Last night I had the start of a revelation. I had been wondering what was wrong with the Toronto Cycling Advisory Commitee, and through an unusual source, I had an epiphany.
Brian Betsworth made a wonderful presentation at the recent TCAC meeting. He proposed that the committee "Brand" itself, and he had come prepared with a sample tag line and images that would help people "experience" the committee and its activities better that is currently happening. He was also asking that the committee encorage community particpation in coming up with it's brand image as a means of outreach to help the public learn about the committee and its activities, and help bring that to a larger audience.
The city controls its own image as well as the images of its agencies in a very strict way; there is very little wiggle room for the committee to brand itself differently than the city. After a brief discussion it was decided that little can be done and so little will get done.
Many of Brian's ideas are truly worthwhile. The committee should have found a way to incorporate those ideas into action. But perhaps not for the reasons that Brian brought forward, but because it would have helped the Committee to understand its own job better, and because it suggested a much needed means to increase participation and interest from the larger community in the activities of the Committee.
The city's own page on the committee descibes it thus:
The Toronto Cycling Committee is designed to advise City Council and its departments, agencies, boards, and commissions, on the design, development and delivery of bicycle policies, programs and facilities to promote and enhance cycling within the City of Toronto. The goal of the committee is to provide a liveable and environmentally friendly city that is accessible and safe for people of all ages and abilities to get around by bicycle and to ensure the role of cycling in a transportation system appropriately balanced among all road users.
From attendance at these meetings, and from watching the (lack of) participation from (most of) the members, you think that the Toronto Cycling Advisory Committee's job was to listen to, and ask for, reports. Motions that attempt direct action are watered down by the chair into reports from staff about what action could be taken with possible timelines.
Which brings me back to what people like Brian are doing. They're the ones doing the advising because the committee cannot, or will not, do its own job.
Last night I had the pleasure of seeing several people make deputations and do the committee's job better than the committee is. Brian Betsworth's presentation is one example. Luke Siragusa presented his suggestions for the Bloor St Viaduct, and Hamish Wilson followed with his two cents. Eleanor McMahon described what the committee should be doing with her to push a cycling initiative at the provincial level.
Other individuals and groups -- that is "us" -- We need to start gathering our own thoughts and ideas and start presenting them to the cycling committee because we've seen that the committee cannot do this itself. I think that groups like the Bike Union and TCAT have an important role to play in helping us in preparing such reports, and helping us with getting these heard and acted on by the city.
And as the committee is unable to do its own outreach, this posting starts my own campaign on their behalf.
Brian Betsworth's presentation is attached in Powerpoint format. You can use Openoffice.org software to view it. Or download the pdf version if that is more convenient for you.
Comments
Ed (not verified)
But what happens after the
Wed, 01/21/2009 - 10:53But what happens after the presentations are made to the committee? Just because you tell the committe something does not mean that:
1) The committee takes meaningful action on what it hears
2) The committe follows up when the rest of the city machinery tries to ignore the request for action
If the committee is not arsed to take actions on its own ideas and priorities, how seriousl will it be about taking actions on others' ideas and priorities?
Been there, done that, waste of my time.
anthony
After the presentation we
Wed, 01/21/2009 - 12:53After the deputation/presentation is made is exactly the time when we need to start putting pressure on the committee, on staff, and our councillors to followup and to take action to remedy the situation that we brought forward.
It's truly rare that staff don't want to help. But staff have to juggle competeing priorities and address many different situations across this city, some of these being much more urgent than others. Unfortunately it is possible for some issues to become forgotten. That's where our encouragement and persistience comes in.
Having a group work with you, like the bike union, means that the preparation of the report/presentation may be better than you could have produced on your own. And it means that there are more people who will put pressure on issues that affect you on your behalf. It also makes it ultimately possible for the bike union to start taking some metrics, like response times, to issues that have been raised to rate the city's performance.
John Routh (not verified)
Save presentation as PDF
Wed, 01/21/2009 - 16:23You can use Open Office to export the presentation to a PDF. Suggest you do that to make it more accessible.
darren
Now available in PDF!
Thu, 01/22/2009 - 14:14Good idea John. I uploaded it in PDF format.
-dj
Darren_S
Conflict of interest.
Wed, 01/21/2009 - 17:18Is it not time to look at other cities that are seeing progress in their cycling plans? The ones with the best results have the shortest distance between cyclists and the mayor's office. No buffers between them and city council. They tend to have the mayor being told by cyclists what they want who in turn tells his/her committees to put it into action. Toronto is the exact inverse.
What other city allows a councillor to sit as chair of their cycling committee?
Large Marge
Look to the Pedestrians
Thu, 01/22/2009 - 13:50If you would like to see an effectual municipal advisory committee in action, then try auditing a Toronto Pedestrian Committee meeting instead. Even when Councillor Saundercook chairs, there is effective discussion and strong motions are put forth. With 23 members, sub-committees are key and follow up work is easily managed and brought forth in a timely manner.
TCAC on the other hand, has been crippled by downsizing to 8 members and those members are no longer allowed to form sub-committees that would include fine folks like you and get the work done between meetings. To add to the road blocks, members of the public are not even allowed to speak at TCAC meetings, unless they have submitted a deputation in advance!
I have been pushing Councillor Heaps to allow subcommittees and have even suggested Brian Betsworth by name, as a candidate for coordinating an outreach committee. I feel like we're on the cusp of bringing them back, so the greater push from all of you, the better! Please address your comments to Councillor Heaps, rather than to the volunteer committee members who are already struggling to make progress in such a non-effectual environment.
A point of clarification: TCAC is not a marketing house and we have no budget for production of promotional materials. The City of Toronto has a paid staff, in fact an entire department devoted to Cycling Promotion. Would this presentation not be more effectual if presented to Sean Wheldrake and Staff?
Large Marge
Furthermore...
Thu, 01/22/2009 - 13:59The Committee Secretary has been instructed by Councillor Heaps NOT to maintain a list of outstanding business, therefore making thorough follow-up on action items next to impossible!
hamish (not verified)
if the Cttee's not adequate, look further....
