RESPONSE TO THE CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY (CTA) DECISION NO

RESPONSE TO THE CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY (CTA) DECISION NO. 200AT-MV-2007

RÉPONSE À LA DÉCISION NO 200AT-MV-2007 DE L’OFFICE DES TRANSPORTS DU CANADA (OTC)

ACS2007-PTE-TRA-0011

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

1. Terrance Green – submitted his written presentation on file with the City Clerk.

2. Ian Martin

3. Peter Platt

4. Victor Emerson, Chair of Accessibility Advisory Committee – submitted his written presentation on file with the City Clerk.

5. Ardyth Elliott, Chair of the Transportation Sub-Committee of the Seniors’ Advisory Committee.

6. Klaus Beltzner – submitted his written presentation on file with the City Clerk.

7. David Jeans, Transport 2000 – submitted his written presentation on file with the City Clerk.

8. Catherine Gardner.

9. Charles Matthews.

Councillor Wilkinson read for the information of Committee, the results of the hearing and the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) decision that was not included on the report (reading out the following report recommendations);

1. To ensure the consistent application of its policy:

· Modify its Transit Operation Handbook to clearly state that major and requested stops must always be called out;

· Incorporate into its training program the situation that developed with respect to the difficulties experienced by Mr. Green, without naming him. In particular, the training should emphasize that for passengers with a visual impairment, major stops and those requested must be called out; and,

· Monitor compliance with OC Transpo’s policy of operators calling out major stops and those requested by passengers with visual impairments through the use of inspectors or other persons on board OC Transpo buses and follow-up on reports of infractions with the operators.

2. To ensure that announcements are clearly heard:

· Modify its policy to require that its operators consistently use, where available, a public address system to announce major and/or requested stops;

· Ensure that its Global Positioning System (GPS) is always activated once installed on OC Transpo buses and that it correctly announces major stops, in combination with operator or GPS announcements of requested stops; and,

· Modify its policy to specifically set out the alternative means to ensure that operator announcements are clearly heard by the person in cases where a public address system or GPS is not used.”

Councillor Wilkinson requested that Mr. Mercier, Director, Transit Services, run over the background of this decision and why the recommendation was in front of them.

Mr. Mercier stated that in the month of March they had received a decision by the CTA, the summary of which is contained within the report; for OC Transpo to ensure consistent application of its policy to call out stops, and secondly to make sure that announcements are in fact heard. He went on to say that since joining the organization in February, his first action in this response was to assess what was the current state as he was not involved in the deliberations with the CTA. He then explained what his experience had been in these types of decisions from the CTA with other organizations he had been with. The question raised is how do we achieve consistent application of announcement of stops in the operation: Is it done through consistent coaching, training and enforcement with the bus operators (of which there are 1,600 operators), or do we move towards the industry standard in North America, which is to seek a technology solutions that are being adapted in the United States as part of Federal Transit Administration and guidelines that all Federal funding in the US, for example, requires compliance with the ADA, or American Disabilities Act, which specifies applying technology that would provide both auditory and visual indicators or announcements of the next stop, whether it be in rail systems, subway systems or other public transit systems. So as a manner of qualifying for funding, these standards were put in place to increase accessibility of the system in the US. He stated that in Canada we’re faced with deliberations going on within the Province of Ontario where the Act exists. OC Transpo has been involved in drafting new specifications for the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which is out for public debate during the balance of the year. He further stated that the draft specifications that were before the Committee are to respond to the CTA decision in concert with the work that they have been doing as a member providing technical information on how to address the current Ontario Act that’s being contemplated for application. He stated that OC Transpo is looking for a level of consistency for 100% compliance in a meaningful manner. Not only are they making the buses more accessible by having low floor ramps, kneeling buses, as they make the system more accessible they also have to provide the amenities on-board to have ease of transportation for all citizens in the City and therefore the reason for bringing the appropriate recommendation to the Committee. The timeline is July 25^th, to respond back to the CTA. In discussions with the Chair, he chose to bring a report to Committee outlining the commitment that they would make to the CTA. Therefore, the intent was to appear before the Committee with a position that would bind the City in a decision, and the financial implications of that would be confirmed in detail as part of the 2008 Budget exercise.

Councillor Bloess responded stating that he was not too impressed to have this before them in terms of how it arose and how it has been handled. He inquired asking when the complaint was initially lodged, was there a chance to avoid going to the Canadian Transportation Agency? Was there an opportunity for some form of remedy or solution without going through hearings and everything else?

Mr. Mercier felt that Legal would best answer this one, but his understanding was to look at the jurisdiction when the complaint was filed. There have been different cases in Canada filed under different jurisdictions and perhaps Legal Counsel could refer to the legal argument behind how the approach was done in responding initially to the CTA and the question of jurisdiction.

Councillor Bloess reiterated the question, when the complaint was first lodged, and there are a number of complaints, in terms of how we respond or how we handle those complaints before they even get to the CTA, is there an attempt made to resolve those issues or those complaints without getting embroiled in some tribunal or some legal process that just bogs everybody down?

Mr. Mercier responded stating that the normal process is that when a customer complaint is received, it will be investigated down to the operator level if it’s involving an operator; it could be a scheduling issue, but they go down to that level of understanding what, in fact, happened. There are then two versions; the customer’s version of the issue that they’re raising and the operator’s version of what happened. At that point they try to respond back to the customer to say, ‘This is the analysis that we have of the incident.’; that’s recorded internally, and they move on from there. If there is a repeat incident within the organization, either with a similar customer or the same employee, they escalate the course of action with discussions, meetings, trying to find solutions. That’s the normal process of handling a customer complaint.

In response to Councillor Bloess’s inquiry on disciplinary action, Mr. Mercier stated that he could not but that in one case they had an extensive review with the employee and resulted in going into the disciplinary protocol within the collective agreement which is progressive discipline.

Councillor Bloess said the initial response he remembered hearing or seeing was that OC Transpo denied there was a problem as it was their policy to call out stops on buses. He noticed in the report that the legal argument became that the CTA did not have jurisdiction in this matter. He asked if the arguments changed along the way, and how much did it cost us to fight this case?

Mr. Mercier asked if Chris Bendick or Valerie Bietlot of Legal to respond.

Ms. Bietlot responded stating that the matter was handled in-house as they have the expertise in-house to handle it and the cost was absorbed in the daily functioning of Legal Services. She did not have a breakdown but stated that it could be gathered but confirmed that there were no out-of-pocket costs.

Councillor Bloess replied that he knew it was handled in-house but that there’s a cost that’s attributed to this and wanted to know how much was spent trying to defend the indefensible.

Ms. Bietlot stated she did not have the actual dollar amount but it could be acquired and again stated that was absorbed in the daily work in Legal Services.

In response to Councillor Wilkinson’s question on how many days of work it took, Mr. Bendick replied that he could not recall at that moment how many hours he had spent working on this file; however, he stated that he would be happy to report back to the Committee to advise the exact time that had been spent. Councillor Wilkinson confirmed that the response was needed and to reply to Councillor Bloess.

Councillor Bloess inquired further on the process on how the decision gets made and when do we find out that we’re actually taking the stand?

Ms. Bietlot gave more detail on the procedure. The CTA does provide for remediation procedure. Her understanding was that the complainant chose to decline that mediation option. Therefore there was a formal complaint before the CTA that the City had to respond to, and that’s what the City did.

