Going places Voting Results

Voting Results and Analysis Board of Directors July 7, 2011

How People Voted
Three ways to vote:
At the Open Houses – October and November, 2010
Online – Between November, 2010, and April, 2011
Via mail survey – April, 2011
Other input
Phone survey – February through March, 2011

Voting Results

Open House Voting – 84 Votes

Online Voting – 535 Votes

Mail Survey – 607 Votes

Total Votes – 1,226 Votes

Voting Analysis

Asset-Based Development – 273 Votes
People chose the Asset-Based Development scenario because…
They liked the positive notion of building on the Region’s existing assets
They liked the results of the performance indicator analysis
Below-average score for traffic congestion
Above-average score for open space accessibility
They saw the potential for increased accessibility to parks and jobs, resulting in decreased commute times
They saw the potential for increasing the number of jobs in the Region
They like the concentration of new development in areas with existing infrastructure
They liked the potential for open space preservation

Infill/Conservation Development – 362 Votes
People chose the Infill/Conservation Development scenario because…
They liked the emphasis on redevelopment
They liked the emphasis on the preservation of open space – particularly the preservation of agricultural land
They liked that some of the highest concentrations of new population and jobs would be centered on the City of Dayton
They saw the concentration of development efforts in areas with existing infrastructure as more cost-effective
They saw the potential for increased public transit options
They liked the increase in accessibility – especially to parks and employment centers
They liked the results of the performance indicator analysis

Mixed-Themes Development – 365 Votes
People chose the Mixed-Themes Development scenario because…
They liked having an option that mixed aspects from several different scenarios
They wanted to see more preservation of open space – particularly agricultural land
They saw an increased potential for the redevelopment of already developed and underused areas
They liked the scenario’s future development pattern – which spreads concentrations of people and jobs throughout the Region and mainly along major transportation corridors
They saw the potential for an increase in alternative transportation methods
They saw the concentration of development efforts in areas with existing infrastructure as more cost-effective

http://www.mvrpc.org	543
http://mvrpc.org	34
http://mvrpc.org.s96236.gridserver.com	2

Going places Voting Results

by MVRPC on Jul 14, 2011

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

3 Embeds 579

Statistics

Going places Voting Results — Presentation Transcript