Chair’s letter to the minister

January 29, 2018

The Honourable Tracy MacCharles
Minister Responsible for Accessibility
Mowat Block 6th Flr,
900 Bay St
Toronto, ON M7A 1L2

Dear Minister MacCharles:

The Transportation Standards Development Committee has completed the legislative review of the Transportation Standards. As chair and on behalf of the other members of the committee, I am pleased to submit the Final Recommendations Report for the proposed accessibility standard for your consideration.

In meeting the provisions of the legislative review, as set out in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the committee re-examined the long-term objective and each of the measures, policies, practices and requirements of the Transportation Standards.

The committee believes the scope of the recommendations is in line with the approach adopted by the original Transportation Standards Development Committee. The recommendations are intended to advance accessibility in support of the act’s goal of an accessible Ontario by 2025, while providing organizations with flexibility to meet their requirements in a manner that considers the wide variation in organizational type and size as well as variation in community needs across the province.

While the mandate letter from Minister Duguid provided direction with respect to the areas of the standards the committee should focus on, it was agreed that all recommendations brought forward by members of the committee would also be given consideration. This approach resulted in a number of recommendations that are not directly tied to the areas of direction in the mandate letter, as well as some that have been recommended for referral to other committees.

The final recommendations in this report have benefitted from the perspectives of both the committee members and their stakeholders, as it was agreed at the onset that each member would consult with their stakeholders on all recommendations prior to any voting. The effectiveness of this approach was evident throughout the process, as a number of members changed their final decision with respect to how to vote subsequent to hearing stakeholder feedback from around the table.

Additionally, all members were made comfortable in sharing their own perspectives as well as those of their stakeholders, as committee members agreed the Chatham House Rule would be applied and discussions held during committee meetings would not be recorded verbatim, but that minutes would reflect discussions generally. These agreed-upon approaches resulted in a collaborative process, allowing committee members to work together to develop recommended changes while being respectful of all points of view.

The committee is grateful to the individuals, communities and organizations from across the province who took the time to consider its initial proposed revisions and to provide their comment. This information was invaluable to the committee as it developed its final recommendations.

The committee received approximately 188 pieces of feedback from the public, which were shared both individually and in summary with all committee members several weeks prior to the meeting where final discussion and voting on the public feedback would occur. Committee members also discussed the public feedback with their stakeholders prior to that meeting to ensure that all perspectives continued to be considered.

Before concluding the committee’s work, members were provided ample time to reflect on the final votes, and raise any issues they believed to be outstanding. This approach identified the need for one additional meeting, at which five items from public review commentary were discussed and voted upon. Committee members unanimously agree that each and every member was provided the opportunity to bring forward and discuss all issues they believed to be outstanding prior to the final vote and this transmittal letter being finalized.

Finally, on behalf of all the committee members, I would like to thank the Accessibility Directorate for its full support during this review, ensuring that all committee members received the supports they required in order to fully participate in the review process. This included both direct support to individual members as well as overall committee support, arranging for industry experts to attend meetings when requested, ensuring the committee was well informed prior to making decisions.

I would also like to congratulate the directorate on their recent organizational changes to build capacity to deliver on the directorate’s broadened scope of work. The committee is very supportive of these recent changes and the commitment that this shows to the province’s goal for an accessible Ontario.

The committee thanks you for the opportunity to contribute to making transportation more accessible for all Ontarians, it was both an honour and a pleasure to chair this committee which was made up of knowledgeable, passionate individuals working together to make Ontario more accessible.

Sincerely,

Kelly Paleczny
Chair, Transportation Standards Development Committee

Background

The purpose of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA) is to achieve an accessible Ontario by 2025 through the development, implementation and enforcement of accessibility standards that apply to the public, private and not-for-profit sectors.

The Transportation Standards under the AODA set out requirements to help transportation and public transit providers as well as municipalities, universities, colleges, hospitals and school boards make their transportation services and vehicles accessible to people with disabilities. Accessible transportation services assist people with disabilities in being able to live, work and participate in their communities.

The standards came into effect on July 1, 2011. The AODA requires the review of each accessibility standard five years after it becomes law to determine whether the standard is working as intended and to allow for adjustments to be made as required.

Under the AODA, the Standards Development Committee must review a standard as follows:

  • re-examine the long-range objectives of the standard
  • if required, revise the measures, policies, practices and requirements to be implemented on or before January 1, 2025, and the timeframe for their implementation
  • develop another proposed standard containing modifications or additions that the committee deems advisable for public comment
  • make such changes it considers advisable to the proposed accessibility standard based on comments received and make recommendations to the minister

In fall 2015, the then Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure established a Transportation Standards Development Committee to undertake the legislated review of the Transportation Standards. The minister provided the committee chair with a mandate for the review and terms of reference. The committee members came from the disability community, the transit industry and municipalities. In addition, staff from the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario and its partner ministries (the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs) sat on the committee as non-voting members.

The committee was asked to consider recommendations in three focus areas identified through research and stakeholder consultations: conventional transit, specialized transit and the duties of municipalities that license taxicabs. The committee was also asked to explore the impacts of new technologies, emerging shared economies and interjurisdictional transit coordination.

A number of additional items relating to accessibility arose during the committee’s discussions. These items were also reviewed by the committee and, upon discussion and deliberation, some additional recommendations were developed. In addition, some items were identified for consideration by other committees during their respective reviews.

In undertaking the review, the committee considered a variety of possible solutions in order to strike the right balance between protection and advancement of public interests and administrative burden imposed on regulated sectors. The committee carefully considered a variety of options, including non-regulatory approaches such as recommending increased outreach through awareness and education programs.

The committee has met its legislated obligations by undertaking a rigorous review of the current Transportation Standards, including the long-term objective and all requirements that obligated organizations must follow. As required under the act, the committee made its initial recommendations for the proposed standard available for public comment and, taking all feedback into consideration, had lengthy discussions and made such changes it considered advisable to the proposed recommendations.

The following are the final proposed revisions to the Transportation Standards under the AODA, which has full support from all members of the committee. Where the committee is proposing regulatory changes or alternative approaches, an explanation of the proposed revision, as well as a proposed compliance timeframe, is provided.