Councillor Bloess inquired as how many complaints were there at the present time of this nature as he had a couple; one that he had before him now was Lise Beauvais and another one that’s going to the CTA now; similar circumstances, except probably even worse. How many of these complaints have they had in the last year?

Mr. Mercier stated that between 2001 and 2006 they had approximately 168 records of either complaints or commendations dealing with the calling out of stops. Of those, approximately 50% were deemed people that were unfamiliar with the City and were either improperly guided as to where their location of stop would be or were not let off at the appropriate stop or would have liked to have had an announcement. The balance of those complaints relate to specific individuals within the City who have had difficulty working through their system, similar to this case, and in fact Mr. Green had had extensive discussions with OC Transpo in the past about improving the ability to get around; the mobility of the system and announcing of stops. The general approach that they’ve tried to take is to deal with individuals and try to help foster their mobility within the system, on a case-by-case basis and in fact that’s why they have a position specifically dedicated to work with individuals within the community to foster an ease of transition into the system.

In response to Councillor Bloess’s question on whether he knew of Ms. Beauvais’ case, who has also now lodged a complaint with the CTA, Mr. Mercier stated that he was not aware of the case.

Councillor Bloess stated that this was a case where the answers he keeps getting from Mr. Mercier’s department is that operators call out the stops, when he personally knows that’s not the situation; that is not the case.

Mr. Mercier stated the last time they did a customer survey was 2005, the compliance rate of customers actually retaining knowledge of announcements being called out, was approximately 35%. That is not the level of consistency that he would agree with. He pointed out that one of the things they take very very seriously as a group historically is that when a customer requests assistance, they expect the operators to provide that and that should not be an element of discretion. He stated that errors do happen, and the policy is very clear that what has been put in place with the operators is, that when a mistake happens is for operators to advise the control centre to say, “I’ve made a mistake, I have a person here that’s going to need assistance” they will send someone out to help that individual. That is the approach that they’ve taken. There is a massive education of 1,600 people to accept that standard that they do not want any deviation from that level of performance.

Councillor Bloess inquired about the GPS system for the Transit fleet. He stated they had briefings in the past about the status of it and all the wonderful things that GPS is going to do. He was surprised that as we’re moving forward that the $8 million cost shows up in this report. He seemed to recall in previous briefings to the Committee that they were advised that in addition to better on-time performance, less early / less late buses and all this, that there would be voice-capabilities, so he was surprised that as they move forward with putting the technology onto the fleet, that this item would come up as a cost here.

Mr. Mercier stated that when they had received the decision from CTA, they looked at the different approaches that they would take. He described two options; the first would be that they try to integrate voice activation, LED displays within the bus technology that exists on-board, and that would certainly be the lowest-cost option, somewhere between $2.500 to $3,000 per bus using the existing on-board technology. However, all the buses are not necessarily equipped to the same standard. Some of the older buses have older designs of PA’s (public address), so although the MDT’s are on-board, the terminal displays for GPS location, which contain information as to where are you at this moment in time, that integration on some of the older buses may have them resorting to putting on a new PA system. Two options were proposed. The worst case is what they saw before them, and they have some analysis to do to say, if they had to replace the existing PA system to integrate it with the existing GPS data terminal, the worst case would be the $8 million. If they were able to salvage the existing technology on some of the newer buses, that number will fall. They have to do the detailed testing analysis to make sure that’s the case. The proposal here would be to say that this would be the worst case scenario where they have to spend another month or two actually going through the technology interfaces to see which bus designs have different systems on them, which ones will integrate well, which ones won’t, and how do we make the system work. He therefore felt it to be approximately $2,500 a bus, which would be the low-end estimate, and up to $8,000 per bus model. That would be the worst case. So what they’ve proposed is the worst case option, but the budget process is where they will deal with the financial impact in detail, and they more engineering work to do. On an interim basis, some of their Committees have stated that the ergonomics that they have on the buses are not very good for some of the microphones. Some drivers have to stand up on their seats while they’re driving to reach the microphones because of the size of the individual, which is not a very safe practice, and many drivers have told them they won’t call out stops because it’s not safe. They’ve had some recommendations to go with headsets and things like this, and those costs are built into the estimate as an interim measure.

Councillor Bloess commented that he was trying to resolve the gap here between what we’ve always said is our policy and what is being done. He feels there is a credibility gap from a year or two ago from what he heard to what he’s seeing now. He feels there is a big discrepancy between what the policy is and what is done and doesn’t believe that it is an $8 million fix.

Mr. Mercier indicated that in the report the goal was to provide the Committee with the latest accurate assessment of what they think the compliance is as measured by the customers, and that’s 35%. It also shows that there’s a decline. The majority of the operators want to deliver an excellent customer service. His conclusion is that they do not have a consistency of application between expectations, needs of the community and what they actually deliver. There’s a gap. How do they bridge the gap? He stated that 25 years ago, most of the buses were not accessible; today the facts are quite different. There is a system that is designed around creating accessibility and they have gaps in those elements of accessibility for both visually impaired persons and as well those that have hearing disabilities. They do not provide the level of necessary information for them to use the system equally as well as any other passenger. This is the nature of some of the other cases that have been brought forth, for example, in human rights areas for very similar reasons for providing services and accessibility on public transit. So the reality is there. There is a 65% gap in expectations as measured by the latest survey with the customers and that gap cannot be met solely by management oversight. There are 1,600 operators operating 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, and there are only have 49 street supervisors. They can’t guarantee that level of compliance of 100%. Certainly for those individuals that need 100% compliance, that’s the critical issue. The needs of the community require a level of compliance and the operators are being asked to do other tasks onboard a bus. They now have three doors to manage, not one or two doors. They have MDT’s providing them constant feedback that they have to monitor as to, ‘are they on the station, are they on time, are they falling behind time?’ they must, as well, attend to individual requests of customers to know where they are. They have to mitigate between people having to have access to priority seating or not. They have to be able to manage the technology in front of them as well as monitor their mirrors every 5 to 10 seconds, as well as monitoring what’s going on in the street in front of them. The operators are being asked to be more attentive while trying to meet the historical expectations that are being placed on them in an ever-changing community. He further stated that they have to move forward like most transit organizations and most authorities in North America to a technology that provides that level of guaranteed accessible service and he realizes that costs money. He hopes the $2,500 per bus is the result at the end of the day and that they will have to move in this direction because the law will obligate it in the Province of Ontario. So it’s more a question of today they’re trying to meet a need that’s going to be in front of them one way or the other over the next ten years.

Councillor Doucet stated that he rides the buses frequently and was happy to report that in 10 years of riding those buses, on one occasion the driver called out the stop. He found it very exciting but later found out that it was because the operator recognized him as a Councillor and it was a bit deflating when he found that out. He noted that he really supports anything that can move us forward in terms of calling out the names of streets. He felt that it’s not only important for the visually impaired; it’s important for people who can see well. He had questions about the report such as why there was no differentiation between the Transitway service and a local service like the No. 1 or 5? He felt that they’re different kinds of services, and maybe on the Transitway you’d like to have an automated response and maybe on a local you’d like to have the chauffeur simply calling out the street you’re coming by. Mr. Mercier stated the expectations of passengers are not necessarily the same throughout the system. Certainly the Transitway is a key factor.

