Office Canadian des transports Transportation du Canada Agency
Regulations, Research and Analysis Division Accessible Transportation Directorate
Benchmark Data on the Monitoring of the 2004 Communication Code of Practice Table of Contents Summary ...... 1 Highlights of Participants’ Self-Reporting ...... 1 Reported Areas of High Compliance ...... 3 Reported Areas of Low Compliance ...... 4 Summary Conclusion...... 5
Introduction ...... 6 Profile of Travellers with Disabilities ...... 6 Objectives and Scope of the Monitoring ...... 7 Participation...... 8 Organization of the Report ...... 9
Findings of the Communication Code Monitoring Survey Section 1: General Provisions ...... 10 1.1 Multiple Format Policy ...... 10 1.2 Web Site Accessibility ...... 10 1.3 Dispensing Machines & Automated Information Kiosks ...... 12 1.4 Telecommunication Systems for Reservations...... 15 Section 2:Terminal Provisions...... 17 2.1 Telecommunication Systems in Terminals ...... 17 2.2 Signage ...... 20 2.3 Public Announcements in Terminals ...... 25 2.4 Arrival/Departure Monitors ...... 27 2.5 Information on Ground Transportation ...... 29 2.6 Designated Seating ...... 30 Section 3:On-Board Communication...... 30 3.1 Communication of Equipment Features ...... 30 3.2 Safety Videos ...... 31 Section 4:Carrier Overviews...... 32 4.1 Air Canada/Air Canada Jazz ...... 32 4.2 WestJet...... 33 4.3 VIA Rail...... 33 Section 5:Terminal Overviews...... 34 5.1 Lester B. Pearson International Airport (Toronto) ...... 34 5.2 Vancouver International Airport ...... 36 5.3 Pierre E. Trudeau International Airport (Montreal) ...... 38 5.4 Calgary International Airport ...... 39
Conclusions and Next Steps ...... 41 Appendix A: Definitions Appendix B: Data Tables Table 1A: 50 Participating Organizations in Alphabetical Order Table 1B: 6 Non-Participating Organizations in Alphabetical Order Table 1C: Grand Totals for the 56 Organizations Subject to the Communications Code Table 2: Reported Compliance with Web site Guidelines Table 3: Reported Prevalence of Dispensing Machines Operating by Entity and Mode Table 4: Reported Accessibility of Dispensing Machines by Entity and Mode Table 5: Reported Alternative Communications Systems Operated by Participating NAS Airports Table 6: Reported Compliance with Alternative Communication Systems in Passenger Service Areas Table 7: Reported Compliance with Signage Criteria for TTYs and Alternative Communications Systems (ACS) in Passenger Service Areas Table 8: Reported Compliance with Signage Providing Direction to the Nearest ACS Table 9: Signs Used for Washrooms, Emergency Exits, Elevators, Stairwells, Doors or Passageways off Main Corridors that Include Braille or Tactile Symbols Table 10: Public Announcements Table 11: Reported Compliance for Arrival/Departure Monitors and other Electronic Signage Table 12: Designated Seating at Boarding Gates and Departure Areas Summary
In June 2004, the Canadian Transportation Agency (the Agency) released the Code of Practice “Removing Communication Barriers for Travellers with Disabilities” (the Communication Code). This report summarizes the results of the Agency’s monitoring of the Communication Code upon its release. The objective of this monitoring was to determine the degree to which transportation service providers were in compliance with the Communication Code on the date of its release, prior to its implementation.
The monitoring method consisted of questionnaires developed by the Agency that were self-administered by the carriers and terminal operators. When the Communication Code was released, 56 organizations were subject to it. 50 of these organizations, two of which were ferry service providers, participated in the surveys, representing a response rate of almost 90%. The process to compile this report was lengthy as it entailed the collection of a significant volume of data and subsequent verification and correction where needed. Notwithstanding the relative age of the data, this report provides useful information to carriers and terminal operators by identifying matters that may require their increased attention in order to ensure that persons with disabilities can obtain information necessary for their use of the entity’s transportation services in a manner that meets their accessibility needs. The report also provides information to enable carriers and terminal operators to assess their communication of persons with disabilities against common industry practices and norms and set objectives for enhancing their own accessibility standards.
Since the time of the survey, some changes in the provision of accessible features and services have occurred in the federal transportation system. The results of this survey do not reflect the changes made since the monitoring was completed. However, where known, improvements in compliance with the Communication Code that were made after the survey was completed have been noted in this report.
The Agency will use the results of the survey to focus its efforts on the provisions of the Code for which compliance was lowest as well as on the carriers and terminal operators which did not respond to the survey or to certain questions in the survey.
Highlights of Participants’ Self-Reporting
• Persons with disabilities are more likely to find communication to be accessible in busier airports than in rail or ferry terminals (e.g. position and colour contrasting of monitors, directional signage, signs having accessible features such as characters large enough to be viewed from intended distance). These results seem to reflect that rail and ferry terminals are generally smaller than air terminals and therefore, use fewer means of electronic communication. As well, smaller terminals may be less reliant on signage and more reliant on public announcements.
1 • Almost all (94%) participants reported having a Web site for information and/or reservations. While the reported level of accessibility of these Web sites varied, almost all (96%) reported offering the web-based information by other means of communication upon request.
• The busiest airports in Canada (Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal) were using dispensing machines and automated information kiosks, including over 150 check-in kiosks in 2004. Although none of these kiosks were reported to be accessible to persons who are blind, all of these airports except Thunder Bay indicated that they provided an equal level of service to persons unable to use them.
• Participants reported high compliance (94%) with providing alternative communications systems where telephone lines are normally used, but only a single participant (Vancouver International Airport) reported that its contract with ground transportation providers1 required an alternative communications system. In addition, all respondents reported that these alternative systems are highly likely to be in good working order with proper maintenance and trained operators.
• While 88% of air terminals reported having a public alternative communication system such as a teletypewriter2, compliance with providing them in each passenger service area was low. There is a greater likelihood of finding this accessible equipment in a busier airport such as Toronto, Vancouver or Ottawa.
• Compliance rates for the provision of directional signage at arrival areas to indicate the location of each type of ground transportation was reported to be high for airports (85%) but not for rail terminals (27%). These results seem to reflect that rail terminals often consist of one room and have much less complex layouts than airports which often have multiple entrances and exits on several different levels.
• Persons with disabilities are as likely to find designated seating in air terminals as not. Almost half of air terminals provided designated seating for passengers with disabilities within viewing distance of communications boards and/or personnel. However, a significant number of air terminals (40%), mostly the smaller air
1Ground transportation service providers include taxis, limousines, motor coaches, shuttle buses and rental vehicle companies that operate from a terminal under contract or permit with the terminal operator.
2A teletypewriter (TTY) or a telecommunications device for the Deaf (TDD) transmits written text via the telephone line and is primarily used by persons who are Deaf, deafened or hard of hearing, persons who have a speech impairment and by people who wish to phone a Deaf or hard of hearing person who uses a TTY.
2 terminals, reported not providing this seating in any of the required areas (boarding gates and departure areas).
Reported Areas of High Compliance
The survey results revealed that the following provisions of the Communication Code had the highest reported compliance rates:
1. Accessible Public Telephones The majority of air terminals (64%), rail terminals (87%) and ferry terminals (100%) had public telephones with accessibility features. For the purposes of this survey, an accessible telephone was defined as a phone having one or more of the following features: a raised dot on the 5 JKL button, a graduated volume control, a level shelf, or positioning for use by a person in a wheelchair.
2. Automated Voice Message Information All organizations reported making automated voice message information and services available through alternative communications systems, such as a TTY line.
3. Signage There was reported high compliance for certain accessibility features on signs (not electronic) in terminals, such as: < 88% of airports, 88% of rail terminals, and 100% of ferry terminals reported that all or a majority of their signs were positioned to avoid shadow areas and glare; < letters, numbers, symbols and pictographs were reported being glare-free and presented in high contrasting colours (96% in all or most cases in air terminals; all VIA rail terminals reported having glare free signage, with at least half having high contrasting colours; 100% in all ferry terminals); < fonts with appropriate width-to-height ratio and arabic numbers were used (air - 88% in all or most cases; rail - more than half of signs in 99% of terminals; ferry - one terminal not using arabic numbers, otherwise full compliance); < characters and/or symbols in each passenger service area of terminals were reported to be sufficiently large to be easily viewed from the intended distance (air - 84% of terminals reported all signs; rail - 81% of terminals reported majority of signs; ferry - 100% reported all signs).
4. Audio Public Announcements Audio public announcements were reported to be made in plain language, clearly enunciated and easily understood by almost all air carriers and terminals, rail and ferry carriers.
3 5. Monitors and Electronic Signs There was reportedly high compliance for certain accessibility features for monitors and electronic signs in terminals, for example: < information displayed on monitors was reportedly presented in plain language that was easy to read, avoiding acronyms where possible in all terminals for all modes of transport, except two VIA Rail stations; < good colour contrasting was reported to be provided and monitors were reported to be positioned to avoid glare (19/23 air terminals, 14/20 VIA Rail terminals and 2/4 ferry terminals reported that all or most monitors in passenger service areas were glare free and colour contrasted).
6. Communication of Equipment Features All modes of transportation reported that crews were prepared to give oral, written and visual information to passengers with disabilities regarding the equipment features of the vehicle when requested, with very few exceptions. For example, Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported that they were prepared to provide the information orally but not in writing, not visually or in multiple format, and Air North was reportedly prepared to provide the information orally, visually and in multiple format but not in written form.
7. Safety Videos All air carriers and one ferry carrier reported that all information presented in on- board safety videos in a visual format was described verbally, and that all audible information was presented visually. (Rail carriers did not use these videos.)
Reported Areas of Low Compliance
The survey results revealed that the following provisions of the Communication Code had the lowest reported compliance rates:
1. Automated Dispensing Machines Almost none of the participants in the survey reported that persons who are blind could use their automated dispensing machines independently. Only Toronto Airport reported that persons who are blind could use 38% of their check-in kiosks independently.
2. Alternative Communication Systems in Passenger Service Areas Only 23% of participants reported having an alternative communication system (ACS) in each required passenger service area, and 32%, mainly rail terminals, reported having no ACS in any required area or no ACS at all. 45% reported having alternative communication systems in some of the required areas.
4 3. Braille and Tactile Symbols The use of Braille on signs in passenger service areas where they were required were reported in 14% of rail terminals, while the use of tactile symbols was reported in 29% of rail terminals.
4. Location of Signs Rail and ferry terminals reported low compliance for doorway signs being located to the right of the door, 1.5 m above the floor, while compliance by air terminals was reportedly higher.
5. Public Announcements in Visual Formats Public announcements related to the successful execution of a trip were rarely reported to be provided in visual formats all of the time in passenger service areas inside terminals. These announcements include departure delays, gate or track assignments and schedule or connection changes. While only 6/21 air carriers and 4/25 air terminals reported providing visual formats for all of their announcements, the majority reported providing some of their announcements in visual format. 3/38 or 8% of VIA rail terminals reported providing all or many announcements in visual format. Ferry terminals reported slightly higher compliance with 2/4 terminals providing this accessibility feature.
6. Contracts with Ground Transportation Service Providers Few terminal operators reported that their contracts with ground transportation service providers required them to provide schedules in multiple formats or to provide personal services to passengers.
7. Web site Accessibility The overall results for all modes indicated that compliance with the accessible Web site guidelines was below 50%. The highest compliance rate for the various modes was reported by the rail mode, i.e., VIA Rail at 55%.
Summary Conclusion
The Agency has carefully examined the results of this survey and is using this information to target areas of reported low compliance with the Communication Code. A more current picture of the level of compliance will be obtained and guidance material and tools to assist industry in fulfilling its responsibilities will be developed.
The Agency recognizes the fundamental importance of effective communication of transportation-related information for persons with disabilities in achieving the goal of an accessible federal transportation system. The Agency will be focussing its efforts and working with its stakeholders to achieve this important goal.
5 Introduction
The Canadian Transportation Agency’s mandate includes eliminating obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities in the federal transportation system. To date, the Agency has developed five Codes of Practice3 in consultation with the community of persons with disabilities, industry and other government departments. The Agency’s Codes set out its expectations for the accessibility of transportation by air, rail and ferry. The Codes set out minimum standards that carriers and terminal operators are expected to meet and encouraged to exceed; standards that are designed to make the Canadian transportation system more accessible to persons with disabilities.
In June 2004, the Agency released the Code of Practice “Removing Communication Barriers for Travellers with Disabilities”. The purpose of the Communication Code is to improve the communication of transportation-related information for persons with disabilities on a systemic basis as they use the federal transportation system. Carriers and terminal operators that are subject to the Communication Code were expected to follow its provisions by no later than June 1, 2007 except for provisions related to dispensing machines and automated information kiosks, which are to be implemented no later than June 1, 2009.
This report summarizes the results of the Agency’s monitoring of the Communication Code upon its release.
