Access Board

Monday, November 8, 2010

9:30 a.m.

Washington, D.C.

Cart Provider: Karen N. McConnell, RMR-CRR-CCP

Metro Reporters, Inc.

703-968-9796

This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime 

Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally 

verbatim record of the proceedings.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 2 Washington, DC

J.R. HARDING: We are having some technical difficulties with our microphones. 

And I ask for your indulgence. So hopefully it will be working soon.

J.R. HARDING: Good morning, everybody. Good morning, everybody. I would 

like to welcome you to the Access Board, and our conference room that has been renovated for 

public hearing. Such as this. And other community assets. I'm the chair of the Transportation 

Committee, and this is a public hearing on the rulemaking that was published on July 26, 2010, I 

would like to. Start on the left.

HOWARD ROSENBLUM: Hello, I'm Howard Rosenblum from Chicago, ill.

NANCY STARNES: Nancy Starnes, public member.

KAREN BRAITMAYER: Karen brat, public member.

JOHN BOX: John Box, public member.

NEIL MELICK: Neil Melick, public member.

JIM RAGGIO: Jim Raggio, the board's general counsel.

JOHN WYVILL: John Wyvill, public member, Lincoln, Nebraska.

PHILLIP JENKINS: Phillip Jenkins, from Austin Texas.

RON GARDNER: Public member, Salt Lake City, Utah.

HANS VANWINKLE: Hans VanWinkle public member.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 3 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

GARY TALBOT: Gary Talbot, public member.

EDWARD GEE: Edward Gee, public member.

J.R. HARDING: Okay, is that everybody? And Mr. Capozzi. Thank you all for 

coming today, as mentioned, this public hearing is on the proposed rule of the July 26, 2010 

publishing of the proposals under the ADA accessibility guidelines for transportation vehicles 

covering buses and vans. It addresses new types of systems, such as bus rapid transit, low 

floors, advances in technology, and including automated announcements. Automated 

announcements, the proposed guidelines revised specifications for vehicle ramps, circulation 

routes, wheelchair spaces and securement systems, a future rule we will update for our rail 

vehicles. We first held a public hearing on September 30, in Chicago. This public comment 

period closes November 23rd, 2010.

We have 9 scheduled speakers as of today, the hearing procedural lows 5 to 7 

minutes for each speaker. All registered speakers have presented an open microphone to 

testify. Notify staff in the back for your willingness to testify. A transcript will be kept for the 

record and the docket. If you have written remarks or a PowerPoint, please give it to staff at the 

registration desk. They will be added to the public record.

Please refrain from reacting to any witness presentation or board member's 

statements. The hearing will run from now until about 12:00 o'clock today. We will take a 

break at approximately 12:45, at which time, we will switch from our in front live speakers to 

our own on the telephone speakers.

Before we begin, do we have any veteran, or member of the service in the 

room?

(No response.)
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 4 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

J.R. HARDING: Hearing none, will somebody lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

All stand and face the flag. Please.

(The pledge was recited by the group.)

J.R. HARDING: Thank you. And as mentioned, we have 9 registered speakers. 

Our first one in the room is Dr. Larry SCHNEIDER. Dr. SCHNEIDER.

>>: Thank you very much. I was at the Chicago hearing as well, and I'm here to 

reiterate some of my comments that I made there, and maybe make some additional ones.

I'm a research professor at the University of Michigan transportation research 

institute. I'm the director of the rehabilitation engineering research center, wheelchair 

transportation safety, and I'm the chair of the resident committee on wheelchairs and 

transportation.

We will be submitting written comments from that latter committee. But I 

wanted to make a public comments as well.

My first I have several comments, I will try to get through them in 5 to 7 

minutes. The first comment that I wanted to reiterate was that we are facing people seated in 

wheelchairs should only be allowed in large transit buses over 30,000 pounds and the words 

that allow standing passengers should be added to that.

The reason for this is that it is impossible to provide proper close proximity, 

back and head support for a range of different people seated in different types and sizes of 

wheelchairs, and therefore, rear facing should only be allowed where crash conditions which are 

extremely unlikely which is the large city buses, and of low severity when they do occur.

So that was my first comment. Rear facing should only be allowed in the large 

buses withstanding passengers.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 5 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

Also, rear-facing wheelchair passenger stations should include a padded forward 

excursion barrier, and also should include other containment features that prevent the 

wheelchair from moving into the aisle or rearward in the vehicle under non-crash conditions.

The proposed NPRM, the NPRM recognizes the forward excursion barrier or 

FEB, but the dimensions are potentially problematic for many people seated in wheelchairs in 

that the FEB will not accommodate many wheelchairs, and will allow potentially injurious 

rearward rotation of the wheelchair and the occupant during vehicle braking. For wheelchairs 

with combined CGs that are higher than the forward excursion barrier which is quite low. 

Lateral excursion barriers such as flip-down arm rests or especially designed vertical stanchions

will help keep the wheelchair passenger in the wheelchair space and prevent injuries due to 

unnecessary tipovers, and rotations into the aisle.

In this regard, dimensions and performance requirements for rear-facing 

wheelchair passenger stations in large transit buses are provided in an international standard 

which is ISO 10865-1, and should be referenced in the ADA transportation guidelines.

With regard to seat belts and shoulder belts, T 404 of the NPRM states that seat 

belts and shoulder belts provided for passengers who use wheelchairs shall comply with Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 209, and should not be used in place of wheelchair securement 

systems. It seems that T 404 should require, it doesn't state this, it should require that seat belts 

that comply with Federal Standard 209, or better yet, that comply with SAEJ 2249, SAE 

recommended practice, J2249 which will soon become RESNA standard // W318 particularly in 

paratransit vehicles be installed at each forward facing wheelchair passenger station. It doesn't 

seem to me that the NPRM makes it clear that each station, forward facing station, shall have a 

seat belt system installed and available to the user.

Point 4, the NPRM is silent, seems to be silent on the use of wheelchair 

securement systems and seat belts. Doesn't say anything about that, and I raised the question, 

which I did in Chicago of how and when is the language related to usage added to the ADA 

guidelines.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 6 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

Wheelchair securement should be mandatory on all forward facing wheelchair 

passenger stations in vehicles this is the point I made in Chicago. Right now and it is currently 

optional and I have seen language in a previous draft where wheelchair securement is optional. I 

believe it should be mandatory to make seating systems equivalent to those people that are not 

in wheelchairs, that is fastened to the floor. I also believe that the ADA document should 

encourage the use of seat belts including shoulder belts by passengers although it can't 

mandate those obviously particularly in the large transit buses. And I think it should also 

indicate that and state that seat belt laws of the states, state seat belt laws apply to those 

vehicles where seat belt laws in states require the use of seat belts for passengers.

I also believe that the ADA should indicate the importance of drive training and 

the proper use of wheelchair securement and seat belt systems.

So I think training is an important part, and while certainly that is a big issue, I 

think the document can acknowledge the importance of proper training driver training, in this 

regard also, the ADA should recognize the ANSI wheelchair standard, WC 19, for WC 19 

compliant wheelchair, and should indicate that these wheelchairs facilitate the effective 

securement of wheelchairs by four-point strap-down tie downs of all sizes of vehicles. That it 

shouldn’t ban the use of these chairs but it should at least acknowledge that this standard exists 

and that there are wheelchairs that facilitate the use of the 4 point tie down system.

In general, the ADA guidelines should refer to existing industry standards 

whenever applicable. There is SAEJ 2249, the ISO standards and the WC 19 that I mentioned 

and I think these should be referenced whenever possible, and applicable in the document.

As I have mentioned before, the ADA should specify methods for verifying 

compliance of wheelchair securement systems relative to the 51 millimeter or 2 inch maximum 

movement during "normal driving the conditions ". There is really no way in which people can 

verify that they comply with that part of the standard.

There is a couple of other comments. But one other comment, really, in T 802-

3, regarding openings and surfaces, it says that openings in surfaces shall not allow the passage 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 7 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

of a sphere more than 16 millimeters or 5 inch necessary diameter, it is not clear in one of the 

tie down manufacturers that we have been talking to indicates that all floor track has openings 

that are under, that are greater than 5/8 inches and a sphere would pass into them but not 

completely through so there is a need to clarify what is meant by passage of a sphere, and 

indicate whether this applies to the tie down anchor ages, I think that completes my comments 

and I would be happy to answer any questions that the board has.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, Dr. Schneider, concerns from the panel? Gary Talbot.

