Funny Math

York Region Transit made a second presentation to Council on Tuesday night. It had been done the previous week and repeated because it was thought to be of sufficient interest to capture viewers' attention on Aurora Cable . We failed to complete the Town's business on either night but we listened to the Transit presentation twice , asked the same questions and made the same observations.

The average return from the fare box is 40 cents on the dollar. Transit is planning to terminate a route that travels down Industrial Parkway in Aurora four hours in the morning and three in the afternoon. It carries an average of four passengers an hour and loses ninety-two cents in the dollar. For every eight cents recovered from the fare box, taxpayers pay ninety-two cents

An average of four riders an hour means twenty-eight fares in seven hours. That could mean a total of fourteen people using the bus to get to get to and from work.

Councillor Gaertner led the argument not to terminate the route. Chamber of Commerce support was solicited for that position. On Tuesday. a presentation was made by the Chamber. Industry people had been contacted and they want the route to continue. They were not informed of ridership or losses incurred by the service.

The business community is often consulted about public policy at all levels of government.I personally would be interested in knowing how many could survive while losing ninety-two cents of every dollar spent to manufacture their product or provide their service. What does it say in general about business acumen?

Council was assured by Transit, the comments would be considered when the decision has to be made. I offered mine that the route should be terminated.

I do not use the bus service. Users obviously appreciate the amenity. Ridership is lower in Aurora than other municipalities. People notice empty buses trundling round the streets, especially in the evening. They are obviously incurring a deficit, and equally obviously contributing to pollution. These are not positive attributes.

But neither are a concern to some councillors.

In total contradiction. on Tuesday evening , we had a repeat of another argument . A small subdivision of sixty- one homes is proposed on a property bound by Bayview Avenue , Vandorf Sideroad and the Hydro corridor. It is a cul-de- sac with an entrance from Bayview.

The plan was first proposed in 2001. It eventually had a public planning hearing in 2006. That laborious process was repeated again under direction from council a couple of months ago. Each time, there has been a recommendation for a park in the staff report. Each time it has been challenged. Councillor Gaertner and Councillor MacEachern argue taxpayers cannot afford the burden of maintaining a park for so few families.

On the same evening they argued taxpayers should continue to carry the burden of a bus route that loses ninety-two cents on the dollar for a ridership of fourteen return trips over a period of seven hours a day , they also argued a neighbourhood of sixty-one families should be denied the amenity of a park. because the tax burden is too great. Other councillors appear to agree.

So we muddle along. We take two steps forward and three backward. We pour millions of dollars into planning for rational decision-making which is regularly sabotaged at the political level for reasons that defy logic but sound good as notes from a trumpet.