Hi, I'm a Vancouverite, and my bus is 20 minutes late.

Statistics Canada just released their commute report Wednesday, and one interesting tidbit was the difference in commute time between transit users and drivers in the three major metropolitan areas.

In Toronto, drivers take on average 29 minutes to get to work, and transit users 49. That's a gap of 69% (calculated with driving as the base). Seems reasonable.

In Montreal, drivers take 30 minutes and transit users just 39. That is an astounding difference of only 30%.

In Vancouver, drivers take 25 minutes and transit users 48. The difference is nearly a double, at 92%. That is ridiculous.

Greater Toronto is a very large city; larger than Metro Vancouver in both population and area. Yet, there still exists a large variation in Toronto's favour. Some may argue that Vancouver is merely experiencing "growing pains" due to a large influx of immigrants, but Toronto and Montreal also see respectable rates of immigration, so this can't explain very much. Off the top of my head I can think of two reasons for this ludicrous variation between Montreal and Vancouver:

1. Montreal transit operators are haphazard and drive recklessly, or
2. Translink service is terribly inadequate.

Since Montreal transit fatalities do not frequent the front pages of the Montreal Gazette on a daily basis, we are able to rule out option one. This leaves us to ponder option two: that Translink service is inadequate.

I know for a fact that there are perfectly urban bus routes where bus frequency is 20 minutes. On a weekday. During rush hour. We're talking about Burnaby to Burnaby, not Surrey to Fort Langley. Imagine commuting during off-peak hours or to/from suburban areas...40 minutes to up to 1 hr is not out of the question. You miss the bus, and you might as well call in sick.

Furthermore, Vancouver is a city that is large area-wise, but there are only three metro lines, which, as you can imagine, serve only narrow strips of the city. Before the Canada Line was completed in 2009, the airport terminal was actually only served by one solitary bus route. At present, while they do catch the major centres of Vancouver, Burnaby, and Richmond and Surrey, they continue to fail to connect with the two largest educational institutions. Maybe this is why we're all too stupid to do anything about this. Vicious cycle.

The existence of four express bus lines does marginally correct for this, but buses on busy roads are obviously slower than trains, and one of these lines has service that abruptly cuts off for 5 hours in the middle of the day! If you have to travel from UBC to Joyce Station between 10AM and 3PM, too bad, you're going to have to use the non-express line, which basically has a stop every 300 metres for a 10 km stretch, among others. That's 75 well-spent minutes!

Again, there are several reasons for the above:

1. Not enough drivers;
2. Not enough buses;
3. Translink is mismanaged.

I'm not fully aware of the drivers situation, but if this is the case, they could always hire more. Of course, that's a problem when Translink constantly bemoans that they don't have enough money. I'll analyze that claim later. I'm fairly certain that part of why they don't hire more is because no corporation wishes to deal with even more unionized staff than they already have.

The number of buses is something that I do have some knowledge of. Translink just purchased 300 or so in 2009, and has a fleet of over 1500, which is plenty. Every time I drive by their bus lot in South Vancouver, I see a hundred buses parked there. Doubtless it is the same with the other lots. Most definitely, some of them are being serviced. That said, you cannot possibly service a hundred buses in the same lot at the same time. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why they don't free up some of these buses and boost frequency to routes where it is badly needed.

Since Translink can't hire and has extra buses, we must now explore my third proposition. The sometimes...to put it bluntly...brain-dead actions of the Translink brass is cause for great concern. These actions also sometimes squander large sums, and are a leading cause of we-have-no-money-itis, which severely afflicts Translink. Take, for instance, fare evasion on SkyTrain. Translink frequently complains that there is a high rate of fare evasion which costs them millions. There is a very simple and common solution to this. They are called gates, and have been used in major cities all over the world since the beginning of mass transportation. It is beyond me why it took 25 years (1986-2011) for officials to recognize the need for them, and why it will take 2 more years to install them.

Q. How many Translink staff does it take to install a fare gate?
A. Seven. Six to retire and one to put in the screws.

This brings us to the amount of time it takes for things to be done. Let us study the Canada Line and the proposed Evergreen Line. The idea for the Canada Line came in 1995. A temporary bus route (98 B-Line) was proposed in 1998. The route entered service in 2001. In 2002, 10 months were taken to study whether the line could be built in time for 2010. In 2005 work finally started and the line was opened by 2009.

