Referendum on Transit City needed

[js97]

Why don't we? Because that would be retarded. We operate a representative democracy for a reason. The average citizen is not well enough informed to making these types of desicions, and will generally vote solely based on his/her own best interest (rather than in the interest of the greater good). This is why we elect representatives (councillors, mpps, etc) who are able to devote large amounts of time to understanding the issues and making informed decisions.

This is all pretty basic stuff here...hopefully you were being sarcastic in asking such a moronic question.

I was being sarcastic...

Also, let's not forget that just because it's based on a 'democratic' referendum, it may not produce the best results. I.E. gay rights in California.

 

[Hipster Duck]

^No kidding. California-style "direct democracy" is a basket case. When I think about it, the reason why things get done at all in government is because of the absence, not presence, of democracy.

The really important things that governments do, or the projects that get implemented to completion, are the ones that are decided unilaterally by unelected technocrats or bureaucrats: what the interest rate should be set at, which district should get an MRI machine, what kind of treatment system to build at the water plant, etc.

Unfortunately, transit planning has been hijacked by democracy in North America - elected officials promise one thing and their opponents promise something else - so nothing ever gets done. Transit planning in Non-Anglophone countries is a largely technocratic endeavour that hasn't been politicized to nearly the same extent. As a result, plans don't get compromised if one party gets voted in or another. Road planning, on the other hand, is much more apolitical and, predictably, plans usually end up getting built one way or another; the 400 will get built to Sudbury no matter who's in charge because nobody ever thought to turn it into a political wedge issue.

You want something to stall? Turn it into a political issue to be voted over and give people the illusion that they are "in control". Aristotle was right: democracy is overrated.

 

[W. K. Lis]

^No kidding. California-style "direct democracy" is a basket case. When I think about it, the reason why things get done at all in government is because of the absence, not presence, of democracy.

The really important things that governments do, or the projects that get implemented to completion, are the ones that are decided unilaterally by unelected technocrats or bureaucrats: what the interest rate should be set at, which district should get an MRI machine, what kind of treatment system to build at the water plant, etc.

Unfortunately, transit planning has been hijacked by democracy in North America - elected officials promise one thing and their opponents promise something else - so nothing ever gets done. Transit planning in Non-Anglophone countries is a largely technocratic endeavour that hasn't been politicized to nearly the same extent. As a result, plans don't get compromised if one party gets voted in or another. Road planning, on the other hand, is much more apolitical and, predictably, plans usually end up getting built one way or another; the 400 will get built to Sudbury no matter who's in charge because nobody ever thought to turn it into a political wedge issue.

You want something to stall? Turn it into a political issue to be voted over and give people the illusion that they are "in control". Aristotle was right: democracy is overrated.

I guess you can say that what Robert Moses did to New York City from the 1920's to the 1960's is a "great" example. (That's a negative example by the way.)

 

[Hipster Duck]

^That's not relevant. Whether you agree with what he built he got things done. That's the point of my argument: representative and direct democracy is pretty badly suited to implementing plans.

Even if we had a referendum on Transit City, it would not really be democracy in action. All the substance of the plan - the route to take, the vehicles, the placement of stations, the choice of construction company - would be decided by the same professional group of planners, engineers, lawyers and business people, and the only thing remotely democratic would be that the final plan would be put to a YES/NO vote. Can you really say that "the people" are in control? The only thing a referendum would do is invite the opposition party to use the plan as a tool against you in the next election.

As far as I'm concerned, something like Transit City - or any major infrastructure plan - should not even be put to vote in council. A steering committee of left and right wing city councilors should collaborate with a consortium of planners, business leaders, neighbourhood residents and transport advocacy groups representing all travel modes (including the car) to draft a plan and then ask members of higher government from all parties to pledge financial support for it. That way, you eliminate a transportation plan from becoming a political wedge issue altogether. The result wouldn't be a "subway plan" or an "LRT plan" but some kind of integrated transportation plan that looks at different corridors more pragmatically.

 

[allabootmatt]

I agree wholeheartedly. I think the main lesson of the Miller-Ford transit pendulum swing is that a wholesale depoliticization of transit planning and implementation should be an urgent priority. One of the remarkable things about the transit debate in the GTA is that EVERYONE --well, maybe except Ford -- agrees we need to have a hell of a lot of new transit under construction ASAP. And almost everyone agrees that wild swings in political support for projects are holding back the region tremendously. Yet we still can't seem to figure it out, which tells me that the structure isn't working.

Metrolinx, of course, was an effort in this direction, but obviously it didn't go far enough.