Profile of Travellers with Disabilities
In the 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey4 of Statistics Canada, it was estimated that 4.3 million Canadians 15 years of age and over have some level of disability. It was further estimated that approximately 600,000 adults with disabilities travelled by air and 100,000 travelled by rail. Since the incidence of disability increases with age, the demand for accessible transportation will be even greater as Canada’s population ages.
In the year 2000, the Agency conducted a national survey of persons with disabilities who travelled by air. The results of the Air Travel Accessibility Survey provided evidence that poor communication of transportation-related information is a significant barrier to the mobility of persons with disabilities. As well, the survey results confirmed that both airport and on-board communication remained problematic for persons with visual and/or hearing disabilities in particular.
3The Agency’s Codes of Practice are available on the Agency’s Web site: www.cta.gc.ca
4Statistics Canada, Participation and Activity Limitation Survey, 2006.
6 Objectives and Scope of the Monitoring
The objective of the first monitoring of the Communication Code was to collect benchmark data regarding the level of industry compliance when the Communication Code was released to be able to identify those provisions for which compliance was lowest and therefore requiring follow-up action.
Transportation services providers covered by the Communication Code include the following:
• Canadian air carriers that operate fixed-wing aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats; • air terminal operators within the National Airports System5; • rail carriers under federal jurisdiction operating passenger rail services in Canada, except for commuter or tourist services; • operators of rail terminals with 10,000 or more passengers embarking and 10,000 or more disembarking in each of the two preceding calendar years, excluding terminals used principally for commuter or tourist services • operators of passenger ferry services that are operated between provinces or territories, or between a province or territory and the United States which operate vessels of 1,000 gross tonnes or more that transport passengers.
When the Communication Code was released on June 1, 2004, it applied to 56 organizations: 23 air carriers, 25 airport operators (operating 27 terminals), 4 rail operators, and 4 ferry operators. Two of the air carriers were counted as one, namely Air Canada and Air Canada Jazz, as they were operated by the same organization, ACE Aviation Holdings Inc.
The monitoring of the Communication Code consisted of self-administered monitoring surveys for carriers and terminal operators. Each was asked to complete the questionnaire which addressed each provision in the Communication Code. The Agency reviewed the responses for completeness and consistency, and followed up where necessary to ensure their quality.
5The National Airports System (NAS) is comprised of 26 national airports linking Canada from coast to coast. The NAS handles 94% of air travellers in Canada and includes airports serving the national, provincial and territorial capitals as well as airports with annual traffic of 200,000 passengers or more.
7 Participation
Of the 56 transportation service providers that were subject to the Communication Code, 50 responded to the survey, representing a response rate of almost 90%. (See Tables 1A, 1B, 1C in Appendix B: 87% of carriers - air, rail and ferry - and 88% of terminal operators - air, rail and ferry). In addition, some photographs were submitted, but not by the majority of participants.
Air Carriers Almost all air carriers, 22 of 23, responded to the monitoring survey. These participating air carriers transported 99.7% of all passengers who travelled in 2004 with a carrier that was subject to the Communication Code. In addition, they performed 100.0% of the passenger kilometres associated with this travel6. Transwest Air of Saskatchewan was the only air carrier that did not respond to the monitoring survey.
Air Terminals There were 25 airports subject to the Communication Code operating a total of 27 air terminals7. Of the 27 air terminals, the Agency received surveys for 25 (93%). The two airports that did not participate in the monitoring survey were the London International Airport in Ontario and the John G. Diefenbaker Airport in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
Rail Carriers The survey was sent to four passenger rail carriers: VIA Rail Canada Inc. (VIA), Algoma Central Railway (Algoma), Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway (Quebec and Labrador), and Amtrak, an American rail service provider (which is a government-owned corporation, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation).
The three rail carriers who are subject to the Communication Code and who operate terminals in Canada - VIA, Algoma, and Quebec and Labrador - responded to the survey and represented 98.2% of the passenger rail traffic in Canada. VIA, the main passenger rail carrier operating in Canada, carried 95% (3.9 million passengers) of the total passengers transported by rail in 2004.8
Amtrak, who is subject to the Communication Code because it offers rail service in Canada - did not respond to the survey. However, the rail carrier noted that it is continuing to improve the accessibility of their services in pursuit of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
6Based on 2004 data provided by Statistics Canada: Aviation Statistics Centre.
7Lester B. Pearson International Airport in the Greater Toronto Area operates 3 terminals.
8Transportation in Canada 2004: Annual Report, Transport Canada 2005.
8 The Communication Code does not apply to commuter or tourist rail services.
Ferry Carriers and Terminals The monitoring questionnaire was sent to four passenger ferry carriers: Marine Atlantic, Northumberland/Bay Ferries, the CTMA Group, and the Woodward Group of Companies. Marine Atlantic completed a survey for its carrier operation and each of its three terminals - North Sydney, Argentia, and Port-Aux-Basque. Northumberland/Bay Ferries completed a survey for their carrier operation and for one of their five terminals, namely, the Wood Islands (PEI) terminal. The CTMA Group, and the Woodward Group of Companies did not participate in the survey.
Organization of the Report
This report is organized in a manner similar to the structure of the Communication Code. Each section states the criteria of the Communication Code, followed by information on the results of the survey. The results are presented in the order of air, rail, and then marine transportation. Following the section by section analysis and in the interest of brevity, this report presents an overview of the reported performances of the largest air and rail carriers, followed by the largest air terminals. Finally, conclusions and next steps are set out. At the end of the report, appendices include a list of definitions and relevant data tables.
9 Findings of the 2004 Communication Code Benchmark Monitoring Survey
Section 1: General Provisions
1.1 Multiple Format Policy Transportation service providers are to develop and follow their own Multiple Format Policy to ensure that information related to the successful execution of a trip is available to all travellers in a format that is accessible to them.9
Benchmark results revealed that none of the participants had a multiple format policy when the Communication Code was released in 2004.10
1.2 Web Site Accessibility
Web sites are to be made accessible to persons with disabilities by following the World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. (W3C Web Content Accessibility guidelines are at www.w3.org)
Of the 50 organizations that participated in the monitoring survey, almost all (94%) reported having at least one web site, except for 4 (Air Creebec, Iqaluit Airport, Yellowknife Airport and Québec North Shore and Labrador Railways reported not operating a Web site). Three organizations reported using more than one web site, namely Air Canada/Air Canada Jazz (3 web sites), VIA Rail (3 web sites), and Harmony Airways (2 web sites). Accordingly, 51 distinct web sites were reported to exist in 2004. However, participants provided complete responses for only 49 of them. Neither the Calgary International Airport, nor CanJet completed the questions relating to web sites. (See Table 2 in Appendix B.)
9In keeping with the Communication Code, the survey defined reservations, information or services related to the successful execution of a trip as including the purchase of tickets; the provision of personalized travel information such as ticket information; information regarding the location of services within the terminal and when and where transportation departs; the services and/or equipment that would be available in transit to accommodate a passenger’s needs; and information on where to retrieve luggage and where subsequent transportation may be arranged.
10After the completion of the survey, the Agency initiated a compliance activity to assist transportation service providers with the development of multiple format policies. As a result, to date, 33 service providers have submitted multiple format policies that comply with the provisions of the Communication Code. These results were reported April 1, 2009 and can be found on the Agency’s Web site at: www.cta.gc.ca
10 The questionnaire focussed on the accessibility of Web sites according to the W3C guidelines (guidelines) at the Priority 1 level, of which there were 16.11 Compliance rates relate only to those guidelines that apply to that organization’s Web site.12 Some Web sites are simpler than others and thus, fewer guidelines would apply to them.
Also, the compliance rates should not be interpreted as a representation of the total accessibility of the web sites. The rates expressed are merely representations of the responses provided and are not adjusted to reflect factors such as the relative size of the Web sites, the amount of information presented, the relative importance of the information, Web site usage, or the relative significance of the W3C [Priority 1] guidelines.
Given the highly technical nature of Web programming, there is an increased likelihood that some of the survey questions may have been misunderstood. In some of these instances, the responses provided may have been incorrect. The Agency did not conduct an independent evaluation of the respondents’ Web sites.
Results of the 2004 survey among all service providers were widely spread and poor overall.13
Air Carriers Five smaller carriers reported full compliance with the few guidelines that applied to their Web sites; namely, Kelowna Flightcraft, Labrador Airways, Les Investissements Nolinor, Pacific Coastal, and Voyageur Airways. Two additional smaller carriers, Provincial Airlines and First Air, reported full compliance for 88% (7/8) and 78% (7/9) of the guidelines throughout their Web sites, respectively.
The larger carriers (Air Canada/Air Canada Jazz, and WestJet) reported poor performances. Each reported that they complied with 20% or less of the guidelines and that they addressed few or none of the guidelines in respect of 63-66% of the provisions.
11The guidelines explain how to make Web content accessible to persons with disabilities. Priority levels are based on their impact on accessibility. A Priority 1 guideline should be satisfied or one or more groups will find it impossible to access information in the document. Priority 1 guidelines are basic requirements for some groups to be able to use Web documents.
12Some guidelines are not applicable to all Web sites. For example, a guideline requiring row and column headers on data tables is not applicable to a Web site without data tables.
13The Agency is aware, however, that several service providers have made significant modifications to the accessibility of their Web sites since the completion of this survey.
11 Airports
Charlottetown reported being in compliance for all 12 of the applicable guidelines whereas Kelowna and Thunder Bay both stated that they were in compliance for 7/8 (88%) of the applicable guidelines. Of the busier airports, the reported combined “comply” and “mostly comply” rate for the Toronto Airport and the Montreal Airport was 63% each, and a combined rate of 62.5% (10/16) compliance rate for the Vancouver Airport.
Rail Carriers and Terminal Operators
Algoma reported the greatest level of compliance, 100%, for the three guidelines that applied to its Web site. In contrast, VIA, whose web sites are significantly more complex, reported that 11 out of the16 guidelines applied for 2 of their 3 web sites. VIA submitted that they were compliant with 50% (15/30) of those guidelines for all 3 Web sites combined, and mostly compliant with another 23% (7/30).
Ferry Carriers and Terminal Operators
Marine Atlantic reported that their web site did not address 40% of the guidelines at all, and that another 27% (4/15) of the guidelines were addressed in less than half of their Web site.14 Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported that 31% (5/16) of the guidelines were not addressed at all, and another 50% were addressed in less than half of their Web site.
Web-based information related to the successful execution of a trip should also be made available by other means of communication upon request.
While the reported accessibility of the Web sites varied greatly, almost all (96%) reported that they offered Web-based information by other means of communication upon request. Northumberland/Bay Ferries and the Kelowna International Airport were the two organizations reporting non-compliance with this criteria.15
1.3 Transportation-Related Dispensing Machines and Automated Information Kiosks
14Since the completion of the survey, Marine Atlantic has reported that their Web site conforms to the W3C accessibility requirements.
15Since the completion of the survey, Kelowna International Airport has developed a multiple format policy and therefore, information could be made available by other means of communication upon request.
12 As of June 1, 2009, where dispensing machines or computerized information kiosks are used to provide a transportation-related product or service, at least one of those machines in each separate service area should allow a person who uses a wheelchair, is blind or visually impaired, has a speech impairment or is Deaf or hard of hearing, to use the machine independently and securely.
PREVALENCE OF DISPENSING MACHINES
Ten survey participants - 7 NAS airports16, 2 major air carriers and 1 passenger rail carrier - reported operating three types of dispensing machines in 2004: automated check-in kiosks, automated information kiosks, and automated pay parking machines. Of the 330 automated dispensing machines reported in use by participants, the number of automated check-in kiosks (292) vastly outnumbered pay parking machines (26) and automated information kiosks (12). See Table 3 in Appendix B.
The air industry accounted for 89% (260/292) of the check-in kiosks operated in 2004, while VIA Rail operated 11% (32/292). Of the air industry check-in kiosks, Air Canada/Air Canada Jazz was operating 32% (82/260), Toronto Airport 27% (70/260), Vancouver Airport 16% (42/260), Montreal Airport 15% (40/260), and WestJet 10% (26/260).
The two major air carriers in Canada - Air Canada/Air Canada Jazz, and WestJet - were the only air carriers to report using dispensing machines. Air Canada/Air Canada Jazz reported using its 82 check-in machines in 7 airports, whereas WestJet reported using its 26 machines in 4 airports.
VIA was the sole passenger rail carrier to report operating dispensing machines, operating its 32 automated check-in kiosks in 17 different terminals in Ontario and Québec. None of the marine carriers reported operating automated dispensing machines.
16The airports are part of the National Airports System (NAS) that is comprised of 25 national airports linking Canada from coast to coast who are essential to Canada’s air transportation system. The NAS handles 95% of air travellers in Canada and includes airports serving the national, provincial and territorial capitals as well as airports with annual traffic of 200,000 passengers or more.
13 ACCESSIBILITY OF DISPENSING MACHINES
Consistent with the Communication Code, the survey defined an accessible machine as one that has features specifically designed to address the needs of persons who use wheelchairs, who are blind or visually impaired, who have a speech impairment or are Deaf or hard of hearing. It also means that the machines can be used both securely and independently by persons with various types of disabilities (see Table 4 in Appendix B).
