Note: The output shown below is from the Communication Access 

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

unedited, except for some spelling mistakes and adding the name 

Glenn Millis for Washington Metro during introductions at the 

beginning. The CART system was used to provide an accommodation 

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

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

during the meeting.

U.S. Access Board

Rail Vehicle Access Advisory Committee

Friday, January 10, 2013

Morning session 

>> Mr. Chairman, we are ready whenever you are. 

>> BILLY ALTOM: Well, good morning. How is 

everybody today? Everybody looks chipper. That's great.

>> That's Friday.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Weather makes everybody happy 

doesn't it? We want to thank everybody for showing up 

this morning, braving the weather to get here. I want to 

thank everybody for being here yesterday it was a great 

meeting and great presentations for those who missed we 

will make sure to check in later. I know all of the 

presentations and stuff are on the website with the Access 

Board. It was very good presentations. What we would 

like to do off the bat we have a couple of new folks that 

joined the table with us I would like to go around and let 
each of us introduce ourselves very quickly. And we will 

get started I will start with frank would you kick off for us, 

please.

>> Frank Maldari, New York MTA.

>> Stan Saucier, division of Web Tech.

>> Josh Coran, Talgo.

>> Marilyn Golden, Disability Rights Education & 

Defense Fund.

>> Ed Hoff, New Jersey Transit.

>> Amtrak.

>> Robert Carlson.

>> Andre Gagne, Bombardier Transportation.

>> Justin Vonashek, Metro.

>> Jon Holbrook, Alstom Transportation.

>> Ross Capon National Association of Railroad 

Passengers.

>> Hearing Loss Association. 

>> Andrew Phillips, National Association of the Deaf.

>> Jim Weisman, United Spinal Association.

>> Uwe Rutenberg, International Centre for Accessible 

Transportation. 

>> Crystal Lyons, South West Transit Association.

>> James Lucas representing Cal Trans.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you. Billy Altom with the 
Association of Programs for Rural and Independent Living.

>> Paul Beatty, Access Board staff

>> Chris Hart, Access Board, relays on --

>> Charles, U.S. Access Board.

>> Rosemarie Bunales, U.S. Access Board. 

>> Melissa Anderson, U.S. Access Board staff.

>> Marsha Mazz, U.S. Access Board

>> Jim Baquis. 

>> Bob Reuter, Access Systems, Colonial Paralyzed 

Veterans.

>> Sid Goldstein.

>> Ken Shiotani, National Disability Rights Network.

>> (inaudible) City of Alexandria.

>> Paul Grether, South West Ohio Transit Authority.

>> Charles Joseph, ADEP.

>> Lou Woolner, VRE.

>> Glenn Millis, Washington Metro.

>> Naomi Milton, U.S. Department of Justice.

>> John Day, Federal Transit Administration.

>> Interpreter.

>> I am David with Amtrak.

>> Operator, can you read off the teleconference 

participants, please, organizations?

>> (inaudible) I have Linda Martin Federal Railroad, 
Lisa Fairhall U.S. Access Board, Cliff Perez National Council 

on Independent Living. Melissa Shurland Federal Railroad 

and Edward Steinfield. 

>> Mr. Chairman, that's everybody.

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

those on the phone as well. A couple of quick 

housekeeping reminders. If you have a cell phone -- I am 

going to do that myself right now -- is put it on any mode 

other than making a noise. Also, remember that if you 

need to make a phone call, there is space right behind me a 

little office space behind us in this hallway to please step 

back here, try to refrain from standing out in front of the 

elevators because it's much like any other time, I don't 

know if this happens to other people in you are -- if in you 

are in a hotel room you can talk, holler, you barely hear 

each other. Somebody stands outside your door it's like 

they are screaming at you. For whatever reason that noise 

amplifies into the office. If we could avoid standing in 

front of their door talking I know they would appreciate it.

Any other things that we need to house keep on? I

think that does it. What we would like to do today, 

remember yesterday when we left off we were talking about 

how we want to address the issues. We have the 

attachment with all of our issues listed on there we were 
talking about did we want to split up into subcommittees, 

do we want to stay as one big subcommittee I would like to 

let Paul recap some of the ideas that we had, and different 

mechanisms that we could use if we decide to break into 

subcommittees and what we need to do to make this 

happen. Then we will brainstorm with the group again. 

>> PAUL BEATTY: Good morning. This is Paul Beatty, 

designated federal officer for the advisory committee.

Yesterday we presented an idea the Access Board staff 

presented an idea we are not saying this is what you have to 

do this is an idea to resolve things. Our deal was you 

would break into three subcommittees, communications, 

circulation and special spaces. Allowing you then to 

resolve issues and present any resolutions to the full 

committee for decisions. We basically presented the idea, 

discussed how you might deal with overlapping issues. But 

the committee didn't really have much time left to discuss 

the idea or whether there was alternatives or whether the 

idea needed to be modified to meet certain concerns. So, 

we are at that point to open the floor for you to discuss the 

idea or present all alternatives, et cetera.

Ultimately it's you, the committee, who decides on how 

you want to move forward to resolving the issues.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you, Paul. So, do we have 
any ideas from the committee? Anybody have any burning 

desire to break into committees, stay as a group I would 

love to entertain any thought that folks have. I know it's 

awful early to ask people to have a thought.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> BILLY ALTOM: Or do you want us to decide and tell 

you what to do?

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Crystal: I have a comment. Maybe give us some 

time to wake up. Can we use a different phrase besides 

"special"?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. Subcommittee titles.

>> Crystal: I--you know, coming -- working closely 

in education, "special" means segregation. I really -- I 

really hope we don't have to use that word.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Jim?

>> James Weisman: I was thinking about the way we 

are breaking down the committees. There is some issues 

that are unique to heavy rail and some to commuter and 

some to inter-city. If we stay in this committee structure 

we have to make sure that we do three cuts at every issue 

or even four cuts at every issue. Have you thought about 

doing it by really system type, the committees? And then 

doing every -- you must have. So, I am curious how come 
you came down this way. 

>> PAUL BEATTY: One of the driving factors is how 

many subcommittees can we support, we only could 

support three, that was our starting point. And since there 

are at least four, depends how you want to factor in high 

speed, et cetera, groups.

>> To that point -- Ed Hoff -- the reason we break 

into subcommittees is so we can accomplish things more 

efficiently instead of a large group. Most of the people 

want to be in all three subcommittees because they have 

expertise or they have ideas that will affect all three 

subcommittees, however, perhaps by mode -- we should 

look at the full forum to see if there are places we can break 

it up and maybe it is by mode that breaks it up more easily 

into more efficient groupings. Because if we do it by that 

mode I would want to be on all three subcommittees and so 

would a lot of people. First of all, I don't know what the 

distinction is between a large group and participating on 

the subcommittee. Is there a distinction between that?

>> PAUL BEATTY: No.

>> Ed Hoff: So, I fully intend, if I am only going to be 

allowed -- not allowed, but if I am only on one 

subcommittee I want to be on all three, unless we break it 

up differently. So, where people start to feel comfortable 
being in one place as not all three or -- go ahead.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Well, our only response, if we set 

up conference calls, there is more flexibility, provided you 

don't have scheduling problems. When we have 

face-to-face meetings obviously you can't be in all three at 

once. Whether a mechanism can be set up where plenary 

decisions are made and that -- and the subcommittee 

verbal report be to the full committee, there is a point of 

discussion before anything is written out. You know, that 

could occur. I understand people that work in the PRIIA 

project have been dealing with subcommittees, there must 

be a mechanism to feed information become and forth. 

And our goal is to have you participate in a subcommittee 

yet at the same time be aware of what the other 

subcommittees are doing so that you can put in your two 

cents. And address your concerns.

And remember anything decided in the subcommittee 

doesn't mean it's decided at the full committee. Some 

issues may have to be rehashed, some presentations made 

at the subcommittee level maybe have to be repeated again 

at the full committee level, so the information that was 

passed along allows others -- we are not really sure how 

this is going to work in terms of making sure that you know 

what is going on until we actually start. You know, to what 
degree can we provide minutes or some sort of summary 

that allows you to get a good comfortable feel. So, I think 

potentially there is a way of communicating that 

information on, but until we do it I don't know for sure 

whether it's going to satisfy your concerns.

Our goal is to get away from the whole committee 

looking at every issue, because we think some can be 

resolved at the subcommittee level, either everybody agrees 

with the decision, you know, it was discussed and this is 

our conclusions. And everybody has no problem with it. I

will point to Marsha?

>> Paul, you may want to consider moving forward for 

at least a short-term in a full committee format, and then 

breaking out some of the matters that require fine-tuning

into subcommittees. Rather than having the 

subcommittees doing the heavy lifting up front and the full 

committee ratifying their decisions. It sounds like there is 

enough concern, particularly from some of the industry 

folks, that we need to be in three different places and they 

are only one person, that it -- it may be -- it maybe makes 

more sense at least for the short-term to do a little bit 

more up front committee work full committee work and 

then reconsider how you break out the smaller items.

>> BILLY ALTOM: First I have Jackson and then Robert 
and John.

>> Jackson Xue: Yes, good morning, this is Jackson. 

I just want to say that going down the subcommittee 

process, in the past from my experience with other 

committees like (inaudible) has been fairly successful 

basically what has been done is we have -- we get together 

as a full committee and we break up into different task 

groups to address certain issues. And then at the end of 

the day we report back to the full committee. So, it's -- it's 

proven process, and it works. So, I highly -- I highly 

second going down the road of dividing into 

subcommittees. Regarding how we can address the 

different modes of transportation, I was thinking perhaps 

one of the first steps that we could take is look at the 

existing (inaudible) it's broken down into the different 

modes of we have a subpart rapid rail and inter-city rail, 

et cetera. And looking at that text seeing what the 

minimum requirements are currently might help move 

things forward for us as we build upon that. Just some 

food for thought.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you. Robert?

>> Robert Carlson: Yes, Robert Carlson. You know, 

this concept of the subcommittees by communication 

circulation or by mode commuter inter-city and all of that, 
always leads column wise or row wise if you have three of 

those of each you have 9 combinations. And it leaves you 

with having to deal with either communications for each of 

three kinds of services or -- or you know, commuter with 

circulation communications and what I would suggest it's 

designated spaces. The bottom line I think at this point we 

are too early to break it down by categories for the 

subcommittee.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you.

>> Jon Holbrook: Bill, I was thinking there is some 

major topics that are you know parking patch, circulation 

issues, things that are repeated from car type to car type in 

the code right now that we may want to basic building 

blocks we may want to review as a committee and then 

break down.

I think Paul, you said something when we met before 

about a different structure of what we might end up with as 

far as the code, so that certain basic didn't get, you know, 

repeated in different car types. I don't know if it was you. 

While I know we wouldn't have any --

>> PAUL BEATTY: We wouldn't have a problem if you 

made a suggestion --

>> It's handy when somebody is working LRV or 

inter-city they go to a section and they have everything they 
need for the car type. Then you don't have to go looking 

for it. But there are a lot of common things, you know, 

circulation-wise dimensionally that I think we could review, 

and agree on, even in communication and signage and what 

that -- that apply to all cars. If you need a 32 by 59 place 

to maneuver, and park in a wheelchair, that is pretty much 

what you need, you know, the lift. Like Stan when you 

break -- there is a lot of variations when we get to bridge 

plates and lifts and step wells and all of that stuff. But 

I -- I agree with Blair I think that there is some things that 

could be done as a committee first.

