ARS Ted Grossardt and John Ripy, Kentucky Tranportation Center and Laxmi Ramasubramanian, Hunter College
1. Integrating ARS and Visualization to Improve theInclusion, Quality, Clarity, and Efficiency of Public Engagement Processes TRB Visualization Workshop January 23, 2011 Dr. LaxmiRamasubramanian, Hunter College Dr. Ted Grossardt and Mr. John Ripy Kentucky Transportation Center
2. My Professional Identity Transportation Professional (Private Sector) Transportation Professional (Public Sector) Planner (not Transportation) e.g., Environment, Land Use (Private Sector) Planner (not Transportation) e.g., Environment, Land Use (Public Sector) Academic Teaching and/or Research Other Administrator/Manager (Private and Public) Elected Official
3. My Familiarity with ARS First-timer Participated in meetings with it Used it myself a few times Used it at least a half-dozen times Use it very frequently I love my keypads!
4. Top Reasons I Don’t Use ARS(choose top three in rank order) Too Confusing Too Simplistic Cost Perceived Cost Not Portable Enough Lack of Information Deterministic outcomes Unreliable
5. Top Reasons I Don’t Use Visualization Tools(choose top three in rank order) All visualization tools are expensive Lack of training/skills to use the tools in my agency My agency won’t invest in these tools It’s just a fad These tools mislead ordinary citizens Other
7. Which breakouts did you attend? Visual Communication Design Visualization and Animation GIS-Based Tools and Methods Online Interfaces & Virtual Environments: Second Life, Interactive Tools, MashUps, Portals, Social Networking Tools
8. Two Most Useful Thing I Learned This Morning... How to use the tools Minority groups using social media through cell phones Responsibility of knowing how to use the tool Array of technologies Flexibility of tools for real-time feedback Potential to use virtual worlds to communicate
9. Two Things I’m Going to Lie Awake Wondering About… What should my avatar be Legitimacy of input When do these tools turn into entertainment How to tie input to the decision Knowledge transfer to local communities for use Persuading sponsor to allocate resources/budget The resources required to maintain and run these tools Educating agencies on value of these tools Overcoming agency fear
11. POLLING QUESTION (1:50 - 2:50): What can we do to make these sites more valuable? Pick Three Maintain the sites Combine the sites More about how to get started with these visualization tools More about what software & hardware to use More specific information on applying to Public Involvement Practices
12. POLLING QUESTION I (2:50 - 3:30): In light of the 2005 SAFETEA-LU requirement, how would you rate your organization's (or organizations you've observed) level of compliance. Still struggling to have clue how we can implement these requirements effectively We don’t have the staff or $ Can See the Tunnel Can See a Glimmer that Might be Light at the End of the Tunnel Can Clearly See the Light Almost There
13. POLLING QUESTION II (2:50 - 3:30): What do you need to become more operational with visualization? More on research studies and/or Demonstration Projects Specific and relevant details regarding Return on Investment (ROI) More on the talent and skills required to do visualization in-house How to write RFP's for visualization services Someone to physically come in and walk us through the process
14. POLLING QUESTION (3:30 - 4:00): What do your public audiences struggle with most? Getting interested in anything going on with regards to the DOT/MPO Understanding and actively participating in transportation planning processes Specific transportation projects (bridges, interchanges) Transportation financial & funding issues
15. What would you like to do at the TRB Visualization Symposium this year? Pick Three Traditional presentations Our own workshop to discuss progress A panel session discussing Visualization Panel: Public Involvement Panel: The new Reauthorization Bill Lightning Talks Hands on sessions
Editor's Notes
Participants’ thoughts solicited from the floor and entered next to the items on the left, up to 10 items. Then participants key in the top 3 statements they most agree with, in rank order.
Participants’ thoughts solicited from the floor and entered next to the items on the left, up to 10 items. Then participants key in the top 3 statements they most agree with, in rank order.
As before, participants supply content, everyone chooses their top three in order