GARY TALBOT: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Gary Talbot, public member. Larry, thank 

you very much for your testimony on this. One question I would have is, back to your comments 

about providing equivalent service, and how I think you are alluding to the fact that all of the 

other seats on the bus are bolted to the floor. And that the securement really offers the wheel 

mobility users the opportunity to become secured in a similar fashion. So while the bus is 

moving, that kind of thing, is there other than for forward facing, other than a four point like J 

2249 that you reference, is there any other thing that you are aware of that we could do, that 

would give that individual the same equivalent service as a person who is seated in a seat that is 

bolted to the floor?

>>: Not at this time. The 4 point tie down system as we call it, is or strap type 

tie down is what we refer, I refer to as the universal securement system. It really is the only 

system that today works with the wide variety of wheelchairs that you need to deal with in both 

public and paratransit vehicles. If you are in a private vehicle obviously can you have a docking 

system where you modified your wheelchair to be the adapted to be secured by that docking 

system.

But in the public transit arena, and the paratransit the 4 point system is the only 

way, and obviously, that is the system that needs to be used.

Now in the future, and in the public transit arena, where you don't expect high 

G crash conditions, or you can deal with maybe emergency vehicle maneuvers, there may be 

some new technologies coming down the road that we can think up. At this point in time we 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 8 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

don't have any other systems for forward facing securement of wheelchairs that will allow that 

equivalency to the passengers who are seated in both seats that are bolted to the floor.

GARY TALBOT: Thank you.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Talbot, any other questions or concerns? 

Hearing none, thank you, Dr. Schneider.

GARY TALBOT: Can I follow-up with one question, I want to make sure I 

understand this, is that okay, Mr. Chair?

J.R. HARDING: Yes.

GARY TALBOT: Larry, just one follow-up question on your comment on the 

shoulder belt especially, I think you were saying that in our current text that we weren't explicit 

enough to say that the lap and shoulder belt had to be available at each of the forward facing 

stations.

>>: Right the way I read it, it simply states that they shall comply with federal 

motor vehicle, safety standard 209 but it doesn't state that each station, forward facing station, 

shall have installed a lap shoulder belt system. Now, I believe it should be more explicit about 

saying that each forward facing station, whatever size of vehicle shall have those installed, the 

usage of those is another matter and I believe it should be encouraged, should encourage their 

use, because we see a lot of people who are injured and seriously injured or fatally injured 

because they weren't using a seatbelt even in large transit vehicles, but obviously, the reference 

to using those is a state law issue, and I think that there ought to be reference to state laws as 

well. And there ought to be encouragement to people using those vehicles.

J.R. HARDING: It was pointed out that T 2039, actually does speak to shall use 

safety belts. And so at least the draft I'm looking at sort of speaks to some of your concerns.

>>: Says shall use?
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 9 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

J.R. HARDING: Yes, shall provide.

>>: Okay, 309 says shall provide.

J.R. HARDING: 203.9, and T 404.

>>: Okay, I missed that then, if it says all stations shall provide forward facing 

stations shall provide.

J.R. HARDING: Vehicles shall provide shoulder belts complying with T 404, at 

each wheelchair station.

>>: Okay, then that is -- I missed that. Thank you for your concern for our 

safety. I appreciate it.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you Larry as always. I appreciate it. Janet Dexter, Jennifer 

Dexter, I'm sorry, Easter Seals.

>>: Good morning, everybody. I am Jennifer Dexter assistant vice president for 

government relations at Easter Seals, and I am co-chairman of transportation task force for 

citizens with disabilities.

Both organizations will be submitting written comments as the process goes on. 

I wanted to take a few minutes today to provide some public testimony.

I'm not the engineer. I'm not the one who is going to be here talking about the 

technicalities of the wonderful work that you all have done, putting these pieces together, but 

what I wanted to do is maybe provide you with some of the ideas that you should be looking at 

as you make decisions about where the technical issues are going to fall.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 10 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

Transportation is one of the areas under the Americans with Disabilities Act that 

we have made amazing progress over the years, and most of that is due to the good 

relationships that have been built between the transit community and the disability community, 

and the work that we have done really working together to create solutions to some of the very 

sticky technical and societal issues we have had to address.

We are very proud of Easter Seals, and the Federal Transit administration that 

have played a big part in bringing those solutions together. We fully believe that developing the 

guidelines around the ADA should be a living, breathing, constant process, and we really 

appreciate the fact that we have gone back to look at some of the transportation specifics and 

guidelines to make sure this they are keeping up to speed with current practices and current 

technology and where we are as a society.

And I really think that we as we move forward we are going to have to make 

sure that in getting into the very technical guidelines we make sure that they are able to 

continue being living and breathing as we progress as a society, as technology progresses.

I really appreciate the attention particularly in this stage of the process about

questions about technical feasibility, however, I really want to be careful, not to get caught in 

the moment and create standards that don't challenge manufacturers and others to begin to 

address some of the feasibility issues that hinder the advances in access. We really want to be 

careful of that by creating the level of specificity that we like here.

That we make sure that we are challenging folks to create advances in new 

technology, and new means of creating access.

That being said, I don't think the specificity, I think that the specificity is a very 

good thing. There are many protections built into the ADA under undue burden and other 

provisions that don't require providers, particularly small ones, to make business decisions to 

achieve access, but still achieving the greatest level of access possible, not letting anybody on 

the hook.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 11 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

The other pitfall that I think we will really need to watch for as we move forward 

is hindering flexibility for individuals with disability, and transit providers to work together to 

create an individual solution for those people where that is appropriate.

Just no two people are alike, no two people with disabilities are alike and there 

needs to be the flexibility for, for instance a driver and person with a disability to work out an 

issue that arises out in the field. In other words, the standards seem to be a floor and not a 

ceiling, and we think that the way they are drafted now it does a good job of doing that.

Overall, there is definitely a need for clarity on many of the issues addressed in 

the proposed reg, and we encourage the board to continue to move towards final regulations as 

quickly as possible, so that we can get to the really hard work which is going to be really making 

this real in the field and working together in all of our various special interest groups. To make 

this real, and to reach our common goal of greater mobility for people with disabilities, so thank 

you very much, and thank you for your work, and I'm happy to take any questions, or.

JOHN WYVILL: Thank you very much for coming here today. Could you 

summarize for me if, after your testimony, someone was riding with you on the elevator 

downstairs, can you summarize to me very concisely what your testimony is?

>>: My testimony is that when creating federal guidelines around access they 

need to be flexible, they need to be concise, and they need to be challenging.

JOHN WYVILL: Thank you.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, any additional question, comments, or concerns?

PHILLIP JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Phil Jenkins, public member. Jennifer, 

some of the comments you made to me seemed to be conflicting, so we want to be specific with 

the guidelines, yet we want to be flexible. We want to be thorough, yet -- if we had to err one 

way or the other based on your understanding of the regs as proposed, is there any examples 

you can give us.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 12 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

>>: I think specificity, I think, for instance, the securement issue is a big one, 

recognizing that you have guidelines around what securement needs to be provided. But at the 

same time, also recognizing that for instance, an individual may choose not to do that. You 

know, that there are -- or that they may request a driver to secure them slightly differently or 

something like that. It needs to be recognized at the beginning but say if you are doing 

securement it needs to look like ABC, I think what I was talking about around flexibility, is really I 

think the overarching message and the introduction kind of pieces. You need to say that these 

are the technical guidelines, but when you are saying why you are putting them forward, you 

need to have -- there needs to be some recognition that there needs to be some.

PHILLIP JENKINS: Flexibility.

>>: Flexibility, exactly that common sense can have some role here.

PHILLIP JENKINS: Thank you.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, Phillip, Nancy Starnes.

NANCY STARNES: Thank you, Nancy Starnes, public member.

I was just wondering if the issue of flexibility in your written comments includes 

anything about the definition of the common wheelchair.

>>: I haven't gotten that far, probably will because that is an issue where I know 

there are some -- the current practices there are some real issues around how it is 

implemented, and the decisions that are left up kind of to be made on the curb. So I suspect 

that they will. I will just say that. We just haven't gotten that far into it yet. We still have a few 

weeks, right?

J.R. HARDING: Any additional follow-up questions? Seeing none, before you go, 

Miss Dexter thank you.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 13 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

>>: Thank you.

J.R. HARDING: As an individual familiar with Project Action, and all that you 

guys have done, you really have played a leadership role in teaching our transit, or paratransit, 

and our community providers of what safe, reliable and dependable mobility for people with 

disabilities means as a beneficiary of your work, I am grateful for that.

>>: And you have been a wonderful partner to us, JR so I echo that back to you.

