The Wikipedia entry makes for a fairly raw data set without a lot of context. The fact of the matter is is that Waterloo is looking to attract choice riders to the LRT; this data does not allow us to compare cities with various transit goals and commitments vis-a-vis their ridership. In other words, a list of populations and ridership numbers does not allow us to ensure that we are making apples-to-apples comparisons.<br>
<br> All of the cities listed are American, and America has in my experience a rather significantly different attitude to transit than Canadians have. Car-culture is different in the two countries, and I am not prepared to dismiss that as an irrelevant factor. People's personal expectations about what it means to drive or use transit will affect whether they choose to do so. For example, the author asks why we would expect a greater ridership than Seattle. Off the top of my head, having taken transit in Seattle, the city is laid out very differently and it would not be easy to make a significant number of origin-destination connections with a single line of rail as it is in Waterloo. They also didn't allow unfolded strollers on the bus; and while one might argue that parents with strollers are not going to make up the bulk of choice ridership, at the same time a transit system that is easy to use at different points in people's lives is going to retain and grow ridership better than one that isn't. If a student with a bike or mother with a stoller discovers that the GRT is fast, easy, and accommodating, it seems likely that that person will seriously consider continuing to use it when their needs change from occasional ridership to regular commuting.<br>
<br>Even more important than the potentially significant effects of cultural attitudes towards what it means to take transit is that there are also significant infrastructural factors. Waterloo Region has coordinated the LRT with a larger improved transit plan, and they have coordinated that transit plan with other elements of infrastructure and development planning to create a context in which the LRT links points of origin and destination for a lot of potential users. Population is not by any means the only factor from which the region has drawn its estimate, and comparisons between cities that have not made similar transit and development commitments are not worth considering.<br>
<br>The region's estimates were peer reviewed, which means that professionals have looked at these numbers with more than just a Wikipedia entry to use as comparison. This doesn't make them unquestionable, of course, but at the very least suggests that they aren't so outrageous that a cursory population comparison should completely discredit them. The author of the attached file suggests that there is no need even for a BRT, when the iXpress is already exceeding capacity several times a day. This suggests to me that the research conclusions in this pdf are not particularly accurate.<br>
<br>Carmen Nave<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/4/12 Sharon Woodley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:waterzooee@yahoo.com">waterzooee@yahoo.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font: inherit;" valign="top">Hope you can look at this short pdf on the proposed number of boarders for the LRT and what may be the real numbers as per other cities in North America.<div>
Sharon Woodley<br><br>--- On <b>Mon, 4/11/11, jean narveson <i><<a href="mailto:midnightediting@gmail.com" target="_blank">midnightediting@gmail.com</a>></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;">
<br>From: jean narveson <<a href="mailto:midnightediting@gmail.com" target="_blank">midnightediting@gmail.com</a>><br>Subject: oops: one correction<br>To: "moi" <<a href="mailto:midnightediting@gmail.com" target="_blank">midnightediting@gmail.com</a>><br>
Received: Monday, April 11, 2011, 8:19 AM<br><br><div>Dave noticed an important change that had to be made in his last sentence. It should read:<br><br><b>With less than half the boarders, the region's subsidy will be about $21.7M instead of the $3.8M forecast (see 'Connecting to the Future' Summer 2009).</b><br>
<br>Revised copy attached.<br>
</div></blockquote></div></td></tr></tbody></table><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>
All mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:All@gren.ca">All@gren.ca</a><br>
<a href="http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca" target="_blank">http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>