“It’s not a faceless company. I’d like the public to understand there are people working behind the system.”
– Fred Cummings, CEO of B. C. Rapid Transit Co.
.
But who is the face of TransLink in front of the system? Who is the face that the public identifies?
- Fred Cummings, one of several CEOs of the operating companies?
- Doug Kelsey, Chief Operating Officer of TransLink?
- Bob Paddon, Executive Vice President, Strategic Planning and Public Affairs?
- Ian Jarvis, the CEO?
- Marcella Szel, Chair of the TransLink Board?
- Richard Walton, Chair of the Mayors’ Council?
- Greg Moore, Chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation Investment?
- Anne Drennan, Media Advisor, Metro Vancouver Transit Police?
At one time or another in the past few months, it could have been any of them. They were the voices that spoke on behalf of TransLink, for one of its governing or managing entities. Since the reorganization of TransLink by the Province, notably by past Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon, there has been no single body, no single face.
In the past it was clearer. George Puil, the first TransLink Chair, was indisputably the public face, whether admired or disdained. Administratively, Pat Jacobsen or Tom Prendergast, the CEOs, had strong public images, and were understood to be in charge.
The lack of an identifiable personality is most definitely a problem. If TransLink is a ‘faceless bureaucracy,’ then it’s so much easier to hold it in contempt, as evident in public and media response to system failures in the last month. It is seen to be unaccountable. Political and community leaders are reluctant to defend it.
But there’s more at stake. The upcoming referendum requires a leader, someone with whom the public can identify, someone who can respond, quickly and credibly, to the questions, critiques and criticisms that will be part of the great debate.
In the past, we have had such faces and voices: Jimmy Pattison for Expo, Jack Poole for the Olympics. They had the unquestioned back of the political leaders, and spoke with them and for them.
Who will be that face and voice in the next few months?
If the referendum is held in March – let’s say voting is open til March 31 – there are now only seven months and 25 days left. There is yet no question. And there is still no face.
Agree TransLink needs “someone who can respond, quickly and credibly”. As I am usually one of the nay sayers, I’m not sure who that could be. But I will say that at this time, the most widely recognized voice / name associated with TransLink by riders is likely the Transit Police Chief – and that is a real shame.
This post is spot on.
After a lunchtime discussion with Mayor Greg Moore yesterday my colleagues thought he would make a great spokesperson for Translink. Hes bright, articulate, friendly and a former planner! Alternatively Chair Marcella Szel could be a good spokesperson.
But we need someone to make Trans link more lovable!
That is what happens in an excessively unionized shop with no competition. That is why the market, generally speaking, provides better solutions, more cost effective and user friendly than socialist inspired government funded systems, be it in education, healthcare or public transit.
Hard to know where to start with that display. For one, none of those people would be in a union. They’re all executive level or managers or politicians or board members. Secondly, what free market competition are you talking about? I don’t see any. And just think how much better the system would be if, instead of one operator entity, it was chopped up into dozens of little company fiefdoms? (sarcasm)
Some things don’t actually work so well in a supposed free market. Some things need to be funded in a combination of taxation and user fees. Roads, by the way, also fit that bill. Fully private roads without government tax subsidy are exorbitantly expensive.
Another thing that would disappear if mandated to be run non-governmentally? Large public pools. They’re expensive to build and even more expensive to operate.
The benefit of government-run services, I think, that is often forgotten is that there is no need to leave a wedge of the pie for profit to shareholders. That alone, nevermind the mispricing of risk premiums, can often make P3 projects very suspect.
If the bus driver could actually be fired or get a significant raise or bonus for being very customer oriented, friendly or on time, there might be an improvement of service. But there isn’t. He/she can’t be laid off, the union wage & benefits are very high, i.e. the money is the same if the bus is on time & clean, or dirty and 22 minutes late. THAT is what I am talking about. There is little, if any, incentive to be customer service oriented.
If TransLink were run like an airline, say by several WestJet or SW Airlines or RyanAir trained executives there would be efficiency and customer service.
If you recall during the Olympics, transit service was at its best, the same with EXPO. Since the Olympics transit service has been “optimized” thereby reducing staffing levels which creates a strain to services like cleanliness, security, and timeliness. You’re right, there is no incentive for customer service but not because we are unwilling to provide that, we don’t necessarily have the time to provide that. Conditions, as a result of our economy have lapsed, and so admittedly have the level of service that goes along with that (Skytrains meltdown).