>> BILLY ALTOM: First, Paul, did you have a question 

and then I have got you down there Justin.

>> Just based on the deliberations that happened 

yesterday, it seems like there is a natural break point in the 

modes, the high speed and inter-city rail seems to be a 

group at that have a lot of interest in that and expertise 

commuter rail seems to be another one then what I call the 

FTA modes the non-FRA regulated modes maybe there is an 

opportunity to group along those three and then have each 

of the subcommittees identify issues that are common 

across all three. We were talking yesterday maybe 

something as an example I don't know that this would be 

good, but you know, induction loops for hearing for PA 
systems that might be something that cuts across all of the 

modes that could come back up, but allow each of the 

subparts to exist with all of their unique issues and then, 

you know, I think some of the discussion yesterday 

indicated that each of those -- kind of breaks naturally 

along those lines in terms of what the unique accessibility 

issues are for each mode. I don't know I put that forward 

as a suggestion.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you Blair?

>> Blair Slaughter from Amtrak thank you. It is as 

Robert said, you know the columns or the rows. And I 

think it's going -- it's going to have to be some of both. If 

we look at issues that cut across all modes like 

communication for example, it's important that there is as 

much -- wherever we can build commonality into systems 

so that if as today going from Amtrak to the Metro to 

whatever, if it's as seamless as possible regardless of who 

makes the machinery, but we are able to define what kind 

of information that you are seeing or hearing or touching, I 

think we would be -- we would do the world a favor for 

sure. When you start looking at, across the modes, 

however, across -- well, not just the modes but the 

industry you are going to have different degrees of need 

and urgency within that communication. Obviously if you 
are in rapid transit commuting situation delivery of 

information and the timeliness and the effectiveness 

becomes much more critical much faster than it would, say, 

on a long distance train. But the need for information, its 

ultimate criticality might be the same. It's a bit of a 

quandary we had some discussion yesterday at the very 

least to try to make sure that we had good representation 

across the various modes within the committees, but you 

know, which -- which comes first I am not sure. I think 

from our standpoint, within Amtrak we will -- I mean I have 

my alternate who I am going to tap for committee work as 

well so that we can spread -- spread the love and the joy 

and the work.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair Slaughter: And also to make sure that 

internally we are keeping--we don't -- within Amtrak get 

tunnel vision as well.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you. Justin and Frank

>> Justin, Metro. I think the idea of subcommittees 

area a great idea. We are a little too early with it, we need 

to go through the issues list, drill down, get deeper into 

them and start to break into subgroups. To do it right now 

I think it would be a nightmare. Because if you break into 

groups, everybody would do the work they come back to 
the full committee and if I wasn't able to be part of one we 

might have to rehash the issue all together I think we need 

to slow down a little bit go through the issues and then 

come back and look at subcommittees.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you. You next and then 

Frank. Then Bob.

>> Frank Maldari: With respect to the modes, the way 

it's written now is clear if you are a computer agency, all the 

information you find is in one area, that's really nice and 

very clear. So, in that regard I think we should be 

consistent doing it in that way you have to repeat the same 

information that's just a matter of additional paper. But it 

makes it a lot easier going through the rules and should 

you behalf way through a rule and decide this should be in 

a different section makes it easier to make the change. 

With respect to breaking into groups, it's hard because in 

this group there is a lot of people who should be on a lot of 

committees. So, when you try to break it up it makes it a 

little more difficult. What I was thinking was you had 

mentioned face-to-face meetings. I think face-to-face 

meetings should be the entire group if you want to try to 

make headway. Perhaps you could break it into two 

different groups of questions that issues that we have to 

address. That dividing line I see is the communications 
and spatial arrangements. I think those are two distinct 

groups my suggestion would be as you go through the 

listed you make sure that all of these issues go into one of 

those two categories then you have one person at the 

Access Board, each of the two groups that will set up an 

agenda and do some phone call meetings to try to make 

progress along those lines. And then whoever 

wants -- make sure you don't have overlapping phone 

conversations -- phone conferences, whoever wants to 

attend the meetings can. When you have the face-to-face 

meetings we discuss all of the issues. So, that's my 

suggestion.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you, you are next.

>> When we have been in a lot of committees over the 

years what I have found is that 70, 80, 90% is consensus. 

And if you stay in a large committee you get bogged down 

in the 10%. And never get through the consensus stuff 

that may take an afternoon. The original committee that 

wrote the regulations in the previous millennium was 

broken up according to the technology. It was a 

technology committee, it was a committee on program how 

it was done and another one applicability. Now, I am not 

saying that is how it's done that was how the original 

committee wrote these regulations that's why they are the 
way they are now. But I really think you need to get 

through the consensus stuff, get it off the table, and then 

you can spend the rest of the time on the stuff where you 

really have to work on it.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Marilyn?

>> Marilyn Golden: Thanks Billy. It sounds to me 

that there is some consensus building that we are not ready 

to break into groups quite. I agree with that. The other 

thing that I wanted to say is that, I hope we don't -- when 

we do break into groups even though I think Jim raised a 

really good concept, I am glad we are discussing it. I hope 

that we don't break by rail mode, as in inter-city, 

commuter, light and rapid rail. Because I think it risks 

inviting results that aren't uniform from mode to mode. 

But since the board, and hopefully us too, wouldn't let that 

happen then it just means going back and spending more 

time to make them uniform. I think division along subject 

matter such as communication, whether it's plus the two 

others proposed by staff, which I think were fine or whether 

it's the one other just proposed by somebody maybe, would 

be a better way to divide. The thing it--the lesson I draw 

though from the raising of the issue of the four modes is 

that in the subject matter groups we have to be very careful 

that each of those groups pay the attention to the 
differences in their subject matter between the four modes 

and maybe there is four reports. I mean, three of them 

they refer back to the first one say same as report 1 on 

items 1 through 50 and different on 51 or whatever it is. 

But each group has to carefully consider -- we don't want 

to lose let's say light rail considerations that are important 

because most of us have -- you know, more concern about 

some of the more serious issues according to how we see 

them in inter-city rail or commuter rail because they are 

more complicated we don't want to give short shrift to light.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you, Stanton and (indicating).

>> Well, at the risk of letting my inner engineer out --

 (LAUGHTER)

>> The simple fact, it is a matrix. You know, there is 

modes and then there is issues. And it seems that it could 

be arbitrary we could pick one or the other. In this regard I 

have to agree with Marilyn, in that I think when you deal 

with a technical problem, you know, scope, definition is a 

big part of being able to get to an answer.

And some scope definition is what is required, I have to 

agree with my friend from Metra, we have to get more 

background before we break into individual groups. But 

breaking into groups by subject matter with guidance that 

you must consider these modes, if it's three, four, five, 
whatever it is, it has to be part of the rigor of what the 

committee is defined. Otherwise, you can get lost with the 

little minutia of this case of light rail, that case of light rate. 

There needs to be guidance for each one of the subjects, 

please consider these, you know, three, four, five modes, 

whatever it is.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you.

>> Sensible?

>> BILLY ALTOM: Yes.

>> This is Andrew from NAT. I am in support of 

Marilyn and what she was saying. It seems easier to break 

up the groups into specific issues that she was discussing 

earlier. Based on what we want to see I think whatever our 

vision is that we want to be the new normal for later, that is 

what I think we should break our groups into based on that 

type of mode. The mode of transportation, each different 

group could be broken up into basically modes A and then 

we are able to from there based on the vision correlated 

with the particular transportations we could match it up 

later.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Cool, thank you. Let's see, I have 

Frank and then James.

>> When you are discussing a topic such as parking 

areas and stuff it would be good to have all of the modes of 
transportation in that one subgroup. I think that's a good 

idea as Marilyn was saying. As you are going through it as 

long as you have representation from the various agencies 

each one will be able to explain why there should be a 

difference if there needs to be between the different modes. 

So, working at it that way is good. The idea that I 

mentioned before about after we go through this categorize 

them is if you have an agenda that has only one or two 

items in it then depending on the applicability to your 

interest you can decide whether you want to attend a 

teleconference makes it more likely you are going to get a 

smaller group but allows anybody who wants to participate 

to participate. My suggestion is, if you do go down the 

path where you have teleconferences with specific agendas 

that you try to keep them the agendas very clear and try to 

segregate them possibly as much as you can so that the 

group is not too big just a suggestion.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Got it. James? 

>> James Lucas, Cal Trans. Coming in late to this 

discussion, I think it's -- I can't really make any points that 

haven't already been made. I think there is good pros and 

cons either way. There is different ways to cut the pie and 

neither is really right or wrong. I think sometimes in these 

situations you just have to make a start, and we 
have -- you meet regularly enough to -- if one course isn't 

necessarily working you could change direction. For what 

it's worth my personal opinion is that it's too early to break 

into the subgroups in the moment. I think one quick pass 

over all of the issues as a full group would be worthwhile. I

think it might act as initial filter and clarification. And then 

I think breaking into the subgroups a bit later whether 

modal or by the alternative classification or spatial 

constraints would be worthwhile at that later point.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you. Chris, do you have?

>> This is Linda too, I have something.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Oh, okay. Linda, go ahead.

>> Linda Martin: I just wanted to say something, 

which is that I know one of the things that the Access Board 

really worked hard to do is to get a balance on the 

committee of the various manufacturers and providers and 

disability groups, and so I -- I would be concerned if we 

break out into subcommittees at this point in time and 

didn't maintain that balance on each subcommittee. 

Because as lots of people have said, there hasn't been a 

pass through the larger committee to decide sort of 

threshold minimums, maximums, really it's just all wide 

open at the moment. And we could get back from one 

committee who was, for instance, all disability groups or 
more disability groups from sort of dissension or concern 

with the recommendations they came up whether founded 

or unfounded based on the composition of the group. I

think we ran into that a little bit with the -- with the PRIIA 

accessibility group. I think the majority of people that 

participated regularly in the -- in that public committee 

phone calls were people with disabilities. And while that 

was lovely, and we -- I have a disability, for any of you that 

don't know, and it yielded some really good results, I 

think -- you know, I think it yielded also some like distrust 

or -- this is probably too strong a word, but concern that is 

enough of the technical issues had not been considered. 

Because there was, I believe, you know, one or two states 

that came in and out of the walls Amtrak was pretty fairly 

regular. Manufacturers, we only had one that participated 

regularly, thank you Stanton. And -- and so, anyway, 

those are just my thoughts. And on how to break it out, as 

a person who applies these regulations on a daily basis, I 

can tell you it is really -- it's really convenient to have them 

broken out the way that they are in terms of applying what

and giving advice to somebody who is trying to apply a 

particular mode, I mean, there are obviously transit 

agencies that -- that cut across all of the different types of 

trains. But for the most part they are separate and distinct 
kinds of operational issues, and I just think it still makes 

sense to do that. I mean, maybe there is too many 

categories, maybe some of them could be -- could be 

added together. As some of you may know, 

inner-city -- I'm sorry, high-speed rail is in its own section 

which has one or two paragraphs basically saying, you 

know, high level boarding is required. And other than that, 

everything that applies to inner-city rail applies to 

high-speed rail. And we have gotten some requests in the 

past maybe from Bob Ashby, some of you know him that we 

have to work on fleshing out more -- more about 

high-speed rail because it does have its own unique issues 

that are different or could be different from inner-city rail. 

