[All] Election results AND Our Great LRT Dilema
Robert Milligan
mill at continuum.org
Tue Oct 26 12:21:52 EDT 2010
John (& GREN),
Thanks for your nice comments but reality is different. The WR Record
apparently has re-started its attack on Ken by taking away from his
victory via stating that he got only 61% of the vote when he actually
got around 71% (according to the Regional Deputy Clerk), Here is what
I said to Ken last night assuming that my 26% of the Kitchener vote
(received 29 updating Unofficial Election Results for Kitchener last
night) was a ballpark indication of the Regional vote. But had the
media, especially the Record, given a fairer and more complete
representation of myself and my IDEAS, then probably the vote would
have been closer to 39% -- or we might even have seen a Calgary-type
miracle:
"Congratulations on
Your Victory
As most expected -- including myself -- you had an easy victory. But
with many citizens very concerned especially about your positions on
the LRT and on tax reductions necessitating service reductions, I felt
that an opportunity to express their views directly to you was
necessary. But more, because I have unique IDEAS that could help deal
with both Regional issues -- and others -- I felt that I needed to be
part of the more media-focused public discourse that running for
election allows. However, my effectiveness in this regard was partly
twarted by the media (mediated democracy?) who mis-represented both
myself and my IDEAS. As I have a very strong value of fair play, this
media mal-functioning disturbed me much as some of Jeff Outhit's
writing over the years has disturbed you. At least this election has
further developed my empathy in this regard, And thanks for generally
being a good sport and super-worthy opponent."
Best wishes,
Robert
ADDENDUM: Our Great LRT Dilemma
I was a strong critic of the inherent bias in the formulation of the
rapid transit survey conducted by the pro-bus group Citizens for
Sustainable Transit (a group initiated by Jan Narveson in his Mini
Concert Hall Accelerator Centre). But one survey result was very
useful to those of us who see the need for an LRT -- but not the
Region's present LRT plan (or LRT system design as I prefer to
describe it). Here 95% of candidates surveyed said they did not
support the Region's CURRENT LRT plan. Candidates appear to see the
need for an LRT but a much more cost-effective one. So the big
question is, "Does Chair Ken Seiling have the adaptive potential to be
able to set in motion an expedited or fast-track (sorry for the pun)
process to seek out proven IDEAS from transportation technology --
and possibly from renewable energy technology -- that can be used to
enhance the current LRT system design so that it will be optimally
cost-effective?
Certainly Ken's almost intuitive ability to see the need for an LRT
and his loyalty to the process that produced the current LRT plan are
commendable. But great leaders -- unlike the captain of the Titanic --
have to be willing to make the necessary wise course corrections
especially for very unique situations such as for rapid transit in our
Tri-Cities.
I have previously made specific suggestions in regard to a fast-track
process:
1. On my website (www.RobertMilligan.com) --
"But I am worried because the curent LRT plan (or system design) will
do little to decrease road congestion and intensification will be less
than hoped for if: 1) Ken Seiling continues to say that he is
satisfied with the Region's current LRT plan and will not consider NEW
IDEAS to make it more cost-effective; OR 2) Ken decides to consider
such NEW IDEAS, but the Regional staff don't create a sufficiently
knowledgeable "New IDEAS Evaluation Team" including appropriate LRT
consultants and citizens.
(A necessary selection criteria for the consultants should be a track
record of designing successful LRT systems including significant use
of IDEAS from "outside the traditional LRT box". Any citizen who has
made significant contributions to constructively analyze and use NEW
IDEAS to enhance the Region's LRT system design -- or LRT systems
elsewhere -- would be a welcome Team member even if at a distance via
internet.)"
2. To CAO Mike Murray (with copy to Ken) --
(Mike's response, "Thanks for your observations and suggestions -
thought-provoking as always.
Other than to reinforce that we have excellent people working on the
rapid transit project, it would probably be inappropriate for me to
comment on your suggestions - at least until after the municipal
election.")
(Then my response to Mike, "There is no doubt that you have excellent
people and they are generally doing a good job. However, my point was
that you don't have the right excellent people with the most
appropriate specific rail/bus knowledge in place (one is, the other
has other transportation responibilities) for the extraordinary
purpose of evaluating very innovative IDEAS that could help make the
current LRT system design sufficiently cost-effective. And, with time
available to enhance the current LRT system design in short supply,
you should IDEALLY be taking action now to remedy the situation. If
the choice is between bruising two egos slightly and "the Region's
Innovative Reputation, Ken's legacy, your reputation, Thomas's
reputation, Rob's reputation, Nancy's reputation, and even
Darshpreet's reputation ("I was only following orders")", then a wise
CAO should make the obvious choice at his earliest convenience!"
