Transit in city’s future

[A. Wong]

Transit in city’s future

Jeff Cummings/Metro Edmonton

13 November 2008 05:40

City planners believe Edmonton should be a city that is more urban and densely populated and less reliant on vehicles in 2040 through a new vision they laid out to city council yesterday.

City planners want Edmonton’s LRT service expanded through its Transportation Master Plan and its Municipal Development Plan so it can provide services to each quadrant in the city, along with rebuilding older neighbourhoods that are more biker- and walker-friendly.

“Many other cities around the world, as we speak today, are in fact aggressively moving in a number of these directions,” said Gary Klassen, manager for the city’s planning and development department.

Klassen told council that Edmonton itself will be home to one million people by 2040 and the two plans from city planners will address future growth, along with long-term financial impacts.

The plans describe what needs to be done to reach the city’s “destination,” said Klassen, but they don’t describe specific details on costs or policies — something that will have to be discussed by council if the plans are approved.

“It’s not about the dehumanization of personal vehicles, it’s providing an option that’s actually useable for the majority of people in Edmonton,” said Brent Constantin, president of the NAIT Students Association. “This is something we’re definitely in favour of.”

Mayor Stephen Mandel says residents in some communities like Belgravia and McKernan will have to accept some level of change in the future as the city continues to address growth pressures.

“We can't afford to build these LRT lines all over the city with nobody living on them,” said Mandel at the meeting. “We need to be very clear, this document says ‘we will intensify.’”

Many speakers at a public hearing were generally in favour of the plans, but some had concerns about protecting the city’s agricultural lands.

All I have to say is... good luck. A broom will need to be employed diligently if they want anything feasible.

And as much as I hate to say it, more small buses are needed for new routes.

[linster]

All I have to say is... good luck. A broom will need to be employed diligently if they want anything feasible.

And as much as I hate to say it, more small buses are needed for new routes.

I don't entirely think the size of bus makes a difference, it's where the routes go, and how fast it takes to get places. I'd be happy to make 4 transfers along the way to school if those transferes were fast, efficient, and fool proof. (No "Walk 300 meters in 0 minutes"). I'd prefer getting off at one stop, waiting 2 minutes, and hopping on another bus at the same stop.

The thing (besides ETS management) preventing this is the design of our neighbourhoods. It's just a pain to get around MillWoods in any hurry; It's like an excursion to every single person's front door step.

I've always wanted to know who's on the Edmonton Pipe-dream comittee; It seems like everytime they release a type of map, they show "Possible" LRT lines in every quadrant of the compass. I understand that WLRT is needed, but is LRT to capilano along 106 ave a good idea? It seems like it'd be better served by frequent trolleys. All of these "Possible" LRT lines are really just "Yeah, It'd be a good idea if we'd maybe might build something there sometime in the future, maybe" lines.

The only time people will take transit is if it's faster than cars. It's not hard to find a person who wants to take the bus to be a responsible citizen, but won't take it because driving is atleast twice as fast.

I think Mr.Bigalow (The old guy who likes to show up to TPW meetings) said it perfectly, "People think transit is there like a service that they want, but they'll never hope to use, like the Fire Department" I doubt ETS has the management to be able to pull even something remotely close to their vision off; Just look at Horizon 2000: They had the opportunity to completely redesign the transit system from scratch, and they still botched it. Seeing that there probably won't be a complete redesign of the system for quite some time, I don't know how they'll pull it off.

[A. Wong-Roving]

I was just mentioning small buses because there's no sense in running empty 40 foot long buses on routes with new ridership. That quote you mention sounds about right.

[Modulator]

The thing (besides ETS management) preventing this is the design of our neighbourhoods. It's just a pain to get around MillWoods in any hurry; It's like an excursion to every single person's front door step.

Bingo. Unfortunately, the novel idea of linking transportation and land-use planning has come too late to the City of Edmonton. And even the steps in the new TMP and MDP are going to be difficult. There's Councillor Caterina in the media saying that transit is "social engineering" and "pie in the sky," which is ridiculous, but not an unusual point of view in this city. The Journal also has the homebuilders association (i.e. the developers that donate oodles of money to city council) saying that more roads are needed. And the mayor doesn't want to stop developing the northeast reaches of the city.

