Minutes of the Accessible Transportation Standards Development Committee (T-SDC)
Meeting Date/Time: February 27, 2006; 9:30 am – 4:00 pm
February 28, 2006; 9:30 am – 3:00 pm
Meeting Number 1
Meeting Location: Canadian Standards Association (CSA)
5060 Spectrum Way
Mississauga, Ontario
Members Present:
- A Cormier, Chair
- G. Ansell, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
- V. Barkey (Alternate for S.Thorning), Community Care City of Kawartha Lakes
- A. Bastas (Alternate for S. Bastas), Royal Taxi
- J. Bentley, Canadian Hearing Society
- J. Bisson, Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario
- E. Black, Independent Living Resource Centre
- M. Brose, Transportation Action Now
- W. Brown
- S. Bruno, GO Transit
- C. Buckingham (Alternate for T. Wanio), Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
- T. Carnovale, Community Living Ontario
- K. Carrera, Association des municipalités Francophones de l'Ontario
- D. Carroll, Ontario Motor Coach Association and School Bus Association
- S. Chan, Ministry of Education
- A. Grant, HAGI Community Services for Independence
- B. Helman, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
- G. Johnston, Toronto Transit Commission
- K. Lambert, Ministry of Transportation
- C. Lonsdale, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
- L.A. MacDonald, Canadian National Institute for the Blind
- A. Milojevic, Assocation of Municipalties of Ontario, City of Brampton, member of OCTA/CUTA
- S. Mintz, The Kidney Foundation of Canada
- T. Nolan, Council of Ontario Universities
- K. Palecnzy, Ontario Community Transportation Association
- L. Pollock, Dignity Transportation Incorporated
- D. Svec, Life Skills Institute (Bloorview Kids Rehab)
Guests:
- R. Di Mauro, Counsel, Ministry of Transportation, Legal Services Branch (present on February 28 only)
- R. Barnes, Ministry of Transportation (present on February 28 only)
Support Unit:
- N. Bestic, Canadian Standards Association
- K. Boehmer, Canadian Standards Association
- T. Brand, Canadian Standards Association, Customer Service SDC Secretary
- G. Schidowka, Canadian Standards Association, Transportation SDC Secretary
- M. Rahim, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario Liaison
- J. Sawchuk, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
- N. Tion, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
- S. Weeres, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
- Linda Jones, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
Summary of Meeting 1 Actions
Action 1: SDC Support Unit to provide information on use of terminology in the Ontario Human Rights Code regarding equal, equivalent, and comparable for Meeting 2.
Action 2: T-SDC Support Unit to provide information regarding jurisdiction over wheelchairs and scooters and related securement devices at Meeting 2.
Action 3: T-SDC Support Unit to review ADA training modules and provide examples at Meeting 2 in order to assist the T-SDC in setting requirements regarding sensitivity training for operators of vehicles and front-line staff, and the provision of training for passengers on the use of accessible transit systems.
Action 4: W. Brown to provide the T-SDC with a report on the Federal Accessibilities Committees’ report on mobility securement.
[Note: The report was related to committee discussion regarding the importance of transportation providers’ consideration of manufacturer requirements for mobility aids and vehicles and essential versus unnecessary retrofits.]
Action 5: Ministry of Education and Transportation to provide information at Meeting 2 on federal, provincial, and municipal regulations governing vehicle design for school buses.
Action 6: G. Schidowka to revise the draft initial proposed standard and include the long-term objectives identified by the committee at Meeting 1. The revised draft was to be circulated to the T-SDC by March 20, 2006 for discussion at Meeting 2.
Action 7: T-SDC Support Unit to revise the draft work plan as amended at the meeting.
Action 8: The Chair to deliver the work plan to the Minister on behalf of the committee following Meeting 1 in accordance with the Committee’s Terms of Reference.
Action 9: G. Schidowka to circulate R. Di Mauro’s contact information to T-SDC members.
M1.1 Opening And Welcome
The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:30 am on February 27, 2006 and welcomed all members to the first working meeting of the Accessible Transportation Standards Development Committee (T-SDC).
M1.2 Roll Call
Members introduced themselves and stated their affiliations.
M2.3 Administrative Matters
M1.3.1 Housekeeping
G. Schidowka reviewed CSA’s policies and procedures regarding emergency evacuation and recycling.
M1.3.2 Membership
M. Rahim distributed a membership list with members’ affiliations. Members were asked to review the list for accuracy and to contact M. Rahim with any corrections prior to the end of Meeting 1. The membership list was intended to be posted on the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario’s ( ADO ) web site.
M.1.3.2 Approval of Meeting 1 Draft Agenda
The draft agenda for Meeting 1 was amended to include a presentation regarding jurisdictional issues by R. Di Mauro, Counsel, Ministry of Transportation, Legal Services Branch.
