Note: The output shown below is from the Communication Access

Realtime Translation (CART) system used in the meeting and is unedited, except for some s pelling mistake s 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 ava ilable 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. H ow is everybody today? Everybody looks chipper. T hat'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 t o 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. I t was very good presentations. W hat 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 leteach of us introduce ourselves very quickly. A nd 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. >> Ji m 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. B illy Altom with theAssociation 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 Alexa ndria.
>> 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. M elissa Shurla nd Federal Railroad and Edward Steinfield. >> Mr. Chairman, that's everybody. >> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you very much. Welcome to those on the phone as well. Acouple of quick housekeeping reminders. I f you have a cell phone

-- I am going to do that mysel f right now

-- is put it on any mode other than making a noise. A lso, 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. S omebody stands outside your door it's like they a re screaming at you. F or whatever reason that noise amplifies into the office. I f 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. W hat we woul d 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 weretalking 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. T hen we will brainstorm with the gro up again.
>> PAUL BEATTY: Good morning. T his 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 t o resolve things. O ur deal was you would break into three subcommittees, communications, circulation and special spaces. A llowing 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. B ut 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. S o, 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. S o, do we haveany ideas from the committee? A nybody 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. M aybe give us some time to wake up. C an we use a different phrase besides "special"?
>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. S ubcommittee 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. T here is some issues that are unique to heavy rail and some to commuter and some to inter

- city. I f 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. H ave you thought about doing it by really system type, the committees? A nd then doing every

-- you must have. S o, I am curious how comeyou 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 o ur starting point. A nd 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. M ost 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. B ecause if we do it by that mode I would want to be on all three subcommittees and so would a lot of people. F irst of all, I don't know what the distinction is between a large group and participating on the subcommittee. I s there a distinction between that?
>> PAUL BEATTY: No. >> Ed Hoff: S o, 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. S o, where people start to feel comfortablebeing 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. W hen we have face

- to

- face meetings obviously you can't be in all three at
once. W hether a mechanism can be set up where plenary decisions are made and that

-- and the subcommittee verbal report be to the full committee, there i s 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. A nd address your concerns. And remember anything decided in the subcommittee doesn't mean it's decided at the full committee. S ome 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. Y ou know, to whatdegree can we provide minutes or some sort of summary

that allows you to get a good comfortable feel. S o, 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 subco mmittee level, either everybody agrees with the decision, you know, it was discussed and this is our conclusions. A nd 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. I t sounds like there i s 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 commit tee work full committee work and then reconsider how you break out the smaller items. >> BILLY ALTOM: First I have Jackson and then Robertand John. >> Jackson Xue: Yes, good morning, this is Jackson. I just want to say that going down the subcommittee p rocess, 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. A nd then at the end of the day we report back to the full committee. S o, it's

-- it's proven process, and it works. S o, I highly

-- I highly second going down the road of dividing into subcommittees. R egarding how we can address the different modes of tr ansportation, 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. A nd looking at that text seeing wh at the minimum requirements are currently might help move things forward for us as we build upon that. J ust 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. A nd 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. T he bottom line I think at this point we are too early to break it down by categories for the subcommittee. >> BILLY ALTOM: Than k you. >> Jon Holbrook: B ill, 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 theyneed for the ca r type. T hen you don't have to go looking

for it. B ut 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. I f yo u need a 32 by 59 place to maneuver, and park in a wheelchair, that is pretty much what you need, you know, the lift. L ike 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. B u t 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 regulat ed 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 PAsystems 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 discussio n 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. I t is as Robert said, you know the columns or the rows. A nd I think it's going

-- it's going to have to be some of both. I f we look at issues that cut across all modes like communication for example, it's import ant 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 inform ation that you are seeing or hearing or touching, I think we would be

-- we would do the world a favor for
sure. W hen you start looking at, across the modes, however, across

-- well, not just the modes but the industry you are going to have different degr ees of need and urgency within that communication. O bviously if youare 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 tra in. B ut the need for information, its ultimate criticality might be the same. I t'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: A nd also to make sure that internally we are keeping

-- we don't

-- within Amtrak get tunnel vision as well. >> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you. J ustin 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. B ecause if you break into groups, everybody would do the work they come back tothe 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: Th ank you. You next and then Frank. T hen Bob. >> Frank Maldari: W ith 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. S o, 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. B ut 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. S o, when you try to break it up it makes it a little more diff icult. W hat 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. P erhaps you could break it into two different groups of questions that issues that we have to address. T hat dividing line I see is the communicationsand 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 t hen 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. A nd then whoever wants

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

-- phone conferences, whoever wants to attend the meetings can. W hen you have the face

