Strategy analysis
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 32

Strategy Analysis PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 79 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Strategy Analysis. Prepared for: Envision Utah Prepared by: Quality Growth Efficiency Tools (QGET) Technical Committee. Overview. Contributors Limitations Context Motivations Challenges Strategy Analysis. Contributors. 88 Cities 10 Counties 2 Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Download Presentation

Strategy Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Strategy analysis

Strategy Analysis

Prepared for:

Envision Utah

Prepared by:

Quality Growth Efficiency Tools (QGET)

Technical Committee


Overview

Overview

  • Contributors

  • Limitations

  • Context

    • Motivations

    • Challenges

  • Strategy Analysis


Contributors

Contributors

  • 88 Cities

  • 10 Counties

  • 2 Metropolitan Planning Organizations

  • 5 State Agencies

  • Psomas Engineering

  • Fregonese Calthorpe Associates


Limitations

Limitations

  • Work in progress

  • Conservative estimate of benefits

  • Prepared at the regional scale

    • Site or project specific inferences should not be made

  • Limited scope

    • Transportation, air quality, land use, water, and infrastructure costs


Quality growth strategy

Quality Growth Strategy

Insert FREGOs last slide - 3D QGS

Layers:

Constrained Lands

Critical Lands

Infrastructure

Centers and Corridors

New Developed Lands

Re-Developed Lands


Baseline

Baseline

Depicts how the region is likely to develop based on recent plans

  • Salient Characteristics

    • Refinement of past work (2nd revision)

    • Includes the addition of approximately one million more people by 2020

    • Snapshot of the future based on state and regional plans

    • Based on trends of the past 20-30 years


Strategy

Strategy

Depicts how the region is likely to develop based on adherence to Envision Utah’s goals and strategies

  • Salient Characteristics

    • Includes addition of approximately one million more people

    • Depicts impacts of voluntary, interjurisdictional cooperation

    • Reflects market-based housing mix

    • Requires additional water conservation and telework

    • Consistent with previously expected population and employment trends at the county-level

    • Requires incremental changes from current development patterns


Strategy analysis

The pursuit of this strategy is motivated by the common and regional nature of many of our challenges. We share the same roads, airshed, water resources, and natural assets. We have an enviable quality of life, but we have major challenges.


Challenge 1 congestion

Seattle

34%

Minneapolis

47%

Boston

21%

Portland

33%

New York

17%

Chicago

31%

San Francisco

32%

Salt Lake City

59%

St. Louis

27%

Denver

27%

Las Vegas

64%

Los Angeles

29%

San Diego

58%

Atlanta

36%

Dallas

32%

Miami

28%

Challenge #1: Congestion

Percent Increase in Roadway Congestion: 1982-1996

*Congestion levels are estimated based on cars per road space

Source: Texas Transportation Institute. Urban Roadway Congestion: 1998


Challenge 2 air quality

Challenge #2: Air Quality

SLC-Ogden Metro Area


Challenge 3 housing prices

Challenge #3: Housing Prices

Housing Price Index for Repeat-Sales of Existing Homes

Source: Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight


Challenge 4 loss of farm land

Challenge #4: Loss of Farm Land

1982-1997

Source: 1982 & 1997 Census of Agriculture


Challenge 5 infrastructure costs

Challenge #5: Infrastructure Costs

Infrastructure Costs

Collector$6 Million/Mile

Arterial$16 Million/Mile

Light Rail$20 Million/Mile

Water

Transmission$690 Thou/Mile

Sewer

Transmission$70 per Foot

State of Utah appropriated

$955 Million in FY 2000

for Transportation and

Water Projects


Strategy analysis1

Strategy Analysis

  • Land Use -- Conserves More Land

  • Housing -- ProvidesMore Choice, Market Driven

  • Transportation -- More Efficient, Less Congestion

  • Air Quality -- Lower Emissions

  • Water Demand -- Reduces Consumption

  • Infrastructure Cost -- Requires Less Money


Land consumption

Land Consumption


Agricultural land converted to urban use

Agricultural Land Converted to Urban Use


Housing mix current and 2020

Housing Mix: Current and 2020


Vehicle miles of travel per day current and 2020

Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Day:Current and 2020


Transportation investment 1997 2020

Transportation Investment: 1997-2020


Population within 1 2 mile of rail transit 2020

Population Within 1/2 Mile of Rail Transit: 2020


Transportation comparison percent difference between strategy and baseline 2020

Transportation ComparisonPercent Difference Between Strategy and Baseline: 2020


Total emissions current and 2020

Total Emissions: Current and 2020


Emissions comparison percent difference between strategy and baseline 2020

Emissions ComparisonPercent Difference Between Strategy and Baseline: 2020


Water demand current and 2020

Water Demand: Current and 2020


Per capita water use current and 2020

Per Capita Water Use: Current and 2020


Total infrastructure costs 1998 2020

Total Infrastructure Costs: 1998-2020


Quality growth commission and envision utah

Quality Growth Commission and Envision Utah

  • Dedicated to preserving quality of life present in Utah

  • Jointly funded six quality growth demonstration projects

  • Envision Utah will benefit from Commission’s work in the coming months to define quality growth

  • Continued collaboration is essential


  • Login