Double Blind

The Local Government Elections Task Force Recommendations are released today.

The big recommendations are including an expense limit, and extending the municipal terms to four years.

I’ll go through the recommendations one by one with some opinion:

* Implement expense limits for all campaign participants (e.g. electors, elector organizations and 3rd party advertisers)

* Development of the expense limits should be guided by some key considerations:
o Expense limits should be high enough for campaign participants to mount reasonable campaigns and express their views, but not so high as to allow a few participants to dominate election discourse
o Expense limits need to work in different‐sized communities (i.e. formula cannot be based only on an amount per number of electors or population)
o Expense limits for elector organizations should have a neutral effect on decisions to create elector organizations or not (i.e. formula should be based on the number of candidates supported)

I disagree with this decision. The reason, as I pointed out earlier in my own submission to the task force, is that expense limits would increase the bureaucratic burden for candidates (how will you audit expenses?) and promote incumbency protection.

I also completely reject the rationale given by the task force, as they present it as follows:

(page 22) The task force believes that expense limits could increase accessibility and fairness by levelling the playing field among candidates; encouraging candidate participation; and reducing the need for large contributions to fund expensive campaigns. Expense limits are expected to be more effective than contribution limits in promoting accessibility. Unlike contribution limits, expense limits reduce the need for large contributions, yet they do not limit the democratic discourse and the variety of voices that can be heard in an election.
…
(page 37) Arguments for expense limits for local government election campaigns include: such limits would enhance accessibility and fairness, by ensuring that rising campaign costs do not erode the ability of ordinary citizens to run for office; limits encourage participation as candidates, thereby allowing all points of view to be expressed in local elections (not just those of candidates with greater means); expense limits are in place in B.C. provincial elections; limits may reduce the need for large donations and the accompanying possibility of undue influence; and limits encourage candidates to pursue grass roots approaches to building support instead of relying on more expensive advertising.

Contrary to this conventional wisdom, spending limits do not promote accessibility. Just as an example, look at the last federal or provincial election, where parties dominate despite the fact that there is a spending limit.

Limits do not encourage candidates to participate, and “all points of view to be expressed” are not curtailed because of spending limits. The media will always concentrate on those people that have a realistic chance of winning an election and this will be the case no matter how much or how little money is spent.

This decision will present a barrier for candidates, rather than promoting the “accessibility” that it claims to bring. Introducing restrictions never promotes accessibility.

What’s even worse is that there will be many ways to skirt around these rules, via elector organizations, campaign organizers, and third party groups to effectively raise the floor. Also, having media control (which is considered to be “free advertising”) becomes more important when there are money limits.

My recommendation to combat the accessibility rule is simple: let people spend whatever they can freely raise (either on their own, or from third parties) but be very strong on the disclosure – large contributions should be reported in near real-time. This will do more for accessibility than any spending limit.

Finally, the recommendations mention nothing about individual vs. corporate/union contributors, although it is given text on page 35 of the report. Implementing an individual-only contribution to candidates would have done far more than implementing expense limits. The federal election model has clearly demonstrated this.

* Ban anonymous contributions

This is fine, although even Elections Canada has a $20 limit (mainly used as a “fudge factor” when you can’t account for your revenues properly, but this is usually less than 1% of the total take-in).

* Do not implement general contribution limits or restrictions

This is status-quo, which is correct given the recommendation to not introduce tax credits on candidate donations.

* Require all election advertising to disclose who sponsored (paid for) the advertising
* Sponsorship information should be in English and the language of the advertisement
* Make it an offence to publish ads without required sponsorship information
* Explore establishing some automatic (administrative) penalties in relation to election advertising (e.g. for failing to comply with the proposed requirement for advertising to include sponsorship information)

These are simple compliance rules that will enable people to determine how the ad they are looking at is paid for.

* Establish that third party advertisers must register and must disclose what they spent on ads and who contributed to them (possibly for advertising expenditures over a certain threshold)
* Prohibit advertising by unregistered third parties
* Explore establishing some automatic (administrative) penalties for failure to comply with third party advertising rules, such as exceeding expense limits or failing to file a disclosure statement.