Councillor Doucet wondered why in the report it says “$8 million to make the whole system homogenously functioning”. He used the example of the Toronto transit, the subway works with an automated system; on the streetcars and buses, the driver calls the street out. Why in the report is there no recognition of the different levels of service and the different types of service, since surely that would impact how we identify the streets as we pass by them. Mr. Mercier replied that unfortunately, we don’t have dedicated buses only to Transitway or only to local therefore that’s one of the areas that would pose one of the difficulties for them.

In response to Councillor Doucet’s question regarding why Toronto operators call out the streets and why they can’t do it in Ottawa, Mr. Mercier responded that he understood that there has been some petitioning in similar cases by TTC regarding bus operations vs. subway, that they’re having difficulty with compliance as well in Toronto. This is based on what he has read from the TTC in their petitioning. In his five months in Ottawa he has not had 100% or 10% compliance, so there is a tremendous gap. He believes the question at the moment is, how do we meet this objective by starting on the right foot? There are many things that need to be done in the system.

Councillor Doucet remarked in conclusion that he really understood Mr. Mercier when he stated that bus drivers have many, many responsibilities now that they didn’t have 10 years ago. It has become a very multi-tasking kind of job. He felt that as a Committee they should not be afraid to spend money on something like this. As an example he used Porto Allegra in Brasil, which has one of the best transit systems in probably North and South America. They have conductors on the buses and the bus driver drives. The driver doesn’t take tickets, he doesn’t talk to passengers, he just drives, and the conductor sits about midway down and the civility and the speed of those buses is quite phenomenal. They have an extra person on the bus; the quality of service skyrockets, the speed of service skyrockets and you require fewer vehicles to do the same amount of service, and when you’re talking (they have buses like we have, ¾ of a million dollars) about a bus worth ¾ of a million dollars, moving that bus up and down that route fast is a huge advantage. He concluded with that comment that we can give better service, but it does cost money.

Councillor Bedard inquired, as Councillor Bloess did, as to how many complaints have been received relative to this issue, which is not calling out. How many complaints are we talking about here?

Mr. Mercier responded stating that he did not have a detailed analysis but believed it to be 161 complaints in the last six years and approximately 50% were related to facility to get around the City and understand where the individuals are. The most intense level of communication between individuals and OC Transpo are those people that are ‘irregular’ users of the system that do have mobility impairment of one form or another and that are faced with inconsistency of service from our 1,600 drivers. They have come with this recommendation on the basis that consistency is what they are forced to achieve in terms of providing adequate service. The system has been designed to be accessible, but they have not necessarily designed the system to make it accessible consistently and the same thing for other facets of the system that there are elements that are less accessible to certain groups within the population, and that over time, they will have to ensure that they have a standard to meet the needs of the community that they are serving.

Councillor Bedard asked how many recently. Is it only 3 or 4? Mr. Mercier stated that he knew of only 3 or 4 and out of the 160 cases, approximately 50% of those cases were raised by two or three individuals and they are related to this subject, calling out stops.

Councillor Bedard stated that it gave clarity to the issue. He returned to the recommendation made by the CTA that OC Transpo develop a system, when in fact, they simply indicated that they somehow let people know that there is a stop and the obligation in meeting that commitment. The Councillor asked if we could advise CTA that we are doing this gradually? Can we advise them that we’re going to do this next year? Can we advise them that we’ve told our operators to actually call these things out? Would that satisfy them? What is the level of satisfaction that we have to meet here?

Mr. Mercier responded that the decision by the CTA is quite prescriptive. It’s quite clear. The policy requires that the operators consistently use, where available, a public address system to announce major and/or requested stops “consistently”. Therefore from his perspective, they would have to ensure, for all intents and purposes, 100% compliance unless there’s a failure within the bus system or an incident involving the driver where he’s unable to call out a stop, that’s the level of consistency OC Transpo is looking for.

In response to Councillor Bedard’s question on timeline, Mr. Mercier stated that CTA has not imposed a timetable. The manner in which they responded to the CTA is that they have 90 days, which is July 25^th.They will propose a corrective action program; a program that will outline moving towards these guidelines that was set in front of the Committee over a three-year period from CTA’s final decision.

Councillor Bedard in his final question inquired if they had any discussions with CTA about what would be acceptable or asked them if this could be done over a gradual period of time?

Mr. Mercier noted that it is not in the authority of staff to propose a final decision to the CTA without seeking Committee or Council approval, and hence, they were now appearing before the Committee with a recommendation to take three years to do this from the date of acceptance by the CTA.

When asked by Councillor Leadman whether the reliability of the microphone system is the reason it is often not used, Mr. Mercier responded that although the reliability of the microphone system can be an issue with some of the older buses in particular, especially when the system is not used regularly and system defects are not reported or recorded properly, it is only one of several issues. Some operators shy away from using the system because many customers dislike hearing constant announcements; sometimes there are technical barriers related to ergonomics, and sometimes, personal issues related with the operators themselves.

Councillor Leadman noted that the automated system would solve the problem as far personal issues with callouts are concerned but she questioned whether, until that system is installed and operational, it could be imposed that all bus operators perform that function. Mr. Mercier commented that discussions to date have revolved around trying to address a lot of the ergonomic issues associated with the system. He suggested that the recommended response to the CTA would be that consistent behaviour and announcements will be achieved through the implementation of electronic technology, and a zero tolerance approach to refusal of service upon request would be maintained.

Councillor Leadman felt that the issue transcends the need for technology and really comes down to the client/driver interaction and the client’s expectations of support and consideration. She questioned the breakdown of the $8 million with respect to its implementation (e.g., whether older buses would have the system in it, or whether operators on those buses would be required to call the stops as required until the bus is replaced). Mr. Mercier informed that the approach would be to install the system on 100% of the fleet, minus those that are set for retirement in the near future, and all new buses will be procured with on-board announcements built in. He added that the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act that’s being developed speaks to an 18-year phase-in, recognizing that the average age of the fleet can go up to 18 years for a bus, with the automated verbal announcements possibly being brought in at an earlier phase than visual displays.

Councillor Legendre questioned the issue of ergonomics, in particular the reason that any driver would have to stand to use the microphone. Mr. Mercier noted that although the microphones are often located on the dash near the front window and are attached to a flexible line, the lines sometimes lose their flexibility and go back into place only by gravity, requiring an operator (particularly one with a shorter arm span) to stand up and reach over the wheel to grasp the microphone. The councillor suggested this problem could easily and inexpensively be corrected so as to make the system user-friendly for all drivers, to which Mr. Mercier responded that the report before Committee includes a recommendation, as an interim solution, to remove the microphone and install a headset-type single ear microphone in its place.

When asked by Councillor Legendre why some customers report inconvenience and intrusiveness from operators calling stops, Mr. Mercier noted that the reality of a transit system is that it serves a diverse customer base with ranging attitudes on what constitutes a pleasing environment and what does not, and some bus operators simply avoid interaction with customers in reaction to this. He further noted that although the automatic system would produce constant regular announcements, there might be some consideration given to turning off the announcements for certain routes, such as specific school routes.

Councillor Legendre suggested there were some contradictions between the report and Mr. Mercier’s comments with respect to the percentage of compliance with calling out stops today. Mr. Mercier suggested there is a very high level of compliance with individual requests from customers who ask for assistance from operators to identify a stop at which they want to get off, and he pointed out that the 35% compliance figure that he had referred to earlier comes from the most recent customer survey response.