So, thanks. One more thing, I heard from 

a couple of people yesterday that there was some 

misunderstanding maybe about what I said about what is 

required for commuter rail. And I was not saying that one 

car per train allowance is in the existing -- exists for new 

equipment. That is what is in the regulation currently for 

existing equipment operating. So, every new commuter 

car needs to meet other accessibility requirements that 

exist and that we are going to hopefully talk about more 

here, thanks.

>> BILLY ALTOM: You are welcome, thank you Linda. 
Chris? 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: It sounds like folks are not 

quite ready to break into subcommittees. And a few of you 

have said to me and Paul that you would like to have some 

more detailed discussion about certain areas, and yesterday 

we had several presentations that were I think quite 

important but predominantly as many of you pointed out 

focused mostly on inter-city and commuter rail. Are there 

areas where folks feel it will be beneficial to have more 

presentations in the next meeting, and then would that 

level of -- of familiarity then give you the confidence to 

break into subcommittee at that point? So, I just did--I 

wanted to raise that question and to see where folks feel 

they need some more general briefing (inaudible) in hoping 

that some of you are going to volunteer to do -- to do that 

briefing.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you, Chris. Justin.

>> Justin Vonashek: I would like to make a 

recommendation so we could possibly move forward. I

think the next thing we should do is look at the issues list, 

go item by item, see what is consistent across all boards 

signage, if we want consistency, but there are some things 

like sleeping cars I am -- commuter I am not concerned 

about that -- with that. Let's identify how each of them 
break out, that could help us move forward.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Good idea.

>> Justin Vonashek: Just a thought.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Any other comments?

>> Blair Slaughter, Amtrak. Along with that it could 

be a good opportunity to with those issues to make sure 

where some of the descriptions are fairly brief, that there is 

a good understanding going into committee what the intent 

of those issues is across the board.

>> Awesome. Crystal?

>> Crystal Lyons: By doing that we could feed into 

the need for future presentations actually identifying what 

the subjects would be that might be very helpful. Instead 

of shooting in the dark

>> BILLY ALTOM: I see a lot of heads nodding. Let's 

recap what we are thinking of doing here. Let's go through 

the issues list. See what we have got on the list now that 

are issues. See where there is common grounds on the 

issues that would cut across each mode, then there are 

maybe issues exactly. I am going to use your example, 

Justin, sleeping car, which may not apply but to a particular 

group of folks. That might be into a committee. Also, 

it -- whenever we go through the big list it may as exactly 

as Crystal was saying to determine some areas that we need 
more -- another presentation to get more clarification to 

get clarity on the regs and how we enhance those. 

Did I capture pretty much what the group is thinking? 

I think our next step then would be to go through the 

issues list before we do that. Frank?

>> The quick comment I had, it would be nice when we 

went through the list, we try to put it in a category so 

maybe if we are going to break into groups. Like my 

suggestion would be two categories, but maybe if we can 

vote on that and decide where to put them I think it's 

important as we go through it, we assign categories so we 

know what to do with the list.

>> BILLY ALTOM: I like that. Folks here? Frank? Go 

through the list to assign it to a category, sound workable 

to the folks?

>> You need to clarify the categories before we start 

there may be ambiguity there.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Frank, when you said categories, 

what were you thinking of?

>> My suggestion was I think the natural breakdown 

was communication and spatial arrangements so you put it 

in one of those two categories and then we could decide 

how we further want to break it down but at least have a 

starting point.
>> PAUL BEATTY: And I -- just one clarifying 

question. It sounds like at least we want to review the 

issues list allow people to explain what the issue is better. 

We are going to -- are we going to also identify whether, 

what mode it applies, whether it's all--all or only inner-city 

some cases, it's pretty obvious. And then we are also 

going to put it into category in terms of initial category. 

Frank is proposing communications and spatial. 

My question is, what I have noticed in the past, when we 

initially developed the issues list is people started -- I don't 

want to say debating the issue. So are we going to let the 

person explain the concern that the issue is addressing 

versus -- are we also going to get into start discussing 

opposition to what the person wants? Or examples where 

it's being provided already? I want to get a sense from the 

committee, that way Billy would know if we go off in one 

direction that the committee doesn't want he can stop it 

versus allow it.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Justin then Jon.

>> I think -- Justin Vonashek, Metro. If we identify 

either communication or spatial, that's one thing. And 

then the next thing would be mode for each one is it all 

commuter, inner-city, whatever it is. And then going 

through that, not get too bogged down, if we get bogged 
down we will get stuck on one all day and keep going with 

the process.

>> Jon Holbrook: I agree with the breakdown, 

communication and then everything spatial. I think that 

will make it easier for people when we are in conference 

calling, you know. I would work spatial but I may have 

somebody back home, you know, partake in the 

communication. And I think as soon as we review a topic, 

we are going to know whether or not there is -- we have 

issue and if there is, put it to the list, you no he, for the 

subcommittee and we carry op. So, we can get through 

this issues list.

>> Yes, this is Andrew. I think that sounds like a 

great plan. If we have the list and the categories on the 

screen possibly, so that way everybody is able to see them 

and it's easier to track the discussion. If we could do that 

that would be great.

>> BILLY ALTOM: We can do that. Marilyn? 

>> Marilyn Golden: At the risk of getting bogged down, 

which I don't want to do, I hope when we go through the 

issues -- one thing that I would like to get a sense of, I 

think, is the scope of difference of opinion on it. What 

different stakeholders, as in manufacturers, transit 

agencies, disability community, want on that thing, whether 
the subpoints -- just so we get a little sense of the shape of 

what is going to be involved we can't decide the things, but 

we can identify what the questions are I hope. I think that 

would help us to know where to go from there.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you. Frank. Chris, you have 

your hand up as well.

>> One quick comment. It's important to get through 

the list if we try to be brief it's up to Billy to make sure he 

keeps us on track. Identifying what the issue is I think is 

the key.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: I would just ask that if you 

don't know examples of where that you tell 

us -- (inaudible). You know, it's what a manufacturer 

offers in the rest of the world versus the U.S. market. So, 

it's helpful for the board staff to know where these things 

are being done also.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Primarily in the United States but 

don't exclude the rest of the world.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. I think what I understand 

from the group is we want to go through this list. 

Determine put them into the two categories communication 

or spatial not special but spatial, my southern accent we 

might think I am saying special.

 (LAUGHTER)
>> BILLY ALTOM: But and Frank said we will try to stay 

on track, as most as we can so we can hopefully get 

through today. We have appear entire afternoon but I don't 

want to promise something I can't deliver we can throw it 

up on the screen to go through right we need a few 

moments to do that.

>> PAUL BEATTY: It's good to take a 15-minute 

break.

>> BILLY ALTOM: That is what I was thinking let's take 

about a 15-minute break. Cool with everybody? People 

hate breaks let's keep working. No.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> BILLY ALTOM: Let's take 15 minutes. We will come 

back and get a list where we can set it up on the screen. 

Thank you all for the guidance this morning. We will be 

right back.

(Short recess taken.) 

>> BILLY ALTOM: I will read what's up on the board. 

As we go through we had talked about as--as we look at 

these dividing which category whether it would be 

communication or spatial. And then we may look at which 

mode that they would apply to. First, let's start off 

let's read up on the board we have Attachment B, which is 
refined issues list for new vehicles for all subparts. 

General issues, number 1. Marilyn?

>> I hope we are going also going to get a little bit of 

a sense of the issue. What the range of concerns are.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Okay, cool. And I may have 

additions from you that need to get in here. 1 was 

consider the designs and recommendations resulting from 

work done by FRA under the Passenger Rail Investment and 

Improvements Act of 2008. 2 was identify best practices 

and alternative designs used in other countries. 3 was 

determine how best to address accessibility in various types 

of bi-level cars. 4 was to gain a better understanding of 

legal and structural constraints. A, how do FRA regulations 

impact rail vehicle design. B, how do various types of 

vehicles differ in terms of structural constraints. Number 

5, was population to be served by accessibility features. A, 

consider the needs of people use be different mobility 

devices seniors and individuals who are obese. And B, 

consider adjusting current clearance and space 

requirements to accommodate contemporary wheeled 

mobility device sizes. Number 6, consider applying 

existing accessibility standards to features not specifically 

addressed in the current standards, and 7, avoid redundant 

regulatory requirements that is FRA and FTA.
>> Stanton Saucier: I was going to say, Billy, I think 

most of what you have gone through could be addressed in 

the process. Which is to say the standard of rigor required 

to be applied to each of these issues. So, you know, every 

committee on every issue is required to review 

existing -- sorry. I said something somebody didn't like?

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Stanton Saucier: Is required to review the existing 

standards. And you are not finished until you have made 

some effort to scour the world and find where somebody 

might have already done it if we are talking about 

something new. So, those things could be addressed if we 

make that sort of a requirement of the standard of rigor 

that we got to approach these things with.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Marilyn and Justin.

>> Marilyn Golden: Don't we have to deal with this 

more specifically than like this 2/3 of a page at a time. I

appreciate that you read it. But I think that we need to go 

through each point.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Um-hmm. Oh, I will, I just wanted 

to read it first. We have people in the room who may not 

be able to see what is on that. I didn't want to exclude 

them from having anything on the screen that is not read.

>> No problem.
>> Justin Vonashek: I would just agree with Stan. 

These general issues are more considerations for each 

group. I don't think we need to go through these in more 

detail, but moving forward from here we do.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: (inaudible). Covered for 

things like service counters or other areas is actually what 

folks involved -- just not just the new requirements but 

existing requirements are just as -- like with dual mode is 

an existing requirement.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you. So do we still want to 

go through all of the list? Yes?

>> Bob Reuter: I agree with you, except number 3, I 

think that should be pulled out and addressed separately.

>> That makes sense. I agree with that.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. Communications.

>> Justin Vonashek: Maybe we want to change that

from general issues to just considerations and pull it out of 

the issue list for now? So we can start making progress 

with this.

>> Spatial or signage?

>> BILLY ALTOM: That may be covered under on board 

circulation.

>> Stanton Saucier: Perhaps.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Marilyn?
>> Marilyn Golden: There are points on the list that 

apply to everything that we are doing. So, it can't be 

relegated to any group if it's not given to all of the groups. 

And if we are going to have a category along the lines of 

what people are saying to do with this, then it has to be 

very clear that every group is assigned to consider all of 

these things rather than we are getting -- we are pushing it 

aside. We are getting to the real work of the specifics and 

not considering these important general concepts. I mean 

every group needs -- there needs to be a structure to make 

sure every group proposes things that reflect consideration 

of these general concepts. I think. Most of them. And 

other thing -- I agree with Bob other than 4 which was it 3, 

is actually very specific thing.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Justin again. 

>> Justin Vonashek: No.

>> Jon Holbrook: The bi-level issues is taken care of 

elsewhere in the document we should move to have this 

struck.

>> BILLY ALTOM: We will move -- remove the number 

3. That will be covered under the on board circulation. 

And Justin what did you say renaming?

>> Justin Vonashek: Change it to general 

considerations or something like that we want to go 
through these considerations with each issue these are not 

specific issues we are not going to assign these to 

categories.

>> BILLY ALTOM: General considerations for each 

category.

>> Justin Vonashek: Right.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. So we will change it from 

general issues to general considerations. Agree with that? 

Does that sound like workable answer?

