Quote:
Originally Posted by Spr0ckets
I understand when transit planners sell or propose projects like this to city and government officials by low-balling their projections and exceptions, in the hopes of keeping costs low -- with the reasoning being that if they ask for what is perceived as "too much" ....now and they get it, and then can't show "enough" results for what they get, or worse are seen to have been wasteful with what they got, then the next time they go to ask for money when they really need it, they likely won't get any or as much as they really need.
I get that part of (what likely happened here), and in all likelihood which also explains a large part of why Vancouverites and tax-payers were unwilling to give them more money during the plebiscite a few years back. Because they (Translink) had already earned the reputation of being wasteful with money in the public eye. (rumours of $400-500K Translink CEO and Executives salaries, and $100K Translink Security officials take-home pay will tend to do that to you)
But in this case, aside from the explanation that they did not seem to have been aware of how quickly the city was growing being rather implausible and highly questionable to me, this is one situation where you only stand to hurt yourself in the long run and in the future by low-balling figures and costs now, building below expected and projected capacity, and then going back to ask for more in the future when it inevitably turns out that you didn't do a proper job to begin with, and now need to finish the job at an even greater cost.
|
Pretty much. It's an exercise in CYA. If the planner estimates future capacity requirements and they're wrong, up or down, they're going to get blamed for it. If they show data of existing usage as collected over the previous years and spec the project to that, they deflect the decision and the blame.
"I designed the system to meet capacity needs as supported by the data. You aren't honestly suggesting that I was supposed to accurately predict the future?"
It's a great cop out that works across industries. Keep your head down and keep your job.
Regarding total system efficiency, pulling more riders on to the train by running it all the way to UBC means bigger crowds on that transit line on day one and continuing. More train sets required, other costs, etc. And bigger delays for the riders headed further east on the Millennium Line. The marginal improvement for riders shifting to the train from other routes is outweighed by the costs and delays introduced for other riders who don't have a better performing option. The general concept is portrayed in the movie "Good Will Hunting" where we collaboration outperforms competition in some cases. (Sorry I can't be bothered to find a real reference right now.) Since we can't rely on individuals to elect for societal needs over their own, we attempt to design infrastructure to support societal interests.
Of course, the factors in that equation have shifted with population growth and shifting mode share.
Prev
Linear Mode