Summary of final proposed revisions to the recommendations

This section of the document provides an overview of the recommendations made by the Transportation Standards Development Committee. Detailed explanations of how the committee arrived at each recommendation are contained in the next section of this document, titled Final proposed revisions to the recommendations.

Long-term objective

The long-term objective should be changed to: “To make passenger transportation services under provincial and municipal jurisdiction in Ontario accessible for persons with disabilities by 2025.”

Conventional transit

Sizes of mobility devices

The province should coordinate outreach to ensure that mobility device consumers are aware of the space limitations on public transit vehicles and have the necessary information to help them choose a mobility device that best fits their needs. This approach could include multiple channels such as:

  • a joint federal/provincial initiative to require information (e.g. a sticker or tag) on new mobility devices to inform the consumer prior to purchase
  • multiple-point outreach/education involving supporting agencies, obligated transit organizations, prescribers and health providers, retailers and manufacturers to educate mobility device consumers

Training on the use of conventional transit

The Transportation Standards should be changed to require conventional transit providers to make available information on the use of their services.

The standards should also be changed to require public transit providers to identify how their organization will provide assistance for passengers with disabilities to navigate public transit (which could include education and technology solutions) in their multi-year accessibility plan.

Identification of support persons

The province should explore the need for a universal identification card for persons with disabilities to be used as proof that an individual requires support, useable in any situation where an individual is required to provide proof of their disability and not limited to transit use. This product could be managed by the province and build on existing identification mechanisms currently in place.

As this may require a lengthy planning and rollout period, the committee encourages the province to conduct public outreach and education to persons with disabilities and to transit providers in order to provide clarification on their rights and responsibilities regarding providing/requesting proof of need for a support person.

Accessible seating and mobility aid spaces

Education and outreach solutions should be developed to increase public awareness on the use of accessible seating and mobility aid spaces.

Proportion of accessible seating and mobility aid spaces on trains and subways

The Transportation Standards should be changed to require transit providers, when procuring new or retrofitting existing railcars (i.e. trains and subways), to consult with their accessibility advisory committee with respect to the layout and configuration of the vehicles.

Accessible seating for persons with vision loss

Partnerships between transit providers and community agencies should be established to provide training and/or training materials to support people with visual disabilities who require accessible seating.

Service animals

Education and outreach solutions should be developed to increase public awareness on service animals including ways to safely transport the animal.

The standards should be changed to require public transit providers to apply a mechanism that allows a passenger with disabilities who uses a service animal to leave the station for the animal to relieve itself, with no additional fee being charged upon re-entry.

In addition, the need for accommodation for a service animal to relieve itself should be put forward to the Standards Development Committee that undertakes the next review of the Design of Public Spaces Standards.

Priority boarding

Education and outreach, including courtesy campaigns and on-board announcements, should be developed to improve priority-boarding situations for persons with disabilities.

Pre-boarding and on-board requirements

The Transportation Standards should be changed to require transit providers to show progress on meeting their pre-boarding and on-board announcement requirements as part of the annual status report on their multi-year accessibility plans. This item should be highlighted for consideration during the next scheduled review.

Reporting on accessibility at transit facilities, stops and shelters

The Transportation Standards should be changed to require municipalities and transit providers to report on and show progress made to improve accessibility at transit facilities, stops and shelters, based on their service offerings and community need, as part of the annual status report on their multi-year accessibility plans.

Technical requirements on signage

A list of tools and resources on best practices for signage should be developed and/or made available to help to reduce barriers for persons with disabilities.

The Standards Development Committee for information and communications should review the recommendations received in response to the request for public feedback on signage solutions to improve accessibility for persons with visual disabilities. The committee should also consider new and upcoming technology to advance accessibility in wayfinding ensuring consideration of transportation services.

Grab bars, handholds, handrails or stanchions

The Transportation Standards should be changed to include language around “no protruding ends” to the existing accessibility requirements for grab bars, handholds, handrails or stanchions, as one of the technical requirements.

Technical transportation standards to better support persons with vision loss

A list of tools and resources on best practices, including universal design principles, should be developed and/or made available to transit providers for consideration with respect to improving accessibility.

Specialized transit

Eligibility for specialized transit

No changes to the existing Transportation Standards regarding eligibility requirements for specialized transit.

This issue should be revisited after implementation of the three categories of eligibility to qualify for specialized transit services, during the next Transportation Standards Review or earlier, and that the province should track outcomes.

Origin-to-destination services

No changes to the Transportation Standards regarding origin-to-destination services. The province should continue to monitor this to see if any challenges arise.

Multiple fares

Non-regulatory approaches should be adopted to build awareness, such as educational materials or outreach.

Booking requirements

Transit providers should develop education and outreach solutions so that they can better communicate their policies and procedures to customers.

Fees for medical forms

Mitigating or eliminating the financial impact of requiring medical assessments and documentation for specialized transit services should be forwarded to the government for consideration.

Duties of municipalities that license taxicabs

The recommendations related to the duties of municipalities that license taxicabs should only be implemented once solutions can be found to ensure a degree of fairness for obligations between licensed taxicabs and ridesourcing service vehicles.

On-demand accessible taxicabs

A change should be made to the Transportation Standards to require municipalities to consult with the public, persons with disabilities and their accessibility advisory committee as part of the review of their multi-year accessibility plan.

Municipalities should also be explicitly required to identify progress made towards meeting the need for on-demand taxicabs as part of the annual status report on their multi-year accessibility plans.

Side-entry taxicabs

No changes to the existing Transportation Standards regarding side-entry taxis.

Training for taxicab drivers

A change should be made to the Transportation Standards to call for municipalities to require, at the time of license issue or renewal, taxicab driver training for standard taxicabs, with prescriptive elements.

This training could be offered through the Ontario college system or training organizations approved by the responsible municipality.

The aforementioned modifications need to apply to all Ontario service providers in this sector, not just those licensed by the municipality. The province is encouraged to continue to investigate and determine a mechanism to ensure same.

Additional items

Accessible parking spaces

This issue should be put forward to the Standards Development Committee that undertakes the next review of the Design of Public Spaces Standards.

Coordination between specialized transit services

Municipalities should be required to report on the progress being made to coordinate their systems as part of the annual status report on their multi-year accessibility plans.

