paulhillsdon.com

I’ve been pondering a lot recently about my position in the community and how to best realize my vision for this region, and, more specifically, for my home city of Surrey. You see, a person like me tends to have a lot of projects and ideas swirling around his head - it’s just a matter of how best to make these a reality. Rather often, it seems that the power to truly improve things lies in the hands of decision makers. To that end, I’m pondering a potential run for political office in Surrey during the November municipal elections.

I’ve written before about what I believe is a lack of boldness in this region. You know, that spice of life, that energy… that ability to make, support and rally around the *best* decisions and ideas - and I think it’s something I inherently possess. It’s a quality that could make up for my lack of experience in politics and support my candidacy as I’m advocating for the important issues.

And what are the important issues?

Well, take a look at the “four pillars”, so to speak, of a Surrey civic platform that I’ve been brainstorming.

1. Sustainable Development
2. Green Spaces
3. Transportation Alternatives
4. Vibrant Communities

I’m a logical guy, so trust me when I say that I already have many plans on how to achieve measurable improvements in these four categories - something rarely seen from political candidates vying for office. November’s a long ways away still. Does the platform sound intriguing to you? Something you would support?

Stay tuned, the rest of this week, I’ll give a full rundown on each of these “pillars”, including specific policies and plans.

Naturally, I’d really appreciate any and all comments :)

Premier Gordon Campbell put our money where his mouth is and the proposal is quite satisfying. 9 new RapidBus lines, 3 new Rapid Transit lines, 1500 new clean buses across the province, a commitment to turnstiles and a smart card system. Overall, it is quite huge, comparable in fact to a 2020 transportation plan set out in Ontario by Dalton McGuinty’s government, which also included a vast expansion of transit services. We should all be commending the provincial government for taking this necessary step - certainly a far more balanced situation than just getting Gateway.

However, as always the devil is in the details, and it’s the details that are lacking in the plan.

Funding

For example, the provincial government is not spending $14 billion. Only $11.1 billion is actual new money, and of that, the province is only putting in $4.75 billion - over the next 12 years. One could argue they aren’t really pulling their fair share of a plan they have initiated.

How’s the rest going to be paid? Well, Campbell is relying on Harper putting in a share of $3.1 billion - something the federal government has yet to do with Ontario transportation plan that also required a 1/3 share from Ottawa.

Then, the estimates are that TransLink will have to put in almost $2.75 billion. The agency currently has a surplus fund of $400 million - something that used to sound like a lot; not so much anymore. TransLink’s only way of raising any money is through a combination of increased fares, property taxes, and gas taxes. Over the course of 12 years, that means TransLink needs to raise an additional $230 million. The recent fare increase raised an additional

Seems likely that the $5 three zone fare is going up some more soon. Or maybe they’ll move forward on pursuing possible money from transit oriented development near stations…

In other areas of the province, municipalities will be throwing in about $500 million as well.

But don’t forget the private corporations. As we’ve already seen with the Golden Ears Bridge and the Canada Line, the provincial government is keen on having private corporations foot part of the bill as well. Kevin Falcon has already stated that even smaller projects, like the estimate $100 million it will cost to install turnstiles, will be handled by a private corporation through a P3.

Timeline

Compared to the past, when the Lower Mainland received 1 rapid transit line per decade, we are now getting three in 10 years. A good increase for sure.

But, what you have to realize is that many of these routes should have already been built. So in fact, we are playing catch up - and with this plan, the lines will continue to be 5-10 years away. Is that fast enough to relieve the congestion we have already? How much transit demand will there be that far away in the future? What intermediate steps will be taken to fix the situation in the meantime?

The fact remains, we need these rapid transit expansions today. What lines will we be needing by 2020, when the current extensions are just finishing?

Furthermore, there has been no estimate at all for the RapidBus BC system. Obviously, the Highway 1 route won’t be possible until the Port Mann is expanded - potentially completed by 2013.

