Coffee with Mark Towhey

TORONTO -- So, where have I been all this time? Hmm… hard to explain. Some if it is metaphysical. On the physical side, though, I’m still in Toronto and doing a little of this and a lot of that.

“That” involves working with Rob Ford’s campaign team to help him get elected as mayor of Toronto. It’s a fascinating task. Not just because Rob is a fascinating guy — although he is that. The more I get to know him, the more I like him. But, that’s another story. No, what’s really fascinating is the campaign itself.

Biggest campaign in politics

The campaign to become mayor of Toronto is, hands down, the biggest individual campaign in Canadian politics. No other candidate, in any other race, anywhere in Canada, needs to win 300,000+ votes to get the job. No other candidate in Canadian politics has to define his own policies while also pounding lawn signs into people’s front yards. Few other campaigns in Canada are as long: it’ll be seven months of campaigning for Rob. Others have been at it months longer already. All in all, it’s a colossal effort.

So, I’m thrilled to play a significant role in the campaign of a guy who was all but ignored by the “chattering classes” as some pundits would describe them — and who is now number two with a bullet in all the recent polls. Number two, in fact, by a hair that’s narrower than the margin of error on most of the polls.

Should be an interesting summer.

P.S. Yes, the website still needs some content — we’re working on it.

P.P.S. Yes, I am looking very fat! I’m working on that.

TORONTO — In a surprise, and potentially brilliant move, Toronto Maple Leafs’ General Manager Brian Burke announced today he was trading the entire Leafs squad for Buffalo Sabres’ goaltender Ryan Miller and two first-round draft choices. Although this would leave the Leafs with just one player to finish out the season, Burke felt it wouldn’t hurt their chances to make the playoffs.

“It probably means we won’t win many games,” admits Burke, “but it’s possible we may lose fewer this way.”

Miller was Burke’s star goalie on the silver medal winning U.S. squad at the Vancouver winter Olympic games last week.

“It’s important that we play to our strengths,” says Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment president Richard Peddie, supporting Burke’s surprise decision.

By pulling the entire team, save for one goaltender, Peddie says the team can focus on selling tickets and merchandise for the rest of the season.

Some analysts called the move brilliant, saying the savings in player salaries and travel costs, combined with ticket sales which are sure to skyrocket as fans throng to see Miller play at Toronto home games, will likely ensure the franchise achieves its highest profits ever this year.

“Worst case scenario is the Leafs finish dead last, as they are likely to do anyway, and get the first draft pick next year,” says one hockey analyst who asked to remain anonymous. “This will allow the team to focus on rebuilding for a Stanley Cup effort next season.

Then I woke up. Hey… a leafs fan can dream, can’t he?

TORONTO — Increasingly, there are three things I dislike about our modern mainstream news media. First, is the growing penchant to create scandal where none exists. Second, is the ubiquitous assumption that audiences are stupid. Third, is the mounting evidence that maybe we are.

Who needs a real scandal when we can make one up?

Today’s mainstream media appear to believe they have the right, even a responsibility, to create news. No doubt, this is a function of two intersecting phenomena: humanity and ADD.

Shockingly, my own research suggests a healthy percentage of journalists are human. As such, they have egos and, occasionally, ambition. No one wants to cover everyday news when, lurking right around the corner, may be the story of the century!

So, every time a flake of snow descends from the heavens we have “Team coverage from Storm Centre One.” Journalists, like everyone else, look for ways to boost their careers.

At the same time, we the people, are increasingly afflicted with MADD. No, I’m not talking about mothers who don’t like to drive when they’re tipsy, I mean Mass Attention Deficit Disorder. And, yes Virginia, I did just make that up.

We don’t have enough attention span to listen to two sources of information and draw our own conclusions. No, we want journalists to tell us the why? not just the who, what, where, when, and how that were the original 5W’s. We also prefer entertainment to work, so don’t give us news; we want shock factor. We want superlatives. We want bodily fluids. And, we adore schadenfreude.

Together, these two forces are irresistible. So, we have media outlets looking beyond the news and stretching one station’s supposition into another paper’s anonymous source. The end result? Salacious stories that create themselves. Scandals that are impossible to disprove because they aren’t real.

Prior to the Olympics, CBC News was running self-promotional spots featuring its most recognizable news “personalities” explaining how “every good story” needs conflict, corruption, scandal — and how they knew exactly where to look to find it.