New and emerging technologies

Persons with disabilities should be consulted at all stages of the government’s involvement/support of these technologies.

Final thoughts

Addressing attitudinal barriers

The province should take an active role in the development and outreach of increased guidance for obligated organizations to assist in the promotion of a cultural shift towards an accessible and inclusive society. Any guidance materials developed should support the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s policy, Policy on Ableism and Discrimination Based on Disability, released in June 2016.

Final proposed revisions to the recommendations

Overview

Barriers to transportation significantly affect the lives of people with disabilities, as transportation is an integral part of independent daily activity and involvement in the broader community. The objective of the Transportation Standards, established in 2011 as part of the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (IASR) under the AODA is to remove barriers (either physical, attitudinal, or otherwise) by acting on the long-term objective to “make passenger transportation services under provincial and municipal jurisdiction accessible for persons with disabilities”.

On December 20, 2015, the then Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure sent a mandate letter to the committee chair, asking that specific work be undertaken during the Transportation Standards Review. This included:

  • considering recommendations regarding specific items of focus in the areas of conventional transit, specialized transit, and the duties of municipalities with regard to taxicab licensing
  • exploring the impacts of new and emerging technologies in achieving the long-term objective of the Transportation Standards
  • considering all possible solutions and tactics, including non-regulatory approaches

Each topic covered by the committee included good and healthy discussion benefitting from the variety of viewpoints and knowledge that the members and guest speakers brought with them. In effort to ensure a broad range of input, members worked first to develop options for each topic under review, and then consulted with their stakeholders on all recommendations prior to any voting.

The committee recognized early in the process that, at five years old, the Transportation Standards are relatively new and a number of requirements had only just been implemented or had yet to take effect. In these cases, the effectiveness of the related standard was difficult or impossible to measure.

The committee acknowledged that, while great strides have taken place in achieving accessible transportation in Ontario by 2025, there is still work to do. The committee’s discussions got to the core of how best to ensure all persons with disabilities, including those with hidden disabilities, can access transportation services.

Throughout the review’s respectful and inclusive discussions, members brought insightful feedback from their stakeholders, organizations and communities. Through the consultation period, the committee gained additional feedback from an even wider group of persons with disabilities, organizations, and the public, which helped them hone the recommendations in this document.

The recommendations reached by the committee include both regulatory changes and non-regulatory ideas, such as increased outreach or the development of supporting materials. In some cases, the committee decided to recommend no changes at this time.

Final recommendations

The Transportation Standards set out requirements to help obligated organizations (for example, transit providers, municipalities, universities, colleges, hospitals and school boards) make their services and vehicles accessible to persons with disabilities. Since 2011, these obligated organizations have been working to implement the requirements designed to achieve the long-term objective of the Transportation Standards.

The following is the Transportation Standards Development Committee’s final advice and recommendations to the Minister Responsible for Accessibility on the Transportation Standards under the Integrated Accessibility Standards, itemized and organized by focus area.

Long-term objective

Under the AODA, the committee was required to provide advice as to whether the long-term objective put forward by the original Standards Development Committee remains valid. The current long-term objective is ‘to make passenger transportation services under provincial and municipal jurisdiction in Ontario accessible for persons with disabilities.’

The committee recognized the importance of the long-term objective being reflective of the Transportation Standards. As such, the committee chose to discuss this item last, to ensure that a decision was made only after consideration of the Transportation Standards as a whole. After considering the public feedback, the committee believed the objective could better reflect the goals of the AODA as a whole.

Committee recommendation:

The committee believes that the long-term objective could be seen as reflecting the standards, at a minimum. However, in order to better reflect the goals of the AODA, the committee recommends that the long-term objective be changed to ‘To make passenger transportation services under provincial and municipal jurisdiction in Ontario accessible for persons with disabilities by 2025.’

Focus area one: Conventional transit

Public transit services are commonly referred to as either conventional or specialized. Conventional transit services are also known as "fixed route" and typically operate accessible buses, streetcars, motor coaches or rail-based transportation for the general public by designated public sector transportation providers.

Sizes of mobility devices

The committee was asked to “examine options to educate the public on the standard sizes of prescribed mobility device that can be accommodated on most conventional transit vehicles, in the context of the current minimum requirements for the size and quantity of spaces.”

The Transportation Standards establish requirements for conventional transit providers to ensure that all transit buses, motor coaches, streetcars, subways, light rail, commuter rail and inner-city rail vehicles have allocated mobility device spaces. This requirement is mirrored in Regulation 629, Accessible Vehicles, under the Highway Traffic Act, which is administered by the Ministry of Transportation.

The AODA defines a “mobility aid” as any device used to facilitate the transport of a person with a disability in a seated position. However, for the committees discussion, the term “mobility device” referred to manual or electric wheelchairs or mobility scooters intended for both indoor and outdoor use.

The committee heard that there is a growing trend towards bigger, heavier and faster mobility devices. Some newer devices, given their greater size, may not be able to board conventional transit vehicles, resulting in customer complaints, delays and an increase in the use of costlier specialized transit services.

The committee believes that the minimum requirements for mobility device spaces in the Transportation Standards and Ministry of Transportation’s Highway Traffic Act, Regulation 629 are appropriate and meet the needs of both persons with disabilities and transit providers. However, the committee understands that oversize devices that are unable to board accessible conventional transit vehicles may lead to frustration for riders and result in a barrier to mobility.

While the committee understood that consumers are responsible for doing research prior to making a purchase, they agreed that all consumers need information to make the right purchase to meet their needs, including their travel and transit needs.

Committee recommendation:

The committee does not advise changes to the Transportation Standards, but recommends that the province coordinate outreach to ensure that mobility device consumers are aware of the space limitations on public transit vehicles and have the necessary information to help them choose a mobility device that best fits their needs. This approach could include multiple channels such as:

  • a joint federal/provincial initiative to require information (e.g. a sticker or tag) on new mobility devices to inform the consumer prior to purchase
  • multiple-point outreach/education involving supporting agencies, obligated transit organizations, prescribers and health providers, retailers and manufacturers to educate mobility device consumers

In addition to the above, the committee also considered the challenge of identifying which mobility devices might be deemed safe to use as vehicle seats while travelling in motorized conventional and specialized vehicles. The committee believes that it is the responsibility of transit providers to make decisions to ensure the safety of individual passengers and had no recommendations.

