Charlie Smith, editor of the Georgia Straight, has a little list that makes sense, even to friends of TransLink:
So what’s needed in the next CEO of TransLink?
- It would help if the new boss of TransLink would be a strong advocate for transit riders and talked about climate change. This would win him or her friends in the environmental community, which is growing stronger as realization sets in that we’re in for serious trouble.
- A more vocal CEO would also inspire TransLink staff to realize that they have an important mission: to help this region bridge the transition to a very uncertain future.
- The next CEO of TransLink will have to be adept at working with senior levels of government because that’s where the bulk of the money will come from to pay for new rapid-transit projects in Surrey and Vancouver.
- The next CEO will also have to persuade Premier Christy Clark that it’s a colossal waste of money to spend precious transportation funds on another bridge across the Fraser River that will promote more sprawl and more automobile use. This new chief executive will have to recognize who the premier listens to for advice in the private sector—and convince these people that it’s not in their interest to encourage the premier to build this bridge.
- Most importantly, the next CEO should try to figure out how the organization can wean itself off fuel-tax revenues because this funding source may not be so reliable in the future. In addition, relying on the gas tax undermines a core mission of TransLink because if it successfully gets people out of their cars, it hurts the organization’s bottom line.
- And for the sake of perception, this new CEO should be photographed on a regular basis riding the transit system. He or she should also order other senior staff to ride the transit system and tweet from the transit system so the public and TransLink staff get the impression that the managers are sharing their experiences.
- A good start for the next CEO would be to copy Ken Livingstone’s strategy of dumping car allowances for senior executives.
- Another way to elicit goodwill would be to ensure that nobody at TransLink makes $300,000 or more a year. Anything above that is plainly obscene to most Lower Mainland residents. And for goodness sakes, figure out a way to cut spending on Transit Police.
- Ian Jarvis wasn’t prepared to do these things, so he’s gone. Let’s hope his successor doesn’t make the same mistakes.
I would respectfully suggest you look at the TransLink board instead of the CEO. That is where the leadership and policy direction should be coming from. How many of the board members have solid Transportation backgrounds and are well versed in Transit?
Yes, Sandyjamesplanner, getting rid of Translink’s CEO just before the referendum is no where near enough to sway the NO vote to YES. Translink needs a major overhaul and an improved track record before the public will believe any change has actually happened.
None.
This is a fantastic list. The most important may also be the most difficult, which is the one about disabusing Christie Clark of her bridgeophilia.
I especially like the one about being photographed taking transit, which is both easy and useful. I’d add that it would be even better if, instead of mere photo ops, the new CEO was someone whose understanding of transit comes from being a regular user, and who walks across the walkway each day at Sapperton Station to their new office, not someone who drives along the 1 to the Columbia exit each day.
I totally agree on the principle of Translink leaders actually using the system. They’re busy people who may have to use vehicles during the day in order to carry out their agenda, but they should at least start and end the day on the system. I think Gregor Robertson has a lot more credibility regarding cycling issues because he’s a cyclist, and the same applies to Translink.
Such drivel . Perhaps they should call the newspaper the Georgia Left.
Love to see less diesel buses with less pollution, but what is the realistic and cost effective alternative ? Whistker just shot down its hydrogen fuel led bus fleet due to very high operating costs.
Even if all co2 emmissions were eliminated from BC the climate would not change and the seriousness of alleged or possible temperature increases is widely disputed or debated, and even beneficial to many especially cold regions.
A CEO of calibre would need to make $400,000+, but certainly more face time on buses or on a bike would be useful; as would be a functioning Compass system.
As to new bridges: the proposal is to replace one aging and congestion generating bridge and one tunnel with a new one so trucks and cars can flow easier ( Patullo and Massey). SFPR is already traffic choked and undersized as is the Canada Line or Hwy1 east of Surrey.
Environmentalists will not be happy until all of Vancouver rides a bike, e-car or subway. Good luck with that.