Thu, 01/22/2009 - 14:43Making swipes at a constrained committee of volunteers is unfair. Yes, some criticism is good, but the context is the crucial ingredient, and the cutting back of members to a mere 8 is a major part of the problem, combined with a very "tight" set of hands from Mr. Heaps, who's full-throttle to fifty, and with little apparent interest in hearing criticism or suggestions, as it takes time, and staff time.
There is a need for an evaluation of the situation, and strong outside pressure from the varied groups of cyclists is necessary. The CU might be well positioned to help, but so far it's been far more celebratory than critical, despite many weak moves - like delays on Bloor study, the EAvasion, the Wellesley lanes being inferior, etc. etc.. We also need to have an evaluation of how TCAC-like bodies are structured and/or heeded in other areas, and this includes finding out how/if they have sub-committees, which is where most of the work in previous committees was done, but they've virtually all disappeared.
Yes, we may soon start to see a lot of bike-friendly changes, but Margaret's experiences and comments with her unique perspectives of doing both Ped and TCAC work should make all of us realize we have problems going well beyond the volunteers.
And it wasn't the volunteers that weren't putting in the bike lanes fast enough...
Yellow Snow (not verified)
When impotent, best to downsize
Thu, 01/22/2009 - 17:09Nuthin' got done with many folks and subcommittees. Now nuthin's gettin' done with eight people and a chair. Sounds like sound management to me.
Darren_S
Flogging a dead horse.
Thu, 01/22/2009 - 17:14TCAC and its predecessor TCC have been ineffectual and/or dysfunctional for quite some time. I am in no way suggesting that it is the fault of any of the volunteers, who serve more as cannon fodder or a buffer for city council more than anything else. It is time to turf TCAC altogether and start anew with a different model. Something at arm's length to council. With some oversight the Cyclist's Union, or any other group that could prove it represents a good cross section of Toronto cyclists, would do a much better job at getting the message across to city hall.
Ever heard of a driver going to a driver's committee to improve road conditions? They go straight for their councillor. CAA, they go straight to the Mayor.
If you are really prepared to keep the things the way they are at least replace the chair. Replace him with the Mayor.
anthony
Flog the horse untill it is dead
Sun, 01/25/2009 - 16:02Killing the committee is one option, as is refactoring, restructuring, or even replacing members. Having the represetatives of certain community groups having a seat on the committee is another option. We have loads of options and ideas. If we feel that the committee is not working on our behalf, or is not working in our best interest, then it is up to us to ask that it be replaced, changed or even removed.
What do we want? Myself, I think some kind of change is in order because this ain't working so well; I don't think that killing the committee is the best idea.
Darren_S
Bury it.
Sun, 01/25/2009 - 18:03It is high time TCAC is buried. How many more years are we going to put up with it? Soon its only legacy will be failure.
The more distance between any new committee and City Hall the better.
anthony
Better metric means better outcome
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 00:11The city of London, here in Ontario, is looking to capture and measure how people get around, put a program in place, and then try to measure change in behaviour. Specifically they want to get 5% of trips made by bike. See
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2009/01/22/8107621-sun.html
Toronto's bike plan has the vague notion of doubling the number of trips taken by bike. We might have already reached this modest goal by the sheer congestion on our roads, and by the cost saving as the price of fuel went up. We don't really know because we've never actually measured. Or if the city already has these numbers they have never been shared with the committee, which is part of the reason why the committee cannot advise effectively.
To those who accused me of being unfair to the unpaid volunteers you are partially right, and partially wrong. The makeup of the committee, with unpaid volunteers, means that the citizens who are on the committee can only devote a small slice of their time to the committee's work, with at least some of that being taken up in the meeting itself. I cannot expect them to devote 100hrs/wk to this, or even 10hrs/wk. I would, however, expect more of them to be a bit more engaged while at the meeting. There’s little discussion and only a few questions. But even those few discussions and questions come from a predictably few people. My many thanks to those who actually participate!
But there are some who some say that this is the way that all committees operate. Bullshit, the committees and boards that I'm on have much better participation than this. And when we don't have good participation, we make the time to teach ourselves what it is that our committee is doing, and what it is that we need to focus on, so that we can all participate and pitch in to do the committee's job. If some still won’t pull their weight then we replace those people. Brutal; but this is what is fair to the rest of the committee.
If more work is required from the committee than the volunteers can do, and they knew that they were expected to do this work when signing up for the committee, and the amount of work is not more than what was to reasonably be expected, then the honourable thing to do for the members who cannot perform this work would be to step down to let someone else do that work. There were many others who signed up and are eager to participate on this committee.
We, the advocates outside, also have bills to pay and other obligations of our time. We too cannot devote most of our waking time to pushing the cycling agenda forward. So we've thrown a bit of our money, and a bit of our time, at the Toronto Cyclists Union to help us become more organized, and become more effective. The union can only do what we help it to do. Alone that's not much, but the point of the union is to amplify our efforts and create synergies that have not happened before. And it is starting to work. Last year we started to see winter cycling get mentioned in the media, and this year we have the Martin Goodman Trail cleared for the first time ever. No, the clear path doesn't go all the way, yet. But we can now say to the city "That was really good, but to make it work better you're going to need to do more." And we can, and should, build the case to justify this, and present it at the appropriate time.
The city is wasteful in its cycling spending. Cycling is afterthought that must be forced in at great expense after the fact, rather than integrated at a much smaller cost from the outset. The city being sued this past year for not including cycling facilities on Bloor St is one example. And the makeup of the committee is itself another example of this deficiency. The city's Planning department, Health & Safety, Tourism & Economic Development, as well as more, and more senior people, from Transportation and Parks and Rec should be in the committee. And where's the police. At best we get a Sgt? How about a divisional leader!
If planners put cycling facilities in to their plans to start with we wouldn’t need expensive modifications afterward to accommodate cycling. The same thing with the building the planners allow; I see the large parking lot for cars, but where’s the bike parking?
