The Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) has long been concerned about the significant barriers that persons with disabilities face when attempting to access transportation services. The Commission has heard from the community about a range of persistent barriers, and has addressed transit accessibility issues through a number of initiatives, publications and human rights complaints. ^[1] The Commission’s 2002 consultation report, Human Rights and Public Transit in Ontario, outlines many of these concerns, and in particular identifies announcing all stops as an important inclusive design feature that provides access for persons with visual impairments.

In 2007, the Commission noted both progress and setbacks relating to accessibility in transit for persons with disabilities. In particular, two developments led the Commission’s decision to undertake the current initiative.

The Initial Proposed Transportation Accessibility Standard

In August 2007, the Commission made a submission to the Transportation Standards Review Committee on the Initial Proposed Transportation Accessibility Standard (the “proposed standard”). While the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (the “AODA”) has the potential to have a profound positive impact on the lives of Ontarians with disabilities, the Commission has major concerns about the proposed standard. In a number of areas, it falls far short of fundamental human rights standards. It fails to make progress towards equality for persons with disabilities, and it regresses on some gains previously made. For example, it does not require transportation providers to announce all stops until three to 18 years after the standard is adopted.

The Ontario Human Rights Code applies to all municipalities and organizations that fall under Ontario law, and takes precedence over all other provincial legislation, unless there is a specific exemption in that legislation. There is no such exemption in the AODA. In fact, the AODA explicitly states that, if there is a conflict between one of its provisions, a related standard or another regulation, and any other Act or regulation, the provision that provides the highest level of accessibility for persons with disabilities will prevail. ^[2]

In its submission, the Commission states that it is essential that the final transit standard be harmonized with the requirements of the Code. The Commission notes that the AODA and the Code share significant common purpose, and that failing to harmonize the standards with the Code leads to confusion, frustration and a greater likelihood of human rights violations and complaints. This has attendant costs for the responsible organizations and individuals, rights-seekers and society as a whole. To date, the final transit standard has yet to be released.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision on stop announcements

In July 2007, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) released an important decision on the issue of stop announcements, Lepofsky v. Toronto Transit Commission (“Lepofsky”). ^[3] The Tribunal, which is a separate body from the Commission, found that the failure of the Toronto Transit Commission (the “TTC”) to ensure announcement of all stops on buses and streetcars violated the human rights of persons with disabilities. In particular, the Tribunal found that the TTC failed to establish that alleged risks associated with drivers verbally announcing stops would amount to undue hardship, while the costs associated with implementing such a program would be relatively minor. The Tribunal ordered the TTC to start announcements within 30 days of the decision.

One important element of this decision is that the Tribunal indicated that manual call-out of stops within weeks of the decision was required in order to address the immediate problem of accessibility for persons with visual impairments. This decision was made despite the fact that eventual implementation of automated audio-visual stop announcement systems may provide broader accessibility in the long term, and that the TTC would be bound by any forthcoming standards under the AODA. This aspect of the decision both reflects and supports the Commission’s policy position that interim accommodation should be offered in situations where implementing the most appropriate accommodation must be phased in over time. ^[4]

This decision was a very positive one for Ontarians with disabilities. It provides clarity about the importance of interim accomodation and inclusive design, offers a detailed blueprint for applying the duty to accommodate people with disability when providing transit services, and reflects how the Tribunal will address similar complaints in the future.

The Commission decided that, given these recent developments and the conflicts between the proposed standards and current interpretations of the Code, including Commission policy and the Lepofsky decision, it was important to communicate with transit providers to clarify their responsibilities and help them to prevent complaints.

