I know a lot of members on this board don't like to hear it - but more and cheaper transit doesn't always mean more profitable or affordable transit. Sometimes a level of service isn't affordable and cutting costs / increasing revenue is the sensible option.
So if the demand isn't there for a particular level of service - sometimes the level of service needs to be reduced. That obviously means less overall ridership - but it may mean a much more efficient system.
Increasing (or even maintaining) the absolute amount of ridership is not the only goal here.
I have no idea what the actual numbers in Guelph indicate - but cutting service where there isn't the expected demand makes a lot of sense in some situations.
So if the demand isn't there for a particular level of service - sometimes the level of service needs to be reduced. That obviously means less overall ridership - but it may mean a much more efficient system.
Increasing (or even maintaining) the absolute amount of ridership is not the only goal here.
I have no idea what the actual numbers in Guelph indicate - but cutting service where there isn't the expected demand makes a lot of sense in some situations.