A private collection of material focusing on the never ending joys of the Trimet industrial complex-Follow the Twitter feed for complete coverage and trimet scanner calls
https://twitter.com/AlYourPalster
"By reorganizing and streamlining, we gain immediate savings with no adverse effect on the current level and quality of service provided to customers," CTA President Forrest Claypool said in a statement.
That would be way, way too logical. Here at TriMet, we'd rather cut service so that the public understands the value of how light rail can improve our region (as an alternative to the poor, disinvested bus system.) Plus, it takes far more middle-management types to keep light rail running, which is popular with the management staff and encourages low management turnover and improves employee morale.
They have cut administrative staff and expenses, too. For example, there is no longer a Director of Accessible Transportation, and since 2002/2003, managers/staff have had to share in the costs of health care, as well as not been able to enter into the pension plan (they get a retirement account instead). See Portland Transport: More on TriMet vs ATU 757: Whose cuts?
Now are there ways TriMet could control costs besides cutting service? Maybe. Al has questioned whether the bus garages need assistant managers, and it would be reasonable to compare to other transit agencies to see how they've structured their management. But it's not like they've continued on with business as usual and seen service cuts as the only way to save money.
And why aren't you advocating for ending things like parking requirements, street subsidies and density limitations (all of which Tigard has), so that transit can be more effective and it doesn't take a rail line to attract riders? That way, bus service wouldn't be so vulnerable.
2 comments:
"By reorganizing and streamlining, we gain immediate savings with no adverse effect on the current level and quality of service provided to customers," CTA President Forrest Claypool said in a statement.
That would be way, way too logical. Here at TriMet, we'd rather cut service so that the public understands the value of how light rail can improve our region (as an alternative to the poor, disinvested bus system.) Plus, it takes far more middle-management types to keep light rail running, which is popular with the management staff and encourages low management turnover and improves employee morale.
Here at TriMet, we'd rather cut service
They have cut administrative staff and expenses, too. For example, there is no longer a Director of Accessible Transportation, and since 2002/2003, managers/staff have had to share in the costs of health care, as well as not been able to enter into the pension plan (they get a retirement account instead). See Portland Transport: More on TriMet vs ATU 757: Whose cuts?
Now are there ways TriMet could control costs besides cutting service? Maybe. Al has questioned whether the bus garages need assistant managers, and it would be reasonable to compare to other transit agencies to see how they've structured their management. But it's not like they've continued on with business as usual and seen service cuts as the only way to save money.
And why aren't you advocating for ending things like parking requirements, street subsidies and density limitations (all of which Tigard has), so that transit can be more effective and it doesn't take a rail line to attract riders? That way, bus service wouldn't be so vulnerable.
Post a Comment