Why is the criterium race, Bike Winter, Bike Month, Bike Awards, Bells on Bloor ride, and other (potentially) large cycling events not listed on the going on in Toronto tourism pages? Why must the cycling department budget alone cover the expenses of promotion?
And we’re all painfully too aware of the Police Bias that already exists against us, like parking enforcement, lack of follow-up n traffic collision complaints, etc.
Why isn't the safety budget for cycling shared with the Health department when cycling has so many good health benefits for those who participate? Why doesn’t the city’s health department do more to promote cycling for health, and do more to keep those who cycle safe?
The city's cycling committee is what we have to work with right now. Our job is to bring deficiencies and opportunities to the attention of the committee and to staff by way of this committee. Once they know they have an obligation to respond. Once they respond by way of a report we can then follow it through to council's committees, and then to council. It's what we did for Annette, for the Martin Goodman Trail, and what we'll have to until cycling does become integrated into more of staff's thinking across more departments, when cycling does truly become a city priority.
While this is not a great answer, it is the best we can do right now, so let's get on and start doing it!
Dramaturge (not verified)
Hear, hear!
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 09:36Here, here!
Let's get (it) on!
Large Marge
Sorry to dissapoint
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 12:25I guess you're calling for my resignation from the Cycling Committee? I've gotta admit, that hurts. A lot. Are you next on the waiting list?
jamesmallon (not verified)
legitimate points
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 15:19Anthony's points are all legitimate. They deserve a better answer than your self-pity. I have no idea if you do a good job, or not; I would expand on what Anthony said about the city's cycling committees: if you serve a process that is little more than window dressing, you are not part of the solution, you're a collaborator. The correct response to the city's, and police force's, flagrant disregard for our safety and rights, is to join a group which will confront both bodies.
I thought they were not bold enough, but it sounds like Anthony is on the Cyclists Union. Anthony, if you are, I'll join.
Whateverman (not verified)
You're illegitimate, Mallon.
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 17:48You're illegitimate, Mallon. If you have no idea who does what around this town for cycling, shut up. You're not part of the solution either. Too many indifferent yahoos like you complaining loudly but not doing anything. Don't slag the choir if you don't go to church, heathen.
Here's your confrontation. I got your confrontation right here, Mister Correct Response. You want some flagrant disregard? Go find the nearest police officer and tell them what you've posted up here. Enjoy the response. Go knock on Adrian Heaps' door and read him your post. Good luck finding city hall, nevermind the 2nd floor. Anthony knows where it is. Go hold his hand, maybe if you're lucky he'll take you there on a field trip, schoolboy.
So many whining critics who talk so boldly but never show face...thanks for being part of the Information Highway, you geeks. The 'Net's a great place for you to speak like men while still retaining your boyhood. I'm out there, come find me. I ride everyday, and you hear nary a word of criticism from me, 'cos I'm living the life for real.
Whateverman
jamesmallon (not verified)
?
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 09:10What's this raving supposed to mean?
jamesmallon (not verified)
policy on flaming?
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 10:03Is there a website policy on flaming? Whateverman is welcome to make his disagreements, but the rest of it shouldn't have been posted by him, and should be removed. I may have offended him, and perhaps others, but I did not insult anyone. Whateverman does five times at minimum: "shut up", "yahoos like you", "heathen", "hold his hand... schoolboy", "you geeks".
There's enough emotion without flamings.
Darren_S
Dissappointed.
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 20:07Marge, Anthony has been on the record many times praising your efforts. I think everyone realizes you are in a tough spot. Yet if you cannot detach your "hurt" feelings from issues that have been grinding on cyclists' nerves for years then you should resign.
anthony
Outing the cycling committee members
Sun, 01/25/2009 - 16:19I am not going to "out" specific members as being good or bad.
I've heard Heaps state that the committee's staff secretary cannot keep a list of active issues on behalf of the committee; this merely means that the committee members have to do a bit more of the committee's work themselves.
Some of the committee members are earnestly trying; some are not. Some members ask relevant questions, some don't. Some members have relevant comments to add, some don't have any comments at all. Some members argue for the issues that matter to them, some don't. My point is that it is the same few people over and over who work, ask, discuss, argue, and try. After two only visits it becomes very obvious, even as an audience member, who on the committee these people are.
I would/could not take a TCAC position if it were offered to me right now as I am committed with other endeavours; I could not give the time or focus to the committee that the it deserves. Honestly, I find the other volunteer work much more rewarding than to be asking Dan Egan for yet another staff report. The pedestrian committee, as do its members, actually works -- and is an excellent example that the cycling committee should follow.
I am calling for the resignation of those members who cannot, or who will not, do the committee's work, or to better show of the work that they may already be doing.
I also stated that the committee itself should be doing a better job of educating itself and getting it's own members more engaged both in the meetings and in the various cycling communities in Toronto. How many members knew where Centennial Park is, or how active the Midweek cycling club was in Centennial Park before the presentation was made before the committee? How many committee members have since been to Centennial Park or have been to a Midweek event? How many committee members currently know how many cycle tracks we have in Toronto (and the indoor/outdoor breakdown), how many BMX parks we have, how many km of Mountain Bike trails, and the locations of these not-on-the-bike-map cycling resources? Why does TPS Officer Scott Mills have to tell the committee about the burnt out BMX park, and not one of the park's many users? The whole committee needs to be much more proactive in inviting people to speak on cycling issues and not be leaving this to the same two or three active members on the committee.
Even the bike union itself is not faultless as far as Centennial Park goes, either. But as the majority of cyclists involved come from the commuting/utility community, and as the members perform the union's activities, it is understandable why this has not yet been a priority for the bike union. However, the bike union will have to start doing a much better job reaching out to the racing, BMX, off-road, suburban, and other cycling communities to gain their engagement. This will be an initiative that I will personally be involved with.
My point is that the Toronto Cycling Advisory Committee still has to do a much better job with it's own outreach, and was one of the issues raised by Brian. This is the responsibility of the volunteer members of the committee; not staff. And if there is only going to be the same two or three committee members doing this work, then we don't need the other bodies just to keep chairs warm.
