Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

62 CHAPTER NINE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION, ENFORCEMENT, PUBLIC INFORMATION, AND PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS This chapter addresses issues from the survey that are com- mon to many types of large items brought on board tran- sit vehicles.The information summarized is in response to questions about why agencies developed the policies they have, agency responsibilities for enforcement of the vari- ous policies, and what transit agencies are doing to provide information to the public and, in some cases, address public concern or outcry. This chapter concludes with a case study of OC Transpo’s experience with developing and enforcing its stroller policies, and the challenges the agency faces in an environment of vocal transit users and significant press cov- erage of events surrounding the development of its policy. SURVEY RESPONSES Impetus to Develop Policies Regarding Large Items on Vehicles Different types of circumstances led to the development of the policies agencies have in place regarding bringing large items on transit vehicles. When asked why they devel- oped their policies, several agencies offered broad reasons. Safety for passengers and drivers was one of the primary concerns, but some respondents gave specific accounts of extreme circumstances that demanded adoption of a com- prehensive policy: • Large numbers of grocery bags and other items that were a burden to drivers and presented safety risks to other passengers; • Clients on a paratransit service who expected drivers to load and unload, and transport large items into cli- ents’ homes; • Carts and multiple grocery bags tipping over; and • A child’s stroller being thrown in an accident. Large and midsized agencies, for the most part, identified broader reasons for developing their large item policies. One large agency operating bus, rail, and paratransit service put it succinctly: “Passenger safety, insurance issues and dwell time at stops” were all considerations in developing a large items policy. Another large agency noted that a “risk and safety assessment concluded large items on the buses should not be permitted as they restricted the movement of passen- gers during evacuation.” One large agency noted specific events that influenced its decisions in one case. According to a survey respondent, “some customers tried to move big objects like a sofa or a fridge” via transit. Sometimes, policies regarding safely managing large items on platforms and aboard transit vehicles are drafted and implemented in the wake of accidents or safety-related incidents. In the survey, 11 of 37 (30%) agencies indicated that they experienced an accident or incident regarding large items either on or in the process of boarding transit vehicles (Table 31). TABLE 31 HAS YOUR AGENCY EXPERIENCED ANY SAFETY- RELATED INCIDENTS OR INJURIES RELATED TO BRINGING STROLLERS, CARTS, LUGGAGE, BICYCLES, MOBILITY AIDS, OR OTHER LARGE ITEMS ON VEHICLES? Yes 30% (11) No 54% (20) Don’t Know 16% (6) n = 37. Medium and large agencies reported the majority of inci- dents—ranging from “scraped shins [and] pinched fingers,” “tip-overs of mobility devices injuring other riders,” and “claims of injury due to tripping over luggage or mobility devices on the bus,” to an example where “a train passenger attempted to board by inserting a stroller in a closing door.” Sometimes, the introduction of new technology into exist- ing public realms may lead to mishap. BART, for one, crafted its Segway policy “after an out-of-control [device] rolled onto the tracks and was hit by a train.” Contemporary news reports supplement this incident, explaining that no one was aboard the Segway when it rolled off a platform and was hit by a train but that the accident caused significant delay. One small agency explains that it pays careful attention to maintaining its regulations: “Strictly enforcing the clear aisle and managing passengers’ own parcels policies … has helped avoid incidents.” Nevertheless, the policies have not always stopped complaints.

