**Note: The output shown below is from the Communication A ccess** 

**Realtime Translation (CA RT) system used in the Boarding and**  **Al ighting Subcommittee Meeting #** **7 and is generally**  **unedited. T** **he CA** **RT sy stem was used to provide an accommodation to persons**  **with hearing loss and persons who are deaf, and was streamed in real**  **- time and available to the public on the internet during the**  **meeting.**

**CA RT Operato**  **r: Beverly Early** 

**U.S. A ccess Board**  **Rail Vehicles A ccess A** **dv isory** **Committee Boarding and A** **lighting Subcommittee Meeting # 7**  **Thursday ,**  **December 18 , 2014** 

>> PAUL BEATTY: By the time you finish the sound check go ahead and start.
>> Melissa: Iam on Paul.
>> PAUL BEATTY: Go ahead Rose introduce yourself and then turn it over to me. >> Rose Marie: G ood afternoon everybody today is December 18 this is the RVAAC subcommittee on

-- hold on boarding and alighting. M y name is Rose Marie with the Access Board. And I am going to read off ever everybody's name to start off with when you hear your name pleaserespond with your name and the name of your organization

and operator if you could listen out to see whether the lines need to be boosted or lowered? So, okay. O perator, yes we are ready to begin. O kay. Yes, I see the operator is responding to other line calls that are still coming in. Awhole flurry of them just filled up the
room. O kay. O nce again I will call out your name, and when you please repeat your name and the name of the organization. F irst one is Paul Beatty?
>> PAUL BEATTY: Paul Beatty U.S. Access Board.
>> The line is good. M ichael Chisena. M ichael Chisena? O kay. G ricelda

-- hold on a second. G ricelda . >> MTA New York.
>> The line i s good. F rank. >> Parson B rin c ker h off. >> Ed Hoff? >> Ed Hoff New Jersey Transit.
>> Crystal Lyons >> Crystal Lyons South West Transit Association >> Billy Altom >> with the association of programs for independent living in beautiful downtown Little Rock, Arkansas. >> Thank you. J osh Coran. >> Joshua Coran, Talgo Inc.>> Thank you. D avid Nelson.
>> Yes, David Nelson with Amtrak. I know you can't see me, I am waving my hands, I am here.
>> the line is good. M arilyn Golden.
>> Hi, i t's Marilyn. S orry, my voice is hoarse. >> Operator, could you lower her line volume please just a notch? Steve Roman >> Steve Roman LTK. >> Uwe Rutenberg >> ICAD Montreal >> Don Mebius. >> LTK. >> Melissa Anderson. >> Melissa Anderson, Access Board staff.
>> Thank you. L isa Fairhall.
>> Lisa Fairhall Access Board staff.
>> Thank you. Kenneth Shiotani. >> Kenn e th Shiotani, National Disability Rights Network. >> Operator boost Ken's line please? F rank Maldari? >> Frank Maldari New York MTA.
>> Dennis Ca nnon.
>> Dennis Cannon National Disability Rights Network. >> I think that's everybody. D id I miss anybody's name? O kay. Paul Beatty, take it away.>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay, thank you Rose. G ood

afternoon this is Paul Beatty welcome to the 7th meeting of the boarding and alighting subcommittee. A s you know, anyone may participate in subcommittee discussions. N o time of public comment has been scheduled during this two

- hour call. S ince the CART system's chat box is not available, subcommittee participant s who are only using CART to participate, and they desire to raise a question or make a statement, please use the RVAAC E

- mail address at RVAAC @ access

- board.gov. W hen speaking please remember to give your name, and as a reminder the next meeting of this subcommittee is January 2 9

. Iam going to turn the call over to the subcommittee chair Marilyn Golden go ahead Marilyn.
>> Thanks Paul. A ny
-- now we need to approve the agenda. A ny
-- any hesitations about approving the agenda? O kay. Excuse me. G o ahead. >> Uwe Rutenberg: T hank you very much Marilyn for putting me on the agenda here. Ialso apologize for my voice. I am a little bit of a cold here. J ust wanted to mention a project that we are working on it's a joint project on safety for platform for trains. We discussed this in your previous meetings also. A nd I just wanted to make the members aware of the issues that we are addressing here.As I said, it's a joint venture between Oregon State

University, my company, and HDR Inc. and the goal is to produce a manual to improve Rail Transit Safety and platform train add platform guide way interfaces. A nd the issues that we are addressing in this project which is underway now and supposed to be completed mid next year, and I have some bullets here that you probably can see on the

-- that was put on the website. I t's the track geometries and infrastructures. We are looking at the shared track super elevation and curved tracks. T hen, of course the horizontal and vertical gaps between platform and vehicle safety mitigation technologies for platforms such as platform doors, (inaudible) track movable platforms, fixed gap, and same for the safety mitigation technologies for cars. S uch as manual ramps, automatic gap fillers and lifts. A nd I would just say here the project does not online address the issues of passengers with mobility impairments, or sensory impairments but the population in general. T he next issue is the platform intrusion technologies at some transit agency use such as fences infrared beams and laser beams and signage to prevent accidents or incident. T hen we have the operations which is a collection of incident data

-- >> (inaudible) >> Yes?>> Hi guys. >> Uwe Rutenberg: O kay. Ithink there is somebody else on the phone.
>> It's Chris.
>> Yes sorry. >> Uwe Rutenberg: I t's okay the operations where we collecting incident data from transit agencies and my interviews workshops, webinars and in the new year we are planning site visits to major transit agencies, one of them being New York the other one San Francisco. A nd if there is enough money left in the kitty we probably will also go to Chicago. T he other last point, of course is the human behavior. We found there are quite a number of incidents in terms of suicides, falls, trip ping and pushing. A nd the gaps between the cars for sight impaired passengers are presenting a major problem. The project that is supposed to be finished like I said by mid 2015. A nd a report will be available. A nd we thought, you know, this committee m ight be interested in knowing the outcome of this exercise because it relates directly to the issues that we are discussing here boarding and alighting and vertical gaps horizontal gaps and safety issues by train crew or station crew. Ijust wanted to make you aware of that this is happening. A nd what you can expect in the newyear as an outcome, outcome of this, thank you very much.

