They see 'nothing' in the body of the document.
Well they just see what they want to see apparently.
I posted in the comments section of that post to my pal MAX on this topic but there are two key passages:
And off page 57 I give you this:
General Fund capital costs in 2011dollars range from $13 million for a tap on only system to $20 million for tap on/tap off system. These costs do not include upgrading TVMs for e-fare sales.
TriMet cannot afford the system without offsetting cost savings.
6 comments:
Right, it's a plan with an estimate for what it would cost to implement the plan. Portland has a bike plan that calls for ~$500M in expenditures, of which basically zero it has basically zero commitment for funding.
The CRC also has an estimate for its cost, again, but the commitment to follow the plan is not part of the plan.
PMLR also has plans like this -- plans like this are a dime a dozen.
Where the rubber hits the road is when you see it in a budget, agreements are signed, people in power (board, GM) authorize expenditures, commitments are made, etc. That's not in the white paper - because the white paper is not an agreement, it's just a "what if" exploration.
I think TriMet will get there someday, but the commitment is not in the white paper; the commitment comes when the GM signs a contract.
Maybe you should go ask someone like Michael Anderson what he thinks about this. I suspect he'll tell you the same thing that I am -- this is hardly a smoking gun. TriMet isn't agreeing to do anything in the white paper.
You guys just aren't seeing what I am seeing then.
I see a direct link.
Furthermore MAX how do we know what shenanigans the trimet executives are up to?
Even though there is no 'contract' as you say this could be the hidden agenda behind the fare increases while using the union as a scapegoat.
You know these SOB's are capable of running a game like that after their phony 'contingency' bullshit
I agree with you that they have shown (through the raise fiasco; or Joe Roe's investigation into fatigue, or lack of desire to open nego to the public) to be dishonest.
I think the contingency was setup to deal with a union win from the arbitrator, but yes - as you saw they snuck in some other crap in there. Given that the union lost, it's probably a worthwhile to keep a close eye on where the hell that money goes -- because you're right, it's going to end up disappearing!
Given that the union lost, it's probably a worthwhile to keep a close eye on where the hell that money goes -- because you're right, it's going to end up disappearing!
~~~>And there we go, we actually agree!
Post a Comment