If the problem is with the city's Striking Committee assigning the people to the Cycling Committee then perhaps the Cycling Committee should create a way to induct a few of its own members.
Kevin Love
This is inevitable
Sun, 01/25/2009 - 18:27Anthony wrote:
"But as the majority of cyclists involved come from the commuting/utility community..."
Kevin's commrnt:
It is the same with cars. 99% of the City's attention and budget for cars is devoted to commuting/utility car use. Car racing and other car recreational events get comparatively little time or money.
In successful bicycle cities like Copenhagen or Amsterdam, commuting/utility biking also gets 99% of the effort and money. If Toronto is going to achieve a 40% bicycle mode share, we will have to do the same.
This is not to disparage or put down racing and other non-utility biking. I strongly approve of having fun. Go for it! But when it comes to spending billions of dollars and radically changing Toronto's transportation structure, that can only be justified by utility cycling.
anthony
spend the money: who spends what, where?
Sun, 01/25/2009 - 23:08Kevin Love wrote:
I agree, our transportation dollars should be spent primarily on transportation. But we are not yet where the Netherlands are. Some of our money will be spent to get people cycling for other reasons, which is OK -- we can build on that.
And we also have parks & rec money, some of which should be spent on trails, BMX parks, and cycling programs like CAN-BIKE. Some of our cycling related events, like the Criterium, should be spending (mostly) tourism/ED dollars.
Part of the reason for this is to keep our city's people here to enjoy themselves, rather than travel and spend their money elsewhere, and also to attract others to Toronto to enjoy our fantastic city. Another part of the reason is that it is easier to get someone who already enjoys cycling to expand their love of cycling and try commuting by bike than it is to convince someone who does not have a bike to ride to work. That some people have to learn to love cycling by learning to love BMX or mountain biking or racing first is OK by me. That, and Urban parks that are used are safer and more valuable than parks which aren't used.
Lots of good reasons to see the larger picture, but you're right: Our primary focus and spending should be transportation related.
The EnigManiac
Bang on!
Mon, 01/26/2009 - 02:48Other than commuting/utility cycling, all other forms of cycling are fringe...at least as the city sees it. I do not mean to disparage, but reality is reality. The city wants to see cycling as a form of transportation, not sport, not recreation, not extreme activity; basic, rudimenary transportation. Yes, the city will spend some money on mountain/bmx interests, etc but that will be special interest spending, not catering to the vast majority. I, personally, support cycling of all brands and stripes, but I also recognize that anywhere between 400,000-900,000 utility/commuting cyclists speak a lot louder than several hundred or even 5,000. We should be all backing one another for what is good for one cyclist is good for the other, but don't be surprised if the city always sides with the common denominator.
brian
TORBA
Tue, 01/27/2009 - 23:49Hi all,
***As I have formally stepped away from the organization, I am not speaking on behalf of Toronto Off Road Bicycling Association in this post. If anyone wants to know about TORBA, or has questions, please contact timothy.charles@toronto-offroad.org **
one of the reasons I co-founded Toronto Off Road Bicycling Association is because there was, and still is, a gaping hole in toronto's bicycling community that is not covered by TCU, TBN, OCA, CCA, etc. To date, no Toronto organisation has been formed to serve and represent off road recreational cyclists, who are divided and pigeonholed into a plethora of sub-genres, most of which are incorrect. The off road aspect of cycling in this city is far greater than most ppl realise, and TORBA, in the beginning, aimed to be City-wide. Its goals are even still up on the "About Us" page at www.toronto-offroad.org .
The Martin Goodman Trail, the Kay Gardner Beltline Trail, the Lower Don, West Don, Wilket Creek, Taylor-Massey Creek trails, the Humber trails, the bits and peices of trails in Hydro Corridors, these are all examples of off road infrastructure. They have existed for way longer than bike lanes on roads, and yet the commuters and utilitarian cyclists on roads get more attention to their matters. Not to worry, more on that later.
Add onto the hundreds of Kms of multi-purpose paved trails, the natural surface trails that ppl mislabel "mountain bike trails", including Centennial Park, High Park, The Don, Glendon, etc. etc., and one will begin to realise Toronto has an abundance of cycling infrastructure, even more than Montreal or New York City.
Toronto has world-class, hand built "doubletrack" and "singletrack" trails "hidden" in our ravines and ignored urban parks. Who knows about them? A small handful (maybe 600-ish) intrepid riders. No one has ever measured. No one keeps count. In fact, they are targets, a problem to be dealt with by land managers, not included or encouraged. At the heart of the issue is the proliferation of "unauthorized trails and technical trail features" (renegade build trails and jumps, skinnies, and stunts) that are targeted and demolished by Parks Forestry and Recreation on a regular, unpublicised basis. There is easily enough trail in Toronto right now to meet and exceed Bike Plan's quota. But it is not counted, or acknowledged. Combined with that is a lack of communication and cooperation between authorities, builders, riders, and general public.
Most ppl think off road cycling is extreme, environmentally impactful, and full of liability risks. The fact is, these points are dead wrong, but no one in Toronto has ever tried to correct them. Most ppl associate BMX and Dirt jump culture with kids and anti-social punks. A few dirtjumpers i know in toronto are millionaires, and very successful business people with employees, factories, and big business worldwide. Most ppl think mountain biking means Whistler or Moab. Most ppl think they need to spend $$$$ on a "decent off road bike". All of these are incorrect, and in fact, false. Toronto has the potential to be a destination like Whistler; over 54% of Torontonians bought "mountain bikes" last year, according to BTAC. If Toronto has 900,000 adult cyclists and just a bit more than half of them own "mountain bikes", then it would appear that off road cycling is a pretty major part of our "bike network". But if no one's counting, how can we know?
One clear cliche is "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". The other cliche that fits is "the meek shall inherit the earth." Off road has been ignored for so long because commuters and utilitarians took up their cause and spoke up about safe roads, good parking, and making bikes accessible to many, at the highest levels.. Just recently, off roaders began to learn to speak for themselves and do for ourselves what no one else will do. It is from this spirit of adventure and urge to progress, that we are making connections, developing plans, and talking with others. Off road in Toronto is coming into its own.