Sounds good in theory, but this is another bureaucratic web of compliance that will have to be established to actually enforce these provisions.

* Continue to regulate people or organizations (currently referred to as “campaign organizers”) that undertake election campaigns that support (or operate in place of) a candidate or elector organization’s campaign and conduct political activity such as collecting campaign contributions.

Campaign organizers are effectively third parties.

* Apply “third party advertising” rules for election campaigns to referendums by requiring:
o individuals and groups taking out referendum‐related advertisements to register
o advertisements to include sponsorship information
o disclosure of contributions received and expenses incurred by registered third party advertisers to be made after the referendum

This is harmonizing referendum spending rules with candidate election rules. Again, bureaucratic compliance needs to be established, incurring costs and hassle.

* Do not implement public financing (tax credits or rebates for campaign contributions or campaign expenses)

Good decision.

* Require campaign finance disclosure statements to be submitted no later than 90 days after general voting day
* Require campaign finance disclosure information to be published online and made centrally accessible though Elections BC
* Develop standard campaign finance disclosure statement forms
* Require local governments to use best efforts to provide notice of the remaining 30 day late filing period to those candidates who have not filed at the end of initial filing period
* Make the rules for disclosing volunteer and candidate “in kind” contributions consistent with the provincial rules

I know the disclosure of major donors before voting day occurs is a pipe dream, so notwithstanding that, the above recommendations are well constructed.

* Establish a separate Act dealing with campaign finance rules in local elections

This will make it easier to separate out the financing rules with the other legislation concerning local government elections.

* Provide local Chief Election Officers with additional powers for enforcement during the campaign; for example, to:
o enforce rules against election‐day advertising (e.g. provide clear authority for Chief Election Officers to enter on private property to remove unauthorized campaign signs on election day)
o seek injunctions in order to enforce rules, such as stopping unauthorized advertising
* Clarify the status of the local Chief Election Officer by statutorily establishing that position as impartial

Sounds good.

* Override Offence Act limitation for investigation of an alleged local elections offence, extending it to one year instead of the current six months
* Specify that the one year period starts from when the alleged contravention is brought to the attention of local elections administrators enforcers

Very good.

* Require candidates to make a solemn declaration when filing nomination papers, attesting that the candidate understands the requirements for running for office; for example, requirements to:
o appoint a financial agent
o open a separate bank account for campaign finances
o file a campaign finance disclosure statement within 90 days
o meet eligibility criteria

Useless, but will not hurt.

* Establish a key role for Elections BC in enforcing campaign finance rules in local elections, focusing on:
o Publication and compliance review of campaign finance disclosure statements;
o Provision of guidance on campaign finance rules during elections;
o Response to campaign finance queries and complaints after elections;
o Management of preliminary investigations and, when required, referral to the appropriate law enforcement bodies.
* Continue a role for local government in enforcing campaign finance rules, focusing on local Chief Election Officers as frontline contacts and responders on certain compliance issues that arise during a campaign.
* Build mechanisms to clearly define the responsibilities and relationships of those involved in campaign finance enforcement; support collaborative development of training and education materials, standard forms and provision of guidance; and provide Elections BC and local governments with the authority they need to effectively fulfill their roles.

Good, but having local government issues prosecute violations on people that are their elected bosses is a very bad organizational structure. Basically the only involvement of local government should be conducting the actual election and collecting forms relating to financing and such. Any enforcement functions must go to a higher level beyond the reach of local government elected officials.

* Extend the term of office for local elected officials to four years

I mildly disagree with this decision. The primary reason given is harmonization with some other jurisdictions in Canada (which have increasingly been moving to 4 year terms) but another reason given is “voter fatigue”. I completely disagree with voter fatigue as a reason – if people aren’t interested enough to vote in an election which affects them (and local government elections very much do so yet they are the least voted in), it really is the issue of the non-voters. One would think that voting every three years is not much of a burden, but you could easily imagine that “voter fatigue” can be cited as an excuse to not having elections at all.

You can even make a good argument to running local elections every year, but electing 1/3rd of the council or seats in a staggered arrangement (good for 9-person councils), but the existing 3-year system is a very good balance.