>> What assures we actually do it. It's a general 

consideration. Is there some check that each proposal got 

considered through each of those --

>> BILLY ALTOM: I think as we delineate which 

category, whether it's communication or spatial, that then 

we apply that to each one of those categories 

that -- whoever your committee chair or how ever we 

decide to do this would apply those general considerations 

to each category. Is that -- does that make sense to you 

Marilyn see what I am saying? Yeah. The way we will 

ensure it happens it's going to be up to whoever is chairing 

that particular -- chair may not be the right word -- if we 

decide to stay one big group but we will divide into 

subgroups. Whoever chairs the subgroup -- whenever it 

comes back to the full group I know the group of folks will 
not let anything slide. You haven't thus far I don't 

anticipate that happening in the future.

>> Marilyn Golden: Okay.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. We will keep going. 

Communications. We have real-time messages audible or 

visible. A, dual mode, audible and visible messaging. B, 

examine what factors should be used to determine 

equivalency of audible and visual messages. C, export 

tri-mode communication. Audible messages. We want to 

look at clarity of announcements. B, assistive listening. 

Point 1, provide assistive listening induction loops 

throughout the train and bathrooms mule cars bedrooms in 

bi-level rail cars. 2, evaluate technical feasibility of 

induction loops on rail cars. Number 3 was signage. 

Legality -- legality legibility of signs, e.g., font, case, style 

and location. What? All right. Wait a minute. I did leave 

that. Sorry. C, all announcements in American Sign 

Language as well as text. I was looking at my notes. I

need to read the big notes. 3 is signage. The legibility of 

signs, e.g., the font, case, style and lotion. First point, 

address variable message signs. B, scoping for certain 

types of signs, that is the location, number, et cetera. C, 

when and how to provide nonvisual formats. D, visibility 

and frequency of station name signs by persons seated on 
board in wheelchair space and those standing. 

Number 4 is new technologies. Examine the potential for 

providing messages on handheld devices, such as 

smartphones, tri-mode communication. B, how to address 

on board route mapping, train, vision and other real-time 

communication systems. Number 5, 

emergency notification. A, use of shaker beds and visible 

doorknobs for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. B, 

notification of persons with vision impairments. C, backup 

power to service emergency notification devices. D, visual 

emergency alerts flashing fire alarms and such in all parts 

of the rail cars compartments main areas restrooms, 

et cetera. 

6, we have other communication issues. How to address 

the information needs of riders with cognitive disabilities. 

B, how to make messages accessible when there 

are -- when they are exterior to the vehicle and are not 

station-based. C, how to provide access to information 

where tour-type or docent service is provided in 

inaccessible locations, that is, on the upper level of the car 

without vertical access. D, how to make stop request 

device in vestibules being -- accessible. E, examine 

potential overlaps with FTA and FRA requirements 

conductor call button. F, use of the detectable warnings at 
exit stairs. Point 1, characteristics of detectable warnings 

in these locations. That is the first heading under 

communication.

>> James: Quick question. Because I am coming in 

fresh what do we mean by tri-mode if you have audible 

messages that's one. You have visual that's 

two -- something on your phone is visual.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: So, James, if you remember in 

the previous cushions there was -- I think there was a 

someone pointed out all of the data for your destination is 

essentially raw data. And one could distribute that over 

WI/FI which is then downloaded to, let's say, your Amtrak 

accessible app, whether accessible. And you can get your 

train info right there on your smartphone.

>> That's fine. If that's what we mean that is clear. 

Thanks.

>> BILLY ALTOM: David?

>> I just wanted to make a correction on E, let me see 

where it went. I think it's on the next page you were 

calling the call button -- I think that the conductor maybe 

should be changed to crew. Or conductor and crew, 

excuse me.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Oh, okay. That's point number 6, E, 

examine potential overlaps with FTA and FRA requirements, 
that is conductor call button and crew. Conductor and 

crew call button, yes. Any other comments or questions?

>> Justin Vonashek: Going back to the tri-mode. Is 

that third option outside of the purview of this group?

>> No.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: No. In fact, the board 

regularly discusses tri-mode issues.

>> PAUL BEATTY: I mean, you can mandate a vehicle 

be equipped with the WI/FI, it's part of the vehicle 

construction in a general sense.

>> Justin Vonashek: Okay. I misunderstood. I was 

just thinking about the smart -- the app.

>> PAUL BEATTY: No, you can't mandate that or 

manufacturers you design the phone this way but the signal 

be transmitted.

>> Can I jump in it's worth pointing out caution should 

be exercised in this area because obviously it's something 

out of your control. You don't know what devices if any 

passengers will have, so it's almost -- I would like as a nice 

to have little bonus rather than something that should be 

relied on in any way shape or form you need to reply on the 

hardware and systems guaranteed on the train. 

>> I do have -- this is Jackson. I have one request for 

clarification for item 3-D under signage, is that is the intent 
that the station name signs one provide on board the 

equipment?

>> BILLY ALTOM: Hmm.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: So, if I recall, that was based 

on your technical (inaudible) equipment and destination 

signs.

>> It's the passenger information system.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Yes (inaudible). And I believe 

I forget who put it up, but -- but it relates to the fact that 

sometimes there is only a couple (inaudible).

>> Understood.

>> PAUL BEATTY: This may be where the Access 

Board in the refining process might have 

misinterpreted -- misinterpreted. We thought it was 

talking about a physical sign not real time. Something that 

would mark toilet room. Other types of signs that don't 

change. Just like in the ADAAG environment you see a sign 

on the wall what does the characters have to comply with 

what is the contrast. I think that's all as we refined it we 

broke it into signage font case style, where you need them, 

scoping. Versus number 1 at the top is dealing with 

real-time variable message signs, et cetera. So, if we made 

a mistake in that area, you know, now is the time to change 

it.
>> BILLY ALTOM: Jackson follow-up and Chris.

>> Jackson Xue: If that's -- if item 3 pertains only to 

fixed signage, I would probably recommend moving 3-D up 

to real-time messages.

>> PAUL BEATTY: I think D was talking about the 

fixed sign. Like in Metro you can see, oh, this is Metro 

center. You can see that from the car.

>> Jackson Xue: You are talking about station signs.

>> PAUL BEATTY: I vaguely recall Linda Martin might 

have raised that.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Yes.

>> PAUL BEATTY: But -- Gary, do you --

>> (inaudible).

>> This is Linda. Do you want me --

>> BILLY ALTOM: Go ahead, Linda.

>> While the station signs is not part of the this the 

notion that a very tall person and a short statured person, 

whether in wheelchair or not, can't see necessarily out the 

window to see the station signs depending on where they 

are placed. So, we have run into that at FRA where certain 

stations the signs are too high or too low, if you are at a 

certain angle looking out the window you can't see them. 

So, granted we have nothing to do with the stations in this, 

you know, this group. I think this was sort of a given this 
was a wish list it was the notion that you know could 

windows be designed better could the view out the window 

be designed better to facilitate being able to see where you 

are when you get there.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Crystal. 

>> Crystal Lyons: I was going to suggest whether 

saying certain types that you say fixed or not fixed signs 

that you are referring to. Well some are digital and some 

are not. Using the -- using whatever the word is in the 

ADAAG stuff for buildings, whatever the phrase is that 

means fixed signs, maybe use that same phrase.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Scoping for fixed type signs.

>> Crystal Lyons: Whatever the phrase is in ADAAG 

for signs that don't change, they are static.

>> Static versus variable message.

>> What is in the ADAAG?

>> Signs are signs, variable message signs are a 

subclass of signs that have -- that have features that allow 

them to change. And font and other things are issues of 

concern for variable message signs, that's why the 

ANSI A117 now contains specific provisions for -- for the 

style and case and font of variable message signs because 

they are made of a dot matrix rather than painted or 

otherwise embossed onto a placard.
>> With regard to the location itself, the fact is you 

want to be able to see it. It goes across both categories.

>> Exactly. 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: And Linda, I think the reason 

when you raised it, signs, there was no spatial -- there was 

no spatial guidance. So depending on how long the car 

was you rarely would see any signs.

>> I just recall the issue was we compared it to the 

platform based sign where you may have the opportunity to 

get close to the sign as opposed to within the rail car if the 

rail car is you know got people in it you are not going to be 

able to move through the rail car it be close to the sign 

that's where the one issue came from was the fact we 

needed to be sure we provided sufficient number and be 

sure the location is such that we can see the sign from 

wherever we are within the rail car as opposed to this is 

where it differs from facility based signage you can in most 

facilities get close are to the sign or avoid the obstacle that 

might be in the way to get closer to it.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you. Okay. We can all 

agree, this stays in the communication category, correct? 

All right. Next heading was alighting and circulation areas. 

>> I thought, in addition to that, we would identify 

modes.
>> BILLY ALTOM: Do we want to put it in mode at this 

particular time; is that the group's wish I guess? Okey 

dokey. Let's look back at that then. Let's go to the very 

first page of that with communications.

Okay. Real-time messages, number 1.

>> Did we decide all of communication would be a 

quick pass. I don't think --

>> BILLY ALTOM: I --

>> I am good with that --

>> BILLY ALTOM: On communication that would hit all 

modes, wouldn't it?

>> Yeah.

>> It would hit all modes

>> Except for the fuel for Amtrak.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Paul and then Blair. Paul, Blair, then 

David.

>> PAUL BEATTY: For the PRIIA stuff, that would be 

the FRA modes, right? For number 1? That would only 

apply for the subparts for FRA regulated modes; is that 

correct?

>> We are on the communication section.

>> PAUL BEATTY: I'm sorry, okay. Disregard.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. No problem. I got Blair and 

then David.
>> Blair Slaughter: Okay. On the issue of the 

American see notification -- on the issue of the emergency 

notification number 5 flashing fire alarms and such all parts 

of the rail cars compartments main areas and restrooms, 

particularly in respect to main areas of say coaches, what is 

the driver for that? What's the driving concern?

>> BILLY ALTOM: Hmm.

>> Blair Slaughter: If we are looking at -- yes, let me 

give you -- I will give you background why I am asking the 

question.

We have been working on viable fire alarm systems for 

sleeping cars for years. And I think we are actually finally 

on the cusp of a system that will function correctly in the 

very rigorous railroad environment with a reasonable level 

of reliability. The recommendation that we do that came 

from -- is primarily focused at closed compartments where 

there is no general population and no one to alert other 

people or no visual ability to see that there is an obvious 

danger elsewhere in the car. In the case of a coach any 

type you are outside of an enclosed compartment the 

general thinking has been that you would be aware of any 

imminent danger in an open coach. But in an enclosed 

sleeping compartment that you might not find out until it 

too late, so I am just curious what was the -- for main areas 
of cars, what was the driver for that? In other words, I am 

skittish about putting things that are going to alert and 

scare people or adding to the potential of complex systems 

not working correctly and where there is no need.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Marilyn?

>> Marilyn Golden: This is Marilyn from DREDF 

Access Board staff could certainly say more things and more 

accurately than I can, but in -- to give you an analogy. In 

the ADAAG in the DOJ standards there has been a very 

exhaustive sort of deep rigorous examination of how -- in 

order to convey all of the information that should be 

conveyed to who needs it, particularly the people whose 

disability makes the way it's conveyed to the other 

passengers inaccessible to them how do you make sure all 

of that is done without running into the problems you are 

talking about. And so, there has been an exhaustive 

examination of how many people apart they should be, in 

what spaces they should be, I was serving with Jim Weisman 

on the Access Board at when he made a typically hilarious 

suggestion that you know this is for an earlier era when you 

hotel rooms had mini bars -- you know I want one in the 

refrigerator where the candy bars and the wine glasses are 

because I am looking in there for a long time trying to 

figure how to pay for the $50 bag of chips.
 (LAUGHTER)

>> Marilyn Golden: We didn't do that but it's a nice 

concept. I think as a disability advocate I want to answer 

the question, what do you mean it should be everywhere? 