J.R. HARDING: Okay, next speaker, Mr. Dennis Cannon, I thought we retired 

him, but we weren't going to hear from him anymore, but we are going to allow him to go to 

number 3 here, with the ADA solutions, Dennis, you are going to enlighten us once again? 

Telephone.

DENNIS CANNON: Wasn't there a prohibition Mr. Director about members 

lobbying who they used to work for.

DAVID CAPOZZI: Not lobbying, just commenting.

DENNIS CANNON: My name is Dennis Cannon, and I'm with synergy LLC, which 

is a consulting group that I formed. And for 29 years, I was the accessibility specialist for the 

Access Board so I had a fair amount with the writing and drafting of this notice. I want to say a 

couple of things related to some issues that were raised in some of the questions. One was 

having to do with the space requirements in a say a paratransit vehicle. I just wanted to 

acquaint the board that I have had the last time I rode in a taxicab out in Montgomery County, 

the new van which is a rear entry van, is provided by a company in called Liberty motors and we 

asked a question in the preamble about whether the space could be made 32 inches wide, in 

fact this vehicle has a 32 inch wide space. It has a 32 inch wide ramp and I measured the ramp 

with a smart level and in fact it meets the current standards, it is 16.6 percent grade. So there 

are vehicles on the market that meet the standard, and that can in fact exceed it. I had a 

conversation with one of the gentlemen from that company, and he said they have in fact made 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 14 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

a van that is now on the market also that has a 34 inch wide space, and a 34 inch wide ramp. So 

the availability of these is clearly an engineering issue that has been solved. Whether there are 

multiple vendors, I don't know. But I do know that that particular one that does sell in the 

United States, has made the issues, has made compliance an issue. I have also ridden on one of 

the newer low floor buses, that -- makes a -- who makes it flier, new flier, one of the things that 

new flier has done, is instead of making rather they have made their ramp longer, but not by 

extending it beyond the door. In fact, they have added some flexibility inside the door so that 

you can get a 1 in 6 ramp without having to make the ramp so long that it couldn't be deployed 

in a narrow sidewalk. It is a very nice little device when the ramp folds out, the plate, the ramp 

normally sits when it is folded into a depression. When the ramp folds out, a plate actually 

slides and closes the gap.

So it is a very nice level floor with very little gap problems.

To make this transition, there is a slope, part of the slope is inside the bus. 

When it is deployed to a curb it is practically level. It is a very nice device. And I didn't measure 

it when it was deployed to the ground but the manufacturer ensures me that it is a 1 in 6 ramp, 

so the technology is there.

One of the things that I wanted to raise briefly, because obviously, I think that 

the current NPRM is terrific. I mean having written a fair amount of it.

The issue, one of the issues that I'm very disappointed in, is that one of the 

reasons why the regulation is being revised, is because of new kinds of service like bus rapid 

transit.

We needed to cover that issue, because currently, there are some bus rapid 

transit systems in operation that are very accessible but technically violate the current 

specification. So the reason for writing the new guidelines in part was to make sure that we 

allowed those kinds of technologies and changes so that in fact, those systems could be 

operated, and be legal without having to have the variances.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 15 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

But one of the problem, one of the things that is missing is the provisions that 

we provided in the draft for modifications to the station provisions. Currently, the ADAAG 

station provision refers only to rail systems. Or rail stations. And it does not talk about things 

like low floor, direct level boarding for buses. Unfortunately, when the NPRM for the buses was 

published that part of the NPRM was left out. Now, I understand that it is supposed to be 

published along with the rights of way NPRM, about it that means that for some months at 

least, and probably for a long time because there will be a comment period, people who are 

designing and building rapid bus rapid transit systems today don't have the advantage of that 

thinking of what to expect of station platforms. I think that was a very serious mistake, that 

needs to be corrected as quickly as possible.

And I don't have any other provisions to say other than somebody asked about 

the common wheelchair. The wheelchair definition is in the DOT regulation. We are writing 

specifications for the vehicles, not for the transit, or not for the passengers, not for operations, 

and not for the wheelchairs. So if DOT wishes to amend that definition to include different kinds 

of things, that is an issue that needs to be raised with DOT. I noticed in one of the comments 

that was on the web submitted to the docket, that somebody was complaining about the fact 

that SEGWAYS were -- that is not an issue that the board addresses. That is a DOT thing that 

needs to be addressed, so I don't want to say anything else other than I wish that you would 

publish provisions for the stations and I will let it go at that, if there are any questions.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, Dennis, Gary, do you have a comment?

GARY TALBOT: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Gary Talbot, public member. Welcome 

again, Dennis, and I couldn't agree with you more with the comments with the wayside issue on 

VRT. It kind of amazes me just in my own personal travels, and going around looking at new BRT 

systems, how folks often forget that when they do their wayside fare collection, and the smart 

card system and things like that that they are not thinking about elevating the sidewalk or 

platform, if you will, to the same level as whatever your BRT is going to be.

So that in many cases you wouldn't even have to deploy a ramp. But you are 

right, without having that requirement in there, it kind of like reminds me of like a light rail 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 16 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

problem that we have, I believe, today, where we have been very good about what level 

boarding means in the rail in heavy rail, and even in commuter rail but when it comes to light 

rail we haven't been very good about what level boarding means in that world, likewise I don't 

think we have done a very good job yet on BRT, so I fully support you on that, and we will do 

everything I can do make sure that we hopefully address that. Because it is huge, and I think 

when you think about it financially, there isn't anything cheaper for folks to do than paint a 

stripe and call it a bus lane, put in a new stem that is a heck of a lot cheaper than elevating 

something or digging a hole. So I think you are going to be seeing much much, more of these. It 

is just too cost-effective not to do it. Thank you very much and good to see you.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, Gary, any additional comments, questions or 

concerns? Hearing none, thank you, Dennis. I appreciate it. The next speaker is Lauren SKIVER. 

Did I say that right?

>>: Good morning, my name is Lauren SKIVE re: Assistant deputy operations 

Maryland transit administration and I think I got the short straw to come after the esteemed 

Dennis Cannon but I'm going to go forward with my comments, transit providers across the 

country are submitted to meet -- providing us accommodations for our customers with 

disabilities.

During the comment period, many systems urged the Access Board not to make 

any changes to the existing guidelines unless those changes were based on need, reasonable 

evidence, and extensive research to justify the additional cost and effort that they would be 

required to make such changes and enhancement to secretary that they would provide.

The Maryland transit administer believes that proposed changes require further 

research regarding the impacts to existing vehicle manufacturing or the creation of new vehicle 

types.

The proposed changes vary from very minor to those that require extensive 

vehicle design to effectively eliminating some vehicle types.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 17 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

In a time when transit is being challenged to explore the use of vehicles ranging 

from articulated bus toes taxicabs to meet the every growing and diverse demands the 

proposed changes may seriously -- greater flexibility to customers with disabilities.

We strongly believe that new and post standards should be specific to vehicle 

class, and not universally opposed to all vehicles.

MTA comments on definitions and specific changes include item 1, establishing 

the maximum slope of ramps at 1 in 6 in all cases including when deployed to the roadway, we 

agree that change needs to be made but we do not believe that the mandated slope ratio is 

feasible in situations where there are no curbs, sidewalks or raised boarding areas. We provide 

transportation services in both urban and rural communities without curbs or sidewalks. Often 

there is not enough depth from the face of the curb or edge of the roadway to deploy a ramp of 

this length.

This change may require transit vehicles to block traffic lanes white deploying 

passengers in many areas.

It is my belief more enforcement on the regulations needed to require 

jurisdictions to provide accessibility features in the right-of-way is needed for this to be an 

effective enhancement.

People aren't trying to get to an accessible bus or bus stop. They are trying to 

get to a destination.

Item 2, definition of a common wheelchair. We encourage the board to keep 

the current definition of a common wheelchair. The definition of a common wheelchair 

provides a reliable measure for transit operators. Without the definition we are left in a 

position of making case by case determinations as a result as are open to poor decisions 

because of this insert tie. Item 3, automated stop identification system that includes both the 

visual and audio announcement, MTA supports that idea in concept but in actual practice it may 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 18 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

place an undue hardship on some systems because of the cost of technical GPS related 

equipment and technology.

The cost and availability of trained staff to operate and maintain is system is 

also a concern.