That's all. I f anybody has any additional ideas on what we did not cover as I mentioned here these are main issues that
a re listed here. P lease E

- mail me and we can discuss this aside from the committee here. T hank you very much again. Back to you >> This is David Nelson here. Ihave a question if possible >> Sure.
>> David: You mentioned that this was something that

-- you said something about a safety measure it's going to update the safety manual which safety manual are you speaking of and for whom is the safety manual for? >> Uwe Rutenberg: T his is a new safety manual it doesn't exist it's by the TCRP which stands for transit cooperative research program under the umbrella of the Transportation Research Board. A nd this is a new manual, something like that does not exist at the moment. A nd we are trying to address the safety issues as I mentioned before, the platfor m and train interfaces. >> David: O kay. S o, I guess I am a little bit concerned because I was noticing I was looking at the pictures that
were
-- that were provided, and there is one picture that
was
-- that was labeled as a wheelchair ramp, and thatact ually is not a ramp it's a bridgeplate. T hose are two

different things ramps and bridgeplates are two different things. A nd Amtrak

-- you know ourselves, we have been doing research on bridgeplates and ramps and we already collected a lot of data from th e disability community on these. W hich we will have available sometime earlier next year as well. we collected probably pretty much 100% support from the disability on this as well. >> Uwe Rutenberg: T he picture that you see here some call it a ramp some call it a bridgeplate. T his is actually something that is used, it's not a car

- borne installation it's a manual what they call ramp or bridgeplate.
>> David: Yes, yes.
>> Uwe: U sed for everybody not just people in wheelchairs that the gap we need in th e platform of the train is about 8 inches wide that's why it's used on every door. >> David: N o, and I understand that. Ijust

-- I guess it's a matter of the interpretation I guess is the definition of it between a bridgeplate as a ramp. B ut you had me ntioned 8 inches for

-- for a gap. N ow, that requires, my understanding, for a gap like that, that should require having a handrail. I am not sure what the measurement has to be but I also know that the

-- the type of ramp is not really favored by people using a other scooter specifically for apower chair because

-- because of the rump

-- because of

the hump that it has. I t's easy for those type of chairs to get stuck in the middle. O r like a wheelchair, when you enter the train it's like you are slidi ng in. Iwould be curious to see the data collection. ( inaudible) to be finalized. >> This is Dennis Cannon. T he issue about handrails there is no requirement for handrails at this point. We are trying to create that requirement as our update in the cu rrent regulation is no requirement for handrail many. W hether bridgeplate or ramp the only difference between a bridgeplate and the ramp is the slope. I f you look at the definitions of the two, a bridgeplate is defined as something with a minimal slope. But it's

-- if it's got any slope at all it's technically a ramp. S o, the issue is really the two things are treated pretty much the same and defined pretty much the same. I wanted to say something about the report, which is being done by

-- under the T ransportation Research Board. Iam on the review panel I just got a copy the other day of the interim report I haven't had a chance to look at it. But the issue is that the gap is problem for everybody. I t's not a wheelchair only situation. A nd the iss ue that we are trying to do everybody is try to go do is reduce the gap in every circumstance at every door with everybody. Actually, the

-- my understanding is the primary people who havetrouble with gaps are children and women is high heels it's

not wh eelchairs. >> You are correct.
>> The issue is we want to eliminate or reduce or ameliorate the gap period for all situations which is what we are try to go do with our current regulations. I think it was Ken who sent around a while back I saved it somewh ere a PowerPoint presentation that was done at an AFTA conference I assume rail conference that had a lot of information about the problems with gaps and the difficulty and again it was not addressed to disability issues it was addressed to the general pro blem period. S o, in general, what we want to do is reduce or eliminate the gap for everybody for every door not just for wheelchair users. >> Uwe: You are totally correct Dennis that's exactly the purpose of this project that we are undertaking. >> David : Yes, you know, I (inaudible) for everyone and I appreciate that you made that point to clarify that. >> Marilyn: Very good. I f there is further discussion we have a win or two for it otherwise we should move on. But with appreciation for Uwe and also Dennis and David. >> This is Melissa Anderson can I number the TCRP number is >> Uwe: C apital A

- 40.>> Melissa: T hank you.
>> Uwe: O kay. >> Marilyn: O kay thanks everyone. We also had Josh from Talgo provide materials about gap divides. J osh did you want to talk about that? >> Josh: Well, actually my

-- the purpose of my E

- mail was to describe the difference between the standard wheelchair lift and a custom designed one. At the end of that description I showed a gap filler that tag go uses in Europe

. I think that's

-- that is what attracted everybody's attention. Aphotograph I think it's a photograph on the website is an artist concept on the website showing how that works. We have very similar equipment here in the U.S. but it's not set up for h igh platforms because none of the platforms in the U.S. are at the proper height the UIC height. We have steps that operate very much like that gap filler but they are steps. T herefore we have to have on board wheelchair lift. I n the explanation on the website I went through the sad story why we ended up redesigning the wheelchair lift. B ut the bottom line was contained in the table that showed the lift cost several times as much in initial design cost as the standard one that was adapted from the stand ard. A nd the individual lifts themselves cost over twice as much as a standard adapted standard lift. S o the point ofthat was, that we should try very hard to stay away from

unique requirements and try to use industry standard hardware as much as possib le. >> I have a question Josh this is Uwe. I n the second paragraph of your background here, you are mentioning on the new series 8 that you have a lift under the entry floor on the inside of the train. T his is a casement. >> That was the original plan that's not how it worked out. We were unable to accommodate that under there we needed two steps we didn't have room for the steps and the lift so the lift ended up inside the car and that's where the problem occurred. B ecause in a stored position it was by some interpretations interfering with the minimum vestibule width >> Uwe: We have the same problem and one of the cars we are implementing the cassette lift from RICON they cannot increase the platform size which is presently I think 30 by 48 we are a sking for 32 by 54, and they don't have this model at the moment. Idon't know if they will be

-- they will be able to provide it. I don't know what

-- did you

-- were you able to get something in with the platform size that I mentioned? >> Josh: P latfo rm size wasn't the problem. We never did install anything under the floor.>> Uwe: O kay.
>> Josh: We had to depart from the plan early on in the design phase. >> Uwe: I have another question you are showing this picture here that has

-- I'm sorry, I'm sorry about my voice. The six different photographs in there. O n the right

- hand side and the middle under accessibility you are showing a bridgeplate. Iam assuming this is an automatic

-- >> Josh: I t's not a bridge plate but a gap filler. >> Gap fille r sorry. >> Josh: I t is automatic it operates very much like our steps do now with the conductor or even the passenger pushes a door open button, nothing apparently happens at first. T he step here or in Europe the ga p filler deploys, and once it is deployed and locked then the doors are allowed to open.
>> Okay.
>> Josh: A nd then in the opposite case of first door closes and then after the door is closed, reports itself as closed the gap fill or step restricts. N o o ne gets trapped steps in a gap.
>> Dennis: T his is Dennis Cannon can you

-- I am assuming the difference the reason you are calling this a gap filler is it simply extends from the cab, the car rather to the platform doesn't overlap the platform; is that c orrect?>> Josh: Yeah, this is correct. >> a bridgeplate you would say overlaps the platform and the car is that the difference that you are trying to discuss? >> Yes.
>> Dennis: O kay. A nd when this is deployed, is there a space between the platform and this gap filler? >> Josh: T here can be. T he gap filler fills the minimum gap but if the tolerances happen to add up to where there is a larger than normal gap there would be the remainder of that gap should be relatively small. C ertainly less than 3. Another point that should be noted is that unlike bridgeplate it doesn't do anything about correcting for height differences. T hat sketch it looks like a difference there shouldn't be there is a normal quarter

- inch difference but the height error would be between the gap filler and the platform not the gap fill are and the car but that sketch isn't accurate.
>> Uwe: T his is Uwe. I s the gap filler adjustable horizontally? >> Josh: I don't know that. I would think it could be. But I think the design jus t to fill the gap

-- well actually the smallest gaps because if it can't ex tend then the door won't open if it hits something before it reaches full travel the doorwill not open.
>> Uwe: I f you have a different gap, one gap let's say is 3 inches wide on e is 5 inches wide does the gap automatically adjust to the difference? >> Josh: N o it would be set to 3 inch and you would have a 2 inch remaining gap >> Okay.
>> Dennis: T his is Dennis. I am assuming this is weight bearing load bearing you can roll on it as opposed to the **NOTE: ( Dogs barking) >> (inaudible) >> It's designed to take, roll aboard bag someone stepping on it, absolutely.
>> Dennis: O kay. >> Hay Dennis can you repeat that your dog must be hungry or something like that.