- to

- face meetings we discuss all of the issues. S o, that's my suggestion. >> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you, you are next.
>> When we have been in a lot of committees over the ye ars 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%. A nd never get through the consensus stuff that may take an afternoon. T he original committee that wrote the regulations in the p revious millennium was broken up according to the technology. I t was a technology committee, it was a committee on program how it was done and another one applicability. N ow, I am not saying that is how it's done that was how the original committee wrote these regulations that's why they are theway they are now. B ut 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: T hanks Billy. I t sounds to me that there is some consensus building that we are not ready to break into groups quite. I agree with that. T he other thing that I wanted to say is that, I hope we don't

-- when we do break int o 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. B ecause I think it risks inviting results that aren't uniform from m ode 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 prop osed 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. T he thing it

-- the lesson I draw though from the raising of the issue of the four modes is that in the subject matter gro ups we have to be very careful that each of those groups pay the attention to thedifferences 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 it ems 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 serio us 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. Y ou know, there is modes and then there is issues. A nd it seems that it could be arbitrary we could pick one or the other. I n 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 indivi dual groups. B ut 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. O therwise, you can get lost with the lit tle 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. I t seems easier to break up the groups into specific issues that she was discussing earlier. B ased 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. T he 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 c orrelated with the particular transportations we could match it up later. >> BILLY ALTOM: Cool, thank you. L et'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 oftransportation in that one subgroup. I think that's a good

idea as Marilyn was saying. A s 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. T he 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. M y 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. J ames?
>> James Lucas, Cal Trans. C oming 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. T here is different ways to cut the pie and neither is really right or wrong. I think sometim es in these situations you just have to make a start, and wehave

-- you meet regularly enough to

-- if one course isn't

necessarily working you could change direction. F or what it's worth my personal opinion is that it's too early to break into the subgr oups 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. A nd 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. C hris, do you have? >> This is Linda too, I have something. >> BILLY ALTOM: Oh, okay. L inda, go ahead.
>> Linda Martin: I just wanted to say somet hing, 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 subcomm ittees 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. A nd we could get back from one committee who was, for instance, all disability groups ormore 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. A nd 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 tec hnical 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. M anufacturers, we only had one that participated regularly, thank you Stanton. A nd

-- an d so, anyway, those are just my thoughts. A nd 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. B ut for the most part they are separate and distinctkinds of operational i ssues, 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. A s 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. A nd other than that, everything that applies to inner

- city rail applies to high

- speed rail. A nd 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. O ne 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. A nd I was not saying that one car per train allowance is in the existing

-- exists for new equipment. T hat is what is in the regul ation currently for existing equipment operating. S o, 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.Chri s? >> CHRISTOPHER HART: It sounds like folks are not quite ready to break into subcommittees. A nd 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. A re 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? S o, I just did

-- I wanted to raise that question and to see where folks feel they need some more general briefing (inaud ible) in hoping that some of you are going to volunteer to do

-- to do that briefing. >> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you, Chris. J ustin. >> 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. L et's identify how each of thembreak out, that could help us move forward. >> BILLY ALTOM: Good idea.
>> Justin Vonashek: J ust a thought. >> BILLY ALTOM: Any other comments? >> Blair Slaughter, Amtrak. A long with that it could be a good opportunity to with those issues to make s ure 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. C rystal? >> 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. I nstead of shooting in the dark >> BILLY ALTOM: I see a lot of heads nodding. L et's recap what we are thinking of doing here. L et's go through the issues list. S e e what we have got on the list now that are issues. S ee 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 p articular group of folks. T hat might be into a committee. A lso, it

-- whenever we go through the big list it may as exactly as Crystal was saying to determine some areas that we needmore
-- another presentation to get more clarification to

get clarity o n 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. F rank?
>> 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. L ike my suggestion would be two categories, but maybe if we can vote on that and decide where to put th em 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. F olks here? F rank? G o 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. I t sounds like at least we want to review the issues list allow people to explai n 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. A nd then we are also going to put it into category in terms of initial c ategory. 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. S o are we going t o 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? O r 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. I f we identify either communication or spatial, that's one thing. A n d then the next thing would be mode for each one is it all commuter, inner

- city, whatever it is. A nd then going through that, not get too bogged down, if we get boggeddown 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 communicati on. A nd 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. S o, we can get through this issues list. >> Yes, this is And rew. I think that sounds like a great plan. I f 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. I f we could do that that would be great. >> BILLY ALTOM: We can do that. M arilyn? >> 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. W hat different stakeholders, as in manufacturers, transit agencies, disability community, want on that thing, whetherthe 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. F rank. C hris, you have your hand up as well. >> One quick comment. I t's important to get through the li st if we try to be brief it's up to Billy to make sure he keeps us on track. I dentifying 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. S o, 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. >> BI LLY 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.