Councillor Legendre expressed disappointment because he felt that previous conversations by Committee and Council on this subject had led councillors to the conclusion that all of these sorts of issues would have been solved with the implementation of GPS, which has now been implemented in 80% of the fleet. Mr. Mercier responded that some of the features of the ‘Smart Bus’ technology, which encompasses the GPS system and on-board technology for monitoring health, location data, customer interface for fare receipts, and location announcement, have not yet been completely developed and will be rolled out in a step-by-step process according to budgetary provisions.

Councillor Legendre referred to Mr. Green’s complaint and questioned whether it is the intent now that, should such an incident occur again where a passenger in need of assistance is mistakenly let off at the wrong stop, a driver would call in and somebody would be sent out to take care of that client. Mr. Mercier advised that the current procedure is, in any similar type of event where a customer is let off in a location other than what was requested and that person has difficulty through either mobility or whatever, the bus operator is to report it immediately to the control centre, which will then take over responsibility for that customer with an on-site mobile supervisor. Should the bus driver have driven away without realizing there was a problem that needed to be reported, the customer could call the customer service number for OC Transpo to be connected with the operations centre (or alternately, s/he could call 3-1-1 and that call would be routed to the OC Transpo control centre).

Councillor McRae expressed great concern that staff had not provided a breakdown of the costs being presented. Mr. Mercier noted that staff were given two options - $3,000 per existing bus as a one-line item on Option 1, which is integrating and trying to use as much of the existing technology as possible, or Option 2, being $7,000 per bus for the stand-alone, dedicated system, equalling $7.35 million as a total cost to equip a fleet of 950 buses (excluding the costs of any software modifications required to link the systems). Mr. Mercier did not think the $3000 in Option 1 included software, but the report was not clear. Councillor McRae felt that Committee needed the detailed costs breakdown in order to make a decision, but she stressed that cost is the secondary issue, the primary issue being the City’s duty to accommodate the customer, particularly the disabled community.

When asked by Councillor McRae whether all of the new buses being procured are 100% accessible, Mr. Mercier responded that in light of the CTA decision and Council’s approval regarding technology, the purchase order for the next 54 buses has not been issued. The specifications for those buses would have to be modified to include this technology for 2009-2010 deliveries, the cost of which would be incorporated in the budget. The existing fleet of 980 buses, he explained, involved costs required to retrofit for that technology.

Councillor McRae inquired about the age of the current policy, which states “…operators are expected to announce major and requested stops…”. Ms. Gault responded that it dates back to the late 1980’s, when there was an “easier access” program through the Provincial government. The councillor questioned whether, in staff’s opinion, OC Transpo is presently complying with all provincial and all federal legislation regarding human rights law. Mr. Mercier felt this to be the case.

Councillor McRae inquired whether staff have received any other CTA complaints of this nature subsequent to Mr. Green’s complaint in November 2006, to which Mr. Mercier replied that Mr. Green has filed a secondary complaint recently, to which staff would be responding in the coming days.

Chair Wilkinson asked staff to take as direction, at the request of Committee, to endeavour to provide a breakdown of the costs entailed, for consideration at this meeting.

The committee then received the following delegations.

Terrence Green, accompanied by Ian Martin and Peter Platt, noted that he had previously submitted documentation for Committee’s consideration, a copy of the CTA’s decision on the complaint he had filed with that organization regarding OC Transpo. A copy of his submission is held on file with the City Clerk. He expressed great frustration with the dialogue he had heard on this subject at this meeting, particularly that 200 buses are being purchased for OC Transpo for 2009 and accessibility features such as audible announcements or illuminated signs for persons who are deaf have not even been considered, although the buses are being advertised in the media as being ‘fully accessible buses’. He was upset that there was no clear breakdown of the costs being presented at this time. He stated that his research, based on the retrofit of buses in the United States, per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), indicates the cost per bus (in American funds), is between $2,500 and $3,500, including installation. He could not understand why, therefore, staff were saying that it would cost almost $8000 per bus here. He suggested that having bus drivers call out stops would be a very good interim measure, noting that the policy on this is nearly 20 years old. He added that his complaint to the CTA simply asked for OC Transpo to follow their policy on the matter. He noted that staff reports the number of complaints filed as approximately 161 in the last six years, but he said he had filed at least 160 complaints in the last six months. He spoke about another individual who is blind and relies on a cane, who suggested to Mr. Green that he files at least one complaint a day about drivers failing to call out the stop that he requested. He acknowledged that many of the drivers are good at complying with requests and calling out stops, but he suggested it is the 20-30% of bus drivers who refuse to call out the specifically-requested stops that are the problems, and he hoped that Committee would deal with the issue.

Ian Martin stressed the importance of solving the problem now, not in 2009-2010. He referenced a problem he has experienced on May 9^th in taking the bus from Hurdman Station to the Riverside Hospital, between which there are three scheduled bus stops, but which often can not be counted (by a visually impaired rider) because one never knows why the bus is stopping. On such a trip one day, he had requested the stop, but the driver did not call it out and he missed it. He then went on to the Billings Bridge stop rather than get off at Pleasant Park, which he felt is a rather dangerous and confusing place to try and change buses to go in the opposite direction, but not knowing his way around Billings Bridge, he felt equally unsafe. Having changed buses to go back to the hospital, he requested the driver to call out that stop but this driver also missed it, and Mr. Martin was late for appointment. He lodged a complaint with OC Transpo. Unfortunately, he said, he often finds the staff in the complaints department very obstinate and aggressive, and expecting the customer to know the time of the bus, the name of the driver and the number of the bus. He pointed out that if he is on a bus and going into a new area, he will request a stop, but he may be distracted by a conversation or something happening on the bus and lose track of stops, but if the major stops are called out, he can at least know ahead of time to get ready, get his dog gathered up and get off the bus where he needs to. He said he has stopped calling the major complaints department for OC Transpo because of the way he gets treated there, and has resorted instead to calling his ward councillor, the City’s Accessible Transit Specialist, or the Manager of Transit Service Planning and Development, which means that the complaints are often not officially recorded by OC Transpo.

Peter Platt spoke on behalf of Louise Beauvais, a resident of Blackburn Hamlet, who could not be in attendance. He explained that he had assisted her in making a complaint to the CTA. The complaints stems from an incident that occurred on June 13^th, when Ms. Beauvais, who is blind relies on a guide dog, took a bus to Hurdman Station and a subsequent bus to get to the Riverside Hospital, but which passed the hospital. The driver let her out at the next stop, which was Pleasant Park, and gave her directions to catch the next bus. She had never been to that stop and ended up 25 feet away from the railway tracks. The Pleasant Park stop is just up the hill from Riverside Drive and there’s no crossover. Her dog is trained to find the traffic lights, which she attempted to locate, but there are none. A passer-by assisted her back down into the Transit station where she took a bus to Billings Bridge Plaza and was also assisted there to get back on a bus to go to the Riverside Hospital. She specifically asked the driver of that bus to call out the Riverside Hospital stop but again it was missed and she ended up at Hurdman Station, past the Riverside Hospital. In their opinions, she was let out in a very dangerous situation and could have been seriously hurt. The issue was compounded when she phoned the OC Transpo complaints department to record the incident and to ask whether they could have the bus drivers call out the stops, and the conversation disintegrated to the point where the person receiving the call said made a derogatory comment about her blindness and hung up. That phone call prompted Ms. Beauvais to register a complaint with the CTA.

