Scenario Definition. Illustrate the topic of the research project. Define the target. Establish the duration of the project
Scenario Definition. The purpose of this task is to build upon the visioning from the first phase of the public involvement process (specifically from the Inquiries on the Go and the Summit event) to develop a series of three to five vision scenarios which address various land use and transportation futures for the Corridor MPO region. From these alternative scenarios, selection of a preferred alternative or hybrid as a preferred vision will occur, the Long Range Transportation Plan will be based on this preferred vision. The methodology proposed for developing the various metropolitan vision scenarios is “Scenario Planning.” In essence these scenarios are developed in response to what if questions. These questions could be: What if: o gas prices increased to over $5.00 a gallon? o there is a major shift in population to over 65? o the region is mandated by the federal government to reduce green house gases? o federal funding is cut to maintenance levels with no funds for capital improvements? o we want an infrastructure system that has the least cost to construct and maintain? These and many other questions are important and will need to be solicited from the public workshops and discussed and agreed to by the MPO staff and the LDC. Typically we will include the trends scenario as a base from which to compare other scenarios. We also propose keeping the number of households and jobs constant between the various scenarios, but they would be reallocated to best represent each scenario. The LSA team will also work with the LDC to develop a set of assumptions about the factors that influence where growth occurs in each of the scenarios.
Scenario Definition. The time frame in the analysis is as follows: 2020 is chosen as base year, and 2030, 2050 – as target years for long- term scenarios. 2030 corresponds to short-to-medium-term development stage, while 2050 – to a long-term stage. To analyse the effects of the installation of SunHorizon technologies replacing conventional H&C technologies, three so called SunHorizon scenarios are developed, beside the baseline scenario that reflects the “business as usual” development without implementation of SunHorizon technologies. Baseline scenario assumes development of future heating and cooling demand under the assumption that already agreed policies are continued to be implemented, but no decisions on new, stricter policies are taken. In each of the SunHorizon scenarios, it is assumed that a certain part of conventional H&C technologies is replaced with SunHorizon technologies combined in technology packages. In each SunHorizon scenario, the total percentage of the replaced technologies is the same (see Section 3.2.3); what differs SunHorizon scenarios between each other is the combination of SunHorizon technology packages replacing the conventional technologies. Long-term scenarios included in the analysis are summarized in Table 10. In SunHorizon TP1, conventional heating technologies are partly replaced by TP1 (TVP for space heating + DHW; BH to cover non-solar periods). In SunHorizon TP2, conventional heating technologies are partly replaced by TP2 (BH for space heating + DHW support; DS PV-T thermal output to cover as much heat demand as possible + excess electricity production for appliances). In SunHorizon TP1+TP2 (combo), it is implied that conventional heating technologies are replaced partly by TP1 (50%) and partly by TP2 (50%). In all three SunHorizon scenarios, conventional cooling technologies are replaced by TP3. Since for TP4 and TP5 no empirical data was available at the time of writing (M26), these two technology packages were not considered in the scenario set in the benefit analysis. Baseline BL - - SunHorizon TP1 SH_TP1 Technology package 1 (TP1) Technology package 3 (TP3) SunHorizon TP2 SH_TP2 Technology package 2 (TP2) Technology package 3 (TP3) SunHorizon TP1+TP2 (combo) SH_c Combination of TP1 (50%) and TP2 (50%) Technology package 3 (TP3)
Scenario Definition. The initial task for the SUBITO project was to understand the threat and non-threat situations relating to unattended baggage from the perspective of the End User and how these situations would lead to the corresponding alarm and non alarm conditions. To achieve this, a number of End User visits were carried out to gain an appreciation of the problems faced by the End Users and to gain an understanding of a typical CCTV surveillance installation. In parallel the knowledge gained during the previous ISCAPS project was drawn on to produce a view on the threat scenarios within the consortium. Both the ISCAPS background and End User consultations provided a view on the types of scenarios required to be covered by the project to ensure the demonstration and test encompassed genuine scenarios. As a rule the SUBITO system was expected to perform under two general categories of scenario, S0 and S1, [Ref. 3]: S0 – No alarm to operator. In this scenario the baggage owner enters the scene, leaves baggage within the footprint of one or more ‘system’ cameras, stays within baggage location then leaves scene with the baggage.