I thought we were getting Natural Gas buses lately http://www.surreyleader.com/news/250380101.html
If we placed variable congestion tolls at the bridges and choke points we could reduce congestion drastically. It worked in Stokholm Sweeden literally overnight. http://www.ted.com/talks/jonas_eliasson_how_to_solve_traffic_jams?language=en
That is good news indeed.
The current “congestion plan” 0.5% tax increase is not a decongestion tax. Only higher tools for driving on choke points, or while parking, everywhere, will reduce car use indeed. Until then, no one that uses a car today will use more buses, only RAPID transit but not slow buses.
“Love to see less diesel buses with less pollution, but what is the realistic and cost effective alternative ?”
CNG. Local transit buses run on a return to base dispatch model. Overnight filling with inexpensive fuel distribution equipment. No need for LNG. Lots of natural gas in BC. Lower emissions. Probably why so many are being sold.
“Even if all co2 emmissions were eliminated from BC the climate would not change and the seriousness of alleged or possible temperature increases is widely disputed or debated, and even beneficial to many especially cold regions.”
It would have a beneficial effect on local air quality.
And I think it is better phrased “widely debated by a narrow group” who use endless repetition in the media in an effort to dispute widely accepted scientific findings.
Jeff,
What is your evidence for these claims?
The claim that reducing tailpipe emissions in the Metro Vancouver area will improve local air quality? Studied extensively, well understood, tracked over time. Not just vehicle emissions, look at the marine engine contributions. Are you kidding?
That was my only claim. The characterization of climate change denial f**ls as a narrow group that is using endless repetition to try and dispute something that is widely understood was mine. But if you like you can look at the comments on this and other blogs to see the evidence of mindless repetition being employed by a minority in an effort to steer conversations..
I ask again, Jeff, what is the evidence for your claims? Sure, you are entitled to your opinion, but then you should freely acknowedge it as such and prepare to be challenged on it.
Susan, do you really believe we are not in the anthropocene? Can you provide hard scientific evidence to show the world’s climate is not being affected by human activity?
Gitano,
There is no relevance to your question in anything that I have blogged; perhaps you have misdirected your question to me.
The Patullo Bridge has to be replaced and the Massey Bridge needs to be built. Next up will be a new, wider Knight Street Bridge. As the Massey improves the smooth flow of traffic from Tsawwassen, the ferry and Deltaport terminals, the 99 from the US, South Surrey, White Rock, Southern parts of Langley, growing Delta, Ladner and Tilbury, the traffic feeds north towards Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby and the North Shore. The port traffic of trucks uses Knight Street as the designated route to and from Deltaport. The Knight Street Bridge will have to be upgraded since this becomes a pollution generating bottleneck.
With the new Massey Bridge Knight Street has to become a viable branch for northbound traffic, if only to relieve Oak and Cambie Streets. The pollution generating bottleneck around 70th and Oak, where long lines of traffic stretch both westbound and eastbound along 70th Avenue, and in a long line way up Oak Street, will soon have to be relieved with an underpass system to remove completely the blockage at the traffic lights at 70th.
Similarly, once Marine Gateway is inhabited, the intersection at Marine and Cambie will have to have an underpass, so northbound traffic traveling east on Marine and westbound traffic on Marine doesn’t become blocked at the Cambie traffic light. With over a quarter of a million square feet of Class A office space there will be a couple of thousand people working here, many banks, shops, restaurants, etc., plus the thousands of residents in all the towers, just the necessary service vehicles for supplies will add substantially more traffic to this area.
By doing what has been done extensively in Montreal (the Highway 20 from the airport west goes right under the southern section of downtown, with feeder exits and entrances.). Paris has a similar system. The underpasses allow the smooth flow of traffic both too, from and through the area, while not upsetting the visual and the pedestrian streetscape the unfortunate way that the Vancouver viaducts do.
