He mentioned, as I recall, they were looking for “finance experience, city visionaries, those with private transit operations experience, public-private partnership experience….”

He didn’t exactly come out and talk about the ends which the citizen commissioners will serve, but the list of means above really make me wonder. Maybe the 501 of the future will be a long yellow vehicle with “First Canada” on the side.

Steve: I love how Pasternak warps things to the most conservative possible reading of the criteria. Nowhere in the list passed by Council does it say anything about private transit operations experience.

Even though we disagree on a lot of things, the Commission needs someone who knows the history of the TTC as well as you do. As for the Berlin wall comment, I don’t agree. I used to sit on a condo board of directors, and when building management screwed up day to day operations, the board had the authority to intervene (and often did).

Similarly, the Commission have the authority to set operational policy. For instance, it could force management to break the 501 in two, or interline the SRT and Eglinton, so I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Steve: A condo board is quite a bit different from a multi-billion dollar public corporation, and the relationship of the board as direct users of management’s services as well as their employers is a different one from the TTC commission. Yes, the Commission can set operational policy on a broad scale, including route configurations. However, this requires both the support of at least a majority of the Commission and, at least as a courtesy, of the Councillors whose wards would be affected by the change.

In the past week, I have attended meetings and/or spoken with various people in more role as a journalist/activist in a way that would be utterly impossible as a Commissioner. Simply being present as a public official changes the tone of any meeting, public or private, and any challenging statement I made could be interpreted as being a trial balloon for the Commission, not just a personal opinion. I believe that I will be far more effective outside of a formal Commission role where I am free to hold my own opinions openly and to advise whoever might be interested on policies they might or might not follow.

Steve: The problem with such a group is that it would need real independence and not simply be a managed committee given limited information and with scant, well edited output to the wider audience of the Commission and Council. I cannot see such a group being created, and indeed, some would argue that the Customer Service Committee fulfills some of the same function. I don’t agree, but that’s the argument that would be used.

“Unfortunately, Council seems to have conflicting ideas of just what a “citizen” member would be — a seasoned, senior businessperson, or a representative of the more general (and less skilled) citizenry.”

With four spots to fill, they don’t aren’t forced to chose one or the other. They can have people from both groups.

Steve: Nice in theory, but not the way it was put to us by the TTC rep on Monday evening. There was no talk at all of non-business reps. Part of the problem is that the specs included in Council’s motion do not match the hopes stated by some Council members for these appointments.

So make sure to get that Metropass up front.

Steve: “Sweet coin” depends on what you are used to receiving. It’s rather small change for private sector board members and is clearly intended for a part time role with a strong pro bono component. Think of folks in professions who bill out at hundreds of dollars an hour.

And, yes, Commissioners would get a Metropass, although it is almost certainly a taxable benefit (this issue was already settled for Council members who received passes).

Miroslav: it’s worth remembering that Calgary got stimulus funding for an LRT project that was planned but unfunded. They are now drawing up wish lists for federal funding in case more should be offered in the future. As I interpret your line of thought Calgary did a stupid thing by having an unfunded line in the first place.

Toronto could not avail of this because Transit City was at an earlier stage of development and instead tried to game the system by asking for stimulus money for streetcars of which we have yet to see a prototype, let alone production units.

As for LRT LRT LRT, I pointed out on Torontoist this morning that in at least the DRL, the appelation of subway-phobia cannot be applied to our host.

Steve: Transit City was pushed out the door in advance of MoveOntario2020 to ensure that Toronto would have something on the table other than a few subway extensions (as Toronto’s “plan” then stood). It was, in effect, a “wish list” to make sure that when Queen’s Park started handing out money, there were projects with reasonable price tags that might attract their attention. Metrolinx, who inherited MO2020, fought against parts of the LRT plan internally, but eventually embraced it.

And, finally, we need a lot more commuter rail, and Metrolinx should get off its butt and start planning for significant increases in service to become a truly regional rapid transit network.

I concur that Steve’s knowledge and experience with the TTC would make him a strong addition to the commission, but I object to the idea of a Facebook or petition campaign – the TTC as popularity contest would be less effective/honest that a TTC *honestly* built on skills and knowledge. (I remain hopeful we may get some semblance of that, but not very hopeful)

I also share the concern expressed that appointment to the commission would carry at least some level of gag-order with it, even if only implied. That would be challenging for any knowledgeable and opinionated commission member, especially if they were in the minority on a vote. We see councillors create news all the time in this situation, which I find has varying levels of success in furthering their cause.