The whole point of using buses is that they are a low cost option that can be launched in under a year. Whether these advantages are adopted has yet to be seen. It would be a very big shame if the routes took a number of years to implement, especially since we could start right now and get many of them in place immediately.

Routing

One of the things I find most interesting about the Rapid Transit and RapidBus plans is their routes. Frankly, it’s not all that surprising to see the UBC Line where it is, and the same goes to a lesser degree with the Evergreen Line. However, having the Province decide something like a possible extension of the Expo Line in Surrey doesn’t seem like the best choice to be made.

The Province doesn’t have a full grasp on the area first of all. I mean, just looking at where they’ve proposed it makes no sense at all. It seems like it attempts to get a station close to Guildford, even though it’s obvious that it’s quite a few blocks away from the mall no matter what. Then, it goes southeast towards 88th and Fraser, cutting right through a neighbourhood. I personally think that the current terminus is the best situation, but if they are going to extend it into Surrey further, it should just continue directly down Fraser Highway, and should end in an area where a large transit exchange and park and ride could be built - potentially at Fraser and 168th St.

I also found it amusing that the Province promotes RapidBus on routes that already have or are soon getting a B-Line: i.e. the Hastings to SFU route and the Joyce to UBC route via 41st. TransLink has been planning these for a while, and put the money in this year to create these B-Lines. What’s going on? Where is there overlap? Is it going to be a B-Line or a RapidBus BC route?

Same thing goes with the planned King George Busway by TransLink that has been adopted by the Province.

You’d also notice the White Rock to Richmond route - which is already a semi premium express coach route by TransLink.

What’s going on? Why is there overlap? What’s with the lack of coordination?

Where’s TransLink in this?

With this plan, what is the new role of TransLink. It seems that not only has the Province literally chosen the routes, timelines, and technologies for future rapid transit - not just rail based, but road based as well! Why should TransLink pursue a new regional transportation strategy if the Province is just going to institute a plan from the higher ups? Is TransLink simply going to be the agency that draw up the feeder routes? Is TransLink just the scapegoat of the Province - the operator, per say, that gets all the rider’s complaints?

The Reality of Governments and Plans

First off, we must understand that this is not so much a plan as it is a vision. That’s because, well, the money, past the first phase, is not at all guaranteed, and the government that’s in office in 2012 or 2017 could easily just scrap this plan altogether.

Take a look at what the Campbell government did to the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Clark government for the Millennium Line. That was a government agreement that the province would provide the funding to complete the rapid transit line, following a detailed routing and technology analysis. Once the NDP got booted out in 2001, whatever happened to that Memorandum of Understanding? Gordon Campbell through it out with the outgoing government.

Plans change and evolve so much these days that it’s very difficult to look at the maps and routes as something concrete - that is until funding is secured and the real work begins. Until then, this is nothing more than a vision.

Thankfully, however, we will soon see what amount of money the province is truly committed to when they release the February budget. At that time, we will find out what is included and is actually going to happen in the short term.

Wishful thinking

The plan is great. But there are definite concerns and it’s unfortunate that they released this plan without much of any coordination with TransLink or the municipalities. We are taking a huge step forward with this initiative - I just wished it happened faster and it looked out farther into the future.

Maybe that’s for my generation to plan once Campbell retires. But with more visions like these, I don’t think he’s going to leave the Premier’s office anytime soon. And maybe that’s a good thing. Hey, it worked out alright for transit in Metro Vancouver…

I don’t want to jump the gun before any real details are released. Besides, as Keith Baldrey says in his report below, there hasn’t been any leaks so to speak - he’s more… connecting the dots. Have more tomorrow on this.