Bridges don’t generate pollution, vehicles do. Put some more testing in place. And if you build a wider bridge, it will fill up and the choke point will move a few km along the route. A losing game.
Significant improvement to the challenges you list could be accomplished with mobility pricing.
Jeff,
What is your evidence for this claim? Car numbers are decreasing, not increasing in the city, especially over bridges, so it is incorrect to say that building a new bridge, or widening one, will “fill up.” Please prove this point.
Elasticity: A measure of a variable’s sensitivity to a change in another variable
A new wider Port Mann hasn’t filled up with cars…
Because of the nature of the toll structure perhaps? And it is so overbuilt, it will take time.
But if we used mobility pricing on Knight, we could save building new bridges, and ensure trucks can get to the port, at the same time.
Do you actually drive on Knight? The traffic on Knight has a substantial proportion of new immigrants that live in the area. They are from the Philippines, China, Vietnam Nam, etc. Many obviously work in the light-industrial areas of Richmond and Delta and are commuting to and from south east Vancouver and parts of Burnaby. They drive second hand cars and vans.
I hope these people realize the intention to move towards mobility pricing. This is not a wealthy demographic. These people are finding their way in an expensive city and working hard to establish themselves and their families. The bike crazed retirees that come from heavy industry backgrounds feel they’ve found spiritualism and planet-healing good karma in cycling. They team up with upper middle class yuppies who are addicted to working up a sweat as they commute in trendy skin tight gear that would not be out of place on an Italian alpine circuit. These immigrants have emerged from third world societies where bicycles were used by poor people to carry people and massive loads of goods under gruelling conditions. They will not be pleased.
Indeed, Eric, and they also do not frequent this blog here I’d venture to guess.
But the time of free roads (or education, healthcare, transit) for everyone at all times is coming to an end as the democratic welfare states are running out of cash. Even socialist Italy or France, basically broke, have superb highway system as they have fairly steep tolls, by km. BC could learn a thing or 2 here.
As e-cars and smaller, more efficient cars emerge gasoline taxes alone will be too small to pay for the required road construction, upgrades or maintenance. As such road tolling is a matter of time .. even in BC.
Funny thing about Knight is that it backs up tremendously southbound in the morning, and equally badly northbound in the evening. Says a lot about Vancouver providing the jobs for people living in the city…
I suppose you could punish people for commuting over the Knight street bridge. Just means they’d have to move to Richmond. Reinforces Vancouver as a resort town for the rich.
That is only true if you accept that we have to accept a million new residents in Metro Vancouver. If it’s going to create more stress on the environment why are we blindly following along this path? In an age of when computers and robotics are making human beings less employable, why do we persist in believing that we need to keep importing people into North America?
I lived in Montreal for years and sat for many hours in the traffic mess that is called the 20. Highways are a technology of the 50’s. Better to shut the ferry terminals at Horseshoe Bay and Tsawwassen, move them to a single consolidated terminal at Lulu Island and connect it with the airport and Canada Line. Then build a smaller bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel as there will be less traffic moving through to Tsawwassen.
And start to create pedestrian/cycling/transit streets closed to private vehicles downtown. If there is less driving downtown there will be fewer cars competing for space on the bridges and arterials leading to downtown.
Only a small amount of the traffic on the routes I mentioned is headed downtown. Much of the traffic headed north on Oak and Cambie is headed for the southern areas around Fairview Slopes and the areas to the east. Likewise, little of the traffic on Knight Street is headed downtown. There’s a steady stream going eastbound on SE Marine Drive, immediately after the bridge. More traffic peals off east and west at 57th, 49th and 41st. Some goes on Clark and into Grandview Woodlands and the trucks go straight ahead to the port.
With all due respect. There’s much more to Vancouver for all this traffic, than just downtown.
Not everyone lives downtown. Not everyone loves to cycle in the rain. Families traveling together have no alternatives but a car today outside of downtown or dedicated routes where rapid transit exist.
