Note: The output shown below is from the Communication Access 

Realtime Translation (CART) system used in the Boarding and 

Alighting Subcommittee Meeting #7 and is generally unedited. The 

CART system was used to provide an accommodation to persons 

with hearing loss and persons who are deaf, and was streamed in 

real-time and available to the public on the internet during the 

meeting. 

CART Operator: Beverly Early

U.S. Access Board

Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee

Boarding and Alighting Subcommittee Meeting #7

Thursday, December 18, 2014 

>> PAUL BEATTY: By the time you finish the sound 

check go ahead and start.

>> Melissa: I am on Paul.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Go ahead Rose introduce yourself 

and then turn it over to me.

>> Rose Marie: Good afternoon everybody today is 

December 18 this is the RVAAC subcommittee on -- hold on 

boarding and alighting. My 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 please 
respond 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. Operator, yes we are ready to begin. Okay. 

Yes, I see the operator is responding to other line calls that 

are still coming in. A whole flurry of them just filled up the 

room. Okay. Once again I will call out your name, and 

when you please repeat your name and the name of the 

organization. First one is Paul Beatty?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Paul Beatty U.S. Access Board.

>> The line is good. Michael Chisena. Michael 

Chisena? Okay. Gricelda -- hold on a second. Gricelda . 

>> MTA New York.

>> The line is good. Frank. 

>> Parson Brinckerhoff.

>> 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. Josh Coran.

>> Joshua Coran, Talgo Inc. 
>> Thank you. David 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. Marilyn Golden.

>> Hi, it's Marilyn. Sorry, 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. Lisa Fairhall.

>> Lisa Fairhall Access Board staff.

>> Thank you. Kenneth Shiotani.

>> Kenneth Shiotani, National Disability Rights Network.

>> Operator boost Ken's line please? Frank Maldari?

>> Frank Maldari New York MTA.

>> Dennis Cannon.

>> Dennis Cannon National Disability Rights Network.

>> I think that's everybody. Did I miss anybody's 

name? Okay. Paul Beatty, take it away.
>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay, thank you Rose. Good 

afternoon this is Paul Beatty welcome to the 7th meeting of 

the boarding and alighting subcommittee. As you know, 

anyone may participate in subcommittee discussions. No 

time of public comment has been scheduled during this 

two-hour call. Since the CART system's chat box is not 

available, subcommittee participants 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. When speaking please 

remember to give your name, and as a reminder the next 

meeting of this subcommittee is January 29. I am going to 

turn the call over to the subcommittee chair Marilyn Golden 

go ahead Marilyn.

>> Thanks Paul. Any -- now we need to approve the 

agenda. Any -- any hesitations about approving the 

agenda? Okay. Excuse me. Go ahead.

>> Uwe Rutenberg: Thank you very much Marilyn for 

putting me on the agenda here. I also apologize for my 

voice. I am a little bit of a cold here. Just 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. And 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. And 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. It's the track geometries 

and infrastructures. We are looking at the shared track 

super elevation and curved tracks. Then, 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. Such 

as manual ramps, automatic gap fillers and lifts. And 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. The 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. Then we have the 

operations which is a collection of incident data --

>> (inaudible)

>> Yes?
>> Hi guys.

>> Uwe Rutenberg: Okay. I think there is somebody 

else on the phone.

>> It's Chris.

>> Yes sorry.

>> Uwe Rutenberg: It'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. And if there is 

enough money left in the kitty we probably will also go to 

Chicago. The other last point, of course is the human 

behavior. We found there are quite a number of incidents in 

terms of suicides, falls, tripping and pushing. And 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. And a report will be available. And we thought, 

you know, this committee might 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. I just wanted to make you aware of 

that this is happening. And what you can expect in the new 
year as an outcome, outcome of this, thank you very much. 

That's all. If anybody has any additional ideas on what we 

did not cover as I mentioned here these are main issues that 

are listed here. Please E-mail me and we can discuss this 

aside from the committee here. Thank you very much 

again. Back to you

>> This is David Nelson here. I have 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: This 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. And this is a new manual, 

something like that does not exist at the moment. And we 

are trying to address the safety issues as I mentioned before, 

the platform and train interfaces.

