I’d generally hold off on even commenting before I’ve read the analysis, myself, but something about the Times’ analysis here seems off - some context is missing (for example, part of the original budget being increased to cover contingencies or increase the scope of work to be completed isn’t really an overrun, and continuing to measure % increases from the old baseline rather than the current baseline seems a bit inconsistent). That is to say, I don’t think this new information even supports what Vartabedian breathlessly continues to say - moving goalposts in the process.
Anyways, it’s been clear the decision to award the first 1-2 construction packages before they had acquired all the necessary parcels to begin construction - and anticipating they could meet an aggressive schedule in doing so - was the main issue. The authority was always rather transparent on that front and managed to dramatically improve the schedul; although, the fact that they are still behind lay with the original mistake, not the corrective measures.
The cost estimates (tentatively projecting overruns, and warning adequate mitigation be taken) have been trending down - again, clearer analysis from the article would be helpful in figuring out by how much - as have actual estimates/bids for CPs.
But if Chicken Little is what you’re after, Ralph is certainly your guy.
__________________
"I'm not an armchair urbanist; not yet a licensed planner"
MCRP '16
Last edited by phoenixboi08; Jan 17, 2018 at 11:57 AM.
|