In response to the issue of whether it is relevant how many complaints the City has received Mr. Green did not think it should matter how many complaints you have about whether or not stops are being called out. It is well known, even within the senior management of OC Transpo that this is not being done even though the policy is and has been there for 20 years. On the website of OC Transpo where they talk about their customer survey, that 34% includes customers that are on the O-Train, where we all know that is automated.

Councillor McRae stated that she could not imagine what it would be like to not be able to see and be on the side of the road at minus 30 (degrees) and be at the wrong place and have to navigate back. She posed a question to Legal arising from the number of complaints. She wondered if the solicitor could comment on the nature of the CTA complaint. Did it matter whether there was 1 complaint or 160 complaints? What is the threshold for the CTA to respond?

Ms. Bietlot stated that she did not believe that this mattered. The CTA was seized with a specific complaint; they have the mandate to deal with that complaint. Jurisdictional issues aside, the CTA has a mandate to examine Federally-regulated transportation systems, look at their accessibility, and look at human rights issues that are related to those transportation systems, which is what they did.

Councillor McRae reiterated that it did not matter how many complaints there were, we’ve heard too many complaints and she stated, “I’m sorry” on behalf of myself and as a representative on this Committee. We have to solve this problem.

Councillor Leadman referred to Mr. Green’s submission to the Committee, that he pointed a very interesting statistic, that 80%, according to OCTranspo, of their fleet is currently fixed with GPS location systems. She believed the point made about the cost per bus seemed quite high for accommodating the systems that we’re looking for. Her question to staff was, “Is the GPS package that we have, not compatible with existing audio and visual output packages?”

Mr. Mercier explained that the current audio systems that are in place were designed uniquely to work with a microphone. The problem is not the GPS system as it has the raw data to be able to initiate an announcement through an audio system. The problem is that there is no linkage between the GPS system on-board and our audio systems, and we have different types of audio systems.

Mr. Green explained that the cost given in his presentation for an automated system, which he quoted costing approximately $3,000 includes having the whole thing put in and installed; with a GPS already installed prior to the audio and visual being put in place.

Councillor Leadman inquired that since we have the GPS system in place and now we need to add the cost of audio and visual, why are we looking at $8,000 or $7,500 per bus, but Mr. Green stated that it would cost $3,000.

Mr. Mercier explained that there were two options that were presented to them, one draws upon the GPS system that they have, and assumes that the audio system in place in the bus is adaptable, we still would have to add displays within the bus. Some of the buses will require more than one or two displays, there are multitudes of configurations, and each bus design will have to be adapted. That’s why the high cost option was identified to look at using a replacement technology as the worst case. The goal here at Committee was not to firm up what the final financial number would be, because we have more work to do. The purpose was to give the Committee a worst-case scenario because we have not done the detailed engineering to give a final price for the various types of buses that we have with their different systems, and it will be approximately $3 to $8 million at the worst, depending on each bus type.

Councillor Leadman stated when she read the report she saw that the Committee was being asked to: “Approve the manner to achieve mandatory announcements of major stops in transit operations compliant under the Canadian Transportation Agency Decision No 200AT-MV-2007 through the installation of an automated system on board transit vehicles by 2010 on existing vehicles at a cost of approximately $8 million”. This means that they are being asked to approve without having all the information needed such as the current system being used.

Nancy Schepers clarified that they had a limited time to respond to the CTA in terms of their approach. She stated that what staff was seeking was to approve the manner to achieve the approach. Mr. Mercier has given the Committee the range of $3 million to $8 million at the upset. There is a need to do additional engineering and come back to the Committee through the budget cycle for you to approve it. However, a response is needed to be given to the CTA and an indication of how we intend to proceed.

In response to Councillor Leadman’s question pertaining to the attitudes of how the operators deal with people with disabilities, Mr. Mercier agreed that there needs to be an adjustment. He believes that the policy needs to be implemented, enforced, and it needs to be monitored. If the problem is that not enough monitors are out there, then why not spend some of that $8 million and put a few more monitors in? The important thing is, we are talking about a safety issue here.

In conclusion, Councillor Leadman stated that this is the prime reason that we’re addressing this issue; another issue is with when customers call in, in terms of how they are being dealt with and they are spoken to. Regardless of the statistics, are these calls being recorded appropriately?

Mr. Peter Platt, wanted to speak to a comment made in the staff presentation. It was mentioned that if a person was let off at the wrong stop, the person could contact OCTranspo and they would send someone to go down and help him or her. Not everyone has a cell phone nor does anyone know that policy.

Councillor Bloess inquired about the number of blind or people with visual disabilities riding the system on average now, regular riders and how many guide dogs and cane users are there?

Mr. Green stated that there are approximately 5,000 legally blind people in Ottawa. Not all use OC Transpo, some use Para Transpo, and some simply don’t get out at all for reasons of their own.

Councillor Bloess inquired about the personal GPS system that Mr. Green has purchased, is it a viable solution. Is this something that maybe we should look at as an interim solution here, would he recommend the use of this to others? Mr. Green agreed that it is a viable solution; it is a specifically adapted device for persons who are blind. It will tell you when you’re on the bus and which streets you’re crossing.

Councillor Bloess explained to Mr. Platt that he has re-sent a copy of the CTA complaint that he submitted to him. He has also re-sent it to OC Transpo management.

Victor Emmerson, Chair, Accessibility Advisory Committee, stated it was a shameful issue that the Capital of Canada has been the subject of a human rights complaint that deals with accessibility. In terms of addressing the issue, it seems there’s been a string of evasions and excuses. He has heard that the projected timeline for implementing a solution for this is somewhere between 3 and 18 years. He feels that the information that the Committee requires in order to make an informed decision was not brought forward despite the fact that this had been on the agenda for some time. He stated that this is supposed to be a City with swagger; not a City that is going to stagger under a legal burden of dealing with complaints that should not exist.

Accessibility is often a misunderstood word. Everyone associates it with disabilities, and accessibility certainly deals with disabilities; it’s very often the case that persons with disabilities are the ones who are what you might call the “point” people; they’re the ones who file the complaints, they’re the ones who are most severely affected by inequities, whether it’s practices, design or whatever it happens to be. However, accessibility is for all. If an accessible solution is implemented in this particular case, it will benefit not only persons with disabilities but also all citizens who cannot see out of dirty bus windows in the winter, visitors, people on new routes. He feels that calling out the steps is a no-brainer. The Accessibility Advisory Committee at its meeting in May recommended that a solution be adopted that has both visual and audible announcement of stops. The rationale for that being that there is nothing stopping someone with a hearing disability from filing a complaint because they will not be able to hear the audible announcements. When you spend the money to fit the buses out, if you put in a visible indicator as well, then it addresses the need of persons with a hearing disability and we won’t have to go through this process again. Safety is going to be their primary concern, and to add another task may be an inconvenience, although it certainly does seem to work in other jurisdictions. I think that while we are waiting for the technology to be implemented then calling out the stops is something that should be implemented.

His final comment is that the City has an Accessibility Advisory Committee that has the expertise where it can be discussed. They are eager to be brought into the process and they encourage the City to make use of our expertise.

Councillor Wilkinson wondered if the proposal is to put not only audio, but a visual screen as well, and Mr. Mercier confirmed this.

Councillor Doucet asked if the Accessibility Advisory Committee had looked at the crossover between the disabled and the non-disabled community. He was referring to the many sighted people who find it difficult riding a bus when they’re not sure where the stop is.

