Here is where we probably disagree. It's the response to question 5
Quote:
Because work had progressed on route planning, budget, and BRT network years prior to the funding announcement (as described in questions 1, 2, and 3)
there initially weren’t any decisions open for public input, as alignment, placement of stations and infrastructure were determined by transit needs, budget and technical feasibility. For this reason, information sessions served to inform the public rather than to seek input (or engage). Feedback forms were available at both information sessions and the project team reviewed all comments and considered all questions and ideas presented. Similarly, in meetings with community members, commercial and institutional stakeholders, the project team sought to primarily inform rather than to engage. All questions and ideas presented were considered. The exception to this level of engagement on the Southwest BRT project was with stakeholders whose property would be directly impacted by the project, such as Rockyview General Hospital or Heritage Park.
|
The purpose is to inform the public what you are doing, listen to the comments and questions to ensure none of your assumptions were wrong, then build it. The public doesn't get to design the thing.
The public also misses that the high level plans are when it is appropriate to have the input. Iniatives like plan it and route ahead are when questions like is this necessary are decided. Once the detailed project start the question of is this needed as long been answered.