Implicitly in this decision is to harmonize a 4-year term limit to being between the scheduled provincial election dates (currently scheduled for 2013 and every four years after). The only issue with this synchronization is that it is entirely possible that an election can be called earlier than the fixed date (as witnessed by the federal fixed election date law, originally for October 19, 2009, but the election was called for October 14, 2008) and the event that a minority government is elected in BC (which will likely result in an earlier election). Fixing the municipal election schedule because of the provincial election schedule is an invalid reason.

The task force (page 24) did mention they would advise considering changing the election date to October if the UBCM agrees to it in 2010, which I also agree should be done and is a minor, but positive step that will make campaigning a bit easier. I wonder if the guys up in the far north (e.g. Fort St. John) put up campaign signs in November, or whether it’s impossible to drill wood into the ground because it’s minus 20 degrees outside with 6 hours of usable daylight.

* Do not establish a corporate vote
* The Task Force recommends exploring non‐electoral approaches to addressing the concerns of businesses. Local governments and businesses have shared interests in ensuring a competitive property tax climate to encourage investment and support a sustainable, strong and diversified tax base for communities. The Task Force recommends that the UBCM, the Province and business groups work
together to recognize the issues expressed to the task force, and to encourage effective local ways to engage with business, further strong relationships and foster a competitive business climate.

This is funny; the first recommendation was a foregone conclusion, but the second bullet point is futile.

* Clarify that volunteers who receive no direct monetary compensation are not considered to be “employees” for the purposes of determining eligibility to run for, and hold, elected office while continuing to volunteer

Fine.

* Strengthen commitment to collaborative local elections education
o Establish a more formal process for guiding development of elections education
o Involve more participants ‐ organizations such as LGMA, UBCM, Elections BC, Ministries of Education and Community and Rural Development and LGLA.
o Ensure all involved commit staff and/or financial resources to education and advice

Good.

* Provide education and advice
o On new topics resulting from implementation of Task Force recommendations (e.g. third party advertising rules)
o For new audiences (e.g. candidates’ financial agents, third party advertisers, other campaign participants)
o In new ways (e.g. webinars, “candidate schools,” advice line for election administrators on general voting day)
* Enhance education and advice in a phased approach
o Focus first on materials to assist in understanding of new rules, roles and responsibilities for the 2011 elections
o Expand to cover other issues based on feedback from 2011 elections

Good.

All in all, the big recommendation was the implementation of spending limits. There were some parameters the task force mentioned to take into consideration (i.e. not a simple “dollars per voter” metric) and it will be interesting to see what the ministry staff can come up with. I guarantee it will do nothing to promote accessibility.

On my financial radar, a press release from Loblaw Companies (the operating company of Superstore) announced the following:

BRAMPTON, ON, May 29 /CNW/ – Loblaw Companies Limited (Loblaw) is warning the public not to consume President’s Choice(R) Baked by You(TM) Roasted Garlic Bread with the UPC number 0 60383 80497 8 because the product may contain a metal holding pin. A holding pin may have come dislodged from a processing machine specific to the product during production.

The affected product, President’s Choice Baked by You Roasted Garlic Bread is sold in a 320g package and has a UPC number of 0 60383 80497 8. All lot codes are affected by this voluntary recall.

You would be able to detect a metal holding pin by biting into it. There would also be a 50/50 chance of it geometrically being parallel to the short-side of the bread (i.e. so when you cut it into slices your knife wouldn’t intersect it). It would be very unlikely to present a hazard other than wondering what the heck you just bit into before you spit it out and mention to your friends that there was a metal pin in your bread. I would assume the pin would have a diameter of half a centimeter and not have sharp ends.

So they probably chucked 10,000 loaves of bread into the garbage bin because of a lost holding pin. Thinking of it on strictly utilitarian terms, we live in a very rich society when companies can afford to throw away huge quantities of food in the name of very low probability outcomes. It isn’t even certain that the pin made it into the food.

This also speaks volume as to the quality control on their manufacturing processes – a very high threshold.

