Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger
I'm not questioning the benefits listed just the values. $1.7 billion (?) for time saved? How did they determine that value? More than likely they overvalued what the average earns and how many people will use the system.
|
That's a pretty common benefit to quantify and I would guess one of/the biggest benefits of any transportation project. If it wasn't, then there would be no way to justify any road expansion project. I don't see how either one of us can question that time saved value just by looking at it in isolation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolworm
This CBA grossly undersells the benefits of the Green line. For instance, what is the value of the stimulus generated by construction activities? What is the anticipated rise in property value and TOD? What is the valuation of the infrastructure at Year 30? No consideration is given to any of these factors, much less any attempt to quantify them.
|
Agreed, though I'm not sure that much benefit can be assumed for a rise in property values except for additional value that the entire city gains. 30 years might be too short a time frame too - are the existing LRTs built before 1990 now scrap providing no value?
That whole steer consultation document is shockingly amateur. If you bring in external people to review a project you'd assume it would come with criticism but instead it's page after page of gushing about how great the project is. That is beyond credulity, there is no way this project is literally perfect. And their own figures say it is as good an investment as throwing $2 billion in the trash! Either that number is to be believed, and the Green Line should be scrapped or reconsidered, or the number is bogus and the whole report is not worth the paper it was written on.
I want to support this project, but god this city makes it hard to do so. Now we have this propaganda piece it's seen as "evidence" by the unquestioning supporters of how great the Green Line is, despite the actual numbers it gives saying the opposite.