Mr. Emmerson stated that a visible system would be welcomed as well since people may not be able to hear on a noisy bus. Such a system is going to benefit someone who has a hearing disability or a visual disability as well as all riders. Not everyone is blind and not everyone has perfect vision. Many of the people in this room probably have aged enough that they know that their vision declines with age, and where do you build in the criterion. It’s not a recognized disability; it’s just a natural decaying of the sensory processes. The goal is to make a welcoming environment. If you’re going to implement a solution, implement a solution that addresses the needs of the community as a whole, including visitors and including citizens without disabilities as well as those with disabilities.

Ardith Elliott, Seniors Advisory Committee began by saying that this is one situation where seniors are not unique. If they miss an appointment because of a missed stop, it’s costly in time, money and frustration to them. A large portion of them grew up without family cars and are used to using public transportation, but the general cues we used in the environment have changed. Buildings have come and gone; even garage doors that you might have looked out for have disappeared, there are many reasons why they too need to have an auditory or visual cue. Many have noticed that even street signs appear to be getting smaller as they get older. It is reassuring to have drivers call out our stops and allow everyone to enjoy a hassle-free drive as we confidently travel throughout this City. They realize drivers have a stressful job, but for the young, elderly, handicapped, newcomer or tourist, it is time to make it user-friendly as well.

Klaus Beltzner, began his presentation by stating that there is a policy on the books that is not enforced. He stated that he had not heard much from the Committee or from City staff that says they will enforce the policy; they will ensure that the drivers understand the consequences of not following the policy; they will make them feel the consequences, training can be done. Enforcement can be done. He heard the contrary, that Mr. Mercier stated that between now and when the new system is going to be implemented, there will be no disciplinary action taken at all when operators fail to implement the policy of calling out stops. We have implemented technology on the buses at great expense up to now, including the PA systems, which are not utilized. If they were utilized, then we would know they were not working. They’re not being utilized. So why are we asking yet again for more money, for more technology to solve a human problem? There is a problem of labour and management that needs to be addressed.

Councillor Wilkinson informed Mr. Beltzner, that one of the Councillors is bringing forward a motion to address the policy being enforced.

David Jeanes explained that he was speaking for Transport 2000. The announcement of stops is not only a regulatory requirement for public transit systems to benefit users with disabilities, but it’s also an essential facility for all users. It makes the transit system user-friendly for new riders, for visitors and for people who are travelling on unfamiliar routes. Ottawa already has experience with visual and audible announcement of stops. It was provided on the O-Train since the start of service more than five years ago, these bilingual, automated announcements are appreciated by users. They’re not 100% reliable, but they are very good, and in fact the O-Train was supplied to us as a system that was already compliant with the US ADA regulations that are being referred to. He has used systems with automated announcements going back nearly 30 years, and was most impressed by the quality of information that’s always been provided audibly, visually and even in English on public transit in Japan. Therefore, the technology can help us, but we haven’t been very successful with application of technology in the past. We have bought radios to facilitate timed transfers; they have not been used for that purpose. Public address systems were bought to announce bus stops, they are not being used very frequently for that purpose, and we now have GPS, which the public expects is going to be used to keep the buses running on time, and we still have to see the results of that. An automated system is good, particularly with visual indications, but until it can be provided at an acceptable cost on our buses, OC Transpo should meet the Canadian Transportation Agency directive by training and instructing its drivers appropriately. It’s not reasonable for us to have to wait for these announcements for several more years. The recent Supreme Court decision which involved VIA Rail Canada back in March made it quite clear that the CTA has jurisdiction to issue this kind of directive, so there certainly shouldn’t be any questioning of the ruling, but we should just get on with meeting the need.

Catherine Gardner stated that she was a regular user of OC Transpo and would like to comment on the use of the visual and the audible calling-out. She heard Mr. Mercier stating that there were complaints that people didn’t want the drivers to call out since it may be an intrusion, but we have cell phone users who are very intrusive of the people sitting on the buses. We need both call-outs and visual, so that if the noise level on the bus is high we need to be able to see what the next stop is. She stated that she had been left off at a bus stop where it was not accessible. These problems are not only happening to the people who have visual impairments; it’s also happening to people who are in wheelchairs who are also getting stranded. I carry a cell phone, but I don’t put money on it; the only number it calls is 9-1-1, so if I get off at a non-accessible bus stop, it’s not going to do me any good. She felt that the entire OCTranspo system is broken. Until OC Transpo can provide equal and safe access for persons with disabilities, give us free transportation back. It might be an incentive for OC Transpo to hurry up and correct things.

Charles Matthews, began by saying that the systemic problems at OC Transpo and Para Transpo lie in the facts and figures that we have and accept every single day, are completely different from what we’re hearing from OC Transpo and Para Transpo and what information is given to Committee and Council. As an example, with the 168 calls on this issue within the last six years, I would say our organization alone has received just over 200 calls on this issue in the past year alone, of which we re-direct to OC Transpo. He stated that he takes the low-floor buses all the time because he pushed for them therefore, he should be using them. The problem that is heard most frequently is in regards to this calling out of stops, especially in the winter. We have to sit backwards in the bus, the sides of the buses are full of salt; you cannot see out the side windows, and definitely can’t see out the back. We have asked drivers on many occasions to let us know when we are approaching a certain stop so that we can get off. At one point they even asked, “At what stop will you be getting off”, because then they know when to lower the ramp. Many, many times they fail to do it. The majority of operators in this City, I will mention that 95% of them are fantastic drivers. Unfortunately it’s the 5% that don’t do it. Now as far as calling out the stops; it’s a 20-year old practice, as you’ve heard. I think this would rectify most of the problems that you’re having right now. Just have the staff do what they’re supposed to be doing.

The other problem is in regards to accessible transportation, as far as wheelchair access goes. A driver is supposed lift the seat; tell the passenger what they have to do so the wheelchair can manoeuvre into position. In over 1,000 trips that he has taken, this has happened for him once. Most of what the Committee has heard is, get the staff to do what they’re supposed to do and announce the stops. When he first moved to Ottawa in 1984 the drivers were fantastic, you would hear going down Rideau Street the drivers announcing the names of intersections; it felt good. How many times has he heard it in the last two years? Only once. The main thing is to go back to basics and this will clarify many of our positions. The point is, when OC Transpo argues that the CTA did not have jurisdiction to deal with this matter, if the Province does not have the standard set up, what’s wrong with listening to the Canadian Transportation Agency and doing what is right?

Responding to Councillor Legendre’s request to clarify the CTA’s recommendation that OC Transpo ‘modify its policy to specifically set out the alternative means to ensure that operator announcements are clearly heard by the persons in cases where a public address system or GPS is not used.’, Mr. Mercier suggested this referred to having a backup redundancy process in place should there be a technological failure at some point. He offered that OC Transpo’s response to this request would be for bus operators to advise customers requiring assistance to request such assistance where and when required. He suggested, however, that the calling out of stops throughout the length of a 60-foot bus would be nearly impossible.

Councillor Legendre then inquired as to the nature of displinary action for bus operators who failed to comply with existing OC Transpo policies. Mr. Mercier outlined that in response to customer complaints, starting with a first offence, staff would meet with an operator to determine the factual basis of the complaint, after which, disciplinary action would be taken, commensurate with the nature and severity of the complaint. He outlined that such discipline could take a number of forms, ranging from written reprimands to suspensions.