Training on the use of conventional transit

The committee was asked to “examine the requirements to provide persons with disabilities with training on the use of conventional transit, upon request.”

The term “travel training” refers to any program or activity aimed at helping people travel independently. It often includes supports to help riders navigate accessible conventional transportation, and can take many different forms. In addition to persons with disabilities, training can benefit any person who is less able to travel independently including young or inexperienced travellers, seniors or newcomers.

The committee agreed that travel training provides people with increased independence in navigating public transit systems and a wider range of transportation options. Training persons with disabilities who are reliant on specialized transportation on the use of the conventional transit system may allow them to travel more independently and spontaneously.

In addition to training on the standard features of transit systems, it was identified that persons with disabilities may benefit from additional assistance in facilities such as transit stations or on accessible conventional vehicles. This is particularly necessary in situations where system navigation is made difficult by obstacles such as construction work, temporarily disrupted travel routes (e.g. short turns) or unplanned service or facility disruptions for which it is impossible for a traveller to predict or prepare for beforehand.

While the committee recognized the benefits of increased training opportunities, they also understand that transit systems may not have the appropriate resources or expertise to provide this type of training, and as such, believed that opportunities for other partners to provide this type of training should not be precluded. The committee also recognized that transit users and their support networks are the best judge of their personal needs.

The committee discussed that transit providers may also benefit from helping persons with disabilities to transition from specialized transit because accessible conventional transit is typically far less expensive to operate than specialized transit.

At present, there are no requirements within the Transportation Standards for obligated organizations (i.e. those that have legislated obligations under the standards) to offer their passengers assistance or guidance in using their transit systems. However, some transit providers in Ontario already have implemented various forms of travel training proactively.

While the term “travel training” is in common use across the world, it also has a wide variety of definitions, so the committee recommended that the province consider alternative terms. The terms “system navigation,” “navigation training” or “travel mentoring” were suggested.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends that the Transportation Standards be changed to require conventional transit providers to make available information on the use of their services, within one year of the revised standard taking effect.

In addition, the committee recommends a change to the standards to require public transit providers to identify how their organization will provide assistance for passengers with disabilities to navigate public transit, which could include education and technology solutions, in their multi-year accessibility plan. Subsequent to adoption, transit providers must include this requirement in their next accessibility plan.

Identification of support persons

The committee was asked to “examine potential solutions for the identification of support persons accompanying persons with disabilities using transit within and across jurisdictions.”

A support person accompanies the person with a disability in order to help with communication, mobility, personal care or medical needs, or with access to goods or services or facilities. A support person can be hired or chosen by a person with a disability to provide support for a variety of needs. Under the Transportation Standards, transit providers are not allowed to charge a transit fare to a support person who accompanies a person with a disability who requires their services. It is the responsibility of a person with a disability to demonstrate to the transit service provider their need for a support person to accompany them on conventional or specialized transit.

The committee heard that there is currently no consistency across transit systems in the manner in which persons with disabilities are required to demonstrate their need for a support person. Transit providers and persons with disabilities have requested increased clarity on how to handle proof of need for support persons. Disability stakeholders have requested removal of the requirement to provide proof and stated that the requirement is not in keeping with the spirit of the AODA.

Persons with disabilities face a constant challenge to demonstrate their need for a range of specialized services, not just transit. Persons with disabilities are required to provide proof and complete applications many times over to different organizations to ensure that they receive the services to which they are entitled. In many cases, this is despite the fact that the disability is permanent and the person’s needs are unchanging. In addition, procuring proof such as a letter from a physician takes time and money and could be perceived as a “disability tax” to the individual or their caretaker.

Individuals often do not want to request or highlight the fact they have a disability. This can be for many reasons, including perceived stigma. In particular, persons whose disability is invisible or not immediately obvious may find it hard to explain their disability and might not feel they should have to. The committee considered all of these perspectives.

Committee recommendation:

The committee proposes that the province explore the need for a universal identification card for persons with disabilities to be used as proof that an individual requires support. Such a card could be useable in any situation where an individual is required to provide proof of their disability and not be limited to transit use. It would allow a person to prove their need for accommodation in a simple and discreet way. The committee believes that this product could be managed by the province and build on existing identification mechanisms currently in place, such as the Ontario photo card or the Ontario health card.

Such a card could also address the minister’s direction to the committee to explore “options to create universal eligibility criteria across transit providers,” as it relates to specialized transit, which is addressed later in this document.

It should be noted that the committee understands that this would be a significant undertaking by the province, and may require a lengthy planning and rollout period. In the interim, the committee encourages the province to conduct public outreach and education to persons with disabilities and to transit providers in order to provide clarification on their rights and responsibilities regarding providing/requesting proof of need for a support person.

Accessible seating and mobility aid spaces

While the current Transportation Standards include requirements for accessible seating and mobility aid spaces on conventional transit, the committee discussed the continued and ongoing conflicts on public transit services with respect to these areas.

The Transportation Standards require two or more defined mobility device spaces on conventional transportation vehicles in order to accommodate people with disabilities using mobility devices. Devices available to secure mobility devices are also required, as appropriate. There are also requirements for courtesy seating for use by people with disabilities to be clearly marked, to be located as close to the entrance door of the vehicle as possible and to be signed to indicate that the seats are to be vacated if needed for use by a person with a disability.

The committee acknowledged that government cannot regulate courtesy and that the use of these spaces is not always understood by the public. The committee recognized that this item touched on labour relations, operator enforcement, and health and safety concerns and that this challenge may be a regional one mainly affecting the larger urban centres, where overcrowding on transit vehicles is more likely to occur.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends that education and outreach solutions be developed to increase public awareness on the use of accessible seating and mobility aid spaces.

Proportion of accessible seating and mobility aid spaces on trains and subways

The committee discussed whether there should be a greater proportion of accessible seating and mobility aid spaces on trains and subways. The committee recognized that procurement of vehicles happens in the wider North American marketplace, and the current requirements are in line with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is also a global best practice for transit vehicles.

