Minutes of the Accessible Transportation Standards Development Committee (T-SDC)

Meeting Date: April 27 - 28, 2006

Meeting Number 3

Meeting Location: Canadian Standards Association (CSA)
5060 Spectrum Way
Mississauga, Ontario

Members Present:

• Al Cormier, Cor Al Services, Chair
• George Ansell, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
• Spiros Bastas, Royal Taxi (April 27 only)
• Jo-Ann Bentley, Canadian Hearing Society (April 27 only)
• James Bisson, Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario
• Earl Black, Independent Living Resource Centre
• Mark Brose, Transportation Action Now
• Silvan Bruno, GO Transit 
• Tony Carnovale, Community Living Ontario
• Katrina Carrera, Association des municipalités Francophones de l'Ontario
• David Carroll, Ontario Motor Coach Association and School Bus Association
• Sandy Chan, Ministry of Education (represented by Vanissa Szeto)
• Sharon Hambleton, Ontario Federation of Labour (April 27 only)
• Blyth Helman, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
• Glenn Johnston, Toronto Transit Commission
• Kim Lambert, Ministry of Transportation
• Caroline Lonsdale, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (represented by Didi Radcliffe)
• Lesley Anne MacDonald, Canadian National Institute for the Blind
• Alex Milojevic, Assocation of Municipalties of Ontario, City of Brampton, member of OCTA/CUTA
• Tim Nolan, Council of Ontario Universities (represented by Zeb Demaiter on April 28)
• Kelly Palecnzy, Ontario Community Transportation Association
• Lloyd Pollock, Dignity Transportation Incorporated
• Danielle Svec, Life Skills Institute (Bloorview Kids Rehab)
• Susan Thorning, Ontario Community Support Association (April 27 only)
• Tanya Wanio, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Absent Members:

• Alex Grant, HAGI Community Services for Independence
• Susan Mintz, The Kidney Foundation of Canada

Guests:

• Rob Barnes, Ministry of Transportation

Support Unit:

• Nancy Bestic, Canadian Standards Association
• Kevin Boehmer, Canadian Standards Association
• Alicia Edano, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
• Linda Markowsky, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
• Mansur Rahim, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario Liaison
• Jill Sawchuk, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
• Michael Sullivan, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
• Nelly Tion, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario
• Scot Weeres, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario

M3.1 Call to Order

Mike Dodd, project manager at Canadian Standards Association, called the meeting to order at 9:30 am on April 27.

M3.2 Housekeeping and Facility Safety

Mike Dodd advised the members of the housekeeping issues for the meeting and of the facility safety procedures for exiting the building in case of an emergency.

M3.3 Opening Remarks and Membership Introductions

Al Cormier, chair, mentioned that since the last meeting, one member, Bill Brown, had passed away. Al asked the members to consider the contribution Bill had made to this committee and to his other work in helping people. Al asked the members to consider giving a donation to one of Bill’s charities, Nellie’s House. A total of $475 was raised from the committee members and will be made in the memory of Bill Brown.

M3.4 Approval of the Agenda

M3.4.1 Greater Toronto Transportation Authority

Lloyd Pollock asked that the committee hear about the development of the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority. This item will be reported under Minute item M3.12.1.

M3.4.2 Letter from OCTA/CUTA

Silvan Bruno reported that a letter had been developed by CUTA/OCTA and asked for time to discuss the issues with the T-SDC. This item will be reported under Minute item M3.12.2.

M3.5 Approval of the Minutes to the Last Meeting

The minutes to the last meeting held on March 27 - 28, 2006 were sent out by e-mail on April 11, 2006. The minutes were approved as circulated.

M3.6 Membership

The membership of the Transportation Standards Development Committee (T-SDC) was reviewed.

M3.7 Action Items from the Last Meeting

M3.7.1 Transportation School Buses

Action Item 1. M2.4.2 – Rob Barnes to investigate whether school buses fall within provincial jurisdiction.

Rob Barnes reported that MTO’s Carrier Safety Policy Office staff will report back on jurisdictional responsibilities at the meeting in May.

M3.7.2 Provincial Jurisdiction of Water-based Transportation

Action Item 2. M2.4.3 – Rob Barnes to investigate if a freighter canoe, water taxis and harbours fall within provincial jurisdiction.

Rob Barnes reported that MTO’s Carrier Safety Policy Office staff will report back on jurisdictional responsibilities at the meeting in May.