63 Twenty-three of 37 agencies (62%) reported that they have received complaints related to bringing large items or trans- port aids aboard their vehicles (Table 32). Their approximate totals of yearly/monthly complaints varied widely. Six of the 23 “yes” respondents noted in the comment field that they did not know the related data. Five of the 17 agencies that provided detailed responses tallied one or fewer complaints per month. Four of the agencies noted between two and six complaints monthly, and a few agencies said they receive only between two and five complaints per year. Likely as a result of their size, larger agencies log more complaints. One large agency has an average of 10 complaints per month related to bringing large item on vehicles, although another agency reports between 20 and 50 complaints per month. Three agencies noted that most of their complaints were related to bicycle accommodation. TABLE 32 HAS YOUR AGENCY RECEIVED COMPLAINTS RELATED TO BRINGING STROLLERS, CARTS, LUGGAGE, BICYCLES, MOBILITY AIDS, OR OTHER LARGE ITEMS ON VEHICLES? Yes 62% (23) No 24% (9) Don’t Know 14% (5) n = 37. Effectiveness of Agency Policies Twenty-five agencies (69%) indicated that their policies on bringing different large items aboard transit vehicles are organized in a complementary, nonconflicting, compre- hensive manner (Table 33). Asked to evaluate these poli- cies using a few effectiveness metrics regarding whether policies are appropriate, fair to consumers, reasonable to enforce, maximize convenience, and balance the agency’s needs with operational realities, respondents agencies over- all were positive in their assessments. Figure 60 shows the responses, in which roughly 57% and 71% of respondents indicated that each metric applied to “all large items covered by our policies.” TABLE 33 DOES AGENCY HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE SET OF COMPLEMENTARY, NONCONFLICTING POLICIES REGARDING BRINGING DIFFERENT LARGE ITEMS ON BOARD VEHICLES? Yes 69% (25) No 25% (9) N/A 2 n = 36. Some respondents clarified their responses of “some- what” and “not for any” for some of the metrics. One large agency noted that “vague policies lead to inconsistent appli- cation from operator to operator and customer confusion,” and therefore ranked each metric as “somewhat.” Another large agency marked that it was somewhat able to maxi- mize convenience for consumers, explaining that “bicyclists would like to use the system during peak hours to cover the last mile of their trip. Due to [crowding] concerns, we are not able to change our policy. We are trying to address the need through other planning and programs.” Once established, policies adopted by transit agencies are not always deemed effective. Figure 61 summarizes agencies’ assessments of the effectiveness of their policies. FIGURE 60 Evaluation of agency’s policies regarding bringing large items on board vehicles (n = 35).

64 Although 86% of wheelchair policies were deemed “effec- tive” or “very effective” (rated 4 or 5), only 61% of poli- cies governing luggage, carts, or parcels were rated 4 or 5. Thirteen percent of agencies deemed their stroller policies “less effective” or “not at all effective” (2 or 1). Even when the agencies consider their policies to be “effective,” only 21% believe the enforcement of the policies addressing large items is “very effective,” and 31% rate their enforcement as “neither effective nor ineffective” (3). Many agencies have policies in place but acknowledge that enforcement of the policies has been unsuccessful, uneven, or impractical. FIGURE 61 Summary of agencies’ assessments of the effectiveness of their policies. Although most agencies indicate that their policies are complementary and nonconflicting, some of the policies themselves are intended to manage conflicts on board vehi- cles by prioritizing one type of large item (or user group) over another. Nineteen agencies (49%) prioritize one item over another on their vehicles (Table 34). All of these agen- cies indicated that persons with disabilities take precedence. Of these, 16 specifically mention that wheelchairs are the number one priority. A few agencies are less specific, vari- ously noting that “mobility devices have a priority” or that “disability trumps non-disability related items.” Most likely, the majority of these policies are informed by the ADA, which prioritizes transit accommodation for disabled pas- sengers and their accompanying items. TABLE 34 DOES THE AGENCY PRIORITIZE ONE TYPE OF LARGE ITEM OVER ANOTHER? Yes 49% (19) No 51% (20) n = 39. A few agencies provided examples of what must occur in the event of conflicts among large items. One midsized agen- cy’s passengers “using the securement area for their stroller must move the stroller if a passenger with a mobility device boards.” A large agency noted that its bicycle rules on rail “[imply] that wheelchairs would have priority over