Is this news?

The audience must be stupid

Last week, the Globe and Mail published a story under the headline PMO too powerful, Canadians say.

The gist of the story (pictured above) is that Canadians believe the Prime Minister’s Office (”PMO” — i.e. the Canadian “White House”) is too powerful. This, on the heels of a month of media-induced false-outrage over prorogation of the House of Commons.

To support its claim, the Globe cites a public opinion poll that “… suggests 42 per cent of Canadians think the power of the PMO should be trimmed.” Presumably this is the consensus of Canadians.

But, maybe not. What the Globe does not point out is the same poll (as pictured above from the print edition) suggests even more Canadians disagree. Some 49.7 per cent of Canadians, it seems, think the PMO has the right amount of, or not enough power!

Clearly, editors at the Globe are so certain their readers are stupid they not only cherry-picked their data, they actually felt confident enough to print the conflicting evidence right on the same page!

Sadly, the media may be right!

What really saddens me, however, is the media may be right. Audiences may be stupid.

Large numbers of Canadians became confused by the H1N1 vaccination campaign — because the media told them they should be confused.

A number of Canadians took to the streets to protest prorogation because the media told them it was scandalous.

Millions of people around the world believe the intimate details of Tiger Woods’ sex life are, in some way, their business. Because the media said so, knowing most readers, listeners and viewers would be too stupid to ask why?

TORONTO — Canada’s media are all aflutter over whether the country’s Own the Podium campaign was too… unCanadian. Some media pundits have suggested that:

a. the campaign failed because Canada is not going to score more medals than any other nation,

b. the campaign put undue pressure on Canadian athletes to excel, thus compromising their ability to do so and resulting in fewer medals, and/or

c. the campaign placed too much emphasis on winning.

My response?

a. gag me.

b. gag me again.

c. gag me harder!

The campaign failed…

Only someone who has never competed ever at anything could possibly say this. No hockey coach fires up his team at the beginning of the Stanley Cup play offs with a rousing “go out there and just try your best” speech. Almost every professional hockey player in the world starts each season off with aspirations of drinking champagne from the Stanley Cup — despite the fact each knows the likelihood of such victory is slim.

I use “almost” in the sentence above because a comparatively small number of professional hockey players (a) don’t play in the National Hockey League or (b) play for the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Only those who understand neither mathematics nor rhetoric would actually expect to win everything, every time. However, every campaign must be focused on victory — not personal improvement. Because it is only through striving for victory that we can ensure personal improvement.

Undo pressure on Canadian athletes

Come on. These are the best athletes in the world, competing at the leading edge of human capacity and performance, in the most prestigious, high-profile event of their lives. Their competitors are also the best of the best in the world, and they can reasonably expect that little short of a world record performance will earn them the success they crave.

These world-class athletes put far more pressure on themselves than does the branding of our national funding for sport program. I find it difficult to imagine they’re all that concerned about Own the Podium.

Too much emphasis on winning

See above. Only by trying to win can we improve ourselves. That doesn’t mean that we should (or will) pull an Australian Snowboarder huff if we don’t achieve Gold in everything we try. Canadian athletes will behave with trademark good sportsmanship and grace when they fail to achieve perfection — as most inevitably will — and many, so far, have.

That doesn’t mean we should aim for anything less than best. I’ve lived and worked around the world. There is no other nation on this planet that puts Canada to shame. Canadians can, and should be, proud of who they are and what they do. Our athletes can be, and often are, the best in the world. There’s absolutely no reason for them to assume they are limited to anything less than victory.

An interesting, and exciting phenomenon

As I write this, Canada has won 17 medals in the Winter Olympics. Fewer than the U.S., Germany and Norway. But, half of our medals have been Gold. No other nation can say the same.

I’m not entirely sure what this means, but it could be that our athletes are going for broke in a way they’ve never done before. Where other athletes are comfortable with bronze or silver, Canadians have pushed to win. I watched two skiiers, a man and a woman, both in third place on the final run, push harder to achieve silver or gold — and fall, losing the bronze medal they could easily have achieved. They held nothing back.

That kind of we can be and want to be the best in the world attitude is not common amongst our athletes, nor in our broader society. That’s what has many in the Canadian media unnerved. They, alone, seem fixated on finding the odium in Own the Podium. At the same time, this new self-confidence is exactly what makes me so incredibly proud of our athletes and how well they’ve done at this Olympics so far.