^[1] For example, in July, 1999, the Commission undertook a survey of Ontario’s public transit providers. In 2001, the Commission updated the survey, and launched a public consultation with the release of its Discussion Paper on Accessible Transit in Ontario. This led to the 2002 consultation report, Human Rights and Public Transit in Ontario. The Commission also released a 2006 Position Paper on para-transit services, and a 2007 submission on the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario’s Initial Proposed Transportation Accessibility Standard. These and all Commission publications can be viewed on the Commission’s web site at www.ohrc.on.ca.
^[2] Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, S.O. 2005, c. 11, s. 38
^[3] Lepofsky v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2007 HRTO 23, (July 26, 2007) (“Lepofsky”). This decision followed a 2005 HRTO ruling in a similar case relating to the duty to accommodate visually impaired riders by announcing subway stops (see Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2005 HRTO 36, (September 29, 2005)).
^[4] Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate (the “Policy”), Ontario Human Rights Commission, November, 2000, s.4.4.9.

In Fall 2007, the Commission contacted transit providers to inform them about these recent developments, request information about current stop announcement practices, and to recommend that they take steps to avoid complaints and improve accessibility by developing plans to quickly implement stop announcements.

In October 2007, the Commission sent out a letter to providers of standard public transit systems ^[5] across the province, and issued a press release announcing the initiative. This mailing was copied to the Ontario Public Transit Association (OPTA) and a number of other transit sector organizations and disability community stakeholders. The Commission provided copies of the Lepofsky decision, the Commission’s submission on the AODA Draft Transit Standard, and related press releases. ^[6]

In the letter, the Commission requested that transit services provide information detailing:

• whether they were currently and consistently announcing all stops
• any policies and/or practices currently in place for announcing stops
• steps taken to make sure the policy or practice is carried out.

The Commission requested that, if organizations were not currently and consistently announcing all stops, they take the opportunity to develop plans to improve accessibility through stop announcements, as set out in the Lepofsky decision. The Commission requested that transit services provide information about:

• their intentions for announcing all stops
• steps they had taken and would take to make sure all stops are announced
• timelines for implementation.

Over the winter, the Commission had discussions with many transit providers. Some clarifications were requested, and a number of organizations provided more information.

The Commission stated that it will take all necessary steps, including initiating complaints if required, to make sure that Ontario’s transit providers meet their statutory obligations under the Code. By meeting the level of service set out in Lepofsky, transit services can ensure that persons with visual disabilities have greater, more consistent and more dignified access to public transit across the province.

^[5] Due to the focus of this inquiry on the principles of broad accessibility and inclusion, specialized door-to-door transit services for elderly persons and people with disabilities were not contacted.
^[6] These documents can be found on the Commission’s Web site at www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/news/ttcxs

Over the fall and winter of 2007-2008, the Commission communicated with 41 transit providers. Of these, 40 provided the requested information.^[7] On the whole, most of the organizations expressed broad commitment to accessibility within the transit sector.^[8] This commitment was further demonstrated by the willingness of many transit providers to develop or speed up stop announcement plans in response to the Commission’s inquiry.

The Commission is encouraged by the overall movement toward implementing stop announcements. However, there is significant variation among transit providers in terms of the methods, processes and timelines they have put forward. While many have responded by taking concrete steps to improve the breadth and timeliness of accessibility through stop announcements, some have limited or delayed their commitments, and some have not indicated any clear commitment to address the specific issues raised in this inquiry.

At the outset of the inquiry, only the TTC was announcing all transit stops, in accordance with HRTO decisions. As of the end of March 2008, of the 38 provincially regulated transit providers: ^[9]

• 254 committed to begin announcing all stops by June 30, 2008
• 2 more appeared likely to do so.

Of the remaining 11 provincially regulated organizations:

• 4 indicated that they would begin announcing all stops announcements in the fall of 2008
• 2 described plans for longer term compliance over the next 2-4 years
• 2 made no commitments to our inquiry, referring instead to commitments to meet any future AODA standard
• 3 did not provide sufficient information about their intentions or timelines for implementation.

Two of the three federally regulated agencies contacted indicated plans for partial or long-term compliance; the other did not reply.

The Commission is very pleased that a number of organizations took immediate and positive steps in response to its request, and that they committed to fully implement universal stop announcement plans within short time frames. In particular, in addition to the TTC, four transit providers – Brampton, Durham, Owen Sound, and Sault St. Marie – indicated that they would announce all stops before or by the end of the first quarter of 2008.

