Quote:
Originally Posted by huenthar
I just filled out the city's feedback form for the draft proposals; here's what I had to say for point #8 "Address the needs of local and regional transit users, neighbours and adjacent communities, and businesses.". I feel it's pretty important, and wanted to share it:
"Yes, consider the needs of all these different groups - but remember three very important things:
1. Not everybody's concerns are equal. And in the planning process they should not be treated as equal. For example, the business-wise success of the line depends on gaining, and keeping, ridership. Your primary concerns would therefore be those of the riders. While local community members may have important concerns as well, are they really equal to the needs of the users of the system? Certainly not to the point where you would make significant sacrifices of the latter to serve the former, ESPECIALLY when making basic decisions such as what type of line to build: a streetcar/LRT or a grade-separated metro line.
2. some groups vocalize their needs much more loudly and fervently than other groups... so please remember that the VOLUME of the concern does NOT correlate in any way to the EXTENT or IMPORTANCE of that concern among the affected parties. There are many community members who do not get involved in community group meetings and organize in order to lobby their concerns - but their opinion is just as valuable. Or even myself - I'm a lowly transit user! I don't go to stakeholder meetings or write editorials in local papers, or maintain blogs or assemble community activist groups - but my opinion is important, too! Just as important as the opinion of any loudspoken activist...
3. You Cannot Please Everybody. Fundamental truth! Please keep in mind what objectives are most important for this line, and whose concerns matter more. Ultimately, there will be someone who is going to be very upset over whatever decision is made along the corridor, no matter what you do... So yes, for sure "address" the needs of all these groups - but when decisions have to be made, some of these needs are not going to be met - so decide which needs, and whose, are the most important.
Especially in light of my second point, I think that there should be a much more "active" role taken by the planning team in gathering public feedback on the issue. As it is, the passive nature of holding stakeholder meetings and getting voluntary feedback from things like this form I'm filling out right now, is going to attract a very lopsided, and IMO therefore not very valuable, picture of what affected people are genuinely concerned about. Too much time is devoted to the "squeaky wheel", while for the average SkyTrain rider, it's a lot of work to even find out HOW to voice their opinion - if they even realize that it's possible, or that the planners care what their opinion is at all!
I think that YOU, the planners, need to get out and actively collect public feedback from affected groups, begining first and foremost with the transit riders themselves. Have a booth set up a Broadway and Commercial for collecting feedback from transit users, and run it for a couple of weeks; have people hand out forms on trains and buses. For community members, DON't rely on self-selected community activists to assess community opinion. Go door-to-door getting feedback. Likewise with businesses. Because there are a LOT of ordinary people like myself who are very interested in the future Broadway line and want to contribute whatever they can, and are seriously frustrated by how much attention is continually given to the same few, select group of loud-spoken people whose concerns, thank you very much, do NOT represent the rest of us!
I think that is the most important feedback I can give on this whole form: please GO OUT and SEEK public input to determine what the public is concerned with, because self-selected groups simply don't represent public opinion!"
|
Agree with it:
I have also mentioned that I feel the principle seems to weight too much on local interest at the risk to loose sight with the regional interest. It is important to weight on that matter.
I have also mentioned traffic safety issue (while not mentioning it, I have this
page in mind.
They suggest to integrate all cost, including GHG emission of construction, but seem to ignore the healthcare cost related to safety: I think it is important to add it.
regarding all cost, noticeably the GHG emission on construction, I think it is important to recognize the lasting effect: and this should be accounted on a proper amortization period: Tunnel civil engineering last centuries:
railbed, at most decade...
Also, meeting of the provincial, GVRD target in modal split suggest high level of pedestrian traffic around station and on Broadway corridor (so are associated accident with surface traffic), which call for wider sidewalk than today especially if someone want to see an improvement of the public realm, with tree lined planted avenue and sidewalk coffee.
Same is for cyclist which should be accommodated right on Broadway where shop are.
Having attended the Open House, I have also noticed a demography, with lot of "senior", which is very different from the one meet on the Broadway buses...
Location of the open house seems to indicate input are more searched from neighborhoods than of the actual rider and future potential users the the rapid transit, and that is a concern
Prev
I want to know something .......
. It seems Toderian paid them a visit around 7pm (but not very sure it was him).
Linear Mode
