In case you missed it, check out my last article about bad faith planning before reading this one, or nothing I say will make much sense.
The actual question that runs through my mind constantly when thinking about the practices I discussed previously is “How can we actually fix this”? How do advocates and transit planners act in order to protect the planning process — and ideas more broadly — from the less than generous treatment that comes along with bad faith planning?
I’ve come up with a lot of ideas, but I’d love to hear more from you in the comments!
Show Your Work
The first thing that I think is critical to improving the discourse around transit amounts to showing one’s work and stating assumptions. Far too often when discussing a transit project, those who’d rather it not be built or even discussed will make less than generous assumptions about costs and benefits. By making it clear what those assumptions are, the actual sticking point can be addressed and it’s easier to determine whether a discussion is worth having.
Embrace Openness, Flexibility and Curiosity
It’s also critical that we embrace a flexible approach that is open to many options and curious about solutions. When planning or discussing a project there needs to be a consensus about what is truly flexible and what is inflexible. For example, generally a station location relative to a key intersection is a pretty open thing, as long as the station is within the general vicinity that’s fine. On the other hand, levelling a neighbourhood or moving an existing subway line usually isn’t an option. If it’s ever suggested that a flexible element is creating pressure on an inflexible one - that’s a good sign that someone isn’t being reasonable with their assumptions. Creating constraints where few exist is not reasonable and we should always be curious about how the same problems are solved in different geographies!
Significant Figures for Planning
A related idea is that we should embrace high-level planning but then not pretend that high-level plans are subject to specific low-level constraints.
For example, say we want to build an east-west tram line across a city — suggesting that a specific intersection on a specific corridor would not be compatible with this is counterproductive. If a proposal or plan is purposefully open, then it should not be subjected to criticism that assumes the project drills down in a way that aims for conflict. If the goal is building an east-west tram line, a single intersection is simply not relevant, and even if it was, that would be the time for a detailed analysis of alternatives and solutions. Trying to jump to that immediately stalls the process and without actually doing the work to justify putting the transit project in the least convenient place, and this also opens up room for more destructive assumptions. Generally, transit should be built along the path of least resistance, as long as it hits the necessary stations and does not require absurd designs or alignments. All of this can be seen as the equivalent to significant figures in science, but for planning, providing additional detail or critique for something which is inherently imprecise is meaningless.
First Principles
There also needs to be agreement on a set of basic assumptions or first principles. Without these, there is no foundation to base more complex discussions on. For example, if everyone involved in a discussion of a project does not agree it should feature an interchange station, talking about the design of that interchange station is pointless. It might also tell you something about how others might approach similar projects in other circumstances. You also probably want everyone to be in alignment regarding whether the goal is even getting more transit built. A process can be derailed pretty easily when someone wants to “investigate” but ultimately doesn’t care if transit is built.
Form Reasonable Boundaries for Discourse
You should also agree about what things are off limits in discussion. For example, assertions about something being impossible need to be supported by evidence, and even hyperbole tends to not be helpful to reasonable discussion. Personally, I think a lot of these problems are best solved by heuristics. If something similar has been done before in another place it’s probably not impossible!
Sometimes the best way of agreeing on a common set of assumptions is by discussing a “model” project. When vague language like “subway” or “BRT” is used, there is unlimited licence to stretch the definition one way or another saying “a metro like Sydney Metro” or “the Ottawa Transitway” instantly makes whole swathes of assumptions unreasonable.
I also like to use heuristics: If something seems completely unreasonable, we shouldn’t waste time studying it; but if something holds promise, then we should explore it further! The use of vague labels actually probably increases the politicization of transit by making it easier for politicians and partisan stakeholders to cling to certain solutions.
Embrace the Unknown
I think toward the backend of any planning or analysis of a project we need to be much more open to change. Far too often, a conservative estimate for something like population growth and transit ridership percolates into poisonous assumptions that lead to the wrong things being built, or not built! Far too often, the numbers being used are not obvious, and this becomes much worse after a few multiplications. Processes sometimes even fail to consider already approved new development and additional transit projects! It’s probably ultimately better to provide no estimate than a severe underestimate.
The final detail I want to highlight as a fundamentally important point of discussion is capacity and speed. Far too often, these most important of metrics for a new transit line get lost in the weeds while far more complex but less important things get discussed like what colour the trains will be or where to place entrances. Bikeshedding is a real problem for transit but every conversation is an opportunity to redirect attention to the most important elements that will let a project either sink or swim.