[Admiral Beez]

Race, unlike having only one leg, is not a handicap.

 

[prosperegal]

I would say culture has more to do with it than race itself. I live downtown and prefer to walk or take the TTC. This is not reflective to the fact that my parents are immigrants from Hong Kong. In fact, if we were to go stereotypical, I'd have to be a suburbanite with a luxury car, no?

 

[diminutive]

Single white males are the most likely to choose bikes as a mode of transportation.

That's a coincidental though rather than causal, no? More of a byproduct of bicycle-friendly areas being dominated by younger white people.

I mean, bikes are pretty dominant in places like Vietnam...

 

[Brampton Mom]

That's a coincidental though rather than causal, no? More of a byproduct of bicycle-friendly areas being dominated by younger white people.

I mean, bikes are pretty dominant in places like Vietnam...

Doubt it. Places where more women ride bikes don't require us to where helmets that will mess up our hair and have to lug the helmet around with us for the rest of the day. And the white men I see riding bikes around Brampton? No. No Brampton is not have bicycle friendly beyond recreational paths (not transportation wise). I've tried it with children. Brampton hates people on bikes. White men are likely to yell back at someone honking their horn at them. Everyone else, leaves their bike at home. The rest of us decide that was way too confrontational.

I remember a sensitive training course required at work once, where the lawyer told us that the highest proportion of human rights complaints in Canada are filed by white males. White men seem to be more confrontational than others in my own experience, so that didn't surprise me. Not necessarily a good or bad thing. But that might be a part of it.

Or maybe less worried about getting hurt. Or more likely to work at places with showers available.

There could be a lot of reasons behind it. But I'm pretty sure socio-economics of race and gender play a role in it.

 

[nfitz]

White men seem to be more confrontational than others in my own experience ...

I don't see the need for such prejudice and sexism here.

Or am I supposed to start describing in which ethnic neighbourhood I regularly observed people parking on streetcar tracks, and who don't understand the concept of getting off the rear doors of the streetcar?

 

[Brampton Mom]

I don't see the need for such prejudice and sexism here.

Or am I supposed to start describing in which ethnic neighbourhood I regularly observed people parking on streetcar tracks, and who don't understand the concept of getting off the rear doors of the streetcar?

You're free to disagree. Seems that way to me.

 

[nfitz]

You're free to disagree. Seems that way to me.

My only disagreement is that prejudice and sexism shouldn't be coming out here.

Are you trying to say that such bigotry is okay? That different groups deserve different treatment?

I'm not sure why you couch your initial post in such odd terms. Why used prejudiced terms like "stay-at-home mother" instead of "stay at home parent".

 

[ssiguy2]

Making sure people are safe when using transit and the system is accessible to all is one that everyone agrees upon. This idea of reflecting gender, racial, or socio-economic sensitivities is Miller 101 and exemplifies how not to build a transit system.

Transit systems are here for one reason and one reason only....................to move people. Other positive things maybe the result of good transit but that is a bonus not a prerequisite. Social services helps promote gender, racial, and socio-economic equality............if you need them then go there.

This is where many great plans go "off the rails". Instead of looking at transit needs they go into bigger discussions about social sensitivities.............let the social workers do their job and let the transportation planners do their's. Miller's stupid idea of "great city building" is an example of this kind of thinking and had precious little to do with moving Torontonians and far more to do with creating "complete streets". People don't take transit to enjoy complete streets but to get to where they want to go and hopefully as fast as possible. Complete streets are created by the building planning dept, let them do it and leave the TTC to do what it was originally and very importantly only has the mandate and financial resources to do, move people.

 

[marsh]

I think it is reasonable to get input from the needs of all segments of society and as the article pointed out, what may at first start out as a policy directed at a specific segement, e.g. women (lettting women get off buses at night between stops; improved lighting other safety measures) can benefit everyone - but sometimes you need to think about needs from another's perspective for the light bulb to go on. Same goes for better accessiblity in terms of elevators - it helps the elderly; disabled; mothers with baby carriages etc, when I think the initial policy was aimed primarily at disabled people who had limited mobilitiy.

As for race, the only way I could see race potentially playing into it is if lower socio-economic neighourhoods and there needs were being exlcuded from transit planning that further isolates them from the rest of the city. In fact, these neighourhoods are probably the ones that need it the most - because they probably don't have cars and may have less flexible work schedules. I remember a few years ago discussions about proposed TTC cut backs and a bus line being really hit hard by one proposed cut back in bus servcie and the community there complained because most of the commuters there were on shift work and had no other option but to take the bus and with the cut back in service they claimed it was going to be very difficult for them to get to work. I don't recall how it was ever resolved.