I've always wanted to know who's on the Edmonton Pipe-dream comittee; It seems like everytime they release a type of map, they show "Possible" LRT lines in every quadrant of the compass. I understand that WLRT is needed, but is LRT to capilano along 106 ave a good idea?

Ah, but it's actually LRT to Sherwood Park. The City Pipe-dream committee is expecting the province and the regional municipalities to chip in for LRT all over Greater Edmonton. Unfortunately, the province seems to think public transit is a van running once an hour through Three Hills, and the suburbs loathe sharing.

The only time people will take transit is if it's faster than cars. It's not hard to find a person who wants to take the bus to be a responsible citizen, but won't take it because driving is atleast twice as fast.

Speed and convenience. As long as transit planners think a 15 or 30 minute headway is frequent service, there's not much hope for a major modal shift (and look--there's no funding for the ridership growth project). And the ongoing lack of understanding of local service means that it's easy to get from point A to point B, but to no points in between.

Just look at Horizon 2000: They had the opportunity to completely redesign the transit system from scratch, and they still botched it. Seeing that there probably won't be a complete redesign of the system for quite some time, I don't know how they'll pull it off.

But they didn't really redesign it. Horizon 2000 was little more than a budget-cutting exercise. The only innovative ideas in Horizon 2000 (e.g. a core and community network) have been abandoned, and we have the same ad-hoc low-frequency wandering-route transit system that we've had since the mid-80s.

Oh, and some excerpts from the Edmonton Sun's resident transit expert, Graham Hicks:

For all their talk, the planners know some Edmontonians will continue to buy and drive big cars and pickups...

In terms of the 'burbs, I'm not sure these guys have it right.

Developers build mini-mansions with big garages and postage-sized yards way out on the edge of town ... BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT THEM!!!!

Our planners are adamantly anti-new suburbs based on infrastructure cost. Then there's this utter nonsense about 'burbs being "unhealthy." Sheesh!

It's wishful thinking to envision European-style, inner- city density actually replacing suburban sprawl.

New 'burbs will always be built. The homes will cost more and come with higher taxes to cover urban services.

But this "thou-shalt-not-build" is George Orwell's Big Brother at work.

Welcome to Edmonton, folks, where planning is Orwellian and transit is social engineering.

[Old Look]

This raises the question, "What causes intensification?" Is it civic policy alone, or do other factors such as geographic barriers or a large cluster of offices in the downtown core also play a role? Sometimes civic leaders take credit for effectiveness of their policies when perhaps they've been dealt a favourable hand to start with.

For example, Greater Vancouver, despite its much ballyhooed civic policy of restricting freeway construction to promote a dense urban core, also has been "blessed" with the fact that it is hemmed in by ocean and mountains to the north and west, and an international boundary to the south. Their geographic environment is thus naturally more conducive to intensficiation than it is in Edmonton. As a different example, Calgary has an extensive downtown core that employs a large percentage of its population, so transit ridership is naturally higher there than here, and an extensive LRT network is able to focus effectively on moving large numbers of people to a common destination. That's not necessarily because their city council has been so much more vsionary than ours - their decisions were perhaps easier to make because the solutions were more obvious to all.

Greater Edmonton is in a much different situation. Our environs are flat and hindered only by a river valley. Our blue-collar workforce does not share a common destination but works in refineries, warehouses and manufacturing plants that by their very nature cannot be tightly clustered in a core. Those industrial areas are scattered everywhere - Nisku, SE Edmonton, NW Edmonton, refinery row, Ft. Saskatchewan, Acheson to name a few. To complicate things, a blue collar worker's job is often temporary - he/she may work in Nisku one year and in NW Edmonton the next depending on job assignments, layoffs, etc, making it more difficult to choose a home taht will remain located near to one's employment. The result: many workers commute in many different directions: Sherwood Park to Ft Saskatchewan, St. Albert to Nisku, Millwoods to NW Edmonton, etc. If you look at traffic flow on the Whitemud and Yellowhead at rush hour, they are busy in both directions. How does one promote intensification in a situation like that?

