It’s a Canadian culture thing. I saw this a lot in banking when I first moved here. Big 5 banks eager to have initial chats with people from elsewhere, and then either ghost them or lecture them on how they could not possibly bring their expertise into Canada.
Unfortunately, that’s not unique to financial services. But a broader disease across Canadian institutions.
Still find it amazing that when I first started doing work around stations, every operator was gracious in giving me their time to share their perspective, and eager to learn what I could share from elsewhere.
Apart from in Canada. Metrolinx and the TTC took ages to engage, and spent most of the conversations telling me other operators were wrong and there was nothing that could be applied from elsewhere to Canada because the context is so unique. VIA Rail and Translink refused to engage entirely.
Compare that to TfL, MTR, Network Rail and SNCF that were eagerly curious and it’s so frustrating to be here, knowing what could be done better and coming up against this culture that resembles the meme of cavemen rejecting the wheel.
Yep. That's my experience in my own field too. Canadian organizations are years behind, and either don't know or don't know and don't care. So we rarely work with Canadians!
Transit agencies in Ontario are closed systems. Mostly black boxes that aren’t held accountable. Their executives avoid talking to the public. The boards have limited their scope and try to avoid in depth discussion. The most change at the ttc happened for a few years where the ceo was the complete opposite (byford).
TTC would do well to have more boards and committees - a service accountability committee, a safety committee, a modernization committee, maybe even a customer service committee - along with the accessibility committee - which met monthly and had folks from the community who are interested and knowledgeable on them. This would give more folks than the current 3 on the board. Helping to identify folks who are passionate, knowledgeable and can communicate.
You think its weird you haven't been picked up by a transit agency? I think its weird you haven't been made a Minister of Transport.
I don't know enough about transit logistics to disagree with you. But I will say, the next day (the 27th) I was taking a street car with my mom, and she pointed out the transit system isn't the most accessible thing. But my argument was that if we can build twice as much somewhat inaccessible transit for the cost of accessibility, that makes a bigger overall impact, and means that there is more space in the road for people needing paratransit or otherwise find it difficult to ride (and likely fewer crippling accidents). So I would say the same here; the 26th was a pretty bad snow storm, and if building the system for twice a year events costs significantly more (and I don't know it does), I would question if it is the best use of seemingly limited transit dollars.
But I am not surprised you felt you made a bigger impact making videos. Getting people to write 1000 emails to city council means for more to a transit authority than any logical argument, imo. If logical arguments worked, you never would have been making videos.
Accessibility should not be negotiable. The issue here is just that Toronto isn't good at it, not that it's a bad idea! This is the same kind of thing we so often fall for . . .
Speaking of accessibility, have you ever seen people miss their stops, not because they forgot to press the button or pull the cord but because they did not expect to have to request them? Or people missing their stops because they requested them too late?
Cutting out accessibility is a hard sell when it goes against many states policies at the agencies that are implementing them. My partner is in a wheelchair and it's a fun (sometimes not fun) experience seeing how every city manages accessibility in transit.
On one end you have Paris which has explicitly excluded wheelchair users (and prams/strollers for that matter) from the major parts of their network (only 1 metro line was fully accessible last time). To say this was frustrating is an understatement, especially knowing how good the system is. Paris manages this by catering other aspects of their network to those with accessibility needs.
On another end of the spectrum would be Stuttgarts U-Bahn/tram system. The system is clearly not designed to meet 100% accessibility as almost every station/car doesn't have level boarding. However they provide many systems for people who need accommodations opportunities to still use transit. For us the biggest think was to atleast have elevators to access UG stations and space on the tram to sit in a wheelchair.
Both systems clearly save on cost by not being 100% accessible but I'd much prefer a system like Stuttgart that builds a minimum level of accessibility instead of deciding to exclude accessibility from the get-go.
Either system is still preferable to what we get in most NA cities where we build to such a high standard of accessibility but don't maintain or plan for people to ever use these accommodations.
