PUBLIC COMMENT
The Center for Neighborhood Technology
www.cnt.org
August 2003
This review will be more easily understood as annotated comments on problem areas in the 2030 RTP.* The 2030 RTP was considered from the point of view of public
comment during 2001 and 2002, particularly the comment found in
Changing Direction: Transportation Choices for 2030.**
The mismatch between this plan and the public's priorities is evident in CATS' own documentation.
December 2002 Shared Path Reporter: "Residents said they wanted more public transportation choices (particularly between suburbs), safe options for
bicyclists, pedestrians and the disabled, and to maintain and expand the transportation system."
CATS Powerpoint Presentation for July 17, 2002 public meeting: "Common Themes Heard Around the Region (referring to NIPC, CNT and CM2020 results)
* Available at
http://www.sp2030.com/CommentSite/index.html
.
**Available at
http://www.cnt.org/tsp/trans/ctaqc/cc/theplan.htm
The chart below offers specific page references and quotes from the Regional Transportation Plan and commentary on why each quote is relevant or problematic.
Page Quote
Comment
2
Perhaps most of all, Shared Path 2030 benefited from the
direct involvement of many residents of the region. Making
long-range planning interesting and relevant to someone who
simply wants to "get there" is a challenge. In addition to two
sets of traditional community meetings, Shared Path 2030
included focused outreach among community leaders in
minority and low-income neighborhoods, an expanded
presence on the World Wide Web and a direct telephone
hotline. Production of two widely aired videos describing the
transportation planning process and the RTP
recommendations resulted in several hundred residents taking
the time to register their opinions regarding the region's
transportation future. Each comment received was made
available to all Shared Path 2030 participants.
CATS spent $1.4 million on public involvement in fiscal
year 2003, with little to show for it. Comment from the
April-May 2003 public meetings was not analyzed.
CNT conducted a preliminary analysis
Analysis of Public Comments\comment analysis june
03.doc
because the Regional Transportation
Committee said that: 1) they would each read all 585
comments; 2) there were not enough comments to be
significant in spite of the public involvement dollars
invested; and 3) subjective impressions of the data
were preferable to analysis that computed the relative
weight of different priorities.
·
More public transit service
·
Integrate public transit systems
·
Better linkages between transportation and land
use
·
More bike and pedestrian options
·
Maintain and expand existing system
·
Improve existing roads and intersections
·
Better service for seniors and people with disabilities
·
Improve freight capacity"