M3.7.3 Scope of AODA Regarding Ferry Docks

Action Item 3. M2.4.4 – SDC Support Unit to investigate if ferry docks are considered to be the same as subway platforms and to report back at the next meeting.

Michael Sullivan reported that three countries (Canada, Australia, United States) surveyed all require accessible docks under separate pieces of legislation than a transportation standard. However, the Australian standard consolidates all the existing requirements that impact accessible transportation in one document to provide an easy reference for organizations to know their obligations. The United States specifically addresses subway and rail platform tactile indicator requirements in its transportation document while the Australian transportation standard also notes the standard for railway platforms, but references it from an existing standard for the built environment.

M3.7.4 Barriers to Accessible Transportation

Action Item 4. M2.5.1 – SDC Support Unit to provide members with an edited transport specific performance or technical requirements list.

Mike Dodd reported that this item would be discussed in more detail under Agenda Item A3.10.1 and reported under Minute Item M3.10.1.

M3.7.5 Barriers to Accessible Transportation Review

Action Item 5. M2.5.1 – T-SDC members to review the potential performance or technical requirements list and provide justification for transportation specific items to the Support Unit by April 17, 2006.

Mike Dodd reported that this item would be discussed in more detail under Agenda Item A3.10.1 and reported under Minute item M3.10.1.

M3.7.6 Revision of Proposed Draft

Action Item 6. M2.6.1 – George Schidowka to revise the draft standard to incorporate the committee discussion. The revised draft and a comment form are to be sent to the T-SDC by April 5, 2006.

Mike Dodd reported that this item would be discussed in more detail under Agenda Item A3.10.2 and reported under Minute item M3.10.2.

M3.7.7 Committee Review of Proposed Draft

Action Item 7. M2.6.1 – The T-SDC to consult with their constituents regarding Draft 2, and to submit any comments, or proposed changes together with rationale to CSA by April 19, 2006.

Mike Dodd reported that this item would be discussed in more detail under Agenda Item A3.10.2 and reported under Minute item M3.10.2.

M3.7.8 On-Demand Services Task Force

Action Item 8. M2.6.2 – The On-Demand Services Task Force to schedule discussion (with support from SDC Support Unit) and submit a proposal for Clause 6.26 to the Support Unit by April 19, 2006.

Mike Dodd reported that this item would be discussed in more detail under Agenda Item A3.8.1 and reported under Minute item M3.8.1.

M3.7.9 Specialized Transit Task Force

Action Item 9. M2.6.3 – The Specialized Transit Task Force to schedule discussion (with support from SDC Support Unit) and submit a proposal for Clause 6.28 to the Support Unit by April 19, 2006.

Mike Dodd reported that this item would be discussed in more detail under Agenda Item A3.8.2.1 and reported under Minute item M3.8.1.

M3.7.10 Review of Proposed Draft 2 Comments

Action Item 10. M2.6.4 – SDC Support Unit to investigate proposed draft 2 standards discussion issues and report findings at Meeting 3.

Mike Dodd reported that this item would be discussed in more detail under Agenda Item A3.10.2 and reported under Minute item M3.10.2.

M3.7.11 Submission of Long-term Objectives to Minister of Community and Social Services

Action Item 11. M2.7.2 – George Schidowka, on behalf of the Chair, to transmit the draft Long-term Objectives for Transportation to the Minister of Community and Social Services by April 12, 2006.

Mike Dodd reported that the letter had been sent to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

M3.7.12 Consideration of June Meeting Dates

Action Item 12. M2.9.3 – The SDC Support Unit to review the options for the June meeting for presentation to committee at Meeting 3.

It was agreed that Meeting 5 would be held on June 22 and 23 and it would be held at the Canadian Standards Association. See also Minute item M3.13.2.

M3.8 Task Force Reports

M3.8.1 On-Demand Services

Lloyd Pollock reported that the On-demand Services Task Force met on April 7 at Royal Taxi in Downsview. The task force had also met via teleconference on April 12. The task force has generally reached consensus on most of the editing of Clause 6.26. They are still discussing how the fares are assessed for a prearranged trip in an accessible taxicab. Lloyd prepared a PowerPoint presentation, which will be circulated with the minutes.

The task force discussed two issues involving fares. The options being considered are:

a) Option A

For services not reserved in advance, individuals or organizations providing on-demand taxi services shall not charge passengers with a disability a higher fare than passengers without a disability would be charged for the same trip at the same time of day.