Councillor McRae felt it important to emphasize that she did not want Committee’s comments misconstrued, in that she did not believe the majority of OC Transpo employees fell into these categories, or that these problems were systemic to the Corporation. She agreed with Councillor Legendre that it seemed ridiculous for the Committee overseeing OC Transpo to pass motions directing that OC Transpo follow its own established policies. She then asked whether anyone had ever been suspended for such breaches of policy. Mr. Mercier said that in his brief employ with OC Transpo, he had not yet come across any such actions for such type-specific incidents. Councillor McRae felt it important to enforce discipline in such cases to send a clear message that such serious contraventions of policy were not only morally and legally wrong, but would have consequences.

The Councillor offered that the issue at hand was less related to finance than it was to accommodation of the riding public. She suggested that, given that 80% of the bus fleet had already been equipped with GPS systems, bus drivers could already be implementing the call-out policy by perhaps using microphone headsets, if such systems were currently available. Mr. Mercier explained that the use of such systems was currently under study as one of the elements that OC Transpo wanted to put in place, and had been included in part of the cost estimate Corporation had put together, although testing had not yet been undertaken for compliance.

Further, despite Mr. Mercier’s assertion that OC Transpo was currently reviewing and updating its policies and handbooks, Councillor McRae wondered why, as a simple low-cost, short-term measure, management could not simply begin enforcing OC Transpo’s 20-year old policy of calling out mandatory stops for major areas and for requested stops. Mr. Mercier agreed that this could be done. In summation, Councillor McRae offered that the tone of the meeting and the narratives that had been heard spoke to the seriousness of this issue. She underscored that she felt OC Transpo staff were dealing with many other issues and were, for the most part, doing a good job. However, she felt it was important to deal with those employees who were responsible for these problems.

Councillor Thompson felt the O-Train’s automatic call-out system of stations had served to skew the OC Transpo survey’s results, which indicated that approximately 35% of riders had acknowledged hearing call-outs either “often” or “sometimes”, since the survey hadn’t been specifically related to buses and did not exclude the O-Train. Mr. Mercier acknowledged this, but felt that as the O-Train comprised one route out of the entire OC Transpo system, the impact would not be significant.

The Councillor then asked Mr. Mercier to clarify the procedures involved should a disabled person miss their stop, and be let off at another one. Councillor Thompson remembered hearing that OC Transpo would come to their aid when called, but asked whether it was the driver or the passenger who would need to initiate such a call. Mr. Mercier outlined that if a customer debarked, following which the bus departed, and if the driver was not aware that he had in fact made a mistake, the driver would therefore be unaware of the need to place a call for help. However, he noted that when a driver was made aware that he had so erred, it was at that point the driver’s responsibility to immediately phone the OC Transpo transit operations centre to render assistance.

Councillor Thompson reiterated his colleagues’ views on the need to direct staff to implement and follow the established call-out policy and asked Mr. Mercier whether he would so direct staff immediately following the meeting. Mr. Mercier explained there were difficulties in gaining the confidence of a 1,600 member staff, and said he preferred a “carrot” rather than “stick” approach in implementing new procedures. He affirmed that he had communicated to all staff the need to render assistance when required, which would result in a ‘zero tolerance’ approach if not followed, but that this was something that would have to be developed progressively. Mr. Mercier assured Committee he would undertake to do so and report more fully when the Committee met in September.

Councillor Bloess voiced his displeasure with both the situation before Committee and with the staff report, and felt the response thus far had been overly bureaucratic where he felt the solution called for simplicity; namely, the enforcement of established policy. He felt the issue was less related to money than it was to labour relations, noting there seemed to be resistance to providing a service in the way that most agreed it should be provided. He felt that words meant little if they were not backed with assurance that they would be implemented, and said he wanted to know how OC Transpo would provide such assurance. Furthermore, Councillor Bloess said he would not vote to put money into staff’s recommended solutions as he felt the City had already spent too much on a GPS system that had cost too much and delivered too little. The Councillor asked that prior to consideration of the 2008 Budget, Committee and Council be given an accounting of why money had been spent for the GPS system, an outlining of its capabilities and what was still required to bring it to a point where the City could meet all requirements.

Councillor Bloess noted a previous delegation’s reference to the use of a personal GPS device and asked if such personal systems had been given consideration in the staff response. Mr. Mercier said there were currently two transit users who used personal GPS systems for which the Corporation had provided. However, he noted that with an estimated 5,000 persons with visual disabilities in the Ottawa area, along with others with auditory disabilities, etc., combined with the myriad types of personal devices that would be required to deal with each category of need and the ever-changing technology involved, the provision of such devices to accommodate all needs would be impractical. Mr. Mercier underlined this was a problem being faced by every transit agency in North America, which were all seeking system-wide solutions.

In summing up, the Councillor said he could not support any staff recommendation to spend additional money, which he felt was tantamount to signing a blank cheque when the City had already done so with the GPS system. He felt it would be better to implement the calling out of stops when feasible, and said he would vote for motions which would serve to reinforce what was supposed to be happening already, as a more appropriate response to the CTA.

Councillor Wilkinson then introduced the following motions:

Moved by M. Wilkinson

That OC Transpo develop a policy to have bus stops called out on all regular routes and for drop-off locations on express routes and implement a training program to ensure compliance with this policy.

Moved by J. Legendre

That staff training be amended to clarify that policies regarding location announcements specifically requested and otherwise is a serious matter as well as a matter of public safety and disciplinary action can be expected if the policy is not followed.

Moved by J. Legendre

That OC Transpo’s proposed response to the CTA’s suggested corrective measures be communicated to all members of the Transit Committee five working days before being submitted to the CTA.

Moved by C. Leadman

3) Direct Transit Services to:

a) implement interim measures in the nature of training, improved low-tech solutions, e.g., headsets, communications and monitoring to achieve a high level of compliance in calling out major and requested stops,

b) improve compliance with procedures to recover from any errors that occur in providing information to persons with disabilities on a specific stop, and,

c) review and improve customer relations-centred training requirements in communicating with all customers and particularly customers with disabilities.

Ms. N. Schepers, Deputy City Manager, Planning, Transit and the Environment Department, stated she believed the proposed motions were consistent with the Department’s general approach in terms of customer service, and that staff both welcomed such guidance and hoped to be back in September to provide a full report on policy direction, emphasizing that staff considered customer service to be of prime importance. She cautioned, however, that the management of 1,600 employees, widely dispersed over a large operation, was not easy, and that the training of such a large number of employees could increase overtime expenses, etc., wherein management would want to ensure clarity as to exactly what kind of training would be required in terms of adherence to policies, etc.

Councillor McRae, noting the discussions that had ensued because of Councillor Bloess’ original inquiry, thanked him for raising the inquiry, and staff for their response. She stressed that when Council put policies in place, she expected staff throughout the Corporation to follow such direction at all times, and agreed with Councillor Legendre that disciplinary action should be undertaken for failures in doing so. She also expressed concern with the recommendation to spend money for automated systems for transit vehicles when there remained unanswered questions about existing technologies currently in use. She thanked Mr. Mercier, and noted he would likely be returning with recommended changes to the existing staff culture, policies and technology. In summation, Councillor McRae thanked the delegations for speaking to an issue that she emphasized was not just about money, but rather about the Corporation and Council making a difference for persons who were already faced with challenges, and who needed additional barriers removed.

