The events of the past weeks, coupled with the ongoing antics of the Commission and Council, bring me to pose questions that need airing and answering.First, let’s turn to our friends at the Amagalmated Transit Union.

What do you folks want, anyhow?

During last week’s strike, the official reason was the change in cleaners’ and track maintenance workers’ shifts, but it didn’t take long for operator safety to come to the fore.  In the wake of Rick Ducharme’s departure, we’re back to the master signup for maintenance shifts as a critical point.  

Media reports tell us that Bob Kinnear had a private meeting with the Commission to present a list of outstanding issues.

Where is this list?  Why haven’t you given one to the media?  Why haven’t you tarred and feathered the TTC in press releases demanding action on your issues?  If you expect the public at large to support you and if you expect to move the steely hearts on Council to your position, you have to tell us what it is.  So far, nothing.

Rumblings from Rick Ducharme and others last week indicated that negotiating with Kinnear is hugely frustrating because the demands are a moving target.  Bad strategy.  If management did that, you would call it “bargaining in bad faith” and yell for intervention.

Some demands may be leftovers from the last round of negotiations.  This is quite common in bargaining where non-critical issues are moved off the table to be dealt with at a later date.  Is the pile of these issues too big and the progress too slow?

I have little sympathy for a walkout nominally based on the shift change of workers, some of whom would have been laid off anyhow under the original budget proposal.  It is management’s right to set work hours, and if you don’t like it, there’s an arbitration mechanism.  Yes, management may tie you up in knots there, and if so, they will just strengthen your position.  The strike was illegal, period.  It got everyone’s attention, but at a huge cost in credibility and future bargaining flexibility.

How Safe Can It Be?

Let’s be clear:  anyone who drives a public vehicle is going to be exposed to the travelling public to some degree.  It comes with the territory.  The question is, how well can we protect them in each context?

Subway collectors and operators are already in enclosed areas (booths and cabs) except for a few situations like crash-gate collectors and guards working the “off side” of a train at centre-platform stations.  The new car design has a full-width cab, but the entire fleet won’t be made up of “Silver Snails” (or whatever they are called) for years to come.

Bus and streetcar operators must interact with the passengers to inspect fares and hand out transfers.  They also need to be able to get in and out of their seats for various routine duties.  I doubt that we could completely enclose their workspace, and some exposure to passengers will always exist.  The proposed new streetcar design has a full width cab, and this implies a move to self-service fare collection with roving inspectors.  These folks will bear the brunt of any public interactions.

Some comments referred to the fact that transferrable passes would reduce one source of contention between operators and riders.  How many problems arise from a simple refusal to pay, or from some other situation such as lousy service or obnoxious, intoxicted passengers?  We need to know what sort of dispute creates the problem in the first place in order to eliminate it if possible.

Again, the bottom line is this: tell us what you want and need.

Now for our friends on the Commission:

Do you really believe in transit?

The Commission is supposed to make policy, not be led by the nose to approve whatever the staff churns out.  At the TTC we have the ludicrous situation of a budget process that is dictated by the City’s CFO.  We never have a public debate about alternatives, about how much it would cost to run better service, because this is pre-empted at the staff level. 

I am sick to death of hearing how things like Ridership Growth could not be implemented because they were not part of the approved budget.  The Commission should demand the independence to manage its own financial affairs.  The City is quick to scoop up any surplus revenue from unexpected riding growth or a fare increase that turns out to be more than was needed to balance the books.  This is, in effect, taxation through the farebox. 

Whatever Happened to Ridership Growth? 

The Ridership Growth Strategy is moribund for several reasons, notably:

Mayor Miller’s 100 new buses will largely disappear into handling existing growth rather than additional service that would make transit more attractive.

There are no more RGS buses in the capital budget pipeline, and plans for new streetcars necessary to improve and expand streetcar/LRT service are tied up at Budget Advisory Committee.

There is no concrete plan on the table for improvement of off-peak service when vehicles are available to make transit more attractive to riders on an all-day basis.