Steve: There would be a few levels of “gag order” as you put it. The first and most obvious is confidentiality. I could not talk or write about any confidential matters, and would have to be careful that information gleaned through that route did not seep into a post. For example, I could not reply to a comment with “what you don’t know is xxx”. Second, there is the question of what hat I am wearing when I speak. Commissioners routinely give press scrums that reflect their personal opinions, as do members of Council, but the level of detail and sheer volume of material on this blog is considerably more than what you would see from “regular” Councillor/Commissioners.

Some readers of this blog may not know that I spent a good deal of my professional life in the public sector in various managerial roles, and am well aware of the “Berlin wall” between a board and the management/staff responsibilities.

Would Gary Webster be considered a “Baron of Industry”?

David O’ Rourke said:

Put your name in, Steve!

Based on Steve’s observations of the meeting, I’d say that (spin) ‘Dr.’ Gordon Chong has a better chance of being selected as a “citizen representative” than Steve or Gary Webster.

I suppose that this is far for the course in this Toronto. But I agree with David, Steve … put your name in the running and see what happens. If you get in, things might actually change. If they don’t change, your observations & thoughts are affirmed (which will gain you even more respect among Torontonians), and as David said, if they don’t choose you they will have a lot of explaining to do.

Cheers, Moaz

ps. politics aside, you are doing exactly what a ‘citizen’ representative for the TTC should do.

Steve: Unfortunately, Council seems to have conflicting ideas of just what a “citizen” member would be — a seasoned, senior businessperson, or a representative of the more general (and less skilled) citizenry. I think they regard the latter role as belonging to the Customer Service Advisory Committee which, of course, never gets its hands on any serious policy matters.

People with true business experience would be better than let’s say Jamie Kirkpatrick or any of the TEA activists who fill all the TTC meetings and open houses.

People like JK are the LRT LRT LRT people who go for attacking the subway plan being unfunded yet ignore people who go on saying Transit City had MANY parts unfunded/unplanned.

We need Commissioners who will realize that the Transit City plan took years of planning and any true transit plan can’t be pulled out of anyone’s arse in less than 2 years.

Steve: The issue with “subways subways subways” is that that one mode, and one particular line, are touted as a litmus test for would-be Commissioners who, one would hope, have an open mind on any proposals. As for we “LRT LRT LRT” advocates, well, I hate to say this, but someone with “true business experience” might ask embarrassing questions about spending billions to build subways where there is no demand for them.

Stop flogging that dead horse of Transit City funding — there was never any funding for the subway scheme, but at least Transit City had money for some lines. As and when we do get new revenues from, say, a regional sales tax, we could blow it all on one or two projects, or we could build a more extensive network of LRT, BRT and commuter rail, each where it is appropriate. That’s good business sense, but those whose minds are firmly made up against the horrors of “streetcars” don’t want to hear it.

Steve: At best 25% female, 75% male. A smattering of visible minorities and wheelchair users while we’re on the subject.

“the ability of citizens to get around without owning a car”

I’m sure many of 1%ers they are looking for don’t own a car. They have a company car and a company driver to take care of that.

Mr. Munro, being a commissioner will put you in a much better position to fix all these things you find distasteful.

Clean toilets are nice I guess, but how about reliability and oxygen?

Steve: I agree that the TTC has not been paying enough attention to the problems of service capacity and planning its future budgets for significant improvements, not just a stand-pat quality, or even worse cutbacks to match whatever brainwave the Fords have in their view of adequate transit subsidy and service. I spoke to this issue at the last Commission meeting, but so much time had been consumed by another matter (the debate about the role of Metrolinx) that my deputation about service and budgets was largely ignored. That’s a big reason for this blog.

That and I am rather selfish about this forum as it would pretty much have to shut down if he became a commissioner. (Either that or Steve starts spending what little time he had left to be on here discussing the intricacies of the HSR.)

Steve: It could still exist in some form. After all, many Councillors have blogs, although not with such an extensive conversational nature.

Downtown beats as the essential heart of a great city. The services available there serve all Torontonians. Downtown needs to be kept healthy for the good of us all.

Likewise, the increased property taxes collected from the enhanced assessment downtown also helps fund services to the inner suburbs at lower suburban property tax rates.