>> David: Okay. So, 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 that 
actually is not a ramp it's a bridgeplate. Those are two 

different things ramps and bridgeplates are two different 

things. And Amtrak -- you know ourselves, we have been 

doing research on bridgeplates and ramps and we already 

collected a lot of data from the disability community on 

these. Which 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: The picture that you see here 

some call it a ramp some call it a bridgeplate. This 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: Used for everybody not just people in 

wheelchairs that the gap we need in the platform of the train 

is about 8 inches wide that's why it's used on every door.

>> David: No, and I understand that. I just -- I guess 

it's a matter of the interpretation I guess is the definition of 

it between a bridgeplate as a ramp. But you had mentioned 

8 inches for -- for a gap. Now, 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 a 
power chair because -- because of the rump -- because of 

the hump that it has. It's easy for those type of chairs to get 

stuck in the middle. Or like a wheelchair, when you enter 

the train it's like you are sliding in. I would be curious to 

see the data collection. (inaudible) to be finalized.

>> This is Dennis Cannon. The issue about handrails 

there is no requirement for handrails at this point. We are 

trying to create that requirement as our update in the current 

regulation is no requirement for handrail many. Whether 

bridgeplate or ramp the only difference between a 

bridgeplate and the ramp is the slope. If 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. So, 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 Transportation Research 

Board. I am 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. It's 

not a wheelchair only situation. And the issue 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 have 
trouble with gaps are children and women is high heels it's 

not wheelchairs.

>> 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 somewhere 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 problem period. So, 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. If 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: Capital A-40.
>> Melissa: Thank you.

>> Uwe: Okay.

>> Marilyn: Okay thanks everyone. We also had Josh 

from Talgo provide materials about gap divides. Josh 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. A photograph 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 high 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. Therefore we have to have on board 

wheelchair lift. In the explanation on the website I went 

through the sad story why we ended up redesigning the 

wheelchair lift. But 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 

standard. And the individual lifts themselves cost over twice 

as much as a standard adapted standard lift. So the point of 
that was, that we should try very hard to stay away from 

unique requirements and try to use industry standard 

hardware as much as possible.

>> I have a question Josh this is Uwe. In 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. This 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. Because 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 asking for 32 by 54, and they don't have 

this model at the moment. I don'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: Platform size wasn't the problem. We never 

did install anything under the floor.
>> Uwe: Okay.

>> 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. On the right-hand 

side and the middle under accessibility you are showing a 

bridgeplate. I am assuming this is an automatic --

>> Josh: It's not a bridge plate but a gap filler.

>> Gap filler sorry. 

>> Josh: It 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. The 

step here or in Europe the gap filler deploys, and once it is 

deployed and locked then the doors are allowed to open.

>> Okay.

>> Josh: And 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. No one gets trapped 

steps in a gap.

>> Dennis: This 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 correct?
>> 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: Okay. And when this is deployed, is there 

a space between the platform and this gap filler?

>> Josh: There can be. The 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. Certainly 

less than 3. Another point that should be noted is that 

unlike bridgeplate it doesn't do anything about correcting for 

height differences. That 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: This is Uwe. Is the gap filler adjustable 

horizontally?

>> Josh: I don't know that. I would think it could be. 

But I think the design just 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 door 
will not open.

>> Uwe: If you have a different gap, one gap let's say 

is 3 inches wide one is 5 inches wide does the gap 

automatically adjust to the difference?

>> Josh: No it would be set to 3 inch and you would 

have a 2 inch remaining gap

>> Okay.

>> Dennis: This 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: Okay.

>> Hay Dennis can you repeat that your dog must be 

hungry or something like that.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> The question was: Whether it was weight bearing 

or load bearing, in other words, can you roll across it and not 

have it give way or whatever. What are the complaints or 

issues raised about the -- the rubber device that WMATA 

here in the DC Metro is using to help reduce the gap is an 

extruded rubber flange I guess you would call it mounted on 
the outside of the door. And 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. Unlike 

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 the 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. So, 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 engineered 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. Hooks law would tell 
you this whole argument is a matter of degree. Because 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 degree 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 

extension, 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. That'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: Okay. Further discussion? Thank you 

Josh. And 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 health 

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 a 
fuller group next time. And I believe that we have a fuller 

group. The question is about international standards for 

lifts. Melissa do you want to explain this a little bit?

