On May 31st, 2007 Councillor A.A. Heaps, will be presenting a report to the Planning and Growth Management Committee of Toronto City Council recommending changes to the structure and operation of the Toronto Cycling Committee Toronto Cycling Advisory Committee - Revised Terms of Reference. The purported goal, stated in the letter from Councillor Heaps to the Committee, is "to ensure that the committee assumes a more active role in advocating the needs of the cycling community to the City through the Planning and Growth Management Committee. It is difficult to see how the proposed changes will accomplish this goal when they will reduce the number of members of the public on the committee, meet less often, diminish the role of cycling groups such as TBN, ARC and CBN by removing their representatives from the committee, and remove references to the other avenues for Toronto residents to be engaged in the decision making process such as the TCC Subcommittees.

The best way to analyse these changes is to compare the original TCC Terms of Reference and the most recent version of the terms of reference 2006 TCC Terms of reference..

Under the 2006 Terms of reference the TCC had 22 members which included 15 citizens at large as well as representatives from, Toronto Bicycling Network, Community Bicycle Network, and Advocacy for Respect for Cyclists. There were also representatives from the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board. The TCC also had cross representation with the Toronto Pedestrian Committee where each had a rep on the other Committee. Most recently added was a representative from the Toronto Youth Cabinet. This membership allowed for a broad representation with various perspectives on cycling that I think helped to provide thoughful input to Council on various cycling issues. These organizations also served as a conduit to the community keeping their members informed of cycling issues at council and rallying them when obstacles to implementing the Bike Plan were encountered at Council in the city bureaucracy.

Councillor Heaps' recommendation reduces the number of citizens at large from 15 to 8 and eliminates all of the organizational representatives and reduces their involvement to being "consulted in the decision making process". There could be an argument that the total number of citizens at large on the main committee could be reduced if that was coupled with other means of increasing public involvement and maintaining strong liaisons with cycling organizations and the other organizations that have been on the TCC. For example the roles of the TCC sub-committees such as the Bikeway Network Planning sub-committees, Safety and Education sub-committees and Promotions and Communications sub-committees could be enhanced and formalized. They could have a broader membership and do more of the work to provide comment on various city initiatives, develop motions and monitor progress on the various aspects of the Bike Plan. However the references to the sub-committees in the current TCC Terms of Reference (section 11 - Meetings) have been eliminated in the revised document.

In the place of sub-committees is a section on 'Working Groups' "The establishment, location and frequency of Working Group meetings shall be at the discretion of the Chair and the Toronto Cycling Advisory Committee.". There were working groups established during the last term of the TCC such as the Cycling and Transit Working Group and the Bike Budget Working Group. These were seen as more ad-hoc in nature and organized around a particular issue. While providing a good structure for ad-hoc issues, this would not be a good replacement for the sub-committees. In fact, as the work on these issues increases they should become formalized as a sub-committee. The Cycling and Transit Working Group was so active with many developments around those issues that it should have been formalized as a sub-committee in this proposal.

There is also a provision in the revised terms of reference for additional meetings of part of the committee "Ad hoc meetings of all or part of the Toronto Cycling Advisory Committee may be convened, as required. The location, frequency, and participation of these meetings shall be at the discretion of the Chair and of the Toronto Cycling Advisory Committee." This would be a poor replacement for the sub-committees which should have a regular membership that could include a broader cross section of the community which would develop an expertise on the issues dealt with by the committee. As well they should have a regular meeting schedule to be able to monitor and advise the city on the issues under their mandate.

Another change suggested by Councillor Heaps is to reduce the number of meetings to 4 per year. In the past term the TCC met monthly with a break in the summer. The sub-committees also met monthly. The meetings of the Cycling Committee should be coordinated with those of the Planning and Growth Management Committee that it reports to. You can see their schedule here. Planning and Growth Management Committee Meeting schedule. The cycling committee meetings should be enough time in advance of each of these meetings so that motions made at the cycling committee can be transmitted in time to be on the agenda of the next meeting of the Planning and Growth Management committee. That would mean there should be 10 meetings per year.

An active cycling committee is necessary to ensure the Bike Plan gets implemented. The fact that the Toronto Cycling Committee is in a reporting relationship to council standing committees allows for transparency in the processes and decisions at city hall. TCC members could ask for staff reports on various issues, at TCC meetings or by sending motions requesting reports to the standing committees, which allows citizens to monitor the progress on the Bike Plan or gather information to develop new proposals for implementing it. The reporting relationship also allows the residents who are members of the committee to have a direct and real influence on the Council process by virtue of the fact that the TCC could also put items and motions on the agendas of the standing committees to ensure that these issues come to the attention of the staff and the politicians. These actions perhaps stepped into the turf that Councillors and staff perceived as their own but made for more democratic local governance. I don't think this direct involvement in local democracy interfered with the progress on the Bike Plan. I think it made public the fact that progress was not being made. It allowed residents to hold Council to account. The proposal to have the cycling committee meet far less often and to have far fewer people involved will mean there will be less opportunity for this type of transparency and accountability.

This proposal should be revised to ensure that the cycling committee is indeed more active and that residents can play a greater role in ensuring that the Bike Plan is implemented. If there was any weakness in the TCC it was that there was not enough outreach to the all the wards in the city to enlist more residents in working for improvements in their own neighborhoods. I think that in addition to strengthening the roles of the sub-committees the Community Cycling Advisory Groups should be restored as committees that report to the cycling committee. These were described in item 13 of the original TCC Terms of Reference Community Cycling Advisory Groups to represent the interests of cyclists within communities, focusing on local needs and priorities, bringing such interests and needs to the Toronto Cycling Committee, and promoting the Toronto Cycling Committee's initiatives and programs as they apply to any community.

In all of this one thing that should be remembered is that it is not the job of the cycling committee or its volunteers to implement the Bike Plan. It is the job the Mayor and Council. They are the ones who should budget the required money to get the job done. They are the ones who should direct staff to ensure the policies they approve are enacted. They are the ones who should ensure that the projects they have approved get completed. The sad fact is both Mayor and Council have not done a good enough job in this regard over the past 6 years and the volunteers on the TCC have tried to fill in the gaps. If the Mayor and Council took their responsibilities relating to implement the Bike Plan seriously, and just did what they have promised to do there would be less for the cycling committee to do and maybe they would not need to meet as often nor need to work so hard trying to rally the public to convince Council to do what they said they would do. As Councillor Heaps takes on the task of ensuring the City of Toronto completes the Bike Plan by 2012 I think he should try and enlist as many people as possible in the effort to see the Bike Plan through because if history is any guide it will be a tough uphill climb and he is going to need all the help he can get.

There is still time for Councillor Heaps to revise his proposal. Amendments could be made at the meeting next week. If you want to have input into the proposed changes to the cycling committee terms of reference you can make a written or in person deputation to the Planning and Growth Management Committee. It is item PG 5.12 on their agenda. To register for a deputation contact the committee's clerk Merle MacDonald at 416-392-7340 or email to mmacdona@toronto.ca You can also contact Councillor Heaps at councillor_heaps@toronto.ca.

Martin Koob
info@biketoronto.ca