bicycles though it’s not specifically stated.” Only a few agencies provided additional information about how they deal with multiple large items (and possible conflicts) on transit vehicles. One small agency described a hypothetical rare situation: “the driver may call for a para- transit vehicle to provide assistance or a paratransit driver may ask for fixed route driver assistance.” Another small agency explained that “in many cases, drivers that have com- pleted their shift [on the last trip of the day] will stand-by to take any additional passengers with luggage and/or strollers that will not fit on the scheduled bus.” Seventeen of 36 respondents (47%) felt that their poli- cies regarding bringing large items on transit vehicles could be improved; of the rest, five believed that the cur- rent policies were already effective, and 14 said they did not know (Table 35). TABLE 35 DO YOU THINK YOUR POLICY/POLICIES COULD BE IMPROVED? Yes 47% (17) No 14% (5) Don’t Know 39% (14) n = 36. Those that believed that their policies could be better offered myriad solutions ranging from expanded publicity of existing policies to both targeted and nonspecific improve- ments. One small agency explained the “policies are okay” but the agency “could [improve] education and consistent enforcement.” Two other agencies were confident with their policies, but suggested that improved vehicle design could render their services more efficient and flexible. One mid- sized agency suggested that improvement would manifest as “buying vehicles that can accommodate more wheelchair bays due to the growing demand.” A few agencies saw continual policy improvement as a prime responsibility. One small agency explained that as a rule, “policies should always be reviewed as new items come out on the market and perhaps the policy can be tweaked to be more inclusive.” Another small agency added, “Our policies can be improved through passenger contact or recommenda- tions. We are restrictive only when we absolutely must be or [when] safety is a concern. We are always open to new ideas in event we missed something.” Another agency suggested more rigorous planning: it deemed that its policy “probably should address some contingencies should they occur.”

65 Other respondents noted specific areas for improve- ment. One large agency suggested that “securement should be mandatory for mobility devices on buses” and another proposed “being more specific about items allowed, and making this information available to the riding public.” A small agency confirmed the scope of the survey: “We would like to see what others do with our two biggest areas: elderly and young moms with little ones.” Finally, one agency expressed a particularly thoughtful concern by noting that “consistent enforcement tempered by good judgment is always difficult.” More than one-half of the surveyed agencies (21 of 38) consider their large item and transport aid policies to be models for other agencies. Only five respondents said that they did not consider their agency to be a model (Table 36). Of those that responded “yes,” two agencies provided the reasoning behind their answers. One, a medium-sized pro- vider, noted that it is a model for others “in particular for strollers and Segways.” The other, a small agency, explained that the staff “researched stroller policies online before writ- ing ours,” and because of that, they “were able to avoid some mistakes other agencies experienced by being a little more flexible with our policy. So far it has worked out well.” A few of those that did not consider their agency to be a good model also added comments. One large agency noted that for other agencies, its own “overly complex rules would be inappropriate and difficult to enforce.” Another large agency remarked that it has “many routes with high ridership and high turnover. [Our] policies would only be appropriate for similar properties.” TABLE 36 DO YOU CONSIDER YOUR AGENCY TO BE A GOOD MODEL WITH REGARD TO POLICIES/STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING LARGE ITEMS ON BOARD TRANSIT VEHICLES? Yes 55% (21) No 13% (5) Don’t Know 32% (12) n = 38. Agency Enforcement of Policies A majority of respondent agencies indicated that their bus drivers are expected to enforce the agency’s large item policies (Table 37). The handful that marked “no” added clarification of their situations. One small agency noted that although “some drivers try to enforce [the poli- cies]…ultimately supervisors and management enforce.” A medium-sized agency listed “transit supervisors” as the frontline for enforcement, and one large agency com- mented that its own “police or supervisors” serve as policy enforcement entities. TABLE 37 ARE BUS DRIVERS EXPECTED TO ENFORCE THE AGENCY’S POLICIES? Yes 92% (33) No 8% (3) n = 36. Agencies that operate buses were asked specifically about bus driver roles and responsibilities in the enforce- ment of all of