With this change, the agenda was approved without objection.
M.1.3.3 Comments on Draft Notes from the Orientation and Training Session
Members had no further comments or revisions to the orientation and training session notes. The notes were approved, without objection, as previously circulated to the committee.
M.1.3.4 Communications Task Group
It was discussed that the intent of a communications task group was to support Transportation Standards Development Committee (T-SDC) members in communicating the progress of the committee to their constituencies. The Customer Service Standards Development (CS-SDC) had also established such a task group.
Members were invited to volunteer to participate on the communications task group. After further discussion, the committee agreed that it was not necessary to form such a group at this time but would do so in the future, as necessary.
M.1.4 Discussion/Resolution of Key Issues from the Orientation and Training Session
M.1.4.1 Scope of Proposed Accessible Transportation Standard
The scope of the draft seed document on accessible transportation was discussed. G. Schidowka summarized that the seed document was drafted with the following items within or outside the scope of the proposed standard; however it would be up to the T-SDC to refine scope as they develop the proposed standard.
Items within scope:
- existing and new public passenger transportation systems and services under provincial and municipal jurisdiction (to be reviewed by the SDC at a later date);
- facilities, premises and infrastructure specific to transportation (e.g., subway platforms, bus stops and shelters); and
- customer service specific to transportation.
Items out of scope :
- forms of transportation that were not considered ‘public passenger transportation’ (e.g., personal use vehicles, emergency vehicles such as ambulances);
- operations under federal jurisdiction (e.g., air, rail (VIA rail) and water transportation);
- facilities, premises and infrastructure not specific to transportation (e.g., automatic door openers, ramps, bathrooms);
- requirement to create parallel transit service where conventional transit did not exist; and
- requirements to create or adjust government policies or programs (including funding programs).
M.1.4.2 Relationship between Example Standard and Reference Documents
G. Schidowka presented on the relationship between the draft seed document and information/sources referenced within the document. The draft seed document referenced clauses from other documents (e.g., existing regulations, National Standards of Canada), as opposed to embedding text, for the following reasons:
- to maintain consistency with existing legislation and standards;
- to take advantage of existing standardization processes and specific technical expertise; and
- to avoid duplication of effort.
The challenge of this approach was to ensure ongoing linkages between regulation and reference documents and the ability to provide input or alter the content of the referenced material.
M.1.4.3 Points for Consideration in Determining Long-term Objectives and Related Requirements
In determining the long-term objectives of the draft proposed standard, requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA, 2005) were reviewed. The T-SDC was required to consider the range of disabilities, the nature of barriers, any technical and economic considerations that may be associated with implementation, and any other considerations required under the committee’s Terms of Reference.
Assumptions included that the full range of barriers would be addressed over time, complex barriers may require more time to address, and no additional or new funding would be available to implement the requirements of the proposed standard.
M.1.5 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Draft Seed Document on Accessible Transportation
The Chair asked the committee whether it accepted the draft seed document which was prepared by CSA, in association with the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario (ADO), as a starting point in the development of a draft proposed accessible transportation standard. It was noted that the acceptance of the draft seed document did not prevent further modification, to the extent that the committee felt necessary, as the standards development process continued.
The committee discussed the difference between objective-based and technical (or prescriptive) standards. Objective-based standards specify outcomes (i.e., ‘what’ is to be achieved but not how the outcome is to be achieved) whereas technical (or prescriptive) standards specify requirements to be met (e.g., specific dimensions, materials). The seed document used a combination of requirements based on the objective-based Australian standard and the prescriptive Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), among various other sources specified in the seed document.
The committee agreed, without objection, to accept the seed document as a starting point for the development of a draft initial proposed standard on accessible transportation.
M.1.6 Development of an Initial Proposed Standard on Accessible Transportation
The committee began revising the draft initial proposed standard on accessible transportation.
First, the committee revised the long-term objectives (Clause 4.1) to better align with wording in the AODA, 2005. In addition, clarification of use of the terms equal, equivalent, and comparable was requested in order to be consistent with other government documents and regulations (e.g., Ontario Human Rights Code). The SDC Support Unit volunteered to provide clarification of the terminology.
Action 1: SDC Support Unit to provide information on use of terminology in the Ontario Human Rights Code regarding equal, equivalent, and comparable for Meeting 2.
A collated list of members’ comments on the draft seed document was circulated and reviewed at the meeting. The committee discussion focused on the general comments submitted by members (i.e., comments on the document as a whole and not necessarily specific to a clause or page number). The collated list of comments would be revisited at future meetings when discussion resumed on specific technical content.
General discussion on topics such as training, securement, and jurisdiction lead to the following actions:
Action 2: T-SDC Support Unit to provide information regarding jurisdiction over wheelchairs and scooters and related securement devices at Meeting 2.