Additionally, any technology deployed because of a failure to empower the 

human operator is also technically a failure and I have to stop on this one because as a person 

that's worked in transit for about 14 years, I just can't understand why we have never been able 

to empower operators to do the right thing and make announcements so I do support this 

measure but I really do wish I could have been one of the ones to solve this universal problem, 

lastly, in discussions within our agency and those we have had with other agencies it is this 

comment to comes up repeatedly, lack of details and support -- lack of details in the 

recommendations themselves as well as lack of supporting research leaves many questions 

about the feasibility and practicality of the recommendations.

In addition, increased gain in accessibility peers minimal for some of these 

recommendations. In closing we applaud the Access Board for creating a partnership with 

transit providers in collecting comment from us before imposed changes are finalized we 

reiterate our concern that despite the -- testimony Access Board may inadd vertical territorily --

if appropriate cost benefit analysis not completed and changes to the guideline result in 

significant cross cost, and limit the use of alternative vehicles.

We strongly urge the Access Board to continue to participate and support the 

setting of industry standards, and not to move forward with formal rule make at this time.

We believe the industry guidelines will go a long way in addressing any 

perceived shortcomings in the current accessibility regulations.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, any comments questions or concerns, Mr. Tall.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 19 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

GARY TALBOT: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Gary Talbot, public member. Just a couple 

of questions. I know in my past I have certainly kind of what Dennis Cannon had talked about, I 

have seen some recent solutions around low floor vehicles low floor full sized buses and a 1 in 6 

slope so I think people are really starting to figure it out.

The rear entry minivan world, forever, was 28 inches wide on the ramp and it 

sounds like there's some new solutions there. We actually have a new entry coming into that 

paratransit market this year that has a fully compliant 32 inch wide ramp with an is in 6 slope. 

So -- a 1 in 6 slope. So I don't understand some of the comments about if you don't have a curb 

in play, but you can get a ramp on a low floor vehicle to a 1 in 6 slope, then I don't understand, 

and I think we have had even comments from manufacturers that have stated that this they 

have in fact done that, so I'm just struggling a little bit why it would be such a burden on transit 

if it is already something that the manufacturers are working on, and that they have been 

successful with.

>>: I don't think that -- and I apologize if my comments were somewhat 

confusing, I mean we buy new flier buses and we spoke with the -- I think that my comments are 

more directed towards infrastructure and the use of those ramps. As a person that is managed 

paratransit for most of my career, is it about the infrastructure path of traveling get to go a 

destination versus getting on an accessible bus and getting off of it. So I'm not trying to say that 

it is not possible for alternative vehicles. I just know at the Maryland transit administration we 

are looking at all types of vehicles to give as much flexibility to our riders as possible and the 

limits being set on those are somewhat concerting.

Is it possible, I hope my comments didn't make it appear that I don't think it is. 

The fact that new flier is making these changes without these being regulation, tells you where 

transit is coming from the inception of the regulation I think we are very much in tune with what 

is needed I think we are paying attention to what our customers need and I don't necessarily 

think regulation is what is needed in order for us to go forward.

GARY TALBOT: If I can ask a follow-up on the audio and visual part. I 

understand your -- and I share your frustration. At least perceived frustration on manual stop 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 20 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

announcements why wouldn't folks do that, for years when I have been riding buses it is 

amazing to me how some drivers or operators feel they just don't have to do that. But with the 

new systems today, the audio visual system, if we didn't have audio visual as a requirement, 

then folks whose are deaf would not have any opportunity to get that visual component. So 

even if you did have and went back to a manual-based system, and the driver was just going to 

say the announcements, he would really have no ability for that to be tied into a visual system.

So I think that is where the -- I know as a board member, that is where it is 

important to me that you know, folks who are blind and folks who are deaf get the same equal 

transportation as anyone else. And I don't think that -- and I think given some of the 

advancements with the GPS technology, and transit master solutions things like that, it really 

has brought the cost down so that it is not such a cost burden to the agencies.

Are you seeing something different where you are concerned about an 

automated solution that provides audio, and visual?

>>: As a system it has 668 buses, routinely we will have over 100 of those that 

are not receiving GPS information, therefore the automated announcement system may or may 

not work, I say that as something that we are trying to address, but technology is technology, 

and it enhances what we do. It makes things better, but the fundamental fact that an operator 

will not make announcements for those that will ride will still always bother me.

GARY TALBOT: I agree, thank you very much, I appreciate it.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Talbot, public member Hans.

HANS VANWINKLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, I actually had the same question Gary 

did. I was getting amplification on your comments about the automated system, versus the 

operator, and so I think you probably answered that question for me, so.

>>: Well, I mean as we hope to upgrade our system to be on a better platform. 

Currently it works through the radio system so if there is an issue with the radio system, band 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 21 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

width, for information traveling back and forth it doesn't work so we are happy to upgrade that 

system now and we are a large system. I just it is not that I'm vehemently against anything that 

makes things better for our customers. I guess as one of our speakers talked about with 

flexibility as a transit provider, I think that in my short-term, and my term in transit is pretty 

short compared to my peers. But I see remarkable change in how transit is relating to the 

business at hand, and I want to continue that, and I think there needs to be some sort of 

flexibility in some of the vehicle types that we use, and I also think that there needs to be some 

credit given to transit relating to change without needing proposed regulation to do so. 

Testimony.

HANS VANWINKLE: As a follow-up I can see in terms of the audio component, 

the driver should and could and ought to either supplement or perhaps be an alternative or 

certainly the comment about -- seemed to be important in this case.

>>: It is agreed.

HANS VANWINKLE: Thank you.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, Hans, Mr. Jenkins.

PHILLIP JENKINS: Thank you, Phil Jenkins, public member. I have a question 

about your experience in dealing with folks who have cross disabilities who may be low vision 

and hard of hearing, and being able to provide any assistance to help them understand -- in 

other words ability to see the sign or to hear.

>>: We have actually piloted several signs that are of different contrast, have 

different light systems in them to make them more visual. We are looking at technology 

through cell phones, we want to be in our travel training we are looking at ways to 

communicate with passengers in our travel training program, teaching them how to use their 

mobile device to connect to our LED signs and other next stop information. So I mean, we want 

to make all passengers able to understand when a bus is going to be able to come, therefore 

plan their lives around that versus standing at a stop wondering when it is going to be there. 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 22 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

But there are technical difficulties with these sorts of systems in a large transit system like we 

are running. It seems every time we fill a hole with one gap, or find a gap that we can fill there 

seems to be another in the technology. But that doesn't mean that we are not getting further 

and further ahead in that goal.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Jenkins, any other questions or comments, Gary.

GARY TALBOT: Thank you Mr. Chair just to follow up. Gary Talbot, public 

member. On the next bus signs that you referenced, are those signs dual mode both in audio, 

and visual?

>>: Yes, they are.

GARY TALBOT: Outstanding, and then one last question, have Sue ever had 

anybody from the community especially from the deaf community, or a person who is hard of 

hearing request loop technology on the vehicles on your buses?

>>: I'm not aware of that that we have.

GARY TALBOT: Okay, thank you very much, I appreciate it.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, I appreciate your comments. Next speaker is Sean 

Lawrence.

Whenever you are ready, sir.

>>: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. And members of the board. My name is 

Sean Lawrence, and I'm a community access specialist at the Disability Resource Center located 

in Fredericksburg, Virginia.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 23 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

We are a center for independent living. The disability resource center is one of 

16 sister organizations in Virginia, and one of 500 others throughout the United States. And are 

made up of people with disabilities, and serve people with disabilities.

I would first like to thank the board for allowing me this opportunity to speak at 

this board's hearing on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking changes. The architectural and 

transportation barrier compliance board, Access Board, updating accessibility guidelines for 

buses over-the-road busses, vans, rail cars, and other modes of public transportation to make 

sure that transportation vehicles are readily accessible and usable by people with disabilities.

The NPRM I have chosen is the T203.2.1. Minimum requirements for all 

vehicles. It reads: All vehicles shall provide in at least one doorway, lifts or ramps that are 

capable of being deployed to all designated stops on the route to which the vehicle is assigned 

on to the roadway. This change would eliminate -- permitted use of portable or station based 

boarding devices for over-the-road busses. This is a matter of safety for persons with mobility 

concerns. Providing a level change for buses, over-the-road busses, or advances -- that all 

designated stops in the roadway, gives the person being deployed a secure and safe boarding. I 

thank you for recognizing this barrier, and addressing it.

The change would also bring uniformity by adding a definition of a level 

boarding for the bus systems.

As our population ages, people are living longer with their disabilities. It is 

imperative that we address these concerns and others now. Our government must lead the way 

in being proactive to what the barriers that are placed implant the way of people with 

disabilities.