For services reserved in advance, individuals or organizations providing taxi services may negotiate fares with passengers at the time of reservation.

b) Option B

Individuals or organizations providing taxi services shall not charge passengers with a disability a higher fare than passengers without a disability would be charged for the same trip at the same time of day.

Individuals or organizations providing taxi services may charge a fare higher than otherwise permitted by this clause for services contracted by an organization or agency on behalf of passengers with a disability.

The task force feels they can resolve the issues and will have a final report for the meeting in May.

M3.8.2 Specialized Transit

The Specialized Transit Task Force met via teleconference on April 19. Danielle Svec agreed to act as chair of the task force. She reported there was some philosophical discussion about the transit systems available for the people of Ontario in 2025. The task force agreed that with all the ideas they had heard that they needed to review Clause 6.28 and CSA asked that the members submit comments on the clause in writing. The task force agreed to meet again on Monday April 24.

Significant issues addressed included:

• the taking of reservations for large groups up to 14 days in advance;
• the average wait times for users of the system are not to exceed the average wait times for the fixed route system in the area;
• the restriction of companions or attendants;
• the determination of eligibility of a user is to be made within 14 days;
• a user is eligible until they remove themselves from the system; and
• an independent appeal process is to be established.

Two items, yet to be discussed, include the routes that the specialized transit follow, and the cross boundary travel of users.

Kelly Paleczny and Glenn Johnston agreed to participate on this task force.

M3.8.3 New Task Forces

During the meeting it was suggested that new task forces would be established to review information or to give guidance to the T-SDC on specific issues. New Task Forces were established as follows:

a) Editing Task Force

The Editing Task Force would review changes to clauses and give advice on the intent or meaning of the information in the clause so that it meets the intent of the proposed draft. CSA staff will work closely with this task force to ensure that discussions at the T-SDC level are reflected accurately. The members of this task force are:

• Leslie Anne MacDonald;
• David Carroll;
• Silvan Bruno; and
• Caroline Lonsdale.

b) Definitions Task Force

The Definitions Task Force will review the definitions of terms used in the proposed draft Standard. The members of this task force are:

• Glenn Johnston; and
• Rob Barnes.

Additional members may be added as needed.

c) Readiness/Costing Task Force

The Readiness/Costing Task Force will review the reports and recommendations from the Readiness Assessment-Costing Consultants. The members of this task force are:

• Earl Black;
• Lloyd Pollock;
• Kelly Paleczny; and
• Vanissa Szeto.

M3.9 Report from the Transportation Consultants

M3.9.1 Readiness Assessment-Costing Consultants

The Ministry of Community and Social Services has contracted with Deloitte and Touche in collaboration with enTRA Consultants to provide readiness assessment and costing services to the T-SDC. The team of consultants from Deloitte and Touche met with the T-SDC on April 27 and shared their understanding of the base line of the project and the methodology of their plan to provide an analysis of the readiness of the transportation system in Ontario and the cost to providing accessibility to the people of Ontario. A copy of the presentation was circulated at the meeting.

A member of the T-SDC asked if the committee could review the Terms of Reference for the consultants. Scot Weeres reported that the contract was in place with the consultants but did agreed that the committee could see the Terms of Reference.

Action: M3.9.1 – Scot Weeres to provide a copy of the Terms of Reference for the Readiness Assessment-Costing Consultants to the T-SDC for information.

M3.9.2 Inter-jurisdictional Research Consultants

The Accessibility Directorate of Ontario has contracted with IBI to provide an assessment of accessibility standards and legislation around the world. Consultants from IBI met with the T-SDC on April 28 to report some of their preliminary findings to the committee. The focus of IBI's work is on technical requirements and best practices in other Canadian provinces, the U.S., UK, Australia and in Europe as they apply to different types of organizations or service providers that operate transit, commuter bus and rail, ferries, taxis and limousines, airport shuttles, school transportation and other types of transportation operated by organizations not primarily in the business of transportation. They are comparing those standards (set in regulation/legislation) to what was proposed in the March 16 version of the SDC's working draft standard and initial "seed" document. IBI is also looking at timelines and long-term goals, emerging issues, gaps and progress pertaining to accessible transportation in other jurisdictions. A copy of the presentation was circulated at the meeting.

M3.10 Work in Progress

M3.10.1 Defining Scope Assignment

Mike Dodd reported that he had reviewed and summarized the matrix of information the T-SDC had been asked to review after Meeting 2 based on the response he had from the members of the T-SDC.

A summary of the items that are out of scope for the transportation Standard would be prepared and shared with the T-SDC.

A letter would be prepared to submit the customer service items to the customer service technical committee.

Silvan Bruno requested that GO Transit have representation on the Built Environment, Information and Communication, and Employment Committees once formed.

Alex Milojevic requested that Public Transit and AMO have representation on the Built Environment Committee once formed.

M3.10.2 Proposed Draft Transportation Accessibility Standard

Mike Dodd reported that the comments received on the Draft 2 of the Proposed Draft Standard had been consolidated. The comments from Draft 1 that were still relevant were also brought forward. The T-SDC started to review from Clause 6.13 of Draft 2 of the proposed Draft Standard.

It was agreed that the concept of coordinated community transportation (Clause 7) was a high level policy issues and beyond the scope of a technical accessibility standard. It was agreed that there is a need to ensure quality services for all and it is not unique to the transportation sector.

It was discussed that not all municipalities have equivalent resources and that small municipalities may need to be evaluated differently than large municipalities. The life cycle of the equipment and infrastructure needs to be considered when the time frames are established.

Action M3.10.2 – Glenn Johnston to revise Clause 6.13.1 for clarity.

Action M3.10.2 – Tim Nolan and Leslie Anne MacDonald to review Clause 6.17 and suggest clearer wording

Action M3.10.2 – CSA to revise the Proposed Draft Standard to include information on the clauses that apply to the various conveyances.

Action M3.10.2 – The ADO to report back at the next meeting about the potential of including rental vehicles in the Proposed Draft.

Action M3.10.2 – Kelly Paleczny to report back on what is being done across the province by the transit authorities to address accessibility.

Action M3.10.2 – James Bisson to report back on what is being done across the province by taxi operators to address accessibility.

M3.11 Review/Update of the T-SDC Work Plan

M3.12 New Business

M3.12.1 Greater Toronto Transportation Authority

Kim Lambert reported that

• GTTA legislation is expected to receive second reading shortly;
• GTTA is a coordinating body that will be developing a seamless transportation system for commuters;
• GTTA has a long-term vision for transportation; and
• users of transit systems are involved on the advisory committee.

M3.12.2 Letter from OCTA/CUTA

Kelly Paleczny reported that the transit industry had established a resource team to provide support and input to the transit representative on the T-SDC. The resource team consists of 24 members from conventional and specialized transit systems from all regions of Ontario. Kelly reported that the transit industry had prepared a letter addressed to the T-SDC and she read from the letter.

April 18, 2006

Chair and Members
Transportation Standards Development Committee

The transit industry has established a "resource team" to provide support/input to public transit system representatives on the Transportation Standards Development Committee (TSDC). The resource team consists of 24 members from both conventional and specialized transit services from all regions of the Province. The members are associated with the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) and/or the Ontario Community Transportation Association (OCTA). Both CUTA and OCTA provide staff support to the committee members.

The following comments reflect the industry position/concerns in general terms to the process and/or to what the standards should cover. For the most part, the position has been previously shared with the Committee Chair as well as staff from the AODA Directorate and the Canadian Standards Association.

In summary the following comments are offered:

• The transit industry supports the retention of a consultant to develop a comprehensive list of proven “best practice” as the basis for standard development. This should have been done sooner than later in the process, affording the opportunity to start from an informed position.
• The transit industry supports the retention of a consultant to work in concert with the committee on assessing operational and fiscal issues associated with the respective standards under consideration.
• The transit industry supports a staged or phased approach, with three time frames (short, medium and long term) which define the period in which the standard would be attained, recognizing that in certain situations work on addressing standards may begin in the short term, but not be fully attained until the long term. This approach:
  • provides for balanced, measured and sustainable progress
  • provides the opportunity for short term quick hits, demonstrating early wins and successes and provides the opportunity to build on same
  • reflects fiscal realities given the expectation of having to accommodate changes within the existing funding envelope, noting the availability of additional funding supporting the standards is also of critical concern
  • provides the opportunity to take advantage of potential changing/evolving technologies
  • provides the opportunity to assess the practicality of certain standards, and confirm best practices using external resources

  The resource committee is in the process of classifying the proposed standards into short medium and long term orientations and identifying wording, definition and presentation issues. The final determination will be based on what is in the next generation seed document, noting the initiative to transfer certain previously listed standards to other tables (e.g. built environment or customer service).