UPDATE: The announcement is at 10:30 AM. Check back here shortly after for full details and analysis.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, Metro Vancouver is currently renewing the Livable Region Strategic Plan (which developed the concept of town centres in a “sea of green”). This new Regional Growth Strategy is to focus on five main goals:

1. A sustainable compact metropolitan structure
2. Diverse and affordable housing choices
3. A strong diverse regional economy
4. Protect and enhance the region’s natural assets
5. A sustainable transportation system

Metro has embraced the web as a powerful communications platform by not only creating an online discussion forum, and posting the draft plan’s survey on it’s site, but has also allowed the results of said survey to be viewed in real time. Which is pretty cool stuff for a governmental organization. This “real time” view gives us a pretty good idea of what the public wants, and as of now, it’s clear they want some big change.

Metro’s problem has also been a lack of control over the region. In the survey, there was generally three to four options, ranging on a scale of Metro retaining it’s current powers, to giving it the abilities to override a municipality in certain cases.

For example, with “Strategy 10 - Advance a regional network of roads and highways that prioritizes goods movement, transit operations and high-occupancy vehicles”, there’s three options, progressively giving Metro more power:

• A) State the general Strategy to prioritize the movement of goods, transit and HOVs in the regional network of roads and highways
• B) Identify regional roads and highways network on a regional map and state general principles for prioritizing
• C) Identify a regional roads and highways network on a regional map as well as provide guidelines for prioritizing use

Surprisingly enough, each and every strategy is overwhelmingly choosing the “C” option, or the one with the most added power for Metro. It’s not clear how many people have taken the survey, but judging by the many written comments viewable on the site, it’s quite evident there’s a good sampling source. Does the public’s approval of more power mean big changes coming forth for Metro Vancouver?

This is part 2 in a series discussing how the digital revolution is currently reshaping society. Don’t know what’s going on? Go back: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Have you heard of the One Laptop Per Child project? If not, it’s probably because you don’t live in America, and the international media is doing a half-assed job of reporting about it (see: social media revolution) despite it’s huge effects it will have on the whole world.

The OLPC was a non-profit project launched by Nicholas Negroponte from the MIT Media Lab. It’s goal was to create a hundred dollar laptop and put it in the hands of children in developing nations. It was supposed to sign up multiple national governments to purchase hundreds of thousands of these laptops, which would allow it to achieve it’s goal price through the economies of scale.

After many meetings and prototypes, the laptop has now been shipped off to several countries and is now in the hands of these children, many of whom have never seen a computer before; who have absolutely no idea of how powerful the machine they are holding truly is.

You see, there were two simple arguments about the OLPC. The naysayers made a clear point of asking what need a child has for a laptop without sanitary conditions, clean water, food, and basic shelter. Those who supported the project, like me, made the case that that laptop has more potential for ingenuity than the combined international aid money that’s been sent around the world for the past decades.

Say a poor child living in the shanty towns of Argentina received a laptop at school. The shack he lives in with his family doesn’t have power, and their only light source is a few candles. With this laptop, and an internet connection, he can instantly find instructions on how to build a simple windmill. After a few weeks of the family saving money, and purchasing materials down in the city, he can create and install a windmill, which could then easily power a lightbulb.

Or, let’s take a less ingenius solution, and something just a bit more common. Let’s say there’s a young teen in sub-sahara Africa who just got this laptop. Her first Google search is “Africa”. She clicks through the links, with one of them talking about HIV. Although she lives in the most infected continent in the world, her teachers don’t speak of it, and her parents don’t understand it. She begins some simple research of the virus. Through this basic understanding of what HIV is, and how to protect yourself from infection, she has now dramatically reduced the likelihood of her catching the disease. She can now explain this information to her family, and although her school may not cover it, she can raise the conciousness of her fellow peers.