The City is an integrated whole, with each area requiring care and respect. In the area of transit “fairness” the question must be framed around service level per passenger not subways per square kilometer. Put another way the question is whether transit provided or planned meets and serves demand. Defining one service as “gold plated’ and using the availability of that service as a definition of “equality” is silly when some areas do not show enough demand to operate such a service economically. James Pasternak demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about what it means to be a leader in this City.

Steve: In the interests of full disclosure, the writer here is related to me.

Interesting choice of words considering that all completed subway construction in the past 20 years has been built in North York in addition to it getting the western portion of the Sheppard LRT and the Eastern portion of the Finch LRT.

Sorry Steve, but after looking at those requirements, I don’t think you qualify. They seem to be looking for high ranking director/executive business types from other large organizations. Instead, I think they need individuals on the board who have a technical understanding of transit — people who can’t be easily fooled by TTC staff reports … retired/former TTC employees maybe?

Now that I think about it, wasn’t the TTC comprised exclusively of citizens back in the 60s? When did it change, and why?

Steve: The TTC changed from all citizens to a mixed board of citizens and Councillors in response to the growing level of municipal subsidy. Council wanted voices at the table to protect their interests. By 1989, the “citizen” members had taken the TTC and its subsidiary Gray Coach down some unusual paths including the purchase of a small tourist airline. The Commission was changed entirely to Council members to prevent such abuses (there were others). It is noteworthy that in the new arrangement, the Chair remains a Councillor and is appointed to the post by Council, not by the Commissioners.

I will not go into whether or not I qualify for the position. Much depends on how one interprets the idea of overlapping areas of expertise among the citizen members.

The argument that “this subway line is/isn’t warranted and justified because of on-site density” is also a fallacy considering feeder buses are the primary source of subway ridership. To this day, what’s surrounding the heavily used transfer stations at Kennedy, Warden, Wilson and Kipling? Pasternak has a very valid point which Transit City LRT alone does not fully address. I am disappointed that the Sheppard Subway proposal has been demonized in favor of a mode of transit that will now require 5 redundant transfer points to get right across the city what the one-seat ride subway could have accomplished with just one.

Whoever joins the Commission, may they at least know what the word “compromise” means. There was no need to expedite the Sheppard East LRT when the money could have been reserved until time a feasible funding scheme came forward. Now tell me how the subway can ever possibly be extended eastward, Steve? Like everything in this City, no one plans far enough ahead then wonders why problems continually arise.

Steve: First, it is important to note that the “Sheppard Subway” was NOT going to run east on Sheppard, but swing south and into the Scarborough Town Centre. Any idea that it might have eventually taken over the role of the Sheppard LRT misrepresents what the Sheppard subway plan was all about. Its purpose was to make the industrial lands near Scarborough Town Centre more attractive for redevelopment, and it was that development that would have provided some of the revenue to pay for the subway.

There is a fundamental problem with transit capacity into the core that must be solved with new subway capacity as well as on the GO network. No one “solution” will fix the problem because different travel markets require different services. However, as long as Metrolinx persists in foisting the job of any travel within the 416 onto the TTC, we won’t have an integrated view of how capacity to the core will be provided.

[Pasternak] also worries that TTC officials are too focused on a downtown relief subway line to take some of the crowding off the south end of Yonge. Although Pasternak said that’s an important part of the picture, he wants to see the Sheppard line extended west linking the Downsview and Yonge-Sheppard stations.

“The whole idea would be not to put one over the other. I don’t want to see North York left at the altar on transit any more. I really thought that this was the way the so-called centrist councillors were going to go . . . you don’t pick one over the other.”

I understand that he needs to represent his own constituency, but how he can make such comments with a straight face — for the second time, I believe, is beyond me. Talk about blatant parochial interests. Last time I checked, neither the Sheppard subway line, nor Downsview Station, nor the Spadina line extension, nor North York Centre Station, nor Finch Station, nor the proposed North Yonge line extension are located at the south end of Yonge.

Maybe he can elaborate on the rapid transit improvements that the old City of Toronto and the old Borough of East York have benefited from in the last 30+ years. Somewhat ironically, if money actually existed to build the generally more elaborate vision of the DRL, it would terminate somewhere in North York… Unfortunately, just not anywhere near Pasternak’s part of North York.

I’ll assume, reading between the lines, that when Pasternak said that we shouldn’t have to choose between subway lines, what he really meant is that he’ll only vote for a DRL if there’s agreement on extending Sheppard West first and that, in truth, he doesn’t care if the DRL ever gets built. Yeah, I think that I understood that correctly.