In Virginia, between 2,000, and 2030, the number of older Virginians who are 

60, and older, which I will be one of those people will increase, and they will also constitute a 

larger portion of the state's population, using Virginia as an example as of 2010, all Virginians 

account for 20 percent of the state's population and 22 percent by the year 2020. By the year 

2030, 20 years from now, 22.4 percent or 1 in 4 Virginian also be 60 years or older, this 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 24 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

information came from a 2006 report of the joint legislative audit and review commission 

impact of an aging population on the state's agencies.

Transportation will be a huge issue with this group. You must continue to revisit 

these issues, and others to stay ahead of the curve. Thank you for your time. I look forward to 

the implementations of the rules and changes and the barriers that they will be removing.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, sir, any questions, comments, or concerns?

(No response.)

J.R. HARDING: Hearing none, thank you very much, I appreciate your comment, 

CILs are very important.

>>: Yes, they are.

J.R. HARDING: Next speaker, Eric Barns.

>>: Good morning. My name is Eric Barnes, I'm a personal care attendant and 

I'm an advocate of the disabled and I am also from Fredericksburg, Virginia. Sorry we got here a 

little late, 95 was a little bit of a mess this morning. I have got a few points that I want to bring 

up regarding T203.4.2.1 as it pertains to boarding devices.

In this day and age, when one would think that the common sense would reign 

supreme, but alas, that is not always the case. Case in point: What sense does it make to have a 

secured location for a mobility aid as a person trying to use it is unable to maneuver into it? I'm 

exceptionally glad that it will be mandated that the circulation path and unfettered access to 

securement locations from the roadway, all things being common sense, I'm glad it is now 

spelled out in the NPRM that you guys have designated.

Regarding T203.10.3.2 pertains to over-the-road buses. Many people in the 

disability community are understandingly scratching their heads over this modification in the 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 25 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

regulation. The current regulation mandates a minimum of 50 percent of all seats in over-theroad buses be equipped with arm rests that are moveable to allow for easy entry and exit. The 

proposed change would lower that number to 25 percent. This is and this advocate believes this 

is a bad idea and ignores some basic statistics that I am sure we are all aware of. One, the 

population of the United States is aging, and unfortunately, a way finds are widely, yes, we have 

more and mow citizens who experience mobility issues and now is not the time so lower the 

standards in this area, if anything, we should be raising the standards to ensure that all of the 

citizens have easy access to the over-the-road buses. I would ask that this change be discarded 

and instead a consideration be made to raise the standard in future proposals. Regarding 

T303.4, emergency operation of powered operated ramps and bridge plates. Again, this is 

another common sense thing that I guess is good to spell out now. As an advocate I applaud this 

proposed change. It is unconscionable to think in the event of power failure a person with a 

disability may find himself, or herself unable to disembark. This addition which made it so that 

all ramps and bridge plates be operable in the manual fashion is very welcome to the disability 

community.

No one should face the specter of being trapped inside of a vehicle simply 

because the power goes out. And I applaud you guys taking that into consideration so that 

everybody can get out of the vehicle if they need to. I appreciate your time and you guys 

listening to me, and I will shut my pie hole now and go back to my seat. Take care and God bless 

each of you.

J.R. HARDING: Hang on Eric. Members of the board may want to ask you 

questions.

>>: This is my first time doing this so I am kind of nervous.

J.R. HARDING: As a quadriplegic, and someone who has a caregiver, I thank you 

for your service, because without you many of us with disabilities would not have a quality of 

life. Thank you very much, sir. John, you had a question or comment and then Gary.

JOHN WYVILL: I have a question for you, and I hope I don't put you on the spot.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 26 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

>>: That's okay.

JOHN WYVILL: Could you elaborate a little bit more about what prompted you 

to come and testifying today?

>>: I think of everyone that uses a power chair. And in Fredericksburg, we have 

the Fredericksburg Regional Transit System. For such a small city we are blessed to have this in 

our city that allows us to get from point A to point B and all of the vans are accessible. When I 

was first handed this documentation for the proposed change, I was looking at it, scanning over 

it and I noticed that there were some things that mostly were editorial changes and thing I 

found things that I felt strongly about. For instance, if your bus has to pull up to a station and it 

can't deploy its ramp down for whatever reason, and you can't get off, what does that say for 

people using the vehicle? That is not just people using power chairs, but anybody with a 

mobility issue. I felt strongly enough and wanted to put my 2 cents in, for what it is worth, and 

that is why I'm here now.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you very much, Mr. Talbot.

GARY TALBOT: Thank you Mr. Chair. Gary Talbot, public member. And thank 

you for your comments.

When you were talking about the emergency use, let's say, where the power --

there was a power failure on a lift, I'm assuming that it would be a lift-equipped vehicle, 

probably, and you were commenting about how good it was that we had those provisions in 

there, that they had to be able to get off the vehicle even if there was a power failure.

>>: Exactly. It is like I said it is unconscionable just because you are disabled, 

that the power goes out in the vehicle and you are stuck inside that vehicle. If that would occur 

somewhere in the south or where it was inclement weather, you could bake to death or freeze. 

And if you had to get out of the vehicle quickly and the vehicle wouldn't start, what does that 

do? So I'm very pleased that is in there because if there is a bus on the road that is traveling and 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 27 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

people can't get caught because of power failure, that is unconscionable. That really is in my 

opinion as an advocate.

GARY TALBOT: I agree with you. I know it is not an Access Board thing, but 

maybe what we need to do is look and see where if the training isn't there for the bus operator, 

if they don't know how to use those devices in that situation, and even though we have done 

our due diligence to require that they have that feature, they may not know how to do it. And 

still stuck on a bus.

>>: I acknowledge and a lot of the bus drivers tend to be a little older, and the 

devices have to be -- this is another issue for another time where they can be operated by 

somebody who maybe isn't as strong as somebody else. Something that maybe a woman or 

someone who has limited strength in the upper body can operate and still do the job, and I 

agree that training is important. If they don't know how to use it.

GARY TALBOT: Have you ever had to use one like that?

>>: I worked at southern assistance in North Carolina back in 2000, and some 

change. We had a device and our ramp was very iffy, sometimes it worked, I had to use it a lot 

of times to disembark passengers. So yes, I had to do that.

GARY TALBOT: That was a ramp equipped vehicle?

>>: Yes.

GARY TALBOT: Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

>>: I appreciate you hearing me, thank you.

J.R. HARDING: Any other questions or concerns? Again, thank you for your 

service especially to the individuals with disabilities, and your enlightened observations about 

our challenges.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 28 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

>>: I'm a big believer.

J.R. HARDING: That is our sixth designated in person speakers, would this be an 

appropriate time to take a break and then arrange for the phone call? Is Dr. Karen Frost please. 

Dr. Frost, you are up.

>>: Okay. We have to set up.

J.R. HARDING: No problem. And then we will take a break for the telephone 

calls. .

KAREN FROST: Hi.

J.R. HARDING: Good morning.

KAREN FROST: I'm Karen frost with the University of Louisville, and I wanted to 

provide some recommendations regarding wheelchair accessibility, specific to the ramp 

guidances. My comments are based on a research study that we are currently doing entitled 

assessment and monitoring of wheelchair transportation activities on fixed route transit buses. 

In our previous reserve we published that we have observed that 23 percent related wheelchair 

insure stents have occurred during the boarding and alighting the -- fixed route wheelchair trips 

and we have observed the 250 videos, will you see video clips during the presentation seeing 

wheelchair passengers -- this research has been reported by NIDRR through the RERC on 

wheelchair transportation safety. So a little bit more the videos that we reviewed were obtained 

on a random basis from the public transit agency, via the public safety surveillance system, I will 

talk specifically about the boarding and alighting we will look at -- in detail.

The first section that I want to address is design load, it is currently set at a 

minimum of 600 pounds. In our research, we have seen that 30 percent of wheelchair 

passengers have received some type of assistance during the boarding and alighting process, 

meaning that another person has occupied the ramp at the same time.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 29 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

Additionally, 75 percent of wheelchair passengers have had a backpack attached 

to the wheelchair or carried a package so we feel strongly that the ramp design load needs to 

consider these potential loading scenarios. Given in our research that we have seen power 

wheelchair passengers represent more than two-thirds of observed wheelchair passenger trips 

we -- bus ramps would be based on the weight data for an okay paid wheelchair. So if we take a 

power wheelchair, and occupied with the user, who are at the 9 5 percentile, you get 547 

pounds, if you wanted to add an assistant, and you assume your assistant is a 50 percentile 

male, you add another 247 pounds, that brings you to 794 pounds, which obviously is above the 

design load right now. Therefore, our recommendation is to increase the ramp design load to 

accommodate those potential loading scenarios, next section is clear width. It is currently set at 

--

J.R. HARDING: Are you arguing a ramp extension or lift extension.