(LAUGHTER)
>> The question was: W hether it was weight bearing or load bearing, in other words, can you roll across it and not have it give way or whatever. W hat are the complaints or issues raised about the

-- the rubber device that WMATA here in the DC Metro is usin g to help reduce the gap is an extruded rubber flange I guess you would call it mounted onthe outside of the door. A nd while it reduces the horizontal

gap to some extent it's not in and of itself weight bearing. >> In other words, if you step on it you bend it push it down it's rubber I don't know if it will be dislodged. U nlike the twice being used in MARTA which is a physical sill extension that is load bearing. You can roll on it and it decreases the gap the horizontal gap between the platform and t he car >> Excuse me this is Glenn Mills is Metro I disagree what you said the device we have on the side of the car weight has been applied it does not move when you step on it, it does not fall out when you step on it. S o, I am not sure where you are getting your information from but our device

-- >> I was getting my information from comments that were made here at the committee. I don't have any information directly.
>> I am not going to argue with anybody at the committee I am saying the device was eng ineered tested before it was applied. I am going to disagree with that comment.
>> Okay. I am glad to hear that. >> This is Josh let me point out as put on my mechanical engineer hat for a minute. H ooks law would tellyou this whole argument is a matter of degree. B ecause no

matter how rigid strong you make it, it will deflect so when you are saying Dennis is that the rubber one is not comfortable because it deflects you meal feel the deflection more than you feel with a steel piece it's a matter of deg ree it could be change today a higher barometer so you are comfortable stepping on it. >> I was referring to a comment made here at one of the committee when I

-- when I said that you could reduce the gap either with the MARTA extension or the Metro extens ion, somebody here on the committee objected and said, that the extension WMATA uses is just a piece of rubber and it could not support weight. T hat's the only comment that I was referring to. I don't know for a fact whether it does or doesn't I am glad to hear that it does. >> Marilyn: O kay. F urther discussion? T hank you Josh. A nd everybody. I am going to

-- not going to

-- unless someone else has something to say on this I am going to move on. By the way there are e

- mails expressing empathy for my h ealth thank you I know I sound horrible ironically I always sound like it this at the end of the cold what I am actually feeling better so the next item is something staff asked us, and we kept it on the agenda because we hoped for a more sort of afuller group next time. A nd I believe that we have a fuller

group. T he question is about international standards for lifts. M elissa do you want to explain this a little bit? >> Melissa: Well, we were looking for information about whether there was an internat ional standard for rail lifts that are required or used in the industry maybe for safety requirements, because

-- the reason I am asking is in the bus rule there are federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to bus lifts. A nd we received comments that you know that it might be helpful for us to refer to those in our rulemaking. S o I was just wondering if there was something similar in the rail industry that might be you know safety related requirements.
>> This is David here. M elissa are you talk ing about like car

- borne lifts? S pecifically? >> Melissa: Yes. >> David: O kay. N ow, I know that the Talgo has got the car

- borne lifts, and some of the car manufacturers Bombardier has it

-- Bombardier I'm sorry has it and can be made upon request but i t's not a requirement. >> Melissa: T hank you David. J osh, do you know if when somebody requests those on the trains if they are required to meet an international standard? >> Josh: I do not. We meet the general standards butthey are in the CFR but the first lift we purchased the

standard one adopted to our car was U.S. domestic lift. A nd the

-- the replacement for it that folded awe way in more compact fashion came from Europe. S o I presume it meets European standards but they seem to be very similar

. D on't know specifically. >> David: T his is David here. Ican try and find out from our mechanical department in California because we have them on our California cars. >> Melissa: O kay that would be great, thank you. >> (inaudible) Melissa this is Ch ris. G enerally speaking, (inaudible) you are going to reference all of the typical as the ISO standards. A nd there will be

-- there will be a requirement for cyclone testing of that device and all that. I t's very (inaudible) to get all of the (inaudible ) requirements because if they are not following the international standards then you have got a liability.
>> Melissa: M y question is: I s there a standard out there and what is it. >> CHRISTOPHER HART: There is ISB standard, ASIB standard for lifts I ca n't tell you what it is exactly, but either I or Gary can dig it up for you. I believe that the actual (inaudible) is ISO but (inaudible) >> Melissa: O kay.>> Blair: M elissa this is Blair I am curious if we have

the definition and descriptions in the CF R, what's the

-- what's driving the question about the international standards? >> Melissa: Well, when we looked into the international standards on the buses they basically reflect the same requirements for accessibility. B ut they also have testing requ irements and they go above and beyond the basics for accessibility. A nd they address safety because that's really what they are there for. I t may be that there is another standard out there that is more robust than just the basic dimensional and load bea ring and the stuff that we address that may give us a good

-- a good point of reference. We also don't

-- want to make sure we don't conflict with it or that we coordinate with it in whatever ways that are appropriate. >> I understand that. I mean, the l anguage that's there now the rail side goes into interlocks and you know all of those wonderful things as well. >> Melissa: R ight.
>> And of course we are down the path aways from when that was written. S o, maybe there is

-- maybe there is something we c an lean on or learn from without getting into conflict.>> Right.
>> Dennis: T his is Dennis. W hen we wrote the original standards for lifts we just

-- we used a lot of information about you know rate of fall, and strength and so forth. A nd when federal motor vehicle safety standards was put together those standards we have lots of informations

-- conversations back and forth. A nd one of the things that is in the current ADA standard is essentially a requirement that the barrier on the outside, for examp le, not allow a power wheelchair to go over. T hat's kind of a performance oriented standard when it came to FMBSS it decided NITSA national highway transit safety administration decided to define an actual test. S o there is a specific test where you use a defined wheelchair quote unquote with a particular weight and you have to crash it into the barrier with a particular velocity and so forth. S o there is a specific standard that tells you exactly how to test that performance requirement that is in the A DA standards so it's much more explicit and it's also in some ways a lot easier. You can now say for certainty that you met the performance requirement of the ADA if you perform this test that is in the federal motor vehicle safety standard.
>> Melissa: Thanks Dennis. Again, I

-- >> Marilyn: T his is Marilyn, anything else?>> Melissa: We will wait to see if there is follow

- up if

David finds anything based on the California car that would be great. I will get in such with some of the other companies al so. >> Marilyn: O kay. T his is Marilyn. T he next item is also from staff Melissa do you want to explain? >> Melissa: U m, let me get back to the top of my agenda and materials here >> Marilyn: T his is about costs and benefits for changed guidelines.
>> Dennis: A ny information that we can give to help the board develop its regulatory assessment. >> Melissa: R ight. A ny of the items where we are making changes from the current standard to require you know a larger space or a heavier lift or you know anyt hing that substantially changes the standard we will have to cost out and compare the cost of meeting that new requirement to meeting a current requirement. A nd those costs are always difficult for us to get our hands on. S o, as we go through and develop our final recommendations, we really need industry to step up and provide us some cost information. I really appreciate Josh that you put that into the