The overall accessibility rate of dispensing machines was very high for persons who use wheelchairs, persons with speech impairments, persons who are deaf, and persons who are hard of hearing. However, all but one of the respondents (Toronto Airport) reported that their dispensing machines were not accessible to persons who are blind and half of respondents reported that they were not accessible to persons with a visual impairment.
Accessible dispensing machines and information kiosks are to be appropriately identified with the international symbol of access.
Respondents reported that virtually none of the transportation-related dispensing machines were identified with the international symbol of access. Only St. John’s International Airport reported having 3 automated information kiosks identified with international symbols of access.
Prior to introducing any transportation-related dispensing machines or information kiosks, consultation with organizations of and for persons with disabilities should be held to make them as accessible as possible.
Of the 10 survey participants that reported using dispensing machines or automated information kiosks, 70% reported that they complied with this provision. Three respondents (Moncton Airport, Thunder Bay International Airport and VIA) reported that they did not consult with organizations of and for persons with disabilities before installing their automated dispensing machines.
Where a transportation-related dispensing machine or information kiosk has not yet been made accessible to persons with disabilities, then an equivalent level of service is to be provided to those persons who are unable to use the dispensing machine or information kiosk independently.
All participants reported that they complied with this provision of the Communication Code, except for Thunder Bay International Airport , which indicated that it did not provide an equal level of service to persons who are unable to independently use its automated information kiosk.
14 1.4 Telecommunication Systems for Reservations and Information Transportation service providers who use telephone lines for reservations, information or any services related to the successful execution of a trip are to provide an equal level of service to passengers with disabilities through the use of alternative communication systems, such as a TTY line.17
Compliance with this criteria was very high. Of the 50 organizations that participated in the survey, 44 (88%) reported full compliance with this criteria, while only 3 reported non- compliance (Jetsgo, Kelowna International Airport, and Iqaluit Airport). In addition, 3 organizations reported that they did not use telephone lines for reservations, information or services (Les Investissements Nolinor, Yellowknife Airport and Québec North Shore and Labrador Railways).
Of the 46 organizations that offered information or reservations through an alternative communication system, 44 (96%) reported offering email facilities, the exceptions being the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and the Thunder Bay International Airport Authority. In addition, 38 (83%) reported offering facsimile facilities. There were 9 (20%) organizations that offered information and reservations through a TTY. These organizations were: Air Canada/Air Canada Jazz, First Air, WestJet, Halifax International Airport, Vancouver International Airport, Winnipeg International Airport, VIA Rail, Marine Atlantic, and Northumberland/Bay Ferries.
Ground transportation service providers are also to provide alternative communication systems, such as a TTY line, to ensure equal access to reservation and information lines. It is the responsibility of the terminal operator to ensure that ground transportation service providers provide these facilities by specifying these requirements in the terms of their contracts or by other means.
Air Terminals
Contracts or permits with ground transportation services providers were the norm amongst air terminals. Of the 25 air terminals that participated in the survey, 24 reported having contracts or permits with ground transportation service providers (Iqaluit reported that it did not). However, Vancouver International Airport was the only air terminal to report that their
17Alternative Communication Systems (ACS) are defined in the Communication Code as systems which facilitate communication, such as TTYs and compatible devices which operate via phone and cable lines (such as fax and electronic mail), as well as pagers and personal digital assistants (such as Palm Pilots©), which operate via infra- red or satellite.
15 contracts specified that the ground transportation service provider had to provide alternative communication systems, such as a TTY line, to ensure equal access to reservation and information lines.
Rail Terminals
Contracts or permits with ground transportation service providers was the exception in the rail mode. Only 6 of the 38 VIA terminals were reported to have contracts with ground transportation service providers. VIA submitted that the ground transportation service providers who operate from Toronto’s Union Station do not offer an information or reservation line and, as such, this provision of the Communication Code does not apply. At the remaining 5 terminals where this provision was applicable, VIA reported that contracts with the ground transportation service providers did not require equal access to reservation and information lines through alternative communication systems.
Ferry Terminals
None of the ferry terminals reported having contracts or permits with ground transportation service providers.
Information on how to access alternative communication systems is to be clearly indicated in all publications, promotions, advertisements, Web sites or other information products where telephone numbers are listed.
Generally, the carriers reported compliance with the provision, while the terminal operators did not. Those organizations that offered reservations and information through email or fax reported that they tended to comply with these provisions of the Communication Code.
Four organizations reported that they did not clearly indicate how to access their alternative communication system: Air Inuit, Jetsgo, Pacific Coastal Airlines, and the Winnipeg International Airport. Of the 44 organizations that reported offering reservations and information through email, 38 (86%) reported that their email address was clearly indicated wherever their phone number was listed. Of the 38 organizations that reported offering reservations and information through fax, 32 (84%) reported that their fax number was also clearly indicated.
Of the 9 organizations that offered reservations and information through a TTY, five (56% - Air Canada/Air Canada Jazz, First Air, WestJet, VIA Rail, and Marine Atlantic) reported that they clearly indicated their TTY number everywhere their telephone numbers were listed. The four organizations that reported not clearly indicating their TTY numbers were Halifax International Airport, Vancouver International Airport, Winnipeg International Airport, and Northumberland/Bay Ferries.
16 When automated voice messaging systems are used on reservation or information lines, a readily accessible link to a live operator should be prominently featured and/or the option of leaving a message to have the call returned should be provided. The option to have automated messages or menus repeated should also be provided.
Respondents reported a total of 41 phone lines where automated voice messaging systems were used. A readily accessible link to a live operator was reported being available on 32 (78%) of those systems. The option of leaving a message to have the call returned was available on 16 (39%) of the systems. Both options were available on 11 (27%) of the systems. Of the 41 automated voice messaging systems that were used, 22 (54%) offered the option to have automated messages or menus repeated.
Automated voice messaging systems are not accessible to TTY users. As such, all information and service available through these systems are to be available by using an alternative communication system.
All respondents reported full compliance with this criteria.
Alternative communication systems are to be properly maintained and kept in good working order. Reservation and information operators should be trained in the proper use of this equipment.
All respondents indicated that their alternative communication systems were properly maintained, and that operators were properly trained.
Section 2: Terminal Provisions
2.1 Telecommunication Systems in Terminals Provisions relating to telecommunication systems in terminals provide minimum standards for the location and number of accessible phones, alternative communication systems (ACS), and directional signage.
Where public telephones are provided, terminal operators ensure that there is an adequate number of accessible public telephones that allow a person who uses a wheelchair, is blind or visually impaired, has a speech impairment, or is Deaf, deafened or hard of hearing, to use the [telephone] independently.
17 For the purposes of this survey, an accessible telephone was defined as a phone having one or more of the following features: a raised dot on the 5JKL button, a graduated volume control, a level shelf, or positioning for use by a person in a wheelchair.
Respondents indicated that a high proportion of public telephones were accessible.
Airports Nine airports reported that 90% of the more than 2,000 phones in their terminals were accessible. Sixteen of the twenty-five (16/25) air terminals reported that all of their public telephones were accessible, and 18 had at least one accessible phone in each passenger service area. Iqaluit was the only airport that reported having no accessible telephones.
Rail Terminals Eighty-seven percent (87%) of the 224 phones in rail terminals were reported as being accessible. VIA reported that all of the phones in 33 of its 38 terminals (86%) were accessible. Toronto’s Union Station was reported to have 39/48 accessible public telephones (81%), and Montreal’s Gare Central reported having 14/28 accessible public telephones (50%). In terms of the location of these phones, each of these two terminals had at least one passenger service area in which none of the phones were accessible.
Ferry Terminals Participating ferry operators reported that all of the telephones in their terminals were accessible.
At least one accessible public telephone (including a TTY or other alternative communication system) is to be provided in each separate unrestricted and restricted departure and arrival area, 24-hours a day. At a minimum, public alternative communication systems are to be located in each of the following areas if public telephones are provided: arrival and departure areas, boarding gate or track areas, baggage claim areas and corridors leading to each of these areas.
Airports Of the 25 air terminals that participated in the survey, 20 (80%) reported having a TTY (see Table 5 in Appendix B). In total, 22 (88%) air terminals reported providing an ACS while 3 (12%) reported they did not (Saint John, Yellowknife, and Whitehorse airports) (see Table 5 in Appendix B).
Only eight of the 25 participating terminals reported having an ACS in each of the required passenger service areas. 6 (24%) reported having an ACS in at least two-thirds of the required areas, another 6 (24%) in at least half or less than half of the required areas, 2 (8%) reported having public ACS but not in required areas, and 3 (12%) reported not having a public ACS (see Table 6 in Appendix B).
18 Terminals 1 and 3 at the Toronto Airport, the Vancouver International Airport, and the MacDonald-Cartier International (Ottawa) Airport all reported that they were highly compliant with this provision, having an ACS in each of the required passenger service areas and in some areas where the Communication Code does not explicitly require one. The Montreal and Charlottetown Airports reported having an ACS, but not in any of the required areas.
Rail Terminals VIA was the only rail terminal operator that reported providing an ACS in their terminals. 33/42 (79%) of all rail terminals reported having passenger service areas in which an ACS was required. Five (15%) terminals reported having an ACS in each of the required areas, 5 (15%) reported having an ACS in half or less than half of the required areas, 5 (15%) reported having an ACS but not in the required areas, and 18 (55%) reported that an ACS was not provided (see Table 6 in Appendix B). While the survey did not break down the results based on the size of terminals, the number of VIA terminals with one room is significant and could explain the reason why so many terminals (18) did not provide an ACS.
Ferry Terminals Marine Atlantic reported having a public TTY in each of its terminals. Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported having a public alternative communication system in its Wood Islands terminal.
Accessible telephones and TTYs are to be clearly identified using the international symbol of access or the identification symbol for TTYs. Signs providing direction to public telephones are also to provide direction to the nearest TTY or alternative communication system using the appropriate symbol. Also, where a bank of regular telephones is not equipped with an alternative communication system, directional signage indicating the location of the nearest device is to be placed adjacent to this bank, using the appropriate symbol.
Many terminals did not identify the accessible phone with the international symbol of access because all of the phones in the terminal were reported as being accessible.
Participants reported that 92% of TTYs were identified using the international symbol of access or the identification symbol for TTYs, but that alternative communication systems other than TTYs were not identified in 85% of the cases (see Table 7 in Appendix B). This could be because it is not generally realized that ACS such as Internet kiosks are accessible means of communication.
In addition, participants reported that signs providing direction to the nearest public telephone did not usually provide direction to the nearest alternative communication system. They further reported that there were few signs adjacent to telephone banks
19 providing direction to the nearest alternative communication system (see Table 8 in Appendix B).
Airports Of the 25 air terminals, Winnipeg was the only air terminal to report that all of its signs indicating the direction to the nearest public telephone also indicated the direction to the nearest alternative communication system (see Table 8 in Appendix B).
Rail Terminals VIA reported that 10 (53%) of their 19 TTYs were identified with the international symbol of access or the identification symbol for a TTY, but that none of their other alternative communication systems were identified with these symbols (see Table 7 in Appendix B).
VIA also reported that none of its 8 rail terminals that had signs providing direction to the nearest telephone also provided direction to the nearest ACS (see Table 8 in Appendix B).
Ferry Terminals Ferry terminals did not identify accessible phones with the international symbol of access because all of the public telephones in the terminals were reported as being accessible.
Ferry terminal operators reported that none of their TTYs used the international symbol of access or the identification symbol of a TTY, and that there was no signage indicating the location of the nearest public telephone (see Table 7 in Appendix B).
Similarly, none of the telephone banks in Marine Atlantic’s Port-Aux-Basque terminal were reported to have an adjacent sign indicating the location of the nearest public alternative communication system, but one of the telephone banks in the North Sydney terminal had the required adjacent sign (see Table 8 in Appendix B).
Terminal operators are to ensure alternative communications systems are properly maintained and kept in good working order.
All respondents reported that public alternative communication systems were properly maintained and kept in good working order.
2.2 Signage Signage that is provided in all public areas of terminals is to be accessible to all passengers. The application of the Canadian General Standards Board Passenger Information Symbols Standard (CAN/CGSB-109.4-200) is encouraged, as it will ensure the uniform application of accessibility criteria for signage. (Safety and crew
20 signage are regulated by Transport Canada and therefore are not covered by these specifications.)
Overall, persons with disabilities are more likely to find accessible signage in busier airports than in rail or ferry terminals (e.g. signs having letters and number symbols that are glare free with high contrasting colours, use of font with width-to-height ratio on signs, large enough characters to be viewed from intended distance, and characters large enough to be viewed from intended distance).
Signs used for washrooms, emergency exits, elevators, stairwells, doors or passageways off main corridors and for gate, track or departure area numbers are to include Braille and tactile symbols. For those signs that do not include text, tactile symbols are to be used.
