STM abolishes 180 positions
To save money, the STM is abolishing 180 positions to avoid making cuts in bus and metro services. That was TVA’s report, but La Presse says it’s 230 positions.
Update: TVA has now corrected its story to 230 positions.
To save money, the STM is abolishing 180 positions to avoid making cuts in bus and metro services. That was TVA’s report, but La Presse says it’s 230 positions.
Update: TVA has now corrected its story to 230 positions.
CE 19:27 on 2024-02-01 Permalink
I’m not sure how the STM would even be able to reduce service anymore without making it nearly useless, especially on the bus network.
DeWolf 20:24 on 2024-02-01 Permalink
I was in Chicago on two occasions this month and it’s pretty dire over there. The most frequent bus lines run every 10 minutes, which is okay, but the famous L is down to 12 minute frequencies most of the day, with a lot of delays and cancelled trains – meaning you could be waiting on the platform for up to 30 minutes.
Bus service here is worse than it used to be, but at least the metro is reliably frequent.
Still a sad situation. We shouldn’t have to be content with “better than the rest of North America.”
Ian 20:45 on 2024-02-01 Permalink
If there’s any kind of snow it’s actually faster for my partner to walk home from P-des-A to Mile End than wait for the 80. It still gets stuck on that hill up to Sherbrooke fairly frequently, for one – which was always an issue – but now that the buses come less frequently it could be a 45 minute delay with lineups at UQAM snaking around the corner for a bus that isn’t coming.
Shame to hear Chicago has gone downhill so much, I remember taking the L in the early aughts and marvelling at how efficient and convenient it was.
Blork 10:14 on 2024-02-02 Permalink
CBC’s radio report says that most of the abolished positions are unfilled ones, meaning they’re jobs that no one is actually doing at the moment. Only about 50 actual people will be cut, and they are all administrative (no drivers or ticket-takers).
Ian 19:47 on 2024-02-04 Permalink
THAT makes a lot more sense. I had seen somehting earlier about no public-facing workers losing thier jobs, I guess that’s part of what they meant.