DOCSLIB.ORG

Sketch Tools for Regional Sustainability Scenario Planning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sketch Tools for Regional Sustainability Scenario Planning Acknowledgments This study was conducted for the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning, with funding provided through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 08-36, Research for the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 08-36 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the Standing Committee on Planning. The report was prepared by Uri Avin of the National Center for Smart Growth (NCSG), University of Maryland, with Christopher Porter and David von Stroh of Cambridge Systematics, Eli Knaap of the NCSG, and Paul Patnode, NCSG Affiliate. The work was guided by a technical working group that included: Robert Balmes, Michigan Department of Transportation, Chair; William Cesanek, CDM Smith; Robert Deaton, North Carolina Department of Transportation; Thomas Evans; Kristen Keener-Busby, Urban Lands Institute, Arizona; Amanda Pietz, Oregon Department of Transportation; Elizabeth Robbins, Washington State Department of Transportation; Nicolas Garcia, Liaison, Federal Transit Administration; and Fred Bowen, Liaison, Federal Highway Administration. The project was managed by Lori L. Sundstrom, NCHRP Senior Program Officer. Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsoring agencies. This report has not been reviewed or accepted by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee or the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Sketch Tools for Regional Sustainability Scenario Planning Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................. ES-1 Objectives ........................................................................................................... ES-1 Background and Scope ..................................................................................... ES-1 Contents and Analysis ..................................................................................... ES-2 Suggestions for Further Research and Development .................................. ES-3 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Report Objectives ........................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Background .................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Definitions ................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Organization of the Report ........................................................................ 1-4 2.0 Overview of Research Activities ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Literature Review ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Survey ........................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Case Studies ................................................................................................. 2-2 2.4 Evaluation of the Tools .............................................................................. 2-5 2.5 Guidance on Approaches and Tools ........................................................ 2-6 2.6 Suggestions for Further Research and Development ............................ 2-6 3.0 Overview of Scenario Sketch Planning Tools ............................................... 3-1 3.1 Scenario Typologies and Processes .......................................................... 3-1 3.2 Definitions ................................................................................................... 3-4 3.3 Evolution of Scenario Sketch Tools .......................................................... 3-5 3.4 Tools in Use ................................................................................................. 3-6 4.0 Evaluation of the Tools ...................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Evaluation Framework .............................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Summary Evaluation .................................................................................. 4-1 4.3 Tool Trends ................................................................................................ 4-10 5.0 Guidance on Approaches and Tools ............................................................... 5-1 5.1 Alternatives to Scenario Sketch Planning Tools ..................................... 5-1 5.2 Fitting the Tool to the Planning Approach ........................................... 5-11 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i 008551.117 Table of Contents, continued 6.0 Suggestions for Further Research and Development .................................. 6-1 6.1 The Future of Scenario Sketch Tools ........................................................ 6-1 6.2 Future Scenarios for Regional Sketch Tools ............................................ 6-2 6.3 Suggestions for Further Research and Development ............................ 6-4 A. Literature Review ............................................................................................... A-1 A.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ A-1 A.2 Overview of Scenario Planning ............................................................... A-1 A.3 Definitions and Key Questions ................................................................ A-6 A.4 Review of Reviews .................................................................................. A-17 A.5 References ................................................................................................. A-44 B. Survey Results .................................................................................................... B-1 C. Case Studies ........................................................................................................ C-1 C.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ C-1 C.2 CommunityViz: Charlotte ....................................................................... C-4 C.3 CommunityViz: Boston.......................................................................... C-16 C.4 CommunityViz: Holland, Michigan .................................................... C-27 C.5 Urban Footprint: Sacramento ................................................................ C-35 C.6 Urban Footprint: San Diego .................................................................. C-43 C.7 Envision Tomorrow: Salt Lake County ............................................... C-50 C.8 Envision Tomorrow: Austin .................................................................. C-59 D. Comparative Tools Descriptive/Evaluative Matrix .....................................D-1 E. Description of Tools .......................................................................................... E-1 E.1 CommunityViz ........................................................................................... E-1 E.2 Envision Tomorrow Plus .......................................................................... E-3 E.3 i-PLACE3S .................................................................................................. E-5 E.4 SPARC/INDEX .......................................................................................... E-7 E.5 UPlan ........................................................................................................... E-9 E.6 UrbanFootprint ........................................................................................ E-12 ii Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 008551.117 Sketch Tools for Regional Sustainability Scenario Planning List of Tables Table 2.1 Comparative Features of the Case Studies ........................................... 2-4 Table 3.1 Summary of Tools and Their Capabilities ............................................ 3-8 Table 4.1 Summary Assessment Matrix of Tools ................................................. 4-2 Table 6.1 Future Scenarios for the Short-Term Evolution of Sketch Tools: Primary Drivers ........................................................................................ 6-3 Table A.1 Standard Scenario Indicators and their Derivation ............................ A-3 Table A.2 Technical Expertise Needed to Use Modela ...................................... A-21 Table A.3 Sketch Planning Tools Comparison.................................................... A-32 Table B.1 Tool(s) Used by Respondent.................................................................. B-2 Table B.2 Last Time Tool was Used ....................................................................... B-3 Table B.3 Scale of Application ................................................................................ B-3 Table B.4 Settings Where Tool Used ...................................................................... B-4 Table B.5 Indicators of Primary Interest ............................................................... B-4 Table B.6 Did you Modify or Customize the Tool? ............................................. B-4 Table B.7 How Was the Tool Linked to Transportation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ESRI the Leader in Geographic Information Systems
    Executive Workshop on Enterprise Geospatial Systems Geospatial Infrastructure Demands Dave Peters July 15,2004 J8338 1of 55 What is the challenge? Develop Enterprise support for GIS Operations Important Business Drivers: - Mature and growing GIS Operations - Rapidly expanding GIS Data Infrastructure - Evolving IT Infrastructure DOI Enterprise GIS Challenges - Define requirements for a scalable architecture - Connecting User Applications with Data Sources - GIS: Understand the proper architecture strategy - IT: Establish an Actionable Infrastructure Blueprint that supports business needs (GIS Operational Requirements) J8338 2of 55 GIS Software Evolution Overview GIS Department Desktop Viewers Distributed Internet Enterprise Federated Professional Query and Analysis Operations GIS Operations GIS Operations GIS Operations Remote Users Data Development Project Research Specific Operations Internet Desktop Interface Web Search Engines Data Maintenance Ad Hoc Mapping Work Management Map Products Enterprise GIS Collaborative Operations GIS Projects General Operations Delivery Routing Data Publishing Personal GIS Mapping Services Map Production Emergency Response Data Integration Query / Analysis Web Commerce Embedded Applications ArcInfo ArcView GIS MapObjects ArcView IMS ArcGIS Desktop ArcInfo ODE - ArcInfo 1999 Geography Network 1982 1992 MapObjects IMS - ArcEditor 2000 1996 - ArcView X-Emulation ArcIMS ArcGIS 9 - ArcEngine Windows Terminal Clients 1997 - ArcGIS Server 2004 Web Data Sources ArcInfo Shapefiles Spatial Database Engine Intelligent
    [Show full text]
  • Writing and Reviewing Use-Case Descriptions
    Bittner/Spence_06.fm Page 145 Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:04 PM PART II WRITING AND REVIEWING USE-CASE DESCRIPTIONS Part I, Getting Started with Use-Case Modeling, introduced the basic con- cepts of use-case modeling, including defining the basic concepts and understanding how to use these concepts to define the vision, find actors and use cases, and to define the basic concepts the system will use. If we go no further, we have an overview of what the system will do, an under- standing of the stakeholders of the system, and an understanding of the ways the system provides value to those stakeholders. What we do not have, if we stop at this point, is an understanding of exactly what the system does. In short, we lack the details needed to actually develop and test the system. Some people, having only come this far, wonder what use-case model- ing is all about and question its value. If one only comes this far with use- case modeling, we are forced to agree; the real value of use-case modeling comes from the descriptions of the interactions of the actors and the system, and from the descriptions of what the system does in response to the actions of the actors. Surprisingly, and disappointingly, many teams stop after developing little more than simple outlines for their use cases and consider themselves done. These same teams encounter problems because their use cases are vague and lack detail, so they blame the use-case approach for having let them down. The failing in these cases is not with the approach, but with its application.
    [Show full text]
  • GIS Migration Plan
    Dane County Land Information Office July 2003 Dane County Enterprise GIS Migration Plan The Dane County Land Information Office is committed to the development of GIS technology to aid in the delivery of information and services to county departments, communities, and the residents of our county. As part of our ongoing efforts to develop a robust and efficient GIS infrastructure, the Land Information Office has begun a project to migrate to a next generation geographic information system. Workplan activities include an upgrade of the technical infrastructure (hardware and software), implementation of new ESRI GIS products, a review and re-modeling of enterprise GIS datasets, workflow analysis and process changes to maximize service delivery and staff efficiencies. This plan summarizes migration activities to-date, as well as outlining a workplan to complete the remaining tasks. ESRI's next generation product line revolves around three primary products: ArcGIS, ArcSDE and ArcIMS. ArcGIS and its related extensions and modules comprise the desktop GIS software suite. ArcSDE supports spatial and tabular database integration. ArcIMS supports the delivery of web-based geographic information and map services. The Dane County ArcGIS migration project includes converting current ArcInfo users to the ArcGIS product. The longer term goal will be to move the viewing, printing, and basic GIS operation users to ArcIMS applications that can be run from a browser or thin client. Current ArcView 3.2 users will be migrated to either thin client ArcIMS applications or ArcGIS 8.x software. All applications will utilize geographic information stored in ArcSDE. Training requirements will be focused on technical staff to build and maintain applications with user friendly tools to minimize intense end user training.
    [Show full text]
  • Metamodeling Variability to Enable Requirements Reuse
    Metamodeling Variability to Enable Requirements Reuse Begoña Moros 1, Cristina Vicente-Chicote 2, Ambrosio Toval 1 1Departamento de Informática y Sistemas Universidad de Murcia, 30100 Espinardo (Murcia), Spain {bmoros, atoval}@um.es 2 Departamento de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, 30202 Cartagena (Murcia), Spain [email protected] Abstract. Model-Driven Software Development (MDSD) is recognized as a very promising approach to deal with software complexity. The Requirements Engineering community should be aware and take part of the Model-Driven revolution, enabling and promoting the integration of requirements into the MDSD life-cycle. As a first step to reach that goal, this paper proposes REMM, a Requirements Engineering MetaModel, which provides variability modeling mechanisms to enable requirements reuse. In addition, this paper also presents the REMM-Studio graphical requirements modeling tool, aimed at easing the definition of complex requirements models. This tool enables the specification of (1) catalogs of reusable requirements models (modeling for reuse facet of the tool), and (2) specific product requirements by reusing previously defined requirements models (modeling by reuse facet of the tool). Keywords: Model-Driven Software Development (MDSD), Requirements Engineering (RE), Requirements MetaModel (REMM), Requirements Reuse, Requirements Variability. 1 Introduction Model-Driven Software Development (MDSD) aims at raising the level of abstraction at which software is conceived, implemented, and evolved, in order to help managing the inherent complexity of modern software-based systems. As recently stated in a Forrester Research Inc. study “model-driven development will play a key role in the future of software development; it is a promising technique for helping application development managers address growing business complexity and demand ” [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Statewide Logistics Plan for North Carolina
    Statewide Logistics Plan for North Carolina An Investigation of the Issues with Recommendations for Action APPENDICES By George F. List, Ph.D, P.E. P.I. and Head, Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering North Carolina State University Robert S. Foyle, P.E. Co-P.I. and Associate Director, ITRE North Carolina State University Henry Canipe Senior Manager TransTech Management, Inc. John Cameron, Ph.D. Managing Partner TransTech Management, Inc. Erik Stromberg Ports and Harbors Practice Leader Hatch, Mott, MacDonald LLC For the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management May 13, 2008 Appendices Appendix A: Powerpoint Slide Sets Presentations include: Tompkins Associates North Carolina Statewide Logistics Proposal North Carolina Statewide Logistics Plan Cambridge Systematics Freight Demand and Logistics – Trends and Issues Highway Freight Transportation – Trends and Issues Rail Freight Transportation – Trends and Issues Waterborne Freight Transportation – Trends and Issues State DOTs and Freight – Trends and Issues Virginia Statewide Multimodal Freight Study - Phase I Overview Global Insight Shifts in Global Trade Patterns – Meaning for North Carolina 5/5/2008 North Carolina Statewide Logistics Proposal Presented to: North Carolina State University Project Team Charlotte, NC March 13, 2008 Caveat… This presentation and discussion is from the Shipper’s perspective… ASSO C I ATES CONFIDENTIAL — Use or disclosure of this information is restricted. 2 1 5/5/2008 North American Port Report (1/08) A majority of the Supply Chain Consortium respondents to the North American Port Report survey believe that their supply chain network is not optimal with respect to the ports used for their ocean freight. Significant opportunities exist from getting all aspects of the supply chain aligned to optimizing costs and customer service.