KAREN FROST: I was only speaking to decline load then, to ramp slope and all 

currently.

J.R. HARDING: I'm sorry.

KAREN FROST: That doesn't count on my seconds, does it?

JOHN WYVILL: Just a little bit, the board members cannot see your PowerPoint 

presentation, and there's some individuals with visual impairments may not be able to see the 

presentation so you might want to be articulating for everyone.

J.R. HARDING: We are flipping it around.

J.R. HARDING: Very good p now we can see.

KAREN FROST: I'm sorry, I didn't realize that.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 30 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

J.R. HARDING: That was our fault.

KAREN FROST: The ramp clear width as you know is a minimum of 30 inches. 

We have seen as you said in our research that 30 percent of accidents have received some type 

of assistance during boarding and alighting.

This assistance appears to be due to passenger inability or difficulties in 

negotiations ramp or width or slopes. Specifically we observed almost 15 percent, or 37 

wheelchair passengers experiencing a difficulty due to the ramp clear width. 28 of these 

difficulties have been observed during boarding and 9 during the alighting process and you can 

see some pictures here, showing here issues.

We have measured the ramp clear width at exactly 30 inches in 2008, and 2009, 

model bus e however, recent data on wheelchair characteristics indicates that a 30 inch ramp 

width would not accommodate the 95 percentile of wheeled mobility device uses, the 95 

percent device width for a manual wheelchair is 29.1 inches, for on power wheelchair, 29.9 

inches, and for scooters 23.3 inches. Additionally, you can see in the video playing here we need 

to consider wheelchair user navigation skills when talking about clear width is.

J.R. HARDING: Just for those of us less bright, do you mean the 95 percentile 

meaning 95 percent fit that level? So 5 percent don't fit, or --

KAREN FROST: Correct, yes, the 95 percentile, would, if you design something 

to the 95 percentile, that means you would be able to provide access to 95 percent of the 

population.

If you do it for 90 percent, then you are only accommodating 90 percent of the 

population.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you for that clarity.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 31 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

KAREN FROST: Sure, so our recommendations in regard to clear width are to 

require a centered alignment guide some type of line on the ramp surface that would provide 

visual feedback on wheelchair alignment, and increase the ramp clear width to allow for 

improved independent access, and to assure accessibility for 95 percent of wheeled mobility 

device users.

Edge barriers are required to be a minimum of 2 inches in height for any ramp 

or bridgeplate that is 3 inches or more above the boarding level. In our research we have 

observed that power wheelchairs are capable of driving over ramp edge barriers, can as you can 

see in this video a power wheelchair user riding over the ramp edge barrier as they are exiting 

the vehicle, the front right wheel rides over the barrier, a wheel observed 9 power wheelchair 

riders riding over edge barriers in 24 wheelchair passengers impacting edge barriers during the 

boarding and alighting process.

J.R. HARDING: Can you define impacted?

KAREN FROST: Impacting would -- we have defined it two ways. A minor impact 

is one in which the wheelchair continues to move in the forward direction so it does not come 

to a stop a major impact would be coming to a stop.

And when I say 24 people impacting the edge barriers, that is a minor impact. 

So they would keep going, and they would be scraping, making a minor modification, but 

continuing in a forward manner. So what I wanted to bring the attention to here, is in regard to 

edge barriers, the federal motor vehicle safety standards for lifts, states that edge barriers 

should deflect the motion of the wheelchair and alert the passengers that the wheelchair is at 

the edge of the platform. Therefore, our recommendation for the Access Board would be that 

the accessibility guidelines establish ramp edge barriers requirements consistent with the 

FMVSS to prevent power wheelchairs from overriding edge barriers.

Ramp slope, we are in support of the changes for the maximum ramp slope not 

to exceed a ratio of 1 to 6, right overrun when the ramps deploy to the roadway or areas 

without station platforms. As I said previously 30 percent of passengers have received 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 32 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

assistance that appeared to be due to an inability or difficulty to negotiate slope and width 

issues. As you can see in this video there is a scooter user, ascending the ramp, and after 2 

successful tries is not able to make it up the ramp. Specifically, we have seen 14 wheelchair 

passengers experiencing difficulty or incident attributable in some way to ramp slope.

We have also observed wheelchair passengers having to grasp at the handrails 

on the doorway in order to pull themselves up the ramp and we have seen multiple passengers 

requiring several attempts sometimes 3 attempts before they are able to ascend the ramp 

successfully.

An additional item is the ramp slope, and just to note that the ramp slope is 

influenced by the extent that the bus kneels, as an interlock. The ramp will not deploy unless 

the switch is depressed. So the longer the bus operator depresses the switch, the further it 

kneels. This is a bus driver awareness training issue that transit agencies can institute to help to 

create a lower slope. This video, shows two boarding incidents involving ramp slope. The first is 

a power wheelchair user, after she crosses the external threshold the wheelchair passenger 

flipped rearward and fell. This scooter user scooters ascend the ramp, is not able to get into the 

bus, and the forward wheel of the 3 wheeled scooter rises from the ramp platform and the 

individual falls rearward and sideways.

J.R. HARDING: What is the slope of those ramps?

KAREN FROST: We were not able to measure because this is a retrospective 

review of incidence. We do not have the data to -- we were not present at the time of these 

incidents. So obviously we would not be able to go out there and measure the ramp slope. And 

in our experience, it is particular to the ramp, the exact location, and the exact bus. The exact 

ramp that was deployed.

J.R. HARDING: The issue you raised earlier about the driver getting down --

KAREN FROST: Exactly, minimal kneeling versus maximum makes a difference.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 33 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

NANCY STARNES: Would you hold the questions until later?

J.R. HARDING: We have already broken the rules, so let's challenge our speaker.

NANCY STARNES: I'm glad you were the initial offender, I'm just following your 

lead. I notice in one of these videos, that the wipers on the bus were going. Were there 

weather conditions that affected the usability of the ramp?

KAREN FROST: Again, I would not be able to specifically tell you yes or no, 

because this is not a study in which we were there at the time. We would make the same 

conclusions as you, is that perhaps rain may have been a factor. The bus driver reported that it 

was a light rain during this incident. However, I will tell you the passenger reported that they 

were not injured, and never sought any emergency service --

J.R. HARDING: Any other follow-up, Nancy?

NANCY STARNES: Nope.

J.R. HARDING: Very good, please continue. This is fascinating.

KAREN FROST: Thank you. Okay, so obviously, we are in support of the changes 

to reduce the maximum ramp slope.

Also, during our research, we have identified a gap between the ramp edge 

barrier and the doorway that hasn't been addressed in the current section on gaps. As you can 

see in this picture, we have observed 3 power wheelchair users experiencing a front wheel 

becoming wedged in the gap between edge barrier and the doorway during alighting.

In fact, we have measured the doorway clear floor width at 34 inches. The ramp 

clear width that we have measured on the busses we studied was measured at 30 inches 

exactly. This results in a 2 inch gap, on each side of the ramp between the edge barrier and the 

doorway.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 34 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

So therefore, our recommendation would be that the accessibility guidelines 

consider paralleling the FMVSS regarding gaps between the vehicle floor and the lift platform, 

and this is a requirement that we feel can easily take care of some of these issues.

J.R. HARDING: And was that gap the culprit in some of those boarding and 

deboarding issues?

KAREN FROST: Yes, it was, people were stuck, the front wheel was stuck, and 

there was a considerable amount of need to renegotiate and actually rotating of the rear of the 

wheelchair into the bus, into the doorway and a bit of a problem. And one thing if I can point 

out although our study deals with a finite number of videos that we have observed, and maybe 

some of our findings in regard to that, we observed 3 passengers having a difficulty. If you take 

that 3 passenger, and what that percentage is, and you multiply that to say New York City where 

they expect what 600,000 boardings per year although it seems like a small number for this 

research study on a regional basis those numbers continue to grow and I think that impact 

continues to be there in terms of the numbers.

J.R. HARDING: With your study, or your observations, as a user both of 

paratransit and occasionally public transit, the driver in paratransit, you know, often facilitates 

entry and exiting and so forth, and in some cases in the paratransit, the driver might actually get 

out of the transit vehicle, and so forth. I notice on yours, the driver was never on the exterior of 

the vehicle and stuff. And should there ever been in your viewpoint any facilitation component 

there?