-- into the report you gave today that's helpful for us. Anybody else have any cost information as we are workingon the report that would be really helpful. >> Dennis: A nd benefit.
>> Melissa: A nd benefit.
>> Can you

-- I think we should probably include the cost of maintenance too. Ifeel like that's also an issue that I am hearing from time to time. >> Melissa: We have heard that comment from OMB recently so you are probably correct. >> Blair: M elissa this is Blair I am curious if we were giving you cost data would you want to consider the zero point based on what is required today? A nd then go from there? O r do you want to look at it from no accessibility to currently required accessibility to proposed accessibility? >> It would only be from what is required today through the new requirements we are basically

-- the question that we have to answe r to the Office of Management and budget is okay you made a new rule how much is this going to cost the taxpayers and how does it affect small industry. A nd those are the questions that we have to

-- we have to address.
>> Dennis: We could

-- we would co nsider what is compliant today to be the zero point and go from there okay.
>> Melissa: R ight.
>> Okay.>> Marilyn: A nymore discussion on that? T his is

Marilyn. >> Dennis: T his is Dennis. T he real issue, I mean it's

-- it's cost versus benefit. T he b enefit is often the hardest part to come by. B ecause it's not

-- it's difficult or impossible to quantity it. S o, you have

-- it cost X dollars to put the lift on a bigger lift say platform and the question is we have some information from Ed Steinfeld to say yes chairs are bigger and therefore by making the platform bigger you will have

-- you will be able to serve a population that is currently excluded, that's a benefit. W hat does that mean in terms of you know, offsetting the costs. I n other words, obviously living more people ride is beneficial to the extent that you can somehow quantify that benefit in terms of how many people you think will actually ride because we could make the lift, you know, 10 feet by 10 feet and obviously we would accommodate everybody including people on gurneys, and the question then, of course is would those people actually ride in order to offset the cost of doing that. S o, but the benefit side is the hardest one to come by usually, and generally is qualitative as opposed to quantitative. Anybody who has ideas about how that works and ideas about that will probably be useful. >> Blair: D ennis, this is Blair. I know that to use theexample of vertical movement between levels on a car or

transferring from a platform into a car, there is the obvious that it improves accessibility for people using wheelchairs. But you know when we look at the growing demographics of or the changing demographics of riders, and the baby

-- the aging baby boomer population which we all fall int o right now except for some of the younger folks, and you know, the studies are showing that they are the ones that are going to be spending more and traveling and doing those kinds of things and at the same time they are the people with diminishing ability no matter where they are today. S o being able to get on the train easier, move between levels use the train in a bet are fashion it's going to make it more attractive for them to choose the train or transit or whatever for their mobility. A nd that's on e of those things that is often an untapped, unrealized benefit to improving accessibility. A nd I think to your point, those are the kinds of things that we have to be sure that we try to calculate in as best we can. >> Right. A nd, this is Dennis. J ust

-- when we did the demonstration a while back at Union Station with Gary et al., and we were testing different kinds of bridgeplates with the Acela train and so forth, one of the interesting things I wish I had taken a picture at the time, after we had putdown

--we put down the bridgeplate and a couple of us in

chairs had gone through the bridgeplate was still in place when the passengers, regular passengers started boarding and we saw a bunch of people with their wheeled luggage rolling right up the bridge plate it was a benefit to them as opposed to having to pick it up over the gap and so forth. >> David: T his is David here. M elissa I have got a question for you. S o, curb cuts. D o we have any type of information about the cost benefit. B ecause now I m ean if you look at who uses curb cuts, you know, (inaudible) people with temporary disability to whichever they use the curb cuts rather than stepping up or stepping down in the (inaudible) mother with the baby stroller do you have (inaudible) >> This is M arsha, I will step in here. F irst off, curb cuts are statutorily required by the ADA, so, there is no option not to

-- to require them through our accessibility guidelines since it's part of the statute. A nd we have not done a cost benefit analysis on cu rb ramps and even if we did, arguably the benefits to people who are not people with disabilities are not within our mandate. >> David: O kay. A ll right. I was just trying to see if I could find anything that would help out. >> Marilyn: T his is Marilyn, I just wanted to throw in that

-- I mean it would be

-- I would like to, you know,make sure that we

-- we understand what the board's

functions are. Idon't mean to presume what they have been in the past and I haven't paid that much close attention to them in detail, but I know that some Disability Rights Advocates responded in not too far past rule makes under the ADA by DOJ that had assumptions that measured benefit for people with disabilities as lower than they measured benefits for the general publ ic because our statistical incomes are lower. S o, it really bundled the inequalities and some ways prejudices about disability into the very

-- the very assumptions of the cost benefit analysis I am not saying that the board has done that but recent agency I would expect to be more sensitive on an ADA related rulemaking has done it. S o, as things go forward you know I hope to work with the board to really make sure the statistical basis used measures the true value treating individuals with disabilities a s equal members of society. >> Ken: T his is Ken that was a very good point. O ne other sort of been fit point that transit

-- you know more transit rather than long distance folks always talk about is, is reduced dwell time. T he faster people can get on and off the train the faster the train can go on to the next station, the more able you know you can get people to and from their destinations you can run more frequent trains if the boardingand alighting time for the dwell time is less. S o,

that

-- anyt hing that improves the ability for everybody, and you know particularly people with disabilities often
are
-- need more time. I f you reduce the time it takes to get on and off a railway, streetcar, commuter rail car, you know, that's clearly a benefit in terms of safe time and more efficiency in the system. >> Melissa: T hat's a really good point Ken, that

-- >> Ken: I n terms people are always talking about dwell time and cutting it back so they can run more trains or you know, the people get to their des tinations on time. S o, the

-- >> Marsha: T hese are all good points unfortunately though, you know, our

-- the Access Board's authority is to write accessibility standards not efficiency standards. A nd so, some of the benefits that you are talking abou t may not help us to justify a change in our rule. S o when we are talking about cost, then benefits, to the extent that you can help us with cost and benefits specifically related to the accessibility features that would be much appreciated.
>> Ken: R igh t. Well, I think that, you know, obviously level boarding as opposed to using a lift you know speeds the boarding and for people with disabilities.
>> Marsha: R ight. A nd also has the benefit of nothaving different

-- different treatments of people with it is.