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Agile Requirements Engineering Presented to the 13Th Annual Systems Engineering Conference 10/25/2010 – 10/28/2010 Hyatt Regency Mission Bay, San Diego, CA
    Defense, Space & Security Lean-Agile Software Practical Agile Requirements Engineering Presented to the 13th Annual Systems Engineering Conference 10/25/2010 – 10/28/2010 Hyatt Regency Mission Bay, San Diego, CA Presented by: Dick Carlson ([email protected]) Philip Matuzic ([email protected]) BOEING is a trademark of Boeing Management Company. Copyright © 2009 Boeing. All rights reserved. 1 Agenda Boeing Defense, Space & Security| Lean-Agile Software . Introduction . Classic Requirements engineering challenges . How Agile techniques address these challenges . Overview / background of Agile software practices . History and evolution of Agile software Requirements Engineering . Work products and work flow of Agile Requirements Engineering . Integration of Agile software Requirements Engineering in teams using Scrum . Current status of the work and next steps Copyright © 2010 Boeing. All rights reserved. 2 Introduction Boeing Defense, Space & Security| Lean-Agile Software . A large, software-centric program applied Agile techniques to requirements definition using the Scrum approach . This presentation shows how systems engineering effectively applies Agile practices to software requirements definition and management . An experience model created from the program illustrates how failures on a large software program evolved into significant process improvements by applying specific Agile practices and principles to practical requirements engineering Copyright © 2010 Boeing. All rights reserved. 3 Requirements Reality Boeing Defense, Space & Security| Lean-Agile Software “The hardest single part of building a software system is deciding precisely what to build. No other part of the conceptual work is as difficult as establishing the detailed technical requirements, including all the interfaces to people, machines, and other software systems. No other part of the work so cripples the resulting system if done wrong.
    [Show full text]
  • Arcims Metadata Services
    ArcIMS® Metadata Services ® An ESRI White Paper • May 2002 ESRI 380 New York St., Redlands, CA 92373-8100, USA • TEL 909-793-2853 • FAX 909-793-5953 • E-MAIL [email protected] • WEB www.esri.com Copyright © 2002 ESRI All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. The information contained in this document is the exclusive property of ESRI. This work is protected under United States copyright law and other international copyright treaties and conventions. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, except as expressly permitted in writing by ESRI. All requests should be sent to Attention: Contracts Manager, ESRI, 380 New York Street, Redlands, CA 92373-8100, USA. The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice. U.S. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED/LIMITED RIGHTS Any software, documentation, and/or data delivered hereunder is subject to the terms of the License Agreement. In no event shall the U.S. Government acquire greater than RESTRICTED/LIMITED RIGHTS. At a minimum, use, duplication, or disclosure by the U.S. Government is subject to restrictions as set forth in FAR §52.227-14 Alternates I, II, and III (JUN 1987); FAR §52.227-19 (JUN 1987) and/or FAR §12.211/12.212 (Commercial Technical Data/Computer Software); and DFARS §252.227-7015 (NOV 1995) (Technical Data) and/or DFARS §227.7202 (Computer Software), as applicable. Contractor/Manufacturer is ESRI, 380 New York Street, Redlands, CA 92373- 8100, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Quick-Start Guide
