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.

RV 2014: Urban Circulator Roundtable: Shaping Cities one Challenge at a Time

351 views

Published on

Urban Circulator Roundtable: Shaping Cities One Challenge at a Time AICP CM 1.5
An urban circulator roundtable? How appropriate! Hear speakers from around the country -- Austin; Atlanta; Minneapolis-St. Paul; Portland-- experienced in different disciplines of urban circulator implementation. Start with short presentations from each unique perspective, then focus on the challenges and issues associated with implementation -- outreach, financing, traffic, etc. -- and how each organization overcame these challenges.

Moderator: Neil McFarlane, General Manager, TriMet, Portland, Oregon
Paul Zebell, Project Manager, Bureau of Transportation, City of Portland, Oregon
April Manlapaz, Transit Project Manager, AECOM, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Derek Benedict, PE, Transportation Engineer, URS Corporation, Austin, Texas
D.J. Baxter, Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City, Utah
Jim Erkel, Attorney & Program Director, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, St. Paul, Minnesota
Lisa Gordon, Chief Operating Officer, Atlanta Beltline, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia

Published in: Services
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

RV 2014: Urban Circulator Roundtable: Shaping Cities one Challenge at a Time

  1. 1. Urban Circulator Roundtable: Shaping Cities One Challenge at a Time Project Connect Central Corridor – Clarifying the “Problem” in Austin, Texas Derek Benedict, PE URS Transit & Railroads Austin, Texas
  2. 2. •Regional High- Capacity System Plan •Includes local and regional rail and other HOV services •Established priorities •Central Corridor Study
  3. 3. •4 “C”s, “G”, and “S” –Congestion –Core –Constraints –Centers –Growth –System (added for the Central Corridor)
  4. 4. •Study area (Central Austin) divided into 10 “sub- corridors” •About 60 different data sets were used to represent the problem statements (4 Cs, G, and S) •An interval-scoring and ranking tool was developed
  5. 5. “Poor – Fair – Good – Best” Harvey Balls …Good for more discrete comparison of better-defined corridors
  6. 6. Lamar Highland Mueller ERC 3 2 4 1 52 61 51 70 Congestion 1 3 5 3 6 Congest ion Index 2 5 22 20 25 Travel Demand Index 5 38 55 29 60 Constraints & Growth 4 18 23 19 19 Growth Index 4 36 55 38 56 Const raint Index 2 32 33 33 16 Core 2 2 6 9 8 Af fordability Index 3 10 17 27 25 Econ Development Index 2 7 25 40 33 Centers 3 8 8 7 10 Centers Index 4 20 24 25 40 Consistency with Plans 1 20 16 12 12 System 5 21 19 12 27 Future Ridership Potent ial 5 19 21 8 29 Current Ridership Potent ial 3 18 10 4 16 Connect ivity Index 5 15 13 16 22 Transit Demand Index 4 11 12 9 15 Weight ing/ Importance Problem Criteria - Allowed the use of many different sets of data - Allowed sensitivity testing - Allowed for simple prioritization of corridors/future corridors - Allowed clear defense of the methodology - Allowed for the development of an interactive tool for public involvement
  7. 7. –There were some surprises, but the results elegantly reflected the Project Connect problem statements and the priorities of advisory group stakeholders –Sensitivity & scenario testing –Some critics felt the method was a “black box” or too complicated in general –On the other hand, the tool was flexible, efficient, and a good platform for interactive public involvement
  8. 8. -The recommended “sub-corridors” were advanced and a locally preferred alternative developed. -Bond referendum this November

×