I’m a little uncomfortable reading criticism directed at an individual, particularly offering speculation about why an individual may have left an employer. We spectators may be dissatisfied with ML’s output, but we are not in a position to know employment matters, and it is none of our business.
I can understand how, with a long term GO Expansion strategy and Business Case developed, approved, and moved from a blank sheet to an action plan, and a 25-year network plan developed and moved through a couple of 5-year iterations, ML’s strategic planning needs and challenges may have changed. That might change the potential fit and/or attractiveness of either the incumbent or the job, or both.
It’s a new era, let’s leave it at that. The products are certainly fair game for debate and criticism.
- Paul
If the shoe fit let it fit regardless of their position or who they are to get a better system. ML has been full of useless personal from top to bottom like TTC until real leadership was brought in from the outside.
If the products are certainly fair game for debate and criticism, so are the people who plan them and run them. Many good Project Management and personals have left ML because of interference from the person above them that lack the knowledge in the first place.
Far too many wrong decisions where made by ML and other systems by not having the right personal for the upper levels or override better ideas and plans that were better than theirs.
As I stated back in 2006 when ML was a bill and since then, unless ML was arm length from MTO and the Government of the day as well having the power to override various transit plans of the municipalities under it control, ML will be use for pet projects that have no rights to be built, let alone provide the quality of service to get people out of their cars.
We are so late in the Big Move delivery as well where it should go in ranking for quality of service. We have spent far too much money on things that should be at the bottom of the list, overdesign projects, allowing contractors be late on projects as well over billing them and the list goes on.
It taken longer than I hope when Phil Verster took over ML by showing Leslie Woo the door since she wasn't the right person for that position as well the Ex CEO and Chairman, but nice to see her gone as well of other ML personal. Until Phil Verster came along, Leslie Woo spoked on various issues at board level and she started to show up less and less to the point she wasn't seem at Board level meetings anymore once Phil Verster was in charge.
One can go back to 2008/2009(?) when the whole BOD including the CEO and Chair were replaced, as there wasn't anything in the ground to improve the quality of GO service that was supposed to taken place by then or on the horizon.
Until infrastructure is in place, quality of service can not meet the expectation of this board as elsewhere. It cost time and money to built infrastructure and doing it piecemeal doesn't help when you are trying to meet all areas of needs and lack funds to do it. A lot of things will not happen in the timeframe to get X built by various people since they lack the knowledge what has to take place in the first place and the order it must be done.
One needs to have a 25-50 plan what the system should look like at the end of the day, but also need 5-10 years plans to do it as well the funds for it that is updated yearly and review every 5 years. Thing can change over time due to unforeseen issues like the COVID-19 or government change of mind.
