Would this not be fairly straightforward to simulate? I see statements like: "and, it seemed, travelling more efficiently and safely as a result." and "His rep

Would this not be fairly straightforward to simulate? I see statements like: "and, it seemed, travelling more efficiently and safely as a result." and "His report prompted Harrison and her colleagues to wonder..." and think... they're guessing? They're going right to disrupting normal travel patterns of many people for a trial on nothing more than a hunch? Why not prove to a reasonable degree that this would actually work beyond the anecdotal feelings of a few employees before inflicting such a change on the public? Seems like they are just shifting the cost for finding out from themselves to the disrupted travellers. Even if over longer periods of time this proves more efficient, disrupting normal patterns for regular commuters will cause a lot of stress and disorientation; such stress may be a soft cost, but most commutes already suck. I guess when you're a government agency, it's hard to fail your customers in a way that matters to you.