In all, more than two-thirds of provincially regulated transit operators committed to announce all stops by the end of the second quarter of 2008. These transit providers span the province, and range in size from small to very large systems: their efforts represent a considerable advancement in transit accessibility. The result is that over a relatively short period of time, persons with visual impairments and other transit riders will enjoy a significant improvement in services that are so essential to their daily lives.

The means by which organizations choose to announce stops has been the subject of some discussion over the course of this inquiry. Broadly speaking, there are two ways to deliver stop announcements:

Manual stop announcement:

A simple verbal call-out is made by the driver or vehicle operator, often with amplification using a PA system, to ensure greater audibility. Transit provider responses showed that plans for putting these systems into place may include steps such as: policy development; developing and implementing training for drivers on accessibility principles, policies and announcement procedures; naming mid-block or rural stops; providing cards or other tools listing the stops; and in some cases, acquiring and installing public address systems.

Of the many organizations that committed to announce all stops by June 30, 2008, all but one indicate that they will do so, at least initially, through manual call-out.^[10] Overall, manual call-out offers a fairly quick and inexpensive solution, and has been the means by which many organizations, of a range of sizes, have been able to begin stop announcements within short time frames.

Automated systems:

These systems vary in complexity and cost. Because they can include both audio and visual announcement, they can provide broader accessibility than manual call-out, in that they benefit persons with either hearing or vision impairments, as well as other transit riders. A number of transit providers cited broader accessibility, convenience for the drivers, or alleged safety concerns (addressed and found not to have amounted to undue hardship in Lepofsky) as their rationale for pursuing this option. However, transit providers also indicated that these systems are expensive, and due to cost, availability and complexity, may require several months to several years to acquire, develop and install.

A number of organizations chose to focus solely on implementing electronic systems in the long term, or simply restated their commitment to meet any transit standard eventually finalized under the AODA, without addressing the immediate need for an interim solution. These responses do not sufficiently address the specific barriers and remedy described in the Lepofsky decision, relating to persons with visual impairment.

It should be noted that the Commission position, as set out in its Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate (the “Policy”), is that organizations should actively identify and remove barriers to inclusion. Furthermore, the Policy states that service providers have a duty to:

• provide timely solutions to accommodation requests
• provide interim solutions where a broader or more appropriate accommodation may take some time to implement
• provide accommodation to the point of undue hardship. This excludes business inconvenience, employee morale and third-party preference, and involves a detailed analysis of any alleged cost or health and safety concerns.^[11]

A few transit providers felt that their current accommodation practices for persons with visual impairment, such as access to separate specialized transit systems, or stop call-out on request, were sufficient. The Lepofsky decision has already established that “on request” call-out is unreliable and insufficient. These responses also fail to take into account the human rights principles of integration, inclusive design and the dignity of the person. ^[12]

The question of dignity arises where persons with visual disabilities have to request and depend upon assistance from others every time they use transit, as a condition of gaining access, when other people do not have to do so. There is also a practical impact based in regular human error, in that, where call-out is not routine, drivers sometimes forget to call out the requested stop. These issues can all be addressed through inclusive design, that is, through consistently and audibly announcing all stops.

Several transit providers indicated that, while working toward long-term implementation of automated audio-visual announcement systems, or completing a phase-in of such systems, they will implement manual call-out systems. The Commission is pleased that these organizations are incorporating the concept of interim accommodation in their planning.

As several transit providers have noted, some steps taken toward manual call-out, such as the naming of stops, will facilitate eventual transition to automated systems. Others have pointed out that manual call-out remains an important back-up for automated systems. Organizations that have provided drivers with tools and training for manual call-out will be able to ensure seamless delivery of stop announcements, even if there are delays in implementing automated systems, or when there are system failures or malfunctions.