Councillor Doucet said he would vote in favour of the report recommendations and most of his colleagues’ supplementary motions as be believed they would serve as useful direction to staff. He felt Mr. Mercier’s explanations had been very clear, and offered that even Toronto had experienced comparable rulings before a similar tribunal. He also felt Mr. Mercier had clearly stated that although Ottawa’s was a 20 year old problem, its bus system was no longer where it had been 20 years earlier, but had evolved into a very different system; one where bus drivers’ responsibilities were now compounded with additional tasks that had not existed in the past, i.e., assisting with ramps for handicapped access, stopping for bicycles, contacting police in the event of collisions, etc. The Councillor felt that OC Transpo was aware of its ongoing responsibilities, and that rather than compound its problems by refusing additional funding, he suggested they be given more funding to enable the Service to deliver such services in the manner in which Council wished them to. He felt that forcing OC Transpo to implement a 20 year old policy today, without providing additional resources, was akin to Provincial downloading of responsibilities onto municipalities. Councillor Doucet felt that it was time to move forward, and argued that additional money was needed to augment the fleet’s GPS system with an announced-stop program. He expressed satisfaction with the staff report and for the discussion it had generated, hoping it would result in a solid ‘go-forward’ program he said he would be pleased to vote for.

Councillor Leadman offered that money wasn’t always a viable solution, but that sometimes the solution was a simpler matter of respect and courtesy. Referring to Ms. Schepers reference to additional training, the Councillor said she assumed that when transit or call centre staff were hired, the expectation of a required level of customer service would be made clear at the outset as a straightforward job requirement, and she did not feel that anyone was asking for anything out of the ordinary. Furthermore, beyond the issues of courtesy, respect and decency, she said Committee was almost overlooking the issue of safety, which could be interpreted to border on negligence, were a member of the disabled community to encounter danger because of being let off at a wrong location. Speaking to the issue of technology, Councillor Leadman suggested that when investing in a GPS system such as OC Transpo’s, it was reasonable to expect that such a system be expandable to address changing future technological requirements and necessities. In closing, she emphasized that the issue of ensuring the safety of citizens, particularly those most vulnerable, surpassed that of merely adhering to an established policy.

Councillor Legendre said he, too, would support the staff recommendations, as he believed the additional equipment was needed. However, he said he could not support Councillor Wilkinson’s motion, as he believed it spoke to the development of a policy that already existed. He suggested that although Councillor Wilkinson’s motion spoke to the establishment of a training program to ensure compliance with policy, his motion went a step further by including a public safety component and by proposing disciplinary action should the policies not be adhered to. He felt that merely developing another policy would not help. He hoped his colleagues would also support his motion speaking to reviewing staff’s proposed response five working days before such response being sent to the CTA. He suggested that as the Committee would not again meet until September, any necessary discussions could transpire through e-mail, which did not preclude the possibility of holding an emergency meeting, if required, in order to address any remaining concerns.

Councillor Bloess urged caution as pertained to the first staff report recommendation, speaking to the request for $8 million for the installation of automated announced-stop systems. He suggested that Committee hold its approval for this part of the recommendation, noting that the second part of the recommendation allowed for the opportunity to deal with this matter during the 2008 Budget. He explained that this could also be tied in to his request for staff to report on the status of the GPS, exactly what it was doing for OC Transpo, what shortfalls it included, and what was required in terms of additional money to address such shortfalls. He said he would support his colleagues other motions, citing that although they may have included a certain degree of overlap, it was better to err on the side of too much, rather than not enough, direction.

Responding to Councillor Legendre’s assertion that a call-out policy already existed, Councillor Wilkinson pointed out that the existing policy spoke to calling out major stops and stops upon request, and not routinely. She clarified that her motion spoke to the calling-out of all stops. She explained that she had heard from many people with disabilities who did not like being put in a position where they had to ask for a service which they felt should be automatic, as it made them feel inferior or singled them out as different from other members of the public. The Councillor acknowledged it was likely that the system would eventually become automated, but felt that this was a start, and if done regularly, would become a habit for drivers, and would eliminate the need for people with disabilities to make special requests for stops as well as significantly reducing situations where stops were missed. She also understood that the development and implementation of a policy and required training component would take time to implement, but hoped that by September staff could report on its progress. She further recognized that some remediation might be required to fix microphone systems, etc., but felt that overall, such action was required to allow passengers to be able to orient themselves properly within the City, a feature that would be of particular interest to visitors, infrequent riders and seniors. The Councillor acknowledged that initially, some might complain about too many call-outs being made, but that such numbers would diminish once it was explained that such action was being undertaken to allow all users to find their stops. In summation, Councillor Wilkinson felt her motion was an enhancement of existing policy and went further than what was currently entrenched. She said she expected that her suggestions could be implemented over the coming months, and felt that they could be firmly in place within a year, by which time both transit system operators and users would both have become accustomed to its use.

The Committee then considered the following motions:

Moved by Councillor C. Doucet:

That the following Staff Report Recommendation 1 as amended be approved:

That the Transit Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve the manner to achieve mandatory announcements of major stops in transit operations compliant under the Canadian Transportation Agency Decision No 200AT-MV-2007 through the installation of an automated system on board transit vehicles by 2010 on existing vehicles at a cost of approximately $3 million to 8 million.

LOST

YEAS (3): Councillors C. Doucet, J. Legendre, M. Wilkinson

NAYS (4): Councillors R. Bloess, C. Leadman, M. McRae, D. Thompson

Moved by Councillor C. Doucet:

That the Staff Report Recommendation 1 be approved, as presented.

LOST

YEAS (3): Councillors C. Doucet, J. Legendre, M. Wilkinson

NAYS (4): Councillors R. Bloess, C. Leadman, M. McRae, D. Thompson

Moved by Councillor C. Leadman:

That Transit Services Staff be directed to:

a) implement interim measures in the nature of training, improved low-tech solutions (e.g. headsets) communications and monitoring to achieve a high level of compliance in calling out major and requested stops;

b) improve compliance with procedures to recover from any errors that occur in providing information to persons with disabilities on a specific stop;

c) review and improve customer relations centre training requirements in communicating with all customers, and particularly customers with disabilities.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor J. Legendre:

That OC Transpo’s proposed response to the CTA’s suggested corrective measures be communicated to all Member of the Transit Committee five working days in advance of being submitted to the CTA.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor J. Legendre:

That staff training be amended to clarify that

(a) policies regarding location announcements, specifically requested and otherwise, is a serious matter as well as a matter of public safety; and

(b) disciplinary action can be expected if the policy is not followed.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson:

That OC Transpo develop to have bus stops called out on all regular routes and for drop off locations on express routes and implement a training program to ensure compliance with this policy.

CARRIED

Councillor J. Legendre dissented.

Moved by Councillor R. Bloess:

That the Staff Report Recommendation 2 be amended to include the following:

That the budget submission include the status of the Transit GPS Project, the amount spent to date and what needs to be spent to bring about the necessary results.

CARRIED

That the Transit Committee recommend Council:

2. Include a project to incorporate the fully automated stop announcement program in the Department's 2008 Capital budget submission.

DEALT WITH AS AMENDED BY THE AFOREMENTIONED MOTIONS

The report, as amended, was approved. The Committee also approved that the report be forwarded to City Council for consideration at its meeting of 11 July 2007.