Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
West Campus

UT

This was the original “subcorridor” or
“sector” layout for these areas. Core
is already likely too big to...
West Campus

UT

However, you can serve most
important parts of all three zones
with a line that looks somewhat like
this:...
West Campus

UT

A quarter-mile (very conservative)
catchment radius might look like this
(more stations in reality); a ha...
West Campus

UT

According to a very indignant person
at Project Connect, though, “some
people” thought having these zones...
West Campus

UT

They claimed it might lead to the UT
zone not being served by, say, an East
Riverside alignment (conceptu...
West Campus

UT
So rather than pointing out that we
could easily make sure that the
minimum requirement for the initial
li...
Core (“Downtown”)

This was Project Connect’s “solution”.
One made based on a handful of
complaints without checking
wheth...
Core (“Downtown”)

Look! Now UT is “served” by that
problematic alignment from earlier!
(Pay no mind to the fact that it’s...
Core (“Downtown”)

Why would Project Connect do
something like this? Why would they
degrade the already insufficiently
gra...
Core (“Downtown”)

Here’s what their preferred route
looks like, conceptually, on the new
‘mega-core’ map. Looks like it s...
West Campus

UT

And here’s what that route would
look like with the initial subcorridor
definitions.

Core (“Downtown”)
West Campus

UT
San Jacinto is far too far away for
West Campus residents to want to
walk to it to ride it either downtown...
Core (“Downtown”)

Yet this is the map Project Connect is
choosing to evaluate with. I wonder
why that is?
Core (“Downtown”)

As Steven Yarak pointed out on
twitter (@syarak); this “Core”
definition is the same size as all of
Man...
Core (“Downtown”)

Such a curious planning choice is not
made by professionals such as these
in an attempt to educate or i...
Core (“Downtown”)

Had Project Connect taken their
mission seriously, they’d have not
made this change without seeking
pub...
Core (“Downtown”)

Technically, deniability can be
maintained by saying that they did
this in response to “many requests”.
Core (“Downtown”)

But it doesn’t get you off the hook
with the UAP (and now, me). You
knew what this change would do,
you...
Core (“Downtown”)
20131101coresubcorridorstalk
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

20131101coresubcorridorstalk

2,300 views

Published on

Demonstration of why it's dishonest to group UT and West Campus with "Core" in the Project Connect planning process

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

20131101coresubcorridorstalk

  1. 1. West Campus UT This was the original “subcorridor” or “sector” layout for these areas. Core is already likely too big to serve by any one line. Core (“Downtown”)
  2. 2. West Campus UT However, you can serve most important parts of all three zones with a line that looks somewhat like this: Core (“Downtown”)
  3. 3. West Campus UT A quarter-mile (very conservative) catchment radius might look like this (more stations in reality); a half-mile radius would catch almost everything of importance. Core (“Downtown”)
  4. 4. West Campus UT According to a very indignant person at Project Connect, though, “some people” thought having these zones separate was a bad thing... Core (“Downtown”)
  5. 5. West Campus UT They claimed it might lead to the UT zone not being served by, say, an East Riverside alignment (conceptual image below) Core (“Downtown”)
  6. 6. West Campus UT So rather than pointing out that we could easily make sure that the minimum requirement for the initial line was that it touch a set of required ‘subcorridors’ or sectors… here showing UT and Core as ‘required’; Core (“Downtown”)
  7. 7. Core (“Downtown”) This was Project Connect’s “solution”. One made based on a handful of complaints without checking whether the rest of the interested parties had any objections, mind you.
  8. 8. Core (“Downtown”) Look! Now UT is “served” by that problematic alignment from earlier! (Pay no mind to the fact that it’s 2 miles away from the terminus; it’s in the same subcorridor; so it’s “served”).
  9. 9. Core (“Downtown”) Why would Project Connect do something like this? Why would they degrade the already insufficiently granular analysis in this fashion? Their initial explanation was the last two slides. Anybody buying that?
  10. 10. Core (“Downtown”) Here’s what their preferred route looks like, conceptually, on the new ‘mega-core’ map. Looks like it serves big chunks of ‘Core’ now, huh?
  11. 11. West Campus UT And here’s what that route would look like with the initial subcorridor definitions. Core (“Downtown”)
  12. 12. West Campus UT San Jacinto is far too far away for West Campus residents to want to walk to it to ride it either downtown or to the hopping Mueller entertainment district. It’s fundamentally not being served at all by this alignment. Core (“Downtown”)
  13. 13. Core (“Downtown”) Yet this is the map Project Connect is choosing to evaluate with. I wonder why that is?
  14. 14. Core (“Downtown”) As Steven Yarak pointed out on twitter (@syarak); this “Core” definition is the same size as all of Manhattan south of 14th St.
  15. 15. Core (“Downtown”) Such a curious planning choice is not made by professionals such as these in an attempt to educate or inform.
  16. 16. Core (“Downtown”) Had Project Connect taken their mission seriously, they’d have not made this change without seeking public input from those who might disagree.
  17. 17. Core (“Downtown”) Technically, deniability can be maintained by saying that they did this in response to “many requests”.
  18. 18. Core (“Downtown”) But it doesn’t get you off the hook with the UAP (and now, me). You knew what this change would do, you knew it would serve as a dishonest promotion of your predesired route, and you did it anyways.
  19. 19. Core (“Downtown”)

×