Airports There was a low level of compliance reported with parts of this provision. Signs with Braille and/or tactile symbols for emergency exits, stairwells, doors or passageways of main corridors, and departure areas were reported in less than 30% of the passenger service areas where they were required. Signs with Braille for elevators were reported to be found in 73% of the passenger service areas and for washrooms in 42% of the passenger service areas. Signs with tactile symbols for elevators were reported to be found in 67% of the passenger service areas and for washrooms in 50% of the passenger service areas.
The four highest compliance reports, having both tactile and Braille signage, came from the Toronto Airport, St. John’s International Airport, Victoria International Airport, and the Ottawa Airport.
Rail Terminals VIA was the only rail terminal operator to report having tactile signs or Braille. However, VIA’s terminals tended not to have signs with tactile symbols and/or Braille except for elevators and washrooms.
Ferry Terminals Marine Atlantic’s Port-aux-Basque was the only terminal that reported having substantially addressed the provision for signs with Braille and/or tactile symbols, having them for all washrooms, elevators, stairwells and emergency exits. Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported having signs with tactile symbols for all washrooms in their Wood Islands terminal. See Table 9 for data.
Signs are also to be provided at other key decision-making points and are to be positioned at eye level (1.5 metres +/- 25 mm above the floor), wherever possible. Signs are also to be positioned to avoid shadow areas and glare.
21 Airports 56% of airports reported that all signs were positioned to avoid shadow areas and glare, and 32% reported that a majority of their signs were positioned in this manner.
Rail Terminals VIA reported a wide spectrum of compliance with this criteria, ranging from full compliance to terminals where shadows and glare was problematic in a number of different passenger service areas. Strong performers included Vancouver and Winnipeg where all signs were reportedly positioned to avoid shadow areas and glare.
Ferry Terminals Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported that all of the signs in their Wood Islands terminal were positioned to avoid shadow areas and glare while Marine Atlantic reported that the majority of their signs were positioned in this manner.
Signs located at a doorway should be on the wall to the right of the door, with the centre at a height of 1.5 metres +/- 25 mm above the floor.
Airports Compliance with this provision was reported to be very high for those who responded to the question. Only 8 (32%) of the 25 air terminals responded; however, all of them reported that all or many of their signs were located at the required height and to the right of the door.
Rail Terminals Rail terminals’ compliance with this signage provision was very low. VIA reported that it did not provide this type of accessible signage, or that the provision did not apply to passenger service areas in its terminals. The exception to this rule could be found in VIA’s Kingston terminal, which reported that all or many of its signs were located at the required height and to the right of the door in its passenger service areas.
Ferry Terminals Ferry terminals also reported a very low level of compliance. Marine Atlantic submitted that none of its passenger service areas in its three terminals provided signs at the required height or to the right of the door. Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported that only a few of the signs were accessible in this manner.
Letters, numbers, symbols and pictographs are to be glare-free and presented in high contrasting colours (i.e. a light colour on a dark background or a dark colour on a light background, with light on dark being preferable).
22 Airports A high level of compliance was reported with this provision. 64% of air terminals reported that all of the letters, numbers, symbols, and pictographs on their signs were glare-free and presented in high contrasting colours. An additional 32% reported that these criteria were addressed in most cases.
Rail Terminals VIA reported a wide spectrum of compliance with this criteria, ranging from full compliance, to terminals where glare and colour contrasting was problematic in a number of different passenger service areas. However, the only terminal to report that less than half of its signs were compliant was Brockville, Ontario.
Ferry Terminals Both participating ferry terminals reported full compliance.
The font for letters is to be sans serif and numbers are to be arabic. Letters and numbers should have at least a width-to-height ratio between 3:5 and 1:1 and a stroke-width-to-height ratio between 1:5 and 1:10.
Airports Air terminals reported a high level of compliance with these provisions. 64% reported full compliance and 24% reported compliance in most cases. The one exception was Terminal 3 at the Toronto Airport , which reported lower levels of compliance.
Rail Terminals VIA generally reported high compliance. Although sans serif fonts were reportedly used in less than half of the signs in 14% of the passenger service areas, the remaining criteria were reportedly met on more than half of the signs in at least 99% of the passenger service areas.
Ferry Terminals Marine Atlantic reported full compliance with these criteria, with one exception. The transportation-related signs in the Argentia Terminal were reported to not use arabic numerals. Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported that signs in the Wood Islands terminal were fully compliant.
Letters, numbers, symbols and pictographs are to be at least 200 mm high for a maximum viewing distance of 6 metres, 100 mm high for a maximum viewing distance of 2.5 metres and 50 mm high for a maximum viewing distance of 1.5 metres.
23 Airports Airports tended to report that signs in their terminals have letters, numbers, symbols, and pictographs that were sufficiently large to be easily viewed from the intended distance, with few exceptions.
Rail Terminals VIA terminals reported an even distribution of compliance levels between the extremes of full compliance in Winnipeg, and none of the signs in half of the passenger service areas in Brantfort and Guildwood having this quality.
Ferry Terminals All ferry terminals reported that all signs had letters, numbers, symbols, and pictographs that were sufficiently large to be easily viewed from the intended distance.
Tactile signs (where letters, numbers and symbols can be read by touch) are to be used for general orientation and specific information signage. When tactile signs or markers are used, letters, numbers, symbols and pictographs should be raised at least 0.8 mm and should be between 16 mm and 50 mm high. If a tactile sign is mounted on a wall, its centre should be 1.5 metres +/- 25 mm above the floor.
Airports The majority of air terminals who reported having tactile signs (11/17 or 65%) reported full compliance with these criteria.
Rail Terminals VIA reported tactile signs in 12 terminals, with full compliance in Cornwall and Winnipeg, but no compliance in Montreal and Aldershot. VIA also reported that each of these criteria were not addressed in roughly half of the passenger service areas where tactile signs were reported.
Ferry Terminals Marine Atlantic reported that none of the tactile signs in their terminals were located 1.5m (+/- 25mm) above the floor. Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported that few of the tactile signs in their Wood Islands terminal had characters that were raised 0.8 mm and that none of their tactile signs were located 1.5m (+/- 25mm) above the floor.
Signs supplemented with Braille are to be used as often as possible. Braille text should be placed so that it can be easily reached and in a consistent position at the bottom of the sign. Grade one Braille should be used for signs with ten words or less. Grade two Braille should be used for signs with more than ten words. Braille signs are to conform to the standards of the Canadian Braille Authority in English and in Braille intégral that meets the standards of the Comité interministériel sur la normalisation du Braille in French.
24 Airports Of the 16 air terminals that reported having Braille signs, all reported that Braille text was placed so that it could be easily reached and in a consistent position at the bottom of the sign, with exceptions. Gander reported non-compliance with this criteria, while St. John’s reported that less than half of it signs were compliant.
Additionally, all air terminals reported full compliance with the criteria related to the English and French Braille standard and the use of grade one and grade two Braille, with three exceptions. Calgary Airport, Terminal 1 at Toronto Airport, and Halifax Airport reported that grade one Braille was not always used on signs with ten words or less.
Rail Terminals Six VIA rail terminals reported having Braille signs: Cornwall, Fallowfield, Jasper, London, Vancouver, and Winnipeg. The Braille signs in these terminals were reportedly compliant, except in Vancouver, where the Braille text was noted to be often not placed at the bottom of the sign.
Ferry Terminals Marine Atlantic reported Braille signs in their North Sydney and Port-aux-Basque terminals. These signs were reported to be fully compliant with the above noted criteria.
2.3 Public Announcements in Terminals Public announcements related to the successful execution of a trip are to be provided in both audio and visual formats in all passenger service areas inside the terminal. These announcements include, but are not limited to: information concerning departure delays, gate or track assignments and schedule or connection changes.
Air Carriers In general, air carriers reported that they provided either all or the majority of their announcements in audio formats, but only 6/21 (29%) air carriers reported that all of their announcements were provided in a visual format. Air Canada/Air Canada Jazz submitted that a majority of their announcements were presented visually, whereas Air Transat and WestJet both reported that less than half of their announcements were made in a visual format.
Air Terminals 23/25 (92%) air terminals reported that a majority, if not all, of their public announcements were provided in audio formats. The two exceptions were Kelowna International Airport, which reported that audio announcements were only made in the departures lounge and airside corridor, and Iqaluit airport, which reported that it provided announcements only in visual formats.
25 Four (16%) air terminals provided all public announcements in visual formats, while nine air terminals did not provide announcements in visual formats (36%). All remaining participants (48%) provided some, but not all announcements in visual formats.
Rail Terminals VIA reported that all or many of its public announcements made in their terminals were provided in audio formats.
The only VIA terminals that reported providing all or many announcements in visual formats were Québec, Vancouver, and Winnipeg (3/38 or 8%).
Ferry Terminals Both Marine Atlantic and Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported that all the announcements made in their terminals were made in audio formats.
Marine Atlantic reported that all of the announcements made in their Argentia terminal were provided in visual formats; the majority of the announcements made in their Port-Aux- Basques terminal were provided in visual formats; and less than half of the announcements made in their North Sydney terminal were provided in visual formats. Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported that none of their announcements were provided in visual formats.
Public announcements are to be of good quality, in plain language, with clear enunciation and spoken slowly enough to be easily understood. Messages should be repeated. Prerecorded messages are to be used as often as possible to improve the clarity of announcements.
Air Carriers Air carriers reported that all of announcements that they made were in plain language, and clearly enunciated, with few exceptions. Air Canada/Air Canada Jazz, Air Creebec, Air North, and Skyservice reported that a majority (not all) of their announcements were clearly enunciated.
WestJet and Air Creebec reported that less than half of their announcements were repeated. Otherwise, air carriers reported that the majority, if not all of their announcements were repeated.
Only six carriers - Air Canada, Air Inuit, First Air, Jetsgo, Les Investissement Nolinor, and Air Transat - reported using pre-recorded messages.
Airports Airports generally reported that all of their announcements were made in plain language, and were clearly enunciated. The Montreal Airport, however, reported that none of its announcements were made in plain language. 14/19 airports (74%) indicated a majority, if not all announcements were repeated. 7/19 (37%) airports reported using pre-recorded messages.
26 Rail Carriers/Terminal Operators VIA reported that all of their announcements were in plain language, and clearly enunciated in all terminals, though less than half were repeated. VIA also reported using pre-recorded messages.
Ferry Carriers/Terminals Operators Both Marine Atlantic and Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported that their announcements were made in plain language, clearly enunciated, and repeated. Both reported using pre- recorded messages.
See Table 10 for data on public announcements.
2.4 Arrival/Departure Monitors and Other Electronic Signage Prevalence of Monitors 23 air terminals reported using 1,927 monitors. Four airports reported using 84% of monitors, while the remaining monitors were used by19 terminals. Vancouver International Airport reported the most monitors with 787 (41%), followed by the Montreal Airport with 342 (18%), the Toronto Airport with 266 (14%), and the Calgary International Airport with 209 (11%). Rail and ferry passengers were less likely to see monitors. VIA reported having a total of 74 monitors in 20 terminals, while Marine Atlantic reported having a total of 5 monitors, in 2 terminals (see Table 11 in Appendix B).
Prevalence of Electronic Signs Electronic signs were reported in 12 (48%) air terminals including the Vancouver International Airport, the Montreal Airport, the Toronto Airport and the Ottawa Airport. VIA reported using electronic signs in 23 (61%) of its terminals. None of the ferry carriers reported having electronic signs (see Table 11 in Appendix B).
Some or all monitors are to be installed at eye level (1.5 metres above the floor +/- 25mm) in each area where monitors are used.
Accessibility of Monitors and Electronic Signs While air and rail terminals reported some compliance with this provision, as some of their monitors were installed at eye level, ferry terminals reported non-compliance, as none (0/5) of their monitors were installed at eye level. (see Table 11 in Appendix B).
27 The information displayed on the monitors is to be in plain language that is easy to read, avoiding acronyms where possible.
All air, rail and marine terminals that reported having monitors indicated that the information displayed on the monitors was presented in plain language that was easy to read, avoiding acronyms where possible. There were two exceptions. VIA reported that this was not the case in its Cornwall and Montreal terminals where acronyms are used.
When monitors or other electronic signs are used, good colour contrasting is to be provided, such as light colour on a dark background or a dark colour on a light background, with light on dark being preferable. Monitors are to be positioned to avoid glare. Red lettering on a black background is not to be used. Scrolling, flashing or dot matrix text also create accessibility barriers for some users and are to be avoided, where possible.
Airports 19/23 air terminals with monitors reported that a majority, if not all, of their monitors were colour contrasted and glare free. For the most part, electronic signs in the airports were reported to be well colour contrasted. Of the fifteen airports with electronic signs, only 2 (13%) terminals reported insufficient contrasting (Toronto Airport - Terminal 2 and Kelowna International Airport in the baggage retrieval area). Red characters on a black background were reportedly avoided in 6/12 (50%) of the terminals that used electronic signs. Scrolling, flashing, or dot matrix text was reportedly avoided by 8/12 (66%) of terminals that used electronic signs (see Table 11 in Appendix B).