The NE LRT was a white elephant for many years (other than at Oilers and Eskmos games), and I sure hope we've learned from that experience.

"The only time people will take transit is if it's faster than cars". That's assuming that transit even travels to the places where a lot of people need to go. I agree with Ashton that perhaps the real need is a fleet of many small buses that can commute people to those areas. In effect we would get six people to a vehicle rather than one to a vehicle as we have today. That would definitely be progress, but the cost of equipment and labour to provide that kind of solution at a frequency of service that makes it attractive will be enormous. There are no easy answers in E-town.

[Michael Marriott]

I found this quote in the article interesting:

Mayor Stephen Mandel says residents in some communities like Belgravia and McKernan will have to accept some level of change in the future as the city continues to address growth pressures.

Now, there haven't been any highrises proposed for those two commuities, and they've been supportive of the 109 St corridor proposals for more mixed used higher density development, so why did Mandel single those two commuities out as "needing to accept change" instead of say Glenora or Strathern, both of which had citizens adamantly opposed to high density developments.

Unless Belgravia/McKernan aren't complaining about density, but a different change in the transportation scene that occured recently.

[Modulator]

Strangely, certain neighbourhoods known to contribute to political campaigns are NOT expected to accept change for the greater good, say along 87th avenue towards West Edmonton Mall, hmm...

The mayor's position that 107 Ave is much more suited to redevelopment than 87 Ave doesn't make much sense to me.

Unless Belgravia/McKernan aren't complaining about density, but a different change in the transportation scene that occured recently.

You mean the busway between South Campus and Belgravia Road that's now a one-way road open to general traffic?

[A. Wong]

Victoria leads way in green transport, Edmonton 18th, Calgary 19th in survey

http://www.cptdb.ca/index.php?showtopic=7224

Calgary slipped three spots this year, to 19th, and has the highest per-capita level of vehicle ownership in the country, while Edmonton ranks 18th overall, with a grade of D.

Full report available at:

http://www.appletonfoundation.org/Files/Gr...ng%20Report.pdf

Edmonton is spread over a large geographic area. This is

reflected in the low proportion of dense housing stock. The

lack of urban density increases dependence on greenhouse gas

emitting vehicles. Edmonton has high carbon dioxide emissions

per capita and the high level of vehicle ownership per capita

reduces its GreenApple Canada 2007 Ranking Report scores. A

more compactly designed city, one that is planned around a

comprehensive public transit network, greatly reduces residents’

dependence on the vehicles that emit the noxious gases that

cause climate change. Edmonton (and many North American

cities), however, has developed around the idea that most

residents will use their vehicles to get around the city and this

has had a significant impact on Edmonton’s urban design. With

rising gas prices and a new awareness of the links between

vehicle emissions and climate change, Edmonton city officials

have begun to rethink their transportation and developments

needs and options.

The Edmonton region has slightly improved its 2007 status to eighteenth overall in Canada in the GreenApple 2008 Report.1 Despite Edmonton's overall improvement, emissions, such as carbon dioxide from retail fuel sales have increased. This places Edmonton well-behind other cities in meeting the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emission. In addition, daily maximum observed ozone levels have risen appreciably even though most of the country is experiencing a secular decline in such levels.

The city of Edmonton deserves praise for having increased by 8% the discount on transit passes that it offers to city hall employees, which makes it the most improved region in Canada for that particular variable.

