no

-- >> th e rapid

-- go ahead sir. >> Sorry. G o 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. S o -- (LAUGHTER) >> Maybe sub

- column space. M aybe there is a good acronym that we can use just for the s ake of typing. M ost 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. S o we don't lose that.
>> That's a good poi nt. >> 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. O r transfer accessible space something like that.
>> But we are right. B ut that's

-- we are still on rapid rail, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. S orry. >> 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. S omebody 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. T hat can be a little too soft. L ittle too open to participation. I mean, not participation to interpretation. B ut we will get to that one. S o, okay. We have the mobility aid seating location.
>> Seating location. >> We will all chip in to help pay for the extra words. B lair.
>> Blair: Yeah it's like Vanna White, you have to pay her for all of the extra vowels and consonants. Overl ap 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: T his is Dennis. T hat was the ability to include a maximum of 6 inches of that 54 l ength it was 48 before, but of the length under something that was at least 9 inches of clearance I believe the 9 inches right? A nd 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'thave protrusions underneath that make it impossible to get under

them. B ut that's for inner

- city. We don't need to deal with that right now. >> Blair: O kay. 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. K nowing 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. O r more. S o, 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. I f you are 16, 16 and a half is the top of the cushion top front of the cushion. T hat's about 5 to 6 inches when you include the frame and cushioning depending on the seat a nd how comfortable it is. 1 2 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. D o we want to try to sp ecify anything for service animals in the

-- in the priority seating area? S o that they

-- >> Well I was just

-- this is Marilyn Gary. W hat I was just thinking was about the service animal issue and related issuesthat might apply to the clear floor spac e as well. S uggesting,

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. I t might be important to get keep the 59 all the way through. >> We were definitely trying to include some of that in that number. B ut 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. A nd trying to keep them clear so if you had a service animal your service animal could get a little bit out of the way. B ecause 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: O kay. 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. B ut I think it would be worth digging into some of the seat manufacturers and seeing what is possible. I can tell you for i nner city seat 12 inches is really pushing it because of you try to deal with a seat. I t's restrictive. B ut I think it's

-- if I looked at

-- if I could do 11 or12 inches and that overlaps a service animal space comfortably

for the animal. A nd that let s 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. B ut 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. T he number of mobility aid seating locations was defined as two. D o 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
num ber I don't really know. I would say that some of the seating

-- it's not going to apply to like heavy rail. B ut 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 trave ling together. I f 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 d one 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. O r you might have groups on vacation or whatever, and they want to stay together. A nd if we ca n just make sure in the reg that we say seating got to be easily removable on vehicles like this. T hat'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 d on'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. S o 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. S o let's save it for next time is there any homework this time for anyone Blair? >> Blair: Yes. Actually, there is. Iwould like a volunteer or maybe from Bombardier or perhaps from Frank or Glenn to takesome 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 che ck 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. T hat's the assumption that some of the numbers will cascade into the other blocks as they are. So, everyone I appreciate your time. A nd your diligence.
>> Okay.
>> I hope that we could at least get across one row. (LAUGHTER) >> I think it will help us move more quickly th rough the list. If anyone have thoughts forward them to me. M elissa I guessthrough your guys directly or whatever is appropriate. A nd

anything that I can do to

-- to push this along I will do. >> MELISSA ANDERSON: Thank you everybody for participating today. A nd 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. E njoy your day. ( End of meeting.)