We have 30+ ports in MetroVan, and moving good by bike is not practical. Truck traffic will increase as Canada exports goods, primarily through Vancouver area ports. Killing road infrastructure means killing jobs and taxes. The NDP did just that in the 1990’s .. and now we are just catching up. Many of the roads or tunnels or bridges being replaced now should have been replaced 20+ years ago. And yes, they should all have a toll.
Free public services need to be minimized everywhere, be it healthcare, education, roads, ferries or transit. It doesn’t work, except fro the very basic minimum, say education to grade 9 or basic healthcare or basic transit.
And we need more RAPID transit not this slow bus based infrastructure for those that actually want to minimize their time spent in transit.
Tesla drivers, with no gasoline taxes, clog roads too. How do they help fund tunnel or bridge infrastructure ?
There is no doubt that closing off downtown Vancouver to motorists is in the offing, probably within the next 5-10 years.
One can only keep fighting for it. In Vancouver there is not one street that is permanently free of cars. One can drive anywhere here. Tragic.
So, we can vote YES while crossing our fingers, holding our nose and praying for a better CEO to immediately overhaul the entire Translink failed system, with the massive likelihood of no change in the system whatsoever (as has historically been the case), or we can vote NO, putting the immediate kibash on the status quo of throwing more good money after bad, and demand more alternative systems of management of our transportation systems and tax dollars to work diligently toward definitive change for the better.
Not true. This is a classic textbook case where more road leads to less congestion and less pollution.
Southbound on the Knight is not usually much of a chokepoint because the road is open and wide and traffic entering from Marine Drive has a feed-in open on-ramp to three lanes. Northbound is different due to the feed in from Bridgeport, where there are only two lanes. Hence, a daily bottleneck.
Same road; bottleneck with two lanes northbound. Backups and pollution from idling vehicles that have to slowly merge. Southbound with three lanes, traffic moves freely. Incoming traffic merges smoothly. Never a bottleneck. Far less pollution than the facing lane. Far better for our little planet.
Exactly. And much congestion is by buses clogging the road actually. A subway below the road would be better in select places.
==> ALL transportation modes have to be built/maintained: roads, railways, airports, bike lanes, ped pathways/sidewalks/plazas/pedestrian zones AND rail based systems. it is not one over the other in a growing region with 3-4M+ people, growing ports and tourism.
Some free, some subsidized, many for a fee. The “free for all at all times” is coming to an end (except in Greece c/o of EU) as not enough money is in the public system.
I expect to pay for a bus ride or an airplane ride, so why is the tunnel or bridge still free ?
“Much congestion is by buses clogging the roads”
Remember this photo?
https://pricetags.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/bike_car_comparison.jpg
During the bus strike it was easier to drive into Vancouver. Sorry, but that’s a fact. I was surprised but with three lanes instead of two, for regular traffic, it moved more smoothly. Granville, Oak, Cambie, Main, Fraser, Knight, Kingsway, Boundary, Willingdon, Grandview… Without pull-out-stops for them and no bus-only lanes buses are not the answer.
Exactly.
The primary job of the new TransLink CEO will be to put a face to the otherwise faceless bureaucracy. She or he has to be an outspoken advocate for transit, on a daily and highly visible basis. Also be able to walk the talk (unlike the original CEO who drove a Escalade to the hq in Metrotown, which certainly help create a certain culture within the organization’s original hierarchy that probably lasted to this day).
To me, the change in leadership is not only symbolic – which does matter – but also a great opportunity for the YES side. I feel a weight has been lifted from our shoulders, and truly hope that our optimism is not squandered.
There is no need to work anymore on saving money. Focus on marketing. I know translink is legally bounded to be neutral, but afterall, it’s an organization, and it needs to defend itself. TL’s going to get worse publicity if it doesn’t tell people that Bateman’s lying, and he’s what he’s saying’s all false. I encourage him to make translink less transparent, and more private. Reach out like westjet does.