Ken Hardie alerted us to this:
In 2009, I prepared a Media Resource Guide that examined all of the major questions, issues and performance metrics (of TransLink).
The guide is available online here. Page 20 presents a Then & Now comparison of the transit system in 1999 versus 2009.
Anyone who tries to mount a hate-on with the organization and its performance should be asked to explain their position in light of its results.
Here’s page 20. Can you imagine how anyone managed to miss this?
.
.
This is a bloodless presentation of facts – as though that should be sufficient to make the case. A single sneering remark from Jordan Bateman is all that’s needed to offset the impact of a decade’s worth of achievement if no one even hears about it – or believes it.
It’s the same problem outlined below in “Vancouver’s Transit System Needs a Face.” There’s no widely-known identity for the organization, no celebrity (fictional or otherwise) who can speak up, be heard, and repeatedly emphasize what is working, what has been achieved, why TransLink is really good.
And look again as those bloodless facts. It’s extraordinary: there was a massive expansion of transit service in that decade. Almost a two-thirds increase in hours of service. And a third increase in trips. Which meant more service for the individual rider, despite the increase in number of users.
And of course, more than a doubling of rapid rail service – one of the most frequent service levels in the world. That’s Jarrett Walker’s definition of freedom – and we got it.
We spent a lot to get that way – over a hundred percent increase in funding. But that’s because we had a consensus in the region, and the politicians who followed up with commitments. They did exactly what they’re accused of not being able to do.
So then take a look at the comments after the Jordan Yerman proposal for a cute TransLink identifier, namely a bear – particularly Stephen Rees’s response. Whether he intends it or not, it comes across as another trashing of TransLink.
When even friends are contributing to the hate-on, we’ve got trouble. When we don’t recognize our achievements, we’ve got trouble. When there’s a danger it could all be eroded and our momentum reversed, we most definitely have trouble.
There’s a reason why we as Canadians are celebrating our athletes’s achievements in Sochi. They’ve performed well and met their challenges – and they have faces.
Who is the face of TransLink? It’s been structured in such a way as to be without a single identifiable leader: not the chair of the board, or the Mayor’s Council, or the CEO. It has no leader who the public can identify with.
Just a lifeless logo. And a bunch of bloodless facts.
There are some facts that are missing. There’s the population increase in the region that occurred at the same time as the rise in readership. Why isn’t transit mode share in there? Weren’t we supposed to be increasing that to a targetted amount? How did that go? Funding for roads and bridges? Expenditures on highway expansions compared to new transit infrastructure?
One of the things I used to get into trouble for when I worked at Translink was that I wasn’t a cheer leader. I insisted that we would never get better if all we did was shout “We’re No 1” (we weren’t but we liked to pretend we were). That is not about hate. It is about using our critical faculties. It is about objective policy analysis. It is about using ALL the facts, not just the ones that favour our position.
I repeat. We do NOT need any more spin and PR. We need to change what we do in this region to match our rhetoric. We need the province to actually deliver on its commitments to greenhouse gas reductions – and not to deliberately undermine our regional growth strategy. We need elected regional responsible government control of transportation – not just transit. We need to spend more on transit provision – not just find ourselves a nice looking mascot or figurehead.
In another comment thread elsewhere I take issue with the Green Party of BC (of which I am member) on what we are saying publicly about energy policy. That does not mean I hate the Green Party – or Andrew Weaver. It means I think we can do a great deal better than demand that bitumen be upgraded to synthetic crude in Alberta. I concede that is better than exporting dilbit by any mode or route. But it is Not Good Enough. The same is true of Translink. They are doing the best they can with one hand tied behind their back. Given the paucity of resources they are doing a pretty good job. The problem is the job they are doing is not satisfying their present users, let alone attracting more. And putting a pretty marketing campaign together won’t help.
Senior governments should have been helping Translink – and every other urban area in BC and Canada to reduce car dependence. They haven’t – on the whole – and the present incumbents are unlikely to change that. So we need the resources to do the job ourselves. I do not see how singing the praises of the present system gets us there.
Somehow auto correct decided that “pretty good job” should read “pretty old job”. Would you correct that for me Gord?
I agree with Stephen, again. Resting on one’s laurels is escapist. This has nothing to do with hatred of Translink; frustration, anger, and depression over failures in the system, yes. A pretty or cute face as another bandaid will only infuriate the masses. Fix the unresolved problems with the system rather than trying to hide behind an ill-fitting icon.
wow, that’s really dour. would you recommend shutting down the buzzer? Have twitter or a simple web page for transit service annoucements. really, ‘i love transit week’ is pure spin and cheerleading by that measure and should be stopped already.
https://buzzer.translink.ca/category/i-love-transit-week/
personally, i think transit actually binds people more so that driving can, and small, inexpensive, simple measures can enhance the experience. why put planters on a bike route when jersey barriers will do?
