The document discusses the development and testing of the Coaxs tool, a collaborative accessibility-based engagement platform aimed at enhancing community participation in transportation planning in Santiago, Chile. It outlines research questions, objectives, and experiment design, demonstrating how the tool facilitates stakeholder engagement and improves understanding of project impacts. Results indicate that the tool effectively supports public discourse around transport issues and has potential for broader metropolitan engagement.

1. Testing Collaborative Accessibility-Based
Engagement Tools: Santiago de Chile Case
Cristián Navas Duk | 2017 Msc. Urban Studies and Planning Candidate
DUSP - MIT
Cambridge, MA | August 2017
1

2. Agenda
• Introduction: CoAXs tool and accessibility formulation
• Research Questions and Objectives
• Literature review: Engagement process and Metropolitanism
• Experiment design and tool development
• Results
• Conclusions and future research
2

3. CoAXs
• MIT Collaborative Accessibility-Based Stakeholder Engagement Tool  CoAXs.
• CoAXs focus on accessibility, or potential connectivity to opportunities
• Open-source, open data-based, web-based online platform.
• Display the performance of public transportation systems.
• Encourage the engagement of community and stakeholders groups in transport
(transit) planning process
3

4. How CoAXs looks like?
• Based on OSM
• Developed for PEDs and
Transit.
• GTFS
• Opportunity layers: Jobs
location.
4

5. CoAXs Accesibility
–Simple formulation, no need of demand modeling
–Relation between spatial information and transit service supply
D is the selected destination opportunity/activity type (e.g. jobs).
M is the mode of travel (e.g. auto, transit GTFS).
T is a time window for the trip (e.g. peak, off-peak).
C is the cutoff time if a binary cumulative opportunity measure
is used (e.g. maximum allowable journey time), see below.
qj(D) number of opportunities of type D in zone j,
Tij(M,T) is the typical time or generalized cost to travel from
zone i to zone j by mode M at time T.

6. CoAXs Accesibility
3. Accesibilidad desde modelos no tradicionales (continuación)
–C = 30 min
–T= AM
–D=Jobs
–M=transit
–ai=10 jobs
i
j

7. Research Questions and Objectives
• Research questions:
•How could Accessibility Based Visualization Tools (ABVT) be used
to improve current engagement processes and advance to a more
effective transportation planning?
•Could ABVT tools encourage wider metropolitan (rather than local)
discussions in a transport planning engagement process?
7

8. Research Questions and Objectives
• Objectives:
1. Explain transport planning engagement process and their particularities in
the context of Santiago de Chile.
2. Build a web CoAXs toolkit and design a simulated transit planning
engagement process for tool testing in Santiago de Chile.
3. Develop a simulated participatory experience in Santiago for two different
testing groups: Stakeholder and Decision Makers.
4. Analyze and evaluate the results of the testing experience.
5. Develop recommendations for new CoAXs testing experiences and further
research.
8

9. Literature Review
1. Engagement process in Transportation Planning (1/2)
– Poor public participation in Transportation Planning: Predict and Provide (PP) and
Decide, Announce and Defend (DAD) traditional approaches  Division between
Planning and Decision Making; increased gap with Transportation social aspects.
– Traditional approaches characteristics  project or solution oriented and Technical
language:  Non expert audience.
– Consequences Traditional approach: Public Mistrust, NIMBY, Lack of Project Buy-in,
and LACK of Collaboration across scales.
9

10. Literature Review
1. Engagement process in Transportation Planning (2/2)
– Santiago’s Case: Example of institutional competition and lack of integration across
scales (National, Region and Municipal). Example of poor public participation in
planning  traditional TP approaches.
– Data Visualization  Transport Planning has not leveraged Vis. Technology to
participatory process: mostly are focused on the planners and engineers tools. Vis.
tools still on PP or DAD approach (vis. Project oriented solutions)
10

11. Literature Review
2. Metropolitanism (1/2)
– Metropolitan Planning  could generate better Transportation Planning
• Better public transport services
• Better coordination for transportation policy
• Encouragement for sustainable urban development and mobility
– The Challenge  Public engagement process at Metropolitan Scale.
– The Opportunity  The use visualization tools. (CoAXs)
11