>> Melissa: Well, we were looking for information 

about whether there was an international 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. And we received comments that you 

know that it might be helpful for us to refer to those in our 

rulemaking. So 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. Melissa are you talking about 

like car-borne lifts? Specifically?

>> Melissa: Yes.

>> David: Okay. Now, 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 it's not a requirement.

>> Melissa: Thank you David. Josh, 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 but 
they are in the CFR but the first lift we purchased the 

standard one adopted to our car was U.S. domestic lift. And 

the -- the replacement for it that folded awe way in more 

compact fashion came from Europe. So I presume it meets 

European standards but they seem to be very similar. Don't 

know specifically.

>> David: This is David here. I can try and find out 

from our mechanical department in California because we 

have them on our California cars.

>> Melissa: Okay that would be great, thank you.

>> (inaudible) Melissa this is Chris. Generally 

speaking, (inaudible) you are going to reference all of the 

typical as the ISO standards. And there will be -- there will 

be a requirement for cyclone testing of that device and all 

that. It'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: My question is: Is there a standard out 

there and what is it.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: There is ISB standard, ASIB 

standard for lifts I can'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: Okay.
>> Blair: Melissa this is Blair I am curious if we have 

the definition and descriptions in the CFR, 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. But they also have 

testing requirements and they go above and beyond the 

basics for accessibility. And they address safety because 

that's really what they are there for. It may be that there is 

another standard out there that is more robust than just the 

basic dimensional and load bearing 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 language that's there 

now the rail side goes into interlocks and you know all of 

those wonderful things as well.

>> Melissa: Right.

>> And of course we are down the path aways from 

when that was written. So, maybe there is -- maybe there is 

something we can lean on or learn from without getting into 

conflict.
>> Right.

>> Dennis: This is Dennis. When 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. And when federal motor vehicle safety standards was 

put together those standards we have lots of 

informations -- conversations back and forth. And one of 

the things that is in the current ADA standard is essentially a 

requirement that the barrier on the outside, for example, not 

allow a power wheelchair to go over. That'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. So 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. So there is a specific 

standard that tells you exactly how to test that performance 

requirement that is in the ADA 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: This 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 also.

>> Marilyn: Okay. This is Marilyn. The next item is 

also from staff Melissa do you want to explain?

>> Melissa: Um, let me get back to the top of my 

agenda and materials here

>> Marilyn: This is about costs and benefits for 

changed guidelines.

>> Dennis: Any information that we can give to help 

the board develop its regulatory assessment.

>> Melissa: Right. Any 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 anything 

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. And those costs are 

always difficult for us to get our hands on. So, 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 working 
on the report that would be really helpful.

>> Dennis: And benefit.

>> Melissa: And benefit.

>> Can you -- I think we should probably include the 

cost of maintenance too. I feel 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: Melissa 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? And then go from 

there? Or 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 answer 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. And those are the questions that we 

have to -- we have to address.

>> Dennis: We could -- we would consider what is 

compliant today to be the zero point and go from there okay.

>> Melissa: Right.

>> Okay.
>> Marilyn: Anymore discussion on that? This is 

Marilyn.

>> Dennis: This is Dennis. The real issue, I mean 

it's -- it's cost versus benefit. The benefit is often the 

hardest part to come by. Because it's not -- it's difficult or 

impossible to quantity it. So, 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. What does that mean in 

terms of you know, offsetting the costs. In 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. So, 

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: Dennis, this is Blair. I know that to use the 
example 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 into 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. So 

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. And that's one of those things that is 

often an untapped, unrealized benefit to improving 

accessibility. And 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. And, this is Dennis. Just -- 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 put
down--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 bridgeplate it was a benefit to them as 

opposed to having to pick it up over the gap and so forth.

