paulhillsdon.com

This is a copy and pasted version of TransLink’s latest press release: 

Mayors’ Council meets – TransLink’s governance transition begins 

The Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation is meeting for the first time today, following the passage of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act yesterday in the legislature. In its first act, the Council, which is comprised of all 21 mayors in the Metro Vancouver region, has selected Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts as its first Chair.

TransLink will officially adopt the governance model prescribed in the Act on Jan. 1, 2008 when the new Board of Directors assumes its duties. But the Act constituted the Mayors’ Council effective today so that it can immediately perform some of its key functions including selecting the new TransLink Board and starting a process to recruit the Regional Transportation Commissioner.

Governance Transition

The new Act will change TransLink’s governance structure in a number of key areas:

Directors and terms: 

Currently, TransLink has 12 directors who are either mayors or who are municipal councilors serving as directors on the Metro Vancouver Board. These directors, some of whom represent more than one municipality, serve one-year terms and are selected by the Metro Vancouver Board.

The new, nine-member Board of Directors will be appointed by the Mayors’ Council on the basis of their qualifications to oversee the organization. Directors will serve three-year terms to provide greater continuity of governance.

Because the structure calls for terms to end for one-third of the directors each year, three of the directors on the first Board will be appointed for one year, three will be appointed for two years and the remaining three will be appointed for three years. Subsequent directors will be appointed for three-year terms.

Regional Oversight:

Under the current structure, the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors has the authority to ratify or reject TransLink’s strategic transportation and financial plans.

In the new structure, instead of having 12 elected municipal officials on the TransLink Board, all 21 mayors in the region will sit on the Mayors’ Council and will have the authority to ratify or reject transportation and related funding plans and increased on TransLink’s borrowing limits.

The new structure will also include a Regional Transportation Commissioner whose focus will be to monitor and advise TransLink and the Mayors’ Council on customer service and satisfaction processes, the appropriateness of any cash transit fare increases above inflation and any sale of major TransLink facilities or assets.

An Expanded Service Area:

To date, TransLink has focused its attention on the road and transit system in Metro Vancouver, formerly known as the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

The new Act allows TransLink to expand to communities in the Fraser Valley or Squamish-Lillooet regional districts that opt to join its service area.

A “Shared Agenda”:

In its current form, TransLink has planned and funded Metro Vancouver’s transit system, major arterial roads and programs that provide commuters with travel options, all in support of the Livable Region Strategic Plan.

The new structure requires TransLink’s long-term strategy and its rolling ten-year plan to support both Metro Vancouver’s growth management strategy as well as the provincial government’s vision for the region’s transportation network.

On the final hour of the final day of the fall legislature, Minister of Transportation Kevin Falcon pushed the bill through and, in a vote of division 36 to 28, Bill 43 became official law in BC. We will soon see the ramifications of this law.

• BC Grade 4ers are among the best readers in the world, but that doesn’t stop a good 10% of them from attempting suicide a few years down the line.
• The Tories have two seemingly opposing bills coming through the house. The first will regulate our cell phone market to ensure at least 40% of an upcoming spectrum sale will go to new bidders - that means no Telus, Rogers, or Bell. Meanwhile, a new copyright proposal in on it’s way, something Cory Doctorow calls, “the worst copyright law in the developed world.” (Yes, that means worse that the distratrous DCMA from the States)
• For those that liked the recently unveiled mascots, they can happily pick one up now at The Bay - for $25 minimum. But, if you’d rather wear Quatchi than hug him, you can always try and get a free Olympic pin at any Bell store this morning (just remember to clip out the coupon from The Province).

The pilgrimage by Metro Vancouver mayors heading to Victoria to kiss Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon’s ring is a sign of things to come. Now that TransLink is on the verge of disintegration, with one more meeting left before the new provincial legislation is put in place, politicians are reverting to form. That is to say, in a manner reminiscent before 1999 when the NDP turned responsibility for transit over to the GVRD, mayors are directly lobbying Victoria for transit favours.

Once TransLink was set up, negotiations with the province and Ottawa were usually handled by the TransLink chair and included consultations with the mayors of affected municipalities. I gather that’s how the Canada Line project advanced under the chair of TransLink.