Which would be the civil rights points that everybody is treated equally. >> Marilyn: O ther discussion? Well, keep asking us staff for these things that you need, and periodically we will try to focus on it. A nd see if we can help you. S eems l ike a lot of our thoughts are things that you of course have thought of before. S o, particularly manufacturers, I guess, may have data that will be useful. M elissa 4.0 the potential research needs was also a staff added item. D o you want to talk about t hat? >> Melissa: T here are

-- you guys have an opportunity, when you make your report, you may want to recommend an item that has not been fully developed or you may want to recommend, you know, something beyond the standards that may still need some rese arch, and we need to, as we go along through each of the items in the issues list and in the reports, we need to be able to identify places where additional research would be beneficial and give
us
-- give us a more, I guess robust reason to issue the stan dards the way that you want them. >> David: W here are we exactly? >> Melissa: O n 4.0 on the agenda. >> David: O h, okay.>> Ed Hoff: H i this is Ed Hoff this fits perfectly with the

issues discussed with previous subcommittees we talked about the potenti al automation of bridgeplates. A nd certainly there is concern that it may be

-- there may be some safety concerns with the automation of integrated bridgeplates. A nd we

-- I think that's a perfect place to request that there be some research done on the potential hazards of bridgeplates specifically automated ones. N ot so far different than the type of automation that Josh had described with his gap filler. B ut that knowing that the bridge plate as David, I'm sorry as Josh also clarified the bridge fill er bridge gap filler is not overlapping the platform but a bridgeplate as we propose would given that difference some other differences that we should ensure that it goes through the rigor of some research testing to ensure that it's feasible from a safety standpoint. >> Melissa: T hank you.
>> Frank: Ed, this is Frank Maldari I wrote a document with issues associated with an automatically deployed bridgeplate. We discussed that last time. Ijust finished it a little while ago. I could send it over to t he Access Board, you can take a look at it. We can talk out of the next meeting. At least it covers some of the items concerning safety. A nd that's a starting point if nothing else to look atwhat might be the safety issues associated with that type of

deployment. >> Ed: Yeah I think that's helpful to point the researchers in the right direction from the industry from our industry to say, hey, these are our concerns, can you

-- can you direct the research in such a way that we can prove or disprove some of these things or can the

-- is there potential for the devices to be done in such a way that we can mitigate or eliminate the safety concerns that we find in the research. >> Chris: T his is Chris. A nd I think folks should be aware that the FTA (inaudi ble) line

-- awarded the bridgeplate is available to the public documents. ( inaudible) to see what we

-- what the key call out for

-- on a bridgeplate are, and several safety features that we anticipated needed to be wrote into that bridgeplate. S o, that's available as a public document. >> Melissa: I s that the document you brought with you to the recent board meeting Chris is this

-- this is Melissa? >> Chris: Yes.
>> Melissa: C an you provide us with a link to that I don't think that we have it here. >> David: T his is David here, are you referring to manual or automatic? B ridgeplate.>> Chris: T his is automatic. We
-- we awarded a

(inaudible) patch about a month ago for approximately 270 red and orange line cars, it will be delivered by C and R rai lway, and as part of that order there is a requirement for a bridgeplate gap filler device wrote into the contract. >> Melissa: We would love to see that, Chris. A nd you know that link would be great. >> Marilyn: O kay. Well, that's good input, this is Marilyn. T hat's good input we didn't have before. I f there is a link, great. A nd the contract maybe those are the same. And I think what Ed and Frank discussed is also very good. And it's in my notes. A nd we will need to look at that on a go forward basis. Anything else about research? O kay. M elissa you put a recommendation to DOT and it is 5 on the agenda I am wondering if that came from an earlier discussion that, you know, as representing DREDF I have been keeping a tag list about any nontechnica l issues that accompany the RVAAC discussions that might need to go to DOT. A nd I have a few of those, I just checked my list none of them are this committee. T his subcommittee. S o
-- >> Chris: M arilyn this is Chris. I think at some point (inaudible) to review the ADA circulars and what STA plan or (inaudible) vehicles.>> Melissa: FTA has put out the circulars on

accessibility and they are out there for public comment this is what Chris is talking about. We have somebody on staff looking at them I h ave not had a chance to look at them yet. But it probably would be helpful for the committee

-- >> No, no, no, no. >> This is Marsha. N o. T his is

-- I'm sorry but I don't think it's appropriate for us to ask our committee to do public comment in our com mittee. T hat's another federal agency. I f committee members on their own want to put in public comment, fine. B ut not through the auspices of our advisory committee. I think it's perfectly appropriate where in the course of your deliberations, you iden tify an area that you want to flag for DOT's consideration, particularly where that issue is under their

-- wholly under their control but complimentary to one of the recommendations that you are making. I n other words, for your recommendations to really have the desired outcome, you want to make DOT aware of potentially a corresponding page in their policies, I think that's perfectly appropriate but we don't want to take

-- we don't want to take committee's time to essentially become a defacto advisory co mmittee to the DOT >> No that's

-- go ahead Chris.
>> Chris: T hat's what my (inaudible) that's what I wasgoing to say. T hat we need to raise (inaudible). >> Melissa: I want to make people aware it's there for people to review and take that information back to their organizations to submit comment not as a committee.
>> Marsha: R ight. >> Melissa: B ut Marilyn this is left over from the previous agendas and I think it was something that you were just try to go keep your

-- I know you have your list. And I think you just wanted to bring it up to see if there were other recommendations from this subcommittee that you might want to add to your lists was my recollection. >> Marilyn: T his is Marilyn that's a good point. M y list by the way is not very lo ng it's just two or three things. But, yeah, if anyone has anything that is more of a DOT nature because it's operational that would go with our requirements our suggestions for requirements, you know, the incomes period is an important time to say so.
>> Dennis: T his is Dennis, remember this report was a report to the board that's what it's being used for it will probably be read by other entities including DOT and FDA and so forth. I t's going to be useful information for people who want to get ahead of the curve, it's happening with other lots of other reports done by committees from the board before, where people have taken some of therecommendations and said, oh, that's a good idea let's do

that now even though there is no reg yet. >> Marilyn: Excus e me, the last item here, I know that the

-- the full committee and especially the staff really want us to complete our work in the next meeting or two. A nd if

-- or as soon as possible. T here has been very

-- they have been very generous in letting us take the time we need but statement has made it clear that

-- at the same time made it clear we need to move as fast we can. F or a subcommittee to submit our proposal in a written report this goes to the full committee which of course will have a great dea l of opportunity to be debated and you know, possibly changed, and this means we need to report a

-- write a report. We have our proposal that's good. We know that the proposal hasn't changed for some meetings now we have discussed it and I think, you kn ow, one part of it the two members were concerned with we are going to make sure the written report reflects those concerns. Ed and Frank's discussion about research on safety may be one

-- one of any number of ways to express that. B ut we need a write u p of why we are recommending what we are recommending, and we have not had any volunteer writers although we have had some volunteer editors. A nd that's not at all a bad thing, these are great editors, and I will take them up ontheir offers but we do nee d someone to do an initial draft,

one or maybe more than one person. A nd I think that this is a good time to discuss who is open to doing that. I t's also a good time to discuss what needs

-- what kind of things we need to make sure our

-- make sure are i n this document. And maybe things that don't need to be in there. A nd any other thoughts people have about, as we look forward to, as we look forward soon to wrapping up our work and developing a document expressing why we are recommending what we are re commending. S o, I open it up for discussion. >> Dennis: T his is Dennis. I have a question mainly to staff, and that is we have this fairly extensive proposal it's a couple of pages long with bullet points and so forth. T he question is to what