KAREN FROST: I agree with the requirement for the driver facilitating, and 

actually in our written publication that is coming out, in most of the cases where assistance was 

required, it was a driver, the bus operator who provided the assistance, so although it might not 

have looked in the pictures that I selected, mostly it was a bus driver who was facilitating the 

assistance.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, do we have question, Gary.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 35 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

GARY TALBOT: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Gary Talbot, public member, boy thank 

you very much, that was very interesting.

And I'm not so sure that a couple of questions: The ramp slope in the kneeling, 

maximum versus minimum. It has been my experience over time that much of the problem that 

we have, and why it becomes so complex for the drivers, often, is that in cities and towns where 

you do have curbs, the curbs aren't all at 6 inches above the road plane as they are supposed to 

be. Some are 7, some are 8, some are 4. So because of that, you need flexibility on the ability of 

kneel because then can you over extend and put a negative slope on it which can damage the 

equipment. So it is really tough, most often you would certainly want the operators to do a 

maximum kneel whenever they are boarding from the road surface where you don't have a 

sidewalk or something like that.

I'm not sure that it is a role for the Access Board to play but maybe we can talk 

about it. It seems reasonable to me that we already require the drivers to apply securement if 

you know, hopefully if securement is applied, it's the driver that does it. So they have to get out 

of their seat and do that.

It seems reasonable to me that the drivers would at least have to assist if there 

is a boarding or alighting that is taking place to the roadway surface because I think in those 

cases, from the video you showed, you probably if you would have had a driver behind that 

individual, they wouldn't have flipped over backwards.

KAREN FROST: Perhaps, and I completely agree with what you are saying in 

regard to the kneeling. There has to be flexibility. Really and I recognize that that is not really 

part of the Access Board, or the accessibility guide lines. That was more of an opportunistic way 

to just put that in there so we can recognize there is a training issue and you can affect it. So 

when we are talking about ramp, and ramp slope, I think you can't completely decouple it from 

the kneeling. And I completely agree. You don't want to have a negative slope. But it is a factor, 

but I don't think it should change the changes in the NPRM.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 36 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

GARY TALBOT: Thank you very much.

J.R. HARDING: Any additional comments. Ron. Mr. Gardener.

RON GARDNER: Ron is fine, JR. Thank you, Ron Gardner, public member. An I 

was interested in the statistics with respect to weight limits.

KAREN FROST: Yes.

RON GARDNER: Weight limit, and ramp width. And I am wondering, what is the 

source of your 95 percent? Is that just a number that you arrived at? Is there some reason why 

you went 95, instead of 85, or 90, or 98, why the 95 percent?

KAREN FROST: I'm glad you asked, that is a great question. That data has been 

recently published in the journal of assistive technology, by Ed Steinfeld and their group with 

the RERC on universal access in Buffalo. And the reason I chose the 95 percentile, is in keeping 

with access, I think our goal is to provide access. It is our choice. Do we provide access to 80 

percent, the 80 percentile, the 90, or 95 percentile. And if there is a reference in my 

presentation, that information in fact, the Access Board I believe sponsored the entire study, 

and that study and all of that data is available on line. And it is clearly the Access Board's to 

make that determination. If you want to accommodate 95 percent, 90 percent, or 80, but I 

chose the 95 percentile.

RON GARDNER: So you are saying that it is the study from the Access Board 

really that you looked at to determine that 95 is where you want to be.

KAREN FROST: Yes. The study that the Access Board sponsored.

RON GARDNER: Do you have any clue, how, for example how heavy it would 

have to be to include you know, to ensure 100 percent?

KAREN FROST: Oh, no, I have it over here, but --
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 37 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

RON GARDNER: Say it again.

J.R. HARDING: We are getting to 100 percent, you know, the variability 

between people is pretty significant, and --

RON GARDNER: Well if that was a 40,000 pound lift it would do 100 percent. I 

wanted to know if there was any indications on reasonably what the 100 percent would be and 

the width.

KAREN FROST: I can tell you outside of this I have the data I believe.

GARY TALBOT: This is Gary Talbot, public member. You know, most of your 

larger vehicles use 1,000 pound lift capacities today, a lot of your larger buses. A lot of the 

larger lifts are 1,000 pound capacity. I wouldn't be able to tell you it is 100 percent, but it is very, 

very close to 100 percent.

RON GARDNER: Do you have a clue on the width?

GARY TALBOT: Those are 34 inches wide but that is a width application, ramp --

are trickier because of from where they are located on the vehicle, personal experience.

J.R. HARDING: And I guess using the chair's prerogative on the personal use 

vehicle, my lift does not operate unless you are on it properly meaning both the front end and 

the back end kind of bumpers if you are too far forward, the lift will not move. It will not go up 

and down, and did you find any of those newer advancements within this observation.

KAREN FROST: No, these are not studies of lists. This was just ramps of public 

transit vehicles, so the ramp it wouldn't apply. And the ramp will not deploy unless the bus has 

been kneeled, but in regard to what you are saying, it wouldn't apply because these weren't 

lifts.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 38 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

J.R. HARDING: Very good, any other questions or comments? Hearing none, 

thank you for your presentation, we appreciate it. We will take a little break here for 10 

minutes to ready the telephone system for our call in folk, and we will also determine if we had 

any additional walk ins for testimony. So I have 6 minutes after 11:00. So about a quarter after 

11:00. 11:15 we will begin again. .

J.R. HARDING: All right, are let's bring this meeting back to order. As I indicated 

before, we needed to start back at quarter after. It is now 20 after, and we have two people on 

the phone that would like to speak to us. But before going to the phone, I would like to 

acknowledge I'm using the mike, there we government I would like to acknowledge a member in 

the audience here. A distinguished member of the DOT family here in the audience, Richard 

DeVylder. Richard thank you for being here and we appreciate your service and your passion for 

safe, reliable and dependable transportation for folks with disabilities. We appreciate it. So we 

have two individuals on the phone. And if we could get a connection from Mary, the National 

Center For environment health strategies advocate, Mary are you on the phone?

>>: I'm about to get her now.

J.R. HARDING: Okay.

>>: Hello.

J.R. HARDING: Mary, this is the Access Board and the public hearing.

>>: Yes.

J.R. HARDING: Are you available and ready for testimony, ma'am?

>>: Yes, I am.

J.R. HARDING: You have 5 to 9 minutes, and the floor is yours, ma'am.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 39 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

>>: Okay, thank you. I won't take that much time, but thank you. Good 

morning. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment on the Americans with 

Disabilities Act accessibility guidelines for transportation vehicles.

My name is Mary Lamielle. I'm the Executive Director of the National Center For 

Environmental Health Strategies, NCEHS is dedicated to protecting the public health, and 

improving the lives of people that are disabled by chemical and environmental exposures. 

People with environmental disabilities, including people with chemical and electrical sensitivities 

are underserved and underrepresented populations who suffer greatly due to the failure of the 

Federal Government to address these disabilities in a collaborative and comprehensive fashion. 

Up to 6 percent of Americans are chronically ill and disabled by chemical sensitivities, and that is 

estimated 3 percent of Californians report electrical sensitivity, many people with 

environmental disabilities including mobility impairments. Several months ago I was a 

passenger in a car stopped at a traffic light next to a New Jersey transit bus. Inside the driver's 

window, I saw an aerosol air freshener, a disinfectant and a can of Oust. The driver's window 

was partially open and all of the other windows on the bus were inoperable. People with 

chemical sensitivities react to everyday low levels including air fresheners, deodorizers, 

disinfectants, cleaning agents, and fragrances and products. Among other substances and 

products. These and similar indoor contaminants are access barriers to people with these 

disabilities, all buses and vans should be designed and manufactured with operable windows. It 

is also important that ventilation system be designed and maintained optimally functioning 

together with a filtering mechanism to eliminate contaminants indoor pollutants from fuel 

sources. Buses and vans should be designed and constructed to minimize the use of toxic 

material. Buses and vans also need to be cleaned and maintained with least toxic products and 

practices to minimize indoor contaminants. This should include restrictions on the use of 

pesticides, - practices, and low impact pest control products, if necessary.

Protocols should restrict the use of air fresheners and deodorizers and 

disinfectants and recommend using the least toxic allergic cleaning agents. The operation and --

section of the Access Board funded indoor environmental quality project report provides 

extensive guidance on such products and practices. In response to retired attorney and local 

disability rights advocate Kathleen Flaherty Section 13-1 health and safety benefits in the 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 40 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

Evanston, Illinois multimodal transportation plan, specifically recommends actions to improve 

air quality in vehicles and waiting areas. The plan notes that indoor air quality is a serious issue 

for persons with asthma, pulmonary disease, and chemical sensitivity, as well as other 

respiratory, immune, neurological, and cardiovascular disabilities.