It is my hope that people will join, and unite the cycling community to include all aspects and disciplines, and that folks in high places see the value and potential of Toronto's off road resources and the community that makes it. It's not about choosing sides, or winning a battle, it's about enjoying the ride. Any ride, every ride.
cheers,
brian
Large Marge
Aye but there's the rub!
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 15:55I actually see collaboration as the only solution here. That's why I'm on TCAC as well as heavily involved in the Bike Union. You should definitely join the Toronto Cyclists Union, as should anyone concerned enough to read these posts.
Darren_S
Two hats
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 19:51"That's why I'm on TCAC as well as heavily involved in the Bike Union."
One of the good things of the old TCC was that it was apparent where people were from. You knew that the ARC or the TBN rep were there on behalf of their respective groups. The lines are much more blurred now.
Can the Bike Union take TCAC to task on issues when it is so entrenched in it? Do the actions of the Bike Union members on TCAC represent the Union? So if they remain silent on an issue, for example Wellesly as Hamish pointed out earlier, is that the position of the Union?
The EnigManiac
Going and coming
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 16:26The problem is they've all got me one way or another, going or coming. I already pay exceptionally high municipal taxes for a city councillor, city council and its various ineffective committees that are all supposed to represent me and my interests, but invariably fail to do so. The only alternative is to pay for a membership into a Cyclists Union that may or may not be succesful in lobbying for what I want and may accept compromises I don't agree with. Everyone has their hand out for my money and no-one's offering me one thing of value. But it's a chicken and egg thing, isn't it: the Union only has the power of its membership to lobby City Hall, but I could be wasting my money if the union fails to either get enough membership to have any clout or the city ignores them. I don't mind gambling, but I prefer to do it on a poker table where, with skill, I have a reasonable shot to get a return on my investment. I'll wait to join the Union until it looks like they have some leverage at City Hall and achieve some results. Until then, I'll bitch to my councillor and if he proves to be as ineffective as he has, I'll vote for a change. I won't continually be robbed.
jamesmallon (not verified)
one tent
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 10:16I always agree with you, Enigmaniac. You tend to post what I'm thinking before I have time. I think we share the same cast-iron bullshit detector.
I really do want the Union to have leverage, through confrontation or collaboration (if it works better than ever thus), but I have to wait too: just how many bike organizations are there, with how little achievement? Nothing against them, but the current fractured model isn't achieving squat. Look around this city!
I know that there are many types of cyclists with many agendas, and getting them under one roof is hard, but surely there are some things the majority of cyclists will agree on: much better traffic policing, snow clearing of lanes and paths, pavement resurfacing, safe routes across 400 series highways and the Gardiner, bike-cars on GO and subways during rush hour, cycling stations (what happened to the one at Union that was going to be finished by now?!). If we were together and shoved that in the face of the city, we might get one or two, and so much the better.
The disagreements about bike-lanes and the rest can wait until we get all of the things most of us can agree on. We need to have one tent, or just go home.
Darren_S
Agreement without micromanaging.
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 14:00"...but surely there are some things the majority of cyclists will agree on..."
There is a lot that we agree on. We all want the risks we face reduced and we want to be valued/heard. Though we may all have different approaches we share those basics. Sadly we do not even have a mechanism in place to achieve those basics. It is surely not in City Hall's interest to put any sort of oversight/accountability into the process.
geoffrey (not verified)
Coming and Going: Come again?
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 19:19I'm REALLY glad there are enough people who don't share your view and who have gone ahead and acquired TCU memberships in good faith the TCU will succeed in representing them. If all were going to wait for results there would be no TCU.
TCU membership is a relatively modest proposal compared to say purchasing transit tickets.
The city seems to under serve that portion of the population who are active transportationists. Walking between hubs can be as daunting as cycling the same. The TCU will represent a voting bloc and the size and strength of that bloc will sway councillors' opinions. Will these out sway say that represented by the CAA? Time should favour that eventually but without the ball rolling it won't get there. Your membership adds clout.
The EnigManiac
Clout or doubt
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 11:12I acknowledged the chicken and egg situation regarding the TCU in my previous post: they can't have clout without my (and many others) membership , but even with my paid membership, it may not be enough and all could be for naught. I understand that their strength is in numbers. What if they never get those numbers? What if the majority of cyclists are apathetic and just want to ride and don't want to be political about it? What if the TCU proves to be as fractured and ineffective as the Cycling Committee and the rest of City Hall? I just don't know if I want to roll the dice and possibly piss money away---regardless of how insignificant the fee may be (or how those fees swell in the future). I am tired of throwing my money at a problem and watching the dollars evaporate with no results to show for it. I already pay the city for services and don't get them, now I should pay to have someone prod the city to give me what I paid for in the first place?
Svend
I don't see the problem with 2 hats.
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 21:39Cyclists have a lot of friends at City Hall with staff and councillors, I agree with Marge that it's good to collaborate with them. We are making some headway, though with some issues it's agonizingly slow.
At the same time, the outside Bike Union and other groups are a great idea for the needed additional prodding. There isn't a conflict of interest that I see.
Darren_S
Problem with hats.
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 05:20I think any group that represents on a broad basis cyclists across Toronto and has a good following needs to have a seat at TCAC. The Union, TBN and maybe the Pirates fall into that category right now. The seat must clearly belong to them, not maybe as a member representing cyclists as a whole or sometimes maybe repping their own group.
The problem arising from having two hats is when there is a need for oversight and accountability. No matter how good one is, credibility is at risk when there are no clear lines on who they rep. Oversight and accountability are sorely lacking at TCAC.
hamish (not verified)
often, there's just too much to do...
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 21:57Folks, if you're at all serious about doing bike things, and involving yourself in a committee, be prepared for a huge amount of work, if you're serious about it.
One deficiency of the truncated TCAC is that there are no sub-committees, where a lot of the work was done, and where issues could and were discussed in detail, thrashed about, with many other people than mere committee members.
