Old system, and that’s final

Council’s appetite for reversing its reversal on transit system so small it won’t make the agenda for the final meeting before election

A proposed double-reverse of the city’s transit system — that is, to keep a new transit system after council voted to reinstall the original system last week — doesn’t have enough support to get on the agenda, the News has found.

This week, Coun. Les Pearson said he was considering asking council to adopt an advisory group’s request to add weekend and night service to the in-place system, thereby halting a hotly-debated switchback.

On Thursday, he said he is still “disturbed” about council’s remaking of transit changes, but council lacks an appetite to discuss the issue.

“It’s like doing a backflip off the highboard that can only result in a belly flop,” said Pearson, one of six councillors who supported the wholesale system change on Sept. 18.

He now says council “shortcircuited” input from administrators, who say a changeover will take several months.

“We didn’t have ample thought or time to discuss it thoroughly ...

“We bypassed administration’s input, and that’s a dangerous thing.”

To reverse a major policy decision within six months requires a two-thirds majority support, equal to six or more votes out of nine.

Council’s Oct. 2 meeting agenda is the final official business before the Oct. 16 election.

At least seven other members of the nine-person council have told the News this week they wouldn’t support the motion.

Even two of the three council members that previously argued time was needed for the new system to be improved, said the issue should stand as is until a new council is sworn in.

“I don’t know if it will come forward,” said Mayor Ted Clugston. “Frankly, the public would see it as indecisiveness before an election ... I don’t think they would appreciate it.”

He said the entire issue is now so complex he’s referring to Transit A (original) and Transit B (begun Sept. 5).

Clugston, along with councillors Bill Cocks and Jamie McIntosh, voted against the change on Sept. 18, stating staff was better positioned to improve on Transit B, already in place.

McIntosh said he still thinks the twoweek time frame was too short to evaluate the new routes or make improvements.

“My opinion hasn’t changed,” he said. “But it’s way too close to an election. It’s very confusing for the public. Any decision should be left to upcoming council.”

Cocks said council’s latest transit vote was “foolish” but he reserved comment until he saw a new motion.

Transit has been added to the last three council meetings as a walk-on item, added to the agenda to discuss the growing controversy of unhappy riders, distance to and from bus stops and a lack of night and weekend service on feeder routes.

The issue flared again on Monday after two advisory groups asked the public services committee to add night and weekend to feeder routes in the in-place system rather than embark on a wholesale change.

Procedurally, the request is included in the committee minutes, meaning council will hear the groups’ opinion.

However, committee members Couns. Julie Friesen and Celina Symmonds voted to send the item to council as an “information item” rather than an “item for adoption.”

Coun. Robert Dumanoswki said he has heard “100 per cent” support from the public for scrapping the new system. He adds that he expects staff to be “far along” reinstating the old system when the new council term begins.

Coun. Jim Turner said he changed his opinion about the merits of the new system since talking with riders and major employers.

Now, he says, the city “should move as fast as we can” to re-establishing the original system.

“We made a mistake, we voted to fix it and that’s were it should stay in my mind,” he said.

Coun. Brian Varga said, “We’ve voted and I don’t want it to start going back and forth.”

In late August, council unanimously approved a motion asking staff to address concerns from residents after the system was unveiled on Aug. 5. On Sept. 5, council reiterated that stance and gave administrators the authority to present a budget amendment, “if necessary,” to address complaints.