Evaluation of Very Innovative LRT
System Design IDEAS
I welcome your comments. Please keep in mind that my thoughts are
based on long discussions with all parties involved. And I want a
response from your heart!
From my website:
"If the issue is too technologically complex (e.g. the LRT) for that
political leader, he/she may not be able to support the citizen-
suggested IDEAS with a knowledgeable confidence so that this leader
will rely solely on staff advice.
But what if the organizational culture -- of Regional government for
example -- is currently not sufficiently innovative? And what if on a
major project like the LRT, oversight managers lack sufficient in
depth knowledge of the design of integrated LRT and bus systems making
them very innovation averse?
In this knowledge-lack oversight situation, will the knowledgeable
project engineer likely find the time to give serious consideration to
any very innovative IDEA? Unlikely, because he knows his managers
likely won't be able to adequately determine the IDEA's innovative
potential -- and will likely inflate the risk. Why put in the
evaluation effort when rejection by management is almost certain?"
The Rapid Transit Initiative team set-up for evaluating any very
innovative IDEAS for dramatically improving cost-effectiveness is
doomed to failure! This is because your one civil engineer who is
very experienced in rail and bus transit system design has to report
to a Director and Commissioner -- even a CAO -- who are very much less
knowledgeable and experienced in the design of integrated LRT/bus
systems. When any person is lacking in knowledge about a subject, they
are much less able to make confident and competent decisions about
both the risk and the potential of very innovative technological
IDEAS. So in this situation they tend to become very risk-averse and
innovation-averse.
And "because of the gross lack of needed highly innovative IDEAS --
that are both very cost-effective and proven -- the current LRT
system design simply will not be successful!"
Mike, the Region's Innovative Reputation, Ken's legacy, your
reputation, Thomas's reputation, Rob's reputation, Nancy's reputation,
and even Darshpreet's reputation ("I was only following orders") are
all on the line here. You need a special "NEW LRT IDEAS Evaluation
Team".
I would -- for such evaluation purposes only -- recommend that:
1) Darshpreet report to Transportation Planning Director (and rail/
bus engineering expert) Graham Vincent;
2) Graham report to you not Thomas:
3) That a very successful LRT engineering consultant known for his
very successful "outside-the-box" project design be sought out to work
with the evaluation team (mostly at a distance thru electronic visual
communication).
Note: Al Fazio (currently General Manager, Services, Bombardier
Transportation North America) said, "... think outside the
traditional light rail box. ... . (NJ's River LINE is) not only an
alternative to the automobile, but is also helping to re-energize the
historic communities it links together" seems to have the courage and
knowledge required to advise on such LRT innovative IDEAS. His job at
Bombardier would disqualify him. But perhaps he could recommend some
possible candidates?
On 26-Oct-10, at 10:01 AM, John Jackson wrote:
> Congratulations to all our members who worked so hard during the
> municipal election to further our goals.
>
> Hurrah to those who eked out a victory to stop the fluoridation of
> water in Waterloo, St.Jacobs and Elmira. This is an amazing victory
> considering how stacked the media coverage was against the anti-
> fluoridation forces and the pro-fluoridation full page ads from the
> Ontario Dental Association. This included a full-page ad on election
> day – a day that is seen by all candidates as a day on which you
> don’t advertise.
>
> How wonderful to have GREN member Yvonne Fernandes win with 47% of
> the vote in a four-way contest. She will be a bright new light on
> Kitchener council.
>
> And congratulations to those who conducted such amazing campaigns
> even if they didn’t win. Jan Liggett got 43% of the vote in the ward
> she ran in in Cambridge against an incumbent. Susan Koswan obtained
> 15% of the vote in a field of four strong candidates. And Robert
> Milligan obtained an amazing 39% of the vote against Waterloo
> Regional Chair Ken Seiling. This is a major achievement in a region-
> wide campaign started at the last minute. In the previous two
> campaigns Ken won by over 70% instead of the 61% that he won by in
> this election.
>
> Congratulations not only to all the candidates but to all those who
> supported them in their campaigns.
>
> Now it is time for GREN to determine how best to work with councils
> across the Grand River watershed to achieve our goals. We will meet
> shortly to discuss this.
>
> John
>
>
>
> --
> John Jackson
> 17 Major Street
> Kitchener, Ontario N2H 4R1
> 519-744-7503
>
> _______________________________________________
> All mailing list
> All at gren.ca
> http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20101026/a33b46da/attachment.html>
More information about the All
mailing list