Public Consultation Thread

[#Metro]

After reading this, it looks like public consultation could be talked about.
Is it working? What needs changing? What needs to be left alone?

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4777.msg43608#msg43608

I note what mufreight wrote in this thread

Flaws
1  Translink failure to consult wit the commuters actual or potential.

2  The convoluted process that Translink uses rather than to base their timetabling/routes and frequencies on people with actual coal face experience, the academic approach is frequently sadly flawed by decisions more about bureaucrats justifing their existence rather than producing a workable result.

3  Translink works to the Treasury requirements influenced by political considerations rather than community need.

While there is a need for a co-ordinating authority for public transport there is no justification for the hydra like bureaucracy that Translink has become.  It soaks up funds that could be far better expended on services by attempting to micro manage operators who should be allowed to respond to community demand.

I think consultation is important for major changes. A major change would be removing a series of routes in their entirety, of course.
Its also important that small changes don't get consulted on IMHO. Adjusting a bus running time from 5 mins past the hour to 6 mins past the hour DOES NOT and should not require consultation.

Sometimes cuts are justified. Using the scrapper is important; actually it is essential for a good PT system. The thing is, reasons should be clear. IMHO I have found a transit agency that does something which IMHO does this (see below), they even give you the value of 0.23 passengers per dollar as the cutoff (note how they don't look like they are using density directly, but cost/benefit).

Take a look at this- from overseas, it outlines the routes that get changed or added / and the bits or routes that are sent to the scrapper and why. http://www3.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/service_improvements_2008.pdf

Service Improvements
A comprehensive evaluation of proposals for new and improved transit services.

Contents

• Planning Transit Service
• Recommended New and Revised Services
• Proposals Examined and Not Recommended
• Post-Implementation Reviews of New Services
• Appendices

I hope this helps  

[STB]

The below post was in the Western Region thread but I have since deleted that post and moved it to here.

I'll just add, that the way they handled this Western Region change was attrocious at best.  There was no warnings of the impending removal of route 505, 510 and 523.  While the patronage data supports this, there are area's where a mass transit service actually does need to exist in some form, and I'm mostly talking about route 505 in particular.  The way they structured the Bell St stops really wasn't the best form IMO.  Route 515 stopping at the one bus stop for both north and south is chaotic at best and confusing for the ordinary Joe Blow.  This was compounded by the way they handled giving out the information, simply saying 'This is confidential' does not cut it, and is making a bad situation just worse.  I'm a strong believer in openess and to simply get that response from a simple question of what was the rational behind the planning of this new service is just really bad community relations and while I don't blame the Planner's or those staff who turned up at those information sessions, the Mangement of TL really do need to sit down and do a complete overhaul of the community relations and planning processes, and hell, get the community involved with that!

[#Metro]

I think 2011 should be the year of complete overhaul in TL's Planning and Community Relations processes.  Even if this does involve. If it improves what c**py consultation we get now, then so be it IMO.

I agree with the idea of overhauls in the CR process. But should be proper and through the official channels- the minister, TL, media etc.

I'd strongly suggest in keeping the B***tards honest and letting them know exactly what you want at every service change, moreso if Management or the Minister's office staff or herself known that we know exactly what TL are up to and that we, as a community want change, at least back to the early days in 2004/05 when TL actually went out there and consulted about the TNP and network overhauls for each region.  Heck, I remember those days of Meet The Planner sessions at libraries and shopping centres.  Sure people got fired up but it allowed an improvement on what TL was proposing and allowed massive patronage growth in the service.

Not everything should be consulted on. There can be "consultation fatigue" where all that gets done is consultation over and over and nothing gets done. It should be short and snappy. 1 week, 2 weeks max. A balance needs to be found between serving needs and making sure things continue to move.

BTW, the TransLink Network Plan was dripping in gloss. What was that all about? It wasn't even a plan. If you want to see a real Network is look here, IMHO THIS IS WHAT A NETWORK PLAN LOOKS LIKE

Ridership Growth Strategy HERE ---> http://www3.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/ridership_growth_strategy_2003.pdf

In terms of attracting new riders, customer research in Toronto and elsewhere has consistently shown that the public wants fast, reliable, comfortable, convenient service, and this is the focus of the ridership growth strategy.

AND HERE ---> http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/Commission_meetings/2009/August_26_2009/Reports/Transit_City_Bus_Pla.pdf

Look at the level of detail!

COMPARE THIS TO WHAT TL PUBLISHED: http://www.translink.com.au/resources/about-translink/reporting-and-publications/network-plan-2010.pdf
http://www.translink.com.au/about-translink/reporting-and-publications/translink-network-plan

I don't know what TL was publishing, but it wasn't a Network Plan IMHO! 

[STB]

Don't worry, I agree that not everything should be consulted on.  Minor service changes like minor timing changes and minor route changes shouldn't be consulted on.  That would be pointless!  But service changes the size of this Western Region service change should've had consultation of some sort, that's a no brainer!