Ya I mean I would never say "plan this as to be as difficult as possible for people in a wheelchair", but I do believe given the endless studies associated (my city, Oshawa, is currently spending a few million studying if what really need is a Gondala instead of BRT or LRT) there should be a serious view on the cost/benefits of accessibility.
Looking at subways for example, I tend towards the view that it is okay if stations only have staircase access - elevators alone seem to balloon costs on a cut and cover system, and there are farther ranging costs like how to support an emergency evacuation if riders can't simply walk out and along the track.
I'm really not trying to sound anti accessibility, but given the desperate need for transit in Canada/North America, I think there are real benefits for everyone to getting more transit and more transit ridership even if some people are excluded - easy for me to say I know. But obviously and surely I would expect accessible transit to be available for those who need it in another form, and the idea is it would operate on roadways that are no longer unusable.
This just doesn't make sense. Loads of cities provide and retrofit elevators including on much more complex stations. Our problem is high costs, not a lack of money (I don't think elevators are having any serious impact on our costs in Toronto either!)
Yeah I agree with that. I wasn't really clear with what I want I guess. Accessibility in NA in all construction (not just transit) can balloon costs. Regulators need to be cognizant that these standards are restricting our ability to build all types of infrastructure due to the cost. At some point you get what we have now where everyone (including those who we design accessibility for) are worse off because less is getting built over all.
I'd rather we relax standards but still mandate a minimum level of accessibility. For example, most stations should not need 2x elevators and what elevators we do build should be to smaller standards than current NA ones (bigger issue but still). We overbuilt (size & amount) on elevators and they go underutilized, under maintained, and inflate budgets. With this though we actually need to be militant that a minimum standard is enforced. I.e. we've designed for the bare minimum amount and size of elevators therefore we cannot tolerate any downtime during operating hours
This applies for everything in the world of accessibility though. It's absolutely absurd the standards we set for accessible infrastructure but conversely ignore any deterioration of that infrastructure.
It sounds as if someone is suggesting cutting housing costs by lowering standards for ventilation, lighting, fire safety and the like, thereby increasing housing supply.
I mean, yes, it is. Doesn't sound good nor is it an easy cause to sell but I think there's validity in questioning whether standards are necessary.
For housing a good example would be single stairwell low-rise buildings. In the early 20th century it may have been a good idea but nowadays it has almost no effect on safety outcomes for residential fires while making housing for everyone more expensive.
Going by what I have been told, and told by an actually planner, any system with request stops is not 100% accessible. I have heard of people missing their stops not because they forgot to pull the cord or press the button but because the did not expect to have to request them.
A lot of good points. It also matters that so many senior transit agency people in many places don't necessarily seem to actually use transit -- except for occasional "PR" outings -- maybe because it's not reliable / convenient enough to get to their job / home / high powered meetings! Which says a lot.
As a tangent off of your point, my own attempt to get involved (and this is someone without any particular expertise, unlike probably you or others you cite) has been mainly to make time to show up for the multitude of "public consultation" meetings that our local government (this is in the USA) has on whatever positive transit or urban development project is on the docket. These open meetings generally attract an audience and speakers skewed much older and very often retired, who have the time to attend, and who are almost always negative NIMBY types. It has been my experience that showing up in person and being heard - in a YIMBY way - is often very important, especially to witness to others how present infrastructure impacts me personally and how proposed projects would make it better.
I did, only with the mini locomotives but it was a pretty amazing product honestly. And I'm sad that I think the company is gone now. Those tiny locomotives had to weigh like 20 lb each and they ran on real brass rails! There were actually quite a few garden layouts in the area I grew up in, which were among the coolest things I've ever seen.
It’s a Canadian culture thing. I saw this a lot in banking when I first moved here. Big 5 banks eager to have initial chats with people from elsewhere, and then either ghost them or lecture them on how they could not possibly bring their expertise into Canada.
Unfortunately, that’s not unique to financial services. But a broader disease across Canadian institutions.
It’s basically a form of insecurity.
It is certainly a broader problem, but its particularly bad in transit
Totally agree!
