Opinion · Letters
You were too easy on the transit review
The Standard treated a service cut as a design problem when it is a decision about who counts, and readers out here noticed the difference.
Your piece on the transit review made the right argument about the metric and then stopped short of the obvious conclusion.
If a measure guarantees a result, the people who chose the measure chose the result. That is not a design flaw to be corrected in the next review. It is a decision, and it belongs to named councillors who voted for the terms of reference — in public, on a recorded vote, which I have gone and read.
I understand why you wrote it the way you did. It is easier to argue with a methodology than with a person, and the methodology does not write to complain. But the effect is to describe a choice as though it were weather.
Out here the 4:40 is how my daughter gets home from her shift. When it goes, the conversation about boardings per service hour will be over and she will still need to get home. Somebody chose that. Name them next time. You are usually willing to.
The Standard is funded by readers. No advertising from anyone the paper covers. Corrections policy.