But the new transit board will have no elected officials. It will have instead merely a council of mayors who approve the most general of plans for the transit authority. As a number of soon-to-be-former TransLink board members have grumbled, local politicians will inevitably lose control.

In his monthly newsletter, TransLink board member and Vancouver NPA Coun. Peter Ladner said of the new structure: “It will add two extra layers of bureaucracy, provide less accountability and transparency, sever the formal relationship with Metro Vancouver, and lead to higher administration costs.”

From TransLink vice-chair Surrey Coun. Marvin Hunt’s point of view, power is “migrating back across to Victoria.”

There are two recent Falcon pronouncements that Hunt puts forward to support his theory of what is about to befall us. Last summer, a propos of nothing in particular, Falcon announced that it would be a good idea to have a SkyTrain line running all the way to Surrey. The idea had never been discussed with regional politicians, and it was not part of TransLink’s plans. But it was obvious to the board that with Falcon at the wheel, all its planning was heading for the ditch.

Falcon’s second fiat was delivered a few weeks ago when the minister returned from Europe and declared all SkyTrain stations would have gates and turnstiles. There was much gnashing of teeth at the regional transportation board room table while staff and elected officials tried to figure out just who would pick up the multi-million dollar bill for this bright idea. There were no immediate answers.

What was not in doubt was who was clearly in charge. Hence the pilgrimage of mayors, from Langley District, Abbotsford, Surrey and Vancouver, to visit our pope of public transit. Instead of the planning and horse trading that has gone on around the regional table for many years, it is every mayor on their own.

This new world order, according to Hunt, is aggravated by Mayor Sam Sullivan. “If you are going to criticize Sam for anything, it’s his timing,” he says, regarding Sullivan’s lobbying of Falcon. No one would be more annoyed by this than Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts. On a per capita basis her municipality gets one quarter the transit services of Vancouver.

Sullivan has never been seen as a team player regionally, provincially or nationally. His aggressive noises (and so far they have only been noises) about the extension to the Millennium Line down Broadway have made regional mayors all the more nervous about their transit needs being funded.

They thought there was a deal in place: first finish the Evergreen Line to the northeast sector and then work on the Broadway line in Vancouver as well as Surrey’s plans for better transit. That deal remains unchanged, at least on paper. But nobody can figure out just what Sullivan is trying to prove and how Falcon may respond.

What is going on, says Hunt, is “not good for transportation in the Lower Mainland.” And he isn’t the only guy who holds that view. [The Vancouver Courier]

It seems like everyone has been throwing in their two cents on the mascots for our Olympic Games. Generally, either people hate them or like them, but I definitely think their reception has been far better than that of the Inukshuk logo.

Going into this, I imagined we would choose a few BC animals to represent different “things”: i.e. the Spirit Bear for the Earth, the Orca for the water, the Raven for the air. I knew, of course, that there would be a native spin to the animals, but I think doing so is quite suiting. The many aboriginal groups of BC have been here a long time, and I think their relationship with the animals is very unique and should be, and was properly, reflected in the mascots.

That said, I was surprised when I first saw them. The whole idea of a Sasquatch… it isn’t the first animal that pops into your mind when you think Vancouver, but I feel it’s actually very cool, beyond just the beer factor as has been mentioned to death. I mean, it’s a completely legendary animals after all! Besides, Quatchi pulls off the big huggable bear factor like Sully from Monsters Inc. I think as the most definable of the three, he will be liked by the most amount of people.

I didn’t know what Miga was to begin with. Just the colours and his (or her?) size in relation to Quatchi had me thinking it was a baby panda. I actually really enjoy how they merged two of the most requested animals, the orca and the spirit bear, into one. Even better though is it fits perfectly into aboriginal folklore, so there is some amount of basis for a transforming mascot.

Sumi is the weirdest for sure. It’s not clear what he is (a spirit it turns out), and the multiple features of his body (wings of a thunderbird, legs of a bear, etc.) are almost too minute of details to notice upon first look. Considering Sumi is the official mascot of the Paralympic Games, I think it would’ve been better if they had made this distinction a bit more clear, and I think the character would’ve been a bit more defined by this. I do like how he pulls of the whole Yoda thing though.