Stephen, as I recall, mode share went up to around 12% over that time period…a percentage point increase…maybe a bit more. Given the increase in population during that same time period, that share increase explains the additional ridership. Still a long way from the ideal, but before the strategic plan started to identify the target of over 50% of trips by transit, walking or cycling.
I think TransLink needs better and more strategic communications – or PR if you will. But yes, in the past a lot of the communications work was fairly lame. A lot of what good planners do is public relations, but it has to be based in reality and done by people who really understand transit and transit riders concerns. Diverting all blame away from the Minister and Premier cannot be the top job of TransLink’s communications team (sorry Todd).
I think things are really looking up – in response to my gripe about the lack of bus shelters at really busy B-line bus stops the response was “We will make it better”. A clear acknowledgement of the problem, and no excuses. That is the kind of communications work TL needs, but it only works if there is action to back up the words.
There is one great point stephen is raising: translink is a transportation agency, and should deal with transport only, not PR or fluffy bragging “We’re number 1!”. If translink deals with only roads, transit & cycling, wouldn’t that make it a true transportation agency that sets the example?
But this philosophy will not work. Yes, there are transit advocates, like daryl cruz and p. hillsdon, but they are small and powerless. But operating simultaneously are people who do not support transit: christy clark, jordan bateman, todd stone. There are a third type of people, like stephen, Derek Corrigan & zweisystem who do support transit, but may end up promoting bad PR for transit, and sometimes end up blocking progress by debating the ‘correct’ modes of rapid transit or where we should build transit. These discussions aren’t negative, but they divide the transit community and result in tunnels & bridges being built.
So why does this mean Translink needs good PR?
Transit culture & advocacy is key to getting funding for transit. Getting funding for transit means good PR. Good public relations with transit will mean high support for transit and a high likelihood of any transit referendum passing. Translink’s PR is terrible. Yes, the buzzer blog may sound like an awesome accomplishment, & we might see some compass posters on the bus, but these strategies aren’t working.
Transit is a sensitive topic. Very few transit agencies have good PR, because it’s very difficult to do so: Skytrain/Bus delays, overcrowding, broken escalators… And when you try to send advice & feedback, your response is #4204938.
The current funding challenge is centered around whether the politicians believe the public will support transit. And when Translink’s PR really starts to improve, the public will expect politicans to fund transit, and only then should we return to the endless LRT-RRT debate.
“But that’s because we had a consensus in the region, and the politicians followed up with commitments. They did exactly what they’re accused of not being able to do.”
I don’t think we had consensus, esp with the canada line in that decade.
http://www.yourlibrary.ca/community/richmondreview/archive/RR20040226/news.html
“[richmond councillor] Kumagai, who along with Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie sits on the 32-member regional district board, said he will be voting in favour of the plan. But he predicts Friday’s vote will be a close one, with opposition to the plan coming from the North Shore, Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge. ”
The 2010 olympics had a large part in “politicians following up with committments” wrt transit, obviously with the RAV line, but also with bus expansion, trolley bus renewal and procurement of more skytrain cars.
http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008TRAN0015-000515.htm
And that would be because Canada Line wasn’t the top priority according to the regional growth strategy. The province bullied the mayors until 50%+1 finally gave up the fight and accepted that Canada Line was going first and then removed the mayors from any meaningful position of power in TransLink. Every rapid transit project in Metro Vancouver was built the same way. Studies were done, people were consulted and then the province stepped in with their own plan that cost more. TransLink was thus obliged to take on capital and operating costs they didn’t plan to.
That has to stop. As the major economic engine of the entire province the region must be provided with the power to plan and the necessary funding to build and operate. There can be no strings attached except that the projects be identified as regional priorities and go through a fair tendering process.
Unless your willing to let the public elect the translink boards (and no, a council of mayors does not count, in particular with regards to taxation that is not within the existing powers of mayors) then it would be completely undemocratic. And if you think a democratically elected translink board would be going around raising taxes to pay for various projects than you don’t understand the toll dodging, cross border shopping, HST repealing population you are trying to serve.
This bloodless presentation of facts isn’t all good news. Yes ridership went up and the quality of the rides probably went up as well, but the cost increased as well. In 1999, cost per trip was around $2.89 which I roughly inflation adjusted to $3.45 in 2009, but actual expenditures in 2009 were $4.09 per trip. That isn’t an unalloyed success. Actually with increased ridership, we might have hoped for efficiencies.