These have disappeared with Mr. Heaps hands-on full throttle to 50. Maybe the way to get them back is to suggest there's increased liability with not providing sufficient avenues for citizen input.
Because at the TCAC meeting, there are a lot LOT of issues that come before folks, with a depth that individual committee members might not feel comfortable with challenging the staff or presenter that's leading them. A great deal of information is kinda held back, and put to folks at the meeting, and it's hard to know context, hard to think on one's feet, let alone fighting all the time for doing some things. One gets tired.
Or labelled.
I agree with whateverman that the networld is easy to be high and mighty and pontificating, and there's a humility and giving that comes with doing committee work that doesn't have the ego gratification of a blahblahg post or comment.
I'm not sure that the Cyclists Union is really going to be leading the way though - so far it's been rather tepid and loathe to actually nip that much at what the City is and isn't doing.
And that's a disappointment to this carmudgeon as there are some things that are rather outrageous eg. Bloor, eg. the incompetence in the dangerous curve on Wellesley just east of Jarvis. (and no, the City wasn't exactly "sued" about Bloor, but Ashley's China asked for a judicial review of the EA classification as I recollect. The City dodged a big bullet in my view by getting away thus far with the A+ assignment they gave it, a freshly minted category, tho the project was in the works for a few years.
Thanks Margaret - she's doing double duty as a ped committee member, and her opinions on the TCAC are exceptionally important because the Ped Comm was NOT chopped back and is at maybe 17 members, and there are sidewalks pretty well everywhere already.
whateverman (not verified)
Policy
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 11:51Hey yo,
Here's the new policy : there's 900,000 + adult cyclists in toronto, and only 15 of the same "carmudgeons" show face at TCAC to try and help. Get off this forum and show face where it counts, or keep your commentary to yourself.
Mallon, and the rest of you critics, you insulted my friends on TCAC, and you insulted every other cyclist who doesn't give a damn about your issues and agendas. I speak on behalf of my parents who ride their bikes around the block in Case Ootes ward without complaint or incident. I speak on behalf of my neices who ride Cosburn to the local park to play on their bikes, behind their dad, who rides to Mt Pleasant and Bloor every day, and has never posted up about "the situation" on the Bloor Viaduct. Getting the theme here? good ppl don't speak like you mouthpieces.
I speak on behalf of smart cyclists who ride the paved paths thru our park systems to avoid automobile traffic. I speak on behalf of sensible people who don't critcise experts from their ivory internet towers like you. I represent by means of one, confrontational, in-your-face, making it personal, shut-up-and-help advocate, the hundreds of thousands of cyclists who can't find this forum or the leftist rantings of its most faithful posters, who all have a voice which you conveniently ignore or discount. These people vote with their wheels. go count them.
Anyone else who cares, show up, or shut up. Far as I can tell, no one that makes decisions in this town reads these posts. You're wasting bandwidth.
Whateverman
Ed (not verified)
Whateverman rants: "Here's
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 14:55Whateverman rants:
"Here's the new policy : there's 900,000 + adult cyclists in toronto, and only 15 of the same "carmudgeons" show face at TCAC to try and help. Get off this forum and show face where it counts, or keep your commentary to yourself."
I put together a presentation on the horrible offset bollard installation on the Martin Goodman Trail at the Boulevard Club. For this presentation, I took a number of pictures, made measurements, and reviewed the City's bicycling policy and applicable municipal codes.
Prior to making my presentation, I had tried to communicate with Councillor Heaps by e-mail, who basically passed on the staff brushoff. Likewise, Councillor Perks delegated the brushoff to one of his staffers.
TCAC received my deputation, and another deputation on the same bollards, nodded somewhat, and passed on some reqests for information to the City's Infrastructure committee, which basically buried the request.
The City staff at the TCAC basically said "the bollards are OK" without responding to any of my points. Never mind the technical inadequacies of the bollard installations, they violate the principles of the City's bike plan, which essentially states that there should not be installations that bicyclists perceive as being hazardous to them. I brought much evidence that, no matter what staff might say, the vast majority of cyclists using the Martin Goodman Trail view the bollards as a major hazard.
I am not even sure that TCAC bothered following up with the Infrastructure committee. I had to follow up with the committee secretary, who gave me the update.
As far as I know, the matter has vanished into the depths of heedless bureaucracy.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to waste my time in front of the TCAC again. If I wanted to make a difference, I'd join some more activist organization such as ARC. TCAC should be trying to gain the trust and appreciation of cyclists, rather than cyclists trying to reform TCAC such that it's of any use.
....Ed
jamesmallon (not verified)
Whatever 'Whateverman'
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 12:51I know I should not feed the trolls...
You're long-winded but inarticulate enough to make what little point you have evaporate to nothing but bile. I can't make out from your spews who you've appointed yourself to 'represent', but don't wonder they wouldn't find someone else. I am only presumptuous enough to represent myself and my own opinions.
No go back under your rock, or not. I'm not going to read your posts anymore.
Whateverman (not verified)
Hahah, De-Facto Troll at Your Service
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 14:43Thanks for not reading. Who's crawling under the rock now?
I'm giving back exactly what you propose to give to our City Hall. Not so nice to be on the recieving end of a ranting critic's diatribes, huh?
Read my posts again, pinhead. They're clear enough to be understood by others reading along, undoubtedly snickering from behind their flatscreens at the lunacy of the extremes we're at. I don't care.
Or, I care so much I'm willing to say exactly what others won't say - Shut up. Go ride your bike. Got to City Hall and talk with someone who can help you, and give them some achievable, practical ideas. Go introduce yourself to TCAC...the next meeting's March 23. Lots of time for you to find crayons and manila paper and butterfly stickers and draw up a pretty presentation illustrating your latest, greatest ideas. Bonne chance a tu, tete casse! Or don't do anything. Stay Torontonian. Uninvolved is safer.
Stop your bs whining, putting skid marks all over the information highway. You're spoiling the ride for decent people who don't bitch and complain like you. 900,000 adult riders in toronto, go recruit them for your "new approach", Mallon et al, and I'll go back to Montreal. Trollfully yours,
Whateverman
kiwano
Buffer committees.