-- I mean , what more do you need to have for the report, maybe editorial kind of discussion about it, but that seems to me like maybe a couple of paragraphs at most, what is it that you would look for with respect to the current proposal that you think needs to be done before it goes to the full committee? >> It would be helpful, Dennis, to expose the reasoning that is behind these recommendations. H owever you do that is fine. B ut it's good to have that record that shows what the reasoning is. I f there are opposi ng points of view,I am assuming that those will flesh out in ultimately in

minority committee reports. B ut I think it's really paramount to tell the story in a way that makes it clear what the intended outcome is. A nd why >> Dennis: S o you are looking for the rationale
>> The rationale. A nd you probably have written a few anti proposals and other proposals in your lifetime. Imean, you know, a brief rationale statement that cites any relevant data or any relevant cost information, or any relevant, you know, considerations is really all that's needed. I t doesn't need to be beautiful pros. I t can be brought

-- beautiful prose, it can be broad points. >> It sounds like a preamble doesn't it? >> Does it? (LAUGHTER) >> Melissa: S o this is a question for Marsha this is Melissa are we looking for consistent format and style amongst the subcommittees.
>> Marsha: N o, I don't care. >> Final report needs to be consistent. >> Style is the last thing I am worried about, quite frankly. Style is entirely up t o you guys. I f you have four or five or six separate reports, and they are entirely different styles and they are all cobbled together into one overalldocument that's just fine. You are all volunteers, and you

know, we

-- we certainly don't need to wast e your time conforming styles. I t's up to you whether your

-- you know your report is pretty or not.

(LAUGHTER) >> Marsha: P retty is not one of my priorities.
>> David: T his is David here. S o, maybe this is probably a little bit off point if you do n't mind. B ut we talk about the rationale, I am looking at all of the different proposals here and I was wondering, have we made a consensus agreement with most people on why we would perform maybe car

- borne lifts over platform lifts but we would prefer l evel boarding with automatic bridgeplates? You know, more of a recommendation for all of those (inaudible) because my main concern is we might say it could be 20 to 30 years from now that we are going to revisit this regulation

-- I'm sorry. >> God I hope not. (LAUGHTER) >> David: You know, to

-- I am just playing devil's advocate look at what we are doing now we haven't touched this in over 20 years. S o I think we should have a rationale or a recommendation plus a rationale on the order of what thin gs could be preferred that would include you know, say,until the automatic bridgeplates meet the safety standards

then it can become the

-- the more strongly encouraged choice of product to use. S omething like that. >> Marsha: B ear in mind we can't requ ire things that don't exist. S o, to the extent that you are expressing a preference for something that might exist in the future, go ahead and do that. B ut your recommendations for this upcoming rule should

-- should be based on what we believe can be do ne in response to the rule. O r will be done in response to the rule. >> Dennis: Yeah, this is Dennis you can't use a regulation to force technology it doesn't work. >> Marsha: N ot only does it not work but it's not permitted.

(LAUGHTER) >> Marsha: We will never get it through Office of Management and Budget. You know? >> Marilyn: I t was done in the original ADA, but

-- >> Marsha: T he original ADA was never

-- >> Marilyn: Idon't have

-- >> We have a lot more scrutiny.
>> Marilyn: N o, can I just finish? I can't disagree in any way with staff, you know, representation of the jumps the hoops they have to jump through to get somethingthrough. A nd it's unfortunate that it's closed various

windows but if it has it has. I t's a principle that's not beyond the pale it's a legitimate civil rights principle that the

-- that the

-- that the policy should drive the technology but it's too bad we are limited now in doing that. >> Ken: T his is Ken. O ne of the things that we sort of know exists in some places but we don't know if it would be what's required are you know we have seen some videos of system abroad that have either gap fillers or actual ramps sort of things, but you know, whether they would meet U.S. standards and you know whether they meet this sort of different kinds of gap problems we have here, you know, I am not sure. B ut it's not like we are talking about something that doesn't exist at all. B ut it's

-- it is a question about whether certain things exist in the world it could be slig htly changed to meet you know what we need to have. I mean, you know, again I don't

-- I have not seen them in person I have only seen them in videos. B ut they do seem to be some solutions that are out there in other parts of the world that are close to what we are seeking. A nd I guess what Chris was talking about is in what they are doing is procurement of new cars is going to require something that I presume that the better they can do because they bid on it.>> Marsha: R ight.
>> Ed: Yes I believe li ke Marilyn says in the realm of feasibility it's a matter of whether or not there is enough absence of obstacles pardon my expression that will allow it to happen. A nd that is the purpose for the research we believe that would allow it to happen in the fi rst place. S o, yeah it's not

-- it's not standardized or a practice a common practice out there to use these types of devices. B ut the research could prove out that it could be something that could be

-- that could be regulated or required. >> Blair: T his is Blair. A long those lines, one of the things that worries me quite often is when we the railroad industry or rail transportation, period, it's an old

-- old process in this country, and in the word, and it pre

- dates in many cases a lot of regulatory ag encies and things like that that have grown up in parallel or after the railroads have come into existence. A nd there is a lot of physical realities and environmental realities that affect railroad transportation that are often very unique, and present so metimes complex scenarios that don't affect as completely other modes of transportation or other public conditions. A nd what I am getting around to is, when we start talking about developing things that are specific to rail

- based transportation

-- rail

- ba sed transportation it could be easysometimes heaping on to that must comply with this

standard and that standard and standards that don't have any consistent relationship to the railroad, I don't want to say industry, but to the railroad environment. O r nor respect that there is a lot of confines a lot of spatial concerns a lot of other things that affect the

-- what happens in a transit or railroad environment. A nd my point is that, what I don't want to see happen is that if we heap on other ancillary
requirements that it will inhibit creative solutions to what we want I is

-- what we want which is accessibility. O ne of the things if you say, well, what do you do in architectural situations or in the built environment versus on trains there is

-- there is not always a feasible link between them. You have to have safety standards and things like that. B ut my advice would be if it means that we have to have more detail that makes it more specific and related to rail

- bound transportation, that we do that if it means that we can achieve the accessibility that's not to throw safety into the wind because that would make us a bunch of hypocrites when we talk about safety in the railroads. B ut that's a real concern I have is that we will

-- it's easy to go out and cherry pick standards and add them to what we are doing. A nd maybe hobble the process of accessibility. D id I just confuse everybody?>> I thought it was very well said. >> Thanks Ed. (LAUGHTER) >> Dennis: I mean the

-- >> I mean the industry h as maybe not right now but it has at times among the most innovative if not the most innovative of industries for various reasons. A nd I like to

-- Marilyn always makes the point about if you

-- if you set a standard that has to be met, then you turn your ship into the wind and you figure out a way to meet it. B ut I

-- I don't want us to have to turn the ship into the wind and be create tough and have our hands tied behind our back at the same time by well intended but over burdening regulations. >> Maril yn: T his is Marilyn this is a very good discussion and I think it's fine for us to spend time, you know, some amount of time this way. Even if it's philosophical at times. T hese are all good concepts. I think we have also made concrete that we don't ne ed an elaborate write up you know, it doesn't have to be you know 50 pages of prose. I t can be bullet points, it can be brief, but it needs to give the rationale and any other reasons for our proposals. I think it's possible that a small group could brai nstorm the points for each new proposal. S o, I don't know if anybody wants to volunteer or we could form asub

-- a sub

- sub or something that's a funny name, but you

know a subgroup of us to do a draft something like that. >> David: T his is David, Marilyn are you going to invite or host an all