Rail Terminals VIA reported that 14 of 20 terminals had monitors that were colour contrasted and glare free, and that 16 of 23 terminals had all or many of its signs colour contrasted. VIA further reported that red lettering on a black background was avoided in 4/23 (17%) of its terminals (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Fallowfield) using electronic signage. Only the Vancouver terminal (1/23 or 4%) was reported by VIA to avoid using scrolling, flashing, or dot matrix text in their electronic signage (see Table 11 in Appendix B).
Ferry Terminals Marine Atlantic reported that its monitors were both colour contrasted and glare free. They reported having no electronic signs. Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported having neither monitors nor electronic signs.
2.5 Information on Ground Transportation Where information on ground transportation is available, terminals operators are to specify in their contracts with ground transportation service providers that:
28 a) accessible directional signage is to be placed at the arrival area indicating the location of each type of available ground transportation;
b) information is to made available in multiple formats about the choices of ground transportation available at the terminal, including schedules and prices. Alternatively, the terminal is to ensure that personal services are provided to passengers who require this information.
Only one air, and no rail contracts with ground transportation service providers required them to provide schedules in multiple format or to provide personal services.
Airports 24/25 air terminals reported having contracts with ground transportation service providers. 20 of these (83%) reported providing accessible directional signage to indicate the location of each type of ground transportation. Four (17%) air terminals reported that there was not directional signage indicating the location of each type of available ground transportation.
Regarding the provision of information on the choices of ground transportation available at the terminal in multiple formats, Terminals 1 and 2 at the Toronto Airport, Ottawa Airport, and Saint John’s International Airport reported that they did provide multiple formats. Also, the Ottawa Airport was the only one to report that ground transportation service providers also provided schedules and prices in multiple formats.
Terminal 1 and 2 at the Toronto Airport also reported that 100% of their contracts with ground service providers that charge for their services and provide schedules state that personal services have to be provided. Edmonton airport and Toronto airport (Terminals 1 and 2) were the only ones to report that ground transportation service providers were required to provide personal service to passengers who require information about the choices of ground transportation available at the terminal. However, personal service was reported at 16 air terminals.
Rail Terminals VIA reported having contracts with ground transportation service providers at 6 terminals. The choices, schedules and prices of ground transportation service providers were not made available in multiple formats at any of their terminals. Furthermore, VIA reported that none of their contracts with ground transportation service providers specified that schedules and prices were to be made available in multiple formats, or that personal service was to be provided. However, personal service was reported at the Dorval terminal.
Ferry Terminals None of the ferry terminals reported entering into contracts with ground transportation service providers.
29 2.6 Designated Seating at Boarding Gates and Departure Areas Where seating is provided, designated seating for passengers with disabilities is to be provided at boarding gates and departure areas within viewing distance of communications boards and/or personnel and identified by the universal symbol of access.
Airports The majority of the larger airports reported designated seating in all or most of the required areas (56% or 14/25). However, 44% (11/25) of air terminals reported that they did not provide designated seating in any of the required areas.
Rail Terminals VIA reported providing designated seating for passengers with disabilities at only 5% of boarding gates and departure areas within viewing distance of communications boards and/or personnel.
Ferry Terminals Marine Atlantic and Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported that designated seating was not available in any of the required passenger service areas. Though not required, Marine Atlantic did, however, report offering designated seating in the cafeteria of its Argentia terminal.
See Table 12 for data.
Section 3: On-Board Communication
3.1 Communication of Equipment Features
Upon request, crews on-board aircraft, rail cars and ferries are to give oral, written or visual information about the equipment features of the vehicle or the vessel to passengers with disabilities.
All service providers reported that the level of compliance with this criteria was high.
Air Carriers All air carriers reported that their crews gave oral information, written information, and visual information to passengers with disabilities regarding the equipment features of the vehicle when requested to do so, with three exceptions. Air Transat reported that a majority of their crew gave written information; CanJet reported that less-than-half of their crew gave visual information, and Air North reported that none of their crew gave written information.
30 Seven carriers reported that regular print, graphic, or video products regarding the equipment features on their aircraft were available in multiple formats (Air Canada/Air Canada Jazz, WestJet, Air Creebec, Air North, Calm Air, Corporate Express Airlines, and Voyageur Airways).
Rail Carriers All rail carriers reported that crews were prepared to give oral information, written information, and visual information to passengers with disabilities regarding the equipment features of their cars upon request. None offered print, graphic, or video products regarding the equipment features of their cars and so were not required to provide these materials in multiple formats.
Ferry Carriers Marine Atlantic reported that crews were prepared to give oral information, written information, and visual information to passengers with disabilities regarding the equipment features of their vessels, and that print, graphic, or video products regarding the equipment features of their ferries were available in multiple formats. Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported that crews were prepared to give oral information. However, information was not available in multiple formats given that the carrier does not offer information in regular print, graphic, or video products regarding the equipment features of their vessels.
3.2 Safety Videos Carriers are to ensure that all information presented in on-board safety videos in a visual format be described verbally, and that all audible information be presented visually.
All air carriers and one ferry carrier reported that all information presented in on-board safety videos in a visual format was described verbally, and that all audible information was presented visually.
Air Carriers All seven of the air carriers that reported using on-board safety videos reported being fully compliant with this criteria of the Communication Code. Those carriers were Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz, Air Transat, CanJet, Harmony Airways, Skyservice, and Zoom Airlines.
Rail Carriers Passenger rail carriers reported that they did not use on-board safety videos.
31 Ferry Carriers Both Marine Atlantic, and Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported using on-board safety videos. Marine Atlantic reported being fully compliant with this criteria, while Northumberland/Bay Ferries reported that they did not present visual information verbally or audible information visually.
Section 4: Carrier Overviews
This section presents the reported performances of the larger rail and air carriers in Canada, or those with over 3 million domestic passengers in 2004. Two air carriers and one rail carrier fit this selection criteria: Air Canada/Air Canada Jazz and WestJet, and VIA Rail.
4.1 Air Canada/Air Canada Jazz According to the Aviation Statistics Centre of Statistics Canada, Air Canada/Air Canada Jazz (AC/Jazz) carried 26.5 million passengers in 2004, thus making it Canada’s largest carrier in 2004.
AC/Jazz reported high compliance levels with respect to the accessibility of automated dispensing machines for persons with speech or hearing impairments, and to alternative communications systems offering information and reservations, such as e-mail, fax and TTY.
AC/Jazz also reported high compliance levels with respect to the accessibility of their public announcements in terminals, as at least a majority were provided in both audio and visual formats, were clearly enunciated, were made in plain language, were spoken slowly enough to be understood, and were repeated.
In addition, the carrier reported that crew gave oral, written and visual information upon request. Regular print, graphical or video products were also reported to be available in multiple formats upon request.
Areas to Improve Based on its self-reported responses in 2004, AC/Jazz needs to develop a multiple format policy18; improve the accessibility of its Web sites and make automated dispensing machines more accessible to persons who use wheelchairs and to persons who are blind or visually impaired.
18Since the completion of the survey, Air Canada has developed a multiple format policy which complies with the Communication Code.
32 4.2 WestJet According to the Aviation Statistics Centre, Westjet transported 6.8 million passengers in 2004 and ranked as the second busiest carrier in Canada in 2004.
WestJet reported high compliance levels with respect to the accessibility of automated dispensing machines for persons with speech or visual or hearing impairments and persons using wheelchairs. WestJet also reported high compliance with respect to the accessibility of alternative communications systems offering information and reservations, such as e- mail, fax and TTY.
In addition, the accessibility of WestJet’s public announcements in terminals was reported as high, given that all announcements were reported to be in audio formats and plain language, with clear enunciation and spoken slowly enough to be easily understood.
Areas to Improve Based on its self-reported responses in 2004, WestJet needs to make automated dispensing machines more accessible to persons who use wheelchairs and to persons who are blind; and provide announcements in visual formats and repeat them.19
4.3 VIA Rail According to Transport Canada, VIA carried 3.9 million passengers in 2004, making it Canada’s largest passenger rail carrier in 2004.
VIA’s responses revealed that they have three Web sites which are the most complex Web sites of the passenger rail carriers, and that these Web sites have an average reported accessibility rate of 55%, the highest of the three modes. VIA also reported high levels of compliance with respect to offering information and reservations through alternative communications systems such as e-mail and TTY, and by using automated voice messaging systems which prominently featured a readily accessible link to a live operator, and the option to have automated messages or menus repeated.
A great majority (87%) of the public telephones in VIA terminals reportedly had features making them accessible and were almost all located in the passenger service areas where phones were provided. Over half (59% or 17/29) of VIA’s terminals had a public alternative communication system in the required areas (arrival or departure area, in a boarding gate or track area, or in baggage claim areas or corridors leading to these areas), although only a small number (17% or 5/29) had one in each of the required passenger service areas.
19Since the completion of the survey, WestJet has developed a multiple format policy which complies with the Communication Code, and indicated that it has made improvements to the accessibility of its Web site.
33 VIA reported high compliance with respect to the provision of announcements in audio format, made in plain language clearly enunciated, spoken slowly enough to be easily understood, and pre-recorded as often as possible.
VIA is the only rail terminal operator to report having tactile or Braille signs. VIA reported having tactile signs in 12 terminals and the use of Braille compliant with both English and French standards in 6 of its 38 (16%) terminals.
VIA reported having 74 monitors in 20 terminals, predominantly in larger city centres, and electronic signs in 23 terminals. VIA also reported that signage in public areas of terminals was accessible to most passengers as a majority of its monitors and electronic signs were colour contrasted, and glare free. VIA reported that its crews were prepared to give oral, written, and visual information regarding equipment features.
VIA: Areas to Improve Based on its self-reported responses in 2004, VIA needs to develop a multiple format policy; improve compliance for various signage criteria20; provide accessibility of its automated check-in kiosks to persons who are blind or visually impaired; make announcements in visual formats and repeat them; provide monitors at eye level; and reduce the use of red lettering and scrolling/flashing text on electronic signs. VIA’s public announcements should be repeated, and offered in visual formats.
Section 5: Terminal Overviews
This section presents the performances of the Canadian air terminals with the most air carrier traffic, those handling over 4 million enplaned/deplaned passengers for domestic travel in 2004. Four air terminals fit this selection criteria: Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Calgary.
5.1 Lester B. Pearson International Airport The Lester B. Pearson International Airport (Toronto) is composed of 3 terminals where over 27 million passenger were enplaned/deplaned in 2004, making it Canada’s busiest airport in 2004.
Toronto reported providing a Web site that was fairly complex and reasonably accessible. Eleven of the sixteen (11/16) Priority 1 W3C guidelines apply to its Web site, and 7/11 or 64% of those guidelines were addressed completely or in a majority of the Web site, while 4/11 or 36% of those guidelines were addressed in less than half of the Web site or not at all.
20Since the completion of the survey, VIA Rail has developed a multiple format policy which complies with the Communication Code and indicated that it has improved the accessibility of its signage.
34 Toronto reportedly uses the most automated check-in kiosks of all the airports and their reported level of accessibility is high, except for persons who are blind. However, the airport indicated that it provided an equivalent level of service for persons who were not able to use the kiosks independently. In addition, of the 10 participants who reported using transportation-related dispensing machines, Toronto was one of the seven who reported that they consulted with organizations of and for persons with disabilities prior to introducing any of the dispensing machines.
Toronto’s reported compliance with provisions related to ground transportation service providers was mixed. While Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 reported that information on the choices of ground transportation available at the terminal was provided in multiple formats, Terminal 3 reported that it was not. None of the terminals reported that their contracts with ground transportation service providers who use telephones for reservations or information are to provide an equal level of service to persons with disabilities.
Toronto reported a high rate of compliance for its accessible telecommunication systems for information, and reported having the most public telephones (793 in 3 terminals). It was the only major airport to report that less than all of them (93%) met the accessibility requirements (Vancouver, Montreal, & Calgary had 100% accessibility). However, the accessible public telephones that it did have were dispersed so that Toronto reported offering an accessible phone in almost all (97%) required passenger service areas.
Of the three terminals at Toronto, Terminal 1 reported the highest level of compliance for accessible signage. Terminal 1 reported complete compliance with virtually all of the Communication Code’s provisions for accessible signage, including having signs with tactile symbols and Braille for all washrooms, emergency exits, elevators, stairwells, and departure areas.
Terminal 1 also reported a higher level of compliance with public announcements than the other two terminals. It reported that a majority of the announcements made in the terminal were provided in audio formats, and all announcements were provided in visual formats. Terminal 2 and 3 both reported that all announcements are provided in audio formats, and none in video formats. All terminals reported that announcements were provided in plain language, were clearly enunciated and spoken slowly enough so as to be clearly understood.
Toronto reported using 266 arrival/departure monitors, and complied with the Communication Code’s requirement to install some of them at eye level at Terminal 1 (39% or 66/169), but were not compliant at Terminal 2 (4% or 3/73) or Terminal 3 ( 0% or 0/24). As well, all terminals reported compliance with the provision that information displayed on the monitors be in plain language that is easy to read, colour contrasted and glare-free.
