I am a pragmatist. I seek solutions that have a positive effect on the real world. I tend to consider solutions that achieve the desired result as quickly and efficiently as possible to be the preferred option in any conflict or issue that I face. I believe that most people think this way, but I also understand how emotions like disappointment, anger and the drive for revenge can make a difference in how people look at a given issue. I also understand how some people who don’t think like I do may seek to use raw emotions to push a certain solution that does not necessarily meet the criteria of quick and efficient, to sway public opinion in favour of their desired approach. So, my question is always, “what are you seeking to achieve with your desired approach?” And “if another, more efficient approach was to be presented, would you consider it?”
Often, I find that those with whom I disagree have trouble answering the first question as it requires a level of transparency of intent that makes them uncomfortable, and that their answer to the second question is not consideration, but instead to dig in and provide further argument as to how their desired approach is best. While I seek the solution that gives us the desired result as efficiently as possible, others seek arguments to promote their desired approach, while concealing their intentions. My intentions are clear in the solutions I seek.
Ma priorité est claire, nette et précise : Je veux que la première étape du train léger (TLR) fonctionne éfficacement et en toute sécurité, dans les plus brefs délais. I repeat: I want the first stage of LRT running efficiently and safely, as soon as possible. This is my priority.
La décision prise, il y a longtemps, de faire circuler le train le long du Transitway rend le service de remplacement des autobus (R1) inefficace et frustrant. L’absence de voies réservées et de trajets directs prolonge le trajet des usagers. Le service R1 retire également les autobus des circuits locaux, qui perturbe le service dans nos quartiers à cause des voyages annulés ou en retard. Le service R1 doit être utilisé en cas d’urgence et n’est pas conçu pour un service prolongé.
Mais nous voici à la troisième semaine consécutive du service R1.
I also want to fully understand how we got to the point at which we find ourselves today. We have a train system that is not operational, has been fraught since day 1 and a bus transit system that is not living up to the rightful expectations of users. I want these answers as quickly and as efficiently as possible. I am interested in nothing else.
Public transit in this city has been degrading for a long time. I believe the trouble began with route optimization, a process that got rid of direct routes like the 94, forced express routes to become milk runs and has largely been detrimental to reliability and convenience for transit riders. It also reduced options in Orléans for those travelling from certain neighbourhoods, chiefly from Chatelaine and Queenswood Villages. These changes have made public transit a less attractive option for the 80% of Orléans residents that relied on public transit to get to work downtown pre-pandemic, especially public servants, and has made it more difficult for everyone else to get around our neighbourhood. I have worked hard to bolster service in these areas and to create a new route that better serves Orléans North to South, connecting Convent Glen and Orléans Wood to Innes Road. However, the system remains inefficient, and routes continue to be cancelled with little to no warning.
Je crois que les problèmes liés au train léger sont le symptôme d’un problème plus complexe, plus vaste. D’avoir une directrice générale avec un mandat dédiée au transport en commun est un pas dans la bonne direction. Mais il est essentiel que la nouvelle directrice générale ait un aperçu clair de la situation, car il est évident qu’elle a beaucoup de travail à faire : reconstruire un système de transport en commun qui répond aux besoins et aux attentes des résidents et rétablir la confiance du public dans le système du train léger à Ottawa.
I am a first-term councillor and was not at the table when many of these decisions were made. This does not abdicate me from my responsibility to help fix the problems we are facing, and I do not have an axe to grind with anyone who made these decisions. Instead, I focus on these questions: “what is the quickest, most efficient way to get the train up and running again safely and reliably – and how do we make sure that, if mistakes were made in the planning and execution of Stage 1 LRT, how do we ensure we do not make the same mistakes moving forward? And most importantly, how do we get to an integrated transit system that gets people to where they need to go safely and reliably?”
Pour répondre à ces questions, je crois que la meilleure solution est de demander à la vérificatrice générale de vérifier l’ensemble du processus de l’étape 1 du TLR depuis 2012 – y compris la supervision du projet, les processus d’approvisionnement, la délégation de pouvoirs – et de faire en sorte que toutes les découvertes qui ne compromettent pas la position juridique de la Ville soient rendues publiques. De plus, elle devrait inclure des recommandations dans son rapport pour éviter qu’une situation semblable se reproduise.
J’aimerais également que la vérificatrice générale examine l’ensemble du système de transport en commun, incluant : la planification des circuits, la fréquence et la cause les voyages annulés et le processus de sélection, et qu’elle revienne avec des recommandations qui nous mènerait vers un système sur lequel nous pouvons vraiment compter. Cependant, la priorité doit continuer d’être la vérification de l’ensemble de l’étape 1. Notre vérificatrice générale est indépendante, qualifiée et mieux placée pour fournir des réponses plus rapidement et efficacement. Je ne veux pas attendre des années et dépenser des dizaines de millions de dollars pour obtenir des réponses à nos questions. Nous avons assez attendus. Comme vous, je veux des réponses aussitôt que possible. Il est grand temps que nous ayons un système de train léger fiable et sécuritaire.
The Public-Private Partnership (PPP) nature of the RTM contract has been called into question since the beginning of this term of council. Make no mistake, the fact that LRT is a PPP is protecting taxpayers from additional costs for non-performance. The City will be in court for a long time on this project, and so far, the City has been successful on every single claim made against RTG/RTM. I understand that some may be ideologically opposed to PPP agreements, and that is fine, but the fact remains that this agreement is built to protect our taxpayer dollars.
On the matter of transparency, let’s make every single piece of information possible available to the public. I am open and transparent about what I am looking for and will vote for releasing the Mott MacDonald independent safety report to the public as soon as it is available and to release the Auditor General’s findings when her audit is complete.
Prenons ces décisions en pensant à notre objectif et à la façon la plus efficace de se rendre à notre but, au lieu de laisser la colère ou indignation nous guider. Ceux-ci, souvent, ne donnent pas les résultats souhaités, et peuvent même causer des délais.
Let’s give the mandate to the Auditor General for a thorough, independent review and recommendations.

Comments are closed.

Close Search Window