FS:
Oh, I've been humbled by that whole experience, I had no idea that I was coming across as crazed to the forum. Reading back the posts now, I wished I had taken more time to edit and preview before I hit submit.
Humbled? You certainly don't sound like it. Besides, no amount of editing will change the fact that you got even the basics wrong.
It did however make me realize something, that June of last year Rob Ford was present at that TTC meeting in Leslieville standing up for the constituents while according to anecdotal evidence Giambrone, Bussin and Fletcher were indifferent to the questions being raised. This was long before he could've possibly known Miller was resigning or Tory would not be running in opposition; and he was in one of the safest ward seats in the city. Ergo, what did he stand to gain via being there? It sounds like a genuine case of caring about community issues. Seems like a lot of people don't get it.
There are a zillion other projects with far greater impact than this one - why show up here and not others? And by constituents, which ones are you referring to? The ones who complained, or the ones that accepted this project? Besides, don't tell me RF decided to run in the last minute.
This isn't so much about Rob Ford as it is about the backlash against self serving politicians using their council seat to promote their own interests and their political agenda which goes opposite to their elected position. They should be representing their constituents best interests, not their own. People are tired of watching tax dollars being spent by councillors on what is basically political activism rather than what is good for the city. It is what drives people to dispair. Manage the cities money, spend it wisely is all we ask. Very few to date have achieved this and those that have are always right of center who realize whose money they are spending. It has to stop somewhere, somehow.
Funny how you managed to transpose your own interest and political agenda as the of the public by default.
This is just another prime example of how much Team Ford's viewpoints kind of coalesce with my own.
Really? Team Ford disvowed the said blog, if you didn't realize:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tor...-ford-advisor-s-blog-suggests-privatizing-ttc
So are you suggesting that the said candidate has a hidden agenda, or what?
Miller likes to equate Europe with the "world-class" standards that Toronto should thrive to be living up to (inferiority complex, much?). Did you know that European countries, whose supranational EU government has rigorously enforced "competition" schemes in transport, have basically forced the public-sector out of transportation? In general, the European authorities have split their rail operations between the publicly owned tracks and rights-of-way and the private or semi-private rail service providers with the intention of using the track owner to ensure equitable distribution of resources throughout the country and "better service" through competition in train operations.
Perhaps this article and a few others it links to would perk your interest in the EU experience:
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/privatized-transit-and-or-vs-the-public-good.html
Beyond that, please feel free to inform me the level of government subsidies required after this exercise in the realignment of public and private ownership and operation of transit?
The biggest expansions of public transit anywhere up until now where done by private companies before they were made public (early NYC, London, Paris, etc). This is because money isn't wasted on uneconomic lines.
Or Toronto, even - and do remind me why the TTC was formed?
I think there is plenty of value in thinking about transit in terms of "things we do because we think the make sense in their own right" and "things we do because we want to have a more fair society". When you combine the two into the same agency, rational decision making becomes paralyzed. The fact that Canadian transit systems have become hugely burdened with social service functions is killing them financially, preventing expansion where it is needed, and creates a stigma around transit, buses in particular, generally as a service for poor and minorities.
Interesting you chose to blame the stigma of buses - certainly, it didn't stop a great number of individuals from most social classes from using the TTC bus service; on the other hand, you have a premium system like VIVA, which remains a marginal operation with a similiarly marginal level of impact of modal split in spite of having little to no stigma attached.
The people who are advocating privatization or PPP of public transit (at least those who have any political clout) are not suggesting that the there not be any regulation of transit fares or where transit routes are put. In fact, most of them still want the government to completely make those decisions. They just want the operations of the system to be privatized. Maybe a trial basis outsourcing of TTC operations would make the workers more appreciative of what they have and what they stand to lose via being too greedy, lazy and rude to customers. I applaud any politician with the gumption to challenge a union monopoly in a bid to save taxpayers' money.
I am all for flexibility in the provision of certain TTC services - I am just not convinced RF is the person to do it, considering his stated agenda vis-a-vis transit. BTW, since you're on the topic of "rational decision making", please play CLOSE attention to the piece by Marcus Gee I've posted on here. I am sure you will have plenty to say as to why reactionary decision making personified by RF is superior. And yes, having 5x density around a subway node is "irrational, bad planning". Please inform me how your personal beliefs align with say, Team F's on the matter?
AoD