    Quick-Start Guide ArcGIS® Desktop 9.3 1 UNIX® (ArcInfo® Workstation) on the DVD setup menu located in the lower left-hand corner for more 4 5 information. ✱ Mount the ArcInfo Workstation installation media and CD to the directory Prerequisites for your UNIX platform. ✱ Browse to the saved license le, complete the license manager setup. Install ArcGIS Desktop or ArcInfo Workstation More Information about ArcGIS ✱ ✱ Open the install_guide.pdf and follow the instructions under “Installing the Before restarting the computer, plug in the hardware key and wait for ✱ ® ™ A single source of information and assistance for ArcGIS products is ✱ If you are an existing user, your current license le will work with the ArcInfo license manager” to install the license manager. Windows to install the Hardware key driver. ArcGIS Desktop (ArcView , ArcEditor , ArcInfo available via the ESRI Resource Centers Web site at http://resources. updatedversion of the ArcGIS® License Manager. You will need to install ✱ From the 9.x $ARCHOME/sysgen directory, run “./lmutil lmhostid” to obtain ✱ Restart the machine once the driver installation is complete. [Concurrent Use]) esri.com. Use the Resource Centers Web site as your portal to ArcGIS the license manager included on the ArcGIS Desktop media. resources such as Help, forums, blogs, samples, and developer support. the host ID for this machine. ✱ If you have trouble starting the license manager, refer to “Troubleshooting ✱ Insert the ArcGIS Desktop installation media. If auto-run is enabled, a DVD ✱ Prior to installing, please review the system requirements. See ✱ Use this host ID to request the license le from Customer Service at License Errors on Windows” in the License Manager Reference Guide, setup menu will appear.
    [Show full text]
  • License Manager's Guide
    License Manager’s Guide ArcInfo™ 8 Copyright © 1999 Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. The information contained in this document is the exclusive property of Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. This work is protected under United States copyright law and other international copyright treaties and conventions. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, except as expressly permitted in writing by Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. All requests should be sent to Attention: Contracts Manager, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 380 New York Street, Redlands, CA 92373-8100, USA. The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice. U.S. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED/LIMITED RIGHTS Any software, documentation, and/or data delivered hereunder is subject to the terms of the License Agreement. In no event shall the U.S. Government acquire greater than RESTRICTED/LIMITED RIGHTS. At a minimum, use, duplication, or disclosure by the U.S. Government is subject to restrictions as set forth in FAR §52.227-14 Alternates I, II, and III (JUN 1987); FAR §52.227-19 (JUN 1987) and/or FAR §12.211/12.212 (Commercial Technical Data/Computer Software); and DFARS §252.227-7015 (NOV 1995) (Technical Data) and/or DFARS §227.7202 (Computer Software), as applicable. Contractor/Manufacturer is Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 380 New York Street, Redlands, CA 92373-8100, USA. ESRI, ARC/INFO, ArcCAD, ArcView, MapObjects, and PC ARC/INFO are trademarks of Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., registered in the United States and certain other countries; registration is pending in the European Community.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Parametric Urban Design in Grasshopper / Rhinoceros 3D Demonstrated on a Master Plan in Vienna
    Integrated Parametric Urban Design in Grasshopper / Rhinoceros 3D Demonstrated on a Master Plan in Vienna Theresa Fink1, Reinhard Koenig2 1AIT Austrian Institute of Technology 2AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Bauhaus- Universität Weimar [email protected] [email protected] By 2050 an estimated 70 percent of the world's population will live in megacities with more than 10 million citizens (Renner 2018). This growth calls for new target-oriented, interdisciplinary methods in urban planning and design in cities to meet sustainable development targets. In response, this paper exemplifies an integrated urban design process on a master plan project in Vienna. The objective is to investigate the potential towards a holistic, digital, urban design process aimed at the development of a practical methodology for future designs. The presented urban design process includes analyses and simulation tools within Rhinoceros 3D and its plug-in Grasshopper as quality-enhancing mediums