Toronto exceeded the Communication Code’s requirement for designated seating for persons with disabilities in that each terminal reported having designated seating in each of the required passenger service areas, and in some passenger service areas where
35 designated seating was not required. In addition, all of the designated seats were reported to be within viewing distance of a communication board or personnel in Terminals 1 and 3, while many of the designated seats were reportedly within viewing distance in Terminal 2.
Areas to Improve
Based on its self-reported responses in 2004, Toronto could improve its compliance with the Communication Code by developing a multiple format policy21, making its Web site more accessible and making its 21 automated check-in kiosks in Terminal 2 accessible to persons who are blind. Also, it could specify in contracts with ground transportation service providers that they are to provide alternative communication systems to ensure equal access to reservation and information lines.
Furthermore, Toronto should ensure that telephone banks not equipped with an alternative communication system have an adjacent sign indicating the direction to the nearest alternative communication system. Terminals 2 and 3 could improve compliance with signage criteria, and provide announcements in video formats. More arrival/departure monitors could be installed at eye level in Terminals 2 and 3.
5.2 Vancouver International Airport In 2004, over 14 million passengers were enplaned/deplaned at Vancouver International Airport (Vancouver), making it Canada’s second busiest airport in 2004.
Vancouver reported having one Web site and of the 16 W3C guidelines that applied to the Web site, 10 guidelines were fully addressed, another 4 were addressed in a majority of the Web site, and the other 2 were addressed in the minority of the Web site.
Vancouver reported the second highest number of automated check-in kiosks after Toronto Airport. Similar to Toronto, the automated machines were accessible to persons with disabilities, except for persons who are blind.
Vancouver airport reported a high level of compliance with respect to telecommunications systems. It was the only air terminal to report that its contracts with ground transportation service providers which offer reservation and information telephone lines specify that they should provide an equal level of service through an alternative communication system, such as a TTY line.
Vancouver reported having the second largest number of public telephones, after Toronto, all of which were reported to meet the Communication Code’s accessibility provisions. A
21Since the completion of the survey, Toronto has developed a multiple format policy which complies with the Communication Code
36 public alternative communication system was reportedly available in the required passenger service areas, and TTYs were generally identified with appropriate signage.
Generally, Vancouver reported being highly compliant with the signage criteria, with the exceptions of signs with tactile symbols and Braille. For example, Vancouver reported that in 68% of their passenger service areas, there are no signs with tactile symbols, and in 75% of their passenger service areas, there are no signs with Braille.
Vancouver reported that all of their public announcements were provided in audio formats, and that a majority were provided in video formats. All announcements were reported to be provided in plain language, and a majority were reported to be clearly enunciated and spoken slowly enough so as to be clearly understood, and repeated. Pre-recorded messages were not used.
Vancouver reported having the most arrival/departure monitors, with 787 monitors, and their reported level of compliance was high. That is, at least one monitor in each of the passenger service area where monitors were provided was reportedly placed at eye level. Information displayed on the monitors was reported to be in plain language.
Information relating to ground transportation available at the terminal was not reported to be available in multiple formats, although personal services were provided. Vancouver reported that its contracts with ground transportation service providers did not require that schedules and/or prices be made available in multiple formats.
At the Vancouver airport, designated seating for persons with disabilities was reportedly provided in 3 of the 4 passenger service areas where it was required. Where designated seating was provided, it was within viewing distance of a communications board and/or personnel.
Areas to Improve
Based on its self-reported responses in 2004, Vancouver needs to develop a multiple format policy22, improve the accessibility of its Web site and improve the accessibility of automated check-in kiosks for persons who are blind. Information on how to access the TTY should be clearly indicated in all publications, promotions, and other information products where their telephone number is listed. Vancouver could ensure that signage indicating the direction to the nearest telephone also provides direction to the nearest alternative communication system. Red lettering on a black background, and scrolling, flashing, or dot matrix text should be avoided on electronic signs. Contracts with ground transportation service providers should require that information be provided in multiple formats or that personal services be provided.
22Since the completion of the survey, Vancouver has developed a multiple format policy which complies with the Communication Code.
37 5.3 Pierre E. Trudeau International Airport In 2004, 9.5 million passengers were enplaned/deplaned at the Pierre E. Trudeau International Airport (Montreal), making it Canada’s third busiest airport in 2004.
Montreal’s Web site reportedly addressed more than half of the accessibility guidelines (62%).
Montreal was the only other airport besides Toronto and Vancouver to report using automated dispensing machines. Similar to these other airports, Montreal’s automated check-in kiosks were not accessible to persons who are blind or visually impaired, but an equivalent level of service was reportedly provided.
With respect to the provisions related to contracts with ground transportation service providers and with information on ground transportation, Montreal reported non-compliance for both.
All of Montreal’s public telephones were reported to have features designed to make them more accessible. Montreal also reported having 15 public TTYs and 2 other public alternative communication systems. These machines were reportedly in the check-in area only, and so were not in all the required passenger service areas.
According to its self-reporting, Montreal’s signs were accessible, tending to avoid shadow areas and glare, and have characters and/or symbols that were glare free. The signs were reported to use an appropriate font and were appropriately positioned.
Montreal’s public announcements were reported to be available in audio formats, but not in visual formats. Furthermore, Montreal reported that announcements were not provided in plain language, and that few messages were repeated. However, Montreal reported using pre-recorded messages where possible.
Montreal reported that none of its 342 monitors were installed at eye level. However, information displayed on monitors reportedly used plain language, avoiding acronyms where possible, and used good colour contrasting. In addition, the monitors were reported to be accessible as a majority avoided glare, did not display red lettering on a black background, and avoided scrolling, flashing, or dot matrix text where possible.
Montreal complied with the provisions on designated seating at boarding gates and departure areas. It reported having designated seating in each of the required areas, and within viewing distance of communications boards and/or personnel.
Areas to Improve: Based on its self-reported responses in 2004, Montreal could improve the accessibility of its Web site. It could also improve its compliance with the Communication Code by
38 developing a multiple format policy23, making its automated check-in machines accessible to persons who are blind or visually impaired, and by consulting organizations of and for persons with disabilities before installing such dispensing machines. Montreal’s ground transportation service providers could be required through contract or permit to provide an equivalent level of service through an alternative communication system. Montreal could also have public alternative communication systems in each of the required areas, with signage directing passengers to this accessible equipment.
Washrooms, emergency exits, elevators, stairwells, doors or passageways of main corridors, and departure areas in Montreal could have signs with tactile symbols. Announcements could be made in visual formats, in plain language, and could be repeated. Information on ground transportation could be provided in multiple formats. The provision for personal services could be required by contracts or permits with ground transportation service providers.
5.4 Calgary International Airport Calgary International Airport (Calgary) was Canada’s 4th busiest in 2004, having enplaned and deplaned 8.7 million passengers in 2004.
The accessibility of Calgary’s Web site(s) or automated dispensing machines is unknown, given that it did not provide any responses to the related questions. Calgary’s compliance level with respect to telecommunications systems and ground transportation service providers was low as it reported that none of its 18 ground transportation service providers who use telephone lines for reservations or information were required by contract or permit to provide an equal level of service through an alternative communication system.
Calgary’s reported compliance with respect to telecommunications systems in terminals was better, as it reportedly offered information through a telephone line, email, fax, and an automated voice messaging system on the information line, featuring a readily accessible link to a live operator.
All of Calgary’s public telephones were reported to have a feature that made them more accessible. In addition, public alternative communication systems were reportedly offered in 5/6 (83%) of the required passenger service areas except for International Arrivals. Also, more than half (60%) of the public TTYs in the terminal were reportedly identified with an accessibility symbol.
Calgary’s compliance with the Communication Code’s signage provisions was good. All signs in Calgary were reportedly positioned to avoid shadow areas and glare, had characters and/or symbols that were glare free and colour contrasted, and used an appropriate font and arabic numerals. Calgary also reported that a majority of the signs had
23Since the completion of the survey, Montreal has developed a multiple format policy which complies with the Communication Code
39 characters and/or symbols that were sufficiently large to be seen from the intended distance.
Calgary reported a high level of compliance with respect to public announcements, reporting that it provided all public announcements in audio formats, in plain language, with clear enunciation, and spoken slowly enough so as to be easily understood, with repetition.
Calgary also reported a high level of compliance concerning its 209 arrival/departure monitors in 8 different passenger service areas, with 7 areas having monitors installed at eye level. Information displayed on monitors was reported to be presented in plain, easy-to- read language, avoiding acronyms where possible, appropriately colour contrasted, and most positioned to avoid glare.
Calgary further reported that it provided designated seating for persons with disabilities in each passenger service area required by the Communication Code, and within viewing distance of communications boards and /or personnel.
Areas to Improve:
Based on its self-reported responses in 2004, Calgary needs to develop a multiple format policy24, provide an option to repeat automated messages and menus on the automated voice messaging system, and improve its directional signage at telephone banks, indicating the location of the nearest public alternative communication systems. In addition, contracts with ground transportation service providers who use telephone lines could specify that an equal level of service is to be provided through alternative communication systems.
Calgary airport could ensure that signs with tactile symbols and Braille are located at all washrooms, emergency exits, stairwells, doors or passageways off main corridors, and departure areas. It could provide public announcements in visual formats.
In addition, contracts and permits with ground transportation service providers could specify that accessible directional signage could be placed at the arrival area indicating the location of each type of available ground transportation. Furthermore, Calgary could ensure that information about the choices of ground transportation, schedules and prices are to be made available in multiple formats.
24Since the completion of the survey, Calgary has developed a multiple format policy which complies with the Communication Code
40 Conclusions and Next Steps
This survey has produced some benchmark data reflective of the state of compliance in 2004. The results reveal that there were and likely still are some areas where improvements are needed.
At the time that this benchmark survey was undertaken, the Agency employed a monitoring methodology that consisted of a series of self-reporting surveys, beginning with a benchmark survey, followed by surveys to assess compliance at the time of implementation of the codes and subsequently, to measure improvements in compliance. The Agency has since reviewed this approach and, finding it time-consuming and wanting to increase the focus on compliance, developed a new methodology.
This new methodology reflects a two-pronged approach which consists of conducting monitoring activities to assess the level of compliance by industry and, at the same time, working with industry to increase their level of compliance with Agency accessibility standards. Where needed, the Agency will consult with persons with disabilities to achieve this end. This new approach provides a basis for engagement with stakeholders and is designed to be flexible and take into account changing issues and priorities.
The Agency has carefully examined the results of this survey and is using this information to focus its efforts on the provisions of the Communication Code for which compliance was lowest, as well as on the carriers and terminals which did not respond to the survey, or to certain questions in the survey.
The provisions of the Communication Code for which compliance was lowest were the following: • 1.2 Web Site Accessibility25 • 1.3 Transportation-related Dispensing Machines and Automated Information Kiosks • 1.4 Telecommunication Systems for Reservations and Information (alternative communication systems in passenger service areas) • 2.2 Signage (use of Braille and tactile symbols on signs in public areas of rail terminals) • 2.3 Public Announcements in Terminals (provided in visual format) • 2.5 Information on Ground Transportation
In addition, none of the participants had a multiple format policy in place in 2004, and since the survey was completed, there have been improvements and technological advances made with respect to accessible communication for persons with disabilities travelling in the
25Since the survey was conducted, the W3C guidelines have been updated. The Agency will, therefore, re-assess how it will follow-up on the issue of Web site accessibility.
41 federal transportation system. The majority of participants have since developed a multiple format policy.
The Agency recognizes the fundamental importance of effective communication of transportation-related information for persons with disabilities in achieving the goal of an accessible federal transportation system. The Agency will be focussing its efforts and working with its stakeholders to achieve this important goal, by developing guidance material and tools to assist industry in improving its compliance with the foregoing provisions of the Communication Code.
The Agency will ensure that stakeholders are kept informed by publicly reporting on the results of its efforts.
42 Appendix A: Definitions
The following definitions were presented in the 2004 Communication Code Monitoring Surveys:
An Accessible Machine means a dispensing machine that has features specifically designed to address the needs of persons with disabilities. The relevant technical specifications of the Canadian Standards Association's B651.1-01 Barrier Free Design for Automated Banking Machines provides examples of such features.26
An Accessible Telephone means a public telephone that may be used independently by a person who uses a wheelchair, is blind or visually impaired, or is hard of hearing. An accessible phone may have one or more of the following features: a raised dot on the 5JKL button, a graduated volume control, have a level shelf, or be positioned for use by a person in a wheelchair.
An Alternative Communication System is a public system which facilitates communication, such as TTYs (teletypewriters or "text phones") and compatible devices which operate via phones and cable lines (such as fax machines and electronic mail), as well as pagers and personal digital assistants (such as Palm Pilots©), which operate via infra-red or satellite. TTYs are currently a widely used alternative communication system used by Persons who are Deaf or speech impaired. It is recognized, however, that new, emerging technologies may also provide an equivalent service.
A Carrier includes airlines, passenger rail carriers and passenger ferry operators.