their policies. As shown in Figure 62, 32 of 36 (89%) agencies expect their drivers to deny boarding to passengers with items that are not permitted on the vehicles. Additionally, 25 of 36 (69%) expect their operators to deny admittance to passengers with large items when they are concerned about vehicle capacity. A smaller proportion of agencies (12 of 36, or 33%) expect their bus drivers to ask patrons with large items to leave the vehicle when a passen- ger with a wheelchair is boarding. Respondents were split about nonitemized restrictions and bus driver policies. FIGURE 62 Expectations of bus drivers: Are bus drivers expected to do any of the following (n = 36)? Generally, agencies noted that drivers have the ability to deny boarding to passengers if the large items they intend to bring aboard are of a dangerous nature; as elsewhere, several respondents indicated that safety was the primary concern. Four agencies indicated that if confronted with an unusual situation involving a large item, drivers are expected to either consult with a supervisor or call the dispatcher, espe- cially in cases reported by one agency where “they feel they have a potential safety issue.” One small agency explained that “drivers have to deny boarding to passengers whether they have large items or not when the buses are full to capacity.” Many agencies that operate rail enforce their policies through transit police (12 of 17 agencies, or 71%) or train operators (9 of 17, or 53%). Figure 63 shows policy enforce- ment personnel for rail operations. Three agencies marked the “other” category and clarified their responses. Two indicated that supervisors enforce the

66 agency’s large item policies on rail, and the other indicated that there is no enforcement. FIGURE 63 Rail: Who is responsible for enforcing the agency’s policies (mark all that apply) (n =17)? Generally, all respondent agencies indicated that they felt at least moderately successful at enforcing their large item policies, with 27 of 39 (69%) rating their enforcement as “effective” (4) or “very effective” (5). Figure 64 shows that only about 20% of surveyed agencies rated their enforce- ment as “very effective.” Some of the agencies that rated themselves highly did so because they have not had much experience in dealing with large items. One small agency rated its enforcement as “effective” but also commented that “it’s hard to know because we encounter few situations with large items.” Another small agency with the same rating wrote, “we simply do not have a high demand for passengers bringing on large items.” However, many of the comments qualified the effective- ness of the policies and enforcement in dealing with large items. One agency that rated itself “very effective” noted that the agency’s drivers are “consistent and fair and apply all policies evenly.” Additionally, several agencies provided detailed answers, some of which follow: • “The biggest problem is saying ‘no’ to the person in a wheelchair or walker with a package who struggles to manage it alone. The second big problem [is] with the young mom with a toddler and one in the stroller. The drivers struggle with these.” • “It is difficult to enforce rules against bicycles on trains at peak times in peak directions and also on rules against bicycles on crowded trains; It depends. Bike policies are probably enforced fairly well by Station Agents upon station entrance/exit. Once on the train however, policies would need to be enforced by the train operator who would only see the bicyclist if he/she was on the first car (which is prohibited).” • “Vague policies open to interpretation and no consis- tent application from operator to operator creates con- fusion for the customers.” FIGURE 64 On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is very successful and 1 is not at all successful, how successful do you think the agency is at enforcing its policies (n =39)? Public Information about Agency Policies Although the majority of agencies distribute information about their large item policy in brochures and on their web- sites (31 of 39 agencies, or 79%), a significant number (26 or 67%) also post the information on the vehicles (Figure 65). The surveyed agencies and the ways they communicate their policies are shown in Table 38. FIGURE 65 How is information about the agency’s policies provided (n = 39)? Agencies were asked if they have any information bro- chures specifically about bringing certain large items on transit vehicles (Table 39), and 16 of the agencies indicated that they do (43%). As shown in Figure 66, wheelchairs and bicycles are the most frequent brochure topics among the agencies that produce such informational material. One small agency noted that although it does not produce brochures about specific large items, its bus schedule “explains how to use bike racks.” FIGURE 66 Agency prepares brochures specifically about which items?