that facilitate the creative approaches in the course of the project. The increase in efficiency and variety of design variants shows a promising future for the practical suitability of this approach. Keywords: urban design, parametric modeling, urban simulation, design evaluation, environmental performance INTRODUCTION buildings. The term public realm has broader signif- A contemporary urban design process demands icance than public space because it includes build- human-centered development where future tech- ing facades and anything that is visible from eye level nologies intertwine with traditional approaches to (Karssenberg 2016). generate a sustainable, livable environment while In general, the collection of this data is rather saving time and resources. Frey defines urban de- simple in comparison with the capacity of process- sign as a discipline that deals with issues that ex- ing (Feng 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Branch of Geospatial Support
    BRANCH OF GEOSPATIAL SUPPORT DIVISION OF LAND TITLES AND RECORDS OFFICE OF TRUST SERVICE, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 13922 DENVER WEST PARKWAY, BUILDING 54, SUITE 300, LAKEWOOD, CO 80401 — 877.293.9494 — https://bia.gov/gis ENTERPRISE LICENSE AGREEMENT PRODUCT LIST Avenza Systems, Inc., Federal Supply Schedule Contract No. 140D0419P0030 IKS TUULS, OOO, Federal Supply Schedule Contract No. 140D0418P0044 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Federal Supply Schedule Contract No. GS-35F-253CA, Blanket Purchase Agreement 140D0419A0017 Hexagon US Federal, Federal Supply Schedule Contract No. GS-35F-0383K Blanket Purchase Agreement No. G17PA00016 ESRI PRODUCTS ArcGIS Desktop Concurrent Use Licenses For concurrent use versions, a license allows ArcGIS for Desktop products to be used on any machine. Each installation must access an ArcGIS License Manager license that contains the appropriate license level for the software seat type (Advanced, Standard, or Basic). The License Manager, installed on the network, dictates the number of copies of Basic, Standard, or Advanced license seat type that can be run simultaneously. The 2019.1 version of License Manager is required to run v10.7.x ArcGIS for Desktop applications. Part No. Product Description (for more details on products, refer to www.esri.com/products ArcGIS Desktop Advanced (formerly ArcInfo) Concurrent Use License – Includes 3D Analyst, Spatial PKG 1 Analyst, Geostatistical Analyst, Publisher, Network Analyst, Schematics, and Tracking Analyst ArcGIS Desktop Standard (formerly Editor)
    [Show full text]
  • STATE of NEW YORK PRICELIST August 2015
    STATE OF NEW YORK PRICELIST August 2015 CLIN Esri Part Net Price FOB Number Number Section Product Description Price NY 1 ArcGIS for Desktop Concurrent Use Licenses GIS0001 52382 ArcGIS for Desktop Advanced Concurrent Use License $7,295.00 $7,295.00 GIS0100 86353 ArcGIS for Desktop Standard Concurrent Use License $5,713.00 $5,713.00 GIS0100 86353 ArcGIS for Desktop Standard Concurrent Use License 6+ $5,142.00 $5,142.00 GIS0200 87143 ArcGIS for Desktop Basic Concurrent Use License $2,857.00 $2,857.00 GIS0200 87143 ArcGIS for Desktop Basic Concurrent Use License 6+ $2,571.00 $2,571.00 1 ArcGIS for Desktop Concurrent Use Licenses Maintenance GIS0001MP 52384 Primary Maintenance for ArcGIS for Desktop Advanced Concurrent Use License (primary 1st, 11th, 21st, 31st…) $2,406.00 $2,406.00 GIS0001MS 52385 Secondary Maintenance for ArcGIS for Desktop Advanced Concurrent Use License (secondary 2–10, 12–20...) $1,184.00 $1,184.00 GIS0100MP 86497 Primary Maintenance for ArcGIS for Desktop Standard Concurrent Use License $1,480.00 $1,480.00 GIS0100MS 86500 Secondary Maintenance for ArcGIS for Desktop Standard Concurrent Use License $1,184.00 $1,184.00 GIS0200MP 87194 Primary Maintenance for ArcGIS for Desktop Basic Concurrent Use License $691.00 $691.00 GIS0200MS 87195 Secondary Maintenance for ArcGIS for Desktop Basic Concurrent Use License $493.00 $493.00 1 ArcGIS Extensions for Desktop Concurrent Use Licenses GIS0400 88282 ArcGIS Spatial Analyst for Desktop Concurrent Use License $2,040.00 $2,040.00 GIS0400 88282 ArcGIS Spatial Analyst for Desktop
    [Show full text]