A Dispensing Machine means an automated dispensing machine or computerized information kiosk used to provide a product or service that is related to the successful execution of a trip, such as paying airport improvement fees and express check-in kiosks. This does not include machines such as food or beverage machines, newspaper dispensers or tourist information kiosks.
An Equipment Feature of a vehicle is an element designed for use by passengers while on-board the vehicle, excluding those features specific to vehicle safety. Equipment features include, but are not limited to call buttons, light switches, tray tables, vents, and washroom facilities.
An Electronic Sign is a low resolution screen capable of presenting simple characters and symbols
26B651.1-01 is a 2007 standard that contains technical specifications regarding Accessible Design for Self-Service Interactive Devices, and was not available at the time the survey was conducted. Ground Transportation Service Providers include taxis, limousines, motor coaches, shuttle buses and rental vehicle companies that operate from a terminal under contract or permit with the terminal operator.
Multiple Formats are formats that substitute or complement conventional print and video products and that address the communication needs of persons with visual and hearing disabilities and persons with cognitive disabilities. These include: computer diskette or electronic copy, large print, audio tape, Braille, captioned video, sign language video and described video.
A Monitor is a high resolution screen capable of presenting detailed images.
A Passenger Service Area means an area inside a terminal where passengers must interact with transportation service provider personnel, or where facilities related to the successful execution of a trip are located.
A Public Travel Announcement is a public announcement related to the successful execution of a trip. These announcements include, but are not limited to: information concerning departure delays, gate or track assignments and schedule or connection changes.
Reservations, Information or Services Related to the Successful Execution of a Trip includes, but is not limited to, purchasing tickets, personalized travel information including ticket information, where services are located in the terminal, when and where transportation departs, the services and/or equipment that will be available in transit to accommodate a passenger's needs, where to retrieve luggage, and where subsequent transportation may be arranged.
Tactile Signs are general orientation and specific information signs that have characters or symbols that can be read by touch. This includes signs where characters or symbols are embossed, engraved, elevated, or are otherwise detectable by touch. Tactile signs may also feature a tactile language such as Braille.
A Web site is a collection of inter-linked web pages presented under a common domain on the World Wide Web by your organization providing information, reservations, or any services related to the successful execution of a trip, for use by the general public. Level of Compliance Definitions
Many questions in the Carrier and Terminal Questionnaires were presented in a multiple-choice format. The four choices for the level of compliance: "All"; "Many"; "Few"; and, "None", were defined as follows:
All meant almost all, or greater than or equal to 90%.
Many meant a majority of, or greater than or equal to 50%, but less than 90%.
Few meant a minority of, or greater than or equal to 10%, but less than 50%.
None meant almost none, or less than 10%. Appendix B: Data Tables
TABLE 1A: 50 Participating Organizations in Alphabetical Order Air Air Rail Rail Ferry Ferry Carrier Terminal Carrier Terminal Carrier Terminal 1 Air Canada/Air Canada Jazz 1 2 Air Creebec 1 3 Air Inuit 1 4 Air North 1 5 Air Transat 1 6 Algoma Central Railway 1 1 7 Calgary International Airport 1 8Calm Air 1 9 Canadian North 1 10 CanJet Airlines 1 11 Charlottetown Airport 1 12 Corporate Express Airlines 1 13 Edmonton International Airport 1 14 First Air 1 15 Fredericton Airport 1 16 Gander International Airport 1 17 Greater Moncton International Airport 1 18 Halifax International Airport 1 19 Harmony Airways 1 20 Hawkair 1 21 Iqaluit Airport 1 22 Jean Lesage International Airport 1 23 Jetsgo 1 24 Kelowna Flightcraft 1 25 Kelowna International Airport 1 26 Labrador Airways 1 27 Les Investissement Nolinor 1 28 Lester B. Pearson International Airport 3 29 MacDonald-Cartier (Ottawa) International 1 Airport 30 Marine Atlantic 1 3 31 Northumberland / Bay Ferries 1 1 32 Pacific Coastal Airlines 1 33 Pierre E. Trudeau International Airport 1 34 Prince George International Airport 1 35 Provincial Airlines 1 36 Québec North Shore and Labrador Railway 1 3 37 Regina International Airport 1 38 Saint John Airport 1 39 Skyservice Airlines 1 40 St. John's International Airport 1 41 Thunder Bay Airport 1 42 Vancouver International Airport 1 43 VIA Rail 1 38 44 Victoria International Airport 1 45 Voyageur Airways 1 46 WestJet Airlines 1 47 Whitehorse Airport 1 48 Winnipeg International Airport 1 49 Yellowknife Airport 1 50 Zoom Airlines 1 Totals of Participants in the Survey 22 25 3 42 2 4 TABLE 1B: 6 Non-Participating Organizations in Alphabetical Order Air Air Rail Rail Ferry Ferry Carriers Terminal Carrier Terminal Carrier Terminal 1 Amtrak 1 2 Groupe Coopérative de Transport Maritime et 12 Aérien 3 London International Airport 1 Northumberland / Bay Ferries (outstanding 4/5 terminals) 4 Saskatoon Airport Authority 1 5 Transwest Air 1 6 Woodward Group of Companies 1 2 Totals of Non-Participants in the Survey 1 2 1 028
TABLE 1C: Grand Totals for the 56 Organizations Subject to the Communications Code Air Air Rail Rail Ferry Ferry Carriers Terminals Carriers Terminals Carriers Terminals Totals of All Organizations Subject 23 27 4 42 4 12 to the Code TABLE 2: Reported Compliance with Web site Guidelines
Participants # of Web # of # of Guidelines on Requested sites Applicable Participant’s Web site that Info Not submitted Reported W3C Priority complied with the 16 W3C for Web 1 Guidelines Priority 1 Guidelines site on Web site (out of a possible 16) AIR CARRIERS All Many Few None 1 Air Canada/ Jazz 3 11 2 2 3 4 2 Air Creebec 0 n/a 3 Air Inuit 1 16 3 1 1 11 4 Air North 1 8 4 1 1 2 5 Air Transat 1 7 2 1 1 3 6 Calm Air 1 16 0 0 0 16 7 Canadian North 1 10 2 1 3 4 8 CanJet Airlines 1 1 9 Corporate Express Airlines 1 16 7 4 3 2 10 First Air 1 9 7 2 0 0 11 Harmony Airways 2 8 5 1 2 0 12 Hawkair 1 9 2 1 1 5 13 Jetsgo 1 14 8 1 1 4 14 Kelowna Flightcraft 1 5 5 0 0 0 15 Labrador Airways 1 8 8 0 0 0 16 Les Investissement Nolinor 1 6 6 0 0 0 17 Pacific Coastal Airlines 1 11 11 0 0 0 18 Provincial Airlines 1 8 7 0 0 1 19 Skyservice Airlines 1 11 2 7 1 1 20 Voyageur Airways 1 3 3 0 0 0 21 WestJet Airlines 1 15 3 2 6 4 22 Zoom Airlines 1 16 3 2 4 7 AIR TERMINALS 23 Calgary International Airport 1 1 24 Charlottetown Airport 1 12 12 0 0 0 25 Edmonton International Airport 1 15 4 3 1 7 26 Fredericton Airport 1 12 6 5 0 1 27 Gander International Airport 1 16 2 0 2 12 28 Greater Moncton Int’l Airport 1 11 7 3 1 0 29 Halifax International Airport 1 9 4 3 1 1 30 Iqualuit Airport 0 n/a 31 Jean Lesage Int’l Airport 1 12 3 0 3 6 32 Kelowna International Airport 1 8 7 0 0 1 33 Lester B. Pearson Int’l Airport 1 11 3 4 3 1 34 Ottawa Int’l Airport 1 10 5 4 0 1 35 Pierre E. Trudeau Int’l Airport 1 16 7 3 2 4 36 Prince George Int’lAirport 1 10 7 0 0 3 37 Regina 1 13 4 5 3 1 38 Saint John Airport 1 12 4 3 0 5 39 St. John’s International Airport 1 11 4 2 1 4 40 Thunder Bay Airport 1 8 7 0 0 1 41 Vancouver International Airport 1 16 10 4 2 0 42 Victoria International Airport 1 10 5 1 3 1 43 Whitehorse Airport 1 14 3 2 3 6 44 Winnipeg International Airport 1 11 9 1 1 0 45 Yellowknife Airport 0 n/a
TOTAL AIR (Carriers & Terminals) 45 444 20 69 53 119 2
RAIL CARRIERS AND TERMINALS
46 VIA - reservia.viarail.ca 1 8 4 1 1 2 VIA - viapreference.ca 1 11 7 1 2 1 VIA - viarail.ca 1 11 4 5 0 2 47 Algoma 1 3 3 0 0 0 48 Quebec North 0 n/a TOTAL RAIL 4 33 18 7 3 5 0
MARINE CARRIERS AND TERMINALS
49 Marine Atlantic 1 15 1 4 4 6 50 Northumberland/Bay Ferries Ltd. 1 16 2 1 8 5 TOTAL MARINE 2 31 3 5 12 11 0
22 GRAND TOTALS ALL MODES 51 508 81 68 135 2 4 TABLE 3: Reported Prevalence of Dispensing Machines Operating by Entity and Mode
Participants Automated Automated Automated Totals Check-in Kiosks Information Pay Parking Kiosks Machines AIR CARRIERS 1 Air Canada/ Jazz 82 82 2 WestJet 26 26 AIR TERMINALS 3 Greater Moncton Airport 2 2 4 Montreal Airport 40 40 5 St. John’s International Airport 3 3 6 Thunder Bay Airport 1 1 7 Toronto Airport 70 8 78 8 Vancouver International Airport 42 18 60 9 Winnipeg International Airport 6 6 TOTAL AIR CARRIERS & TERMINALS 260 12 26 298
RAIL CARRIERS AND TERMINALS 10 VIA 32 32 TOTAL RAIL CARRIERS & TERMINALS 32
ALL MARINE CARRIERS & 0000 11 TERMINALS
GRAND TOTALS 292 12 26 330 TABLE 4: Reported Accessibility of Dispensing Machines by Entity and Mode
The automated machine can reportedly be used securely and Participants independently by persons who persons who persons persons persons use are blind with with speech who are wheelchairs visual impairments deaf or impair- hard of ments hearing AIR Air Canada/Jazz 100% - securely 0% 0% 100% 100% 1 - 82 check-in 0%- kiosks independently WestJet 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 2 - 26 check-in kiosks Moncton Airport 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 3 - 2 pay parking machines Montreal Airport 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 4 - 40 check-in kiosks St. John’s Int’l 100% 0% 0% 0% 33% Airport 5 - 3 information kiosks Thunder Bay 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% Airport 6 - 1 information kiosk Toronto Airport 100% 70% - securely 70% 100% 100% 7 - 70 check-in 38% - kiosks independently 100% 100% - securely 100% 100% 100% - 8 info kiosks 0% - independently Vancouver 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% International Airport 8 - 42 check-in kiosks - 18 pay parking 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% machines Winnipeg 33% 0% 0% 100% 100% International Airport 9 - 6 pay parking machines RAIL VIA 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 10 - 32 check-in kiosks
11 MARINE n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a TABLE 5: Reported Alternative Communications Systems Operated by Participating NAS Airports
NAS Airports Reported number of Total reported number TTYs of alternative communications systems (includes TTYs) 1 Calgary International Airport 5 15 2 Charlottetown Airport 1 3 3 Edmonton International Airport 10 19 4 Fredericton Airport 2 2 5 Gander International Airport 2 2 6 Greater Moncton Int’l Airport 0 4 7 Halifax International Airport 9 13 8 Iqualuit Airport 1 1 9 Jean Lesage Int’l Airport 0 1 10 Kelowna International Airport 2 2 11 Lester B. Pearson Int’l Airport - Terminal 1 29 47 Lester B. Pearson Int’l Airport - Terminal 2 14 14 Lester B. Pearson Int’l Airport - Terminal 3 24 24 12 Ottawa Int’l Airport 13 16 13 Pierre E. Trudeau Int’l Airport 15 17 14 Prince George Int’lAirport 2 2 15 Regina International Airport 2 2 16 Saint John Airport 0 0 17 St. John’s International Airport 1 1 18 Thunder Bay Airport 2 2 19 Vancouver International Airport 34 53 20 Victoria International Airport 1 1 21 Whitehorse Airport 0 0 22 Winnipeg International Airport 8 8 23 Yellowknife Airport 0 0 TOTAL ALL NAS AIRPORTS 177 249 Table 6: Reported Compliance with Alternative Communication Systems in Passenger Service Areas