It’s no Vimy Ridge, for sure, but perhaps Own the Podium may be a cultural turning point for Canadians: we can and should expect to be the best in the world — if we work harder than anyone else to be so.

And, it’s OK to want to win!

TORONTO – Toronto’s public transit system (known as the “TTC” for Toronto Transit Commission) is in such a state of turmoil that only a radical, can’t-even-see-the-box-from-here approach will fix it. At present, it’s a middling-good, ad-hoc network of buses, electric streetcars (as pictured), light rail and subways operated by an aggressively unionized cabal that most riders perceive as underworked, overpayed, uncivil and barely competent thugs.

Incremental improvement to the current system is impossible in its present state of open reputational warfare between union, management, the political board of directors, City Hall proper, the media, the paying passengers and the broader public. I’ve never seen such a mess.

Fed-up riders are snapping cell-phone photos and shooting videos of sleeping fare collectors and slackard drivers then posting them to the internet where they are generating a sense of common outrage amongst the million or so people who rely on the system each day. Pissed off unionistas, upset that riders are holding them to account, fired back with their own Facebook site to call their customers ill-mannered boobs. I am not making this up!

In an election year, the exclusively left-wing political elite on the TTC board are ducking for cover. Management of the system is, for all intents and purposes, absent with leave.

In fact, it’s safe to say that, from a rider’s perspective, there is no professional management of the TTC whatsoever. Apparently, there is a General Manager (a position that was high profile a number of years ago, but has since subsided into irrelevance,) however I can’t find anyone who knows who this person is, nor what he (or she?) does. Instead, the system is run by a part-time board of city politicians working closely with the union.

How to fix it?

The time for subtle fixes, or nuanced strategic “refocusing,” is long gone for the TTC. The only hope this beast can be fixed lies with radical surgery. And, radical surgery is worth it.

The TTC accounts for more of the City’s budget than any other department, save the police force. In fact, 16 per cent of the $9.2 Billion (yes that’s Billion with a ‘B’) 2010 operating budget of the City of Toronto goes to keeping the TTC rolling. On the capital side, City Hall will spend $1.33 Billion this year alone to purchase new buses, streetcars and make other capital investments in TTC infrastructure. These are real dollars and they are driving out-of-control increases in property taxes that are forcing Toronto residents, and especially its small businesses, to begin planning an exodus to the outer suburbs.

A simple exercise: eliminate the TTC

Here’s what planners should do. First, they should assume the City will simply stop funding the TTC come April 1, 2011. Period. No more city money to transit.

Why is the city in the transit business anyway? Clearly, they’re no good at it. Return the millions (and billions) of city dollars spent on transit to the taxpayers, reduce (or hold the line) on property taxes. The City should focus its efforts on delivering the services that only a City can deliver. Transit isn’t one of them.

Given the abandonment of transit in 2011, planners should then ask themselves: “So, what?”

So, what happens if the city doesn’t do transit anymore? First off, how much money could the city make selling off TTC assets? I’ll bet it’s a billion dollars. More than enough to pay off any pension liabilities and make a big dent in the city’s ballooning debt.

But how will people get to and from work, shopping, school, etc? Good question. I imagine more people may drive — so some of the billions the city saves should go to improving its roads. Others will be forced to use bicycles, hire more taxis, join car pools, etc. Apparently, that’s good for the environment, even. Bonus.

But, before long — in fact, before April 1, 2011 I’d wager — some bright entrepreneurs will smell an opportunity. Someone will approach the city to buy pieces of the TTC with a view to continue operating them for a profit.

The subway system, for example, is a good asset. You could run the subway for a profit, I bet, if you were smart about it. Someone would buy the subway system.

There would also be buyers for some parts of the street car and busing networks. Some of these could be profitable — either those that feed into the subway, or those that operate in high traffic areas where the subway doesn’t exist.

Many bus routes, however, would be abandoned. They’re not profitable. Such is life. The TTC should have dumped these routes long ago. But what about the people who need them? Well, life’s tough. Instead of being the only three people on a 60 passenger bus, perhaps these people will have to introduce themselves, get to know their neighbours and share a taxi.