This also reminds me of an incident a decade ago around Thanksgiving when some idiot called up Safeway and said that he injected turkeys with poison. Safeway recalled all the turkeys and threw them out. As it was around that time of the season, there was an appreciable quantity of turkeys that were wasted. It was very likely that the person calling in the threat was not truthful simply because it is nearly impossible to stick a syringe inside a frozen turkey – it’s like trying to stick a needle in an ice cube.

It is horrible to see all of this waste, but it is also a positive sign that we are rich enough to be able to take these actions. You can be sure that a hundred years ago this wouldn’t have been mentioned, and even a consideration would have resulted in a huge laugh. Our food production capabilities are so reliable it makes you wonder if the system is also as robust.

While catching up on my readings (skimmings) of the Parliamentary transcripts, I noticed that Health Canada made a ruling that allows non-cola soft drinks (i.e. not Pepsi/Coke) to have caffeine at up to 150ppm, which is 25% less than the 200ppm allowed for cola beverages.

While I don’t have any strong thoughts about this, my mild thought is that this is a bad decision.

That said, I have consciously tried to reduce my soft drink intake over the past few years so this doesn’t not really affect me, but normally you could rely upon a non-cola beverage on the road to be not caffeinated. Now you have to read the labels to find out if the drink you’re holding is caffeinated which slightly increases the annoyance. Typically the only time I go out of my way to buy a soft drink is when I’m on a long road trip, and I stop off at a gas station to fill up, and have something “in-hand” to just keep my mouth moist on the road. I usually do not prefer drinking caffeinated beverages on the road since it screws up the energy/sleep cycle throughout the day.

That said, in the USA, some non-cola soft drinks have been caffeinated, most notably Mountain Dew. I sincerely hope they don’t muck around with my favourite root beer.

And just as an FYI:

While small amounts of caffeine are not a concern for most Canadians, over consumption of caffeine can cause insomnia, headaches, irritability, dehydration and nervousness. Health Canada recommends that healthy adults do not exceed 400 mg of caffeine per day. This amount equals about three 8 oz cups (237 ml) of brewed coffee per day.

For other groups, the effects of consuming caffeine can be more severe. Research has shown that too much caffeine for pregnant and breastfeeding women can harm the baby. Pregnant women who consume too much caffeine are at a higher risk of miscarriage and can give birth to babies with a lower birth weight. Pregnant or breastfeeding women and women who are planning to become pregnant should consume no more than 300 mg of caffeine per day. This amount equals a little over two 8 oz (237 ml) cups of coffee.

Children are also more sensitive to the effects of caffeine. Too much caffeine in children can cause increased anxiety, restlessness and insomnia. Based on average body weights of children, this means a daily caffeine intake of no more than 45 mg for children aged 4-6; 62.5 mg for children aged 7-9; and 85 mg for children aged 10-12. These recommended maximums are equivalent to about one to two 12 oz (355 ml) cans of cola a day.

Health Canada has not developed definitive advice for adolescents 13 and older because of insufficient data. Nonetheless, Health Canada suggests that daily caffeine intake for this age group be no more than 2.5 mg/kg body weight. This is because the maximum adult caffeine dose may not be appropriate for light weight adolescents or for younger adolescents who are still growing. The daily dose of 2.5 mg/kg body weight would not cause adverse health effects in the majority of adolescent caffeine consumers. This is a conservative suggestion since older and heavier weight adolescents may be able to consume adult doses of caffeine without suffering adverse effects.

In the grand scheme of things, caffeine is probably the second most tested drug on the planet in terms of world history. Alcohol was the first. Everybody knows what happens with alcohol consumption, and everybody knows what happens with caffeine consumption. If there was some sort of long-run effect of chronic caffeine intake that caused horrific results (other than crashing and burning for a day when your source of coffee ran out) then we would know about it.

It is still on my queue of reading to go through the Chilliwack Downtown Land Use and Development Plan, but for those that are not from the area, the downtown core of Chilliwack can only be described as rather dilapidated.

The core issue is that nobody really goes there unless if they have to for something (usually a business that is in the area, or heaven forbid, the courthouse). Most of the business has shifted away into the suburban areas, where you can get mostly everything you need for day-to-day living (e.g. groceries, banking, etc.).