Sat, 01/24/2009 - 17:13There's nothing particularly wrong with having a buffer committee if everyone involved understands that's the committee's role, and there are enough ideas/requests/etc. flying around that it needs to get sorted and directed.
With a buffer committee like this, I'd expect there to be a few main paths that ideas can take from conception to implementation.
If the idea originates outside of staff/committee, the originator prepares a deputation. Committee hears the idea and decides if it is worth allocating the required staff time to have it investigated and reported upon. If it isn't, the idea dies.
If it is, then staff are consulted to see if they have the necessary time to investigate the idea. If so, it gets referred to them, to be reported on at a (specific) future meeting. If not the idea is tabled, and a note is made that this good idea is queued up waiting for staff time.
If the idea originates from a committee member, they informally ask a staffer or community member to prepare the necessary paperwork to bring it before the committee as a deputation or report. and follows the appropriate path from its entry point.
If the idea originates from a staff member they may request that they be able to allocate staff time to its investigation (if it looks like it's going to take a lot, or is somehow extraordinaty), or they may just go ahead and investigate it. They then report on the findings of their investigation to the committee, and the report either says something to the effect of "just letting you know that we're going do do this unless you really object" (i.e. a report for information), or "we need some formal approval or policy tweaking to make this happen" (a report for approval). In the case of the latter, the report should be submitted along with the necessary motion to make it happen. If it isn't, then the committee should send the report back for further investigation (specifically, investigate the question "what are we supposed to do about this").
If there's an action to be taken, the committee contemplates whether or not the recommendation is sound. If it's unsound because the idea is found out to be a bad one after all, the idea gets dropped. If it's unsound because there isn't enough information in the report, it gets kicked back to staff. If it's sound, but there are other obstacles (within the committee's purview) to its implementation, then the question of working around the obstacles should be treated as a worthwhile deputation (i.e. either tabled, or kicked to staff). Ideas that appear to be stuck in a loop should be set aside.
If the proposal is sound, and lacks obstacles, the it gets approved, or recommended to a higher decision-making body for approval.
Finally, all those good ideas that got tabled, get dragged back on to the next meeting's agenda as "old business" at every meeting until they can go forward (to make use of any lulls in the ideas). At the end of the year, any ideas that would still have to be tabled are listed as "good ideas that we lacked the resources to adequately investigate", and this list is submitted to higher decision-making bodies as part of a request for more staff, the ability to establish subcommittees, etc.
The request should also include a request for the specific bits of authority necessary to deal with any of the ideas that were set aside because they appeared to be in an obstacle loop.
Politically, a bundle of ideas whose worth is borderline should be passed a bit further along in the process than is really prudent. While the formal rationale for this would be something to the effect of "giving new approaches a try" or somesuch, the real rationale is to pad out the list of stalled ideas that are used to request more staff/authority/etc. (though they can't be too obvious as padding).
Darren_S
Getting in time with committees.
Sun, 01/25/2009 - 17:58Kris, while I have no doubt your explanation to how committees work or how they should work is accurate it also indicates how behind the times the whole process is.
Really, who in this day and age of instant everything is going to put up with it? Something a whole lot more responsive is needed. We lose many voices because everything takes so god damn long. Yes, maybe it is the way municipal governments work but it simply does not appeal to anyone.
I always imagine someone who has an issue that they have a concern about. Their first introduction on trying to get heard on the issue would probably be the last time they ever tried. 'Ed' in one the replies detailed the mess he had to go through about his concerns on bollards and still nothing got done.
kiwano
"Committees" in the plural IS a problem.
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 00:53Yeah, Ed's example is absolutely not one of a functional buffer committee. Actually, it looks a lot to me like streamlining gone wrong. Once ideas start moving laterally in a bureaucracy, instead of up and down an expected hierarchy, they can easily get lost and die (and we're no longer dealing with a strict buffer situation).
The simplest reason is bureaucratic competition for resources. Committee A isn't going to address a request from Committee B (unless it's A is a sub-committee of B) because they have a bunch of their own projects that there isn't enough staff and money for, let alone blowing said same on the needs of some other committee. On top of that, this also ties into that whole principle where the committee with the most unaddressed work wins extra resources in the next budget. Committee A has just been put in the position where it can say "look at how much extra work we have to do; and we actually get something done, unlike Committee B over there", even though it's actually responsible for Committee B's lack of productivity.
So then what you need is for the chairs of each of Committee A and B to get together and be politicians. Namely, they have to strike a deal with each other that they'll each make sure that their committee addresses the concerns of the other's (so then they can both look really good in comparison to other committees where requests are languishing for little reason other than to spite other committees.
Of course, in order to do that, Councillor Heaps needs to have some horses to trade. I'm not sure that there are (m)any other committees that ever need to refer anything to the cycling committee for whatever reason.
Another way to get around this is to basically make the same deputation to any relevant committees, all within the same month. Needless to say this is a significant logistical burden. On top of that, the relevant committees all have to be identified beforehand. The Cyclists' Union could do a tremendous service to cyclists by providing a sort of deputation clearing-house; having someone who knows what committees will need to hear any given deputation, and someone to show up and make the deputation to each of the committees.
And yeah, it's really slow. Even a properly-functioning bureaucracy slow, but at least the properly-functioning bureaucracy can justify its pace by the need for its actions to be adequately investigated before they're taken.
hamish (not verified)
remember, the TCC/TCAT was forcibly shrunk..
Sun, 01/25/2009 - 18:14The merely 8 volunteers on TCAC trying to cover all of the cycling issues and geography of the larger-than-how-many-countries Toronto are going to be stretched even before some of them may be less able or willing to devote themselves to it. It wasn't the volunteers that weren't putting in the bike lanes fast enough: it was the politicians - yet that lack of speed was given as the reason for serious amputation. The effect is its far more of a rubber stamp than it was, and Mr. Heaps MO is pretty direct, blunt and authoritarian. So unless one has a thick skin, it's not always a welcoming environment to make contributions to.
