Benchmark Data on the Monitoring of the 2004 Communication Code of Practice Table of Contents Summary

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

Load more