@JaceDeloney we are investing in multiple corridors with MetroRapid, and given resources would do even more
-
@JMVC_ATX what do I do now?
@JaceDeloney point out specific disagreements you have with data/methodology that impacted subcorridor evaluation
-
-
@JMVC_ATX that's already underway. This ship has largely already sailed. My advice is to do East Riverside first. -
@JaceDeloney I disagree. Many many decisions to be made. Also, subcorridor decision not final yet - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
.
@JMVC_ATX@JaceDeloney 1) the use of meaningless "subcorridors" as the focus of analysis, rather than actual potential routes -
@ChrisBBradford fair point. Think that was a result of timeline, resources, but using this type of analysis not unusual.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
.
@JMVC_ATX@JaceDeloney 2) Calling them "subcorridors" (rather than "sectors" or "regions") to obscure their meaninglessness. -
@ChrisBBradford not sure the semantics made much of a difference. No intent to obfuscate - not our values
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
.
@JMVC_ATX@JaceDeloney 3) Redefining the core subcorridor to include WC to allow you to claim WC will be served by any route serving core. -
@ChrisBBradford that was not intent of including WC, desire to include campus in core, and many reasons to not separate WC & campus - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
.
@JMVC_ATX@JaceDeloney 4) The reliance on future projections rather than the facts on the ground today. -
@ChrisBBradford it was not either or. Existing conditions AND projections used in eval. Both important.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.