And even if one does get a motion through, nothing can happen, and it's malarky that the staff can't be found to keep tabs on what's undone in my view.
Maybe some of the Promotions folks should help with tracking the issues.
I also remember a motion being passed c. Sept. 19/05 I think about safety issues on the Beverly St. George bike lane originating from the lousy way that the bike lane was mangled for the AGO addition - but that staff report never happened somehow, and only sometime in 2009 I guess, do we finally have the bike lane potentially back, as it's not painting weather.
There is a need for the sub-committees to be restored.
And did whateverman mean tete carre?
anthony
One way to help
Mon, 01/26/2009 - 08:18Exactly, Hamish! The Committee is not capable of doing its job, but who cares? The job can get done, and is getting done, by us. We can do it, and we are doing it. We can do the outreach, we can bring the cyclists issues to the fore, and we can be the ones doing the advising during the process because we know that the committee won't.
Darren_S, this plan is not to kill the committee, but to usurp the committee's process for ourselves. Perhaps this is one way to "kill" the committee, as it has just about made itself redundant.
We're already doing it! So my answer is to do more of it.
Darren_S
usurp?
Mon, 01/26/2009 - 08:43So you want to "usurp" a process that is broken and make it worse? Seems like you simply want to add another bureaucratic layer.
hamish (not verified)
that's not exactly right anthony
Tue, 01/27/2009 - 19:44I disagree with your interpretation Anthony. I think the Committee could be doing a better job if it were permitted to do so. I remember with some frustration, after Dave Meslin did his love love CU's here and it's all soon to be roses message, (not mentioning the Bloor issue despite my effort to at least get him to mention this) he was feeling sick and went outside. Meanwhile, inside, valiant efforts to set up a Bloor sub-committee were being made by the TCACers and were consistently run over by Councillor Heaps for at least 15 minutes.
You know full well he doesn't "entertain" motions.
And I'm not entirely convinced of the CU having enough gumption and in-depth knowledge to fully represent all the things/aspects that need addressing. Bikeodiversity isn't just for the real bikes, but also the various interests and areas, and the CU is perhaps falling into a pattern of having extra weight for the core area, and that is perfectly understandable because it has always been difficult to get full representation on bike issues beyond the core.
So please, don' think that I'm suggesting that the Committee isn't capable of doing its job - especially from the lack of trying/time of the participants.
anthony
agree to disagree
Tue, 01/27/2009 - 23:41If I wrongly accused some members of being deadweight, or if Heaps himself is responsible, or if there are a combination of factors that contribute, the fact remains that the committee is not doing it own job. I know full well what Heaps does and does not do at these meetings because I'm there, too.
I don't care if the reasons for the committee inaction are systemic, or what the cause is anymore. This is not a big deal, merely disappointing. I have suggested a remedy that some like, and some don't. My remedy works with what we've got and tries to make the best of it. If you have better ideas let's hear them.
Hamish, I'm onside with you. We need to put more emphasis on quality. You've launched a one man campaign about the Wellesley bike lanes, and participated on Bloor Viaduct presentation. You are one of the people who inspired me to initially write this post because I see that what you are doing as exactly that which more of US need to be doing; I thought you could use some help.
Scorekeeper (not verified)
Voyons: City Hall wants a union not a committee
Mon, 01/26/2009 - 09:451... "tete carre" that means "blockhead", a polite way for a french canadian to call you dense. Which we must obviously be from a french canadian cyclist's POV.
2... Methinks (translation: "ecoute!") it's obvious that in Mr. Heaps mind, the union is the committee that he wants to deal with.
3... Makes sense to me for sure lets go.
Ed (not verified)
Can the daily cyclist get through to City Hall?
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 12:18Yes, my real name is 'Ed'. See Item 2.2 in http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2007/agendas/committees/cy/cy071210/cy0712...
Living in the city, there are lots of times when I notice something I wonder something like "Why?" or "What were they thinking?" or "This should really be changed to...." This is not just about bicycling.
So how to get your views to the City (and hopefully get them addressed as well)?
And that's why I'm disappointed with the Cycling Committee, because until the next election when Grimes can be removed as Councillor, my most realistic approach in 5. Well, at least I'll have a beer out of it.
....Ed
David Juliusson (not verified)
Followed the same path as you Ed. Why I joined the Bike union
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 13:06Hi Ed
I too have been on the same path as you. Councillor Grimes made his bike priorities known when he killed the Horner bike lane to benefit his trucking company. I get no response from him and unfortunately see no better candidate that is pro biking that can defeat him in the next election. I did receive the 'I'm having a meeting and will look into it' letter from his assistant which I posted online. I have railed that our bike lanes are dumping grounds for snow even though people are paid to clear them. In the spring it will be all the gravel and sand left from the lanes being snow dumping grounds. I have written Councilors, Dan Egan, transportation etc. They are sick of my letters.
I joined the Toronto Cycling union because I believe it has a chance of making a difference. Advocating city wide has a chance to go around the Mark Grimes and their fiefdoms. It gives a voice at city hall. Council thinks City wide. This has to include the former municipalities like Etobicoke, not just the old Toronto as some advocate on these pages. It is nowhere near as powerful as the CAA, which has a full time lobbyist City Hall. I'll admit the Bike union is not perfect, but I believe it is the best choice available to me. It is worth $24 a year to try.
There are other avenues too. The Humber Trail initiatives are an opportunity to expand bike lanes further north in the Humber valley. The Waterfront Trail initiative is closing the Scarborough Gap and is instrumental in the Mimico project. They are creating cycling links across the province. The Friends of Fort York are advocating bike lanes on the new Bathurst bridge when renovations come up. They are also pushing for bicycle and walking paths in the new communities expanding to the east of the fort and for the Fort York pedestrian Bridge over the railway tracks as a bicentennial project for the War of 1812. Many of these groups have nothing to do with the official bike plan and have their own reasons for what they are doing. But their efforts will help cycling. Get in contact with some of these groups and channel your energies that way.
In otherwords, don't choose option 5. Your energies are needed. You might find yourself on some tangent you never imagined. Good luck
Pages