When will the Commission become true advocates for transit and demand that staff produce scenarios, resource requirements (vehicles, infrastructure, staff) and costings for a real growth plan?  Council will never know what its options are if the TTC never produces the information.  That’s how we got the RGS in the first place, and we need the next installment of that strategy as part of the 2007 budget debates.

Why Was Ridership Growth Hijacked?

Originally, the RGS was all about surface system projects and changes to the fare system that could be put in place fairly cheaply and quickly.  However, one month after the original RGS came out, the TTC subway fraternity, with Rick Ducharme’s blessing, produced a rapid transit plan including the Spadina and Sheppard extensions as top priorities.  This became phase 4 of the RGS even though the projects were of a completely different character.  Moreover, it allowed two subway projects to leapfrog over any consideration of LRT networks that might compete for resources and public attention.

I asked Howard Moscoe why he let this happen, and he replied, in effect, that I shouldn’t worry because there would never be money to pay for the subways.  Alas, times change, and the TTC’s endorsement of these lines meant that the first projects out of the gate in the funding battles were two subways while LRT was ignored.

What About the Official Plan?

The City of Toronto Official Plan contains a network of “Avenues” and a few passing references to the use of LRT technology.  The road show presentation for the OP includes a nice photo-mockup of an LRT train at Eglinton and Kingston Road.

I am reliably informed that Rick Ducharme spiked the explicit inclusion of an LRT network in the OP.  Why was this allowed to happen by the Commission and Council?  Why don’t we have a frank discussion of LRT network options as an integral part of the Official Plan?

What’s With the Bombardier Deal?

The plan to sole-source cars from Bombardier’s plant in Thunder Bay was, at one time, claimed to be the product of a provincial commitment that all Ontario rail car purchases would be directed to that plant.  This is a matter of economic support for the city and its workforce.

However, a letter from Premier McGuinty to Howard Moscoe does not say this.  Indeed, it merely reiterates that Queen’s Park would support the TTC should it choose to sole-source vehicles.  It also states that there are precedents for this sort of procurement decision in other jurisdictions within NAFTA thereby making such a decision NAFTA-appeal-proof.

The decision, therefore, is entirely the TTC’s, not Queen’s Park’s.  Where did the authority for this scheme come from?  The City of Toronto Council has to approve all of the TTC’s capital spending because they pay for a good chunk of it, but I don’t remember any City endorsement of giving the work exclusively to Bombardier.

And finally, some questions for our Council and Mayor: 

Who runs the TTC?  The Commission or Budget Advisory Committee?

The TTC Commission can be fabulously pro-transit but Budget Advisory regularly cuts them down on operating and capital requests.

Our vision for the city is compromised because the transit advocates, including the mayor, won’t stand up and say “transit is important” and its cost to the City should be allowed to grow faster than the rate of inflation.

The current City policy calls for all budgets of agencies, boards and commissions (the ABC’s as they are called) to rise no faster than inflation.  This is out of the question for the TTC if we are going to make a significant improvement in the quality and reach of service.  Every new rider costs us money, but there are offsetting savings to the public at large through the availability of better transit service and reduced need for automotive travel.

Byzantine Funding Formulae 

When will we stop hanging our hopes on artificially complex multi-party funding schemes among three levels of government who are guaranteed to rarely agree with each other’s priorities?  Why do we offer hope of transit improvements that depend on the Federal government who have never been keen to participate?

Roads Versus Transit

Why do Works Department engineering priorities and so-called standards trump transit every time on transit priority, road design, and pedestrian convenience?

When will we see realistic planning including offshoots from the Official Plan?  A full discussion of subways versus LRT?  A real “transit first” plan for neighbouhoods like the waterfront?  A transformation of the suburbs with good quality service rather than the minimum that gets by? 

We need to stop jockeying for political advantage with the TTC on all sides and start to address very real and very large questions about where our city is going.  Rick Ducharme has said that Toronto isn’t a transit city, that it’s going to the car.  We need to prove him wrong.

The responsibility for this is clear:  100 buses are not enough.  The transferrable Metropass is not enough.  The Spadina/York University subway is not enough.  David Miller, the transit Mayor, must make a clear commitment to the improvement and growth of the TTC.