Actually, with increased ridership, we have the right to demand efficiencies.
Okay, I’ll bite: are there “efficiencies” sufficient to reverse the toxic reputation of TransLink?
Sent from my iPhone
I suspect much of the ‘inefficiencies’ were due to the large increase in bus services in SoF in 2007-2008. If you took transit in SoF, this expansion was like day for night – it greatly improved transit, established more of a grid system and some routes could be considered having service approaching the standards of a FTN.
http://www.deltachamber.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Transit-Improvements-South-of-Fraser-Region-_Feb-2-2011.pdf
You will need time to grow the service and wait of development to catch up. Or you can put all this as yet underutilized service to vancouver, ‘increase effciencies” and leave SoF to personal vehicles.
Why do i think we’ve had this conversation before?….
Mezzanine, you are correct. It took a while for people to start using the expanded services TransLink put in place, so the usual transit efficiency measures were going the wrong way while the expansion was taking place. Now, TransLink is in the last phase of that expansion cycle, shifting services from underutilized routes and time periods to those where demand regularly exceeds capacity, I’m not sure about the 2013 results, but in spite of the fact that there has been no real service expansion since 2009, TransLink has set ridership records every year since then.
Thanks for this Mezzanine! I think it is crucial to continue improving transit service in places like north Surrey. But I don’t think it is just a question of development. Transit ridership is also dependent on the extent and quality of the network – can you get from anywhere to anywhere conveniently by transit in the urbanized areas of north Surrey. No, not yet.
The density is already there, and the characteristics of high transit ridership too. It is the transit service (and transit priority where there is traffic congestion) that is missing. (Well, sidewalks too in some places)
I would think that Canada line and evergreen are equally important. IMO, an airport line would be more important regionally if one sees YVR as a generator of economic development. It was proposed as far back as the 1970s.
http://voony.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/rapidtransit68.png
Realistically, i’m of the opinion of luck and the prevalent political winds being major players of transit development. Somethings fortunately, failed politically like the freeway plan. In retrospect IMO we were lucky when the province decided on skytrain and automated train control back in the 1980s. I really cannot predict what would happen if the mayors were in charge of major infrastructure improvments. I worry about surrey’s choice of LRT over skytrain.
Surrey doesn’t get to make the final decision on LRT, but it’s far more complicated than LRT vs. RRT. Surrey wants rail on all its identified routes while the SkyTrain plan calls for buses to serve every route except Fraser Highway.
You could accuse Surrey of being parochial and not supporting regional priorities, but I see city building. They’re trying to connect their town centres rather than enable growth in Langley and I applaud that.
You and I will forever disagree on the choice of SkyTrain for a route that was chosen solely for its low LRT conversion costs, a choice that was a major contributing factor in the 25 year delay getting rapid transit to Richmond and all the areas still waiting now. Yes we’re seeing benefits and positive mode shift along the lines, but with the same amount of money and a lot less arguing over who got to go first we could have built three times as much track and created hundreds of additional jobs. I don’t think we’d be facing the prospect of a failed referendum had a different choice been made in 1980.
Good for Surrey if they truly do work to properly establish their town centers…..but till recently I have not seen much evidence of this and except for Surrey Center I still don’t see much evidence of this. In fact I still see new strip malls going up all over the place and new (granted denser) housing going up with poor pedestrian connections. Expecting that LRT will magically cure this is naïve. I also disagree that the higher cost of Skytrain delayed other lines. In a perfect world the left over money would have gone to extra lines, but it has been shown time and time again that the extra money goes into other projects like highways (I can’t remember the links, but there is some excellent US research that shows this). In fact, the lower operating costs per passenger for the Expo line may mean that there is more money for extra services than if the Expo line had been LRT (notice I am specifically talking the Expo line, I am less convinced how the numbers would work out on the Millenium line (at least until it gets to central Broadway)or Canada line….or Surrey expansions with lower numbers of users).
@David, LRT for surrey would be an awful choice.. Forget TL’s study on things like “ridership” and “travel times” favouring skytrain as opposed to speculative things things like “city building”. Forget “frequency is freedom” as alluded to by Mr. Price abbove, or Jarrett Walker’s “streetcars, an inconvienient truth” post on his blog.
Forget all that and look at what surrey councillor Barinder Rasode says about why LRT is needed for surrey:
http://www.surreyleader.com/news/195701621.html
“”It’s about economic investment in our own city,” Rasode said. “We don’t want mass rapid transit running right out of the city every time. We don’t want people to just be transported straight out to Langley.””
