Comment 30248

By reader (anonymous) | Posted April 18, 2009 at 08:01:21

Okay, this was the 2nd time I read through the rapid transit report. All in all, the document could have been better written. Notably, there are a couple errors in the Executive Summary which lead the reader astray:

i) Options A and B stated in the Executive Summary are the REVERSE to what they are in the body of the report. For example, Option A stated in the Executive Summary is "retain one-way operation along Main and King" but in the body of the report Option A refers to the "two-way median reserved option". Similarly, Option B in the Executive Summary is described as "median two-way operation along King" but in the body of the report Option B refers to the "one-way reserved option." Confusing!

ii) No where in the Executive Summary is the preferred (recommended) option mentioned! The reader has to make his/her way all the way to page 10 to find the preferred option. Page 10 then says the preferred option is Option A (the two-way median reserved option). The preferred option should be clearly described in the Executive Summary.

I think the report needs to better clarify what is Option A and what is Option B, or better yet don't use those labels at all. Why not just call the options something more representative to what they stand for (e.g., Option "two-way along King" and Option "one-way along King & Main")

Also, the general readability of the report should be improved. I think most people will struggle in understanding it.

best!

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds