2016 Review of the Accessibility Transportation Standards

Draft recommendations from the Transportation Standards Development Committee. The committee works to ensure transportation is more accessible to people with disabilities.

On this page Skip this page navigation

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 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 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 , 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

The Standards Development Committee is comprised of representatives invited by the Minister Responsible for the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act to undertake a legislated review of the Transportation Standards. The members come from the disability community, transit industry, and municipalities. In addition, non-voting members from the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario and its partner ministries (the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs) also sit on the Committee.

In undertaking the review, the Committee considered a variety of possible solutions and tactics, including non-regulatory approaches 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.

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 and wrote to the Committee Chair to provide terms of reference and a mandate letter for the review.

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 new technologies, emerging shared economies and interjurisdictional transit coordination.

A number of additional items relating to accessibility arose during the discussions on the mandate letter items. These items were also reviewed by the Committee, and a number of them have been included in the Committee’s recommendations. In addition, some items have been identified for consideration by other Committees during their respective reviews.

The Committee has met its legislated obligations by undertaking a rigorous review of the current Transportation Standards, including their long-term objective and all requirements that obligated organizations must follow. The following is the Committee’s proposed direction on the Transportation Standards. Where the Committee is proposing regulatory amendments or alternative approaches, an explanation of the proposed change as well as a proposed compliance date is provided.

As required under the Act, the Committee is submitting the draft recommendations on the Standards to be made available for public comment. Following the public posting period, the Committee will make such changes it considers advisable to the proposed Standards, based on comments received and make final recommendations to the Minister.

Summary recommendations

This section of the document provides a quick reference to the recommendation made for each item of discussion. Detailed explanations of how the Committee arrived at each recommendation are contained at the end of the document, in the section titled “Initial Recommendations for Public Comment.” The title of each section here contains a hyperlink to the respective sections of the main document.

Long-term objectives

The Committee believes that the long-term objective can be seen as reflecting the Standards, at a minimum. However, the Committee agreed to use this consultation period to get public comment on whether the objective fully supports the ’s goal of an accessible Ontario by 2025.

Conventional transit

Item 1: Sizes of mobility devices

The Committee 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 or
multiple-point outreach/education involving supporting agencies, obligated transit organizations, prescribers and health providers, retailers and manufacturers to educate mobility device consumers

Item 2: Training on the use of conventional transit

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

Item 3: Identification of support persons

It is proposed that, by December 31, 2020, the province implement and manage a universal identification card for persons with disabilities to be used as proof that an individual is in receipt of an eligible benefit or requires support. It is proposed that the province implement and manage a universal identification card. The Committee believes that this product should be managed by the province and recommends that it build on existing identification mechanisms currently in place, such as the Ontario Photo Card or the Ontario Health Card.

The Committee understands that this 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.

Item 4: Accessible seating and mobility aid spaces

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

Item 5: Proportion of accessible seating and mobility aid spaces on trains and subways

The Committee recommends no amendments or changes to the existing Transportation Standards regarding the proportion of accessible seating and mobility aid spaces.

Item 6: Accessible seating for persons with vision loss

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

Item 7: Service animals

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

Item 8: Priority boarding

The Committee recommends that education and outreach, including courtesy campaigns, should be developed to improve priority boarding situations for persons with disabilities.

Item 9: Pre-boarding and on-board requirements

The Committee recommends an amendment to the Transportation Standards, effective immediately when the revised standard takes 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 recommends that this item be highlighted for consideration during the next scheduled review.

Item 10: Reporting on accessibility at transit facilities, stops and shelters

The Committee recommends an amendment to the Transportation Standards, effective immediately when the revised standard takes effect, requiring 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.

Item 11: Technical requirements on signage

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 requests public feedback on signage solutions to improve accessibility for persons with visual disabilities.

Item 12: Grab bars, handholds, handrails or stanchions

The Committee recommends an amendment to the Transportation Standards, 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.

Item 13: Technical transportation standards to better support persons with vision loss

The Committee recommends no changes.

Specialized transit

Item 14: Eligibility for specialized transit

The Committee recommends no amendments to the existing Transportation Standards regarding eligibility requirements for specialized transit.

Because organizations are 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.

Item 15: Origin-to-destination services

The Committee recommends no amendments to the Transportation Standards regarding origin-to-destination services. The province should continue to monitor this to see if any challenges arise.

Item 16: Multiple fares

The Committee believes this is best addressed as an operational challenge by transit providers. The Committee recommends that non-regulatory approaches be adopted to build awareness, such as educational materials or outreach.

Item 17: Booking requirements

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

Item 18: Fees for medical forms

The Committee recommends this item be forwarded to the forthcoming Health Care Standards Development Committee.

Duties of municipalities that license taxicabs

The Committee’s recommendations below are meant 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.