Overall, I’m very pleased with what they’ve produced. Some have been annoyed at the style of the characters calling them Pokemon. However, I think there seems to be a trend in making the mascots simply more and more cartoony and plain, which you can view for yourself in the slideshow below. Besides, there’s no distinct form of Canadian art anyways.

The mascots must possess two key features: be marketable and sellable to the public, especially children; and representative in some way of the host city, the Olympics games, or the Earth. Our mascots have succeed excellently in balancing both these aspects, and I think time will prove they are among the best Olympic mascots yet.

Here’s the Olympic mascots of past and present:

Yes, I’m boosting an event here, but I personally think it’s not only for a good cause, but is an amazing deal.

Zipcar is a large North American car sharing company, and quite frankly provides an excellent product. Basically, you buy a cheap annual membership, then can choose from one of two driving plans: extra value (for those who drive several times a day), or pay as you go (for those that drive once in a while). What’s more: there’s no deposit, and gas, parking, and insurance is all included in the fees. It’s as easy as getting a membership, reserving a vehicle through phone or online, picking it up, and driving. Just make sure to return it to the same spot.

Zipcar launched in Vancouver not too long ago, and based on their maps, have developed an excellent network of “car stations”, mostly around the Downtown area. Which is weird though, cause if you live Downtown, it’s probably easier to just walk or take transit. Zipcar should really expand into the lower density areas of South and East Vancouver, and would actually do quite good in the regional town centres in Burnaby, Coquitlam, New Westminster, and Surrey. There, people are far more likely to drive. Zipcar should really partner with TransLink to have some stalls at the Park and Rides, and see how business goes.

Car sharing is, I believe, the perfect compliment to transit for the green generation. If I had my license, and was 21, I would already be a member. I mean, I never know when I’m going to want to buy some furniture at IKEA, and car sharing is quite a bit more convenient than arranging a time and date with friends or family who drive. Car ownership just doesn’t make fiscal sense these days in our region, if your work is easily accessible by transit.

Despite them becoming a large monopoly in the market (which helps nobody in the long run), and slowly killing off Vancouver-based Cooperative Car Network, Zipcar is the Apple of car share companies. I’ve already noticed the company sponsoring a number of community events. This next one is going to be huge. Here’s the quote from the media release:

On November 29th, Zipcar will host a free screening of the film Arctic Tale, while at the same time asking car owners to help get privately owned automobiles off the road by donating their car to charity. Vehicle donors will receive a lifetime membership to Zipcar along with a $500 Zipcar driving credit. Funds raised through vehicle donation will be donated to the Vancouver based charity BEST (Better Environmentally Sound Transportation). Victoria based filmmakers Adam Ravetch and Sarah Robertson (co-directors of Arctic Tale) will introduce the film and host a Q&A following the screening.

Thursday, November 29th, at 7pm
The Van East Theatre, 2290 Commercial Drive [map]

If you were smart, you’d buy a cheap used car, donate it, and get the lifetime membership and Zipcar credit. I really wonder how many cars they are going to get. Cause, I mean, no rich business person from Downtown is about to donate their Porsche. In any case, it’s a good deal if you car isn’t worth much…

And let the hating begin :P

I hate being so negative, but I’m a fan of Apple, of Nintendo, of Google - these amazing organizations that almost continuously release amazing products. So when TransLink brings out something, I expect and envision something great. Unfortunately, as I’m beginning to learn, I shouldn’t have my hopes up too high.

I wrote a post about iMove a while back, when it was still in beta. I basically lambasted the whole product as a waste of TransLink’s, and potential users’, time and money. Since then, a few things have happened.