However, some control over access is available, as transit providers generally are involved in the design of the vehicle’s interior, either during the retrofitting or procurement process, and are able to ensure that the layout and configuration of their vehicles meet the accessibility needs of their riders.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends a change to the standards, effective immediately after the revised standards take effect, requiring transit providers to consult with their accessibility advisory committee with respect to vehicle layout and configuration when procuring new or retrofitting existing railcars (i.e. trains and subways).

Accessible seating for persons with vision loss

The committee examined strengthening the identification features of accessible seating by using methods beyond colours, signs or markings to better accommodate persons with vision loss. The committee noted that, in addition to the current methods of identification in place, accessible seating is required to be located in close proximity to the entrance door of the vehicle.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends that partnerships between transit providers and community agencies should be established to provide training and/or training materials to support people with visual disabilities who require accessible seating.

Service animals

The committee discussed cases of persons with disabilities and their service animals being denied access to transportation due to misunderstanding of driver obligations, allergies or other reasons, and concerns that some service animals are being put in a place inaccessible to the person with a disability, such as the trunk of a taxicab. The committee also recognized that the number of individuals that use service animals in Ontario continues to grow.

The committee found that, in the cases regarding the handling of service animals that were reviewed, all were in contravention of existing requirements. As such, the committee determined that additional education with respect to the existing requirements is required.

The committee also discussed that a service animal may need to relieve itself in the course of carrying out its work. Addressing this in a hygienic and dignified way may be challenging for a service dog user, particularly when they are in a hermetic environment such as a very large building or while in transit.

The committee acknowledged that transit providers may have concerns about letting persons with service animals leave their system for an unspecified amount of time as this may lead to abuse of the system. However, they also recognize that this can be a real concern for some riders.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends that education and outreach solutions be developed to increase public awareness on service animals, including appropriate ways to transport the animal.

The committee also recommends the Transportation Standards be changed, effective within six months of implementation, to require public transit providers to apply a mechanism that would allow a passenger with disabilities who uses a service animal to leave the station for the animal to relieve itself, with no additional fee being charged upon re-entry.

In addition, the need for accommodation for a service animal to relieve itself should be put forward to the Standards Development Committee that undertakes the next review of the Design of Public Spaces Standards.

Priority boarding

The committee discussed priority boarding for persons with disabilities on conventional transit vehicles.

The committee recognizes that government cannot regulate courtesy, and that health and safety concerns and some disabilities (e.g. invisible disabilities) present additional challenges to priority boarding. The committee also acknowledged that this issue may be one that is specific to larger jurisdictions, where overcrowding and high demand for services is more prevalent. It was also noted that this assumes that every person with a disability would want to board the vehicle first, which is incorrect.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends that education and outreach, including courtesy campaigns and on-board announcements, should be developed to improve priority boarding situations for persons with disabilities.

Pre-boarding and on-board announcements

When they discussed this item prior to January 1, 2017, the committee recognized that the pre-boarding and on-board announcement requirements under the standards had not yet come in effect.

There was some concern about the challenges that transit providers would face in rolling out this requirement, and the committee considered strengthening the pre-boarding and on-board announcement standards. However, given the compliance date for this requirement had not yet passed, it was not possible to measure or assess the effectiveness of this requirement.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends a change to the Transportation Standards, effective immediately when the revised standards take effect, requiring transit providers to show progress on meeting their pre-boarding and on-board announcement requirements as part of the annual status report on their multi-year accessibility plans. The committee also recommended that this item be highlighted for consideration during the next scheduled review.

Reporting on accessibility at transit facilities, stops and shelters

Several points relating to the technical requirements for transit facilities, stops and shelters were raised by committee members including concerns with transit provider facilities, transit stop accessibility, and transit stop identification and signage.

The committee discussed the joint responsibility of transit providers and municipalities for transit stops and facilities and the difficulties in making them accessible based on existing infrastructure in some communities.

Committee recommendation:

The Transportation Standards should be changed to require municipalities and transportation providers to report on and show progress made to improve accessibility at transit facilities, stops and shelters, based on their service offerings and community need, as part of the annual status report on their multi-year accessibility plans. This change would come into effect immediately when the revised standards take effect.

Technical requirements on signage

The committee discussed possibilities regarding signage for persons with disabilities including visual disabilities. These included transit stop identification and signage for persons with visual disabilities, as well as the difficulties associated with typical way-finding solutions as they would apply to bus stop signs, which are generally located too high off the ground for any tactile application. The potential role of future technology going forward to make transit stops and facilities more accessible was also discussed.

The committee also spoke to the need for a publicly available collection of resources and guidelines on best practices for signage that might be useful for transportation and other service providers.

The online public survey for the Initial Recommendations Report asked for feedback on “how we could improve signs in Ontario so they’re accessible to people with visual disabilities.” The feedback the committee received was thoughtful and benefitted greatly from the lived experience of the respondents. The committee believes that this information would be a valuable resource for the committee currently reviewing the Information and Communications Standards.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends that a list of tools and resources on best practices for signage be developed and/or be made available to help to reduce barriers for persons with disabilities.

In addition, the committee recommends that the Standards Development Committee for information and communications review the recommendations received in response to the request for public feedback on signage solutions to improve accessibility for persons with visual disabilities.

Further, the committee recommends that the Standards Development Committee for information and communications consider new and upcoming technology to advance accessibility in wayfinding ensuring consideration of transportation services.

Grab bars, handholds, handrails or stanchion

The committee discussed technical requirements for grab bars and other similar assistive equipment in transit vehicles to prevent hazards or injuries to passengers.

Committee recommendation:

The Transportation Standards should be changed to include language around “no protruding ends” to the existing accessibility requirements for grab bars, handholds, handrails or stanchions, as one of the technical requirements.

Immediately after the revised standards take effect, a transportation service provider would be required to ensure a vehicle meets this requirement when entering into a contractual obligation to purchase a new or used vehicle or when modifying a portion of a vehicle. Transportation service providers would not be required to retrofit existing vehicles in their fleet that are not being modified.

Technical transportation standards to better support persons with vision loss

The committee discussed additional technical Transportation Standards to better accommodate persons with visual disabilities in larger transit vehicles, such as minimum standards for lighting, colour/brightness contrast standards, and standards for stairs and handrails.