It seems she wants to spend BILLIONS or dollars on a transit system that will INTENTIONALLY LIMIT MOBILITY for people on transit in surrey, and to provide a barrier to travel to the larger region, with its opportunities and institutions and keep them in surrey.
How would Councillor Rasode help those travelling to the larger region?
“”By virtue of their geography, New West is a transportation corridor. So we have planned, and have the support of the region, and have had the support of TransLink, to build the six-lane bridge,” Rasode said.”
So limit regional travel by transit, but at the same time advocating for regional car traffic. And spending billions in the process.
How is this not an awful choice?
http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/surrey-angry-pattullo-bridge-plans-stalled-1.718992#
Vancouver builds SkyTrain for less than most cities in North America build LRT. The assumption that elevated SkyTrain is more expensive than surface LRT disagrees with the cost figures for nearly all recently constructed LRT lines on or over streets in North America (you might find an example of LRT being cheaper in a non-street or existing railway right of way).
This is counter-intuitive so you should be skeptical. Compare the project costs for LRT in Calgary, Edmonton, Portland, Seattle, and Toronto to the Evergreen Line.
Not to disrupt this intense debate, but this just proves my point about how transit supporters become divided rather than focusing their efforts on just getting funding.
Yes, T. Stone may say that we should get a “clear” plan before approaching him, but isn’t that just a delay tactic? There will *never* be consensus between pro-RRT Vancouver & pro-LRT Surrey & Burnaby! So are transit supporters to accept T.Stone’s sneaky tactic & fall into his trap of debating endlessly on any of the polarizing transit debates?
Or, should transit advocates unite and *expect* (not just demand) that the provincial government fund transit, whatever form may it be. For if politicians fall below our expectations, you know what happens.
You see, if we had this LRT-RRT or Richmond-Coquitlam debate before the Canada Line, we might not even have a train to either Richmond or Coquitlam today. But, instead of debating, a deal was signed in just a few months & construction began immediately.
Perfect it was not, but the quick deal got the job done, and now who’s complaining that we have RRT on the Canada line instead of LRT on arbutus?
When politicians set their minds to a task, it’s lights-out how quickly they can get a deal done. But when they ask for “clarity”, or a “plan” before progress, understand that they just want transit-advocates to divide & delay any action.
I agree. We need it all. I would rate Broadway as the highest priority but would be happy with Surrey. As to technology I would prefer Skytrain/BRT for Surrey but LRT will be OK as well.Lets get going.
I beg to differ.
““If you spend money on bad projects you will lose public support,” [transit analyst Michael] Schabas said. “If the projects do nothing to relieve congestion the public will have no confidence in transit plans.”
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/12/11/is_metrolinx_killing_our_transit_dreams_james.html
I didn’t include in the ‘before and after’ comparison that the average age of the buses in the fleet TransLink inherited from BC Transit was something like 14 years. Most of the 2009 fleet numbers were vehicles less than 8 years old, and a good percentage well less than 5 years old.
Here’s a timely contribution to this debate: “Breaking the Political Gridlock to Address the Transportation Challenge: SFU Lecture” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K10SeO7N27M&list=UUUi_6IJ8IgUAzI6JczJUVPA&feature=share
Who remembers the time when Metro Vancouver had a united transit agency where we could travel from Surrey to Vancouver without paying 2 fares & transit was just $2.75? Wait… that’s right now! Who could we forget that we have a world-class transit system right at our doorsteps?
And look where Toronto (well, Doug Ford) wants to go:
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2014/02/14/councillor_doug_ford_proposes_dumping_politicians_from_ttc_board.html
… elimination of politicains from the TTC Board…
Maybe they should hire a marketing expert.
The main issue though is too many cooks. 26+ municipalities have a say in TransLink, far too many. How about one, or maybe 2 or 3: North of Burrard Inlet, North of Fraser and South of Fraser, or one called: Vancouver, like London, UK with multiple boroughs for 10,000,000+ people !
MetroVan is overgoverned, even a tiny place like N-Van has two governments: a city and a district. It is ridiculous.
I don’t think that amalgamation is the best option: Nathan Pachal has good analysis on that:
http://sfb.nathanpachal.com/2011/07/a-word-amalgamation-in-langley.html
Understand that Translink is composed of 3 parts: the commisioner, board of directors & mayors, each with equal power.