• The industry believes that standards, once adopted, should apply on a going forward basis only, they should not require the retrofitting of existing capital infrastructure. In other words, existing infrastructure would be grandfathered until such time as it is replaced.
• The transit industry supports the inclusion of manufacturers of wheeled mobility aids (i.e., wheelchairs and scooters), conveyances, accessibility related equipment (i.e., lifts, ramps etc.) in the standards development process. This inclusion should be established as soon as possible in order to provide assurances that the established standards are both attainable and/or affordable.
• The industry believes there has to be a built in direct communication link between the various standards development committees (i.e. sharing discussion/resources on issues of common concern). This applies to committees (covering both common accessibility standards and sector specific standards) that have been set up or are to be set up in the future. Further, the industry strongly advocates representation on the new committees as they are established. Currently, the transit resource committee has established an informal communication link with members of the Customer Service Standards Committee sharing areas of common concern.
• The standards dealing with infrastructure, such as transit vehicles have to consider and reflect a global standard versus an Ontario specific desire. In the case of conventional transit rolling stock, Ontario systems purchase buses in a North American market (for the most part, noting there is some off-shore influence) where Ontario accounts for a maximum 8% of the new bus orders in a given year. Given the limited influence the Ontario industry has as a whole has on the market, it will be critical to involve the manufacturers in validating any standard.
• The mandate of the TSDC is to develop standards. Standards are defined as criteria that establish benchmarks. Certain of the issues that are being considered as “standard” issues are in fact issues which do not set benchmarks. For example:
  • Service design and/or delivery issues are unique to a municipality. Each municipality has to take into account its funding, transportation goals, topography, demographics, and the current infrastructure in place. Service design and delivery can be massaged to comply with certain standards, however service design in itself is not a standard or criterion that sets a benchmark.
  • Pricing and other related social issues are also unique to a municipality and are not appropriate as standards in province-wide legislation. The economic capacity of the individuals paying fares should not and never has been used as a basis for setting pricing for service delivery. It should be noted that other areas such as housing and healthcare do not have their pricing set according to the economic capacity of the individuals making use of the service. Once again, this is a policy concern for each individual municipality and not a benchmark to be established as part of a standard.
  • The resource committee is in the process of identifying existing draft standards that should instead be considered social and/or policy issues, a summary of which will be provided to the TSDC through the transit representatives at a future meeting.
• The issue of “coordinated community transportation” at best is a policy issue, not a standard, and as demonstrated in the past, did not fare well given fiscal realities and competing interests of various government ministries in dealing with transportation issues e.g. non emergent medical transportation, school transportation etc.
• The industry believes there has to be a reconciliation (or understanding) of the standards to be developed with the application of other legislation e.g. Highway Traffic Act, Municipal Act, Ontario Human Rights Code. Without such reconciliation, significant confusion and litigation could result.

Giving consideration to the above identified issues and the progress the Transportation Standards Development Committee has made to date, the transit industry believes the established timetable for the development of any meaningful, attainable standards is far too aggressive. Further the current timetable underlines the need to provide a phased approach as noted earlier.

As the industry has and continues to demonstrate, we are committed to making progress in moving toward a fully accessible Ontario in a balanced, measured and sustainable manner.

Submitted by:

Kelly Paleczny, OCTA/CUTA
Glenn Johnston, TTC
Silvan Bruno, GO Transit
Alex Milojevic, City of Brampton, AMO
Alex Grant, HAGI Community Services for Independence

M3.13 Next Meeting

M3.13.1 Meeting 4

Meeting 4 of the T-SDC is scheduled for:

Date: May 29 and 30 , 2006
Place: Canadian Standards Association
Address: 5060 Spectrum Way,
Mississauga Ontario L4W 5N6

Time: 9:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. on May 29, 2006
9:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. on May 30, 2006

M3.13.2 Meeting 5

Meeting 5 of the T-SDC is scheduled for

Date: June 22 and 23 , 2006

Place: Canadian Standards Association

Address: 5060 Spectrum Way,
Mississauga Ontario, L4W 5N6

Time: 9:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. on June 22, 2006
9:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. on June 23, 2006

M3.14 Member Satisfaction

The members generally agreed they were satisfied with the progress made during meeting 3 and welcomed Mike Dodd to the committee.

M3.15 Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 2:45 pm on April 28, 2006.

• Print this article
• Email this article