Figure 1. Assets of the corridor: Schools, vacant, lots, & learning facilities.
In this analysis of the corridor i was tasked with finding the environmental sides of the corridor. My task included mostly the land uses of the buildings in use along the corridor. Above on figure 1 I found the schools/learning facilities along the corridor as well as the vacant lots that are long the way. These would be considered assets as they bring future or current value to the corridor. The schools are local assets for surrounding neighborhoods as they are a source of education and they bring value to the neighborhoods thewy are in. They are also important to locate as they could also be a factor in identifying where to places transit stops near them .
As seen on figure 2 their are landmarks and parks demonstrated. These are also a part of the assets that I’ve contributed as they are prominent spots where people can gather and are key places to keep in mind when designing for active transportation as these places would mostly benefit from the improvement and access to active and public transit. Active transport is an overlooked piece that MARC has in the RFP as their main priority would be public transit along the corridor, including active transit as a part of this plan would benefit riders and allow better access to places like parks.
In figure 3 is the urban renewal for KCMO. Most of the urban renewal is centralized around the downtown area with a small spread of it throughout the region. The KCMO area will have a significant impact on it by the reinvestment of the corridor, especially the downtown loop which can see a change that will impact those using transit and driving in the area.
The environmental aspect of the corridor is important as it shows assets and places that have green spaces which would be important to have along the corridor. These places are great to keep in mind as building around them would impact the people using these spaces and building transit should revolve around the importance of these spaces.