• TransLink surveyed the whole Online Advisory Panel, with 1144 respondents participating. I don’t think the response was what they were hoping for; I mean, just look how disappointing this first line of the email was: “In general, respondents told us we were headed in the right direction…” The Panel a liked few things: the concept of a one stop transportation shop, usage of Google Maps, and webcams. When those are the only three things people like about your product, I gotta say that sounds like quite a wreck.
• After the survey, TransLink fixed three things: they increased the size of the map, tried to speed up the Google Map, and added mouse-over descriptive text for the icons. No, they didn’t really fix very much.
• TransLink promised they would have these features in store by the winter: reducing redundancy of the tabs, moving the detailed info table from the bottom of the site to elsewhere, and creating a mobile version of the site. We’ve yet to see any of thee improvements.

And so, iMove was officially released. Not much has changed. This site has major, major problems right down to the core of the design of the site, and minimal tweaks are not going to fix it. TransLink should not have released iMove in it’s current state, and should’ve gone back to the drawing board. The design needs to completely eliminate redundancy, and focus on a balance between usability and information. iMove can’t be everything to everyone - and TransLink has realized this, promising not to add a trip planner into it, leaving that functionality for their official trip planner or Google Transit. In any case, to me, the major issue is the design. However, the development of a mobile site is also very essential, and something they are apparently working on.

What’s worse, iMove is now a live site. It should be providing the latest traffic information to it’s users. Then, why do I see notifications for things that happened in October or earlier? And I would bet that if anyone compared the notifications on iMove and the traffic radio reports, you would see nothing was updated on the site, making it completely useless. I’ve been following it throughout the day, and have not seen one new traffic alert. For a live site, this is unacceptable.

But, you want the icing on the cake? According to News1130, iMove has been in development for *five* years. Five years. For this piece of crap. Oh, but it gets better. The Backgrounder, provided to me by TransLink, said that the various levels of government have contributed a total of $1,080,900 to this project. TransLink paid $490,000 of the initial investment, and has also committed $210,000 for “content development, marketing and project management.”

Woah. Something is absolutely wrong here. Obviously, the government does not have any clue on how they should be interacting with the web and how much they should be paying for it. This is absolutely ridiculous and I’m completely appalled.

iMove is shit. Maybe Vancouver’s web geeks can fix it at TransitCamp.

For those of you that are business-oriented, large organizations tend to have “soft openings”, basically testing a product for a bit, before an official press release and celebration occurs. Well, the other day, I discovered TransLink’s soft open for it’s latest e-product, MyTrip Next Bus. MyTrip Next Bus is their attempt at an SMS (text message) system to receive next bus information. Thanks to the installation of unique five digit numbers at all bus stops in the past little while, they’ve been able to provide the automated call centre, Google Transit, and now MyTrip Next Bus.

The service is quite straightforward. Instead on phoning in that stop number and charging up time on your cell bill, you just text that number to 33333. A couple minutes later, it sends you the next few bus times.

This may sound all cool to you, and it is, but it’s not very new. See, a few university students developed an SMS system over a year ago for our transit system. They refined it and even turned it into a business. So bus schedules via SMS have been around for a while. Frankly, it’s just plain sad that it takes some innovative transit users creating a cool product until TransLink even knows such technologies exist. What’s worse, is now, almost a year later, TransLink’s own product is worse than the students’!

Here’s TransLink’s Next Bus text message to my cell:

So, at the top it tells me the stop number. Beside the stop number it says 12:05, but it’s not very clear what that time is for. Unlike the rest of the page, that time is not beside a route number, and it certainly isn’t the current time (the phone’s clock on the right says 11:53). Next, it doesn’t seem like they used very good formatting for the SMS - there’s a whole whack of symbols available for use, and the best they can do is commas (heck, there’s not even a space between the route number and scheduled time). And then they use 42 characters for that message at the bottom of the message, which really is not needed, and when each message can only have 150 characters, they sure do waste a lot of space for that added text. Personally, I don’t find it at all user friendly, and as you’ll see below, compared to the HandiMobility version (powered by QuickMobile), it’s quite disappointing.

Here’s HandiMobility’s text message to my cell:

What can I say? It’s user friendly, with an easy distinction between routes numbers and schedule times, between AM and PM, and doesn’t waste much space at the bottom with any useless text. I also like the use of the “//” to separate the schedule times from the URL.

