AlvinofDiaspar said:
The issue here isn't consultation - but politicization and weaponization of transit. Ironically, the leadership of the current government had been one of the worst at such practices (and doesn't hesitate to turn the other cheek when their own electoral interests are at stake - e.g. how quickly it caved at Royal Orchard).

AoD
Click to expand...
I think you're half right, its just that they're two sides of the same coin. Politicization and weaponization is a consequence of overly lenient consultation practices, and many of the issues with consultation stems from the politicization and weaponization of transit. Its a death loop. To give the LA example once again, complaints against Sepulveda started as local NIMBYs complaining at local consultation meetings, but things escalated and became politicized as the NIMBYs started sending letters to and heavily lobbying politicians to be against the Heavy Rail options. Likewise, a heavily politicized environment in regards to transit will result in NIMBYs being more active in showing up to local consultations to complain and whine.
 
EnviroTO said:
You clearly don't understand the procurement process. Never has the procurement process been purely about the lowest bidder. What do you think is about to change? What have you heard and from who? Are they now going to receive two equivalent proposals and choose the most expensive one?
Click to expand...
Locally, they have changed due to some very shoddy work from a specific company that even involved a public citizen death near their worksite. Prior to the death, it was the lowest bidder. After blackballing that company for 5 years, the city decided to change how they award tenders. Everyone is fed up with substandard work and no repercussions from it to the company.
 
ARG1 said:
I think you're half right, its just that they're two sides of the same coin. Politicization and weaponization is a consequence of overly lenient consultation practices, and many of the issues with consultation stems from the politicization and weaponization of transit. Its a death loop. To give the LA example once again, complaints against Sepulveda started as local NIMBYs complaining at local consultation meetings, but things escalated and became politicized as the NIMBYs started sending letters to and heavily lobbying politicians to be against the Heavy Rail options. Likewise, a heavily politicized environment in regards to transit will result in NIMBYs being more active in showing up to local consultations to complain and whine.
Click to expand...

Considering we live in a democracy - citizens have a right to know and be involved in decisions that may have an impact on their lives. Having established this fundamental, consultation practices doesn't by default result in escalation - it requires the willingness of politicians to - without regard to sound planning, fiscal, and environmental practices - to refuse to cater to falsehoods and use it as a wedge. So in this regard - it isn't consultation that is the problem - it is a problem of ethics - of both community members and politicians. I mean, would you say that the issue with the Yonge line extension mentioned is a result of consultation - however weak it is? Or is it because our decision-makers and their proxy ultimately has no underlying principles beyond the maintenance of power?

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Considering we live in a democracy - citizens have a right to know and be involved in decisions that may have an impact on their lives. Having established this fundamental, consultation practices doesn't by default result in escalation - it requires the willingness of politicians to - without regard to sound planning, fiscal, and environmental practices - to refuse to cater to falsehoods and use it as a wedge. So in this regard - it isn't consultation that is the problem - it is a problem of ethics - of both community members and politicians. I mean, would you say that the issue with the Yonge line extension mentioned is a result of consultation - however weak it is? Or is it because our decision-makers and their proxy ultimately has no underlying principles beyond the maintenance of power?

AoD
Click to expand...
I find most public consultations are not used to address anything, but instead to placate the public. I know throughout the planning and engineering process the design does change, but has anything been changed simply due to the public not liking it?
 
micheal_can said:
I find most public consultations are not used to address anything, but instead to placate the public. I know throughout the planning and engineering process the design does change, but has anything been changed simply due to the public not liking it?
Click to expand...

Of course - and in fairness the public very generally speaking can't be expected to have the level of technical knowledge required. In any case, public consultations as practised doesn't really shape much beyond aesthetics (if that) - what really drives decisions comes from political power, not because someone did a show-and-tell.

AoD
 
micheal_can said:
Locally, they have changed due to some very shoddy work from a specific company that even involved a public citizen death near their worksite. Prior to the death, it was the lowest bidder. After blackballing that company for 5 years, the city decided to change how they award tenders. Everyone is fed up with substandard work and no repercussions from it to the company.
Click to expand...
The City had been awarding contracts to the "best qualified tender" since at least the 2000s, and the TTC since the 1990s. This is not a recent phenomenon.