Edit: to add that, by the way, I think a technocratic takeover of transit planning would have never produced anything like EITHER the Miller or Ford plans. This isn't just about restraining the right. Letting transit experts plan transit would not only probably mean no gravy trains to nowhere (or, to, say, 905 swing ridings) but also wouldn't mean converging LRT lines on Malvern and Jane and Finch. I think an honest expert assessment of the Toronto transit picture would probably signal an urgent need for the DRL, an urgent need for some kind of regional link under Eglinton, and maybe a northern crosstown route as a much lower priority. I could certainly live with that.

 

[ssiguy2]

The analogy with California is ridiculous. That was a human rights issue not a transit plan.
I can't stand this "the citizens just didn't understand" crap. I don't suppose it has occurred to anyone of the TC backers that the people did understand what TC was and how it would work and didn't like what they saw?
TransitCity was a transit plan that was also an attempt at social enginnering and that is why it failed.
TransitCity is dead and the sooner it's put to rest the the faster Toronto can get on with subway/mass transit expansion.
Like it or lump it it is dead so get over it and move on.

Also please don't generalize about transit expansion in NA by using Toronto as the focal point.
Just because Toronto has done squat doesn't mean the rest of NA or even Canada has as well. One only has to look at Van/Cal/Edm to see how many cities are creating large transit infrastructure from nothing in the last 30 years. L.A been started and expanding at a furious rate and in 10 years will have a true mass and rapid transit system that Toronto could only dream of. The number of new and expanding rail systems in the US in the last 30 years has been staggering and the expansion continues.

 

[Asterix]

TransitCity was a transit plan that was also an attempt at social enginnering and that is why it failed.
TransitCity is dead and the sooner it's put to rest the the faster Toronto can get on with subway/mass transit expansion.
Like it or lump it it is dead so get over it and move on.

Talk about hyperbole.

Saying it "failed" because a new mayor who has little to no transit experience and did not make transit a coherent part of his campaign, pronounced it canceled without consulting the Commission or council seems to be grasping at straws in order to paint a negative picture.

"Social engineering"?

TC is a plan to bring much needed higher order transit to large swaths of the suburbs that do not have, nor for the foreseeable future, the density or demand to justify the expense to build and operate full HRT lines. Given the huge cost differential, either we service their needs with improved LRT, bringing increased speed, reliability and capacity, or we relegate them to at least another generation of dealing with slow, slogging buses in mixed traffic.

The fact that LRT lines have been shown to drive development in a way that is consistent with the city plan is a bonus. (If one is going to slag a city plan as being 'social engineering', then why have a city planning department at all and just let the completely open free market run wild building whatever it wants, wherever it wants with no consideration for any kind of bigger picture?)

The number of new and expanding rail systems in the US in the last 30 years has been staggering and the expansion continues.

And yet when Toronto finally not only has a plan in place, but also the designs and funding and is on the verge of getting shovels in the ground to build the first in what could be extensive new rapid transit additions to its system, you and others are advocating throwing it away and going back to the drawing board to do what Toronto has shown it is great at: coming up with grandiose plans and visions that never have to worry about seeing the light of day.

 

[Irishmonk]

Edit: to add that, by the way, I think a technocratic takeover of transit planning would have never produced anything like EITHER the Miller or Ford plans. This isn't just about restraining the right. Letting transit experts plan transit would not only probably mean no gravy trains to nowhere (or, to, say, 905 swing ridings) but also wouldn't mean converging LRT lines on Malvern and Jane and Finch. I think an honest expert assessment of the Toronto transit picture would probably signal an urgent need for the DRL, an urgent need for some kind of regional link under Eglinton, and maybe a northern crosstown route as a much lower priority. I could certainly live with that.

Could the non-profit airport authorities like GTAA be a model for this kind of thing? The expansion of YYZ ceased being a political hot potato once the airport authority was formed and given carte blanche to do what they wanted. The result was a pretty effective (if slightly over-ambitious) rebuild that went almost exactly according to plan.

Obviously the money raising element for a similar kind of public transit authority would have to be extremely creative but urban transit does have a revenue stream that should provide some kind of leverage to obtain long term, low interest loans that would guarantee funding over the entire 20 - 30 year build out. Perhaps this is a pipe dream but, clearly, some new method of transit infrastructure investment has to be attempted in order for this city--or for any large and expanding city-- to be viable in the long term.

It seems that we can build infrastructure for just about every human need--hospitals, power stations, airports, etc--except public transit which always comes off as the runt of the litter--and seems to be the perpetual victim of the old class-warfare divide. ("Public transit is for losers.")