(LAUGHTE R)>> 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 throu gh 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. C ool with everybody? P eople hate breaks let's keep working. N o.

(LAUGHT ER) >> 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. A nd then we may look at which mode that they would apply to. F irst, let's start off let's read up on the boa rd we have Attachment B, which isrefined issues list for new vehicles for all subparts.

General issues, number 1. M arilyn? >> I hope we are going also going to get a little bit of a sense of the issue. W hat the range of concerns are. >> BILLY ALTOM: Ok ay, cool. A nd 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 alte rnative 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. N umber 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. A n d B, consider adjusting current clearance and space requirements to accommodate contemporary wheeled mobility device sizes. N umber 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. W hich is to say the standard of rigor required to be applied to ea ch of these issues. S o, you know, every committee on every issue is required to review existing

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

(LAUGHTER) >> Stanton Saucier: I s required to review the existing standards. A nd you are not finished u ntil 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. S o, those things could be addressed if we make that sort of a requirement of the standard of rigor that we got to a pproach these things with. >> BILLY ALTOM: Marilyn and Justin.
>> Marilyn Golden: D on'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. B ut I think that we need to go through each point. >> BILLY ALTOM: Um

- hmm. O h, 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 Vonas hek: 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). C overed for things like serv ice 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. S o 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. C ommunications.
>> Justin Vonashek: M aybe we want to change that from general issues to just considerations and pull it out of the issue list for now? S o we can start making progress with this.
>> Spatial or signage? >> BILLY ALTOM: That may be covered under on board circulation. >> Stanton Saucier: P erhaps. >> BILLY ALTOM: Marilyn?>> Marilyn Golden: T here are points on the list that

apply to everything that we are doing. S o, 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 pe ople 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 im portant 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. M ost of them. A nd other thing

-- I agree with Bob other than 4 w hich was it 3, is actually very specific thing. >> BILLY ALTOM: Justin again. >> Justin Vonashek: N o. >> Jon Holbrook: T he bi

- level issues is taken care of elsewhere in the document we should move to have this struck. >> BILLY ALTOM: We will move

-- rem ove the number 3. T hat will be covered under the on board circulation. And Justin what did you say renaming? >> Justin Vonashek: C hange it to general considerations or something like that we want to gothrough 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: R ight. >> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. S o we will change it from general issues to general considerations. A gree with that? Does that sound like workable answer? >> What assures we actually do it. I t's a general consideration. I s there some check that each proposal got considered through each of those

-- >> BILLY ALTOM: I think as we delineate which category, whet her 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. I s that

-- does that make sense to you Marilyn see what I am saying? Y eah. T he 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. W hoever chai rs the subgroup

-- whenever it comes back to the full group I know the group of folks willnot let anything slide. Y ou haven't thus far I don't

anticipate that happening in the future.
>> Marilyn Golden: O kay. >> 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. A udible messa ges. 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 l oops on rail cars. N umber 3 was signage. Legality

-- legality legibility of signs, e.g., font, case, style and location. W hat? A ll right. Wait a minute. I did leave that. S orry. 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. T he legibility of signs, e.g., the font, case, style and lotion. F irst point, address variable message signs. B , scoping for certain types of signs, that is the location, number, et cet era. C , when and how to provide nonvisual formats. D , visibility and frequency of station name signs by persons seated onboard in wheelchair space and those standing.

Number 4 is new technologies. E xamine 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. N umber 5, emergency notification. A , use of s haker 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. H ow 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 atexit stairs. P oint 1, charac teristics of detectable warnings

in these locations. T hat is the first heading under communication. >> James: Q uick question. B ecause I am coming in fresh what do we mean by tri

- mode if you have audible messages that's one. Y ou 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. A nd one could distribute tha t over WI/FI which is then downloaded to, let's say, your Amtrak accessible app, whether accessible. A nd you can get your train info right there on your smartphone.
>> That's fine. I f 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. O r 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. C onductor and

crew call button, yes. A ny other comments or questions? >> Justin Vonashek: G oing back to the tri

- mode. I s that th ird option outside of the purview of this group? >> No. >> CHRISTOPHER HART: No. I n 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 i n a general sense.
>> Justin Vonashek: O kay. 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 intentthat 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). A nd 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. S omething that would mark toilet room. O ther types of signs that don't change. J ust like in the ADAAG environment you see a sign on the wall what does the characters have t o 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. S o, if we made a mist ake in that area, you know, now is the time to change it.>> BILLY ALTOM: Jackson follow