But the code side of me, as I have been educated to be 

sensitive to that, the need to have, you know, these 

pristinely clear applicable pass/fail standards but so -- but 

the need is to get everybody the information the emergency 

information that they need. And then there is a legitimate 

realm of discussion about how you do it technically.

>> Right. I understand that where I am coming from 

is Amtrak, unfortunately, has some real world examples of 

how fires have been handled on trains typically our 

trains -- our fires come from outside sources. Trucks and 

things like that. But we have seen how the processes of 

evacuating have occurred. Keep in mind, too, when we 

apply systems to trains that are safety relevant, then those 

systems have to be obviously kept up. If they are not kept 

up and working then there is a problem. But it can add 

to -- you know, increasing layers of things and I -- I don't 

want to see going down the path of adding things that don't 

have a clear need or already addressed or can be addressed 

with things that are more foolproof than machinery.

>> Marilyn Golden: I would respond by saying the 
need for maintenance, one of the things you said, we have 

to make sure -- it was different words -- but that they are 

maintained. Well, that's true for everything.

>> True.

>> Marilyn Golden: But I think none of what you said 

to me I am glad you raised this, this is the kind of 

discussion I hope we have on every item to get a sense of 

the range what is the range of -- hate to say I think it's 

worth saying disagreement on the committee of, you know, 

what is the scope of challenge of what we have to deal with 

here. So, for this discussion, I can see why your concern 

would be don't start putting things in that make our lives 

harder in various ways but advocates concern would be 

don't sacrifice putting them where they are needed to get 

the information. And then the challenge in crafting that 

rule is going to be how does it serve the target group fully 

without compromising their needs anywhere. And yet 

make it meet your standards for, that it's not going to break 

down that it's relatively easy to maintain without sacrificing 

quality. And in each of those considerations there is room 

for argument. You know, for you, you might not want to 

do anything because it makes it more complicated on 

certain items, and some of us are going to say, but without 

that you can't get the information to everybody. It sends 
up an antenna, a red flag when we here, don't sort of 

burden us with things that are going to make it harder, 

particularly when it's the kind of train where there are fires, 

whether they come from trucks or anywhere else.

>> To that point, Marilyn, I just want to clarify when 

we are talking about life safety issues, there is no target 

group. There is everybody. And that's where -- and 

that's where we have had incidences of fires on sleepers 

and things like that, it's important that we alert everyone, it 

becomes more critical when you have enclosed spaces, 

restrooms perhaps, and where something happens 

elsewhere in the vehicle and if you know in time you can 

save yourself or be saved versus not -- not knowing or 

maybe someone doesn't know there is someone in a space. 

I just want to make sure -- it's not worrying so much about 

what we have to maintain, it's making sure that we put 

things where they are needed, in fact. And that if there is 

places where we begin to rely on devices, nonhuman things 

to do things that really are human responsibilities not of a 

target group but of us as the operator of the train, to do, I 

worry about that from a very holistic point of view that I -- I 

don't want -- I don't want to give the operator an excuse to 

say well we have a system that takes care of that. When 

maybe the system isn't a mechanical or electrical device but 
it involves people that can be flexible to all of the 

conditions that a machine cannot.

>> Marilyn Golden: Yep.

>> BILLY ALTOM: David, Chris and Marilyn.

>> Hi, this is David. I came up for another comment I 

want to go back to what Blair said. The question that I 

have to ask though, currently do we have a fire alarm an 

auditory fire alarm currently?

>> Blair Slaughter: On --

>> David Hughson: You know, a fire alarm that 

makes noises on trains?

>> Blair Slaughter: Yes.

>> David Hughson: Okay. So, then -- so that should 

be tied down to a visual alarm.

>> Blair Slaughter: Yes. Let me give David 

clarification sometimes you don't know we work for the 

same company but he explains a lot of things to me.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Blair Slaughter: We have -- we have tried two 

major systems for sleeping cars particularly. And that 

came at detecting and alerting differently. And they were 

systems perfectly viable in a building, company and 

transportation conditions, but just deteriorated and failed 

wrongly on a rail car to the point that we have gone to, you 
know, standalone household fire detectors so that we have 

something. And the fortunate thing is the technology is 

caught up with the need, a need that occurred you know 

two decades ago but has caught up with the need 

that -- and we can -- I feel very comfortable with the 

system that we are -- we are installing on new cars that we 

will retrofit to other cars for sleepers. So, that has a lot of 

flexibility for alerts, whether it's audible or visual or maybe 

even it must have an ability to incorporate bed shakers as 

well. But we haven't done that yet. So that's where we 

are. It's just we are still out on the end of the technology 

to make these systems work well. And do the job that they 

are supposed to do.

>> David Hughson: Okay. Well, I came up here 

initially because I wanted to bring up a discussion that was 

talked about in November, which is the issue -- a technical 

issue, it's called a plug and play chip. So basically some 

operations if they buy new cars later down the road there is 

a plug and play that could be added -- I'm sorry. When 

some operators purchase new cars new train cars with the 

plug and play chip, then later they purchase newer cars it 

becomes interoperable, so the plug and play chip and then 

the current -- the brand new train car doesn't become 

interchangeable in the system. So, I can't remember 
exactly but I believe there is a 5000 series car that doesn't 

match the 6000 car with visual messages a lot of them will 

put these train cars together and mix them and they are not 

interoperable that becomes an issue we need some type of 

plug and play that will make everything interoperable 

regardless of which series it is.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you for the comments. I have 

on the list Chris and Marilyn and Frank for the same of time 

I want to bring up something for all of you. Let's go back 

to the original plan, let's go through the list, decide whether 

they want to be communication or spatial and which mode 

they run to because these are great discussions but I think 

these discussions should be in the smaller groups and we 

really drill down. Because I think David had a great point 

of some ideas that could be used perhaps in that 

other -- in the smaller group. But having said that Chris I 

had you on the list

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: I was going to say that and I 

was going to ask where if you would think about preparing 

some type of PowerPoint where you -- not necessarily for 

the whole committee, but for the communications 

committee. And we do need to get back on track and keep 

moving forward. I think all of us here are committed to do 

dual mode or tri-mode I think it's a question of how not if. 
So, saying that I am going to be quiet.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> BILLY ALTOM: Marilyn?

>> Marilyn Golden: I hope I can meet that standard 

Chris as well.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Marilyn Golden: To not beat the issue to death but 

I think that whether it occurs in the full group or whether it 

occurred in the subgroup, you know, it's hard to know how 

the subgroups are going to break down and the balance 

issue comes in. You know, but reliance on 

humans -- human factors instead of accessibility solutions 

that are structural is -- is a very typical way full access has 

broken down over the years. 

As an example, you know, maybe there isn't a message sign 

on the train. So a conductor needs to do it, and say that's 

the system, but the conductor is busy. The person doesn't 

get the information. So we need a bridge plate brought 

over. But it doesn't get brought because that person 

doesn't get the information. You know, we have -- you 

know we have -- those of us who have been working on 

accessibility a long time, have decades of experience that 

informed us that we can almost never depend on human 

solutions to, you know, that is an action by a person instead 
of a structural requirement for something different in the 

structure that is a solution to accessibility problems. So, in 

your example, Blair, there was a problematic physical 

system that needs updating, and that's a valid concern and 

it should be updated. But that doesn't mean that on the 

committee it would take the place of a better structural 

solution. You know, we have learned to be wary of 

replacing structural solutions with something that people 

do. And I think one role of this committee and Jim talked

about this at the first meeting there was -- you know, 

wanting to get maybe more providers on the committee in 

terms of education and part of the -- I think one of the 

byproducts of this process that we are -- that we are 

undergoing is to further the education of this kind of 

concept in terms of an approach to accessibility you can't 

get it done by a person you have to do something 

structural. You know, we want everyone to understand all 

of those concepts.

>> (inaudible).

>> Marilyn Golden: Thanks.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Jim.

>> Jim: Real quick. I am thinking I am 

understanding Mr. Slaughter's issues. You are going to 

look at technical requirements and scoping requirements. 
In other words, you are going to have a technical 

requirement for alarm. You are going to have a technical 

requirement for a visual or audible notification. Where you 

use those or when you use those or if you are required to 

use them it's going to be a scoping issue. In other words, 

you may want to require an alarm in a sleeping room. You 

may not want to require that in a general car. You may 

want to rely on a communication of some sort. In which 

case you can say where provided this is what you do. If 

you want to provide visual alarm in the regular car, fine. 

You have to meet this technical requirement. But if you 

want to choose to give a notification then you may have to 

have visual and audible. Those things are going to be have 

to be looked at regarding specific things. You are going to 

have a good technical requirement for a specific thing. 

Then you are going to go into the scoping and say, okay, 

this is we are going to require it we are going to let you 

choose, in other words, -- that sort of thing.

>> Okay. If I could say one thing Blair Slaughter in 

from Amtrak. In all of these situations, as sort of a general 

statement, particularly when you are communicating things, 

we have through the years a number of systems that have 

been proposed and attempted and I recall once as an 

example very quick example years ago there was a 
manufacturer who made all of this wonderful glow in the 

dark stuff when the lights went out you could see all kinds 

of things. They advocated putting it everywhere around 

everything so when the lights went out you had all of these 

strange glow in the dark shapes that really could be very 

confusing. And along with the technical ability to do 

things, I think we have to be very cognizant of making sure 

that when we are trying to give messages that are critical to 

people's safety that we don't give confusing signals in the 

overall configuration of the vehicles at the time. But I 

understand that and thanks Jim for clarifying that.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Awesome. As a reminder, we are at 

11:30 now we are going to take a lunch break here at some 

point we wrap up at basically 2:30 we need to do time for 

public comments. So, what I want to do is probably turn 

into somebody you don't like and have to cut people off we 

need to move through this list we have got another several 

pages of stuff we have got to get through. And we want to 

do this today and hopefully if we can rip through these 

quickly put them under communication or spatial decide 

the mode we may can actually decide maybe what we want 

to do for the subcommittee stuff too as well hopefully. If 

we can do that.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Just one comment our staff here 
would like you to set up conference calls when everybody is 

here for between January and April. You know, so that's 

also on your list. Really, you need to stop at 2, so we can 

at least see -- we haven't established -- you have a lot of 

things to rush through this.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Yeah. I got you.

>> Mr. Rutenberg. Just in general terms, are we 

supposed to provide performance specifications or 

technical specifications because as a big -- there is a big 

difference between the two. And we have seen in previous 

ADA regulations is that sometimes descriptive regulations 

are -- are restrictive in a certain way. Because they don't 

allow for further development or new developments. So, 

performance requirements are very often a way to go. My 

question is here: If we are proposing recommendations if 

all of these areas should they be performance based or 

technically based.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Marsha anticipates that.

