crs1026
Superstar
The current Board was painted into a corner. Whether it was their own doing, or the politics, is something for a good book.
I was actually surprised how quickly this has come to the boil. I would have expected the 'stay the course' vote to hold in a little longer. Clearly someone felt that the last two months' ridership couldn't be explained away or overlooked in the public's eye. I would love to know who authored Plan B, and when. Was it desperation, or was the Board backpedalling all along?
In the past, the ML Board clearly gave comfort to the premise that one could implement a premium transit product ahead of meeting the broader, more plebian needs that they are supposed to treat as Job #1. It would be hard for them to argue that they hadn't bought into that one. So they can't plead innocence. I guess they could argue that the Pam Am games deadline was forced on them, but there is little in the Board minutes or public statements to demonstrate any pushback to that.
At the same time, management energetically plumbed the 'premium service' mentality beyond prudence. When you see them boasting about earning international awards for a service that hasn't started operation yet, you know they are operating on a conceptual level and not a results level. That's foolhardy business strategy at its best.
It will be an interesting argument (I'm not suggesting that we will be privy to it) should ML jettison the leadership team for UP. Arguably, management faithfully executed a flawed strategy that the Board authored and stood behind. There must have been private discussions somewhere about the flaws. Who was on what team would make a good read.
- Paul
Last edited:
