Nobody, do you know where one can find the contract Alta signed with the city? It should be publicly available. Does one have to go to city hall, or file a freedom of info request?
It sounds like a lot has changed since 2009. In 2009...
(concerning this point)
-All financing was to be done privately. Not a single dollar in public money. In fact, the city was to charge the operator for lost revenue at parking meters used for stations.
Today, all the financing apparently is public (fed bucks which the MBTA applied for)
-All liability was to be on the operator
-Apparently, today thats not the case
-All operations, marketing, station location choices etc would be made by the operator
-Apparently, that is not the case
In 2009, all that the cities would do is approve/permit locations. Thats it.
Why did that change? Why was the 2010 RFP so radically different from what was proposed in 2009?
From a resident of the city's perspective, it seems like the 2010 RFP is a big downgrade because clearly things are working much slower than they would have had the 2009 RFP been used. We should be looking at 160 stations right now, not 57 "sometime soon"
And from what you say, it's also not good for Alta because they dont get to make any decisions.
So why did Alta jump in and take the 2010 RFP instead?
Was it just because it would be less work? Alta hasn't had to do any outreach or advocacy stuff, like running campaigns directed at motorists.
It sounds like a lot has changed since 2009. In 2009...
(concerning this point)
Jass __ MAPC Can not sign anything which has financial obligations of tax payers -- I t has no money of its own -- it has no legal existence -- it is strictly advisory and consultative
-All financing was to be done privately. Not a single dollar in public money. In fact, the city was to charge the operator for lost revenue at parking meters used for stations.
Today, all the financing apparently is public (fed bucks which the MBTA applied for)
-All liability was to be on the operator
-Apparently, today thats not the case
-All operations, marketing, station location choices etc would be made by the operator
-Apparently, that is not the case
In 2009, all that the cities would do is approve/permit locations. Thats it.
Why did that change? Why was the 2010 RFP so radically different from what was proposed in 2009?
From a resident of the city's perspective, it seems like the 2010 RFP is a big downgrade because clearly things are working much slower than they would have had the 2009 RFP been used. We should be looking at 160 stations right now, not 57 "sometime soon"
And from what you say, it's also not good for Alta because they dont get to make any decisions.
So why did Alta jump in and take the 2010 RFP instead?
Was it just because it would be less work? Alta hasn't had to do any outreach or advocacy stuff, like running campaigns directed at motorists.