The city of Edmonton has recently enacted numerous initiatives to promote environmental sustainability. An awareness and education program aimed at reducing excessive idling of motor vehicles was developed and approved in 2007.2 This program will commence in spring 2009. In 2007, the City of Edmonton invested in cleaner air by purchasing 231 clean diesel buses: though these are not alternative fuel vehicles as defined by Natural Resources Canada, their operation will result in the reduction of nitrogen dioxide emissions by 80 tonnes a year and particulate matter by six tonnes a year.3 Edmonton also invested in a new 7.5 km Light Rail Transit service which will encourage more Edmonton residents to use public transit to get to work and other daily destinations.4 Another inducement offered potential transit riders is the recent introduction of the Employee Discounted Transit Pass Pilot Program by Edmonton Transit which enables employees to obtain up to a 24% discount on monthly transit passes.5

The town of Beaumont6 and the city of St. Albert7 both recently passed anti-idling bylaws. In addition, St. Albert launched the 2008 Idle-Free Campaign that aims to educate the public about this environmental nuisance.8

Edmonton provides a good example of an urban region that is capable of taking small public policy steps to enhance sustainable transportation. Even small and gradual policy changes provide beneficial impacts that will result in large future improvements for Edmonton.

Previous report:

In 2006, city officials came up with a comprehensive

Environmental Strategic Plan.103 This Plan made recommendations

about how to make the city more environmentally sustainable.104

Among other things, the Plan calls for a pilot project that tested

six new hybrid-diesel buses, as well as a detailed analysis of the

costs and benefits of increased use of alternative fuels in its

municipal vehicles. As of March 2007, 6% of Edmonton’s transit

fleet were AFVs. This is a good start but well below the expert

panel’s 10 year attainable target of 39.48%. As of December,

2006 there were no AFV vehicles in its municipal road fleet.

Another note:

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/...006-2007-2.aspx

From 2006 to 2007, already ridership increases, costs increase, but vehicle kilometers decrease... go figure.

[linster]

But they didn't really redesign it. Horizon 2000 was little more than a budget-cutting exercise. The only innovative ideas in Horizon 2000 (e.g. a core and community network) have been abandoned, and we have the same ad-hoc low-frequency wandering-route transit system that we've had since the mid-80s.

I've looked at that map long and hard, and I don't think those were features to be implemented anyway: Many core arterials were missing their routes, while Roundabout routes like the 14 through LaPerle were marked as "Core". Other goofy bits include using 178 Street only to access Callingwood, ignoring 170th.

Can't remember more examples, as it's been a month since I've looked at the darn thing.

About the ridership increases, A., ETS dosen't have any strategy about them. Their strategy is the "Population increase == ridership increase" mentality; They're not looking at per capita ridership increases, which haven't been increasing.

[captaintrolley]

About the ridership increases, A., ETS dosen't have any strategy about them. Their strategy is the "Population increase == ridership increase" mentality; They're not looking at per capita ridership increases, which haven't been increasing.

Very true. They just don't get it. Plus the D40LF seat fewer people. So that also adds to the illusion of 'more people on the bus'.

From 2006 to 2007, already ridership increases, costs increase, but vehicle kilometers decrease... go figure.

We're the world's most underutilized fleet. I thought you knew that.

[Michael Marriott]

I was thinking more trolley elimination, since that comment is similar to what he said to Bill before the K-Days parade this year, when Bill showed his "I Love Trolleys" pin to the mayor.

You mean the busway between South Campus and Belgravia Road that's now a one-way road open to general traffic?

[Uwe]

We're the world's most underutilized fleet. I thought you knew that.

Captain Tractor....Just out of curiousity how did you arrive at the above statement? What stats did you use and which other cities did you compare it to? Seems to me you would say anything negative against ETS because they are getting rid of your beloved trolleys. Very pathetic. And before James or anyone else jumps down my throat I will apologize if you can prove to me, with statistics, what you are saying is true...that ETS is the world's most underutilized fleet.

[Esturk]

The trolley system has been underutilized for years.. How many perfectly good trolleys sat in storage for years while the entire system was still operational? Can you answer that one Uwe? You seem to be the expert here on "trackless trolleys".

[Uwe]

The trolley system has been underutilized for years.. How many perfectly good trolleys sat in storage for years while the entire system was still operational? Can you answer that one Uwe? You seem to be the expert here on "trackless trolleys".

All the trolleys should have sat in storage or the junk yard because they were/are crap. They are unreliable and jerky. And if you want to compare trolley underutilization I believe Toronto's, Calgary's, Ottawa's etc. trolley utilization is zero...so ETS beats that easily.