Action 3: T-SDC Support Unit to review ADA training modules and provide examples at Meeting 2 in order to assist the T-SDC in setting requirements regarding sensitivity training for operators of vehicles and front-line staff, and the provision of training for passengers on the use of accessible transit systems.
Action 4: W. Brown to provide the T-SDC with a report on the Federal Accessibilities Committees’ report on mobility securement.
[Note: The report was related to committee discussion regarding the importance of transportation providers’ consideration of manufacturer requirements for mobility aids and vehicles and essential versus unnecessary retrofits.]
Action 5: Ministry of Education and Transportation to provide information at Meeting 2 on federal, provincial, and municipal regulations governing vehicle design for school buses.
The committee then focused its discussion on long-term accessibility objectives related to transportation by identifying measures, policies, practices, and requirements that the committee felt should be implemented on or before January 1, 2025 (Clause 5 of the draft seed document).
The committee brainstormed on performance based requirements according to subheadings in Clause 5 of the draft seed document. Following this brainstorming session, K. Boehmer suggested that CSA revise the draft initial proposed standard based on an alignment of the existing seed document and the outcome of the committee’s brainstorming on long-term objectives.
The committee was asked to review the next draft initial proposed standard for the following elements:
- Meeting 1 output of potential areas for standardization according to barrier;
- possible reorganization of the draft content and review of type of clauses (e.g., objective-based or technical (or prescriptive));Note: It was suggested that the requirements be written in an objective-based format as a starting point and then more specific/technical requirements would be developed at subsequent meetings as deemed necessary by the committee.
- gaps between the draft seed document and Meeting 1 output;
- technical edit for review of consistency, clarity, format; andNote: This item will be primarily addressed during CSA’s revision of the document.
- accessibility criteria (e.g., review for consistency with the purpose of the AODA, 2005; consideration of the range of barriers, nature of barriers, technical and economic considerations; does not duplicate existing regulation, is best considered under the Transportation SDC mechanism).
Action 6: G. Schidowka to revise the draft initial proposed standard and include the long-term objectives identified by the committee at Meeting 1. The revised draft was to be circulated to the T-SDC by March 20, 2006 for discussion at Meeting 2.
M.1.7 Agreement To Path Forward
M.1.7.1 Committee Work Plan to Minister
The T-SDC was is required, under its Terms of Reference, to submit a work plan to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The work plan was is intended to keep the Minister informed of the committee’s planned approach to develop the draft proposed accessible transportation standard and to guide the committee in carrying out its mandate. The committee reviewed and revised the work plan at the meeting. Reference to a communications task group was deleted and an item to review/discuss a cost feasibility study was added.
Action 7: T-SDC Support Unit to revise the draft work plan as amended at the meeting.
Action 8: The Chair to deliver the work plan to the Minister on behalf of the committee following Meeting 1 in accordance with the Committee’s Terms of Reference.
M.1.7.2 Preparation/Assignments for Meeting 2
It was discussed that the seed document would be revised following the meeting and circulated by March 20, 2006 in preparation for Meeting 2. It was recognized by that for some committee members, this left insufficient time to consult with their stakeholders. The Chair advised that if that was the case, comments would be received at Meeting 3. Committee members were asked to review the next draft and come prepared to discuss their comments at Meeting 2.
M.1.8 Communications
The committee agreed that a communications task group would be established in the future, if necessary.
M.1.9 Other Business
M.1.9.1 Presentation on Jurisdictional Issues
R. Di Mauro, Counsel, Ministry of Transportation, Legal Services Branch, presented on jurisdictional issues for information purposes only.
R. Di Mauro’s contact information would be made available after the meeting in case members wished to request a copy of the presentation materials.
Action 9: G. Schidowka to circulate R. Di Mauro’s contact information to T-SDC members.
M.1.9.2 Meeting and Committee Accommodations
Due to time constraints, this item was not discussed. Members were asked to contact M. Rahim with any accommodation requirements.
M.1.9.3 Meeting Schedule
The T-SDC agreed to the following change in meeting time for future meetings (to be held at CSA):
Day 1 - 9:30 am to 5:00 pm
Day 2 - 9:30 am to 4:00 pm
- Meeting 1 - February 27 and 28, 2006
- Meeting 2 - March 27 and 28, 2006
- Meeting 3 - April 27 and 28, 2006
- Meeting 4 - May 29 and 30, 2006
- Meeting 5 - June 22 and 23, 2006 (tentative)*
- Meeting 6 - July 26 and 27, 2006 (tentative)
- Meeting 7 - August 24 and 25, 2006 (tentative)
* Meeting 5 was rescheduled to accommodate the closure of CSA’s facilities over the July 1, 2006 long week-end.
M.1.9.4 Other
No other business was discussed.
M.1.10 Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 pm on February 28, 2006.