>> David: This is David here. Melissa I have got a 

question for you. So, curb cuts. Do we have any type of 

information about the cost benefit. Because now I mean 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 Marsha, I will step in here. First 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. And we have not 

done a cost benefit analysis on curb ramps and even if we 

did, arguably the benefits to people who are not people with 

disabilities are not within our mandate.

>> David: Okay. All right. I was just trying to see if I 

could find anything that would help out.

>> Marilyn: This 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. I don'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 public because our statistical 

incomes are lower. So, 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. So, 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 as equal members of society.

>> Ken: This is Ken that was a very good point. One 

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. The 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 boarding 
and alighting time for the dwell time is less. So, 

that -- anything that improves the ability for everybody, and 

you know particularly people with disabilities often 

are -- need more time. If 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: That's a really good point Ken, that --

>> Ken: In 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 destinations on time. So, 

the --

>> Marsha: These are all good points unfortunately 

though, you know, our -- the Access Board's authority is to 

write accessibility standards not efficiency standards. And 

so, some of the benefits that you are talking about may not 

help us to justify a change in our rule. So 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: Right. 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: Right. And also has the benefit of not 
having different -- different treatments of people with it is. 

Which would be the civil rights points that everybody is 

treated equally.

>> Marilyn: Other discussion? Well, keep asking us 

staff for these things that you need, and periodically we will 

try to focus on it. And see if we can help you. Seems like a 

lot of our thoughts are things that you of course have 

thought of before. So, particularly manufacturers, I guess, 

may have data that will be useful. Melissa 4.0 the potential 

research needs was also a staff added item. Do you want to 

talk about that?

>> Melissa: There 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 research, 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 

standards the way that you want them.

>> David: Where are we exactly?

>> Melissa: On 4.0 on the agenda.

>> David: Oh, okay.
>> Ed Hoff: Hi this is Ed Hoff this fits perfectly with the 

issues discussed with previous subcommittees we talked 

about the potential automation of bridgeplates. And 

certainly there is concern that it may be -- there may be 

some safety concerns with the automation of integrated 

bridgeplates. And 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. Not so 

far different than the type of automation that Josh had 

described with his gap filler. But that knowing that the 

bridge plate as David, I'm sorry as Josh also clarified the 

bridge filler 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: Thank you.

>> Frank: Ed, this is Frank Maldari I wrote a document 

with issues associated with an automatically deployed 

bridgeplate. We discussed that last time. I just finished it a 

little while ago. I could send it over to the 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. And that's a starting point if nothing else to look at 
what 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: This is Chris. And I think folks should be 

aware that the FTA (inaudible) 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. So, 

that's available as a public document.

>> Melissa: Is that the document you brought with you 

to the recent board meeting Chris is this -- this is Melissa?

>> Chris: Yes.

>> Melissa: Can you provide us with a link to that I 

don't think that we have it here.

>> David: This is David here, are you referring to 

manual or automatic? Bridgeplate.
>> Chris: This 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 

railway, 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. And you 

know that link would be great.

>> Marilyn: Okay. Well, that's good input, this is 

Marilyn. That's good input we didn't have before. If there 

is a link, great. And 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. And we will need to look at that on a 

go forward basis.

Anything else about research? Okay. Melissa 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 nontechnical issues that accompany the RVAAC 

discussions that might need to go to DOT. And I have a few 

of those, I just checked my list none of them are this 

committee. This subcommittee. So --

>> Chris: Marilyn 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 have 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. No. This is -- I'm sorry but I don't 

think it's appropriate for us to ask our committee to do 

public comment in our committee. That's another federal 

agency. If committee members on their own want to put in 

public comment, fine. But not through the auspices of our 

advisory committee. I think it's perfectly appropriate where 

in the course of your deliberations, you identify 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. In 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 committee to the DOT

>> No that's -- go ahead Chris.

>> Chris: That's what my (inaudible) that's what I was 
going to say. That 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: Right.

>> Melissa: But 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: This is Marilyn that's a good point. My 

list by the way is not very long 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: This 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. It'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 the 
recommendations and said, oh, that's a good idea let's do 

that now even though there is no reg yet.