So yes I think these are relevant issues that should be considered as part of the planning process - I don't think it should it dictate it - and I don't think that was what the article was saying.

 

[EnviroTO]

Making sure people are safe when using transit and the system is accessible to all is one that everyone agrees upon. This idea of reflecting gender, racial, or socio-economic sensitivities is Miller 101 and exemplifies how not to build a transit system.

You won't be building a system that is accessible and agreeable to everyone without reflecting gender, racial, and socioeconomic sensitivities and any idea to the contrary is Germany early 1940s and exemplifies how not to build a transit system. The idea that some well off group put in charge of transit, often not big transit users like Rob Ford driving around in an expensive SUV, can fully grasp the barriers to transit use in less safe neighbourhoods, for those who can't drive to the subway station, for those who cannot walk down stairs, for those with kids, for those who don't know English yet, etc without talking to those people, and perhaps holding an open house advertised in the Globe and Mail at 2pm on a Tuesday at a location on a streetcar route (i.e. non-accessible) is beyond presumptuous. You need to target the audiences to reach them and understand them.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

On the matter of gender equality, it is very important for the TTC (or any other agency for that matter) to ensure that their attempts at gender equality doesn't inadvertently cause gender discrimination.

The TTC Request Stop program is a great example of this. If my memory serves me correctly the program was initially created after a string of assault on female customers of the TTC as they were leaving stops. And though the program had the noble intention of making female riders feel safer on the TTC, it eventually lead to gender discrimination.

The program suggested that men could not be sexually assaulted and therefor did not deserve protection. Of course this is not true. Males get sexually assaulted by both men and women quite frequently. But males are often reluctant to report that they've been sexually assaulted since it is stigmatized. Male sexual assault victims are often viewed as either being liars who "enjoyed" the assault or as being weak. Now if I were a male sexual assault victim who has to deal with Request Stop advertisements saying that the program is designed to prevent assaults exclusively for women and implying males don't get assaulted, would I want to report the assault? The answer would be different for every man, but what I can say is that it would certainly make me more reluctant to report the sexual assault.

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

I think it racial and gender issues should be viewed in the manner of customer service, reaching or accommodating your target customers. So, for example, if it could be determined that women would be more likely to use transit if "x" was modified, then perhaps making "x" modification would be a worthwhile endeavor as it increases ridership and/or rider satisfaction. That said, I wouldn't view such things through the troubled lenses of racial or gender equality, but more through the commonsense idea that the transit system should be designed to serve all of its customers in the best manner possible.

 

[bleu]

Higher immigrant populations will be more dense and more likely to take transit. Single white males are the most likely to choose bikes as a mode of transportation.

However, won't it make more sense just to build transit just based on density regardless of race? I still fail to see the relevance of race here.

Immigrants can be white too, many of them are. Is someone who immigrated from US or UK immigrants? of course they are. White neighbourhoods are not necessarily rich neighbourhoods and many ethnic communities can be very wealthy. So race is not the issue there, density and need are.

 

[bleu]

On the matter of gender equality, it is very important for the TTC (or any other agency for that matter) to ensure that their attempts at gender equality doesn't inadvertently cause gender discrimination.

The TTC Request Stop program is a great example of this. If my memory serves me correctly the program was initially created after a string of assault on female customers of the TTC as they were leaving stops. And though the program had the noble intention of making female riders feel safer on the TTC, it eventually lead to gender discrimination.

The program suggested that men could not be sexually assaulted and therefor did not deserve protection. Of course this is not true. Males get sexually assaulted by both men and women quite frequently. But males are often reluctant to report that they've been sexually assaulted since it is stigmatized. Male sexual assault victims are often viewed as either being liars who "enjoyed" the assault or as being weak. Now if I were a male sexual assault victim who has to deal with Request Stop advertisements saying that the program is designed to prevent assaults exclusively for women and implying males don't get assaulted, would I want to report the assault? The answer would be different for every man, but what I can say is that it would certainly make me more reluctant to report the sexual assault.

I agree with you.
And not just sexual assaults. What about physical assaults and robbery? It applies to both men and women. I don't think the request stop program should be women specific. It IS actually discriminatory against men as if they never get assaulted. If a man doesn't feel safe getting off at a station at midnight, he should be entitled to request stops too.

 

[nfitz]

And not just sexual assaults. What about physical assaults and robbery? It applies to both men and women. I don't think the request stop program should be women specific. It IS actually discriminatory against men as if they never get assaulted. If a man doesn't feel safe getting off at a station at midnight, he should be entitled to request stops too.

As the request stop has been available to all genders on TTC for a while now, I don't see much point in discussing sexist practices that have now been fixed.