Item 19: On-demand accessible taxicabs

The Committee recommends an amendment to the Transportation Standards, effective immediately after the revised standard takes effect, which requires municipalities, as part of the review of their multi-year accessibility plan, to consult with the public, persons with disabilities and their accessibility advisory committee. 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.

Item 20: Side-entry taxicabs

The Committee recommends no amendments to the existing Transportation Standards regarding side-entry taxis.

Item 21: Training for taxicab drivers

The Committee recommends an amendment to the Transportation Standards, effective two years from the date the revised standard takes effect, to call for municipalities to require, at the time of license issue or renewal, taxicab driver training for standard taxicabs, with prescriptive elements.

The Committee also suggests that this training could be offered through the Ontario college system or training organizations approved by the responsible municipality.

The Committee recommends that the aforementioned modifications need to apply to all service providers in Ontario, not just those licensed by the municipality, and as such, encourages the province to continue to investigate and determine a mechanism to ensure same.

Accessible Parking Spaces

Item 22: Accessible parking spaces

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

Based on the information provided, the Committee determined no further action with respect to standard modification was required.

New and emerging technologies

The Committee believes that persons with disabilities should be consulted at all stages of the government’s involvement/support of these technologies.

Final thoughts

Item 23: Addressing attitudinal barriers

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.

Initial recommendations for public comment

Overview

Barriers to transportation can 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 Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA) is to remove these barriers (physical, attitudinal, or otherwise) in 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 Minister wrote to the Committee Chair to undertake specific work during the Transportation Standards Review outlined in a mandate letter. This included:

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

Conventional transit typically operates accessible vehicles on fixed routes and schedules that are available to the general public, specialized transit is designed to serve persons with disabilities who are unable to utilize their local accessible conventional service. Specialized services typically provide an increased level of service as compared to conventional (i.e. driver assistance), require customers to be registered and required trips to be booked in advance.

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 identify options associated with each topic under review, and took those options back to their local stakeholders for input prior to voting on any recommended changes. The Committee recognized early in the process that, at five years old, the Transportation Standards are relatively new and a number of requirements have only just been implemented or are yet to take effect. In these cases, the effectiveness of the requirement in question was difficult or impossible to measure.

The Committee acknowledged that great strides have taken place in achieving accessible transportation in Ontario by 2025, but 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 hopes to receive feedback from an even wider group of persons with disabilities, obligated organizations, and the general public.

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

Initial 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 initial advice and recommendations on the Transportation Standards, itemized and organized by focus area.

Long-term objective

Under the Act, the Committee is 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 recognizes the importance of the long-term objective being reflective of the Transportation Standards. The Committee believes the objective is valid and reflects the intentions of the Transportation Standards.

Committee recommendation:

Focus area 1: conventional transit

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

Item 1: 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 transportation service providers to ensure that all transit buses, motor coaches, streetcars, subways, light rail, commuter rail and inner-city rail vehicles must 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 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 committee`s 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 with various uses. These newer devices, given their size may not be able to board conventional transit vehicles, resulting in customer complaints, delays and an increase in the use of costlier specialized services.

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

Committee recommendation:

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 do not fit on accessible conventional transit vehicles may lead to frustration for riders and result in reduced mobility.

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 or
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 has no recommendations.

Item 2: 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 to use the conventional transit system may allow them to travel more independently and spontaneously. 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, 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 travel training on how to use their conventional 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, and as such the Committee recommends that the province consider alternative terms. The terms “system navigation,” “navigation training” or “travel mentoring” are suggested.

Committee recommendation:

Item 3: 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. It is the responsibility of a person with a disability to demonstrate to the transportation 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 in the manner in which persons with disabilities are required to demonstrate their need for a support person across different transit systems. Transit providers and persons with disabilities have requested increased clarity on support persons. Disability stakeholders have requested removal of the requirement to provide proof, and stated that the requirement is in contrast with the spirit of the .

Persons with disabilities face a constant challenge to demonstrate their need for a range of specialized services, not just transit. Individuals often do not want to request or highlight the fact they have a disability, due to 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:

It is proposed that, by December 31, 2020, the province implement and manage a universal identification card for persons with disabilities to be used as proof that an individual is in receipt of an eligible benefit or requires support. It would be useable in all situations where an individual is required to provide proof of their disability and may not be limited to transit use. It would allow a person to discreetly prove their need for accommodation.

The Committee believes that this product should be managed by the province and recommends that it build on existing identification mechanisms currently in place, such as the Ontario Photo Card or the Ontario Health Card.

This proposed change would address the need to provide proof and complete applications in multiple instances. Persons with disabilities are required to provide the same information many times over for different organizations to ensure that they receive the services to which they are entitled. In many cases, the disability is permanent and the 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.