- up and Chris. >> Jackson Xue: I f 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. L ike in Metro you can see, oh, this is Metro center. Y ou 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. D o 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 stature d person, whether in wheelchair or not, can't see necessarily out the window to see the station signs depending on where they are placed. S o, we have run into that at FRA where certain stations the signs are too high or too low, if you are at a certain an gle 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 thiswas 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 c ertain types that you say fixed or not fixed signs that you are referring to. Well some are digital and some are not. U sing 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: W hatever 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 sig ns are a subclass of signs that have

-- that have features that allow them to change. A nd 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. I t 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. S o depending on how long the car was you rarely would see any signs. >> I just recall the issue was we compared it to the pl atform 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 ca n 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. O kay. We can all agree, this stays in the communication category, correct? All right. N ext heading was alighti ng 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? O k e y dokey. L et's look back at that then. L et's go to the ve ry 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 al l modes, wouldn't it? >> Yeah. >> It would hit all modes >> Except for the fuel for Amtrak. >> BILLY ALTOM: Paul and then Blair. P aul, Blair, then David. >> PAUL BEATTY: F or the PRIIA stuff, that would be the FRA modes, right? F or number 1? T hat 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. D isregard. >> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. N o problem. I got Blair and then David.>> Blair Slaughter: O kay. O n the i ssue 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 d river for that? W hat's the driving concern? >> BILLY ALTOM: Hmm. >> Blair Slaughter: I f 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 c ars for years. A nd 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. T he 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. I n 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. B ut 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 areasof cars, what was the dri ver for that? I n 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: T his 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. I n 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 p roblems you are talking about. A nd 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 c hips.(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. A nd 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. T rucks and things like t hat. B ut we have seen how the processes of evacuating have occurred. K eep in mind, too, when we apply systems to trains that are safety relevant, then those systems have to be obviously kept up. I f they are not kept up and working then there is a proble m. B ut 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. >> Ma rilyn Golden: I would respond by saying theneed 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: B ut 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. S o, 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 t hey are needed to get the information. A nd then the challenge in crafting that rule is going to be how does it serve the target group fully without compromising their needs anywhere. A nd yet make it meet your standards for, that it's not going to break d own that it's relatively easy to maintain without sacrificing quality. A nd in each of those considerations there is room for argument. Y ou 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. I t sendsup 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. T here is everybody. A nd that's where

-- and that's where we have had inci dences 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 yo urself 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 fac t. A nd 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 vie w 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. W hen maybe the system isn't a mechanical or electrical device butit involves people that can be flexible to all of the

condition s 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. T he question that I have to ask though, currently do we have a fire alar m an auditory fire alarm currently? >> Blair Slaughter: O n
-- >> David Hughson: You know, a fire alarm that makes noises on trains? >> Blair Slaughter: Yes. >> David Hughson: O kay. S o, then

-- so that should be tied down to a visual alarm. >> Blair Sl aughter: Yes. L et 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. A nd that came at detecting and alerting differently. A nd 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, youknow, standalone h ousehold fire detectors so that we have

something. A nd 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
s ystem that we are

-- we are installing on new cars that we will retrofit to other cars for sleepers. S o, 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. B u t we haven't done that yet. S o that's where we
are. I t's just we are still out on the end of the technology to make these systems work well. A nd do the job that they are supposed to do. >> David Hughson: O kay. 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. S o basically some operations if they buy new cars later down the road there is a plug and play that could be adde d

-- I'm sorry. W hen 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 interc hangeable in the system. S o, I can't rememberexactly 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 a n 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 somethi ng for all of you. L et'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. B ecause I think David had a great point of some ideas that could be used perhaps in that other

-- in the smaller group. B ut 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. A nd we do need to get back on track and keep moving forward. I think all of us h ere 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) >> Maril yn 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. Y ou know, but rel iance 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 th e train. S o a conductor needs to do it, and say that's the system, but the conductor is busy. T he person doesn't get the information. S o we need a bridge plate brought
over. B ut it doesn't get brought because that person doesn't get the information. Y ou 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 insteadof a structural requirement for something different in the

structure that is a solution to accessibility problems. S o, in your example, Blair, there was a problematic physical system that needs updating, and that's a valid concern and it should be updated. B u t 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. A nd 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 educ ation 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. Y ou know, we want everyone to understand all of those concepts. >> (inaudible). >> Marilyn Golden: T hanks. >> BI LLY 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. Y ou are goi ng to have a technical requirement for a visual or audible notification. W here you use those or when you use those or if you are required to use them it's going to be a scoping issue. I n 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. I n which case you can say where provided this is what you do. I f you want to provide visual alarm in the regular car, fine. You have to meet this t echnical requirement. B ut if you want to choose to give a notification then you may have to have visual and audible. T hose things are going to be have to be looked at regarding specific things. You are going to have a good technical requirement for a sp ecific 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. I f I could say one thing Blair Slaughter in from Amtrak. I n 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 am anufacturer who made all of this wonderful glow in the