^[7] Coach Canada, which is federally regulated, did not respond to the Commission’s inquiry. Two other federally regulated transit providers, Windsor and Ottawa (OC Transpo), did respond. See appendices for details.
^[8] Many transit services provided detailed information about their programs and plans to improve access for transit users with disabilities, such as staff training , fare-free use of public transit for persons with visual impairment, accessibility improvements to bus stops and fleet vehicles, among others.
^[9] See Appendix A for a summary breakdown of responses, and Appendix B for details of responses, arranged alphabetically by municipality or organization.
^[10] Guelph indicated that it will have an automated system in place in Spring 2008. See appendices for more detailed information.
^[11] See section 4 of the Policy.
^[12] See section 3.1 of the Policy.

Since starting this inquiry, the Commission has received feedback indicating that stop call-outs are standard practice in many parts of the world. We have heard that stop announcements provide improved service for many community members, such as persons with visual or cognitive disabilities, people who find it hard to read street signs, tourists and others visiting unfamiliar areas, and passengers who are distracted or unable to see outside due to bad weather or full vehicles. We have also heard, from some transit organizations and vehicle operators, as well as from transit riders both with and without disabilities, that announcing all stops simply makes sense.

The Commission wishes to extend its thanks to the OPTA and to all the service providers that cooperated with our inquiry. A significant majority of the transit organizations province-wide reacted in a positive way to the information provided by the Commission, and to our request for action on their part. Their willingness to quickly increase accessibility by ensuring announcement of all stops, even where they have not yet received customer complaints, are good examples of a proactive approach to inclusivity through barrier removal.

The Commission continues to encourage those transit providers who have not yet begun announcing all stops to do so before June 30, 2008. The transit sector has been aware of the issue for a number of months, and, as many other transit providers have shown, manual call-out can be implemented in short time-frames, even in large organizations. Those who have delayed in their response therefore leave themselves vulnerable to human rights complaints. Ideally, organizations will use their resources to immediately implement manual stop announcements, rather than defending delays and barriers to accessibility.

For many Ontarians, particularly people who cannot drive due to visual impairment, transit is essential to their full and equal participation in society, allowing them to get to work and appointments, do their shopping, visit friends and family, and attend events. Announcement of all stops provides more dignified and reliable access to persons with disabilities, and makes sure that they and other transit users benefit from more consistent and user-friendly service throughout the province.

By Date, Degree, and Format of Compliance

(based on information received by end March, 2008)

• 41 municipalities/organizations contacted
• 40 replies received (exception: Coach Canada, federally regulated)
• 38 municipalities/organizations fall under provincial jurisdiction (exceptions: Coach Canada, Ottawa (OC Transpo) and Windsor)

Compliance format
All transit providers indicating compliance with the request to announce all stops have committed to do so through manual announcement, except as noted:
* = manual call-out of all stops as interim accommodation while phasing in automated systems in the mid-to-longer term
** = automated system only

Already compliant, or compliant by end of 1st quarter, 2008: 5
Brampton*, Durham, Owen Sound, Sault St Marie and Toronto*

Will begin announcing all stops during 2nd quarter, 2008: 22

Inexact or unclear date information, but appear likely to comply by end June:
Chatham-Kent* – informed service provider of need to announce stops
Hamilton* – Spring 2008 “at earliest”

Will begin announcing all stops during 3rd quarter, 2008: 4
London,** Kingston,** Peterborough,* Sarnia**

Will begin announcing all stops later than 3rd quarter, 2008: 3
Grand River** (2010)
St. Catharines** (within 3 years of AODA transit standard coming into force)
Windsor** – (2013) – federally regulated

Committed only to announce as/when mandated by AODA standard: 2
Brockville, Cornwall

Did not provide clear commitments regarding compliance: 4
Niagara: consulting with stakeholders over several months.
Sudbury: new system in Fall 2008 would “allow [them] to consider” audio and visual announcements.
Welland: Reviewing solutions for operator call-out and long term automated systems, consulting, seeking funding.
Ottawa: federally regulated, commits announcing major stops and intersections only: manual call-out until automated system in place by the end of 2008.