With the short notice and revision in form, it's hard to be too critical of the survey. It may not be completely thought-through as purely an online survey and may suffer from being more of an awkward translation of materials designed for an in-person forum.
Still, the thing is a little strange.
|The only time "resiliency" appears, it's in an autoist context|
Later, on some questions about roads, it starts from the position that more auto capacity is necessary and an obvious good. In the first question "make downtown streets two-way" is a very different gesture than "adding a bridge," "develop a beltline," or "expand capacity."
|The weights on these are weird|
|Why is reduce emissions buried?|
I don't see how the survey fits together and what it adds substantively to the online mapping that already occurred. Levels of generality are mixed within a single question and from question to question. It does not flow and seems muddled. It does not seem like a meaningful step forward or refinement. I'm not seeing its logic, and it looks largely superfluous to me.
Maybe you will discern more. In any case, take the survey.