dark stuff when the lights went out you could see all kinds of things. T hey 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. A nd 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 s ignals in the overall configuration of the vehicles at the time. B ut I understand that and thanks Jim for clarifying that. >> BILLY ALTOM: Awesome. A s a reminder, we are at 11:30 now we are going to take a lunch break here at some point we wrap up at bas ically 2:30 we need to do time for public comments. S o, 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. A n d 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. I f we can do that.
> > PAUL BEATTY: Just one comment our staff herewould like you to set up conference calls when everybody is

here for between January and April. Y ou know, so that's also on your list. Really, you need to stop at 2, so we can at least see

-- we haven't est ablished

-- you have a lot of things to rush through this. >> BILLY ALTOM: Yeah. I got you. >> Mr. Rutenberg. J ust 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. A nd we have seen in previous ADA regulations is that sometimes descriptive regulations
are
-- are restrictive in a certain way. B ecause they don't allow for further development or new developments. S o, performance requirements ar e very often a way to go. M y question is here: I f 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. T hey are goals. Aperformance standard is a complicated thing to write, as I am sure you know. A nd often it's much more difficult to write than a prescriptive standar d. Typically with a good performancestandard there is a corollary prescriptive standard. M y

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 rat ionale 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. B ut th ey are also much, much more difficult to write, sometimes more difficult to enforce if they haven't been well written. S o, 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 sta ndards. B ut 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. T hank you for that explanation. U p next we had lighting. Two issues under lighting, one was lighting in circulation areas, restrooms, sleeping compartments and in any other areas. A nd two

- task lighting an on

- demand passenger controls. Spatial? O r communication? >> Communication, I wo uld 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. >> T his 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 e xterior 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 stepwell.
>> Linda Martin: I ncludes step s? O kay. T hanks. >> As a mode, all modes. Awesome. >> Bob Reuter: I t seems like number 1 should be

-- number 1 would be structural number 2 would be communication? >> BILLY ALTOM: Nope. K eeping them both in communication that's where they stay. N ext topic. Boarding and lighting. N umber 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 increas e lifting capacity 800 pound minimum. B , how to best address extreme super elevations. C , lift platform barrier heights. D , self

- operable lifts. D , ramps. R ethink the ramp slope and railing requirements. B , on board storage of ramps. E , we have brid ge plates. B arriers and crowding conditions. Number 1 is space requirement similar to bus ramps and lifts. B , examine how bridge plates interact. C , consideralternatives for near level boarding and bridge plates. We

have light rail. E xtreme implicat ions of 60 and 70% low floor versus 100 low floor vehicles. N umber 7, unless I missed anything on light rail. G aps, we have examined the potential for gap filler divides on vehicles or platforms. B , examine European pop

- out steps. T hen we have doors
an d doorways. M inimum 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 op en an interior and exterior of doors when all doors pay not open. E , audible alerts prior to door closing. U nder "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: O n 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 takeninto 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: Eshould go under communication audible, visible alerts prior to doors closing. >> I'm sorry, lost again. >> CHRI STOPHER 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. >> CHRISTOPH ER 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 clar ify 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. B ut on a long distance train where conductor is closing the door with the handle do es 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 shou ld also go back to communication. Dand E. H ow 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 communi cation.
>> 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. S o, you can go to that and communicate better in the rows.
>> BILLY ALTOM: We will put that in communicationtoo. (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. B ut as I ask this group on m odality, all? >> All. >> BILLY ALTOM: Seeing all, perfect. >> PAUL BEATTY: O n 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 ful ly 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: U pdating by first taking a note.>> PAUL BEATTY: Can you send it to me?