A card also addresses 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 very 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.

Item 4: 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 board public transit services with respect to these areas

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

The Committee acknowledges that government cannot regulate courtesy and that the usage of these spaces is not always understood by the public. The Committee reflected that this item touched on labour relations, operator enforcement, and health and safety concerns and also discussed that this challenge may be a regional one mainly affecting the larger urban centers, 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.

Item 5: 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 within the confines of the North American marketplace, and the current requirements are in line with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is also a global best practice for transit vehicles.

Committee recommendation:

The Committee recommends no amendments or changes to the existing Transportation Standards regarding the proportion of accessible seating and mobility aid spaces.

Item 6: 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, the seats are also required to be located in close proximity to the entrance door of the vehicle.

Committee recommendation:

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

Item 7: 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 stowed in inappropriate locations such as trunk of a taxicab or under vehicle seats. The Committee also recognized that the number of individuals that use service animals in Ontario continues to grow.

The Committee reviewed the current requirements with respect to service animals, and it was found that in the cases reviewed, all were in contravention of existing requirements. As such, the Committee determined that additional education with respect to the existing requirements is required.

Committee recommendation:

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

Item 8: 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.

Committee recommendation:

The Committee recommends that education and outreach, including courtesy campaigns, should be developed to improve priority boarding situations for persons with disabilities.

Item 9: Pre-boarding and on-board announcements

The Committee considered strengthening pre-boarding and on-board announcement requirements within the Transportation Standards. The Committee recognized that there are pre-boarding and on-board announcement requirements under the Transportation Standards coming in effect on January 1, 2017. Given the compliance date for this requirement has not yet come into force, the effectiveness of this requirement was not possible to measure or assess.

Committee recommendation:

Item 10: 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:

Item 11: 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, and noted the difficulties associated with typical way-finding solutions as they would apply to bus stop signs, which are typically located too high off the ground for any tactile application. The role of technology and the potential use of emerging technology to make transit stops and facilities more accessible were also discussed as potentially more viable options going forward.

The Committee also discussed 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.

Committee recommendation:

Item 12: grab bars, handholds, handrails or stanchions

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

Committee recommendation:

Where a conventional transportation service provider enters into a contractual obligation to purchase a new or used vehicle or modifies a portion of a vehicle, after the revised standard takes effect, the transportation service provider would be required to ensure the vehicles meet this requirement. Transportation service providers would not be required to retrofit vehicles that are within their fleet in order to ensure that the vehicles meet this accessibility requirement.

Item 13: 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. It was concluded through consultation with guest speakers that the Transportation Standards contained requirements that met or exceeded global best practices.

Committee recommendation:

The Committee recommends no changes.

Focus area 2: specialized transit

Specialized service provides transportation for persons whose condition or disability prevents them from using conventional transit for all or part of their travels. The services are generally booked in advance through a passenger registration system and users are required to apply for the ability to utilize the service. They are 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.

Item 14: 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 learned that all specialized transit providers in Ontario have eligibility criteria for riders to become eligible for specialized transit in one form or another, although the criteria, and the method of assessing eligibility, may vary widely.

The Transportation Standards are silent on how transit providers should determine eligibility. This has resulted in inconsistent criteria being applied across specialized transportation systems around the province. By January 1, 2017, every transit provider will be required to apply the following three categories of eligibility for their specialized transportation services: unconditional, temporary and conditional.

Transit providers on the Committee identified that the new categories will result in significant increases in demand by including disabilities such as cognitive – which is a growing population. To manage the increase, some providers are trying to migrate some riders to accessible conventional services.

The Committee heard that most transit providers are in the process of amending and implementing their new eligibility criteria to meet the compliance timeline of January 1, 2017, and as such, the impacts of the new criteria were impossible to measure at this time.

Committee recommendation:

The Committee recommends no amendments to the existing Transportation Standards regarding eligibility requirements for specialized transit. The Committee agrees 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.

Item 15: 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 Transportation Standards require specialized transportation service providers to provide origin-to-destination services within their service area (which may combine specialized and conventional options, where appropriate) but does not specify how.

The Committee learned that origin-to-destination services are the overall package of transportation services that allow a specialized transportation service provider to provide, in a flexible way, transportation 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. As the name implies, curb-to-curb service does not provide assistance beyond the curb. Providers must “take into account the abilities of its passengers and that accommodates their abilities,” which could include door-to-door service for certain passengers.

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. Blanket requirements such as this 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 flexibility of the current Transportation Standards accommodates the evolving needs of communities and the population, and requires that the abilities of each passenger 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 to guarantee door-to-door service due to factors such as weather and location.