FYI, the last I heard, due to funding being cut from TL last year at the height of the GFC, the Network plan was swept into a quiet darkened place and some major service changes that were planned for were quietly scrapped.  I don't think the actual real Network Plan was released IMO.  What was released was certainly a cut down version of the work that actually went into it.

[#Metro]

If there is no funding for X then the plan still stands, not everything can be funded, but it allows guidance for the rest of the changes to happen when $$$ become available.

[justanotheruser]

The below post was in the Western Region thread but I have since deleted that post and moved it to here.

I'll just add, that the way they handled this Western Region change was attrocious at best.  There was no warnings of the impending removal of route 505, 510 and 523.  

that is purely a matter of opinion.  or in other words depends on how you define warnings. One could easily accuse you of making false statements by pointing out that they announced these changes and they came into effect at least one month later or more.  I do understand what you mean by warnings in that perhaps it would be nice if residents had been given an ultimatum to use it or lose it but strictly speaking that is not a warning.

[justanotheruser]

Also from the other thread

I have always thought that if you make things more transparent to the public, it becomes harder and harder for the public to dream up conspiracy theories,  "alternative explanations" and easier to get people to engage constructively etc.

Well its a nice thought pity about reality though.  There are a number of really good government initiatives that I stumbled across that are being kept quiet because of fear over public backlash.  This fear is justified from my observations. 

[STB]

The below post was in the Western Region thread but I have since deleted that post and moved it to here.

I'll just add, that the way they handled this Western Region change was attrocious at best.  There was no warnings of the impending removal of route 505, 510 and 523.  

that is purely a matter of opinion.  or in other words depends on how you define warnings. One could easily accuse you of making false statements by pointing out that they announced these changes and they came into effect at least one month later or more.  I do understand what you mean by warnings in that perhaps it would be nice if residents had been given an ultimatum to use it or lose it but strictly speaking that is not a warning.

I simply said it simply because it seems the official channels are falling on deaf ears.  Of course one could easily accuse me of making false statements, I realise that.  This is purely out of frustration.

[#Metro]

Well its a nice thought pity about reality though.  There are a number of really good government initiatives that I stumbled across that are being kept quiet because of fear over public backlash.  This fear is justified from my observations.

It is going to happen anyway. You can't cut bus routes or make major changes to timetables and hope that the public won't notice when you do it.

[justanotheruser]

Well its a nice thought pity about reality though.  There are a number of really good government initiatives that I stumbled across that are being kept quiet because of fear over public backlash.  This fear is justified from my observations.

It is going to happen anyway. You can't cut bus routes or make major changes to timetables and hope that the public won't notice when you do it.

true. I forgot to mention that kind of behaviour is contributing to the secrecy that develops. Of course since the labor party ignored the results of the referendum and abolished the upper house it is easier for them to get away with secrecy.  So while it would happen in a case like this the culture has developed and it is used in all matters.

[AnonymouslyBad]

In a general sense, public consultation definitely needs to be done (and it is done, albeit not as often or as thoroughly as it should be).

For specific service changes, I'm actually not sure. While it makes people unhappy if changes are made with little consultation, the backlash would probably be worse if consultation is done but unpopular changes are still made. The cynic in me says that the opinion of the vocal minority doesn't necessarily correspond to what's actually best for the public transport system. "We got your feedback, but we know these changes are for the best so we're doing them anyway" is probably not going to go down well, even if it's completely accurate. It's a bit of a lose-lose situation for TL.

For the above reason I'm not sure how well a formal "consultation" process would work out, except for major changes that may disadvantage - or be seen to disadvantage - a substantial number of people. I'm not sure if the Western Region changes fall into this category or not, it probably depends how reliable TL's patronage data is! 

For most changes, perhaps it's best to just make the announcement, and then make it a mandatory part of the process that any feedback received (because they'll receive feedback through the usual channels anyway) is taken into account, either during a window before the changes take effect or to be revisited at a set date down the track.

In terms of transparency, this definitely needs to be improved, and any service changes that might be a mixed bag need to clearly state the justification and actually include details (which the Western Region ones were somewhat lacking in).

[somebody]

Don't worry, I agree that not everything should be consulted on.  Minor service changes like minor timing changes and minor route changes shouldn't be consulted on.  That would be pointless!  But service changes the size of this Western Region service change should've had consultation of some sort, that's a no brainer!

FYI, the last I heard, due to funding being cut from TL last year at the height of the GFC, the Network plan was swept into a quiet darkened place and some major service changes that were planned for were quietly scrapped.  I don't think the actual real Network Plan was released IMO.  What was released was certainly a cut down version of the work that actually went into it.

Certainly there are some changes which don't require consultation, but there is no issue with them doing consultation which shouldn't be done.

Probably they should have released the plan as they wanted, but just said that it was currently unfunded.  CRR1 is unfunded, but it isn't stopping them from releasing it, for example.  But that's not a Translink project, thankfully.