In fact, I image there will be entrepreneurs who look to run “mini-buses” in poorly served neighbourhoods, connecting people from their homes to the subway and major bus routes. Operating smaller vehicles, with non-union drivers (or owner-operated,) they could make a profit at an affordable price.

Given the increase in customer volume, Toronto’s taxi fleets might be able to reduce costs to compete for passengers forced off of non-profitable buses.

Is that it, then? Abandon TTC riders to private sector wolves?

Yes, and no. Yes, if the TTC can’t see beyond the obvious. If that’s the case, perhaps the city’s role in transit should be limited to licensing and regulating private sector operators. The city could earn a tidy sum in recurring revenue from doing so.

No, however, if the TTC can learn from this planning exercise, and get back to root causes. Why do I want transit? Not because I want drivers to have gold-plated pensions, or jobs for life. Not because I want to send fat-cat politicians on junkets to transit conferences in Singapore. Not because I want shiny mobile billboards for singles’ websites patrolling major traffic routes in my neighbourhood. No.

I want a fast, convenient and affordable way of getting from the door of my home to the doorway of my workplace, shopping centre, school, theatre, friends’ houses, etc. That’s what the TTC should be providing: door to door solutions. The subway has value only when it’s delivering this. Ditto buses. Ditto streetcars.

The TTC should take this opportunity to deconstruct its assumptions and rebuild its mission from scratch. Maybe city residents would be better served by licensed neighbourhood minibuses picking them up from their front doors and dropping them at the nearest subway stop. Maybe the city should subsidize taxi rates rather than buying new buses. Maybe there are other off-the-wall ideas that would help transform the TTC from a loadstone around the neck of taxpayers into a vibrant, essential service.

Maybe.

Knowing the calibre of Toronto’s political leadership thus far, however, I’m very afraid… maybe not.

TORONTO — Yesterday, Toronto’s mayor David Miller unveiled a balanced budget for 2010 that may well condemn some city residents to death. Miller chose to balance the books not by reducing spending, but by another major increase in property taxes and the introduction of new service fees and penalties. Residents who call 9-1-1 in an emergency will now be charged $350 per fire truck that responds, if there is no fire. How many may die, while people assess the cost of calling for help?

Fire fine may kill people

The fire fine, already christened “Miller’s Death Tax” by one radio commentator, is aimed at raising millions of new dollars from the approximately 10,000 “false alarms” received by Toronto Fire Services each year. Rather than try to reduce this number through education, Miller’s City Hall sees it as a ripe opportunity to fleece residents of their hard-earned cash.

Imagine: there is smoke pouring from your neighbour’s home. Do you call the fire department? What if it’s a BBQ gone awry? Can you afford the $350? And, that’s hoping just one truck answers your call. Dispatchers may decide to send two or more. Will they have a quota?

Will the City’s budget office instruct 9-1-1 dispatchers to send two trucks to each call, to increase revenues if the cost of snow clearance goes over budget next year?

What if your carbon monoxide detector goes off? This has happened to me. Unsure what to do, I called the fire department’s non-emergency number to ask if I should ventilate the house or something. The person who answered transferred me immediately to the dispatcher and, within two minutes, there was a troupe of ventilator-breathing firemen inspecting the bowels of my home with gas detectors. Fortunately (I think) the house was clear of noxious fumes and they recommended I replace the detector.

I hadn’t asked for them to respond — it was just part of their protocol. Under Miller’s new tax, would I have to pay $350?

If so, shouldn’t I be given a choice?

The following is not an actual transcript of a 9-1-1 call not yet received by Toronto’s emergency services call centre, some time in the near future:

“9-1-1 Do you need police, fire or ambulance?”

“Umm… I’m not sure. Which is cheaper?”

“Well, the Fire Department is $350 per vehicle. The ambulance comes free, but they may choose not to come without the police. The police are also free, unless this is a burglar call… is it a burglar call?”

“No, not really…”

“Okay, then the police are free — but if there’s no one to arrest they have the right to use you for TASER practice.”

“I don’t know what to do.”

“What is the problem?”

“Well, my neighbour is screaming and there is a column of black smoke billowing from her bedroom window.”

“Do you see any actual flames?”

“Umm…. no. No actual flames.”

“Then I could send the ambulance to see if she’s maybe having a heart attack or something.”

“Can the medics put out the fire while they’re there?”

