Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.
-
Upload
kylie-mckay -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.
![Page 1: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Woodburn Interchange EA
Evaluation Framework Presentation
SWG Meeting #2
April 10, 2003
![Page 2: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Process Overview
Define the problem
Establish the evaluation framework
Identify new alternatives/options
Apply threshold screening of alternatives/ options for fatal flaws
Evaluate and rank alternatives
Select study alternatives/options
![Page 3: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Establish The Evaluation Framework
Evaluation framework includes two types of criteria:
– Threshold screening of feasible from non-feasible alternatives
– Alternative evaluation of feasible alternatives
![Page 4: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Identify Alternatives
Desired Outcome:
– All ideas are developed into alternatives/options with the best chance
– Check previously dismissed alternatives to validate cause for dismissal in light of changed conditions
– Define alternatives/options in such a way they can be directly compared one to another
![Page 5: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Threshold Screening Process
Desired Outcome:
– Eliminate infeasible, unreasonable alternatives/options
– Spend resources evaluating alternatives/options that have realistic prospect of being implemented
![Page 6: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Threshold Screening Criteria Should Be:
Thresholds --- either a project meets the criteria or it does not
Easily measured --- no substantial data gathering necessary
Non-judgemental --- not used to prejudge on criteria that require more analysis
![Page 7: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Woodburn Threshold Criteria
Federal Policy– Satisfies 20-year design life
– Meets interstate design and access policies
– Consistent with local plans
– Local system improvements support interchange investment
![Page 8: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Woodburn Threshold Criteria
State Policy– Supports safe movement of freight
– Satisfies defense highway design criteria
– Satisfies major investment policy hierarchy
– Meets access policy or can reasonably justify a deviation
![Page 9: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Woodburn Threshold Criteria
Draft Local Project Criteria– Relatively similar impacts or distinct advantage
over another alternative
![Page 10: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Threshold Screening Caution
In order to meet the schedule and budget commitments:
– Anytime a fatal flaws is discovered for an alternative…it is eliminated from further consideration
![Page 11: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Alternative Evaluation Process
Desired Outcome: – Select alternatives/options for detailed
evaluation in the environmental document
![Page 12: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Evaluation criteria should be:
Comprehensive -- reflect the full range of stakeholder values
Fundamental ---relate to topics that really matter Relevant ---help distinguish among alternatives Independent---don’t allow double-counting of
outcomes Measurable---allow for clear comparison of
alternatives Well-defined---mutual understanding of meaning
![Page 13: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Woodburn Draft Evaluation Categories
Transportation & Safety
Natural Resources
Developed Environment
Implementation and Costs
![Page 14: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Alternative evaluation process involves:
Developing criteria categories
Developing measurable criteria in each category
Rating alternatives
Weighting criteria
Calculating rankings
![Page 15: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Evaluation criteria may be either:
Natural scales - easily understood measures ($, acres, number of structures)
Constructed scales - developed scales for less quantifiable measures (safety, bike/pedestrian connectivity)
Note: Criteria must reflect data availability and data collection budget constraints
![Page 16: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Rating Alternatives
Based on data collected for each criteria
Developed by staff
Available for review and discussion by SWG
![Page 17: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Alternatives will be rated for their performance against the criteria:
Alternative Safety # residentialdisplacements
A -1 Poor 6
A-2 Exceptional 12
A-3 Above Average 9
![Page 18: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Evaluation Criteria will be weighted by the SWG to:
Represent the multiple values of stakeholders
Perform sensitivity analysis
Calculate and visually display the trade-offs
![Page 19: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Evaluate Remaining Alternatives
Factual rating against performance measures
Value weighting to reflect trade-off in values
Single score for each competing alternative
Performance ValueCriterion Measure Rate x Weight = Score
A 3 20 60
B 4 70 280
C 1 10 10
D 2 25 50
Total Score 400
![Page 20: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Rank Alternative
Highest score represents highest value
Scores are not “the answer” but provide a basis for informed discussion and justification of choices
Allows “apples to apples” comparison
Alternative Score
Alternative 1 (II-1/B-2a/b) 86.6
Alternative 2 (II-1/B-2c/d) 76.9
Alternative 3 (II-1/A--1d) 65.4
Alternative 4 (II-1/A-1e) 64.3
Alternative 5 (II-4/B-2a/B) 63.4
Alternative 6 (II-3/B-2a/b) 60.7
Alternative 7 (II-4/B-2c/d) 52.5
Alternative 8 (II-3/B-2c/d) 52.0
Alternative 9 (II-4/A-1d) 42.6
Alternative 10 (II-4/A-1e) 40.6
Alternative 11 (II-3/A-1d) 40.1
Alternative 12 (II-3/A-1e) 39.5
Alternative 13 (III-2/B-2c/d) 37.3
Alternative 14 (III-2/B-2a/b) 36.8
Alternative 15 (III-2/B-3a) 35.1
Alternative 16 (III-1/B-2a/b) 31.8
Alternative 17 (III-2/B-3d) 28.6
Alternative 18 (III-1/B-3a) 28.5
Alternative 19 (III-1/B-2c/d) 27.3
Alternative 20 (III-1/B-3d) 23.2
Project Alternatives
![Page 21: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Sensitivity analysis will indicate:
If a criterion has an influence on the results and how much
What change is required in the weight to produce a change in the results
![Page 22: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Sensitivity Analysis -- Contribution by Criteria
0.89
0.710.64
0.620.58
0.44
0.360.33 0.32 0.32
Alternate 5 Alternate 1 Alternate 7 Alternate 6 Alternate 10 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 9 Alternate 8 Alternate 4
Right-of-Way ImpactsNatural Environment ImpactsCommunity Livability ImpactsTransportation PerformanceCost
Criteria Legend
![Page 23: Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062619/55158e48550346486b8b57d6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Evaluation Framework Summary
Well defined and structured criteria will:– Provide a good basis for rating alternatives
– Provide the basis for weighting criteria
– Provide a focus for discussing community values rather than positions on particular alternatives
– Provide the information for decision-making