I couldn’t agree with you more…if Translink were operated like an airline you would probably have staffing levels to provide safe, efficient transit services…but it isn’t.
Obviously the price we pay (for a ticket) for example, reflects that. You can’t get business class service in a below-economy class pricing ! Many people would be willing to pay more for better service, both on buses, trains or on the road !
Why do we insist on “one class” for education, healthcare, roads or public transit, as by definition it is lower end ?
I agree about the need for transparency and communication, but I am not sure if I agree if translink needs a “face”. George Puil was a “face” for translink, but IMO it really didn’t generate more empathy for translink. who is the “face” for the CBC, or BC hydro?
Should the TL board advocate in the referendum? it sounds like a no-brainer, but TL IMO was supposed to be an apolitical organization. any advocacy on their part would seem self-serving to some perspectives.
Author
What was the referendum for the CBC or BC Hydro?
If there was a need for a public defense of Port Metro Vancouver or YVR, my guess is you’d be hearing from the board.
Let’s play devil’s advocate – Let’s pick Ian Jarvis as the face for TL, WRT the upcoming referendum. What should he advocate for? that the referendum is a bad idea? about supporting a plan? whose plan? is there a difference between TL’s strategic planning and what the mayor’s council is advocating?
I don’t trust the mayor’s council, but the referendum is the province abdicating ultimate responsibility for TL. The Port and YVR have better backing from the province than TL has. I empathize with Jarvis et al being in between a rock and a hard place.
The face of TransLink for the referendum must be a politician, fulfilling the role that has not been filled since the departure of George Puil…a political champion. None of the TransLink executive can meaningfully endorse any new revenue measure required to fund the system. And, we must all be very clear that any new source of funding has to be approved by the provincial government. Only they can make the legislative changes needed.
This means that a municipal political champion, while better than none, could at best only help to demonstrate the region’s acceptance of the funding formula to the province. Ideally, it would be a minister or Liberal MLA who would step up and be the champion for Metro Vancouver’s transit system, much as was done for the Port Mann project and has been done for the bridge that will replace the Massey Tunnel.
Three sources of increased TransLink funding exist within the MetroVan cities that do not need provincial approval, to my knowledge:
a) property taxes
b) land transfer taxes
c) parking fees especially on residential streets
if property taxes are doubled, say over 10 years and parking is brought to market value, say $400/month and not $10/month and land transfer taxes are raised too lby 1% per $1M, say:
1% of the first $1M
Houses over $1M: $10,000 plus 2% on the next $1M
Houses over $2M: $30,000 plus 3% of the next $1M
Houses over $3M: $60,000 plus 4% on the next $1M
Houses over $4M: $100,000 plus 5% of the next $1M
Houses over $5M: $150,000 plus 6% on the next $1M
Houses over $6M: $210,000 plus 7% of the next $1M
Houses over $7M: $280,000 plus 8% on the next $1M
Houses over $8M: $360,000 plus 9% of the next $1M
Houses over $9M: $450,000 plus 10% of every $ over $9M
That would be sufficient most likely without a referendum and/or provincial blessing !
How about False Creek MLA and former Vancouver mayor Sam Sullivan? He’s been pretty quiet since he was elected.
Too bad the skytrain station announcer voice lady doesn’t work for Translink, but most probably think the voice is computer generated. http://buzzer.translink.ca/2008/10/buzzer-podcast-voice-of-the-skytrain/
Does translink want to be an organization like BC Ferries which has a strong face, yet has been plagued with problems all over? It depends.
The infamous David Hahn was the face of all BC ferries news, yet he was the centre of controversy for his salary. Ian Jarvis had a similar fate, yet because he wasn’t as much as a face for translink as Hahn.
We can look at more positive faces in the 2010 olympics with John Furlong, yet Quatchi, Sumi and Miga were the real mascots. And do people look at Aquilini as the face of the Canucks, or Hank or Fin? Same with the Lions, whitecaps. Lastly, the face of the government is Clark. As long as her salary isn’t driving anyone crazy, any person who knows how to make the crowd love them can serve as a good face.