More than anything, the presentation kept jobs and homes separate. Instead of structuring around "new households" and then "new jobs," the presentation and analysis should analyze each scenario on all aspects. We should be able to see how jobs and housing relate to each other under each scenario. First A, then B, C, and D.
|Why are these kept separate? We should see the links|
between jobs and housing.
(Comments in red added throughout)
The scenarios were strangely constructed to minimize change it seemed. Why wasn't there a scenario that combined all the mixed-use pieces in scenarios B, C, & D into a super-mixed-use scenario? Overall they seemed timid.
|Why not combine these into a more ambitious scenario?|
|These are not meaningful differences|
|Remember this? Way bigger than tenths of a percent!|
|If we are selling this project on reducing delay, we are screwed|
|Vehicle delay is not one of the indicators! (January 2019)|
Ah, I see. The indicators are in a separate document, basically a technical appendix, linked in a different place on the Our Salem website.
|Here are the indicators|
So it's not surprising the scenarios don't differentiate on greenhouse gas emissions. They're all the same.
|Since VMT rounds to the same value,|
it's not surprising GHG is the same