In my first glance, I showed that the Project Connect weightings resulted in different recommended subcorridors depending on whether you included West Campus in MoPac and Lamar, and whether you used negative weightings for present-day or used positive weightings for present-day, even if those weightings are smaller than those you use for the future.
As you can see, the choice to negatively weight present-day scores had a dramatic effect on the data excluding West Campus, pushing Highland and Lamar from a virtual tie (upper left) to Highland higher-rated (bottom left). This is not surprising, as Project Connect’s methodology shows Highland as targeted for nearly 3.6% annual growth in population density.
When West Campus is factored into the mix, the effect continues. However, this time the effect of the negative present-day weightings was smaller. With a more balanced weighting (upper right), Lamar is the clear winner and Riverside second. With the negative weightings, Lamar is second to Riverside’s first. In both cases, Highland places third.
I still believe that Project Connect’s methodology for calculating the final score to be confusing and inferior to the more traditional weightings I employed here; one of the reasons for this is that their complications makes effects like these extraordinarily hard to understand at an intuitive level. However, it is noteworthy that their data and methodology draw the same conclusions that mine did (Lamar and Riverside the top two subcorridors) when you include West Campus, and that it ranks Highland and Lamar as equal even excluding West Campus, if you just correct for the negative weightings of present-day data.