>> Marilyn Golden: H appy to. W hat 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. P erfect. O n 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. M ake 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. I t should be heavy rail not commuter rail. >> Well, I guess heavy rail, depends how you look at it, h eavy 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? W ho am I tobroaden this?
>> This is Linda. O ne comment. >> CHRISTOPHER HART: Linda, go ahead. >> Linda Martin: T hank you. >> BILLY ALTOM: Hold on a second. O ne at a time. Plus, let's finish with David, he had a comment, then Linda on the phone. >> Yes, this is David. O kay. C ommuter rail has to comply with the FRA regulation. >> Correct. >> David Hughson: S o that's called heavy rail, I thought. >> No. H eavy rail is CTA. >> Jon Holbrook: H eavy rail is propulsion, with propulsion. >> David Hughson: O h, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that, sorry. >> Linda Martin: I just wanted to caution, I guess, in the notion that f reight, 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. A nd but I understand the you know the envelope side issues related to trains going down tracks and through tunnels and past platforms all ofthat 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. R ight. I didn't know if everybody would know that. >> Ross Capon: T here 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. O kay. L et's keep moving, we went through that. S ee, t hat was pretty painless. O n board circulation. F eatures 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 boar d circulation features. Bdoors. 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 handhol d criteria for rapid transitand light rail. E , consideration of an on board lift to access

bi

- level cars especially dome or viewing cars. 2 , spaces within the train. C onsider hardware solutions to accessible of available features when used to store lug gage as standing space. A ccess to and within special cars that is observation cars, dining cars, lounge cars. N umber 3, escape an egress. O peration of emergency window controls. A nd B, on

- board evacuation chairs, et cetera. Most of those looks spatial with the exception of

-- what did I read. W hat do you guys think? A ll of those would be spatial and

-- >> Robert Carlson: Yes. T his 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. T his would be for emergency conditions. O ne example was a day when the MARC train in Baltimore came in and the door was blocked by a column in the station. A nd the next car was one of t he 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. S o, to be able to get from one car to another to get to another door is an important feature. >> BILLY ALTOM: Good poin t. J im?
>> 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: R ight.
>> PAUL BEATTY: You want it deleted. >> Jim Weisman: Just the little piece on the end that says "modes."
>> PAUL BEATTY: This is Paul Beatty. C ould we delete, since it doesn't fall under the Access Board jurisdiction, you have a lot of things to do on board evacuation chairs? S ince 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: C an we
-- I am not sure how exactly we should do this, but can we put the evac uation section in both structural and communication because whatever we come up with these people are going to haveto 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: O kay. I wi thdraw. >> BILLY ALTOM: One second. D avid had a point he wanted to make earlier about vertical circulation, you still want to address that, David, real quick? >> David Hughson: O kay. I will try to make it really brief. Yesterday there was some issues regarding elevators on train cars. A nd 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. I n the interest of time

-- sorry, I hate to cut you off David. I n 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 wi th thebus 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. O kay. But we will talk to you in a bit I want to hear the story though. M arilyn >> Marilyn Golden: I do too. P aul, I think I misun derstood what you did before this point a minute ago you took off the evacuation devices point?
>> PAUL BEATTY: Evacuation chairs.
>> Chairs?
>> PAUL BEATTY: Right. B ecause that's not part of the structure of the vehicle and doesn't fall under Access Bo ard jurisdiction. A nd since you got a lot of things on your list, our recommendation is to focus on the things that fall under our jurisdiction. E d? >> Ed Hoff: B ridge 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: G ood point.
>> Ed Hoff: I say put evacuation chairs back in.
>> Bridge plates have to work with the structure of the vehicle however. A nd they usually do somehow attach. They are just not permanently attached. >> Ed Hoff: Attachment is a lose term.>> Marilyn Golden: I t's where we draw the line and

we don't require the

-- the evacuation chairs although we would certainly agr ee that they are a wonderful idea. Y ou might want to look at the new reg and standard for evacuation chairs as you make considerations about evacuation path and doorways >> Ed Hoff: P erhaps evacuation chair or ramp that may be similar to a bridge plate t hat 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: I t 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 tohave it stored somewhere,
>> PAUL BEATTY: It would be hard for us to say you need to have storage for something we can't require. N ow, if

-- you can put that in the report. B ut I am just saying the board could say, we can't require that so we can't put it in there. >> Marsha Mazz: T here is a corollary with their carrier in fact. T here

-- there are requirements for wheel chair storage we don't require the wheelchair. > > CH RISTOPHER HART: And just kind of, FRA requires on board stretchers to be stored in various rail cars. S o, Marsha is absolutely correct, we don't have jurisdiction on the chair but you could potentially recommend something about storage. T hat doesn't mean that regulatory agencies are going to follow it. >> BILLY ALTOM: Paul and then Bob.
>> PAUL BEATTY: Real quick. O n 70 and 80% the bridge plates are part of the structure and are very structural to the vehicle. O n 70 and 100% low floor light rail and st reetcar vehicles the bridge plates are structural and are attached and permanently parted of the vehicle. >> Linda Martin: I have a comment. >> Bob Reuter: T his is also a place where performance specifications would be in there like the bridgeplate. I t has to be level boarding or something has to be