>> Marsha Mazz: We have, in fact, in the past issued

requirements that have been called performance standards 

but in reality they are not. They are goals. A performance 

standard is a complicated thing to write, as I am sure you 

know. And often it's much more difficult to write than a 

prescriptive standard. Typically with a good performance 
standard there is a corollary prescriptive standard. My 

advice to you is unless you want to be doing this for a lot of 

years, is that you stick with the prescriptive standard but 

give us enough information in your rationale and what you 

expect the intended outcome to be so that should we find it 

possible to develop performance standards using the 

information that you gave us, I think most of us would 

believe would agree a performance standard can be 

preferable. But they are also much, much more difficult to 

write, sometimes more difficult to enforce if they haven't 

been well written. So, it's -- it would be a huge effort 

to -- for this committee to try and -- and reverse the 

approach that is currently taken in the standards. But if 

you give us information and if the committee feels that the 

board should seriously consider performance standards in 

the future, that may be the beginning of a different 

approach.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Awesome. Thank you for that 

explanation. Up next we had lighting. Two issues under 

lighting, one was lighting in circulation areas, restrooms, 

sleeping compartments and in any other areas. And 

two-task lighting an on-demand passenger controls. 

Spatial? Or communication? 

>> Communication, I would say.
>> Communication, all modes.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Communication?

>> Yes, I mean --

>> BILLY ALTOM: Is that what I am hearing

>> If you don't have lights you can't see to 

communicate.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Lighting then goes to communication 

column.

>> This is Linda I have one thing.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Communication and spatial.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Linda on the phone.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Linda you have a question?

>> Linda Martin: I just have -- we notice that the 

lighting area doesn't include step wells and exterior 

lighting, so it just -- I am just suggesting it be added as a 

subtopic under -- under lighting.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Add a number 3 that would be step 

wells.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Are you saying step wells and 

exterior or just step wells, Linda?

>> Linda Martin: I think both. I mean, the idea is if 

you can't safely see to get in and out that could be an issue.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Issue number one says lighting and 

circulation areas, we would assume that would be a step 
well.

>> Linda Martin: Includes steps? Okay. Thanks.

>> As a mode, all modes. Awesome.

>> Bob Reuter: It seems like number 1 should 

be -- number 1 would be structural number 2 would be 

communication?

>> BILLY ALTOM: Nope. Keeping them both in 

communication that's where they stay. Next topic. 

Boarding and lighting. Number 1 use of devices on vehicle 

versus platform-based boarding devices A when permanent 

versus temporary installation appropriate, B, backup 

methods for mechanical lifts, or C, impact on dwell -- dwell 

service levels. B, platforms how best to use bus and light 

rail or shared platforms. B, definition of level boarding 

that's the plus or minus 5/8 or lifts. C, evaluate different 

car types and implications for level board. C, wheelchair 

lifts. We have A, possibly increase lifting capacity 800 

pound minimum. B, how to best address extreme super 

elevations. C, lift platform barrier heights. D, 

self-operable lifts. D, ramps. Rethink the ramp slope and 

railing requirements. B, on board storage of ramps. E, we 

have bridge plates. Barriers and crowding conditions. 

Number 1 is space requirement similar to bus ramps and 

lifts. B, examine how bridge plates interact. C, consider 
alternatives for near level boarding and bridge plates. We 

have light rail. Extreme implications of 60 and 70% low 

floor versus 100 low floor vehicles. Number 7, unless I 

missed anything on light rail. Gaps, we have examined the 

potential for gap filler divides on vehicles or platforms. B, 

examine European pop-out steps. Then we have doors 

and doorways. Minimum width of doorway and each leaf. 

B, hand rails to assist with boarding and alighting. C, how 

to provide accessibility to each boarding area. 1, examine 

potential for bi-level access to the station D, how to identify 

which doors to open an interior and exterior of doors when 

all doors pay not open. E, audible alerts prior to door 

closing. Under "other" boarding 

should be as often as possible by ramp and bridge plate as 

the primary 100% reliable and quick means for boarding, 

and clearly making mechanical lifts as a backup alternative 

when possible, when mechanical and lifts are needed.

>> I want to add number 2, platforms. We have 

concern with commuter rail sharing with -- sharing with 

light rail railroads.

>> Uwe Rutenberg: On 3, C, under lifts, if you could 

go back I would add a item that designs -- that defines the 

lift platform heights in relation to the new mobility scooter 

devices that are bigger and something that should be taken 
into consideration there.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: I believe somehow that that 

drop off width but it was at one point. Yeah.

>> It's under circulation.

>> Jon Holbrook: E should go under communication 

audible, visible alerts prior to doors closing.

>> I'm sorry, lost again.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Can you say that louder?

>> Jon Holbrook: I think that 8, E, under doors and 

doorways, that audible and visible alerts prior to door 

closing that that statement should go under 

communication.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Under communication.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Thank you.

>> BILLY ALTOM: And the rest of that section under 

boarding and alighting stays under spatial?

>> Can we adjust that on the audible and visual alert, 

should that be primarily for automatic doors or power doors 

versus doors that someone is -- has their hand on and is 

closing?

>> BILLY ALTOM: Hmm. 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: If my recollection is correct, I 

believe this is rapid transit where it's generally done for all 

groups but it's not necessarily in the current regs.
>> I mean just to clarify within our system we have 

powered automatic doors that a bell rings or something 

there is some signal because there is no one there closing 

that door it's 5 cars away. But on a long distance train 

where conductor is closing the door with the handle does it 

need a visual and audible alarm.

>> BILLY ALTOM: That can be handled in the smaller 

group.

>> I thought that would be good to add that.

>> Terry, you had your hand up.

>> Yes, in the same area section H-D, I think it is. 

Should probably I think should also go back to 

communication. D and E. How to identify which doors 

open interior and exterior on cars when not all doors open. 

I have run into that a how sometimes because of a lack of 

communication.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Both of those two D and E 

communication.

>> PAUL BEATTY: For the committee's knowledge, I 

E-mailed you a version, I know when I inserted that stuff in 

the bottom, I didn't realize it messed up my outline in terms 

of A and A. So, you can go to that and communicate better 

in the rows.

>> BILLY ALTOM: We will put that in communication 
too.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: The joys of software

>> BILLY ALTOM: Modality for boarding and alighting, 

would we look at -- oh, Paul, I didn't see you come on up 

there. But as I ask this group on modality, all?

>> All.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Seeing all, perfect.

>> PAUL BEATTY: On the section "other" I am 

assuming that only applies to the heavy rail because for 

boarding for light rail, rapid transit my assumption is the 

best possible boarding there is fully level boarding without 

a bridge plate or without any type of device; is that correct? 

Right there, the statement says that the best scenario is 

with a bridge plate I would assume fully level boarding is 

the best.

>> Marilyn Golden: Yeah. I would say, yeah, this is 

the section was a victim of hasty drafting that the boarding 

should be as often as possible fully level boarding on any 

mode all modes actually when that is not possible -- when 

that is not required or possible, then and then what is in 

here (indicating). 

>> Awesome. I agree.

>> Marilyn Golden: Updating by first taking a note.
>> PAUL BEATTY: Can you send it to me? 

>> Marilyn Golden: Happy to. What should I call it 8 or 9 

or --

>> PAUL BEATTY: Don't worry, just send me the 

paragraph that you want.

>> BILLY ALTOM: All right. Perfect. On board -- on 

board circulation.

>> Could you scroll up so I see you capture my 

concern about -- it's been left off a couple of times

>> Say it again Justin.

>> For platforms if you go up to number 2 the concern 

about shared right-of-way with freight. Make sure it's on 

the list please.

>> What are we doing? 

>> Number 2 under platforms, we need to have the 

concern for commuter railroad that shares right-of-way 

with freight as far as platform level boarding that's one of 

the issues that we need to be cognizant of. 

>> Excuse me, this is David here. It should be heavy 

rail not commuter rail.

>> Well, I guess heavy rail, depends how you look at it, 

heavy rail is CTA, commuter rail is Metro. I don't think it's 

heavy rail but commuter rail.

>> It's commuter and inner-city right? Who am I to 
broaden this? 

>> This is Linda. One comment.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Linda, go ahead.

>> Linda Martin: Thank you.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Hold on a second. One at a time. 

Plus, let's finish with David, he had a comment, then Linda 

on the phone.

>> Yes, this is David. Okay. Commuter rail has to 

comply with the FRA regulation.

>> Correct.

>> David Hughson: So that's called heavy rail, I 

thought.

>> No. Heavy rail is CTA.

>> Jon Holbrook: Heavy rail is propulsion, with 

propulsion.

>> David Hughson: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize 

that, sorry.

>> Linda Martin: I just wanted to caution, I guess, in 

the notion that freight, you know, there are issues related 

to platforms or could be at least that again we are not 

looking at platforms in these standards, the purpose is to 

look for standards for rail cars. And but I understand the 

you know the envelope side issues related to trains going 

down tracks and through tunnels and past platforms all of 
that so we have to keep it in mind but this isn't a platform 

standard of course that's in part 37.

>> That is correct it provides issues when talking 

about level boarding and platforms.

>> Correct. Right. I didn't know if everybody would 

know that.

>> Ross Capon: There might be a glossary it depends 

what universe you are in a lot of people refer to commuter 

rail as heavy rail within the railroad industry what Justin is 

talking about is much more common but since there is 

these multiple uses and multiple audiences it might be 

good to have a glossary so it's clear which terminology we 

are using. 

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you. Okay. Let's keep 

moving, we went through that. See, that was pretty 

painless. On board circulation. Features of the circulation 

path. A, characteristics of circulation paths including 

walking surfaces protruding objects maneuvering 

clearances within vestibules changes in level thresholds and 

other on board circulation features. B doors. 1, how best 

to make sure doors and flexibility connections between cars 

accessible. 2, address operation of sliding doors consider 

how power doors and locks. C, aisle width in each type of 

car. D, stanchion and handhold criteria for rapid transit 
and light rail. E, consideration of an on board lift to access 

bi-level cars especially dome or viewing cars. 2, spaces 

within the train. Consider hardware solutions to accessible 

of available features when used to store luggage as 

standing space. Access to and within special cars that is 

observation cars, dining cars, lounge cars. Number 3, 

escape an egress. Operation of emergency window 

controls. And B, on-board evacuation chairs, et cetera. 

Most of those looks spatial with the exception of -- what 

did I read. What do you guys think? All of those would be 

spatial and --

>> Robert Carlson: Yes. This is Robert Carlson. I

think under circulation, under features of circulation path 

that it's important that a car to car passageway be 

accessible, even if the car at the other end is not. This 

would be for emergency conditions. One example was a 

day when the MARC train in Baltimore came in and the door 

was blocked by a column in the station. And the next car 

was one of the old single level cars, you can't pass from one 

car to the next. I had to wait for them to back the train up 

after they finished it. So, to be able to get from one car to 

another to get to another door is an important feature.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Good point. Jim?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Isn't it already caught and on there? 
Yeah.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Jim then Terry. 

>> Jim Weisman: We identified mode and stanchion and 

handhold criteria we said rapid and light rail probably 

should be inter-city too or take it off and then take off the 

mode out of the criteria.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: And Jim, if Dennis was here, 

he also would remind us about people movers.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Jim Weisman: Right.

>> PAUL BEATTY: You want it deleted.

>> Jim Weisman: Just the little piece on the end that 

says "modes." 

>> PAUL BEATTY: This is Paul Beatty. Could we 

delete, since it doesn't fall under the Access Board 

jurisdiction, you have a lot of things to do on board 

evacuation chairs? Since they are not part of the structure. 

If you have plenty of time you can talk about other things 

we would like to keep you focused on our helping us.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Right. Terry.

>> Terry Pacheco: Can we -- I am not sure how 

exactly we should do this, but can we put the evacuation 

section in both structural and communication because 

whatever we come up with these people are going to have 
to know how to do. You are going to need to have some 

way of communicating that information.