Still find it amazing that when I first started doing work around stations, every operator was gracious in giving me their time to share their perspective, and eager to learn what I could share from elsewhere.
Apart from in Canada. Metrolinx and the TTC took ages to engage, and spent most of the conversations telling me other operators were wrong and there was nothing that could be applied from elsewhere to Canada because the context is so unique. VIA Rail and Translink refused to engage entirely.
Compare that to TfL, MTR, Network Rail and SNCF that were eagerly curious and it’s so frustrating to be here, knowing what could be done better and coming up against this culture that resembles the meme of cavemen rejecting the wheel.
Yep. That's my experience in my own field too. Canadian organizations are years behind, and either don't know or don't know and don't care. So we rarely work with Canadians!
I think I agree with you here, where the our institutions generate a cult of mediocrity. And its not unique to Canada either. Australia suffers from it too: https://www.economist.com/business/2023/06/01/australia-and-canada-are-one-economy-with-one-set-of-flaws
I think this issues stems from our resource curse.
Transit agencies in Ontario are closed systems. Mostly black boxes that aren’t held accountable. Their executives avoid talking to the public. The boards have limited their scope and try to avoid in depth discussion. The most change at the ttc happened for a few years where the ceo was the complete opposite (byford).
TTC would do well to have more boards and committees - a service accountability committee, a safety committee, a modernization committee, maybe even a customer service committee - along with the accessibility committee - which met monthly and had folks from the community who are interested and knowledgeable on them. This would give more folks than the current 3 on the board. Helping to identify folks who are passionate, knowledgeable and can communicate.
This would probably be good, though you do have to be careful loading up with additional process if your priority is just outcomes.
You think its weird you haven't been picked up by a transit agency? I think its weird you haven't been made a Minister of Transport.
I don't know enough about transit logistics to disagree with you. But I will say, the next day (the 27th) I was taking a street car with my mom, and she pointed out the transit system isn't the most accessible thing. But my argument was that if we can build twice as much somewhat inaccessible transit for the cost of accessibility, that makes a bigger overall impact, and means that there is more space in the road for people needing paratransit or otherwise find it difficult to ride (and likely fewer crippling accidents). So I would say the same here; the 26th was a pretty bad snow storm, and if building the system for twice a year events costs significantly more (and I don't know it does), I would question if it is the best use of seemingly limited transit dollars.
But I am not surprised you felt you made a bigger impact making videos. Getting people to write 1000 emails to city council means for more to a transit authority than any logical argument, imo. If logical arguments worked, you never would have been making videos.
Accessibility should not be negotiable. The issue here is just that Toronto isn't good at it, not that it's a bad idea! This is the same kind of thing we so often fall for . . .
Speaking of accessibility, have you ever seen people miss their stops, not because they forgot to press the button or pull the cord but because they did not expect to have to request them? Or people missing their stops because they requested them too late?
If you say it doesn't change the cost then fair good enough for me. Again, definitely not advocating against accessibility.
Cutting out accessibility is a hard sell when it goes against many states policies at the agencies that are implementing them. My partner is in a wheelchair and it's a fun (sometimes not fun) experience seeing how every city manages accessibility in transit.
On one end you have Paris which has explicitly excluded wheelchair users (and prams/strollers for that matter) from the major parts of their network (only 1 metro line was fully accessible last time). To say this was frustrating is an understatement, especially knowing how good the system is. Paris manages this by catering other aspects of their network to those with accessibility needs.
On another end of the spectrum would be Stuttgarts U-Bahn/tram system. The system is clearly not designed to meet 100% accessibility as almost every station/car doesn't have level boarding. However they provide many systems for people who need accommodations opportunities to still use transit. For us the biggest think was to atleast have elevators to access UG stations and space on the tram to sit in a wheelchair.
Both systems clearly save on cost by not being 100% accessible but I'd much prefer a system like Stuttgart that builds a minimum level of accessibility instead of deciding to exclude accessibility from the get-go.