12. Experiment design and tool development
1. Experiment design (1/2)
• Objective: Recreate a real participatory experience in the Chilean Context
• Workshop design characteristics:
• Two testing groups: Decision Makers (DM) and Stakeholders(SH)
• 6-12 participants per workshop (20 total)
• 3 facilitators: Street Design, Demand Forecasting, Urban Development.
• 4 workshop staff: Data Collection, Technical Support, Room Set-up, Gral. Coord.
• Visualization device: 75 inches touchscreen
12

13. Experiment design and tool development
1. Experiment design (2/2)
• Workshop Activities
• Preparation and Introduction  Materials, COUHES, Intro and Pre-survey
• Basic Use and Coax Capabilities  CoAXs Atlanta
• CoAXs Testing  Stgo’s Base scenario, Stgo’s Base-project comparison
• CoAXs Evaluation  Post-survey and Debrief
• Data Collection
• Pre and Post Surveys
• Tool interactions and conversations records (Staff)
13

14. Experiment design and tool development
2. Tool Development (1/1)
• Tool features selection and new development
• Based on SA previous CoAXs versions
• Accessibility (isochrones)
• Fix project multi-Selection (CoAXs Atlanta)  Stgo’s Transit Projects selection
• New Opportunities: Jobs (total), Education (by ranking) and Health (by type)
14
Time
Frame
Operative
Year
Name Mode
Origin - Destination
(commune)
Characteristics: Operative
Information
Short
term
2018 Line 3 Subway La Reina - Quilicura
Frequency: 2 min. Am peak,
Travel time: 30 min, Long: 22
km
2018 Line 6 Subway Providencia - Cerrillos
Frequency: 2 min. Am peak,
Travel time: 20 min, Long: 15
km
2018
Tren "Nos-
Alameda"
Urban
Railway
Nos - Santiago
Frequency: 6 min. Am peak,
Speed: 58 km/h, Travel time: 24
min, Stations: 9
2018
New
Transantiago
Bus service N/A
Represent 20% of changes in
total network, 19 new bus
routes services, and 17
modifications
Mid Term
2022
Teleferico
Bicentenario
Elevated
cable car
Providencia - Huechuraba
Frequency: 6 sec. Am peak,
Max. Speed: 20 km/h, Travel
time: 15 min, Stations: 3
2022
Tranvia Las
Condes
Tram Lo Barnechea - Las Condes
Frequency: 4 min Am peak,
Speed: 27 km/h, Travel time: 20
min. Stations: 12
Long
Term
2025 Line 7 Subway Vitacura - Renca
Frequency: 2 minutes, Speed:
40 km/h, Stations: 20

15. Experiment design and tool development
15

16. Main Results
• Workshop’s General Results
• Enthusiastic participants, adequate testing environment, no technical
difficulties, adequate room and setup, no inconveniences.
• 6 DM and 9 SH participants, DM 40% desertion.
• Surveys: High level of responses, only few empty answers.
16Room setup, 602 [sqft] area
DM answering Pre-survey SH Testing base scenario

17. Main Results
• Survey results:
• Project impact results (pre-post analysis)
• Project learning results (pre-post analysis)
• Projects and accessibility measures for achieving goals (pre-
post analysis)
• General workshop experience and tool evaluation
• Quantitative results:
• Tool interactions
17

18. Survey Main Results
• Project impact results (pre-post analysis)
18
 DM and SH mostly change attitudes after using CoAXs (+ change).
 Stgo. Metro. Area and PT riders most + changes. Metro planning
 DM very positive, SH Positive and Neutral
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Pre Survey Post Survey
Preand PostSurveyComparison,AverageParticipants Results:
Howdo youthink the transportationprojects presentedwillimpact each of the
groups?
Yourself
Your neighborhood
Your commune
Santiago Metropolitan
area
Peoplewalking
Peoplebiking
Peopledriving
Peopleriding public
transport
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Pre Survey Post Survey
Preand PostSurvey Comparison, AverageParticipants Results:
How do youthink the transportationprojects presentedwillimpact each of the
groups?
Yourself
Your neighborhood
Your commune
Santiago Metropolitan
area
People walking
People biking
People driving
People riding public
transport
Decision Makers Stakeholders