- day meeting early in January in Berkeley? I do

-- I think we would be able to finish it.
>> Marilyn: Well, everybody would have to pay their own way. S ure, if people want to come to a meeting.
>> You set the date Blair and I will come out there. >> Marilyn: Ithink that

-- well I am not sure. I just want to encourage people to offer whatever resources they can to help us accomplish this. Well, maybe we need to think about it. >> I thought my line disconnected. (LAUGHTER) >> Me too. >> Melissa: I f you need silence just ask for volunteers. (LAUGHTER) >> Marilyn: Each if it's not a big report, we are probably all too busy and have too many commitments and deadlines to feel ready to do this. To be ready to take primary responsibility but maybe there are people who are willing to share

-- share the responsibility. E ither say it now or think about it over the next period. >> Crystal: M arilyn this is Crystal, what about the nextmeeting that's in January, is there a long agenda already

planned for that? O r could there

-- could this committee in a two

- hour period go through

-- if it's just bullet points, and then you would have everyone on the line where you didn't

-- hopefully there is not a lot of discussio n, there is quick bullet points, points made move on to the next thing and see if it can be done that way where every one is in agreement and just agree to no story telling and try to get through it. >> Melissa: T his is where we need story telling. >> Crystal: Well sometimes you know,

-- >> Melissa: I know.
>> Crystal: I t would have to be. I f we could

-- maybe it can't be done in two hours I was thinking maybe it could. I get that there needs to be some but not

-- if everyone is in agreement there is a bullet point that makes sense, you know, that backs up the recommendations, you know, it might be nice to have everybody involved that can be on the call. B ut maybe two hours is not enough, I don't know that's just a thought. >> Frank: T his is Frank I would be inclined to offer some typing help unless Dennis gives me all of the back up I am going to spend a lot of time asking him questions.

(LAUGHTER)>> Frank: U nfortunately, you know, I mean there is

some people on the committee with a lot of info rmation Dennis being one of them. I t's hard to read his mind and remember everything that he said there is a lot of justifications for what we have here are coming from him. So, I am kind of suggesting that you volunteer Dennis if that's possible. I vol unteer to help you.
>> You have to grease the wheels first. (LAUGHTER) >> Dennis, are you there? (LAUGHTER) >> He is running.
>> He is speechless. (LAUGHTER) >> I think Dennis is trying to be retired.
>> But at the same time I know how Frank fe els because Dennis we all look to you. S o, well let me put my head together with staff and try to think about a next step for this. Unless there is other discussion or recommendations or unless we can provoke Dennis into a reply.
>> This is Melissa, I am going to speak up in Dennis' he is in another subcommittee and will have writing responsibilities in that. >> This is Rose Marie it does not appear that Dennis isactually on the call right now. (LAUGHTER) >> Assign it to him. I t doesn't matter we are harassing him. (LAUGHTER) >> I think in his absence he would say yes. (LAUGHTER) >> I

-- I

-- this is Marilyn. I

-- at the risk of being really, really a party pooper I don't believe volunteering others for things when they are not around. >> Ken: This is Ken. S ince nobody else is stepping up, and I actually, I do live near Dennis so probably getting together with him to pick his brain and sort of sort some of this out, I probably do have the easiest time to do that. S o, I guess I have resisted all of this up to now. B ut I think I have been guilt tripped into it. A nd given that Dennis is sort of the big resource for a lot of the old history of why some of these standards are and it would be easy for me to meet with him compared to anybody else. Yeah, phone calls and stuff, you know, I can at least take a first crack at it if I have some people here to help me.

(LAUGHTER) >> Ed: T his is Ed Hoff I think what we have currently is pretty far along it needs the background as we discussed.And I think that you will, Ken, get a lot of support certainly

will from me, to Ed I can submit a bunch of stuff whenever I
can. To tell you my thoughts where we arrived and where
we are. Of course it's not going to be as extensive as Dennis' or some others but certainly where I think we arrived at this point and I know why we have I will put it in there. >> Rose Marie Dennis is on the line now.
>> I appreciate Ed's response of support. Iwill also support you as you need me. S o, let's move forward on that basis thank you so much. >> This is Dennis. I don't know where

-- I got cut off during part of that I don't know what

--

(LAUGHTER) >> What I actually said committed or how I got drafted. (LAUGHTER) >> You didn't get drafted to anything I wouldn't let them do it. B ecause I am

-- I am old fashioned and I want people to volunteer for what they will do and not get assigned. B ut Ken volunteered to

-- to do a draft and pry a lot of information out of you. S o, if you will agree to have him pry it out of you as long as he drafts it up, Ed agreed to support the process I did as well. A nd Frank did as well. Anything else on that? We have finished our agenda. Ahalf hour early. I don't know if there are other items peoplewant to look at. >> Ed: Ihave a question about it's very basic and perhaps we can dismiss it quickly. T he

-- in the scoping of this I asked it before I am still unclear about it I'm sorry. We say the two conditions are met where it exceeds two inches or 5/8 of an inch we have to h ave a bridgeplate or ramp or a lift. A nd certainly in lifts if you don't

-- if you will indulge me a second new verse transit we serve over 165 stations of which 7 right now

-- 78 right now have level boarding through high level platform or mini high level platforms still majority of the statements more than half do not have level boarding. I highly anticipate by the time these regulations come into effect, that we will not have all of our stations providing level boarding. A nd certainly meeting those two sections. B ut we will have a great majority of them will have level boarding. I t's assuming I have 75% of them are provide level boarding and 25% have a gap from a low level platform of about 4 feet to the interior floor of the car, so for the great maj ority of the stations and hopefully for all new vehicles we will have some sort of on board bridgeplate that bridges a 3 or 4 inch horizontal gap and a minimal maximum 2 inch vertical gap. B ut then will we also need to provide o nboard lifts for the same i nterior vehicle floor height for those few stations lift? A nd then once we do that,those stations in all likelihood

-- well the regulations the

DOT regulation would still apply if we alter the station or platform we have to provide level boarding at that platform even though you already provide onboard lifts? >> Dennis: Well, the way it

-- first of all, this only applies to new cars. A nd secondly, we put in a provision at the beginning that says in stations constructed on or after January 26, 1992. S o those are new stations. I t doesn't cover retrofitting old stations or retrofitting old cars. >> Dennis, the way I read that the requirement for the dating of the stations applies to rapid rail only it seems >> Dennis: You are right it does, okay.
>> Frank: I s our intent to have it apply to everything or intent only to apply to rapid rail and high

- speed rail? >> Dennis: Well the original intent was because the A DAG the

-- ADAAG the regulation in effect that date essentially said you

-- said you couldn 't have a curved platform in a rapid rail it defined the minimum gap as 3 inches. You couldn't have a curved platforms there are other platforms older ones that are curved so you have very large gaps in some places in need

-- depending whether it's inside or outside curve it might be the center door or might be the end doors that have the huge gap. S o, that was where the rapid rail. We don't have

-- trying to remember itbut my recollection is that it doesn't have that same kind of

requirement in the com muter rail situation but I

-- I could be wrong. I haven't even though I wrote them I am old.

(LAUGHTER) >> It was a long time ago. (LAUGHTER) >> My point for the remaining stations that are low level platform, at the time these regulations become effective, well proposed

-- let's say they go in precisely today, the new vehicles would then have to have bridgeplates to bridge the gap at the stations that have level boarding and it would also have to have onboard lifts to accommodate the gap at those stations that are four feet below the interior floor of the car.
>> Well, at the current

-- maybe this is part of the way. The current regulation would allow you to have portable lifts at those stations. >> Well, that's only if you are altering the statio n you could use portable lifts. >> It's the current regulation you are allowed to have

-- the current regulation first of all sets a standard for lifts and bridgeplates and whatever that assumes they are on the car. A nd then it has an exception that says, if you have a lift that's on the platform, or removable lift that meets the same standards that's permitted.>> Permitted to remove what? >> in lieu of having a lift or whatever on the car that's the current regulation that applies to the current standard and current station in the current cars >> Right. B ut only if you have freight adjacent to the railroad? >> Dennis: O perationally or structurally impracticable. >> You don't have infeasibility or practicality you haven't gotten around to alter the platform do I have to hurry up and make them level boarding or

-- >> It's structurally impractical unless you change the platform. R ight now if you have a huge gap horizontal or vertical it's structurally impracticable to have level boarding the bridgeplate to the platform. O nly when you change the platform, do an alteration do you have any requirement that might be raising the platform. C urrently, on those low

- level platforms you are allowed to have a portable lift. T hat's the current requirement.
>> and wh en this

-- if this proposal goes through as we have written it, it

-- it's not that we will be allowed to we will have to do that in order to not have lifts on board the vehicles in addition to the bridgeplates. >> Right. You would have to

-- you still have to provide some means of getting people on at those stations.>> This requirement, let's say it happens, is going to at

that point provide accessibility at every station we will no longer have inaccessible stations. >> That's probably true. O n the new ca rs. >> Okay. >> Frank: D ennis, correct me if I am wrong the way I read this now, currently the existing regulations allow you to have station

- based lifts. >> Yes.
>> Frank: T he new regulations say it must be on the cars regardless whether you happen to h ave had station

- based lifts for the last 10 years or not the regulation reads as I read it you must have it on the car.
>> Dennis: T hat's correct.
>> Frank: Ithink there should be some flexibility >> Dennis. T he issue was the portable lifts which is both not very accessible at all. A nd to try to get away from the portable lifts part of which is you know, the time it makes you to

-- the time it takes you to get it. I have been on Amtrak car ins the past

-- sitting on a car over an hour waiting for some body to go get the lift to get me off. You wanted to try to get away from the portable lifts period if we possibly can do so in the future.
>> Frank: Isee the objective I am going to an extremesaying that you have one platform which you are requiring

lifts but the whole fleet of thousand cars needs to be retrofitted. T he cost benefit is not the same as if you have many more stations with the same problem.
>> There is no requirement

-- this doesn't require retrofitting of anything it applies to new ca rs purchased after the effective date of the reg whenever DOT says that is. >> Frank: I understand that part I am saying if you have a thousand

- car fleet and one station by the time the regulations come out that don't meet it all thousand cars have to have that lift to accommodate that one low level station it's just

-- it's a lot of

-- it's a lot of effort put into one station a thousand cars, you know, lift provision.
>> What Dennis is saying put in those portable lifts at that station even though we hate them, but it's only one station. S o, in other words, in order to circumvent the whole issue get a portable lift there you don't have to put the lift on for the one station is that okay Dennis? >> That's the way I am intending it to

-- to be yeah. >> That's not the way it appears to be written when I read it. W hen I read this it doesn't seem like it's a possibility. You could clarify it that would be fine

-- >> I think that's going to have to be added in a significant amount of work has to be put in the re to showwhat that intent does what that will do it puts everybody on

notice you are going to have to put hopefully it will be interim that you know, that the places like New Jersey Transit will continue to modify their stations from low level to high level plat form, and not simply

-- well they will be required to. B ut certainly when they are not required to that they will continue on that

-- in that vein to provide high level platform despite they may have accessible stations and putting them out there at the stations. >> Dennis, you mentioned before about the applicability date applying to commuter rail or rapid rail. I was looking through really quickly 37.41 and it seems to have the same date requirement. S o, if you could take another look at that. >> Dennis: F irst of all there is a two

- step process. Three

- step from your point. We make a recommendation to the board, the board develops the guidelines. T he guidelines get published and their commented on for proposed rulemaking. W hen the board fin alizes the guidelines they become the final guidelines that influences the DOT standards, DOT has to either as it did in the original case it actually duplicated everything in Part 38, more than likely because what it did with the facility changes it will simply adopt

-- incorporate by reference the board'sguidelines final and DOT will have to make changes to its

operating procedures and whatever. At that point DOT will say, as of some such date, these are the standards that apply to procurements and usua lly it will be something like the date will be the date that you issued the solicitation or something like that. M uch like is done with buildings for the date of construction or the date of the final documents or anything like that. S o, DOT will decide a nd DOT can as it did the last time defer certain provisions for a certain period of time. T he lift requirements, for example, for buses in terms of the platform size because they got a protest from General Motors, was delayed about 6 to 9 months, I think and said, you don't have to comply with that portion until this date to give GM an opportunity to do some
re
- engineering to make it (inaudible). S o all of those dates by which those take effect are up to DOT. A nd so, there will be a comment period for th at too. S o, you get an opportunity to tell DOT when you think that provision should go into effect.
>> Frank: W hen I was talking about was the requirements for the station is based on the date of the manufacturing of the station the date the station was erected that's the requirement listed there. T he requirements depend on the age of the station. T he question is does itapply to rapid and commuter rail. I am saying when I look

at 37.41 it seems to imply that the date of station manufacture has require ment on the date of the station. Right now the way it's written in the proposed wording it doesn't distinguish between old and new stations for commuter rail but it does for rapid rail.
>> Right.
>> Frank: S o the question was: D oesn't the same requireme nt for station H apply to commuter rail? I am saying that I think it does and you weren't sure before so I am suggesting that maybe it does in this particular case.
>> Dennis: I would have to look at the reg. Iknow it applies specifies gap measurements for rapid rail that would in effect prevent a curved station. I would have to look at the provision from old ADAAG to see what it says but I think it's a similar requirement it might be slightly different in terms of the number and size of the gap. >> Frank: Yes, I think that's true. >> Does that address everyone's questions? >> Yes. >> Well, anything before we close? C an we
-- Ken, we should I want to thank you and hope that

-- do you think you could have a draft just a really preliminary draft by the next meeting?>> Ken: Yeah. Yeah. >> Marilyn: W hich is

-- >> Ken: J anuary 28th >> Marilyn: M elissa remind me, please. >> Melissa: J anuary 29th. >> 28th. >> Melissa: 2 9th. >> Marilyn: Ithink we can close a few minutes early wishing everyone a good winter break.
>> Dennis: I sn't there a federal rule that you can't end the meeting early?

(LAUGHTER) >> if we had public comment it would be true since we don't have to have public comment, goodbye.

(LAUGHTER) >> David: M arilyn, this is David, get better soon take care of yourself. >> Thank you.
>> Yes take care. T hanks.
>> Thanks.
>> Have a great holiday. >> Thank you all bye. (End of meeting.)