Either system is still preferable to what we get in most NA cities where we build to such a high standard of accessibility but don't maintain or plan for people to ever use these accommodations.
Ya I mean I would never say "plan this as to be as difficult as possible for people in a wheelchair", but I do believe given the endless studies associated (my city, Oshawa, is currently spending a few million studying if what really need is a Gondala instead of BRT or LRT) there should be a serious view on the cost/benefits of accessibility.
Looking at subways for example, I tend towards the view that it is okay if stations only have staircase access - elevators alone seem to balloon costs on a cut and cover system, and there are farther ranging costs like how to support an emergency evacuation if riders can't simply walk out and along the track.
I'm really not trying to sound anti accessibility, but given the desperate need for transit in Canada/North America, I think there are real benefits for everyone to getting more transit and more transit ridership even if some people are excluded - easy for me to say I know. But obviously and surely I would expect accessible transit to be available for those who need it in another form, and the idea is it would operate on roadways that are no longer unusable.
This just doesn't make sense. Loads of cities provide and retrofit elevators including on much more complex stations. Our problem is high costs, not a lack of money (I don't think elevators are having any serious impact on our costs in Toronto either!)
Yeah I agree with that. I wasn't really clear with what I want I guess. Accessibility in NA in all construction (not just transit) can balloon costs. Regulators need to be cognizant that these standards are restricting our ability to build all types of infrastructure due to the cost. At some point you get what we have now where everyone (including those who we design accessibility for) are worse off because less is getting built over all.
I'd rather we relax standards but still mandate a minimum level of accessibility. For example, most stations should not need 2x elevators and what elevators we do build should be to smaller standards than current NA ones (bigger issue but still). We overbuilt (size & amount) on elevators and they go underutilized, under maintained, and inflate budgets. With this though we actually need to be militant that a minimum standard is enforced. I.e. we've designed for the bare minimum amount and size of elevators therefore we cannot tolerate any downtime during operating hours
This applies for everything in the world of accessibility though. It's absolutely absurd the standards we set for accessible infrastructure but conversely ignore any deterioration of that infrastructure.
It sounds as if someone is suggesting cutting housing costs by lowering standards for ventilation, lighting, fire safety and the like, thereby increasing housing supply.
I mean, yes, it is. Doesn't sound good nor is it an easy cause to sell but I think there's validity in questioning whether standards are necessary.
For housing a good example would be single stairwell low-rise buildings. In the early 20th century it may have been a good idea but nowadays it has almost no effect on safety outcomes for residential fires while making housing for everyone more expensive.
Sure, but not elevators in subways. You can cut things without materially impacting peoples lives.
Ya it is exactly that.
Going by what I have been told, and told by an actually planner, any system with request stops is not 100% accessible. I have heard of people missing their stops not because they forgot to pull the cord or press the button but because the did not expect to have to request them.
A lot of good points. It also matters that so many senior transit agency people in many places don't necessarily seem to actually use transit -- except for occasional "PR" outings -- maybe because it's not reliable / convenient enough to get to their job / home / high powered meetings! Which says a lot.
As a tangent off of your point, my own attempt to get involved (and this is someone without any particular expertise, unlike probably you or others you cite) has been mainly to make time to show up for the multitude of "public consultation" meetings that our local government (this is in the USA) has on whatever positive transit or urban development project is on the docket. These open meetings generally attract an audience and speakers skewed much older and very often retired, who have the time to attend, and who are almost always negative NIMBY types. It has been my experience that showing up in person and being heard - in a YIMBY way - is often very important, especially to witness to others how present infrastructure impacts me personally and how proposed projects would make it better.
You had an LGB set as a child? Wow. I have never had one of those.
I did, only with the mini locomotives but it was a pretty amazing product honestly. And I'm sad that I think the company is gone now. Those tiny locomotives had to weigh like 20 lb each and they ran on real brass rails! There were actually quite a few garden layouts in the area I grew up in, which were among the coolest things I've ever seen.
Sort of also explains what happened between Metrolinx and ONxpress.