>> It's a good idea.

>> (inaudible).

>> PAUL BEATTY: Marsha is pointing out under 

communication number 5 we already have emergency -- we 

have emergency communications bed shakers, notification 

of persons with visual impairments, backup power and 

visual emergency alerts.

>> Terry Pacheco: Okay. I withdraw.

>> BILLY ALTOM: One second. David had a point he 

wanted to make earlier about vertical circulation, you still 

want to address that, David, real quick?

>> David Hughson: Okay. I will try to make it really 

brief. Yesterday there was some issues regarding elevators 

on train cars. And I think the biggest concern was the 

reliability of it whether it would break I wanted to stop for a 

moment and talk about bus lifts for a minute and the bus 

lifts the history of bus lifts.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Actually, I promised you that we 

would do that. In the interest of time -- sorry, I hate to cut 

you off David. In the interest of time we are going to 

stick -- can we stick with the topic of just the train today? 

I apologize but I don't want to go down the road with the 
bus it may lead us to the path that we can't get back on and 

may take a lot of time I certainly apologize though. Okay. 

But we will talk to you in a bit I want to hear the story 

though. Marilyn

>> Marilyn Golden: I do too. Paul, I think I 

misunderstood what you did before this point a minute ago 

you took off the evacuation devices point?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Evacuation chairs.

>> Chairs?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Right. Because that's not part of 

the structure of the vehicle and doesn't fall under Access 

Board jurisdiction. And since you got a lot of things on 

your list, our recommendation is to focus on the things that 

fall under our jurisdiction. Ed?

>> Ed Hoff: Bridge plates may also fall to that 

category if not we talk about bridge plates not being 

attached to the vehicle would bridge plates be in the same 

category as evacuation chairs? >> 

PAUL BEATTY: Good point.

>> Ed Hoff: I say put evacuation chairs back in.

>> Bridge plates have to work with the structure of the 

vehicle however. And they usually do somehow attach. 

They are just not permanently attached.

>> Ed Hoff: Attachment is a lose term.
>> Marilyn Golden: It's where we draw the line and 

we don't require the -- the evacuation chairs although we 

would certainly agree that they are a wonderful idea. You 

might want to look at the new reg and standard for 

evacuation chairs as you make considerations about 

evacuation path and doorways

>> Ed Hoff: Perhaps evacuation chair or ramp that 

may be similar to a bridge plate that brings somebody 

down to the -- perhaps a rail car to rail car evacuation 

device, something that would have to be work with the rail 

car but would assist or be something to assist us in 

evacuating people using mobility devices.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Could be along the lines obviously 

we don't have jurisdiction on evacuation chairs but we could 

mandate certain requirements that allow the use of the 

evacuation chair in terms of obviously you just pointed 

outdoors wide enough pathways I am thinking of our 

evacuation chairs we use in the building

>> Let's broaden it a little bit perhaps there is 

something else out there or we can talk about that helps us 

in the evacuation.

>> Crystal Lyons: It could be the storage for the 

evacuation chair that you could mandate. Even if someone 

else has a requirement for it there is no requirement to 
have it stored somewhere,

>> PAUL BEATTY: It would be hard for us to say you 

need to have storage for something we can't require. Now, 

if -- you can put that in the report. But I am just saying 

the board could say, we can't require that so we can't put it 

in there.

>> Marsha Mazz: There is a corollary with their 

carrier in fact. There -- there are requirements for wheel 

chair storage we don't require the wheelchair. >> 

CHRISTOPHER HART: And just kind of, FRA requires on 

board stretchers to be stored in various rail cars. So, 

Marsha is absolutely correct, we don't have jurisdiction on 

the chair but you could potentially recommend something 

about storage. That doesn't mean that regulatory agencies 

are going to follow it.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Paul and then Bob.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Real quick. On 70 and 80% the 

bridge plates are part of the structure and are very 

structural to the vehicle. On 70 and 100% low floor light 

rail and streetcar vehicles the bridge plates are structural 

and are attached and permanently parted of the vehicle. 

>> Linda Martin: I have a comment.

>> Bob Reuter: This is also a place where 

performance specifications would be in there like the bridge 
plate. It has to be level boarding or something has to be 

provided. And I think that would fall into the category here 

and for the emergency escape anyone who has been up to 

Toronto seen the brand new subway cars the front of the 

car unfolds and drops down to the track to form a ramp. 

>> BILLY ALTOM: Linda did I get you

>> One comment. We already at FRA have gotten 

various questions about boarding of bridge plates that 

attached to the car and would deploy when the train fulls 

into the station, you know, and it's absolutely something 

that would be good for the committee to look at because 

we get questions we don't have a lot of answers and right 

now there is really nothing in the regulation that is directly 

on point to those kinds of gap fillers if you will. Maybe you 

call them gap fillers and not bridge plates but they are 

definitely part of the train.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you.

>> Linda Martin: Thanks.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. We are ready to move on to 

our -- 

>> I have a quick one.

>> Blair Slaughter, Amtrak. On item 3, A, operation of 

emergency window controls. What is meant by "controls."

I am confused by that. We typically pull a handle out and 
pull the window out.

>> PAUL BEATTY: The handle would be a control.

>> I think of a control being electro mechanical or 

something that's.

>> PAUL BEATTY: You pulled something mechanical.

>> Blair Slaughter: Okay, okay.

 (LAUGHTER) 

I am good. I didn't know if there was something applicable to 

another mode I missed in the --

>> PAUL BEATTY: I don't recall who raised it that's how 

we would initially think of the --

>> Okay.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Issue.

>> Blair Slaughter: That's all just a point of clarity. 

Thank you.

>> Jackson Xue: This is Jackson. Perhaps we could 

rephrase that to say operation of emergency window egress 

devices. Maybe that might clarify it a bit. Because as Blair 

said that's usually on the Amtrak trains there is a zip strip you 

pull. But also from a high-speed rail perspective the way that 

we are going is -- we allow for the option to have emergency 

hammers as well. So to break the window.

>> BILLY ALTOM: You are saying on 3, A, operation of 

emergency.
>> Jackson Xue: Window egress devices.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Emergency egress devices.

We will go from there. Jim.

>> Jim Weisman: I don't want to -- I like the idea that 

Crystal brought up of requiring space for evacuation chairs. 

Because it's a physical standard, and I suppose we can't 

require that they carry an evacuation chair. But if you are 

going to build the car might want to build the standard into 

the car. And then they can store luggage in it anyway. You 

have to go to DOJ to complain about it. It seems like it's a 

good idea to --

>> PAUL BEATTY: Is 3, B appropriate up on the creep 3, 

B.

>> BILLY ALTOM: It says, add device for emergency 

evacuation and device storage.

>> Thank you.

>> Marilyn Golden: On the previous issue of the window 

controls, which now I lost on the screen, but I know it's up 

there. I don't mind limiting it the way it was worded but 

there is also any operable window should be accessible. So, I 

think the item ended up getting limited to emergency where 

there should -- it doesn't have to be here. This is the 

emergency category. But somewhere else there should be 

the issue of operable access to all operable windows. Does 
that make sense Paul?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Yeah. I don't think that's on the 

issues list.

>> That's under item 2, C.

>> Marilyn Golden: Is it there.

>> Amenities and controls within wheelchair spaces 

(inaudible).

>> Marilyn Golden: This is one thing that my concern I 

have on the list. It can be categorized that way. But if the 

detail isn't there, it's something that could be easily forgotten.

>> Right, but you have the same problem if you think of 

the list as exhaustive.

>> I don't have that problem but --

>> BILLY ALTOM: Okay.

>> Frank Maldari: I hate to bring back 3, B again I am 

trying to understand exactly what this thing is going to do you 

are going to need probably two people to use this device. 

And I am not sure what you want this device to be. And now 

I got to find a place to put it in a car. So, it seems to be a 

very difficult thing to require and specify rather than to have 

some means of evacuation.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: So, Frank if you ever want to 

come up to Boston I am happy to show you the chairs that we 

have on all of our cars. And we have equipped every train 
with that evacuation chairs can be used by train personnel or 

fire staff. You are right, they do require (inaudible). But the 

fact that they are on board already is one less thing 

(inaudible) emergency personnel have to bring into that 

environment. So I am happy to help set that up.

>> (indicating).

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: And anyone else who wants to 

see a video was done a couple of years ago by MTCA. 

(inaudible).

>> BILLY ALTOM: All righty. We have we have sections 

that we have to get through. You want to press through 

these and take a lunch break or what is the will of the group I 

am seeing press on, let's do that. All right. Wheelchair 

seating space and other eating we have the scoping we have 

the number of wheelchair (inaudible) to provide additional 

spaces for people using mobility devices. We have number 

and location of priority seating number 2 we have I was trying 

to read the wrong part. Maneuvering space to being a says 

wheelchair spaces the minimum size wheelchair space, 

consider says 32 by 59 already consider whether the 

minimum spaces should a vary according to vehicle type. 

Amenities and controls within the wheelchair spaces 

equivalent to those provided to people with inaccessible 

seating tray tables et cetera. Availability of windows adjacent 
to wheelchair spaces. Specific features associated with 

wheelchair seating. Knee and toe clearance under tables. 

Define minimum table size. Consider the need for and 

characteristics of wheelchair securement devices. 5, other 

types of accessible seating transfer seats, need tray tables and 

availability to seat in the direction of travel. B seating to,date 

serviceman malls number space needed and location. Larger 

and stronger seats for passengers who are larger and heavier. 

Any comments or questions in that Robert?

>> Robert Carlson: It's fortunate most wheelchair

securement areas are baggage storage locations in practice, 

it's -- it would be important to make sure that a securement 

area does have access for that person's baggage as well, 

particularly in I haven't city type service. Not necessarily in 

commuter and light rail. But you wouldn't want to have to 

leave your bags elsewhere you might need those during 

transportation.

>> BILLY ALTOM: I am thinking most of the group will go 

into the spatial category? Probably across most all modes.

>> Terry Pacheco: On the -- on the toe and knee space, 

could we also include something to that effect on the area for 

guide dogs for dining tables in particular you have got to have 

space you can't have a pedestal in the middle of the floor 

there. It's got to be unimpeded space to get guide dog.
>> BILLY ALTOM: That's under dining we have that --

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: No, no, it's all seating areas 

where you have a table.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. All places where you have 

wheelchair seating we should look at the necessary toe and 

knee clearance spots. I like that. All right. We can keep 

moving. Restrooms. Consider alternate designs in existing 

accessibility standards and use in other countries. 2, 

accommodate dependent and independent transfers. 3, 

examine the PRIIA, Cal Trans and Acela restroom designs 

versus existing standards. 4, turning radius in toilet rooms 

something California does this well. 5, should require side 

wall alongside toilet. Any other comments in there?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Just let the committee know I didn't 

underline number 4 it was added. I tried to underline things 

that were different from the earlier version of Attachment B 

number 4 should have been added underlined.

>> Minor point perhaps number 5 is written as a 

statement or requirement remember than an issue.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Repeat again, please.

>> Should number 5 be whether there should be a 

requirement for side wall alongside a toilet right. It's written 

as a statement not as an issue.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Ah yes. Got you.
>> Paul, is that about the side wall or the grab bar 

location.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: It's the side wall and grab wall 

location based on yesterday's discussion.

>> BILLY ALTOM: We would look at this as a spatial 

requirement. And the mode would be whatever mode offers 

restrooms. Fairly straightforward I would hope. All right. 