The committee concluded that the Transportation Standards contained requirements that met or exceeded global best practices. Further, the committee believes that the Transportation Standards should focus on universal design, rather than specific disabilities, to ensure that all persons with disabilities are accommodated.

However, the committee also acknowledged that providing resources and guidelines on best practices for lighting, colour/brightness contrast standards, and standards for stairs and handrails might be useful for transportation and other service providers, much in the same way as the committee’s recommendation regarding signage.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends that a list of tools and resources on best practices, including universal design principles, be developed and/or be made available to transit providers for consideration with respect to improving accessibility.

Focus area two: Specialized transit

Specialized transit services are intended to provide transportation for persons whose condition or disability prevents them from using conventional transit for all or part of their travels. Specialized transit services typically provide personal service, require customers to complete a registration process, and require trips to be booked in advance.

Specialized transit is more likely to vary significantly with regard to the types and levels of service to meet variations in local travel demands, streets travelled, and specific facilities that can be served, and can be altered to meet local needs more readily than most high-capacity fixed route transit services.

Eligibility for specialized transit

The committee was asked to “examine whether current eligibility requirements for specialized transit require clarification and explore options to create universal eligibility criteria across transit providers.”

The committee heard that all specialized transit providers in Ontario have eligibility criteria to qualify for their services in one form or another, although the criteria, and the method of assessing eligibility, vary widely. The Transportation Standards do not speak to how transit providers should determine eligibility.

By January 1, 2017, every transit provider was required to apply the following three categories of eligibility to qualify for their specialized transit services: unconditional, temporary and conditional. The committee heard that most transit providers were in the process of amending and implementing their eligibility criteria to meet the compliance timeline and as such, the impacts of the new criteria were impossible to measure at the time.

Transit providers on the committee did identify their concern that the new eligibility categories would expand the eligible population and result in significant increases in demand for specialized transit services. To manage the increase, some providers were trying to migrate certain riders to accessible conventional transit services.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends no changes to the existing Transportation Standards regarding eligibility requirements for specialized transit. The committee agreed that the current requirements in the Transportation Standards regarding the categories of eligibility are appropriate and meet the needs of both persons with disabilities and transit providers. The flexibility in the Transportation Standards allows transit providers to develop and deliver creative solutions to accommodate the unique needs of its ridership.

Because organizations were not required to switch to the three categories of eligibility until the beginning of 2017, the committee believes that this should be revisited after implementation of the three categories, during the next Transportation Standards Review or earlier, and that the province should track outcomes.

Origin-to-destination services

The committee was asked to “examine origin-to-destination requirements and determine whether door-to-door service requirements could be included.”

The committee heard that origin-to-destination services allow a specialized transit service provider to provide, in a flexible way, services in a manner that best meets the needs of persons with disabilities. Generally, this service is provided in one of two ways: door-to-door service providers offer assistance from the passenger’s origin to the vehicle, and comparable assistance at the destination. Curb-to-curb service, as the name implies, does not provide assistance beyond the edge of the road.

The Transportation Standards require specialized transit service providers to provide origin-to-destination services within their service area, but does not specify how. The standards require providers to “take into account the abilities of its passengers and that accommodates their abilities.” These services may combine specialized and conventional options, where appropriate.

While door-to-door services could be a benefit to many persons with disabilities, making this service mandatory may put a burden on both providers and persons with disabilities. A blanket requirement could have a detrimental impact on the provider’s resources and would have a negative impact on providers who are moving towards the family of services approach. Some persons with disabilities do not want or need to be escorted to and from the vehicle and there are concerns that making this service mandatory would limit their autonomy.

The current Transportation Standards require the abilities of each passenger to be taken into account in the delivery of services. This approach allows for door-to-door services when required, but does not mandate it in all cases. In addition, the committee noted that it is not feasible for a provider to guarantee door-to-door service, due to varying factors such as weather and location.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends no changes to the Transportation Standards regarding origin-to-destination services. The committee believes that the current Transportation Standards serve both persons with disabilities and service providers by allowing for provider autonomy and practicability to best meet the needs of each individual. The committee recommends that the province should continue to monitor this to see if any challenges arise.

Multiple fares

The committee was asked to “examine the practice of multiple fares in origin-to-destination services within the same jurisdiction and determine whether further clarity in the Transportation Standards is required.”

The committee heard that transit providers often sub-contract other organizations to help meet demand or augment specialized transit services. This can result in errors such as the charging of multiple fares to riders. A passenger who takes a subcontracted specialized transit vehicle may be charged a second time when transferring to conventional transit in the same system. This may occur if the first driver does not provide them with a transfer or the vehicle is not recognized at the destination point as being part of the same transit system. A passenger should be eligible to transfer between a transit system’s conventional and specialized transit services for a single fee.

While the Transportation Standard does not explicitly prevent transit providers from charging multiple fares within one origin-to-destination trip, it does require that the same payment options be available for specialized and conventional transit services, and that the provider not charge more for specialized transit services. The committee agreed that forcing a specialized transit passenger to pay an additional fare to complete their trip could be seen as contrary to the intent of the Transportation Standards.

Transit providers on the committee consulted broadly with their counterparts and found few or no examples of this occurring. The committee believed this issue represents a gap in a transit provider’s process, rather than a gap in the current Transportation Standards, and would be best addressed as an operational concern by transit providers.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends that non-regulatory approaches be applied to build awareness, such as educational materials or outreach.

Booking requirements

The committee discussed the pre-booking process often required to use specialized transit services. They considered the requirement to book far in advance, barriers to spontaneous travel, delays experienced by both the client and the transit provider, and penalties for no-shows and cancellations.

It was recognized that transit providers across the province are facing a variety of challenges, as larger urban transit providers may be experiencing unprecedented increase in demand while others in the smaller rural areas may not face the same challenges. The committee believes that an integrated solution may help reduce barriers to spontaneous travel.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends that transit providers develop education and outreach solutions so that they can better communicate their policies and procedures to customers.

Fees for medical forms

The committee considered ways to mitigate or eliminate the current financial impact on persons with disabilities who require medical forms for eligibility assessments and documentation for specialized transit services. Much like the requirement to provide proof for the need for support, persons with disabilities are required to pay for varying types of documentation many times over to receive the services to which they are entitled.

