Hall of Fame Land Use & Transportation Study

Steering Committee WorkshopJuly 11th, 2018

Bryan Newell, AICP Lia Yakumithis

Ryan Smalley, AICP, PEEmil Liszniansky, AICP, Esq., PE

Public Meeting 2 & First Friday’s Event

Public Engagement Summary

+ Displayed Subarea Recommendation Boards for Comment

+ Received over 200 Responses

+ Top 5 Recommendations - Explore options to increase connectivity across I-77 (Cap/Trench)- Upgrade portions of Fairgrounds parking to use as flex lot for

events/workforce- Improve streetscape & pedestrian facilities along Fulton- Improve streetscapes & consider road diets along McKinley &

Cleveland Ave.- Add roundabout & realign Stadium Park Drive south of 7th to better align

ramp

+ Most Negative Recommendation- Split Fulton Road traffic onto 5th & Tuscarawas Street to provide connections to Arts District & Downtown

G1: Create an integrated visitor website (or app) that provides real-time updates on traffic, parking, current events, dining options, and leisure activities, etc. for the Greater Canton Region that can easily be used by visitors to help relay important information.

G2: Encourage the adoption of Smart Parking both on street and within public parking lot/garages.

G3: Consider expanding bike share to more locations within Stark County.

G4: Within neighboring townships, consider an update to current zoning codes to include sidewalk construction with new developments around the HOF Village.

G5: Continue to promote and brand SARTA as an efficient, safe, and cost-effective means of transportation in the region.

G6: Develop a comprehensive digital wayfinding system (from airport to downtown and points in between) to aid in guiding visitors to their destinations and promote local attractions.

G7: Install infrastructure for an ITS parking system in the area to direct travelers to open lots or garage spaces prior to actually getting there.

G8: Explore unique branding for SARTA or shuttle loops/routes connecting the HOFV to other attractions.

General Recommendations

Timeline

11:00 to 11:10 – Introduction and Overview of Workshop Goals

11:10 to 11:20 – Scenario, Subarea and Recommendations Overview

11:20 to 12:20 – Scenario Recommendations Activity

12:20 to 12:45 - Scenario Recommendations Group Discussion:

12:45 to 1:00 – Criteria Prioritization Overview

1:00 to 1:45 – Criteria Prioritization Activity

1:45 to 2:00 – Criteria Prioritization Group Discussion and Wrap Up

2:00 – Adjourn

Workshop Agenda

Two Goals for Today’s Workshop

Goal 1: To gather Consensus on where Recommendations Should be Placed within each Scenario.

Goal 2: To Establish Criteria Prioritization Weighting within Each Scenario.

Workshop Goals

Overview

+ From Past Studies and Current Observations within the Study Area there were a multitude of Recommendations

+ To Better Organize/Prioritize Recommendations the Study Area was divided into Four Main Subareas

- HOF/Near West- Parkway/Fairgrounds- Downtown/Shorb- Fulton Road Corridor

+ With Multiple Jurisdictions and Competing Interests within Study, Subareas allow Local Priorities to be Met

+ General Recommendations for Entire Study Area

+ Subareas will help define priorities throughout Study Area

Defining Subareas

Recommendations

Hall of Fame Village Scenarios

+ Want to Develop 3 Scenarios for the Study Area Based on Future Hall of Fame Village Visitation

Baseline ScenarioHOF Village Attracts Visitors at Current Level (300k/Year)

Moderate ScenarioHOF Village Attracts 3 to 5 times Current Visitation Levels (1 to 1.5 Million/Year)

Forecast ScenarioHOF Village Attracts Close to Anticipated Amount of Visitors (3 Million/Year)

Scenario Planning

Allocating Recommendations

Exercise: Take Lists of Recommendations Provided and Allocate each Recommendation into a Scenario.

+ Write in Recommendations on Roll Plots Provided (Example to Right)

+ Three Lists of Recommendations - General Recommendations- Downtown/Shorb & Fairgrounds/Parkway- HOF & Fulton Road Corridor

+ After Recommendations are Allocated, *Star* the Highest Priority Recommendation in Each Scenario

+ 20 Minutes per each Recommendation Group (1 Hour in Total)

Goal: To gather Consensus on where Recommendations Should be Placed in each Scenario.

+ After Recommendations are Placed into Scenarios, Study needs to Prioritize Recommendations

+ Recommendations to be Prioritized by how well they meet Criteria.

+ 10 Criteria Identified to Assess Recommendations (Listed to the Right)

+ Need to Establish Weighting System for Each Criteria within Each Scenario

- Criteria with 1 ranking = Low Priority- Criteria with 5 ranking = High Priority

Prioritizing Recommendations

Project Cost•How expensive the improvement will be.

Political Priority•A project a local jurisdiction has identified as a priority in previous plans or expressed as a future goal.

Project Readiness•How quickly can project be implemented (funding, design, right of way, etc. in place?).

Public Desire•A project that the public has expressed interest in pursuing, through survey results, public meeting input or other feedback.

Economic Impact•A project that either directly adds jobs or encourages job growth to the immediate area.

Connectivity Enhancement•A project that increases a mode or multiple modes of transportation within the study area.

Traffic Impact•The effect a project will have on future traffic congestion and traffic safety.

Quality of Life Benefit (Local)• How a project will increase health, safety, mobility or the opportunity for employment for local residents.

Visitor Benefit•How the improvement enhances a visitor’s experience in the area or encourages additional visitors to frequent the area.

Transformative Project•A project that is iconic either in scale or beauty, providing additional or enhancing local attractions.

Recommendation Criteria

+ Each Criteria is Assigned a Weighting for Each Scenario

+ Each Recommendation then Assessed Based on how well they meet each Criteria

1 = Doesn’t meet Criteria5 = Meets Criteria Well

+ Scenario Weighting X Recommendation Score = Total Priority Score

+ We Need Your Help to Establish Criteria Weighting for Each Scenario

Scoring Example

Exercise: Assign a Weighted Priority in Whole Number Increments for each Draft Criteria within each Scenario.

- Criteria with 1 ranking = Low Priority- Criteria with 5 ranking = High Priority

+ Criteria Weighting can Change Based on Scenarios if DesiredExample: Project Readiness may be a Higher Priority in a Baseline Scenario rather than the Forecast Scenario.

+ 45 Minutes to Complete Weighting Exercise

Goal: To Provide Insight into Which Criteria Committee Members feel is most Important.

Criteria Prioritization

+ Gather Feedback on and Revise Decision Matrix

+ Detail Highest Priority Recommendations within Each Scenario

- Determine Preliminary Cost- Preliminary Project Timeline- Define Implementation Strategy

+ Create Implementation Strategy for Each Scenario- Many Unique Tools Available

* Special Improvement District (Downtown)* Tourism Development District (Around HOF Village)* Innovation District/DRD (Downtown)

- Much Public and Private Interest in HOF Village Area

+ Next Meeting: Tuesday, August 21st, 1:30 to 3 PM

Next Steps

HallofFameLandUse&TransportationStudyPublic Engagement SummaryGeneral Recommendations Workshop AgendaWorkshop GoalsDefining SubareasRecommendationsScenario PlanningSlide Number 9Slide Number 10Slide Number 11Slide Number 12Next Steps