First of all, I am not a person with a physical disability and can never truly understand the barriers faced by individuals with limited mobility. I write the following not as an expert, but as a concerned citizen who wants public transportation to be accessible to all people.

At one time, accommodation for persons with disabilities on mainstream transit was somewhat of an afterthought. Fortunately, progress has been made to ensure that transit can be used by anyone at any time. Low-floor vehicles are replacing high-floor buses everywhere, and accessible streetcars are about to be ordered to improve access to the transit system for those who cannot climb steps. Elevators are being installed at subway and GO stations, and automated stop announcements have allowed the blind to travel with much more confidence.

Of course, more can and should be done. More bus routes can place accessible stops closer to homes and businesses, and a GTHA-wide Wheel-Trans service could expand the world for anyone who relies on para-transit. Placing accessibility as a cornerstone of new projects is a must, as well as increasing the rate at which existing lines are retrofitted. But, there is one very popular proposal that might but accessibility and cost-effectiveness into conflict.

Regional Express (REX) is a concept that has received a lot of attention in the transit enthusiast circles lately. Instead of running one large GO train every hour, the concept calls for smaller, faster trains to run multiple times per hour. With convenient service, passenger rail could be a viable option for those who find existing GO departures inconvenient. Almost all worldwide implementations of this concept have used trains of self-propelled coaches, and there are plenty of tried, tested and true designs in use. But, almost all of these designs use steps to board and have floors which are too high to lay the bridge between the accessible car and the much lower platform. If REX trains are to be based on existing design, a new way of providing step-free access will be needed. Fortunately, inspiration can be found by a simple trip down the 401.

To provide wheelchair access to trains on the Deux-Montagnes Line, Montreal’s Agence métropolitaine de transport (AMT) has three different solutions. At Gare Centrale, the platforms are raised to the level of the car floor. This approach is used extensively in Europe and in the northeastern United States, and it allows step-free access to all parts of the train. But, this would mean rebuilding every station on the system, making the fleet of around 400 bilevel coaches incompatible in the process.

At Roxboro-Pierrefonds, north of the city, a raised section of the platform is used bridge the gap, although it is much higher and more elaborate than GO’s raised platform area. This is a much less expensive proposal than level platforms at all stations, and depending on the ramp’s placement, the current fleet could still be used. But, this would restrict wheelchair accessibility to a single coach, which could be problematic at times when trains are congested or all wheelchair tie-down spaces are taken.

At Deux-Montagnes, the line’s terminus, a portable wheelchair lift is used to lift passengers from the platform up to the level of the coach. This option requires the least expensive equipment, but it requires a trained attendant to operate the lift (and in Montreal, pre-registering your trip intentions). In addition, there could be delays if more than one passenger wants to board or disembark, as the lift can only accommodate one wheelchair at a time.

The Province of Ontario, through its MoveOntario 2020 initiative, pledged to invest $17.5 billion in transportation infrastructure. But, in a world with competing priorities such as health care and education, we have to ensure that this money is spent responsibly. Using off-the-shelf components is a great way of accomplishing this, but it is clear from the Montreal experience that using these vehicles will require creative (and possibly expensive) solutions in order to eliminate barriers for all passengers.

The other option, of course, is to commission the design of a new type of self-propelled coach that matches the overall design of the Bombardier Bilevel Coach. This would give the REX service a vehicle which is much more economical to run than a locomotive-hauled train, and it would eliminate the need to change the way barrier-free access is provided. But, as only one manufacturer makes a self-propelled bilevel coach that meets North American safety standards, we would likely have to pay a premium to further the research and development program of the winning bidder. And, in the past, Torontonians have been very skeptical of implementing experimental designs, and maintain their resentment even after these prototypes become universally adopted.

I believe that we have a moral obligation to ensure that any transportation infrastructure we build is fully accessible to those with disabilities. But, as I’ve tried to show, it’s often not as easy as it would seem. Study and consultation need to be done before we rush into anything, as we usually only have one chance to get it right. In the case of the REX trains, it appears that the choice will be inexpensive trains and expensive accessibility, or expensive trains and inexpensive accessibility. Either way, we have to consider those who will suffer the positive and negative consequences of the choices we make.

Of course, if we stop to take a minute to think about accessibility on transit then I’m sure we will be much better off from the start.