>> Marilyn: Excuse 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. And 

if -- or as soon as possible. There 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. For a 

subcommittee to submit our proposal in a written report this 

goes to the full committee which of course will have a great 

deal 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 know, 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. But we need a write up 

of why we are recommending what we are recommending, 

and we have not had any volunteer writers although we have 

had some volunteer editors. And that's not at all a bad 

thing, these are great editors, and I will take them up on 
their offers but we do need someone to do an initial draft, 

one or maybe more than one person. And I think that this is 

a good time to discuss who is open to doing that. It's also a 

good time to discuss what needs -- what kind of things we 

need to make sure our -- make sure are in this document. 

And maybe things that don't need to be in there. And 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 recommending. So, I open it up 

for discussion.

>> Dennis: This 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. The 

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. However you do 

that is fine. But it's good to have that record that shows 

what the reasoning is. If there are opposing points of view, 
I am assuming that those will flesh out in ultimately in 

minority committee reports. But I think it's really paramount 

to tell the story in a way that makes it clear what the 

intended outcome is. And why

>> Dennis: So you are looking for the rationale

>> The rationale. And you probably have written a few 

anti proposals and other proposals in your lifetime. I mean, 

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. It doesn't 

need to be beautiful pros. It can be brought -- beautiful 

prose, it can be broad points.

>> It sounds like a preamble doesn't it?

>> Does it?

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Melissa: So this is a question for Marsha this is 

Melissa are we looking for consistent format and style 

amongst the subcommittees.

>> Marsha: No, 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 to you guys. If you have four or 

five or six separate reports, and they are entirely different 

styles and they are all cobbled together into one overall 
document that's just fine. You are all volunteers, and you 

know, we -- we certainly don't need to waste your time 

conforming styles. It's up to you whether your -- you know 

your report is pretty or not.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Marsha: Pretty is not one of my priorities.

>> David: This is David here. So, maybe this is 

probably a little bit off point if you don't mind. But 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 level 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. So I think we should have a rationale 

or a recommendation plus a rationale on the order of what 

things 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. Something like that.

>> Marsha: Bear in mind we can't require things that 

don't exist. So, to the extent that you are expressing a 

preference for something that might exist in the future, go 

ahead and do that. But your recommendations for this 

upcoming rule should -- should be based on what we 

believe can be done in response to the rule. Or 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: Not 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: It was done in the original ADA, but --

>> Marsha: The original ADA was never --

>> Marilyn: I don't have --

>> We have a lot more scrutiny.

>> Marilyn: No, 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 something 
through. And it's unfortunate that it's closed various 

windows but if it has it has. It'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: This is Ken. One 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. But it's not like we are talking about 

something that doesn't exist at all. But it's -- it is a 

question about whether certain things exist in the world it 

could be slightly 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. But 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. And 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: Right.

>> Ed: Yes I believe like 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. And that is the purpose for the research we 

believe that would allow it to happen in the first place. So, 

yeah it's not--it's not standardized or a practice a common 

practice out there to use these types of devices. But the 

research could prove out that it could be something that 

could be -- that could be regulated or required.

>> Blair: This is Blair. Along 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 agencies and things like that 

that have grown up in parallel or after the railroads have 

come into existence. And there is a lot of physical realities 

and environmental realities that affect railroad transportation 

that are often very unique, and present sometimes complex 

scenarios that don't affect as completely other modes of 

transportation or other public conditions. And what I am 

getting around to is, when we start talking about developing 

things that are specific to rail-based 

transportation -- rail-based transportation it could be easy 
sometimes 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. Or 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. And 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. One 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. But 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. But 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. And 

maybe hobble the process of accessibility. Did I just 

confuse everybody?
>> I thought it was very well said.

>> Thanks Ed.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Dennis: I mean the --

>> I mean the industry has maybe not right now but it 

has at times among the most innovative if not the most 

innovative of industries for various reasons. And 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. But 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.

>> Marilyn: This 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. These are all good concepts. I

think we have also made concrete that we don't need an 

elaborate write up you know, it doesn't have to be you know 

50 pages of prose. It 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 

brainstorm the points for each new proposal. So, I don't 

know if anybody wants to volunteer or we could form a 
sub-- 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: This 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. Sure, if people want to come to a meeting.