What’s more, HandiMobility has already developed a personalization service through FaceBook. Basically, you can then bookmark stops with whatever name you want to give them, then you text that new name to their number to get schedule times. With this system, I don’t have to know the five digit number, and can easily save stops I regularly use. For example, the bus near my house in Surrey, I bookmarked with “320 CLO”, because it’s the stop where the westbound 320 leaves. When I’m in Vancouver and want to know when the next 320 leaves eastbound for Cloverdale, I text “320 SRY”. Or, when I’m headed downtown and want to know if a bus is coming shortly, or whether I should just walk, I text “006 RICH”.

The personalized text is slightly different, and I’ve attached it below. It includes the name of the stop, with a slightly longer service message at the end.

I don’t know what’s wrong with TransLink. Why can’t they develop *good* electronic products? Even this new service, Next Bus, it’s not that hard to do. You just need the simple skill of looking at something and deciphering whether it’s user friendly to the public. Maybe some people don’t know how to balance information and simplicity. All it will take to improve this is a change of the textual format in the SMS system. Let’s hope they fix it before the press release goes out.

—————————————————–

A comparison of TransLink’s and HandiMobility’s actual message:

55210 12:05p 320,12:20p 320,12:35p 320,12:50p 320,01:50p 320,01:20p 320, Send HELP for info. A Service of TransLink

[320] 09:27P 10:24P 11:24P [341] 05:46A 06:16A 06:46A [340] 06:05A 06:34A 07:04A // www.textbus.ca

—————————————————–

Symbols available for usage:

. @ ? ! - , & : ‘ ” + = / $ * % ; | < > { } [ ] _ ( ) ~ ^ |

Also, incorporating some SMS lingo would help TransLink seem more human and technically inclined: ^^ thx :)

—————————————————–

Suggested new versions for TransLink:

#55210 [320] 12:05p 12:20p [341] 12:35p 12:50p || TransLink :)

@55210 /320/ 12:05p 12:20p /341/ 12:35p 12:50p // TransLink // thx :)

(55210) -320- 12:05p 12:20p -341- 12:35p 12:50p (TransLink)

The death of Robert Dziekansi, and more recently Robert Knipstrom, possibly due to the use of Tasers, would obviously make any sane person question the use of the stunning weapon. And considering the following numbers, it seems like the public is being reasonable:

• 52% say Tasers are a good alternative to guns; police should keep using them while a safety study is done
• 46% say they want Tasers banned until a provincial public inquiry issues it’s report
• Confidence in the upper management of the RCMP remains steady at 59%
• Credibility of the RCMP’s regular forces has dropped 22 points from 83% in April to 61%

If I were the RCMP, an organization with quite a bumpy history and diminishing support from the public, the answer is quite simple: Put a simple temporary moratorium on Taser usage until the inquiries are completed. And yet, they continue to support it’s usage - apparently oblivious to what such a decision is doing to the RCMP’s reputation. I do not see why they can’t suspend the tool’s usage for a while… After all, it’s just one piece of the arsenal, and they’ll still have batons or pepper spray - tried, tested, and true police instruments.

That’s without even mentioning the UN’s recent announcement that Tasers are a form of torture and are against Universal Conventions.

Why are public official so stubborn? Why can’t they fess up to their mistakes and do the right thing for once? Heck, they might seem more human and actually have a better connection with the public in the long term.

Toronto Budget Chair Shelley Carroll issued the following statement today on behalf of the people of Toronto:

“This country is in the midst of unprecedented growth. The Canadian dollar is hitting record highs, unemployment is lower than it has ever been, and the federal government is enjoying a $14- billion surplus.

“Canadians need to ask themselves some very simple questions: why do cities continually need to raise taxes to meet basic service needs when Ottawa has an enormous surplus? Why did Toronto have to impose a land transfer tax and vehicle ownership tax when Ottawa has an enormous surplus? Why are bridges crumbling in Montreal when Ottawa has an enormous surplus?

“And why did the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) recently issue a report stating the infrastructure deficit in Canadian municipalities is $123 billion? Surely the FCM and all those municipalities across Canada can’t be wrong. Surely Ottawa is not second-guessing sound research and data collection from a respected body like the FCM.

