(11-09-2015, 03:35 PM)MidTowner Wrote:(11-09-2015, 03:18 PM)SammyOES Wrote: Increasing (or even maintaining) the absolute amount of ridership is not the only goal here.
I don't think it's even among the goals in this case.
Agreed. I should have said "shouldn't be the only goal".
(11-09-2015, 03:35 PM)MidTowner Wrote: They're not discussing cutting service on some routes because the demand doesn't exist; staff are proposing a broad cut to service based on a requirement by council not to increase the transit levy. And, at the same time, increasing fares for the same reason.
It's a little from column A and a little from column B. The cuts are motivated by an unreasonable requirement from council. But the cuts they're proposing are also ones that are aimed at making transit more cost efficient.
(11-09-2015, 03:35 PM)MidTowner Wrote: No other mode of transportation besides transit is treated like this. You don't have city staff coming and saying "okay, to keep to your desired 1.58% tax increase, we need to cut the subsidy to roads, and increase congestion charges."
I'm not saying transit should be free to the user. But to refuse to increase the tax subsidy to transit while other costs are going up is unrealistic. And the goal (among others) is ridership while being financially sustainable: increasing fares while broadly decreasing service does not serve either goal.
What are the numbers on the comparative subsidies? My guess would be that other forms of transit are not being subsidized as much as buses on a per-user basis. (And even if true - that might be ok because public transit is 'better' in many different senses).