The committee recognized that transit providers may need assistance in this area and might not be able to facilitate conversations with colleges and health professionals. While the committee initially recommended that this issue be reviewed by the Health Care Standards Development Committee, after further consideration, they decided it would benefit from wider government consideration.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends this item be forwarded to government for consideration.

Focus area three: Duties of municipalities that license taxicabs

The Transportation Standards provide for accessibility in the taxicab industry through requirements for municipalities that address the proportion of accessible taxis, charging fares and the provision of vehicle information.

As this is a dynamic industry that is undergoing a significant change, the committee understood that a number of significant changes had occurred in the taxicab industry in the short time between the drafting of the minister’s letter to the committee and the first meeting at which the committee began discussing this section of the IASR. The committee recognized that issues in this area would be broadened by the growing impact of the sharing economy and the challenges being faced by municipalities to address this emerging sector.

The committee appreciated the resources provided by the province to help guide discussions in this area. Speakers from the MaRS Solution Lab, the City of Toronto and the province’s Sharing Economy Advisory Committee gave valuable presentations and answered the committee’s many questions on the sharing economy.

The committee learned that municipalities are still moving through definitions as they debate ridesourcing by-laws and regulations. The committee believed that the protection and safety of persons with disabilities who use accessible taxicabs should be a priority in this emerging market. However, they also recognized that ridesourcing companies may also be able to fill a gap in the provision of accessible transportation services.

Accessibility has been a relatively minor part of the sharing economy dialogue in other jurisdictions. However, Ontario may be unique because the province has legislation that regulates municipalities in their licensing requirements where other jurisdictions may not. The committee believed the province has a unique opportunity to work with other levels of government to embed accessibility into any solutions, such as in the proposed new federal accessibility legislation.

The committee attempted to limit their recommendations to the focus areas in the mandate letter (namely, those that would apply directly to municipalities that license taxicabs). However, the committee stressed that their recommendations are intended to apply sector-wide. In addition, these recommendations should only be implemented once solutions can be found to ensure a degree of fairness for obligations between licensed taxicabs and ridesourcing service vehicles.

On-demand accessible taxicabs

The committee was asked to “examine the requirement for municipalities to identify their progress on meeting the need for on-demand accessible taxicabs and whether municipalities should be required to report on their progress through their multi-year accessibility plans.”

The Transportation Standards require that a municipality must consult with its Accessibility Advisory Council (AAC) to determine the proportion of on-demand accessible taxicabs required in the community. Further, they must identify their progress made toward meeting the need for on-demand accessible taxicabs, including any steps taken to meet the need, in their multi-year accessibility plan.

However, the current wording in the Transportation Standards could be interpreted as requiring municipalities to only consult with their AACs a single time. In addition, while they are required to report on their progress in meeting the need for accessible taxicabs, they are not required to make actual progress. A review of the multi-year plans of ten major Ontario municipalities confirmed that none appeared to show a guaranteed proportion of accessible taxicabs, or appeared to provide any details with respect to progress toward determining or working toward a goal proportion.

The committee recognized that, while municipalities have a role to play in ensuring there are no barriers to the licensing of accessible taxis within their jurisdiction, they are limited in their ability to ensure any increases, noting the filing of and application for an accessible taxi license is at the discretion of the service provider. The committee heard examples from municipalities that had multiple accessible taxi licenses available, but had not received applications for same. Municipalities face challenges in increasing their fleets of accessible taxicabs due to their limited ability to influence private sector providers to make the incremental investment associated with an accessible taxi over a standard taxi.

The committee concluded that requiring drivers to purchase more costly accessible vehicles could result in driving small business owners to another profession or opportunity. This is compounded by the current situation with ridesourcing services, which do not have any regulatory obligations to provide accessible service.

However, the committee reflected that a municipality could employ ridesourcing services to meet its on-demand proportion for accessible taxicabs, but under the Transportation Standards, it would need to expand which vehicles fit into the “taxicab” category.

The committee learned that municipalities have identified they would like guidance regarding how to consult with their AACs, how to report in their multi-year plans, and how to interact with taxicab service providers.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends a change to the Transportation Standards to require municipalities to consult with the public, persons with disabilities and their AAC as part of the review of their multi-year accessibility plan. This requirement would come into force immediately when the revised standards take effect.

In addition, municipalities should be explicitly required to identify progress made towards meeting the need for on-demand taxicabs as part of the annual status report on their multi-year accessibility plans.

Side-entry taxicabs

The committee was asked to “examine the addition of technical specifications for side-entry taxicabs under Regulation 629, Highway Traffic Act.”

The committee heard that persons with disabilities have identified concerns about the lack of side-entry taxicabs in the province. While some favour rear-entry taxicabs and are receiving the service they want, others would prefer riding in a side-entry vehicle if they were available.

Rear-entry and side-entry taxicabs offer pros and cons to both passengers and drivers. Outside of Ontario, some communities only allow the licensing of side-entry taxicabs, while others specifically identify that both types of taxicab must be made available to passengers. No Ontario regulation directs taxicab companies to ensure that their customers are provided a choice of vehicle type.

The committee considered safety concerns about rear-entry modified vehicles, in particular, whether they are safe in the event of a rear collision, and learned that these vehicles must comply with federal safety requirements comparable to non-accessible vehicles.

Regulation 629, Accessible Vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act provides specific exceptions or alternative requirements for rear-entry taxicabs, which allow them to operate in Ontario. There is no reference in the regulation with respect to side-entry taxicabs, given their configuration meets the requirements set out in the regulation.

The committee believed that this request in the mandate letter is about increasing the availability of side-entry taxis, and did not think that making changes to the Transportation Standards would accomplish this.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends no changes to the existing Transportation Standards regarding side-entry taxis.

Training for taxicab drivers

The committee was asked to “determine whether municipalities should require mandatory general accessibility training when issuing or reissuing taxicab licenses.”

There are no requirements in the Transportation Standards for licensed taxicab drivers to receive accessibility training. In contrast, public transit providers have specific accessibility training requirements in the regulation for employees and volunteers on subjects such as the use of accessibility equipment, equipment failures, and emergency preparedness and response.

