Wait a moment Weekly... your graphic shows one program up ~1300 users, another up ~7600 users, and one down ~1000. So why the click-bait negative Nancy headline and alarmist lead paragraph?

I get it that swim numbers aren't the easiest things to get folks to click and read about ... Maybe your technique works, here I am after-all, and other folks with niche interest in swimming will likely respond to my comment or add their own pet-peeves... but it really erodes your credibility.

In fairness, most of the article is very neutrally written and informative. I am glad we have this info on how we are doing so cleanly from the City, and then passed on by the Weekly.

If you would take some input for future writing, I would say that it seems the massive increase in open swim usage is far and away the big change and story. Does anybody know the deal with that? Is it cheaper? Are the hours better or longer? Was this summer hotter?

In any case, I'm glad our pool is getting better use all in all!

^ Have the headline and lede been changed since the previous comment? I don't see any negativity, but I might have missed something since this is not a topic I follow.

Great job, Tim Sheeper! Keep up the good work. Gotta love that increase in pool usage.

FYI: most Masters workouts at other nearby facilities (Stanford, Alpine Hills, Menlo Park) are 60 minutes in duration