“No. Fire fighting is not in their collective agreement. You need someone from the firefighter’s union.”

“Damn. Umm… But I really think there might be a fire. Could you send just a small fire truck?”

“We have a special today on very old trucks that don’t connect properly to our new fire hydrants — they’re just $200.”

“Okay… can you send us one of those? And hurry, please, because there’s smoke coming from another window now.”

“I’ll send that right away sir. First, though, may I have your Credit Card number?”

How many people will die?

How many people will think twice before calling 9-1-1 to report a fire? How many people will die because no one was willing to risk being charged for calling it in — or because people waited until the house was fully engulfed in flame before being sure it was a “real fire?”

I know I’ll certainly think twice next time.

TORONTO — Although this post comes hot on the heels of my earlier commentary on the sad saga of Adam Giambrone, who is currently campaigning to be Toronto’s next mayor, this column is not about him.

This post is, however, inspired by some of the inane commentary currently clogging the airwaves of Toronto’s talk radio shows and blotting the pages of the city’s newspapers. Many self-righteous commentators argue that “the issue is not about whether he cheated on his partner, or whether he’s straight, gay, bi or none of the above…” the issue is, they insist “that he misled us about it.”

Integrity in the bedroom is irrelevant to workplace performance

I’m not even going to point out that sexuality is irrelevant in the discussion — although that is fast becoming the sole point of discussion on the radio. That should be self-evident. Rather, I’m going to take issue with the fundamental assumption that integrity in the bedroom matters in office.

They argue that a politician who cheats on his spouse then denies doing so… (a) demonstrates poor judgment and (b) lacks integrity, and therefore, is not up to the job of political leadership.

They accept as given that poor judgment in romantic matters is a good predictor of poor judgment in professional matters. Ditto for integrity. As simple and attractive as this argument is, it is easily disproven.

Consider the inverse: If you are like me, you undoubtedly know many people who are wonderful husbands, wives, parents. Many of these people have been faithful for years to their partners, through good times and bad. They have raised wonderful children and instilled in them a strong, positive sense of right and wrong. And yet, some of these people — people who are paragons of good judgment and integrity at home — are absolute disasters at work. In positions of leadership, some lead their companies into the ground. Given complicated assignments, some screw up routinely and get fired. Still nice people, though.

It seems pretty obvious that being virtuous and demonstrating good domestic judgment at home does not equate to success at work.

So why would anyone think the opposite must be true?

TORONTO — The following text messages ARE NOT actual text messages sent between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and midnight from mayoral hopeful, and Toronto Transit Commission Chairman, Adam Giambrone to a younger woman with whom he admits to having an “inappropriate relationship:”

8:44 pm: Really need sum stimulation - C U soon!

8:57 pm: Metropass reader on fritz. Have 2 wake up collector, be there soon

9:18 pm: Driver has to pee. Pls wait 4 me!

9:51 pm: Subway delay due 2 cold trax… So sry!

10:32 pm: Dvr on coffee break. Pls, pls, pls w8 4 me!

11:21 pm: Sry!! Fell asleep. Met a nice grl who luvs politics. Very stimul8ing. Small world, eh? Me N U next time??

Remember. This is a work of fiction as far as I can be sure

TORONTO – The sex scandal that exploded this morning around Toronto mayoral candidate Adam Giambrone could be more serious than it appears.

At first glance, the early days of a 10 month campaign may be the best time for a sex scandal to emerge. It will damage Giambrone’s candidacy somewhat, but it alone is not likely to derail him. Fact is, he’s a relatively young guy, he’s not married (although he is, somehow, “involved” with another woman) and who cares? Fact is, he’s not likely to win anyway — scandal or no scandal.

In fact, the scandal has broadly raised Giambrone’s name recognition. He is now a household name in Toronto. That’s normally a good thing in politics. Normally…

But wait, there’s more…

What hasn’t yet captured the imaginations of talk show hosts and their rabid audiences, is a small fact included in the Toronto Star story by Linda Diebel today. Three short paragraphs, near the bottom of the story say:

His campaign sent the Star a copy of an email that it claimed had been sent to Giambrone by Lucas on Jan. 7.

In the email she threatens to track down “ur `girlfriend’ and let her know about the affair we’re having. It doesn’t have to be true … ha! I hope U become mayor so that I could become TTC chair!”