However, I don't think that the trolley system was what is being discussed but the whole ETS system....is that not correct CaptainTrolley?

[linster]

I believe Toronto's, Calgary's, Ottawa's etc. trolley utilization is zero...so ETS beats that easily.

Clever... How do we compare to cities that actually currently have trolleys?

[Modulator]

Clever... How do we compare to cities that actually currently have trolleys?

Piss-poor. Edmonton has (or, rather, had) the fourth-largest trolley network in Canada and the U.S. but operates by far the least service of any transit property that runs trolley buses. The amount of scheduled trolley service is right at the bottom of the seven systems, and Edmonton has typically operated less than half of this service with electric vehicles. The reasons are debateable (though Edmonton is the only system that has a huge disparity between "actual" and "scheduled" service), but the numbers are clear. Unfortunately, the effects this chronic underutilization has on costs has been completely ignored by those in charge.

But, that's a distraction from the original issue, which was the utilization of Edmonton Transit's fleet as a whole:

We're the world's most underutilized fleet. I thought you knew that.

Captain Tractor....Just out of curiousity how did you arrive at the above statement? What stats did you use and which other cities did you compare it to? Seems to me you would say anything negative against ETS because they are getting rid of your beloved trolleys. Very pathetic. And before James or anyone else jumps down my throat I will apologize if you can prove to me, with statistics, what you are saying is true...that ETS is the world's most underutilized fleet.

It's pretty clear that the Captain was exaggerating. I think that a better definition of 'pathetic' would be calling people childish nicknames on a message board. However, in Canada:

Chart 6, Fleet Utilization Comparison, 2005 shows that ETS has the lowest vehicle utilization based on service hours. Edmonton's utilization is 10% lower than Calgary, 20% lower than Winnipeg and 45% lower than Toronto.

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/doc...ranch_Audit.pdf

Unfortunately, the auditor doesn't seem to fully understand what exactly low utilization means, since his solution is to buy a bunch of articulated buses. Nonetheless, those are some statistics.

[captaintrolley]

Thank Modulator. I knew the doc. was somewhere and had something to do with a recent audit.

[captaintrolley]

I think Mr.Biglow (The old guy who likes to show up to TPW meetings) said it perfectly, "People think transit is there like a service that they want, but they'll never hope to use, like the Fire Department"

I luv Mr. Biglow. He's a very intelligent man. There's often a lot of truth to what he says.

They are unreliable and jerky.

Unreliable because of years of neglect and jerky because you obviously have not experienced a trolley ride driven by a professional trolley operator.

Captain Tractor....

Sorry, you got me mixed up with that BAH guy who claimed all of Edmonton's problems are due to high agricultural activity. (Darn Cows anyways) And then Dr. Chuckles with his brand new shiny tail pipe. Brilliant. Bloody Brilliant.

Seems to me you would say anything negative against ETS because they are getting rid of your beloved trolleys. Very pathetic.

Everything I've ever said about ETS (positive or negative) has been the truth. Accusing me of negative remarks based solely on recent developments is not only pathetic, it is also very narrow-minded.

And don't get me started on pathetic. I'll tell you what is pathetic, is the deliberate dismantling of a perfectly good trolley system that had great potential for growth and expansion.

[captaintrolley]

Actually Cap'n it's most underutilized fleet in Canada not the world, not that I'd want that exalted title on my resume...

Sorry, the most underutilized fleet in Canada, laughing stock of the world. Got it! Thanks Mike.

Also murder capital of Canada. (sorry, that's another audit)

Just out of curiosity, how would we stack up against the world?

I haven't heard of too many people praising ETS service. Some, but not many.

A friend of Vi's just came back from a holiday in the Ukraine and she couldn't get over the excellent transit service there. She was telling Vi all about it and she couldn't get the words out fast enough.

My friend Mike (from the pool) goes to Czechoslovakia every year (he has a property there) and same thing..."wow wee wowsers" he says, "what good transit service there". He hasn't taken a bus in Edmonton since the late 60's or early 70's. He says it failed to meet his needs. He lives in the west end and worked at NAIT. It's not like he was going to Nisku from St. Albert or anything wild like that. He's retired now.

A fellow on the Route 5 today said he was in Edmonton in 1979 and he thought the service was pretty decent. He left for a bit and returned this year. Out of the blue he turns to me and says "Bus service isn't very good here, is it?" He had this real serious look on his face too. I just replied that where car is king, public transit will always take a back seat.

You want to read the 'Letters to the Editor' on any given day. There is almost always at least one letter that starts off "Transit in this city is a joke..." These letters are not confined to the April 01st edition either.

[microbus]

ETS had excellent service back in 1979. That was before the bust of the early 80s, at which time schedules were tweaked so much that a driver couldn't even afford to wait a minute for connections because then connections would be missed a mile up the road.

1979 was when they still had 30-minute night service on most routes, before they cut back drastically on service after 2100. Think of the old 17, similar to today's 125, and the old 22 to Dovercourt and Westmount. Half-hour service at a minimum.

At night, people caught the buses, because the service was there. Then service gets cut back, so people start finding other ways of getting to their destinations, which the results in more cutbacks... etc etc.

Then in 1997, the dreaded Horizon 2000 kicks in. Things SEEM better, but after a few years there's more interlines again, and tweaking of schedules to the point of missing connections again. Think of the 40 series of routes in the Southgate area. They all had their schedules cut back a couple of years ago.

I remember the early 70s, I could get on a 5 out of downtown at 23:00 hrs, and get up to 124 st/111 ave, where there'd be a 22 waiting for connections from that 5. 5 pulls in, people get on 22 which then pulls out. Perfect! And out of downtown, the 5 would have a standing load, and was running 15-minute service. Oh, and the 5 was a trolley, go figure :angry: Yes, a reliable trolley, an old Brill lol. But then the trolley infrastructure was reliable then too, being maintained and repaired as needed, 24 hrs a day.

Horizon 2000, let's see.. the only good thing about that is the route 9. It made sense, going into Kingsway instead of using 101 st. I can list dozens of examples where it was a bad thing. One would be the old 11, from Belvedere to West Edmonton Mall. They break it up into the 127 and 150. Then what happens, the 127 pulls into Westmount just in time to see the 150's tail lights. Excellent connections, NOT.

And UWE, diesels can be jerky too, it all depends on the driver, and sometimes on the bus. Trolleys can be smooth, if one has a good driver. In my trolley days, I had numerous people comment to me that I was fast yet smooth. That was with Brills, Flyer trolleys, and yes, even BBCs. Same thing on the LRT, fast and smooth. Passengers like that. So maybe the training needs to be better. Instead of just teaching drivers how to drive, maybe they should add a week to the training course to teach drivers how to drive like professionals. Oh wait, that would cost a bit more money, just for customer satisfaction

Ok... /rant mode off

[dj.surf.lfs]

Also murder capital of Canada. (sorry, that's another audit)

Haha, I saw a dead people on the 102 Ave while I was there last year :angry: Not sure he was murdered or not, but a dead person is scary nevertheless.

I agree ETS service is a joke, you can't even get to Red Lobster by bus without freezing in the cold darkness for 30 minutes... (it's a personal story)

[captaintrolley]

maybe they should add a week to the training course to teach drivers how to drive like professionals.

Some never will become professionals, some have it in them already.

And those who are professionals, or have become so by sheer desire, don't deserve the brick wall that they are forced to bang their head up against. The poison has been in transit's blood for a long time. Many recent retiree's have left without fanfare because they are just too disgusted and happy to leave. It shouldn't be this way.

And before any one says, well, there are avenues of communication one can discuss problems. A driver I know with about 25 years seniority is told not to use the suggestion box anymore because then someone in management has to answer and be responsible (for their answer). He's also been told by his GS not to 'come knocking' on the door anymore. This is NOT an isolated incident. I can give hundreds of examples. Bottom line, why is morale in the toilet? It's naught to do with trolleys. There are LOTS of problems, everywhere. Like Ashton says, we need a big broom......