>> You set the date Blair and I will come out there.

>> Marilyn: I think 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: If 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. Either say it now 

or think about it over the next period.

>> Crystal: Marilyn this is Crystal, what about the next 
meeting that's in January, is there a long agenda already 

planned for that? Or 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 discussion, 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: This is where we need story telling.

>> Crystal: Well sometimes you know, --

>> Melissa: I know.

>> Crystal: It would have to be. If 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. But maybe two hours is not enough, I don't know that's 

just a thought.

>> Frank: This 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: Unfortunately, you know, I mean there is 

some people on the committee with a lot of information 

Dennis being one of them. It'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 volunteer 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 feels because 

Dennis we all look to you. So, 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 is 
actually on the call right now.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Assign it to him. It 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. Since 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. So, I 

guess I have resisted all of this up to now. But I think I have 

been guilt tripped into it. And 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: This 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. I will also 

support you as you need me. So, 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. Because I am -- I am old fashioned and I want 

people to volunteer for what they will do and not get 

assigned. But Ken volunteered to -- to do a draft and pry a 

lot of information out of you. So, 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. And Frank did as well. 

Anything else on that? We have finished our agenda. A half 

hour early. I don't know if there are other items people 
want to look at.

>> Ed: I have a question about it's very basic and 

perhaps we can dismiss it quickly. The -- 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 have a bridgeplate or ramp or a 

lift. And 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. And certainly meeting those two

sections. But we will have a great majority of them will have 

level boarding. It'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 majority 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. But then will we also need to 

provide onboard lifts for the same interior vehicle floor 

height for those few stations lift? And 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. And secondly, we put in a provision at 

the beginning that says in stations constructed on or after 

January 26, 1992. So those are new stations. It 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: Is 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. So, that was 

where the rapid rail. We don't have -- trying to remember it 
but my recollection is that it doesn't have that same kind of 

requirement in the commuter 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 station 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. And 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. But only if you have freight adjacent to the 

railroad?

>> Dennis: Operationally 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. Right now if you have a huge gap horizontal or 

vertical it's structurally impracticable to have level boarding 

the bridgeplate to the platform. Only when you change the 

platform, do an alteration do you have any requirement that 

might be raising the platform. Currently, on those low-level 

platforms you are allowed to have a portable lift. That's the 

current requirement.

>> and when 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. On the new cars.

>> Okay.

>> Frank: Dennis, 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: The new regulations say it must be on the 

cars regardless whether you happen to have 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: That's correct.

>> Frank: I think there should be some flexibility

>> Dennis. The issue was the portable lifts which is 

both not very accessible at all. And 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 somebody 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: I see the objective I am going to an extreme 
saying that you have one platform which you are requiring

lifts but the whole fleet of thousand cars needs to be 

retrofitted. The 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 cars 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. So, 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. When 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 there to show 
what 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. But 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. So, if you could take 

another look at that.

>> Dennis: First 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. The 

guidelines get published and their commented on for 

proposed rulemaking. When the board finalizes 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's 
guidelines 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 usually it will be something like the 

date will be the date that you issued the solicitation or 

something like that. Much like is done with buildings for 

the date of construction or the date of the final documents 

or anything like that. So, DOT will decide and DOT can as it 

did the last time defer certain provisions for a certain period 

of time. The 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). So all of those dates 

by which those take effect are up to DOT. And so, there will 

be a comment period for that too. So, you get an 

opportunity to tell DOT when you think that provision should 

go into effect.

>> Frank: When 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. The requirements 

depend on the age of the station. The question is does it 
apply 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 requirement 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: So the question was: Doesn't the same 

requirement 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. I know 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? Can 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: Which is --

>> Ken: January 28th

>> Marilyn: Melissa remind me, please.

>> Melissa: January 29th.

>> 28th.

>> Melissa: 29th.

>> Marilyn: I think we can close a few minutes early 

wishing everyone a good winter break.

>> Dennis: Isn'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: Marilyn, this is David, get better soon take 

care of yourself.

>> Thank you.

>> Yes take care. Thanks.

>> Thanks.

>> Have a great holiday.

>> Thank you all bye.

(End of meeting.)