Question

2. Take a position, either pro or con, on Christie's decision to kill the ARC. Develop arguments to support your point of view.

3. In your opinion, how clearly must a large infrastructure project like ARC have determined its need, costs, and so forth before being approved? If the criteria are too stringent, what is the implication for future projects of this type? Would any ever be built?

Answer 1

Take a position, either pro or con, on Christie’s decision to kill the ARC. Develop arguments to support your point of view.

I think the project should be killed also. With the recession effects, the project would have never been funded. If costs were to overrun under the state’s condition, then all problems and delays would be placed on the pockets of the taxpayers. This inflation would lead to breakdown of the state.

In your opinion, how clearly must a large infrastructure project like ARC have determined its need, costs, and so forth before being approved? If the criteria are too stringent, what is the implication for future projects of this type? Would any ever be built?

I think that the project managers should have stated and been prepared what was needed instead of relying on the taxpayers to try to fund the project. Extra planning wouldn’t have hurt.More funding and less raising taxes, then everything would have been okay.If it wasn’t for recession effects, this type of project would have been productive. If the project was started years sooner that would have helped with the situation too. Timing is everything in life and with the right time I think that the project could prosper and that’s if everything is well with funding. Some projects would be built upon the correct circumstances.