The closure of Evangelines’s Restaurant is a pretty good signal that the upscale approach (quick review: the one time I went there, it served great food, although price-wise it was correspondingly higher than average, but deservingly so) is not going to work in downtown Chilliwack – at least not yet. The Decades Coffee/Dessert shop is commercially more viable and is an approach that should work.

The downtown Vancouver formula (mixed residential and commercial zoning) only works because there is a huge number of people that don’t need to drive vehicles for their everyday life. The vast majority of this (non-vehicle driving) population is not present in small-town and mid-town BC (including Chilliwack). A downtown Vancouver formula will not work in places like Chilliwack.

I would not consider downtown Chilliwack to be a huge source of employment, and it would be very difficult to get this critical mass located in the downtown core that is required to stimulate the residential end. City Council has attempted to induce this with significant property tax rebates to downtown Chilliwack businesses, but it is still a losing economic formula for the businesses involved.

A Chilliwack Progress article from Jennifer Feinberg also talks about public safety, and the two approaches to be taken involve having “more eyes on the street” and the “broken windows” (i.e. fixing them up) approach. I agree with this.

There was an attempt to attract the residential side of the downtown Chilliwack area, but this only lead to a partial disaster with respect to newer developments such as the Newmark, which only attracted out-of-down property speculators that subsequently rented their suites out to generally unsavoury individuals. A November 2009 Chilliwack Times article by Paul Henderson described the situation there.

What is rather amusing is that I have a (savoury) friend that rented a suite at the Newmark. After getting out of there at nighttime (after nearly getting runover by some guy leaving the complex at drag-racing speeds), my friend mentioned “Don’t step on the blood on the elevator”, and my wife and I thought he was joking. However, when getting into the elevator, there was definitely blood on the floor. I watched enough CSI to know that it was probably due to a nosebleed. My friend moved out a few months later.

Downtown core decay is an issue common to most small and mid-sized towns. In Chilliwack’s case, there are complex issues involved and I will try to beat the June 7 deadline to write some substantive comments in time for the public hearing.

Ever since I saw a one hour documentary on Takeru Kobayashi‘s training regimen, I actually have a respect for the “athletes” called competitive eating.

While this doesn’t exactly elicit thought processes associated with “sports”, just like any aspect of human endurance or performance, to get to the world class upper echelons of the industry, you have to be very disciplined and have a genetic disposition toward it. Just like how most basketball players have a genetic advantage of height, Kobayashi has an advantage of having a huge amount of space in his abdomen for his stomach, which enables his rather slender physique to process amazingly large amounts of food.

The documentary didn’t touch upon how much toilet paper he must go through in a month.

Anyhow, this thought was spawned off from reading a trashy CKNW article of how some guy ate 13 pounds of poutine in 10 minutes. The only thought I have is whether the amount of gravy and cheese to fries was a standardized ratio – more gravy would make the meal theoretically easier to eat.

I’ve only had poutine two or three times in my life (and once was in Montreal, where the gravy was so salty that I was smacking my lips a good week after eating the thing), but thinking about eating 13 pounds of the stuff after I had breakfast is enough to make me heave.

Probably the most funniest slow motion marketing disaster is the design team behind the London 2012 Olympics – the logo, and now their mascots.

The interesting thing is that apparently they tested a bunch of designs with focus groups and this is what they came up with. Either the dataset was being spoofed up badly, or the rejected candidates were even worse than these. Tough to imagine how they can screw this up further!

The mascots, conceived by London design agency Iris and costing, said Deighton, just “a few thousand pounds”, are an important staging post from a financial and marketing point of view. They will pour up to £15m into the coffers of the organising committee via dozens of licensing deals, part of an overall licensing target of £70m to £80m towards Locog’s £2bn privately raised budget.

I can easily see the appeal of Miga, Quatchi, Sumi and Mukmuk, who have obvious humanoid features and were obviously marketed to kids’ parents. Heck, a baby-sized Quatchi is keeping my baby company in his crib at the time I am writing this. But these 2012 British mascots? You couldn’t pay me to keep those eyesores around.

