Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan83
I think that bombshell was a dud. While the report did contain some valuable information, most notably the huge time savings the SETWAY offers, the overall ranking system was utter nonsense, imo. It was so bad and illogical that I’m sure most people dismissed it almost as soon as they saw it. What the details of that report showed, otoh, were that the SETWAY should be one of our top priorities
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili
It is hard sometimes for people to devolve themselves from their particular interests and see the broader picture. Of course Keating is going to support the SE LRT, and of course Macleod is going to support the NC LRT. The question is what the others will view as the most prudent use of money. Let's be honest, the SE LRT is very expensive, serves a small population far away from downtown and has to travel through areas with very little density. The transit report is pretty close to an objective assessment of costs and benefits.
|
While objectively comparing capital projects is a worthy goal, this study came short of delivering (as did routeahead, but that's another rant). Explicit methodology could have justified the numbers, but it was omitted. Lack of explanation in a novel ordinal ranking system is a cardinal sin! Pun intended. No offense, but why not have somebody who understands statistics create this kind of study. It looks and smells like science, but it offers fewer challengable conclusions than a TED talk. I'm not saying the outcome of the study is incorrect; I'm saying it is impossible to tell from what was shown, and as a result this "objective study" comes across as a breath short of biased propaganda, consciously or otherwise.
Calgary Transit and RouteAhead, if you are reading this, I will happily proofread your future studies before they go public. Transparency is impossible with McStudies like this one.
Threaded Mode