ADA Working Group

Conference Call

August 31, 2011

Meeting Minutes

The conference call began at 1:05PM

Attendees

Josh Coran, Talgo, Inc.; Calvin Gibson, FRA Office of Civil Rights; Rosanne Goodwill, FRA Office of Civil Rights; Jeffrey Gordon, Volpe Center; Bonnie Graves, Federal Transit Administration; Dharm Guruswamy, FRA, Office of Passenger and Freight; Stanton Hunter, CalTrans; Katharine Hunter-Zaworski, Oregon State U; Fred Kaviani, Ricon Corp; Linda Martin, FRA Office of Chief Counsel; David Nelson, Amtrak; Allan Paul, NCDOT; Anne Owens, Amtrak; Uwe Rutenberg, Oregon State U; Stanton Saucier, Ricon Corp; Melissa Shurland, FRA Office of R&D; Ken Takeda, Kawasaki Rail Car; Graciela Trillanes, GE Transportation Services; Michael Trosino, Amtrak; David Warner, Amtrak; Andrew Wood, Amtrak

Version 009/1/2011

Version 009/1/2011

Announcements

Next meeting:September 14, 2011, 1PM

Action Items

  1. David Nelson, Amtrak volunteered to provide the group with data regarding the ridership of passengers with disabilities at accessible stations. (Due Sept 14, 2011)
  2. Melissa Shurland will work with Richard Cogswell and Amtrak to gather information on the super-elevation of accessible stations that are outside of the NEC (Due Sept 14, 2011)
  3. The carbuilderspresent on the August 17, 2011 call volunteered to present to the group the pros and cons with increasing the design load of the on-board mobility aid lift beyond the regulated 600 lbs. (Due September 14, 2011)

Discussion

Following the roll call, the Minutes from the August 17, 2011 meeting were reviewed and approved.

Katharine Hunter-Zaworski gave a short PowerPoint presentation on the issues and impact relating to increasing the footprint of mobility aids from the minimum regulated size of 30” x 48” to 30” x 56”; with the goal of reaching consensus on increasing the footprint of mobility aid. Before Kate began her presentation, she restated the purpose of the Working Group’ being to develop recommendations for making the next generation of passenger rail cars more accessible, not to challenge or conflict with the minimum standards of ADA accessibility regulations. In the past, most wheelchairs and scooters fit within the 30 x 48”; however, the footprint of modern mobility aids now falls within the 56” to 60” range. Therefore the recommendation is to increase the length of the footprint for accessibility space on the PRIIA cars to 56”, and to leave the width at 30”. The impact of such as an increase will impact the lift platform size, possible the vestibule, and the floor space. It will increase maneuverability of passengers with disabilities in their mobility aids, mainly benefiting those passengers who sit in their mobility aids for 12+ hours. Allan (NCDOT) stated that even thought we are speaking about next generation of passenger equipment we need to be careful as we consider changing dimensions since those changes can have tremendous effect on the car design overall. Mike (Amtrak) followed-up by stating that an increase in the footprint for mobility aids would take up valuable space, especially if the Group is considering allowing the mobility aids to be stored in the passenger compartment while the passenger with disability sits in a revenue seat. According to Mike these changes that are being proposed are essentially changing the ADA rules, since the changes are exceeding the minimum requirements. David Nelson (Amtrak) informed the Group that it is his experience that some passengers with disability have a traveling scooter that meet the 30 x 48”. He did note that the Amtrak trainers that use mobility aids themselves also have issue with maneuverability in the larger scooter.

Another topic presented was the idea of providing storage space for persons with disabilities that have limited mobility and use scooters. These passengers may not wish to sit in their mobility aid for the duration of the trip, and my wish to transfer to a revenue seat. This may require storage space in the baggage car, primarily where bicycles may be stored. The group was asked to consider and discuss what the impact of providing storage space for unoccupied mobility aid. Kate highlighted that providing such a service may have some operational issues such as security and dwell time. Dharm (FRA) stated that Amtrak only use the baggage car in stations where they take checkedbaggage, and that is a small percentage of the Amtrak stations. Andrew (Amtrak) informed the Group that the Interiors subcommittee surveyed the States during the specifications development regarding inclusion of baggage cars, and found only a small fraction were interested in having a baggage car as part of their trainsets. Allan (NCDOT) asked for clarification on how the storage of the mobility aid would be processed, would the passenger use their mobility aid to board the train,then have the conductor store the device? Kate and Uwe explained that the separation would take place before boarding. The passengers envisioned to have their mobility aids would have limited mobility. They would be able to move about the train. Rosanne (FRA) stated that there was an assumption being made that the passengers that cannot walk would want to sit in their mobility aid for the entire trip. She indicated that these people may prefer to get out of their device and sit in a revenue seat.

Calvin (FRA) brought up the issue of the turning radius of the mobility aid. He stated that a lot of modern mobility aids are unable to make the turn from the vestibule into the seating area, with the current dimensions on such equipment as the Amfleet cars. FRA has received many complains about accessibility in this regard. He informed the group that changes need to be made to various car dimensions to accommodate longer scooters. Uwe agreed with the point made by Calvin but stated that access to the restrooms may not be impacted. Kate indicated that the length and location of the restroom door may impact access, wider being better.

The next topic of discussion was the consideration for increasing access to the dining bistro/café lounge car, for passengers with disabilities. The positive aspect of this is that it promotes inclusions. In Canada, VIA Rail uses narrow on-board wheelchairs. Another option is to have access from adjacent passenger cars. However, there may be a need to increase the aisle width. Kate further explained that the Talgo cars operating in the Northwest have the accessible car adjacent to the café car, and it’s equipped with wider aisles and has two accessible seats. Dave Warner clarified that the Talgo accessible coaches were modified from its original configuration in order to allow access to the café car. Washington State made the decision to remove six seats to accommodate passengers with disabilities.

Stan (CalTrans) asked for clarification about the applicability of the accessibility recommendations, whether it would apply to the PRIIA 305cars that CalTrans is currently procuring. He is concerned that if a passenger boards a PRIIA car with the proposed changes, in one direction, there may be an expectation of receiving the same accommodation on an older car, which is not so equipped. Stan further stated that outside of regulations, it may be difficult to justify changes that will impact the overall design of the cars and ultimately the cost. Dharm (FRA) explained that any accessibility recommendations that require a change to the PRIIA specifications would apply to any cars procured after the California cars. Dharm also made the point that timetables could be updated to reflect the accessibility information, as necessary.

Rosanne statedthat the Group’s purpose is to develop specifications for next generation cars, and therefore, the FRA Offices of Civil Rights and Chief Counsel should probably not be involved until the technical details are agreed upon. These Offices cannot be involved if the discussion will focus on changing the regulation. Melissa (FRA) and Dharm corrected the notion that the Working Group intends to change the ADA regulations.

Melissa (FRA) asked the Group at the end of the allotted time to consider the two issues presented: increase the loading of the lifts to 800 lbs and to change the footprint to 30”x56”. These changes will accommodate the modern mobility aid. She also asked the carbuilders to submit their position on the idea to increase loading of the carborne lift. Stanton (Ricon) stated that Ricon normally do projects that involve installing lifts that exceed the requirements of the ADA regulation (in excess of 600 lbs and 48”). It is technically feasible and it can be done on a rail car on with minimal changes to the cars.

The meeting adjourned at 2:05PM.

Version 009/1/2011