You can download our STM bus accessibility report for people using a mobility aid in PDF (French Only) or Word format (French Only)!
8:00 p.m. July is in full swing. I come back to live in Montreal after a year of studying in Toronto. The streets I have deserted for months are just as familiar to me. The same holes in the sidewalks. Saint-Laurent, Saint-Dominique, Hôtel-de-Ville, Sanguinet, Saint-Denis. Berri. It makes me feel good. I’m at home. I go to a bus stop, where Maisonneuve meets Saint-Denis. Montreal is attractive and I want to jump into her arms, tell her that I missed her. More than I thought. The bus arrives. The driver tries to deploy the access ramp, but it does not work. He tries several times, but nothing happens. The driver gives up and without a word resumes his journey. On day 1 of my return to Montreal, the STM leaves me alone on the sidewalk without embarrassment. I move in a wheelchair.
I’ve been living this scenario for nine years in a loop. By dint of seeing the same scene, we get tired. For years, I fell asleep in silence before this exclusion which I long believed normal. I finally met other people who, like me, got tired. Our stories were the same. The same non-functional access ramps. The same drivers exasperated to see us at the bus stop. The same discriminatory comments.
We first tried to get information about what we were going through. We did not find anything. The STM claims that 150 out of 209 bus lines are accessible. That’s all. Not a word on driver training. Not a word on the problems of the access ramps. However, the situation is serious. Many people with so-called reduced mobility do not venture onto buses because of the risk of being left on the sidewalk.
So we decided to conduct our own investigation for a day. On August 22, six people traveling in wheelchairs or scooters evaluated the accessibility of sixty-six buses on twenty-two lines. In principle, we could have boarded 95% of these buses since they had an access ramp. However, we encountered many obstacles and received several refusals. We were unable to board 33% of the accessible buses, and encountered major difficulties on 30% of the buses. We were able to take the bus as full citizens only in 36% of the cases. You can view all the results by downloading our STM bus accessibility report for users using a mobility aid in PDF format or in WORD version.
The major difficulties encountered are very varied. Several ramps took more than ten minutes to operate. Some ramps got stuck, forcing all passengers to evacuate the bus and wait for the next one. One person was even refused access, on the pretext that he was using a scooter. Several people missed their stop since the drivers did not pay attention to the distinctive bell which indicates that a person needing the access ramp wishes to descend.
At the end of the day, we met at the Montreal City Hall. We were then joined by members of the Quebec Association of Students with Post-Secondary Disabilities. The opportunity was great. The City Council met for the first time since the summer holidays. We therefore took advantage of the citizens’ question period to inform the Tremblay administration of the major problems with the real accessibility of STM buses. We asked the Mayor if an investigation could be carried out in order to put in place the necessary measures so that anyone, regardless of their physical skills, has access to public buses.
Marvin Rotrand, Council leader and vice-president of the STM first replied: “the short answer is yes”. We therefore understand that the City will investigate the problem of bus accessibility. Victory? The short and confused “yes” of Mr. Rotrand allows us to doubt his understanding of the question that had been asked.
What caught our attention were the other elements of response given by Mr. Rotrand. He repeatedly said that the STM was the only transportation company in Quebec to offer accessible buses, as if that should be a source of pride. Obviously, Mr. Rotrand did not see fit to mention that the vast majority of large western cities (to say the least) also offer accessible public buses. When the STM compares itself in terms of efficiency and quality of service, it likes to compare itself to Toronto, Boston and San Francisco. Curiously, however, when it is time to talk about accessibility, it compares with Quebec, Laval and Sherbrooke.
Mr. Rotrand also stated that there was no law in Quebec requiring the STM to have buses accessible to all. However, since 1978, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights clearly stipulates that no one can be discriminated against on the basis of the handicap or the means used to compensate for the handicap. In addition, Law 56 on the integration of disabled people adopted in 1978 obliges transport companies to establish a plan to ensure the transport of disabled people on its territory. Section 72, which prevented a person from being recognized as living from discrimination if the public networks were not accessible to him, was repealed in 2004. The development plans submitted by Quebec transportation companies must therefore include elements leading to accessibility of their regular services.
We were shocked to hear Mr. Rotrand say that the STM had made the political choice to invest considerable sums in order to make its buses accessible! Buying a bus that is not accessible in the 21st century is a bit like buying a new car without power steering. It is unthinkable and ridiculous.
Finally, Mr. Rotrand stated that the access ramps were checked. However, all the drivers and operations managers we spoke to confirmed to us that the ramps were not maintained or even checked on a regular basis. They would be once a year either at the end of winter. Without having figures, Mr. Rotrand also downplayed the unreliability of the buses by saying that the bus ramps encountered many problems during the winter. On August 22, 2011, 19 of 66 access ramps could not be activated, thus depriving people of the right to public transportation. You have to believe that in Montreal winter lasts 365 days a year.
The results of the RAPLIQ survey are unequivocal. The STM does not offer equal and fair treatment to people using a wheelchair or scooter. Although the new buses have much more reliable access ramps, the STM has a duty to pay particular attention to access ramps presenting technical difficulties and to ensure their proper functioning. By neglecting the maintenance of access ramps and driver training, the STM offers second-class service to a particular group of people for whom access to buses is essential, given that access to the metro remains practically impossible and that paratransit is an archaic system, isolating its users while violating their most fundamental rights. The corrective measures necessary to ensure that accessible buses are actually accessible are not excessive. It is simply a matter of using common sense.
Every day, people are left on the sidewalk worried that they won’t be able to get where they need to go. Last Thursday, a junior engineer and doctoral student was unable to board five buses when he tried to get to his first course at McGill in the morning, then go to teach at the Polytechnic in the afternoon .
STM buses offer a public service. Mr. Rotrand says that the STM cannot guarantee access for people traveling in wheelchairs or scooters. The Tremblay administration must react, otherwise we can say that it supports two-tier citizenship on grounds that are, moreover, unreasonable.