Committee recommendation:

The Committee recommends no amendments 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 province should continue to monitor this to see if any challenges arise

Item 16: 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 learned that transit providers often sub-contract other organizations to help meet demand or augment specialized transit services. This can result in potential drawbacks, such as the charging of multiple fares to riders. A passenger who takes a subcontracted specialized transit vehicle may have to pay again to ride a conventional vehicle in the same transit 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 (which would make the passenger eligible to transfer to another transportation mode without an additional cost).

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 services, and that the provider not charge more for specialized services. The Committee discussed that if a specialized transit passenger is forced to pay an additional fare to complete their trip, this could be seen as contrary to the intent of the Transportation Standards.

Committee recommendation:

Currently, the Transportation Standards do not explicitly prevent transit providers from charging multiple fares within one origin-to-destination trip. Transit providers on the Committee consulted broadly with their counterparts and found few or no examples of this practice. The Committee believes this happens infrequently and may represent a gap in a transit provider’s process, rather than a gap in the current Transportation Standards, and is best addressed as an operational concern by transit providers.

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

Item 17: Booking requirements

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

It was recognized that providers are facing different types of challenges depending on their location across the province, 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.

Item 18: 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 specialized transit eligibility assessments and documentation for specialized services. The Committee recognized that transit providers may need assistance in this area and not be able to facilitate conversations with colleges and health professionals.

Committee recommendation:

The Committee recommends this item be forwarded to the forthcoming Health Care Standards Development Committee.

Focus area 3: duties of municipalities that license taxicabs

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

The Committee understands that a number of significant changes occurred in the taxicab industry in the short time between the drafting of the Minister’s letter to the Committee and the June meeting at which the Committee began its discussion. The Committee recognized that discussions 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 appreciates 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 believes 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 the municipalities in their licensing requirements where other jurisdictions may not.

The Committee believes 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.

As a dynamic industry that is undergoing a significant change, the Committee restricted their recommendations to the focus areas in the mandate letter, namely, those that would apply directly to municipalities that license taxicabs.

However, the Committee stresses that the recommendations below are meant 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.

Item 19: 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 Councils (AACs) 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 can be interpreted to mean that providers are only required to consult with their AACs once and, while they are required to report on progress, they are not required to make any progress in meeting the need for accessible taxicabs. A review of the multi-year plans of ten major Ontario municipalities confirmed this interpretation, noting none appeared to show a proportion of accessible taxicabs that were guaranteed, and none appeared to provide any details with respect to progress toward determining or working toward a goal proportion.

The Committee also recognizes 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 sole 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.

The Committee understands that 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 obligations to provide accessible service.

However the Committee reflected that ridesourcing services could be used by a municipality to meet its on-demand proportion for accessible taxicabs, but in order to do so 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 more 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:

Item 20: 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 should be made available to passengers. No current 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, about 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 believes that this focus area of the mandate letter is about increasing the availability of side-entry taxis, and does not believe that making changes to the Transportation Standards will accomplish this.

Committee recommendation:

The Committee recommends no amendments to the existing Transportation Standards regarding side-entry taxis.

Item 21: 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 the use of accessibility equipment, equipment failures, and emergency preparedness and response.

The Committee discussed that not identifying specific required training subjects relative to the transportation of persons with disabilities - as is provided for conventional and specialized transportation - may result in a lack of awareness for those operating in the taxicab industry.

The Committee learned that some municipalities have initiated skills and service training related to accessibility as a prerequisite of licensing and renewal of licences. However, the legislated requirements for training for ridesourcing services are minimal or non-existent, which may be motivating people to become ridesourcing drivers-for-hire. As a result, cities such as Toronto and Ottawa have 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 .

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:

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 and
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 failsand
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 standards, the Committee recommends that the aforementioned modifications need to apply to all service providers in Ontario, not just those licensed by the municipality, and as such, encourages the province to continue to investigate and determine a mechanism to ensure same.

Accessible parking spaces

Item 22: 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 believes 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 transportation 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. GTHA) and that work is underway among the GTHA service providers to address existing gaps to ensure that people with disabilities are able to seamlessly transition from one specialized transportation service provider to another.

Some Committee members gave examples of current reciprocal coordination agreements in place already and other ongoing projects that will help them to address these issues in the future.

Committee recommendation:

Based on the information provided, the Committee determined no further action with respect to standard modification was required.

New and emerging technologies

Guest speakers joined the Committee to provide their perspectives on future technology including: connected/autonomous vehicles, future transportation planning, and inclusive design and accessible technology. The Committee was encouraged to hear 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, and 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 agreed that incorporating universal design in early planning benefits all users, not just persons with disabilities.

Items not subject to the Transportation Standards

While the Committee was tasked with reviewing only the Transportation Standards, ultimately all the standards in the 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.

Item 23: 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 other 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, and the Committee would like to put forward this final recommendation:

Committee recommendation:

Updated: September 13, 2021

Published: May 19, 2017