67 TABLE 38 PUBLIC INFORMATION TOOLS BY AGENCY Agency Type of Service Information is: Posted on vehicles Posted at stations/ stops Posted on agency website Printed in brochures Provided via spoken announcement at a stop or on a vehicle Provided in another way Small Brandon Transit Brandon, Manitoba Bus • • Downeast Transportation, Inc. Ellsworth, Maine Bus • (3) Greater Glens Falls Transit Glens Falls, New York Bus • Macatawa Area Express Transportation Authority (MAX), Holland, Michigan Bus • • • (2) City of Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit, Las Cruces, New Mexico Bus • • Las Vegas Monorail Company Las Vegas, Nevada Rail • The T Lawrence, Kansas Bus • • • SunTran Ocala, Florida Bus • • • • Ottumwa Transit Authority Ottumwa, Iowa Bus (1) Pullman Transit Pullman, Washington Bus • River Bend Transit Quad Cities, Iowa Bus • • Marble Valley Regional Transit District (MVRTD), Rutland, Vermont Bus • • City of Sioux Falls/Sioux Area Metro Sioux Falls, South Dakota Bus • • • • Metro Ride Wausau, Wisconsin Bus • Medium CyRide Ames, Iowa Bus • • • Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri Delta), Antioch, California Bus • • • Valley Transit Appleton, Wisconsin Bus Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA), Concord, California Bus • • • VOTRAN Daytona Beach, Florida Bus • • Lane Transit District Eugene, Oregon Bus • • • • • Lee County Transit Ft. Myers, Florida/Lee County Bus • • • Table 38 continued on p. 68

68 BC Transit Kelowna, British Columbia Bus • • Laketran Lake County, Ohio Bus • • • Metro Transit Madison, Wisconsin Bus • • • North County Transit District (NCTD) Oceanside, California Bus/ Rail • • • Sarasota County Area Transit Sarasota, Florida Bus • Large Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), Atlanta, Georgia Bus/ Rail • • • • • Capital Metro Austin, Texas Bus/ Rail • • • Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Chicago, Illinois Bus/ Rail • • • • Community Transit Everett, Washington Bus • • • Public Transit Division (TheBus) Honolulu, Hawaii Bus • • • Metropolitan Transit Authority Harris County (METRO), Houston, Texas Bus/ Rail Miami-Dade Transit Miami, Florida Bus/ Rail • Société de transport de Montréal (STM) Montreal, Quebec Bus/ Rail • • • NJ TRANSIT Corporation Newark, New Jersey Bus/ Rail MTA New York City Transit New York, New York Bus/ Rail • • San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), Oakland, California Rail • • • • • (4) OC Transpo Ottawa, Ontario Bus/ Rail • • • (5) Southeastern Pennsylvania Transporta- tion Authority (SEPTA), Philadelphia, Penn. Bus/ Rail • • • (6) TriMet Portland, Oregon Bus/ Rail • • • • • Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Salt Lake City, Utah Bus/ Rail • • • • Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Washington, District of Columbia Bus/ Rail • • • • (1) Provided one-on-one to passengers as needed. (2) We rotate policies through our website homepage, often depending on time of year. (3) Employees at our Village Green “hub” relay information to passengers as they board the buses. Drivers also give information at other stops. (4) We have a “bike rules” car card that is posted on some vehicles. Stations where bikes are not allowed at all during commute hours have unofficial signs posted at the entrances. If someone is in violation of the bike policy, e.g., a bike on the first car, the train operator will probably make an announcement. (5) Refers to website and Transit By-Law. (6) This is part of a “Passenger Etiquette Campaign,” and the emphasis is on cooperation and courtesy. Table 38 continued from p. 67

69 TABLE 39 DOES THE AGENCY HAVE ANY BROCHURES SPECIFICALLY ABOUT USING/BRINGING ANY OF THE LARGE ITEMS SPECIFIED IN THIS SURVEY ON BOARD VEHICLES? Yes 43% (16) No 57% (21) n = 37. A number of respondents also sent along links to their online information. One agency “has a video library” on its website offering instructional videos about “How to Ride the Bus,” including one on stroller use. Another noted that “in many cases information is on the web, but not necessarily in printed material.” ONE AGENCY’S EXPERIENCE: OC TRANSPO, OTTAWA, ONTARIO—DEVELOPING, REFINING, AND ENFORCING POLICIES, AND PUBLIC OUTCRY Prelude to a Policy Shift On Saturday, October 4, 2008, an OC Transpo bus driver stopped to pick up passengers waiting near a shopping area in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada—among them, two mothers with children in strollers. One of the mothers was traveling with her two children: a seven-month-old infant in a stroller, and a two-year-old toddler walking alongside. Upon