woodburn interchange ea evaluation framework presentation swg meeting #2 april 10, 2003

Woodburn Interchange EA

Evaluation Framework Presentation

SWG Meeting #2

April 10, 2003

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

Establish The Evaluation Framework

Evaluation framework includes two types of criteria:

– Threshold screening of feasible from non-feasible alternatives

– Alternative evaluation of feasible alternatives

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

Threshold Screening Process

Desired Outcome:

– Eliminate infeasible, unreasonable alternatives/options

– Spend resources evaluating alternatives/options that have realistic prospect of being implemented

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

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

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

Woodburn Threshold Criteria

Draft Local Project Criteria– Relatively similar impacts or distinct advantage

over another alternative

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

Alternative Evaluation Process

Desired Outcome: – Select alternatives/options for detailed

evaluation in the environmental document

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

Woodburn Draft Evaluation Categories

Transportation & Safety

Natural Resources

Developed Environment

Implementation and Costs

Alternative evaluation process involves:

Developing criteria categories

Developing measurable criteria in each category

Rating alternatives

Weighting criteria

Calculating rankings

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

Rating Alternatives

Based on data collected for each criteria

Developed by staff

Available for review and discussion by SWG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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