The Evergreen Line could be just as bad. The idea originally came with the Millenium Line, which opened in 2002. This idea was replaced with a temporary bus route (97 B-Line) implemented that year. By 2004 Translink had a plan; however, following public consultations beginning 2006, Translink changed the plans completely in 2008, then discovered they couldn't agree on the money in 2009. The expected completion date of 2014 (already 3 years delayed) was put into jeopardy with late 2015 now cited as the potential completion date.

The above analysis can be summed up in two short phrases: there are redundancies, and management can't manage. And this is why I'm a Vancouverite, and my bus is 20 minutes late.

Requiescat in paces

"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world." ~ Jack Layton, Leader of the NDP and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, August 20, 2011

Yesterday was a sad day for us all, as we learned of the passing of Jack Layton. These last words from his letter to Canadians two days before his passing are words we can all agree with. What he loves, what he hopes for, what he is optimistic for may not be what all of us love, hope for, and are optimistic for; but his last words encompass the person he truly was. He stood for all that, and more. He was genuine and sincere, in the face of politics, and to the very end, he worked for Canada, and that is to be respected.

While I may not agree with his party, his opinions, and his policies, I will still miss 'Smiling Jack,' as he was known, for what he brought to Canadian politics. I will mourn his loss as a fellow Canadian and human being. Ever since I began to follow politics, Jack Layton has been there. Sometimes he brought real ideas, but sometimes they were (no offense) a joke. He made us think and he made us laugh -- and usually when that happened he laughed with us.

With a Conservative majority, an NDP opposition, the Liberals battered, the Bloc crushed, and the Greens represented, the last election already represented a sea-change from the Canadian politics that I knew. Harper and Layton remained the only constants. Now even Layton isn't around anymore...Canadian politics is about to take on a whole new look. Jack would have wanted us to look forward, so now we ask, "What's next?"

Prime Minister Harper's offer of a state funeral, although out of the ordinary, is nothing more than what Mr. Layton deserves. May he rest in peace.

The New Democratic Way

It's been nearly three months since the election, and 3 months since I've posted. I can see I haven't missed much. However, there is an issue on which I'd like to write, from Saskatchewan, which happens to be having an election this November. Apparently the NDP released an attack ad in which they spliced two quotes of Premier Brad Wall (Saskatchewan Party) together. These two quotes were from a news scrum, spoken about 10 minutes apart. The new single quote was then taken completely out of context. Whatever bewitched them into thinking they wouldn't get caught I have no idea.

Before I begin, let me say that context never matters in politics. Nobody can sue anybody because normally the quote is exact and there were only differences in interpretation. If misinterpretation is done well enough, it might even force the misinterpreted to apologize. Of course, if it was common folk like us who misinterpreted comments so often, we'd be diagnosed as schizophrenic within a year (2 weeks if at non-Canadian medical institution).

Misinterpreting is one thing, but misquoting is quite another. The NDP could have kept the lid on this had they just admitted it was wrong and offered an apology. I realize, though, that expecting a political party to actually admit something is like watching paint dry. Your eyes dry first. Nevertheless, a normal political party will recognize damage when it comes and try to stop it. It is with this sharp departure from normalcy that I introduce to you...The New Democratic Way.

Deciding to take the high road instead, they called the Saskatchewan Party response "childish" and "over the top." Perhaps these words would have been more fitting had they been said to a mirror. The response from the government, while perhaps slightly dramatized, is in no way out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary, however, is the decision to remain defiant. They also defended the advertisement, saying it conveyed their message. By now, however, the only message the advertisement conveyed was that they were dishonest and desperate. If that's the message they wanted conveyed, perhaps NDP strategists were born on Mars. I really don't know.

As the controversy brew, they finally decided to pull the advertisement. Begrudging apologies were then offered - from all the wrong people. Party deputies released statements to the effect that they didn't know what the advertisement firm was doing. The party ordered the ads in the first place so obviously voters are expected to believe that they had nothing to do with this. Also, while party officials offered up peace offerings, the leader has been almost invisible. To this day I do not know Mr. Lingenfelter's first name. If you're running for premier and people don't know your name, you're either the leader of the Communist Party or in very big trouble (like trailing by 30%).

So, to sum it all up:
1) Initiate incredible stupidity;
2) Respond with incredible stpuidity;
3) Behave with incredible stupidity;
4) Run and hide.

And that is...The New Democratic Way.