provided. A nd 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. M ayb e you call them gap fillers and not bridge plates but they are definitely part of the train. >> BILLY ALTOM: Thank you.
>> Linda Martin: T hanks. >> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. We are ready to move on to
our
-- > > I have a quick one. >> Blair Slaughter, Amtrak. O n item 3, A, operation of emergency window controls. W hat is meant by "controls." I am confused by that. We typically pull a handle out andpull 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: O kay, 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: T hat's all just a point of clarity. Thank you. >> Jackson Xue: T his is Jackson. P erhaps we could rephrase that to say operation of emergency window egress devices. M aybe that might clarify it a bit. B ecause as Blair said that's usually on the Amtrak trains there is a zip strip you pull. B ut al so from a high

- speed rail perspective the way that we are going is

-- we allow for the option to have emergency hammers as well. S o to break the window. >> BILLY ALTOM: You are saying on 3, A, operation of emergency.>> Jackson Xue: W indow egress devices

.

>> BILLY ALTOM: Emergency egress devices. We will go from there. J im. >> 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. B ut if you are going to build the car might want to build the standard into the car. A nd then they can store luggage in it anyway. You have to go to DOJ to complain about it. I t 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: O n 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. S o, I think the item ended up getting limited to emergency where there should

-- it doesn't have to be here. T his is the emerg ency category. B ut somewhere else there should be the issue of operable access to all operable windows. D oesthat make sense Paul?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Yeah. I don't think that's on the issues list. >> That's under item 2, C.
>> Marilyn Golden: I s it there

. >> Amenities and controls within wheelchair spaces (inaudible). >> Marilyn Golden: T his is one thing that my concern I have on the list. I t can be categorized that way. B ut if the detail isn't there, it's something that could be easily forgotten.
>> R ight, 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
ar e going to need probably two people to use this device. And I am not sure what you want this device to be. A nd now I got to find a place to put it in a car. S o, 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. A nd we have equipped every trainwith that evacuation chairs can be used by train personnel or

fire staff. Y ou are right, they do require (inaudible). B ut the fact that they are on board already is one less thing (inaudible) emergency personnel have to bring into that environment. S o I am happy to help set that up. >> (indicating). >> CHRISTOPHER HART: An d 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 th e group I am seeing press on, let's do that. A ll right. W heelchair 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 locatio n of priority seating number 2 we have I was trying to read the wrong part. M aneuvering 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 t o 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 adjacentto wheelchair spaces. S pecific features associated with

wheelcha ir seating. K nee and toe clearance under tables. Define minimum table size. C onsider 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 th e direction of travel. Bseating 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: I t'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. N ot necessarily in commuter and light rail. B ut 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? P robably across most all modes. >> Terry Pacheco: O n t he

-- 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. I t's got to be unimpeded spac e 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. A ll places where you have wheelchair seating we should look at the necessary toe and knee clearance spots. I like that. A ll right. We can keep moving. Restrooms. C onsider alternate designs in existing accessibility standards and use in other countries. 2 , accommodate dependent and independent transfers. 3 , examine the PRIIA, Cal Tra ns 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. A ny other comments in there?
>> PAUL BEATTY: Just let the committee know I did n'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 tha n an issue. >> BILLY ALTOM: Repeat again, please. >> Should number 5 be whether there should be a requirement for side wall alongside a toilet right. I t's written as a statement not as an issue. >> BILLY ALTOM: Ah yes. G ot 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. A nd the mode would be whatever mode offers restrooms. F ai rly straightforward I would hope. A ll right. Our next one. We are going to try to get through this by 12:30. N o, we are not going to try, we are going to. Sleeping compartments. S coping for sleeping rooms for persons with communication needs. 2 , ensure the controls and amenities are accessible. T hat would be A controls within reach, light controls, reachable from bed, outlet locations, redundant accessible controls where controls are inaccessible. A nd the l atch 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 an d be alerted when someone needs to be enter. 3 bed heights allowing wheelchair. 4minimum space requirements, turn space, egress and emergency operation of doors. N umber 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. N umber 8, power doors and locks on sliding doors. A ny 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: A long the lines of what James said, 12 i nches, is that a defined number you add you want to investigate what it should be? >> Marsha Mazz: T hat issue is addressed further down in terms of what should be the minimum space requirements. And essentially we are talking about the minimum space
nece ssary 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: T hank you, Mr. Chair. G ary Talbot. Under 2, A, I the light controls reachable from the bed I would include from chair as well. F or a person with a disability some folks may choose to stay in their chair and they wouldwant to be able to control the lights and other stuff from the ir

chair as well. I t may drive multiple controls. T hank you. >> BILLY ALTOM: A ll right. A gain, we will get this as a spatial. A nd 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. A nd number 4, consider recommendations for access to bi