The committee learned that some municipalities had initiated skills and service training related to accessibility as a prerequisite of licensing and renewal of licences. However, the municipally legislated requirements for training for ridesourcing services were minimal or non-existent, and may have been motivating people to become ridesourcing drivers-for-hire. As a result, cities such as Toronto and Ottawa had been examining changes to their taxicab training programs in order to ensure consistency across the taxi industry with respect to the training provided to drivers.

The committee agreed that requiring accessible taxicab training for all drivers, including those currently exempt under the act, could ensure more awareness of the specific accessibility needs for a person with a disability, as well as the other requirements in the AODA.

The committee also heard examples that underscored the need for training with respect to fares and accommodations for service animals, as well as general sensitivity training for providing service to persons with disabilities.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends a change to the Transportation Standards, effective two years from the date the revised standards take effect, to call for municipalities to require, at the time of license issue or renewal, taxicab driver training for standard taxicabs with training on:

  • accessibility Transportation Standards and the Ontario Human Rights Code as it pertains to persons with disabilities
  • how to interact and communicate with persons with various types of disability
  • how to interact with persons with disabilities who use an assistive device or require the assistance of a guide dog or other service animal or the assistance of a support person
  • how to use equipment or devices available on the provider’s premises or otherwise provided by the provider that may help with the provision of goods, services or facilities to a person with a disability
  • what to do if a person with a particular type of disability is having difficulty accessing the provider’s goods, services or facilities
  • not charging a higher fare or additional fee for persons with disability than person without disabilities for the same trip, and do not charge a fee for the storage of mobility aids or mobility assistive devices

In addition, the committee recommends that municipalities require, at the time of license issue or renewal, taxicab driver training for drivers of accessible taxicabs, which should include:

  • the safe use of accessibility equipment and features
  • acceptable modifications to procedures in situations where temporary barriers exist or accessibility equipment on a vehicle fails
  • emergency preparedness and response procedures that provide for the safety of persons with disabilities

The committee also suggests that this training could be offered through the Ontario college system or training organizations approved by the responsible municipality. Doing so could create consistency in the information provided to drivers and ensure that the elements of the training are appropriate to the intention of this requirement.

Given the uncertainty with respect to the manner in which the sharing economy (ride-sourcing specifically) will be held to the AODA standards, the committee recommends that the aforementioned modifications need to apply to all Ontario service providers in this sector, not just those licensed by the municipality. As such, the committee encourages the province to continue to investigate and determine a mechanism to ensure same.

Additional items

Accessible parking spaces

The committee discussed the need for and potential changes to requirements related to accessible parking spaces and the sizes of accessible parking spaces. It was recognized that municipalities have the authority to create and enforce parking issues based on their own by-laws. The committee believed that the projected increase in persons with disabilities and the aging population may require planning for additional accessible parking spaces in the future.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends that this issue be put forward to the Standards Development Committee that undertakes the next review of the Design of Public Spaces Standards.

Coordination between specialized transit services

The committee was asked to “examine interjurisdictional transit coordination within Ontario.” Under the act, specialized transit services in neighbouring municipalities are required to facilitate connections for users when they are transferring between services.

The committee discussed barriers to interjurisdictional travel throughout the review, recognizing that municipalities all have different policies. It was also acknowledged that this is essentially a regional issue (i.e. Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area) and that creating requirements for cross-boundary services may be burdensome for smaller municipalities in rural Ontario with limited specialized transportation systems.

Committee members identified current reciprocal coordination agreements in place and other ongoing projects, some in the form of municipal boundary agreements between neighbouring jurisdictions, to address existing gaps to ensure that people with disabilities are able to seamlessly transition from one specialized transit service provider to another in the future.

Based on the information provided, the committee agreed municipalities should not be required under the standards to develop regional transportation plans with adjacent jurisdictions to coordinate transit. However, it was agreed that the progress in developing reciprocal coordination agreements should be measured and reported upon.

Committee recommendation:

Municipalities should be required to report on the progress being made to coordinate their systems as part of the annual status report on their multi-year accessibility plans.

New and emerging technologies

Guest speakers provided the committee with their perspectives on future technology, including: connected/autonomous vehicles, future transportation planning, and inclusive design and accessible technology. The committee found it encouraging to learn that emerging technology will have the ability to change the lives of people with disabilities.

The committee discussed the ways that people with disabilities will interact with new and emerging technologies. Given the many opportunities to advance accessibility associated with new technologies, such as automated vehicles and smartphone apps, the committee believes it is imperative that consultation and feedback from persons with disabilities take place early in the process, versus having accessibility needs and features being added as an afterthought.

Committee recommendation:

The committee believes that persons with disabilities should be consulted at all stages of the government’s involvement/support of these technologies. This would provide a great opportunity to influence developers to consider accessibility and build in functionality at the onset versus as an afterthought, and avoid barriers to new and emerging technology rather than having to remove them. The committee agrees that incorporating universal design in early planning would benefit all users, not just persons with disabilities.

Final thoughts

While the committee was tasked with reviewing only the Transportation Standards, ultimately all the standards in the AODA are interrelated and touch upon each other. While some items did not fit neatly into the categories outlined in the mandate letter, they did arise in the committee’s discussions. For example, the committee had a number of conversations about accessible tour buses, boat cruises and zero noise electric vehicles. While they helped inform some of the decisions included in this document, they did not result in recommendations.

Addressing attitudinal barriers

Since the enactment of the Transportation Standards, transit providers have made good strides on how to address accessibility in the provision of their services. However, persons with disabilities still face challenges in taking advantage of all forms of public transit. One such challenge is the sensitivity and understanding of fellow travellers and the providers of transportation.

Throughout the review, committee members stressed the need for greater education and outreach to help address attitudinal barriers, including those regarding persons with invisible and cognitive disabilities. The committee recognized that this goes beyond transportation and extends into all service sectors and aspects of daily living. It is believed that guidance materials would help support a cultural shift towards an accessible and inclusive society.

Committee recommendation:

The committee recommends that the province take an active role in the development and outreach of increased guidance for obligated organizations to assist in the promotion of a cultural shift towards an accessible and inclusive society. Any guidance materials developed should support the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s policy, Policy on Ableism and Discrimination Based on Disability, released in June 2016.