19. Survey Main Results
• Project learning results (pre-post analysis)
19
 DM and SH mostly change attitudes after using CoAXs (+ change). DM ++ Change.
 Highest changes in describing project impacts.
 Debating differences between DM and SH, equal number of + changes (67%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Pre Survey Post Survey
Preand PostSurveyComparison,AverageParticipantsResults:
To what extent do youdisagree/agreewith the followingstatements?
I learned agreatdeal aboutthe
projects
I can describe the projects to a
friend or colegue.
I can describe the impactsof
the projectsto a friend or
colegue..
I have the knowledge to debate
confidently about this projects.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Pre Survey Post Survey
Preand PostSurveyComparison,AverageParticipants Results:
To what extent do youdisagree/agreewith the followingstatements?
I learned a greatdeal about
the projects
I can describe the projects
to a friend or colegue.
I can describe the impacts
of the projects to a friend
or colegue..
I have the knowledge to
debate confidently about
this projects.
Decision Makers Stakeholders

20. Survey Main results
• Projects and accessibility for achieving goals. (pre-post analysis)
20
 High agreement in pre-survey evaluation
 DM and SH predominantly no attitude change  Unexpected result
 Biased results: MIT Sponsorship, Survey design: no possible positive change (62 % & 56%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Pre Survey Post Survey
Pre and Post SurveyComparaison,AverageParticipantsResults:
To what extentdoyou disagree/agreewiththefollowingstatements?
Projects...effective at advancing important
transportation goals.
Projects …advancingothergoals such as
education,health,environment,etc.
Accessibility ... for better transportpublic
policy making
Accessibility ….encouragediscussion
abouttransportprojectimpacts
Decision Makers
0
1
2
3
4
5
Pre Survey Post Survey
Preand PostSurveyComparison,AverageParticipants Results:
To what extent do youdisagree/agreewith the followingstatements?
Projects...effective at advancing important
transportation goals.
Projects …advancingothergoals such as
education,health,environment,etc.
Accessibility ... for better transportpublic
policy making
Accessibility ….encouragediscussion
abouttransportprojectimpacts
Stakeholders

21. Survey Main Results
• General workshop experience (2.4 post survey question)
• Very positive responses among DM & SH
• Participants largely agreed about: open discussion, others interest in
diverse opinions, and support on groups recommendations (trust).
• Tool evaluation: Usability and usefulness
• Positive responses about usability and usefulness among DM & SH
• Participants agreed that CoAXs provide a useful environment for
collaborative work.
• Participants agreed that CoAXs would support the kinds of conversations
that the public needs to have about transport.
• Friendly, for training, brings confidence, help to understand how travels is
for others, etc. 21

22. Qualitative results
• Tool interactions
22
Variable Decision Makers Stakeholders
Total Participants 6 9
Total CoAXs Interactions 37 99
Total (potential) Interaction Time
[min]
84 59
Interactions per Participant 6.17 11.00
Interactions per Minute [n/min] 0.44 1.68
Workshop
Type of Interaction
Point Move Marker Click/Tap/Zoom
Decision Makers 13 13 11
Stakeholders 30 18 51
Workshop
Interaction Interface
Map Control Panel
Decision Makers 29 8
Stakeholders 79 20
• SH Group largely interact with the tool
• SH develop more advanced interactions
• MAP interaction was preferred (3/4)

23. Conclusions and future research
• Conclusions (1/2)
• Experiment results confirmed the utility of CoAXs for:
• Project impact understanding and project learning
• Contribution to a good workshop experience
• Provide a useful environment for collaborative work.
• Support the kinds of conversations that the public needs to have about
transport.
“All of this positive results triggered by the use of CoAXs, promise (potentially) to
improve the public engagement process, advancing through a more effective
transportation planning”
23

24. Conclusions and future research
• Conclusions (2/2)
• Metropolitanism and CoAXs:
• Experiment showed that this version of CoAXs is more likely to change
perceptions in high scales (Metro Areas).
• Comments during debrief activity corroborated that result.
24

25. Conclusions and future research
• Future research
• Metropolitanism and CoAXs.
• Develop new regional analysis feature for expanding the actual origin
point isochrone to areas (Coveyal’s regional analysis).
• Expanding the experiment for more confident results.
• Instead of developing special workshops for tool testing (having this first
promising results), new testing experiences should be recommended as
part of a real transportation planning process
• Chilean Context application: intermedium cities transport planning and
zoning municipal/metro planning studies
25

26. Thanks
26