The mayors appoint both the directors & commisioner. The mayors are composed of all 21 minicipalities, with the larger communities getting more votes. So even small communities such as Beleclara & Anmore get at least one vote.
http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/Governance-and-Board/Governance-Model.aspx
I personally don’t think the translink model is broken, it’s just that the mayors & commissioner never grant funding for translink. Maybe translink should have more power?
Anyhow, they already have hired multiple “marketing experts”, employed in PR & advertizment making.
Gordon,
Yes, of course there are efficiencies that would eradicate the toxic reputation of Translink: (1) Translink must connect with its users. Currently, and for far too long, Translink has made little to no effort to connect with the person on the street, its clients, making and implementing changes in the transportation system without engaging, polling, work-shopping, designing or consulting with those it is supposed to serve. By its own admission, Translink has made decisions without the perceived opportunity of the public to take part in the process first-hand. By way of example, when I called immediately to make a specific and detailed complaint to Translink about a failed bus service of too many riders without enough buses to carry them on time to their destination, I was told by Translink that it WAITS TO COMPILE COMPLAINTS FROM USERS OVER EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME AS THE MEANS TO DETERMINE WHAT, IF ANY, CHANGES WILL BE MADE TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, such as increasing the number of buses for a route. I did not appreciate being told by Translink that I was a guinea pig, or rat, in a maze being experimented on, such that I, and many others, would need to be gravely inconvenienced (and perhaps lose our jobs for being late to work regularly), and would have to voluntarily opt to report each of those inconveniences to Translink over an extended period of time before Translink would even think about making a change. I was offended to the extreme that Translink afforded me such minute consideration. Translink needs to adopt an on-going outreach policy and program to work with daily users of transport services to report regularly on problem areas for prompt improvement; marketing through skilled public relations that stresses sincerity and encouragement for public participation is key to establish and maintain that participation. Work proactively, not reactively.
(2) Translink must display (if not actually possess) respect for all commuter-types, including motorists. Its 2011 Cycling for Everyone – A Regional Cycling Strategy for Metro Vancouver report, led by its title, is threatening and offensive in stating that opponents to cycling for everyone on the basis of health, handicap, age or need are wrong in their perceptions that cycling is not for everyone. It is an indisputable fact that cycling is NOT for everyone, and for Translink to deny such a fact, sign the Seville Charter, and mandate to convince all Vancouverites that cycling is for everyone is presumptuous, galling and provocative. Many Vancouverites, who were not consulted about these decisions, feel dictated to and put upon, resulting in aggressive resistance and backlash. Again, public relations requires vast improvement in the rhetoric it disperses to users of public transportation services.
(3) Translink must provide efficient services and must promote those efficiencies. Consumers expect, and deserve, to get what they pay for. Transportation must be accessible, prompt, safe, direct, fast, diversified, maintained, upgraded, fairly priced, and accountable to the public, who use and finance it. Increased ridership and loyalty to services must be earned and maintained. When a majority of clients are satisfied with these efficiencies, and only when they are satisfied, will the toxic reputation of Translink evaporate.
In many respects, Susan, TransLink is actually meeting most of your criteria and, if the customer survey work, which has been ongoing for many years, is correct, the organization has earned customer service ratings as high as they’ve ever been. Your final paragraph is a very apt description of the kind of expectations people have of their transit services…with little understanding or concern about how tall those expectations really are, especially in times of financial restraint (defined as ‘most of the time’).
TransLink’s consultation is also ongoing, with personal and online contacts in the many thousands each year (check out the web site for info on how you can join the ‘TransLink Listens’ forum), Everybody who cares enough to tap into the process can do so and all voices are heard..
As far as connecting with the street is concerned,TransLink’s social media platform is envied by other transit services around the world for its reach and effectiveness. Twitter, for one, is real-time direct interaction with people on the system, and TransLink’s following has grown to over 42,000 due in part to dedicated coverage from the Customer Service center. Follow @translink and see how issues are dealt with as they’re happening.
While the response to your complaint could have been framed more appropriately, the fact is that on any given day there will be a great many calls like yours because the system is under such stress on quite a number of routes. It’s simply not possible to ‘throw on another bus’ based on a handful of calls; instead, data from calls like yours plus pass-up information collected by drivers has to be analyzed to determine whether the issue is occasional or whether it can be isolated to a few stops at certain times of the day.
There is consultation underway right now, both online and in person, to determine the next round of service optimization. That’s where underutilized services are reallocated to routes and time periods where there are consistent problems like the one you experienced.
TransLink will always suffer due to what might be called ‘the law of large numbers’. Each day, the system delivers about 1.2 million rides. If 1 per cent of 1 per cent go wrong, that’s 120 people a day with news like yours to share.