the bus’s arrival, the driver stated that he was restricting entry to only one of the passengers with a stroller. Apparently, although in the words of the toddler’s mother, the bus was “pretty much empty,” the driver thought that more than one additional stroller could cause capacity issues (Gonczol 2008). According to an article in the Ottawa Citizen, the mother “told the driver they should both be allowed to board and said that she wanted to speak with his supervisor. The driver refused, prompting other passengers to argue that both women should be allowed to board.” Ultimately, upon the irritated passenger’s attempt to lift the stroller on the bus, the driver reiterated his “no” answer, and quickly closed the doors. What the driver did not realize was that the wom- an’s two-year-old had gotten on the bus as soon as the doors opened, and was now separated from her mother. After sig- nificant onboard outcry, and with the help of another hopeful boarder running alongside the bus, the driver stopped the vehicle about 300 meters down the road. Upon allowing the toddler to alight, the driver “simply shut the door and contin- ued on his route” (Gonczol 2008). The incident was ultimately a watershed event, prompt- ing public outcry, an accumulation of complaints, and a distillation of calls for equity among users of OC Transpo transit operations. The mother received an explanation from OC Transpo within days of the incident but was not satis- fied; and she was unsuccessful in her efforts to have the driver fired. The Ottawa Citizen reported the city’s response: “City of Ottawa … said [that] the driver was immediately suspended,” and scheduled for retraining. The newspaper quoted the city’s explanation of the official regulations: “There is no policy, per se, that restricts the number of stroll- ers. However, drivers do, on occasion, restrict the number if they feel they are blocking the aisles or if the bus is too crowded or whatever” (Gonczol 2008). Refocusing on the Issue Editorial response to the incident was mixed. One reader wrote that she found “that strollers have become a major headache for bus drivers and other passengers.” She contin- ued that she was “fed up with tripping over [strollers] while trying to get seated before the bus starts.” Her letter drew particular attention to the fact that OC Transpo’s policies were either not well defined or not well publicized: “What happens if a person in a wheelchair wants to get on and the bus is packed with strollers? Who has priority? Do a couple of strollers have to get off?” (Swallow 2008). Another reader, a mother who uses a stroller to transport her infant daughter, offered a different perspective. Because she is reliant on public transit, she said, she has “encoun- tered numerous scenarios” involving either bus driver sym- pathy or apathy toward her situation. “Some of the drivers graciously wait as I find a seat before leaving the stop,” she wrote, “while others have taken off at an alarming speed as soon as I step on the bus, making it very difficult to get situated.” She concluded that “drivers need to think about… how they should be treating their customers,” and “that OC Transpo [should make] their stroller policy clearer to the public” (Delisle 2008). A local columnist writing for the Ottowa Citizen also pressured OC Transpo into clarifying its policy. She cited Vancouver’s TransLink as a model for a stroller policy, prais- ing its specific pronouncements of priority rankings and stroller size. “How can an organization this vital to the city’s well-being,” she questioned of OC Transpo, “be unable to figure out where to put a stroller?” (Egan 2008). OC Transpo Proposes a Policy Update In response to the outcry, OC Transpo made a comprehen- sive effort to update its policies on priority seating rules and stroller usage. “The intent of the new stroller policy,” a staff report read, “is to provide a method for operators and riders to better manage the front area of the bus in a safe and con- sistent method.” Because the updated policy incorporated “a number of parameters investigated at other transit agencies,” key excerpts are quoted here:

70 Stroller Eligibility: An open stroller occupied by a child will be allowed on the bus if: • It is capable of being folded • It is capable of being safely stowed • It will not interfere with other passengers or with the safe movement of passengers within the transit vehicle, • It can be wheeled, or (when folded) carried, through the aisle without contacting the seats. Strollers that are not occupied by a child must be folded and stowed upon boarding. (OC Transpo 2009) The new policy also specified that open strollers carrying a child “must be placed in a wheelchair position,” best if “fac- ing to the rear with wheels locked.” The policy addresses sev- eral contingencies as well: for example, if “a person using a wheelchair boards and needs that position, the customer with the stroller will be expected to fold and stow the stroller and hold the child.” Furthermore, double strollers are required to “fit all the required parameters for single strollers, other than being able to be folded.” A double stroller “will only be allowed on board if a wheelchair position is available.” All of these actions are to be done “without assistance.” The new policy was designed to be implemented in a trial period, in conjunction with general priority seating updates, and OC Transpo planned significant public outreach in support of the policy (OC Transpo 2009). Reaction and Rejection of the New Policy Ultimately, however, as the Canadian Broadcasting Corpo- ration put it, “Bus-riding moms win Ottawa stroller fight.” The corresponding article reported on the city’s transpor- tation committee’s November 2008 consideration of the new policy: “More than a dozen moms armed with babies and strollers rolled into Ottawa city hall…to protest rules that would have restricted bulky strollers on transit buses,” it summarized. “And in the end, councilors backed down” (CBC News 2009). The mothers’ argument was tied to the practical necessi- ties of following the new rules, and incorporated concerns of social justice and limited opportunities. First, several protes- tors noted that even folding a stroller would be a difficult task: “Where do you put the infant if you are folding your stroller?” one mom asked. “Do I need to hand my child over to a stranger while I fold my stroller if there’s no room for me on that bus?” Other attendees worried that they would lose access to basic mobility and related opportunities if not allowed to travel with their children in strollers. One young mom who travels with her child in a stroller noted that OC Transpo’s bus service, by giving her access to college, “has helped me…to give back to the community and [be] a successful person.” Ultimately, the transportation committee found “that the policy was unrealis- tic.” OC Transpo thus maintained its original policy, wherein “transit drivers…decide the size and number of open strollers that can be on board at one time” (CBC News 2009). Refining the Status Quo OC Transpo subsequently sent the issue to other city orga- nizations for review, including the seniors’ and accessibil- ity advisory committees. The two committees, according to a February 2010 Metro article, “suggested changes to the policy” with regard to the “co-operative seating area” on OC Transpo buses. Stroller users again rejected the changes, arguing that “parents were being discriminated against” because “strollers [should] not be allowed in the aisle, but that shopping carts were fine.” A transport offi- cial responded, saying that “they originally restricted shop- ping carts, but the advisory committees requested that restriction[s] be lifted” (Wieclawski 2010). A press release from the Ottawa City Council’s February 24, 2010, meeting details the new stroller policy agreement: Caregivers carrying a child in a stroller are asked to put the stroller in a space designated for wheelchairs if there is one available. If a wheelchair position is not available, open strollers are allowed in the aisle unless they interfere with other passengers or with the safe movement of transit users. If this happens, the operator may ask the customer to fold the stroller. (This is current practice.) If an open stroller is in a wheelchair area and someone with a wheelchair requires that space, the stroller will be required to move. As always, customers can fold and stow their strollers upon boarding. By doing so, they can sit in the Cooperative Seating area with their child on their lap (Ottawa City Council 2010). In late March 2010, the Ottawa Citizen reported that the City Council had amended the new policy, requiring “OC Transpo staff [to] be offered training with regard to dealing with conflicting needs and that drivers having received such training be accorded the necessary authority to deal with the circumstances that arise.” The newspaper noted that despite the fallout surrounding the stroller incident that inspired the controversy, “the [new] policy does not explain what happens to an open stroller on a route that becomes more crowded as the ride progresses” (Stroller Policy Amended to Add Training Clause 2010).