Oregon Department of Transportation - Highway 62

Document text

Evaluation Criteria (May 1, 2000) NOTE: E# � Existing Highway #, N# � New Highway #, H# � Hybrid #, NB � No Build Suggested Weight Accessibility (Person-Trips)  How well does the alternative maximize access to public transit? (subjective) How well does the alternative maximize connections between homes and jobs? (subjective) How many modal changes are connected with this alternative? (objective – modal changes) How well does this alternative maximize connectivity across the corridor? (subjective) How well does the alternative maximize opportunities to provide better access to individuals or groups who need some form of transportation due to an inability to use other forms of transportation? (subjective) How well does the alternative maximize bike, pedestrian, and/or transit access to business and industrial areas? (subjective)   8 Mobility How well does this alternative minimize peak-hour travel time (measured in person hours per hour) between Highway 99 and Highway 140? (objective – person hours of travel per hour)   10 Meets User Expectations How well does this alternative minimize design exceptions related to user expectations? (objective – number of design exceptions)   7 Supports Tourism How well does this alternative maximize opportunities to enhance the driving experience of tourists along the corridor? (subjective)   5 Freight Intermodal How well does this alternative maximize opportunities for intermodal connectivity in the airport and White City industrial areas? (objective – number of intermodal connections) How well does this alternative maximize opportunities to support freight movement? (subjective)   8 Economic Impacts On Business How well does this alternative maximize opportunities to support creation of significant economic development? (subjective) How well does this alternative minimize adverse impacts associated with access to commercial / industrial centers? (subjective) How well does this alternative minimize or avoid adverse impacts to existing businesses/ or industry? (subjective)   8 Environmental How well does this alternative minimize adverse impacts on endangered species? (subjective) What is the potential of this alternative to maximize improvements to air quality? (subjective) How well does this alternative minimize adverse impacts to wetlands or 4-F properties? (subjective) How well does this alternatives minimize economic justice impacts? (subjective)   6 User Safety How well does the alternative minimize or mitigate existing accident problems? (subjective) What is the potential for this alternative to minimize the frequency or severity of future accidents? (subjective)   9 Constructability How easily can this alternative be constructed while minimizing adverse impacts on or disruption to traffic? (subjective) How easily can this alternative be constructed while minimizing impacts on or disruption to adjoining property? (subjective)   7 Phasing How well does this alternative lend itself to a logical phasing sequence? (subjective)   5 Land Use/Transportation Integration How well does this alternative maximize opportunities to integrate land use and transportation? (subjective) How well does this alternative maximize opportunities to reduce regional per capita vehicle miles traveled? (objective – VMT / capita).   8 Aesthestics How well does this alternative maximize opportunities to improve corridor aesthetics? (subjective)   5 TOTAL SCORE PER DOLLAR COST     TOTAL SCORE PER PRESENT VALUE DOLLAR COST           _ Interactive Poll Do you feel you are getting enough information? Yes or No?   You'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view some of the maps and documents on this site. Website maintained by the PI Team, Mail Tribune, 111. North Fir St. , Medford, Oregon 97501. contact: [email protected]