[gweed123]

Which is why we must remove the political realm from transit planning, projects of this magnitude simply cannot be built within a politician's 4 year term.

We need to return to operational subsidies of transit agencies and leave them (hopefully transit agencies are better at transit planning than a politician) to plan the growth and expansion of the network.

Unfortunately that wouldn't really rid us of political meddling. As long as politicians sit on these boards, they will be subject to the political tides. If politicians aren't on these boards, you can get your ass some Conservative group is going to stand up and say "there's no public accountability on this board, we need to abolish them!". Let's face it, people are stupid, and politicians cater to this. They refuse to listen to the difference between an educated "no, that won't work, maybe you should try something else" and a jo-schmo whos up in arms about a project he has no comprehension of (ie "this project is a waste of taxpayer dollars, I won't stand for it!"). There needs to be a greater distinction made between the opinion of a university graduate and the opinion of a tea party member (just using them as an example, but pretty much any NIMBY group will work). They may be equal in democracy, but they are not equal in intelligence (on average).

 

[The Mad Navigator]

Unfortunately that wouldn't really rid us of political meddling. As long as politicians sit on these boards, they will be subject to the political tides. If politicians aren't on these boards, you can get your ass some Conservative group is going to stand up and say "there's no public accountability on this board, we need to abolish them!". Let's face it, people are stupid, and politicians cater to this. They refuse to listen to the difference between an educated "no, that won't work, maybe you should try something else" and a jo-schmo whos up in arms about a project he has no comprehension of (ie "this project is a waste of taxpayer dollars, I won't stand for it!"). There needs to be a greater distinction made between the opinion of a university graduate and the opinion of a tea party member. They may be equal in democracy, but they are not equal in intelligence (on average).

Computers should be doing all the transit planning alone. There's no bias, no political meddling, etc.

 

[Rainforest]

Computers should be doing all the transit planning alone. There's no bias, no political meddling, etc.

Modern computers are darn fast and powerful, but still not intelligent enough to be trusted with planning complex systems. They cannot set the framework of intelligence themselves, they rely on software made by people, and hence their intelligence is only as good as that software.

In 50 or 70 years, when self-educating computer systems become a commonplace, maybe.

 

[Rainforest]

Unfortunately that wouldn't really rid us of political meddling. As long as politicians sit on these boards, they will be subject to the political tides. If politicians aren't on these boards, you can get your ass some Conservative group is going to stand up and say "there's no public accountability on this board, we need to abolish them!". Let's face it, people are stupid, and politicians cater to this. They refuse to listen to the difference between an educated "no, that won't work, maybe you should try something else" and a jo-schmo whos up in arms about a project he has no comprehension of (ie "this project is a waste of taxpayer dollars, I won't stand for it!"). There needs to be a greater distinction made between the opinion of a university graduate and the opinion of a tea party member (just using them as an example, but pretty much any NIMBY group will work). They may be equal in democracy, but they are not equal in intelligence (on average).

It is impossible to fully get rid of political influences, so I am thinking of ways to at least extend the mandate of a given transit plan. A binding referendum every 3 election cycles (which is normally 12 years) to set the list of transit construction priorities; then the governments can accelerate or hold back its implementation dependent on the fiscal situation, but cannot replace or swap the projects in the list unless another referendum is held.

 

[gweed123]

It is impossible to fully get rid of political influences, so I am thinking of ways to at least extend the mandate of a given transit plan. A binding referendum every 3 election cycles (which is normally 12 years) to set the list of transit construction priorities; then the governments can accelerate or hold back its implementation dependent on the fiscal situation, but cannot replace or swap the projects in the list unless another referendum is held.

Good idea in theory. The problem is that a referrendum involves asking people who have little interest in transit to pay attention to it. In otherwords, opening it up to direct public opinion opens the door for "Prop 8"-style meddling by an outside organization with an agenda. Consider this: if GM still made buses, and there was a referendum on whether or not to implement LRT or BRT, would GM not have a vested interest in BRT? So, wouldn't it be natural for them to try and pump some advertising money into touting the benefits of BRT? Ads like this are very rarely on the level, but can drastically skew one's interpretation of an issue. Instead of having transit be a political pissing contest every election, it would become a corporate pissing contest every referendum cycle.

I think the best way to monitor transit would be to have a 14 member board (2 from each region + 2 the City of Toronto + 4 from the Province), on terms of of a fixed length, but staggered to avoid a sudden turnover. These members will not be politicians, but experts who submit their nomination in front of council, and then are voted in by the council sitting at the time. They serve for a fixed length of time (5 years, 8 years, take your pick), and then that spot then becomes vacant. The idea is that there will be a gradual turnover, which means no sudden jerks towards or away from certain policies depending on who's in the mayor's chair (or who's in the Premier's office). This agency would be in charge of master planning for the entire GTA. It gives political accountability, without being suceptible to political tides. A 1 term mayor will at-most be able to change the position of 1 of the members on the council, not enough to make a significant difference on the majority vote.

PS: This is also how I think the Senate should work. Senators being appointed by their respective provincial legislatures, for a fixed term. Gives the provinces a greater voice in federal parliament, and avoids the house of sober 2nd thought being influenced by the political tides.

 

[leopetr]

Computers should be doing all the transit planning alone. There's no bias, no political meddling, etc.

Stuff like the likelihood of mode switch, rail preference, maximum walking distance, future price of gasoline, etc is a matter of best guesses. Give me a computer model and I can skew it for whatever routing and technology you want by omitting factors, including additional factors, or changing the parameters.