Lucas denied sending the email and pointed out her name is spelled incorrectly.

– The Toronto Star, 9 Feb 2010, “Adam Giambrone says sorry for relationship with young woman” by Lina Diebel.

This may lead some to speculate, and some more inquisitive journalists to investigate, that Giambrone’s campaign may have intentionally, or inadvertently, tried to mislead the reporter. Were that to be the case, then this scandal could scuttle Giambrone’s mayoral bid — and seriously damage his political future. And it seems very likely that his future in politics outside Toronto is driving his mayoral bid.

After all, given that he’s (a) unlikely to win the mayor’s job and (b) intelligent enough to know this and (c) has to relinquish his safe seat on council to run for mayor, then (d) he must have ambitions to leverage the name recognition he garners during this campaign to launch a bid for a provincial or federal seat in a cozy, NDP-friendly riding in Toronto.

Those plans may have to change.

 

 Adam Giambrone: I'm Ready: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

TORONTO — Has the sun set on Canada’s Parliament? For years, Canadians have agreed the nation’s Senate was obsolete. Some want it overhauled, others want it abolished outright. That no one could agree on how to fix it has resulted in its languishing, unchanged, for decades. With the recent false furor over proroguing of Parliament, however, Coffee is left wondering if it may just be time to abolish Parliament altogether.

What value does Parliament add?

What do we need from Parliament? We need a body that passes laws. But, there’s no reason for that body to be a large building with 308 expensive Members of Parliament sitting in it… plus a smaller chamber with even more expensive, unelected Senators. Fact is, MPs vote the way their party leaders tell them to. So, all but the party leaders could be eliminated.

1. Debating important issues. Every democracy should have a public forum where the nation’s leaders debate the most important issues of the day, exploring every aspect of critical challenges and forming cogent, informed and wise decisions. But that isn’t what Parliament does.

Parliament is a place where members make serial speeches. People take turns standing up and reading out speeches that others have written for them. No one listens to the speeches because, most of the time, few people are even present. Those that are, are busy reviewing the notes the party leader’s speechwriting hacks have written and preparing for their turn in the spotlight.

Occasionally, members are told to stand up, sit down, thump their chests, bang their desks, applaud, cat call or call the other side names. That about sums up Parliament. If there is anywhere that issues or legislation receives informed consideration and review… it’s not here.

2. Committees. If not in the House of Commons, then maybe thought happens in Committee? In theory, committees are where smaller, better informed, all-party groups of Parliamentarians gather to give sticky issues a detailed thrice-over with a fine-tuned comb. Fat chance.

Committees embody all of the worst attributes of Parliament, writ small. No one listens. Facts need not enter the discussion. All the talking points are scripted by speechwriters who likely know less about the issues at hand than the politician whose job it is to passionately deliver them.

3. Question Period In theory, Question Period is the time when opposition parties hold government accountable: ministers must stand up and answer questions posed publicly in the House of Commons. In practice, Question Period is a Parliamentary anachronism much-loved by people who have party membership or press cards in their wallets. The rest of Canada could not possibly care less.

The reality of QP is this: No minister ever answers a question posed to them. There are two principal reasons for this. First, they don’t listen to the questions — not their job, you see. Their job is to read out pre-scripted rhetorical word bombs (ideally with sarcastic grin) produced by invisible scriptwriters who long to hear their ironic one-liners repeated on the evening news. Second, there are no questions in Question Period. In actuality, the opposing parties use their time to launch long-winded, self-serving rhetorical soundbites at the government written by their own wannabe screenwriters in the backrooms.

4. Passing laws. OK… got me there! There is no other body in the land that can create federal laws, so we need some semblance of Parliament. But we certainly don’t need to fill it with 308 superfluous politicians! Only the Party Leaders play a role in decision making, so why couldn’t we axe the rest of them?

Perhaps we should buy a mini-bus instead

Here’s a thought: What if Canadians voted directly for national party leaders who would each be allocated a number of votes proportional to the number of ballots they received? They could then get together and make decisions over slow-roasted chicken at Swiss Chalet. Maybe they could bash around ideas and pass laws with a show of thumbs over a tray of double-doubles and a box of Tim Bits at Tim Hortons.

It would be the same people driving the bus, to exactly the same place, but would use a fraction of the gas and take practically no time at all.