I recently had occasion to speak with an employee of DC transit whose job it is 

to determine whether individuals qualify for transit services.

She told me she denies people who are disabled by chemical sensitivities access 

to barrier-free cabs in which the request is generally that the cab be free of fragrances, and 

fragrance products, including the use of unscented personal care products by the drivers, 

because these individuals are not specifically identified as a disabled population in the ADA.

These same individuals, would be unable to use public transit buses due to the 

same or similar access barriers.

It is important that the Access Board continue to investigate the ways in which 

they can act to enhance disability access for millions of people disabled by chemical sensitivities 

who are routinely denied access to essential services and to assure that government personnel, 

professionals and the public, are educated about the disability access needs of these individuals.

Thank you.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, Mary. Any questions, comment, or concerns from 

the board?

(No response.)

J.R. HARDING: Hearing and seeing none, thank you very much, Mary. We 

appreciate your advocacy.

>>: Thank you, bye-bye.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 41 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

J.R. HARDING: We have another caller, Laura, Laura Williams. We are calling 

these speakers directly. I think that is actually kind of cool rather than having 25,000 cell phones 

with the background noise and the lack of sensitivity for other listeners.

>>: Hello.

J.R. HARDING: Yes, Ms. Williams?

>>: Yes.

J.R. HARDING: This is J.R. Harding with the Access Board, in the public hearing. 

Are you ready for testimony, ma'am?

>>: Yes.

J.R. HARDING: Very good, you have our undivided attention for 5 to 9 minutes.

>>: I'm already on then?

J.R. HARDING: Yes, ma'am.

>>: Okay, thank you very much. My name is Laura Williams from Glendoran, 

California // and I'm with Californians for Disability Rights and thank you very much for having 

this hearing. There are some important topics within all of your rules. I'm first going to talk 

about boarding direction, and standees, that is under T30259, and 510.

And the way the list on over-the-road busses are, they have a diagram that 

shows wheelchairs only backing in. So operators refuse to allow passengers to exercise their 

right to board either inward or outward facing as long as it is safe to do so.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 42 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

We really need them to affix signage on those lists, giving the rule that 

passengers are allowed to board both ways, some chairs do not bake up that slope, there is a --

the slope on the very lip of the ramp, and then with that difficulty, they say well, if you can't 

board, then we just can't take you. So it is really ridiculous. They are breaking the rule and then 

trying to punish the passengers for doing that. I would also like to discuss the ramp slopes 

under T 23038.1. I'm very concerned that the ramp slopes keep seem to be getting steeper 

instead of more level. We need it to be going in the other direction. We are placed in some 

very dangerous situations on a continuing basis, further, the operators are not trained on what 

the maximum slope is, and they can't calculate it even if you tell them what the rule is.

They are not going to sit there and measure it. We need every ramp to be 

marked with physically with the maximum drop that that length of ramp can safely go across. 

To be told, as I have been, to go down a 30 inch ramp down going down a 13-inch drop, and 

then being told that you are being you know, a terrible passenger, they will stop carrying you, 

and just leave you on this vehicle for forever if you don't get off is just absolutely ridiculous. It 

needs to be clearly marked what the rules are, and why they are. But we need the ramps to be 

getting more level, not steeper, and I fear this new change in ruling will make some conditions 

even less safe than they currently are.

Additionally, because of these problems on the road, and the operators that are 

not trained in these rules, passenger need a hotline when they are being told to do something 

unsafe. There have been people that have been taken down steep ramps that have ended up 

with broken knees, or broken chairs that runoff the side of the ramps, and they don't want to do 

it but they have no recourse, and if they call the customer service at the person at the company 

doing the transportation, they are quite often told the people on the ground, the operators are 

well trained and you have to do what you are being told.

And it is just absolutely creates an unsafe, and coercive environment for 

passengers with disabilities that are trying to remain safe.

Additionally, I would like to address on T 4027.4, the wheelchair space size. It 

needs to be clearly marked at things like doorways cannot encroach on that area. There are 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 43 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

some over-the-road busses now, that have shortened the wheelchair space. They have changed 

the diagonal of the bathroom that is immediately behind there, and when there is a wheelchair 

sitting there, or a scooter, the other passengers can't open the door and get into the bathroom 

and everybody gets mad at the passenger in the wheelchair. And it is just nonsensical. Spaces 

are getting smaller not bigger and it is going the wrong direction, and that really is just a 

dreadful situation.

I believe that is -- I have completed my testimony. Particularly on ramp slopes, 

please take that very seriously. The steeper ramp slopes, in particular, particularly with the mid 

wheelchairs, are frightening to maneuver. Especially when you are going up over a small lip 

where the ramp comes on to the floor of the vehicle, and then you have to go off the ramp on 

to something, it just makes it a steeper slope, and oh, and it should be marked so that they 

cannot be deployed on a sloping surface that is sloping away from the bus, because that makes 

it even steeper, and much more dangerous, and yet that happens all of the time. So thank you 

again, very much, I appreciate the opportunity to give this testimony, and I look forward for 

getting rules that will then improve the safety and integrity of travel for persons with disabilities, 

thank you very much.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, Miss Williams, hang on for a second, are there 

questions or comments, I have one, Miss Nancy Starnes.

NANCY STARNES: Thank you, Nancy Starnes, public member. I heard your 

reference of a mid wheelchair, and icon fence, I don't exactly know what that means, could you 

enlighten me a bit, please?

>>: Yes, on a chair, and I think there are several vary he is ties, but JAZZY is one 

of them, the drive wheel is a large mid whom with a small balance wheels in the front, and 

follow directional wheels on the back, so your drive wheel is you are sort of TEETERING on the 

middle going up over a bump because if you are in a scooter where you have both your front 

wheels on the ground, and the back wheels when you go back over a bump you still have both 

wheels on a surface, and it ameliorates the feel of going over that bump when you are on a mid 

wheel you are actually going up under the very top peek of the bump you are TEETERING as you 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 44 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

are going forward and it really is a very different experience from going over bumps in other 

types of chairs.

NANCY STARNES: Thank you very helpful.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, Miss William, that made sense to the listeners, then. 

Is there any other questions or comments?

(No response.)

J.R. HARDING: Hearing none, thank you so much for participating from 

California.

>>: Thank you so much for having this hearing.

J.R. HARDING: Bye-bye. Okay, we have a Miss Kathy Brill. A parent advocate, 

Miss Kathy.

BY >>:

>>: I didn't register to actually speak today because mine is a little off topic, I 

would like to be last and make it short and sweet and give you food for thought to what I would 

like to see the Access Board make a little bit of a change in their roles.

Okay. I'm Kathy Brill from Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania as you said I'm a 

disability advocate and consultant, I'm also a parent of a 21 year old daughter who uses a power 

wheelchair and I'm on several state -- I realize that school bus transportation is not currently 

within the purview of your guidelines as it is considered monitored under IDEA the individuals 

with disabilities education act. However, school-aged children are overwhelmingly being 

segregated during transport to and from schools because the focus of IDEA is primarily on 

access to a free appropriate public education.
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 45 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

This created murky waters legally and usually becomes as major topic of debate 

between families who are desperately trying to create fully inclusive lives for their children and 

the school districts who serve them.

The outcome is overwhelmingly the continued widespread use of segregated 

transportation systems. This topic continues to fall through the cracks of our system.

Ironically, I have done statewide research on this topic in Pennsylvania, and 

unifying our school transportation is a huge cost savings to schools.

Cost savings is obviously not motivating enough to modify school transportation 

I'm recommending that you consider a stronger role in school bus accessibility guidelines and 

help to protect the civil rights of children who have disabilities, thank you.

J.R. HARDING: Thank you, Karen -- I mean Kathy, I'm sorry. Any questions, 

comments or concerns?

(No response.)

J.R. HARDING: Hearing none, I appreciate your service.

>>: Thank you.

J.R. HARDING: Any additional walk ins?

(No response.)

J.R. HARDING: Hearing none, that would conclude then our registered speakers. 

And those who have asked to speak to the Access Board on the rule making process.

At this moment, then, any of you have concluding comments from the board 

members? Hearing none, I would move that the public hearing is closed then. Remember, 
Monday, November 8, 2010 Page 46 Public Hearing, Washington, DC

written comment all the way until November 23rd, thank you very much for all of you for 

coming and participating. 

>> Hearing Adjourned.