From the Globe and Mail, and I have annotated the chart with three arrows:

It doesn’t take a lot of regression analysis to figure out what’s going on: the Conservatives and NDP are eating up the Liberals.

Bill C-18 is titled “Increasing Voter Participation Act”. Its key feature is to add two advanced polling days, the Sunday before election day, and the Sunday before that one; with the last Sunday being open at all polls that are otherwise open during election day.

Date of the Election	Voter Turnout (%)
21 November 1988	75.3
25 October 1993	69.7
2 June 1997	67.0
27 November 2000	64.1
28 June 2004	60.9
23 January 2006	64.7
14 October 2008	58.8

Legal access to special ballots for anybody was legislated in 1992; around that time you had to state you had a “reason” why you couldn’t vote on election day in order to get an advance ballot, but it became accepted that any reason was acceptable. Looking at the statistics, you can even make the argument that having access to advance polling had an effect of reducing voter turnout, but I would think even without advanced ballots that you would have seen a similar decline in voter turnout.

While the intention of this legislation is honourable, I believe it will have precisely zero impact on the voter turnout rate. The reason is because the constraint to people voting is not the time or location where they can vote – the constraint is the moral will to vote.

Economically, voting is an irrational act when dealing with large numbers of people. The ability of a single person to influence the outcome of a vote is extremely limited, to the point that an individual vote is diluted to nearly nothing. It is akin to trying to take your 100 shares of Microsoft and vote out Bill Gates from the board of directors. (Proportionately, it would be like taking 90,000 shares of Microsoft and voting out Bill Gates, but the result would still be the same). When you consider that voting in a typical urban electoral area takes 15 minutes of time (factoring in commute and time to get a ballot), you have to factor in an economic cost which is usually higher than the actual power of a vote, especially in a safe seat riding.

In a federal election, about 50 seats out of 308 were decided by a 5% margin. This also means that in about 260 seats, the outcome is quite probable, yet people still vote for the “safe” party in these elections. Why? Moral will. A belief instilled by local culture that voting is something you do and to not do it makes you a “bad citizen”.

There is a high degree of correlation between the perception of a tight race and voter turnout – the last BC Election is a great example of this where the tightest race, in Delta South, had the highest voter turnout in the province. The marginal voters get pulled in for economic reasons – in that they think their vote can make a difference in the candidate selected and it is worth the 15 minutes to vote.

When you have a government that is horrible and want to desperately kick them out, you have voters of the horrible government not show up, but you also have voters that come to vote against the horrible government. These voters are there for moral reasons – to get rid of a bad government. It is a variant of the iterated ultimatum game – it is irrational to reject anything your counterpart gives you, but your counterparty (the horrible government) has treated you so badly in the game that you will perform an irrational act to do your best to punish them.

I have not addressed the issue that it is very operationally difficult for Elections Canada officials to recruit and train people in the necessary timeframe to conduct an election. In the 2008 federal election, the local electoral officer (who has now since resigned for a different job) did a fantastic job, but in conversations with her, she mentioned what a huge struggle it is to get people – they get paid a nominal amount for training and election day itself but it is not easy. Putting in a “full polling station” requirement for the last Sunday before an election, from an operational and human resource perspective, is nuts.

The ballot security issue becomes significant as well – each day of advance polling, Elections Canada puts the ballot boxes in a presumably secure area, and these boxes are opened and counted on election day. However, with more advanced polling days, physical security of these boxes becomes a paramount concern, especially when these boxes contain more and more votes in an election.

I will also combat the notion that lower voter participation rates is some sort of “affront to democracy”. The choice to not vote is a vote in itself. Ultimately, the success of an election can never be measured by voter participation rates. It is measured primarily by a citizen’s ability to access a ballot, being able to cast an anonymous vote, being able to count the vote accurately and verify if necessary; and (this is not really discussed in the media) preventing people that shouldn’t vote (i.e. multiple voters, voters not living in the electoral district, voters that are not Canadian citizens) from voting.

