How do the alternatives stack up?
Based on our Shared Regional Values, IGT identified a number of goals. The arrows below show how each alternative performs as we add our next million residents. An up arrow indicates that the alternative does a good job of achieving the goal; a down arrow indicates it does not. The goals are not intended as a comparison with the region as it is today, but rather as an evaluation of the four alternatives as they relate to each other.
Click on chart to see a larger image
Explore the alternatives further
Where did this information come from?
The purpose of creating the alternatives is to be able to ask questions about how well, or poorly, each of these options preserve and enhance our Shared Regional Values. To this end, panels of local regional experts were convened in 7 of the 9 IGT Shared Regional Value topic areas (see list of panels below). These groups were asked to review the alternatives and assess how well they perform with respect to the values themselves. Their feedback was based on their own knowledge and experience in their respective fields. Their input reflects the best information currently available in each field, but may be modified in the future to reflect new research, technological innovation or other changing conditions.
The information from these panel assessments has been summarized in the chart above which indicates how well each alternative achieves the stated goal. The goals are derived directly from the IGT Shared Regional Values and were chosen to represent the breadth of topic areas and concepts from the full set of IGT values that are most directly impacted by land use and transportation.
IGT Alternatives Assessment Panels:
Business and the Economy
Cultural Diversity and Regional Character
Health,Well-Being and Safety
K-12 Education
Land Use and Urban Design
Natural Resources: Conservation and Recreation
Natural Resources: Air and Water
Transportation and Accessibility