Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders (2020) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 31-35
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 31... ...
31 Understanding the objectives and needs of non-traditional stakeholder groups helps to build compelling arguments for incorporating them into ICM planning. Do We Share the Same Objectives?
|
From page 32... ...
32 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Table 4. Goals and objectives of non-traditional stakeholders.
|
From page 33... ...
Assess Potential Partners' Needs 33 they relate to ICM. For a full list of participants, please refer to Appendix C, Stakeholder Interview Participants.
|
From page 34... ...
34 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Transit Stakeholders The list below highlights several transit-specific operational constraints: • Making a Case for ICM – Detailed operational benefits of ICM and associated technologies (e.g., real-time vehicle occupancy counters) are not readily appreciated or well understood at transit agencies.
|
From page 35... ...
Assess Potential Partners' Needs 35 Non-Motorized Roadway Users The list below highlights several non-motorized roadway user-specific operational constraints: • Competing Agency Priorities – Smaller cities tend not to have dedicated bicycle and pedestrian staff (either planning or operations) , so these responsibilities become competing priorities for city traffic engineers.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.