Almost thankfully, the OLPC XO isn’t your typical laptop. It’s minimal processor, and small screen are what enable it’s cheap price. Besides, the machine isn’t supposed to be a workstation. But regardless, the XO features some very cool design, specifically made for developing nations, where the machine truly shines:

• the small screen can be read clearly during the day, even in direct sunlight
• it has mesh networking built-in, allowing the OLPCs to allow connect to one another within a certain radius. This networking enables a simple internet connection to vastly expand it’s reach.
• battery life is excellent (I’ve heard of it lasting a good 24 hours)
• with simple power attachments, one can recharge with a hand crank, a pull string, or even a small solar panel
• it’s incredibly sturdy

The amazing thing about this device is that we are giving the children in these developing nations the tools they need to alleviate themselves from poverty. Large scale international aid and charity has never worked as good as we all hoped for 3 reasons:

1. Corrupt governments diverting the money
2. Approaching the problem from a top-down perspective, versus from the bottom-up
3. There’s no incentive for the people to use the money wisely

The microaid programs have been so successful because they eliminate numbers 2 and 3. However, those programs rely on people understanding or learning about investing and social entrepreneurship.

The strengths of the OLPC are similar. They give people something useful, a real tool, directly. And because the governments are paying directly for these laptops, you can be sure that the machines are going to schools.

As the old proverb goes, “Catch a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he’ll eat for a lifetime.” Well, all a child has to do is some simple research online about fishing and he’s good to go.

Despite slightly missing it’s goal price, the OLPC has been an immediate success on another front. It has created a whole new type of machine, completely changing the marketplace.

Thanks to simple competition, Intel has developed it’s own mini-laptop, called the ClassmatePC, for developing nations. Asus, being a smart and nimble beast, took the developing nations out of the requirements, and built a cheap, small laptop for developed nations - the eeePC - which has proven to be a humongous success. There’s already rumours that several other manufacturers will enter this new market very soon.

Which begs the question, why don’t children in developed nations get access to these computers? Sure, they may not be building windmills with them, but giving children access at an even younger age would continue to revolutionize the Western world.

As I mentioned in Part 3, the age at which people in the First World at owning their own personal computers continues to drop. Right now, it’s a the point where a teenager typically has his of her own computer. Heck, even a number of schools are providing them with one.

But, let’s go even younger. Why not give the 6-12 market an OLPC type machine? If it breaks, it’s cheap enough to replace.

Doing so would dramatically increase our children’s digital literacy, at a much younger age. This in turn would spur technological innovations at a much younger age. You think a 20 something running a multi-million dollar web startup is crazy, wait till his child gets his own personal computer at age five!

The OLPC will not only bring developed nations out of the poverty cycle, which in turns helps balance out the world economy, but will also bring the next billion online into this whole new social global community. Take it one step further into the developed nations, and ingenuity will take another leap forward.

In the last article, I will discuss some more digital tools that are now available to children, and what effects this will have on society as a whole.

Rafe Mair wrote an editorial for The Tyee, detailing the process by which TransLink has reverted back to provincial control. He also mentions several other projects whereby the Campbell government has superseded local interests. Interesting read.

This new TransLink board, all Campbell approved, without an elected person on it, will have the power to raise property taxes, buy and sell property, change property taxation classifications and run its own police force.

Here they are:

• Dale Parker, a businessman who’s business financially supports the Campbell crowd;
• Nancy Olewiler, an economist who serves as a Liberal appointee on BC Hydro’s board of directors;
• David Unrah, lawyer and businessman who serves on many boards of directors and, get this, is the corporate director of Canada Line Rapid Transit which is overseeing the construction of the RAV — oops! — Canada Line (A little conflict of interest here?);
• Jamie Bruce, an investment banker;
• Sarah Goodman, PR spokesperson for Weyerhouse;
• Robert Tribe, long time Executive Director of SNCF Lavalin, which makes buses and transit stuff (surely not another conflict of interest!);
• Cindy Chan Piper who has a consulting firm, is a member of Vancouver’s right wing Non-Partisan Association and is a vocal supporter of Sam Sullivan (Gosh! Not another conflict of interest!); and
• Skip Triplett, who has been an executive with BC Tel (now Telus), Xerox of Canada and the Steel Company of Canada.

There you have it folks. Nine members of the business community all approved in advance by Premier Campbell to represent the needs of two million Vancouverites…

… And what was the fundamental issue that triggered the American Revolution? Taxation without representation.