 

[Rainforest]

Good idea in theory. The problem is that a referrendum involves asking people who have little interest in transit to pay attention to it. In otherwords, opening it up to direct public opinion opens the door for "Prop 8"-style meddling by an outside organization with an agenda. Consider this: if GM still made buses, and there was a referendum on whether or not to implement LRT or BRT, would GM not have a vested interest in BRT? So, wouldn't it be natural for them to try and pump some advertising money into touting the benefits of BRT? Ads like this are very rarely on the level, but can drastically skew one's interpretation of an issue. Instead of having transit be a political pissing contest every election, it would become a corporate pissing contest every referendum cycle.

1) Such interferences surely will happen, but on the other hand, both the civic LRT proponents and the manufacturers of light rail vehicles are free to run their own ad campaign.

2) Actually it does not have to be a set of polls on each corridor and each technology choice. The transit plan can be made by a panel of experts, and then approved on the referendum as a package. Or, the government pay appoint 2 or 3 panels to create competing plans, and then one of them wins the referendum and becomes the official plan.

The main point of the whole exercise is not to derive the best technical solution from the public opinion, but to give the official plan some immunity to the political tides.

I think the best way to monitor transit would be to have a 14 member board (2 from each region + 2 the City of Toronto + 4 from the Province), on terms of of a fixed length, but staggered to avoid a sudden turnover. These members will not be politicians, but experts who submit their nomination in front of council, and then are voted in by the council sitting at the time. They serve for a fixed length of time (5 years, 8 years, take your pick), and then that spot then becomes vacant. The idea is that there will be a gradual turnover, which means no sudden jerks towards or away from certain policies depending on who's in the mayor's chair (or who's in the Premier's office). This agency would be in charge of master planning for the entire GTA. It gives political accountability, without being suceptible to political tides. A 1 term mayor will at-most be able to change the position of 1 of the members on the council, not enough to make a significant difference on the majority vote.

I like the idea of experts appointed by the councils for a fixed term, and staggering any changes in the board. Indeed, that can be easier done than running a referendum.

But I see an issue with the board composition as you proposed it. Of those 14 members, 8 appointed by regions will care very little about any transit lines within Toronto, unless that line connects to their own transit. So, changing just 2 members from Toronto can totally change the whole board's take on TTC's lines.

 

[Filip]

Another thing just came to mind.

If we're debating how to get out of the LRT vehicles contract - couldn't we just pound a deal with Bombardier to switch them to subways? They're both the same company and built in the same place.

 

[SlickFranky]

Another thing just came to mind.

If we're debating how to get out of the LRT vehicles contract - couldn't we just pound a deal with Bombardier to switch them to subways? They're both the same company and built in the same place.

You mean sole-source another subway contract!?!?!?!?!

 

[Filip]

You mean sole-source another subway contract!?!?!?!?!

Well if we're going to build subways and get rid of the LRT vehicles contract, we might as well try to fuse the two problems and find a solution.

Bombardier knows how important Toronto is for them. As this contract hasn't entered any sort of production - they could easily negotiate terms to replace the LRT vehicles with more Toronto rockets to run on the new lines.

 

[nfitz]

Marginal increase? The increase is several fold in capacity.

Only if 2 or 3 is several.

If you make the capacity 2-3 times bigger, the trains will come 2-3 times less often. Travel times are the same with subway or LRT in the tunnel. Therefore, building it as subway will cause people to have to spend longer travelling.

 

[nfitz]

I believe demand is seriously being underestimated. It will have a catchment area several times larger than Bloor

So you believe your more qualified by the experts with years of specialized education and computer models that predict this stuff? They could be out by triple, and they'd still be well in the territory of LRT.

I don't understand this subway fetish. Using LRT on the Eglinton line has a much greater capacity than Vancouver's new Canada line, yet the subway supporters keep citing that as an example of how we can construct subways.

 

[Filip]

So you believe your more qualified by the experts with years of specialized education and computer models that predict this stuff? They could be out by triple, and they'd still be well in the territory of LRT.

I don't understand this subway fetish. Using LRT on the Eglinton line has a much greater capacity than Vancouver's new Canada line, yet the subway supporters keep citing that as an example of how we can construct subways.

Ugh ok, time to quote my friend's dad who's the head structural engineer for the TTC, once again because you are too dense to read it beforehand.

Basically, they will tell consultants/experts what they want, they will fabricate ridership projections by falsifying data and then sell it to the public. You don't go from subway ready corridor in the 80s to LRT for the next 20 years just like that, unless some plague took out half of Toronto. The TTC could release studies saying that teleportation is the best option on this corridor beating out everything if they wanted to.. It's that asinine.

 

[GraphicMatt]

This thread has now devolved into "My friend's dad says."

 

[nfitz]

Ugh ok, time to quote my friend's dad who's the head structural engineer for the TTC, once again because you are too dense to read it beforehand.

John Sepulis???

Basically, they will tell consultants/experts what they want, they will fabricate ridership projections by falsifying data and then sell it to the public. You don't go from subway ready corridor in the 80s to LRT for the next 20 years just like that, unless some plague took out half of Toronto. The TTC could release studies saying that teleportation is the best option on this corridor beating out everything if they wanted to.. It's that asinine.

You clearly no nothing, and you've been listening to the rantings of someone who would be mortified if he knew you had identified what he said publicly.

An engineer would loose his licence if he were falsify the results to keep the client happy.

To suggest such criminal activity seems bizarre.