- level dining. Again, those look li ke spatial elements.
>> PAUL BEATTY: One clarification. B ack on sleeping compartments, if we go back one. N umber 1, scoping for sleeping rooms for persons with communication needs, is that spatial? T hat sounds communication. Everything is spatial
exce pt the one issue. >> Just a thought on this one. T here 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 th e 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 accessrequirements that apply on that second level t hat 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: I n response to that, you could expand signs to include menus. We are not talking handheld menus but there are the signs th at the menus behind the counter.
>> Exactly.
>> Marsha Mazz: B ack on item 2, I am not sure what you did with number 4. W ith respect to the latch sliding sleeper. M y intention was to add 4, D, that is related to access features. A nd that would include t hings like the latch and the operable part on the door. A ny kind of accessible feature in other words, can you

-- do you have an adequate space to access it. A nd I think that's a fairly broad thing but some of the issues that we have heard about even get ting 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 thinkabout that. A nd discuss that. A nd make some decisions

abou t it. T here may be other options. >> I would still like the see the menus, specifically the menu issue and in dining as well. >> BILLY ALTOM: Okay. O n 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. A nd 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: W ith 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. A nd 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. L ike on a lot of the door locks you have to turn aroundall of the way around and reach back behind you maybe two

feet in order to do it. A nd 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 b i

- 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 th ere. T hat may be applicable to any other bi

- level
car. B ut I didn't

-- >> Ed Hoff: We are still considering that right? S hould other accessibility features be still be available even if there is not access to the upper level right? We are still consid ering that that's still on the list.>> PAUL BEATTY: It's your decisions.

>> Ed Hoff: A re 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 peopl e with visual impairments are necessary. O ther types of operable devices that are difficult without type pinching, pinching or grasping. T he other types of accessibility features provided regardless of whether or not there is access to the upper.
>> PAU L BEATTY: You want that issue in there we will put a place for it. T hank you. >> Crystal Lyons: T hat covered mine. >> Gary Talbot: T hank you, Mr. Chair. G ary Talbot. O n the bi

- level issue for dining. T here 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 l inen down brought it down to us. We had a similar experience to what was upstairs that was much more desirable. T hat'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 poi nt. T hank you.>> It's access to dining.

>> Jim Weisman: T he 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. T hat 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. A nd it's going to be the mode would be the inter

- city. T he 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. H ow best to address automat ed rail systems. How to provide incentives for innovative universal design practices. Recognize that not all access concerns have an architectural solution. N eed car design information such as drawings to assist feasibility of ideas. C onsider equivalen cies. A nd 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? E d and Stanton. >> Ed Hoff: N umber 2, although apparent to me, put crewless, that's what we are t alking about crewless? N otclueless, but crewless. (LAUGHTER). >> CHRISTOPHER HART: That's CREWLESS. (LAUGHTER). >> Stanton Saucier: J ust 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. J ust 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. S o, I think it's probably a neat way of doing it. N umber 2, I would suggest including that in our one of our modal categories realistically ohm one of those modals is going to be crewless. Y ou know rapid transport urban environment one. >> Bob Reuter: We just got to the one point crewless the automated p eople 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: I s 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. Aquestion. U nder item 1 other connections to service animal relief areas. I s the intent for

-- relief areas, I assume, is off the train versus

-- >> Hopefully. I t's a spatial pr oblem not

-- >> Blair Slaughter: T hat was my assumption. A nd I don't know of any other

-- any other thing. B ut 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 so metimes 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

-- >> PAU L BEATTY: Operational. >> FRA let us move our trains down the railroad. >> That is a good enough reason to include this point. (LAUGHTER). >> Blair Slaughter: T hank you very much. >> Gym: I have to ask about officers animal relief areas what did yo u 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. B ut 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 k now, 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. W hat is the committee's

-- >> Marilyn Golden: I would hope this is part of the general considerations to all of the groups to try to provideincentives for innovative universal design practices. T here 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 in novative? S ome of the

-- >> CHRISTOPHER HART: As you know, all standards are set to (inaudible). >> BILLY ALTOM: We have to take a break. S o we are going to take a break for lunch. H ow much time do we need to today for lunch?
>> Half hour. >> 45 minute s. We will come back at 1:15? 1 :15 we will reconvene. F or those on the phone, thank you for hanging with us.
>> Linda Martin: T hank you. (Lunch recess taken.)
>> The line will remain open for people on the teleconference.