Well folks, George III is alive and well. He runs his fiefdom in a great big office in the parliament buildings in Victoria.

TransLink had it’s last board meeting under the old structure on December 12th, and the Mayors’ Council has approved the new nine member board of professionals. Unfortunately, the names have yet to be released, but as Jeff Nagel at The Black Press reports, it doesn’t seem very fruitful for the region…

As Maple Ridge Mayor Gordy Robson says, “Out of the whole list of 15, there were two east of Boundary Road.”

“They were business people downtown primarily. That’s awfully weighted toward the City of Vancouver and the downtown business community.”

The mayors initially debated whether to make any choice at all or to send the decision back to transportation minister Kevin Falcon, who spearheaded the radical reform of TransLink over objections of many civic leaders.

But Surrey and Vancouver mayors opposed that motion and it was defeated in a weighted vote, which gives the two big cities enough clout to outvote the rest of the region.

I will refrain from making any real judgements until the list is revealed publicly, but didn’t we know this going in? I mean, after all, the screening panel was full of people from the Board of Trade, the Gateway Council, Chartered Accountants, a Ministry appointment, and the Mayors’ Council’s choice of Mike Harcourt. No matter what Harcourt may have wanted, he was outnumbered 4/5 by the business sector.

—————————————————–

EDIT:

Frances Luba, from The Province, did her own short report on the matter, and there were a few interesting quotes I’d like to bring your attention to.

The abuse continued yesterday with a series of sarcastic awards from the orange-shirted Bus Riders Union, whose members disrupted the meeting in Richmond council chambers with their chants of “Transit for all! BRU fights on!”

“Are you people so deluded that you think you’re going to speak to the new board?” said MacLean, the mayor of Pitt Meadows.

They will be in charge of the 26th biggest company in B.C., with an operating budget of nearly $1 billion, capital projects worth $4 billion and almost 6,000 employees.

The old board learned its replacement will cost $1.2 million to $1.5 million to operate compared with its own cost of $300,00 to $400,000.

The mechanics of how the new board will operate remain unclear, which is why one of the old TransLink board’s last acts was to approve a motion calling on the new board to make its agenda and minutes public, as well as holding its meetings in public.

You may have noticed a few trends throughout my many transportation related posts: I’m a transit man thru and thru, I spend a crazy amount of time coming up with solutions that will never be implemented, and I have a disdain for Kevin Falcon. One you may not have picked up on though is my lack on stance on the Gateway Project. It’s because, unlike some organizations, I see both sides of the story, and I know the world is just not as black and white as some would like as to see it. Polarization and arguments don’t help solve the problem.

Growth, at least at this point in time, is nearly inevitable. Whether that is in population, the service sector, or goods movement. We are living in good times and should be glad this is not the recession of the 80’s. That said, we should capitalize on our healthy economy to make the investments today to ensure this wealth continues for years to come.

Based on the projections, Vancouver is going to grow and become a national Gateway to the Pacific. And, heck, why should we turn down all the new tax sources? Why send the ships down to Seattle or L.A. when we’re the best suited for the job? Let’s embrace this opportunity.

And so, the federal, and provincial, governments, along with business organizations have developed what amounts to a Gateway strategy - implementing strategic upgrading of important transportation corridors to enable this expansion to occur. I’m glad governments are so gung ho to invest in the Lower Mainland.

However, we must take into consideration that there are more stakeholders in the region than just truckers and businessmen from China. There are 2.1 million residents, expected to grow past 3 million by 2030. Our region is one of the best places on Earth to live in, and we don’t want to sacrifice this lifestyle, but improve it for the future.

Does this strategy of a livable, and sustainable, lifestyle conflict with the concept of becoming a national Gateway? Perhaps, at least conceptually, but I think if any place is best suited to find creative solutions to satisfy all parties, then it’s Metro Vancouver. We’ve got an incredible history behind us of using communication and cooperation to move our region forward, and now’s not the time to stop it.