A broom will need to be employed diligently if they want anything feasible.

[Dawn West]

Hi All! This topic got me very interested. I moved here in 1994. My best friend was my neighbor who was also a bus driver. (Long story short, I went to his family's place after school until my aunt and uncle returned from work each day).

I remember him telling me about the 'past'. I've been doing some research and between that and what my room mate just showed me (~she helped me find this gem on the net~) I have this to offer.

Then in 1997, the dreaded Horizon 2000 kicks in. Things SEEM better, but after a few years there's more interlines again, and tweaking of schedules to the point of missing connections again.

There was this belief that there will be no more interlines and that ALL the connections all over the world will be made and everyone will live happily ever after. Driver calls control asking for so and so to wait and control says, "sorry, we don't have to do that anymore, the connections are supposed to work". So goes the first Monday of Horizon 2000. They soon find out that things are the worst they've ever been, and running boards have coils on them. Llew Lawrence was right.

Within a decade, bus operators will be walking out to their diesels carrying armloads of dash cards. Route brochures will be littered with fascinating footnotes. Special interest groups will be temporarily pleased, but operating costs will climb as buses roll through back lanes and driveways looking for passengers.

http://www.bettertransit.ab.ca/lawrence.htm

[MiCroh Five]

All the trolleys should have sat in storage or the junk yard because they were/are crap. They are unreliable and jerky. And if you want to compare trolley underutilization I believe Toronto's, Calgary's, Ottawa's etc. trolley utilization is zero...so ETS beats that easily.

However, I don't think that the trolley system was what is being discussed but the whole ETS system....is that not correct CaptainTrolley?

It's not the buses that are jerky...it's the operators who continue to "interlock stop" that are the problem.

I was on a 3 this morning and the driver is a pro. Everyday that he is driving, I am early for work and my ride is smooth as butter...accel and braking.

I am quite sure that the rookies that drive trolleys just aren't given the proper training both in quantity and quality to give passengers a smooth ride on a trolley.

Late.

[Uwe]

It's not the buses that are jerky...it's the operators who continue to "interlock stop" that are the problem.

I was on a 3 this morning and the driver is a pro. Everyday that he is driving, I am early for work and my ride is smooth as butter...accel and braking.

I am quite sure that the rookies that drive trolleys just aren't given the proper training both in quantity and quality to give passengers a smooth ride on a trolley.

Late.

I ride the 3 everyday and to be honest, this morning was pretty good. However, every other day has been horrific and its not just the rookie drivers but even the senior drivers.

I too have seen the internal rot really take over ETS especially in the past few years. We really need to bring back the likes of Bob Clark and Llew Lawrence, they were professionals

Some of my friends have been driving for decades and have noted the changes, and not for the positive either. The ONLY positive has been the new busses "comfort wise" but that is it.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out a happy workforce is a productive workforce, but when the morale is as bad/low as it is now, and I am not just talking about operators, things turn bad everywhere, the operators don't care about making timings, hell the current operators are no longer telling their kids to get into the business

Nope, when the leaders refuces to listen to the public, the operators and other cities because they know it all, well the end result is showings its head. Imagine, the only ridership increase that is forcast is due to increased population, not becuse of improved service, reduced headways, direct routing, transfers/connections that work, nope, they have basically admitted they have no plan.

I can only imagine what the turnover rate must be with such management attitudes right from the top down, the demeaning and desparaging comments, harrassment, intimidation etc. The turnover rate must be horrendous and not just in the drivers seats, seems to always be a lot of new faces in Scotia Place too.. We lead by example, some example, some leaders

Aren't you just the little ray of sunshine. I talk to the drivers everyday and I have yet to hear anything negative from them. The only consistent negativity I keep hearing is from the people on this discussion board. And why? ETS is getting rid of your beloved trolleys...oh boo hoo. If you know all the answers Mike then why don't you go forward to ETS management with them. I sure they would love to have your input to make ETS a wonderful place to work.