I haven't posted on this since Friday because I was trying to avoid overkill and the pile-on that was developing. But reading Dave Andreatta's story in the Post this morning about the NYC bus route changes brought up a point that probably got lost last week:

What is the problem that the city is trying to solve here with these bus route changes?

The mayor has held firm that the problem related to paying too much money for buses that were half full, and that some rejiggering of the routes would be fiscally prudent. (In this case, bad guy = inefficient bus routes.) Makes sense to me, especially at a time when you need to show that BILLIONS of new cash from the state will be put to good use.

But if that is really the case, why have we shifted the rationale for the bus changes to making sure no child rides a bus who doesn't qualify for bus service? Seems like there could be justification for this, but isn't that a slightly different problem than inefficient bus routes that create empty buses? (In this case, bad guy = parents who sought and received bus transportation for their kids that we decide in January we no longer want to provide.)

The shifting of the rationale seemed to take place only after parents started complaining about the bungling of the process. Was this the rationale all along, or was it just a reactionary/defensive shift from people who suddenly found themselves under fire? Does it even matter who the bad guy is here? Part of me thinks it does, though I'm open to the idea that the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Giving the boot to kids who shouldn't be on the buses would seem to make the task of eliminating half-empty buses easier.

I just wonder which problem we're looking at: buses that have too many kids or buses that have too few kids.

I'm getting dizzy.