Unfortunately, I feel that a lot of this will fall on deaf ears. I hate to be so critical of another human being, but based on the actions of Mr. Falcon, I have seen nothing that tells me he is willing to make some important changes to the Gateway Program.

In my personal view, these should include:

• Regional bylaws to ensure there is a green buffer zone between all strategic Gateway routes and areas (ports, truck stops, etc.) *
• Implementation of a toll system whereby funds are returned to public coffers, and once the bridge is paid off, funds go directly to TransLink (i.e. The Golden Ears Bridge)
• Work with TransLink to incorporate any tolling system into a region wide travel demand management system, ensuring equity to residents around the region *
• Ensuring that, based on the new Regional Growth Strategy currently in development by Metro Vancouver, that said board has the powers it requests - this may include overseeing and tracking development goals for all municipalities, reserving key transportation corridors for future use, preserving and enhancing the Green Zone, development of an Industrial Land Reserve, etc.
• Prohibiting parking on any Gateway route *
• Participating in the development of guidelines and goals for efficient road movement. Headed by TransLink with all stakeholders as part of a goods movement strategy. *
• Discouraging the single occupancy vehicle by promising extensive funding for more transit expansion, in partnership with TransLink’s regional plans, and by implementing a proposed provincial wide carbon tax *
• Changing from HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes to HOT (high occupancy tolled) lanes. This new definition puts real time variable tolls on the lanes, allowing single occupancy vehicles to purchase access onto the lane, based on the current number of vehicles on the lane. This number of vehicles/hour for optimal lane efficiency would be defined in the proposed studies above. The HOT definition would also be expanded so that carpools, transit vehicles, motorcycles, hybrid vehicles, and smaller than normal vehicles (i.e. smart cars) could drive in the lane for free.
• Plan for the future designation of a second lane of Hwy 1 to become either HOT, or for goods movement only.
• Limiting SOV access to the North and South Fraser Perimeter Roads. This could be anything from defining them as goods movement vehicles only, or installing them as HOT laned routes. As a HOT route, SOV users could buy their way on if necessary, while restricting a huge increase of SOVs that would congest the routes.
• Ensuring the North and South Fraser Perimeter Roads are built in way so as not to prevent public access to the Fraser River waterfront, and without any major disruption of the environment surrounding the routes.
• Ensuring that all new facilities in the Gateway Program provide safe and secure cycling routes. Planning of said routes should include intense dialogue with the stakeholders, including the very proactive and vocal cycling groups in existence.
• Pursue Public-Private Partnerships. However, they must not be detrimental in any way to the public land, public amenities, and the public’s interest. Furthermore, once the contracts are up, the P3 facilities must return into the full control of local and provincial authorities.
• Work with stakeholders to shift goods movement travel to afterhours when the least amount of people are travelling.
• Either update the Gateway Program to be an encompassing transportation plan for the whole Lower Mainland (means including large transit, walking, and cycling components), in coordination with regional plans, or develop a parallel plan with regional authorities in which promises are made to provide substantial provincial funding for transit, walking, and cycling improvements.

It may shock you, but a number of these proposals are also supported by the Gateway Council, the group which has been pushing for this whole Gateway strategic infrastructure upgrade for over a decade. All the suggestions with a star behind them are supported by the Gateway Council.

This approach of mine is all about the devil in the details. It’s understanding and approving the concept, but tweaking the plan and policies that implement to ensure a better overall life for the public.

I think this notion is something the NDP really has to work on, so that they don’t alienate potential supporters. They’ve done it to South of the Fraser residents by opposing Gateway, and to First Nations communities and their allies with the Tsawwassen Treaty. Sure, they may keep their backers in Vancouver (Gateway), or farmers and land-use planners (Tsawwassen), but they are just responding to big issues with simple answers. Which is just making things more polarized than actually bringing stakeholders together and working collaboratively to improve the situation.

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]

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.