Mode of % reporting an % reporting that % reporting % reporting TOTAL Transportation Alternative 2/3 or more of that half or having no Communication their passenger less than half ACS in any System (ACS) service areas of their required in each required have an ACS passenger area or no passenger service areas ACS at all service area have an ACS
Air Terminals 32% 24% 24% 20% 100%
Rail Terminals 12% 0% 12% 76% 100%
Ferry Terminals 25% 0% 75% 0% 100%
TOTALS - Avg 23% 8% 37% 32% 100% TABLE 7: Reported Compliance with Signage Criteria for TTYs and Alternative Communications Systems (ACS) in Passenger Service Areas
Participating Terminals Reported # of ACS Reported # of TTY’s other than TTY being clearly that are identified identified with appropriate signage
AIRPORT TERMINALS 1 Calgary International Airport 0/10 - 0% 3/5 - 60% 2 Charlottetown Airport 0/2 - 0% 0/1 - 0% 3 Edmonton International Airport 9/9 - 100% 10/10 - 100% 4 Fredericton Airport N/A 1/2 - 50% 5 Gander International Airport N/A 2/2 - 100% 6 Greater Moncton Int’l Airport 0/4 - 0% N/A 7 Halifax International Airport 0/4 - 0% 3/9 - 33% 8 Iqualuit Airport N/A 0/1 - 0% 9 Jean Lesage Int’l Airport 0/1 - 0% N/A 10 Kelowna International Airport N/A 2/2 - 100% 11 Lester B. Pearson Int’l Airport - Terminal 1 0/18 - 0% 29/29 - 100% Lester B. Pearson Int’l Airport - Terminal 2 N/A 14/14 - 100% Lester B. Pearson Int’l Airport - Terminal 3 N/A 24/24 - 100% 12 Ottawa Int’l Airport 0/3 - 0% 13/13 - 100% 13 Pierre E. Trudeau Int’l Airport 2/2 - 100% 15/15 - 100% 14 Prince George Int’l Airport N/A 2/2 - 100% 15 Regina International Airport N/A 2/2 - 100% 16 St. John’s International Airport N/A 1/1 - 100% 17 Thunder Bay Airport N/A 2/2 - 100% 18 Vancouver International Airport 0/19 32/34 - 94% 19 Victoria International Airport N/A 0/1- 0% 20 Winnipeg International Airport N/A 8/8 - 100% AIR TERMINALS AVERAGE 11/72 = 15% 163/177 = 92% RAIL TERMINALS 1 VIA - Bathurst, NB N/A 0/1- 0% 2 VIA - Belleville, ON N/A 0/1 - 0% 3 VIA - Dorval, QC 0/1 - 0% N/A 4 VIA - Edmonton, AB N/A 1/1 - 100% 5 VIA - Halifax, NS N/A 0/1 - 0% 6 VIA - Kingston, ON N/A 0/1 - 0% 7 VIA - London, ON N/A 1/1- 100% 8 VIA - Moncton, NB N/A 0/4 - 0% TABLE 7: Reported Compliance with Signage Criteria for TTYs and Alternative Communications Systems (ACS) in Passenger Service Areas (Continued)
Participating Terminals Reported # of ACS Reported # of TTY’s other than TTY being clearly that are identified identified with appropriate signage RAIL TERMINALS (continued) 9 VIA - Montreal, QC 0/2 - 0% 1/1 - 100% 10 VIA - Niagara Falls, ON N/A 1/1 - 100% 11 VIA - Ottawa, ON 0/1 - 0% 0/1 - 0% 12 VIA - Québec, QC N/A 1/1 - 100% 13 VIA - Ste Foy, QC N/A 1/1 - 100% 14 VIA - Toronto, ON 0/3 - 0% 2/2 - 100% 15 VIA - Vancouver, BC 0/1 - 0% N/A 16 VIA - Windsor, ON N/A 1/1 - 100% 17 VIA - Winnipeg, MB N/A 1/1 - 100% AVERAGE FOR RAIL TERMINALS 0/8 = 0% 10/19 = 53%
FERRY TERMINALS 1 Marine Atlantic - Argentia N/A 0/1 - 0% 2 Marine Atlantic - North Sydney N/A 0/1 - 0% 3 Marine Atlantic - Port Aux Basques N/A 0/1 - 0% 4 Northumberland/Bay Ferries - Wood Islands, PEI 0/1 - 0% N/A
AVERAGE FOR FERRY TERMINALS 0/1 = 0% 0/3 = 0% Table 8: Reported Compliance with Signage Providing Direction to the Nearest ACS
Participating Terminals Reported % of signs Reported % of public phone providing direction to banks not equipped with an nearest public phone also ACS providing adjacent providing direction to directional signs to nearest nearest ACS ACS All Many Few None All Man Few None AIR TERMINALS y 1 Calgary International Airport N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% 100% 2 Edmonton International Airport N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% 100% 3 Fredericton Airport N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100 0% 0% 0% 100% 4 Greater Moncton Int’l Airport % 5 Halifax International Airport N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 100 0% 0% 0% 100% 6 Iqualuit Airport % Lester B. Pearson Int’l Airport - 0% 0% 0% 100 100% 0% 0% 0% 7 Terminal 1 % Lester B. Pearson Int’l Airport - 0% 0% 60% 40% 0% 0% 75% 25% 8 Terminal 2 Lester B. Pearson Int’l Airport - 0% 0% 0% 100 0% 0% 0% 100% 9 Terminal 3 % 10 Ottawa Int’l Airport 33% 33% 0% 33% 33% 0% 0% 67% 11 Pierre E. Trudeau Int’l Airport 0% 25% 75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 Prince George Int’l Airport % 13 Regina International Airport 0% 0% 17% 83% 0% 0% 0% 100% 14 St. John’s International Airport 0% 0% 25% 75% 0% 0% 0% 100% 15 Thunder Bay Airport 0% 0% 0% 100% 16 Vancouver International Airport 33% 0% 17% 50% 38% 38% 0% 23% 0% 0% 0% 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 17 Victoria International Airport % 100 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 18 Winnipeg International Airport % AVG for AIR TERMINALS 13% 4% 15% 68% 17% 2% 9% 72% Table 8: Reported Compliance with Signage Providing Direction to the Nearest ACS (Continued)
Participating Terminals Reported % of signs Reported % of public phone providing direction to banks not equipped with an nearest public phone also ACS providing adjacent providing direction to directional signs to nearest nearest ACS ACS All Many Few None All Man Few None RAIL TERMINALS y 19 VIA - Dorval, QC N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% 100% 20 VIA - Edmonton, AB 0% 100 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 21 VIA - Halifax, NS N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% 100% 22 VIA - Kingston, ON N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% 100% 23 VIA - London, ON 0% 0% 11% 89% N/A N/A N/A N/A 24 VIA - Moncton, NB 0% 0% 0% 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 25 VIA - Montreal, QC 0% 0% 20% 80% 0% 0% 0% 100% 26 VIA - Niagara Falls, ON 0% 0% 0% 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 27 VIA - Ottawa, ON 0% 0% 0% 100 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100 0% 0% 0% 100% 28 VIA - Toronto, ON % 29 VIA - Vancouver, BC N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% 100% 30 VIA - Windsor, ON N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 31 VIA - Winnipeg, MB % AVG for RAIL TERMINALS 0% 12% 4% 84% 0% 0% 0% 100%
FERRY TERMINALS All Many Few None All Man Few None 32 Marine Atlantic - North Sydney N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 100 0% 33 Marine Atlantic - Port Aux Basques N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% 100% AVG for FERRY TERMINALS N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 50% 50% Table 9: Signs Used for Washrooms, Emergency Exits, Elevators, Stairwells, Doors or Passageways off Main Corridors that Include Braille or Tactile Symbols
# Providing Braille in # Providing Tactile Symbols in Passenger Service Areas Passenger Service Areas where where Required Required
AIR TERMINALS 16/25 or 64% 17/25 or 68%
FERRY TERMINALS 2/4 or 50% 3/4 or 75%
RAIL TERMINALS 6/42 or 14% 12/42 or 29%
Table 10: Public Announcements
# Providing all or many # Providing all or many announcements in audio announcements in visual format format
AIR TERMINALS 23/25 or 92% 12/25 or 48%
FERRY TERMINALS 4/4 or 100% 2/2 or 50%
RAIL TERMINALS 34/3427 or 100% 3/38 or 8%
27VIA Rail reported that this provision did not apply to 4 of their 38 terminals. Table 11: Reported Compliance for Arrival/Departure Monitors and other Electronic Signage
Participating Terminals # of # of Accessibility of Monitors and Electronic Monitors Electronic Signs in Terminals in Terminal Signs in Terminal
# of Is red lettering Are Monitors on black scrolling, Installed background flashing & at Eye avoided on dot matrix AIR TERMINALS Level electronic text avoided signage? on electronic signage? 1 Vancouver International Airport 787 3 102 No No Pierre E. Trudeau International 342 4 0 Yes Yes 2 Airport (Montreal) 3 Calgary International Airport 209 0 85 N/A N/A Lester B. Pearson International 169 9 66 Yes Yes 4 Airport (Toronto - Terminal 1) 5 Edmonton International Airport 90 8 12 No Yes Lester B. Pearson International 73 4 3 No No 6 Airport (Toronto - Terminal 2) 71 3 0 No (Check-In No (Check- Area) In Area) 7 Halifax International Airport Yes Yes (Departure (Departure Level) Level) 8 Winnipeg International Airport 27 0 9 N/A N/A
9 Victoria International Airport 25 1 3 No Yes Lester B. Pearson International 24 1 0 Yes Yes 10 Airport (Toronto - Terminal 3) 22 4 0 No (domestic Yes & international MacDonald-Cartier 11 boarding International Airport (Ottawa) gates) Yes (customs) 12 St. John’s International Airport 18 1 15 No No Jean Lesage International 17 0 0 N/A N/A 13 Airport (Quebec) 12 3 0 No (Baggage Yes retrieval) Yes 14 Kelowna International Airport (Departure Lounge & Airside Corridor) 15 Regina International Airport 9 0 0 N/A N/A 16 Thunder Bay Airport 7 0 1 N/A N/A Table 11: Reported Compliance for Arrival/Departure Monitors and other Electronic Signage (Continued)
Participating Terminals # of # of Accessibility of Monitors and Electronic Monitors Electronic Signs in Terminals in Terminal Signs in Terminal # of Is red lettering Are scrolling, Monitors on black flashing & Installed background dot matrix AIR TERMINALS at Eye avoided on text avoided Level electronic on electronic signage? signage?
Greater Moncton International 510NoNo 17 Airport 18 Saint John Airport 4 0 0 N/A N/A 19 Fredericton Airport 4 0 2 N/A N/A 20 Charlottetown Airport 4 0 0 N/A N/A 21 Iqaluit Airport 3 0 0 N/A N/A Prince George International 301N/AN/A 22 Airport 23 Yellowknife Airport 2 0 2 N/A N/A TOTAL AIR TERMINALS 1927 42 301 6/12 8/12 (15.6%) (50%) (66%)
RAIL TERMINALS 8 2 0 No (Entrance) No Yes (Ticketing) 1 Vancouver, B.C. (Ticketing) Yes (Entrance) 7 2 0 No (Ticketing) No 2 Toronto, ON Yes (Information) 3 Québec, QC 7 0 0 N/A N/A 4 Ottawa, ON 6 0 4 N/A N/A 5 Kingston, ON 5 1 4 No No 6 Winnipeg, MB 5 1 1 No No 5 3 0 No (Ticketing, No Baggage) 7 Montreal, QC Yes (Waiting room) 8 London, ON 4 2 0 No No 9 Halifax, NS 4 1 2 No No 10 Dorval, QC 3 2 0 No No 11 Windsor, ON 3 1 0 No No 12 Kitchener, ON 3 1 0 No No Table 11: Reported Compliance for Arrival/Departure Monitors and other Electronic Signage (Continued)
Participating Terminals # of # of Accessibility of Monitors and Monitors Electronic Electronic Signs in Terminals in Signs in Terminal Terminal # of Is red lettering Are Monitors on black scrolling, Installed background flashing & at Eye avoided on dot matrix RAIL TERMINALS Level electronic text avoided signage? on electronic signage? 13 Fallowfield, ON 2 1 0 Yes No 14 Moncton, NB 2 1 1 No No 15 Oakville, ON 2 1 1 No No 16 Cornwall, ON 2 1 0 No No 17 Brockville, ON 2 1 0 No No 18 Bathurst, NB 2 1 1 No No 19 Edmonton, AB 1 1 1 No No 20 Oshawa, ON 1 1 0 No No 21 Drummondville, QC 0 1 N/A No No 22 Guildwood, ON 0 1 N/A No No 23 Jasper, AB 0 2 N/A No No 24 Niagara Falls, ON 0 1 N/A No No 25 Saint Catherines, ON 0 1 N/A No No TOTAL RAIL TERMINALS 74 30 15 4/23 1/23 (20%) (17%) (4%)
Table 12: Designated Seating at Boarding Gates and Departure Areas
Number of Terminals Requiring Number of Terminals Requiring Designated Seating that Have Designated Seating that Do NOT Designated Seating at Boarding Have Designated Seating at Gates or Departure Areas Boarding Gates or Departure Areas
AIR TERMINALS 14/25 or 56% 11/25 or 44%
FERRY TERMINALS 0 4/4 or 100%
RAIL TERMINALS 2/38 or 5% 36/38 or 95%