Dan
 
micheal_can said:
I find most public consultations are not used to address anything, but instead to placate the public. I know throughout the planning and engineering process the design does change, but has anything been changed simply due to the public not liking it?
Click to expand...
Not for the OL, but for the previous RL plan, the City/TTC moved the tunnel south of Gerrard from Pape to Carlaw because locals on Pape complained during the consultation process. This stupidly meant they now had to build the subway directly below a major sewage artery, (which was already being rebuilt so there was no chance of just moving the sewer to Pape in exchange for moving the subway to Carlaw), making the stations deeper and more expensive.
 
TossYourJacket said:
Not for the OL, but for the previous RL plan, the City/TTC moved the tunnel south of Gerrard from Pape to Carlaw because locals on Pape complained during the consultation process. This stupidly meant they now had to build the subway directly below a major sewage artery, (which was already being rebuilt so there was no chance of just moving the sewer to Pape in exchange for moving the subway to Carlaw), making the stations deeper and more expensive.
Click to expand...
But this was not built, correct? I am speaking of things that were pushed by the public that was built.
 
To be fair, the location on Carlaw did make more sense in terms of proximity to density and TOD, but yes it did increase complexity and cost unreasonably.

A similar thing happened when, to appease a relatively affluent NIMBYhood, Ottawa moved part of Phase 2 into a tunnel below the water line in a hundred-metre-wide riverine right of way consisting of soggy gravel. The then-mayor, in his idiom, proclaimed it would not increase costs and everyone pretended to believe this until the bids came in. They're still trying to build it, years behind schedule, having turned the whole area into something resembling the moon. But I digress.
 
TossYourJacket said:
Not for the OL, but for the previous RL plan, the City/TTC moved the tunnel south of Gerrard from Pape to Carlaw because locals on Pape complained during the consultation process. This stupidly meant they now had to build the subway directly below a major sewage artery, (which was already being rebuilt so there was no chance of just moving the sewer to Pape in exchange for moving the subway to Carlaw), making the stations deeper and more expensive.
Click to expand...

And this in turn rolls all the way back to the fundamentally flawed decision to run the subway line under Pape Ave in the first place. The mid-2010s RL plan had a full underground station box running north-south under a purely residential neighbourhood on a two-lane road. Even if you set aside the complaints from the locals, this should've never passed a basic smell test.

I can think of five hundred other places in the city that are more in need of high-order mass transit than the corner of Queen & Pape. Most of us can.
 
warrens said:
And this in turn rolls all the way back to the fundamentally flawed decision to run the subway line under Pape Ave in the first place. The mid-2010s RL plan had a full underground station box running north-south under a purely residential neighbourhood on a two-lane road. Even if you set aside the complaints from the locals, this should've never passed a basic smell test.

I can think of five hundred other places in the city that are more in need of high-order mass transit than the corner of Queen & Pape. Most of us can.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, totally agree, the original plan was also stupid, and was the root cause of that mess. Ideally they should have planned to relocate the Carlaw trunk sewer from Day 1, and then run the subway up Carlaw without all the complications of the sewer line being present. But nope. Instead we got a dumb plan to run it up Pape, followed by an expensive plan to build it under a brand new sewer. Oops.

CapitalSeven said:
To be fair, the location on Carlaw did make more sense in terms of proximity to density and TOD, but yes it did increase complexity and cost unreasonably.

A similar thing happened when, to appease a relatively affluent NIMBYhood, Ottawa moved part of Phase 2 into a tunnel below the water line in a hundred-metre-wide riverine right of way consisting of soggy gravel. The then-mayor, in his idiom, proclaimed it would not increase costs and everyone pretended to believe this until the bids came in. They're still trying to build it, years behind schedule, having turned the whole area into something resembling the moon. But I digress.
Click to expand...
Oh man, the whole Confederation Line project has just been an exercise in "How many bad decisions can we make?". Although it hasn't been helped by the NCC screaming about wanting transit to be buried anywhere near their lands, because supposedly if a tourist sees a train, they will literally die :rolleyes:.
 
Climbed the east hill in the Lower Don Parklands near the DVP. Current condition of the hill.
R0010164.jpg
 
smallspy said:
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of cases of tenders being awarded to the not-cheapest bidder.

Dan
Click to expand...
yea but this is the big ticket item where it really matters that the competent bidder be selected over the cheapest at all costs one. right now the winning bidder has so many red flags from past projects that there is a strong chance that there will be some form of ECT fail repeats come 2027 that will push back the opening to 2030s
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top