Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Can you point me to these studies? The city is quite a bit better at transparency than the Unsane Clown Posse, so they aren't so hard to find.
It's been studied a fair bit (with different conclusions each time), but ultimately the decision was made based on a public engagement process in 2016 that didn't really address the cost issue beyond a vague bullet point or two, and it's quite apparent that the specific costing data used by councillors was wildly inaccurate (understandably for the most part considering how the mega project world has evolved the last decade). It'll also be a long rant that I've probably made too many times before, but pretty much each piece of the reasoning to justify the decision has also proven false (but wind me up a bit and I'll probably spout it all off).
The initial decision in 2017 was absolutely fine based on the data at the time. The problem is that there has been no appetite to revisit these most crucial elements in the face of evolving evidence. And this is again understandable because it would be unpopular and nobody would want to own that change. But it's also proven to be an existential issue, and now we all get to suffer.
|
We'd be further ahead if the UCP had paid you the $2.5M instead of AECOM.