“Cities and towns do not have access to revenues that grow when the economy grows - unlike Ottawa. The surplus Ottawa is enjoying is, indeed, financed by cities. And that is why Canadian municipalities are asking for the equivalent of one cent of the GST.

“The federal finance minister says cities are ‘whining.’ Is it ‘whining’ to demand that public funds be spent judiciously? Ottawa is clearly out of touch with the rest of Canada if that is the prevailing attitude.

“Mr. Flaherty has repeatedly talked about the Building Canada Fund. Yes, it’s a start, but certainly not a panacea. The program offers some help for public transit, but falls far short of what Canadian cities need to remain vibrant, liveable, and economically sound in the 21st century.

“Mr. Flaherty lectures that cities need to build reserves to fund deficits. Public transit and maintaining infrastructure requires enormous investments - in the billions of dollars. The property tax base cannot fund reserves of the magnitude needed today. Property taxes pay for services like police, fire, EMS, recreation, garbage collection, water - basic services Canadians depend on everyday.

“It’s also important to remember that Mr. Flaherty was part of the Mike Harris government that forced Ontario municipalities to start drawing from reserves to pay for the cost of downloading.

“The surplus Ottawa enjoys is the people’s money. It is not Stephen Harper’s or Jim Flaherty’s to play politics with. Canadians know that and it’s time the prime minister and finance minister recognized it, too.

“Toronto is the fifth largest city in North America. It’s vibrant and exciting, but is suffering because of inaction by Ottawa.

“In October the Toronto Government stepped up its aggressive program to reduce business taxes to ensure the Canadian economy continues to thrive. Ottawa’s Treasury will be a prime beneficiary. The time is now for Ottawa to set aside its ideological bent and do the right thing by representing all Canadians - urban and rural.

“This matter is too serious and has gone on for too long. Ottawa owes cities - the people - a great deal; it’s time it started start living up to its commitment to public service by serving the public and practicing good government.

“The legitimate needs of cities will not go away and Canada’s municipal leadership remains united in its campaign to protect communities.”

Toronto is Canada’s largest city and sixth largest government, and home to a diverse population of about 2.6 million people. It is the economic engine of Canada and one of the greenest and most creative cities in North America. In the past three years, Toronto has won more than 70 awards for quality, innovation and efficiency in delivering public services. Toronto’s government is dedicated to prosperity, opportunity and liveability for all its residents. [City of Toronto via Spacing]

The costs of downloading services to municipalities from higher ups is clearly almost at a limit. While I agree that all cities deserve more of the tax pie, which the Harper government is simply using to buy votes with tax cuts, is one cent of the GST really going to cut it?

Canada has many core imbalances, whether that is provincial funding transfers, municipal funding transfers, or heck, even a proportionally representative voting system. To me, makeshift band-aid solutions, where little policies here and there are changed, don’t *really* fix anything. I get the impression that major backburner issues like these need to be structurally rehauled before any major advancement of this country occurs (although with the Tories in government, they are more concerned with staying in power than improving this nation).

While I may have done some minimal research here and there, I’m not exactly sure how one would fix the municipal transfers problem. Just because of the way governmental powers are currently divvied (and maybe that needs to change to): the federal government gives money to provinces, which are then supposed to hand it out to cities. If the province isn’t doing so properly, then the cities don’t get their checks, and services are either not provided in the first place or reduced. Somewhere in here, the transfers have to be more direct. Of course, the best way would be to change the tax system, maybe by reducing the federal income tax, and introducing a municipal income tax, so some major funds flow directly to the lowest, and closest, form of government. It wouldn’t actually be raising taxes; just a different way of slicing up the pie, while also ensure the slice goes directly who’s actually hungry. And, as most should realize, the closer and more personal a government is, the more accountable and democratic it is.

So, I don’t know how exactly it should be solved, but good on the Federal Municipalities of Canada for pushing this issue time and time again, and especially for the main spokesperson of the 1 cent campaign, David Miller, the mayor of Toronto. I find it extremely dismaying that neither the mayor of Montreal, or even Vancouver’s own Sam Sullivan, have been tooting their horns, let alone the mayors of other major Canadian cities. Just imagine how much more powerful their voices would be in unison.