Parallel processes of consultation and participation models

Opening questions

-    How can the parallel processes of formal and informal consultation processes be mutually informing?; Can the strengths of both systems be leveraged?
-    How will the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)* be informed by formal and informal processes?
-    What acknowledgements do people need that their participation is being considered?
-    How will unexpected ideas from the process at Metronauts and other forums be incorporated into the process? 

*RTP was noted to be a tangible product or deliverable

Formal Metrolinx Consultation Process (described by Rob MacIsaac)

-    Different stakeholder groups (Transit riders, Bike riders, Automobile Associations etc.) will have roundtables
-    Town hall meetings
-    Online consultation

Challenges

-    is the community satisfied with making token contributions (i.e. seeing their idea as a bullet point in a plan)
-    how can different expertise be leveraged?
-    how can the different contextual domains and actors be incorporated?
-    does the metronauts community know enough to contribute to the process? The idea of presenting a ‘101’ to the process was raised

-    the concern that more consultation may happen than action was raised

-    Metrolinx has been trying to make things happen as consultation is happening

-    Metrolinx is working to get bike racks on buses and bike lockers at major transit sites

-    Capacity on Yonge line needs to be enhanced immediately (busiest site in Canada)

-    The idea of ‘connecting the dots’ between lots of issues was raised as important (i.e. economic sustainability, health, environment)
-    Question: since new players are being brought into the process, are old players being excluded? Answer: formal and informal processes will capture a range or participants

-    the idea that participation can take many forms was raised (i.e. wikis, consultation, commenting etc.)
-    the idea that participation is not ‘perfect’ and consensus across the GTA will not be achieved through a RTP

-    the issue of thinking with knowledge of constraints vs. no knowledge of the constraints was discussed
-    the benefit of thinking outside the box was raised; also discussed was the issue that creative thinking can be shot down

-    the issue of transparent decision-making was brought up as being important

-    did we start the discussion today with a problem to solve?
-    should we start with aspirations instead?