Our next one. We are going to try to get through this by 

12:30. No, we are not going to try, we are going to. 

Sleeping compartments. Scoping for sleeping rooms for

persons with communication needs. 2, ensure the controls 

and amenities are accessible. That would be A controls 

within reach, light controls, reachable from bed, outlet 

locations, redundant accessible controls where controls are 

inaccessible. And the latch and sleeper cars must be 12 

inches from the corner. B, accessible solid surface tables 

with knee and toe space be neither. C, define minimum table 

size. D, visual doorbells knockers so people who are deaf 

and hard of hearing can lock their doors and be alerted when 

someone needs to be enter. 3 bed heights allowing 

wheelchair. 4 minimum space requirements, turn space, 

egress and emergency operation of doors. Number 5, 

evaluate bathroom design including showers when located 

within the compartment. 6, space for service animals. 
Number 7, access to other sleeping car amenities outside of 

the sleeping compartment. Number 8, power doors and 

locks on sliding doors. Any other comments that are not in 

that particular section.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Because I realize I forgot somebody 

gave me a comment about the 12 inches from the corner that 

should have been added into the restroom provision or 

restroom issues list.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Frank, you had --

>> Frank Maldari: Along the lines of what James said, 

12 inches, is that a defined number you add you want to 

investigate what it should be?

>> Marsha Mazz: That issue is addressed further down 

in terms of what should be the minimum space requirements. 

And essentially we are talking about the minimum space 

necessary to get to that control so I would suggest that you 

not add that there but clarify down below that you are talking 

not just about turning space, but space necessary to access 

features.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Gary.

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

Under 2, A, I the light controls reachable from the bed I would 

include from chair as well. For a person with a disability 

some folks may choose to stay in their chair and they would 
want to be able to control the lights and other stuff from their 

chair as well. It may drive multiple controls. Thank you.

>> BILLY ALTOM: All right. Again, we will get this as a 

spatial. And only one mode can offer a sleeping 

compartment. Awesome. 

Next portion would be dining. Accessible tables with knee 

and toe space. 2, accessible service counters. 3, accessible 

self service that is developing machines condiments coffee, 

et cetera. And number 4, consider recommendations for 

access to bi-level dining. Again, those look like spatial 

elements.

>> PAUL BEATTY: One clarification. Back on sleeping 

compartments, if we go back one. Number 1, scoping for 

sleeping rooms for persons with communication needs, is that 

spatial? That sounds communication. Everything is spatial 

except the one issue.

>> Just a thought on this one. There is a level of 

complication here because obviously on the bi-levels, if we 

end up going down the road where you are going to give 

access, then that is sort of applicable if you haven't got access 

to the dining car, on the bi-level then you wouldn't make it 

accessible it's a chicken and egg thing.

>> PAUL BEATTY: The issue I vaguely remember is not 

only access to it if you don't have access are there access 
requirements that apply on that second level that may benefit 

those who can still go up the stairs.

>> That point in terms of the wheelchair.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Terry, did you have your hand up? 

>> The accessibility to the menus it was brought up in 

November and what is available in the cafe cars for example 

on Amtrak or dining cars. We don't have that in here.

>> The scope.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Marsha and then --

>> Marsha Mazz: In response to that, you could expand 

signs to include menus. We are not talking handheld menus 

but there are the signs that the menus behind the counter.

>> Exactly.

>> Marsha Mazz: Back on item 2, I am not sure what 

you did with number 4. With respect to the latch sliding 

sleeper. My intention was to add 4, D, that is related to 

access features. And that would include things like the latch 

and the operable part on the door. Any kind of accessible 

feature in other words, can you -- do you have an adequate 

space to access it. And I think that's a fairly broad thing but 

some of the issues that we have heard about even getting up 

to lavatories and other things I think you want to look at those 

more broadly and not just talk about not just have an absolute 

12 inches it may not be appropriate, you guys have to think 
about that. And discuss that. And make some decisions 

about it. There may be other options.

>> I would still like the see the menus, specifically the 

menu issue and in dining as well.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. On the dining, again, Frank.

>> I was following up on what James was saying bi-level 

dining it should just be access to dining regardless where it is.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: So, you recall yesterday there 

was significant discussion about a difference in what one 

experiences lower versus upper. I think that's where that 

language comes up, if one -- and unfortunately, we picked on 

Amtrak because Amtrak is really the only inter-city rail that 

we have, one of the main points is the dining experience 

watching the country go back. And so I think that's where 

some of that discussion has come from.

>> Robert Carlson: This is Robert Carlson. 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: That's up to you guys what you 

do but --

>> Robert Carlson: With respect to the concept of 12 

inches from the corner, I think that gets addressed in, you 

know, controls being within reach of an individual. And I 

think that part of that question about 12 inches from a corner 

comes from the idea of having to reach behind you in order to 

do it. Like on a lot of the door locks you have to turn around 
all of the way around and reach back behind you maybe two 

feet in order to do it. And so, controls should be limited to 

not being behind the individual who is using it.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Jim.

>> Jim Weisman: I agree with Frank about access to 

dining is important, but I don't want to lose the bi-level issue. 

Should bi-level dining be made accessible would be the issue. 

And then access to dining is another issue.

>> PAUL BEATTY: For on board circulation we have an 

issue --

>> With the bi-level.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Consideration on onboard lift to 

access cars especially dome and viewing cars the issue is 

caught.

>> Jim Weisman: We have got it.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Unless the person that raised it 

maybe I misunderstood it they are saying I can't go to the 

second level of the dining car should access to some degree 

apply up there. That may be applicable to any other bi-level 

car. But I didn't --

>> Ed Hoff: We are still considering that right? Should 

other accessibility features be still be available even if there is 

not access to the upper level right? We are still considering 

that that's still on the list.
>> PAUL BEATTY: It's your decisions.

>> Ed Hoff: Are there -- there are accessibility features 

that would benefit people who don't need lift some people do 

need perhaps knee and toe clearance service animals for 

people with visual impairments are necessary. Other types of 

operable devices that are difficult without type pinching, 

pinching or grasping. The other types of accessibility 

features provided regardless of whether or not there is access 

to the upper.

>> PAUL BEATTY: You want that issue in there we will 

put a place for it. Thank you.

>> Crystal Lyons: That covered mine. 

>> Gary Talbot: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Gary Talbot. On 

the bi-level issue for dining. There are cars today that are 

going to live another 40 years with. To me the issues what 

amenities do you provide on the first level when the second 

level is not accessible I have had it both ways I have had my 

food in Styrofoam, I didn't like, and another way they put the 

white linen down brought it down to us. We had a similar 

experience to what was upstairs that was much more 

desirable. That's why I would ask you to keep the bi-level 

amenity piece for providing that level of service on the first 

level.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Good point. Thank you.
>> It's access to dining.

>> Jim Weisman: The default shouldn't be you can serve 

people on the first floor at a minimum. 

>> The service level that's provided is to Gary's point the 

same as what you would find in the dining car. That 

your -- if there is China and flatware in the dining car, it's not 

Styrofoam and plastic downstairs.

>> I think we can hammer it out there the subcommittee. 

Looking at dining we are pretty sure that's going to be mostly 

a spatial issue. And it's going to be the mode would be the 

inter-city. The last thing on the list, is "other." I just want to 

run through these I will read them quickly I think a lot of them 

seem to have been addressed connections to service animal 

relief areas. How best to address automated rail systems. 

How to provide incentives for innovative universal design 

practices. Recognize that not all access concerns have an 

architectural solution. Need car design information such as 

drawings to assist feasibility of ideas. Consider 

equivalencies. And then standards for website smartphones 

that was removed that's not part of our purview we already 

decided that.

Any comments on the last section? Ed and Stanton.

>> Ed Hoff: Number 2, although apparent to me, put 

crewless, that's what we are talking about crewless? Not 
clueless, but crewless.

 (LAUGHTER).

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: That's CREWLESS.

 (LAUGHTER).

>> Stanton Saucier: Just with regard to the notion of the 

standard of rigor, I think it's covered elsewhere just wanted to 

make sure that it was that you know, we have to look at other 

places in the world where some of these solutions have been 

used before we complete the exercise. Just to make sure that 

some of these things that might be deemed technically not 

feasible or impractical if someone else is doing it it's a much 

easier argument to swallow after that.

>> BILLY ALTOM: James, Bob and then lunch time.

>> The other list looks like it could be added to our first 

considerations. So, I think it's probably a neat way of doing 

it. Number 2, I would suggest including that in our one of 

our modal categories realistically ohm one of those modals is 

going to be crewless. You know rapid transport urban 

environment one.

>> Bob Reuter: We just got to the one point crewless 

the automated people movers the other question is how do 

we address FTA trying to determine bus rapid transit as fixed 

route guide way service.

 (LAUGHTER).
>> Bob Reuter: Is that part of our job something we 

have to cover here.

>> PAUL BEATTY: That's not the Access Board.

>> BILLY ALTOM: And I have Blair.

>> Blair Slaughter from Amtrak. A question. Under 

item 1 other connections to service animal relief areas. Is the 

intent for -- relief areas, I assume, is off the train versus --

>> Hopefully. It's a spatial problem not--

>> Blair Slaughter: That was my assumption. And I 

don't know of any other -- any other thing. But that that 

particular issue for Amtrak and its host railroads, this is not 

Amtrak trying to be, you know, hard headed but getting to 

stations sometimes can be nightmarish because of host 

railroads that is something I would love to see the Access 

Board tell the freight railroads they have to let us get to the 

station because we have service annals that -- animals that 

need the facilities --

>> PAUL BEATTY: Operational.

>> FRA let us move our trains down the railroad. 

>> That is a good enough reason to include this point.

 (LAUGHTER).

>> Blair Slaughter: Thank you very much.

>> Gym: I have to ask about officers animal relief areas 

what did you do with cruise trips.
>> PAUL BEATTY: Wait until the final rule.

 (LAUGHTER).

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: As you know, there is an open 

comment period.

>> PAUL BEATTY: The comment period is not closed 

yet.

 (LAUGHTER).

>> BILLY ALTOM: Terry gets the final word, and we are 

going to break for lunch.

>> I am hoping the answer to this is yes. But do we 

have purview on number 3 under "other" to provide come up 

with incentives.

>> BILLY ALTOM: No.

>> I was afraid of that.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: As you know, you look at the 

guidelines we have advisory language that suggests that the 

practices or provides further guidance in those advisory notes.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Unless you look from the perspective 

I will give you X if you give me Y.

>> (inaudible).

>> PAUL BEATTY: I don't know. What is the 

committee's --

>> Marilyn Golden: I would hope this is part of the 

general considerations to all of the groups to try to provide 
incentives for innovative universal design practices. There is 

a lot of time later to decide if something is outside the board's 

purview.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Move it to general considerations? 

So we can --

>> Account for the idea of equivalent facilitation, I mean, 

I am going to say we can't do that but this is equivalent and 

that would be innovative? Some of the --

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: As you know, all standards are 

set to (inaudible).

>> BILLY ALTOM: We have to take a break. So we are 

going to take a break for lunch. How much time do we need 

to today for lunch? 

>> Half hour.

>> 45 minutes. We will come back at 1:15? 1:15 we 

will reconvene. For those on the phone, thank you for 

hanging with us.

>> Linda Martin: Thank you.

(Lunch recess taken.)

>> The line will remain open for people on the 

teleconference.