Grand River Transit

[zanate]

People who depend on public transit should move to places where it is provided. Students do this all the time. No one is entitled to a symphony hall within 450m, suggesting that a similar entitlement exist for public transit is madness.

I cannot take that comparison seriously. That's not even apples and oranges.

You're also talking about public transit as entitlement, and I think you've missed the point. Coverage standards like ours exist because as a society we've accepted that public transit provides a social service. You can argue that it should seek to maximize ridership and efficiency and impact, and I'd agree with you-- up until the point someone suggests that goal is the only goal.

When someone of limited means or mobility is going to have their life completely disrupted by the removal of their main transportation link, they have a right to have their complaint heard. It doesn't mean that we can't change anything, or keep every vestigial route. But ridership is not the only goal.

This Streetsblog piece covers the question of whether a transit service should seek a ridership goal or a coverage goal. The answer is not one or the other, nor is it the same for every transit service. It's how much should go to each goal.

My opinion? If someone is arguing to strip suburban service to add a couple more buses into the central corridor, I'm going to object. One, you need to ask why that suburban service exists. Two, it's a proverbial drop in the bucket-- low frequency routes don't add up to a whole lot of service hours compared to doubling up the 7. And three, we should push for the high-ridership routes to get the funding and capacity they need to function, without scavenging it from the rest of the system.