This bill makes a marginal positive effort on accessing a ballot. It also has a marginal negative effect on the accuracy and security of the ballot, which I think offsets the marginal benefit on accessibility. The quick conclusion is that Bill C-18 will have zero impact on the voter turnout rate, but at a significant operational cost in holding what is otherwise excellent election practices. It is my hope that this bill be scrapped.

Via Langley Politics, the Golden Ears Bridge apparently about 30% short on traffic ridership projections. The article did not break down car, small truck and big track traffic statistics – they all pay different tolls.

Although the bridge is a good transport link that connects what was otherwise two relatively disconnected areas (Maple Ridge and the Township of Langley), low ridership doesn’t surprise me in the least. There are two problems – accessibility, and price.

Accessibility – the Maple Ridge side is perfect – the primary access from Lougheed Highway is accessible via interchange in both directions. On the Langley side, however, you have to go through Golden Ears Way, which is not connected via Highway 1 conveniently. The best routes are through 192 Street (eastbound only), going north to Golden Ears Way, or through 200 Street, which was a mis-designed interchange that takes awhile to clear through, and also provides slowdowns via traffic intersections on the way to the bridge. The Langley access to the Golden Ears Bridge is too slow and can be solved by putting an interchange at around 182 Street and putting an overpass bridge at 192 Street and Golden Ears Way, allowing traffic from 192 Street to enter into Golden Ears Way.

There is no way the Golden Ears Way (at around 182 street) interchange will occur because 192 Street was designed to facilitate the function.

By virtue of having too many traffic light intersections (especially on 200 Street), the transport link from Langley is slower than it needed to be, which will reduce the attractiveness of the bridge. It still is more convenient for people to take the bridge instead of slogging their way through the Port Mann and Pitt River Bridge, but eliminating traffic lights will make the bridge more useful because people (especially truckers) pay for speed. 200 Street, in particular, is a very sub-optimal way of getting into the bridge. There literally needed to have been a “Golden Ears Express” route that bypassed (or was elevated) the intersections, but land usage considerations have now made that option cost-prohibitive.

Price – The other big flaw is not offering variable pricing. Specifically, few people will cross the bridge at 2am when the Port Mann is clear, so offering a significantly reduced toll in off-hours should improve revenues somewhat. Right now a truck pays $8.30 with a transponder, and a car pays $2.75 for the privilege of saving about 22km of driving (point-to-point; from the 200 St interchange to the Lougheed/Golden Ears Way intersection). It saves a car roughly 15 minutes of driving and 2 litres of fuel. While the current tolls may seem economical from the perspective of saving time and gas, it would be a good economics exercise to offer reduced price tolling after the time the Port Mann westbound traffic dies down (such as 8:00pm) for registered users.

The Port Mann Bridge needs to incorporate this as well. The California 91 Freeway has a fairly good policy and dataset in terms of what I am thinking.

I noticed with amusement that CMA (Certified Management Accountants) ditched their horrible “Creative Accountants” marketing pitch, and changed it to “Create Possibilities”. Much, much better.

These ads seem to be designed to recruit younger people into the program – their profile pictures have younger people that seemed destined to do interesting things, but generally headed up in their careers. I am not sure recruitment should be the focus of the association, but for what it is worth, they executed very well on the ads.

My issue with the designation and association in general is that the entire CMA program seems to be much more about style rather than substance. In particular, the bulk of the accreditation process doesn’t emphasize accounting skills, which is ironic considering that graduates should be… accountants. The most exposure a student will receive is getting examined on some basic financial accounting concepts during the entrance exam. Once that is done, the actual amount of accounting knowledge required is minimal. In fact, because of the group-style work that is performed, people that are less accounting-savvy just usually delegate it to group members that can do it.

What the program does emphasize is case writing skills, mixed in with a bit of research and powerpoint presentation skills. The actual accounting (e.g. referring to CICA/IFRS, taxation beyond the elementary calculation of dealing with capital cost allowance tax shields, knowing how to consolidate financials of separate entities, etc.) is not touched upon at all. In particular, the lack of focus on taxation is crucial.

It would almost seem more appropriate if they changed the designation to “Certified Management Consultants”.