Difference between revisions of "Infrastructure assessment"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Sbergstein (talk | contribs) |
Sbergstein (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
==Strategies== | ==Strategies== | ||
=== Improve modeling === | === Improve modeling === | ||
− | + | Adjust forecast year | |
=== Improve cost estimation === | === Improve cost estimation === | ||
− | + | Conduct extensive engineering studies before deciding on alternative | |
− | + | Reach out to stakeholders | |
− | + | Use historical cost estimates as comparison | |
− | + | Consistently measure across projects | |
=== Contain project cost === | === Contain project cost === | ||
− | + | Clearly define scope and schedule | |
− | + | Increase cost estimate transparency |
Revision as of 23:33, 13 February 2012
Introduction
Agencies tend to select projects that, once constructed, do not generate ridership levels that warrant their construction. In short, many project projects are overbuilt and a less costly alternative would satisfy the project need.
A variety of political, financial, and accounting incentives support the construction of projects whose capacities far exceed demand, including:
- Overestimated ridership from forecast modeling inputs that do not correspond with actual travel behavior
- Unanticipated construction costs
- Preference for large, splashy projects
- No incentive to manage project costs because others are footing the bill
Strategies
Improve modeling
Adjust forecast year
Improve cost estimation
Conduct extensive engineering studies before deciding on alternative Reach out to stakeholders Use historical cost estimates as comparison Consistently measure across projects
Contain project cost
Clearly define scope and schedule Increase cost estimate transparency