Project Home      Study Area Map       Purpose & Need       Project Description       Evaluation Process      
Alternatives Considered       Environmental Analysis       Documents       Supporting Agencies


Alternatives Evaluation Criteria

Criteria Development Chart

Alternatives Evaluation Process

Alternatives for Evaluation

Results of 1st Level Evaluations

Results of 2nd Level Evaluations

Packages for Evaluation

Results of 3rd Level Evaluations

Package Compatibility Chart

Evaluation Process

The project team developed an evaluation process to help develop the Long-Term Vision (Preferred Strategy). The process begins with the scoping process, which the team collects and identifies the transportation issues throughout the corridor. The evaluation criteria is then developed. Once the criteria is developed, then alternatives are brainstormed for each corridor. The alternatives go through a three level evaluation process in which Long-Term Vision is developed.

Alternatives Evaluation Criteria

Based on the scoping process, Project Issues have been identified for the South I-25 Corridor and US 85 Corridor. These issues combined with the project problem statement became the basis of developing the project objectives. The alternatives evaluation criteria were developed from the project objectives (see figure below).

Criteria Development Chart

Criteria Development

Alternatives Evaluation Process

The issues collected from the public and local agencies may be sorted into five categories: mobility, safety, environmental, implementation, and community values. Criteria for each level of the evaluation process was developed based on these categories. The following table is a matrix showing the criteria used in this three-step process.

Category 1. Eliminate    Unrealistic
   Alternatives


Yes / No

2. Evaluation of     Alternatives     Mode and     Corridor

3. Evaluation of     Packages by     Corridor


Corridor

Mobility
  • Is it compatible with existing or planned transportation system
  • Travel time between origin and destination pairs
  • LOS on highway
  • Travel time on mode - users by mode
  • Ridership on transit
  • Capacity
  • Safety    
    • Safety by mode
    Environmental  
    • Amount of new ROW required
    • Number of disturbed acres
  • Amount of new ROW required
  • Number of disturbed acres
  • Noise impacts
  • Air quality -VMT
  • Implementation
  • Is this a proven technology in a comparable application?
  • Ease of construction
  • Capital costs
  • Capital costs
  • Operation/maintenance costs
  • Does it require moving the railroad?
  • User costs
  • Cost per new user by mode
  • Community Values
  • Is this compatible with local goals and objectives?
  • Does it preserves future transit options?
  • Community agency support
  • Ease of use
  • Community/agency support
  • Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled
  • = Least Favorable     = Moderate     =Most Favorable

    The intent of the first level of evaluation is to eliminate alternatives from consideration that are clearly unsuitable or do not meet the goals and objectives of the project. The entire list of alternatives developed are evaluated by the following yes or no questions to eliminate unrealistic alternatives:

    • Is it compatible with existing or planned transportation system?
    • Is this a proven technology in a comparable application?
    • Is it compatible with local goals and objectives?
    • Does it preserve future transit options?

    IF THE ANSWER TO ONE OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS IS NO THEN THE ALTERNATIVE IS ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

    Alternatives for Evaluation

    The South I-25 Corridor and US 85 Corridor EIS is evaluating a range of reasonable alternatives that address the purpose and need of the project. The Long-Term Vision is developed through a multi-modal approach, and will likely be a combination (2 or more) of highway, transit, transportation management, and/or enhancements.

    Based on input from the Project Team, Issues Team, and stakeholders; lists of alternatives for I-25 and US 85 were developed. These alternatives were sorted into the following categories for each corridor:

    US 85

    I-25

    No-Action Alternative - click the link for detailed information:

    No-Action Alternative

    Build Alternatives - click the links for detailed information:

    Highway

    Fixed Guideway

    Rubber-Tired Transit

    Transportation Management

    Alternate Routes

    Highway

    Fixed Guideway

    Rubber-Tired Transit

    Transportation Management

    Alternate Routes

    Supporting Measures Supporting Measures would not address the project objectives alone, but could help the other alternatives in addressing the purpose and need. These measures will be evaluated with the Long-Term Vision (Preferred Strategy) in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement - click the link for detailed information:

    Supporting Measures

    Supporting Measures


    Results of 1st Level Evaluation


    Alternatives remaining after first level of evaluation

    The following alternatives survived the first level of evaluation and has proceeded into the second level:

    US 85

    I-25

    No-Action Alternative - click the link for detailed information:

    No-Action Alternative

    Build Alternatives - click the links for detailed information:

    Highway

    Fixed Guideway

    Rubber-Tired Transit

    Transportation Management

    Alternate Routes

    Highway

    Fixed Guideway

    Rubber-Tired Transit

    Transportation Management

    Alternate Routes


    Results of 2nd Level Evaluation

    The second level evaluates the remaining alternatives that survived the first screening level of evaluation for each corridor. These alternatives are compared within each mode and rated against each other by criteria. A rating system is used that categorizes each alternative as least favorable, moderately favorable, and most favorable for each category based on the criteria. The alternatives that best meet the criteria and purpose can then be combined with alternatives from other modes to form packages that will be evaluated in the third level.

    I-25 Ratings

      Mobility Environmental Implementation Community Values
      Travel Time between Origin & Destination Amount of New ROW Required Number of Disturbed Acres Ease of Construction Capital Costs (per mile) Community/ Agency support Ease of Use
    NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

                   
    HIGHWAY              
    1. Add 1 General Purpose Lane in each direction

    1. Add 2 General Purpose Lanes in each direction

    1. Add 1 Special Purpose Lane

    1. Add 1 Special Purpose Lane in Each Direction

    1. Add Frontage Road
    N/A

    1. Add New Interchanges
    N/A N/A N/A

    N/A N/A

    FIXED GUIDEWAY              
    1. Light Rail Transit

    1. Self-
      Propelled Rail (DMU)

    1. Relocate existing railroad, use existing ROW for transit
    N/A

    N/A
    RUBBER-TIRED TRANSIT              
    1. Bus
    Varies by Highway Alternative Varies by Highway Alternative Varies by Highway Alternative Varies by Highway Alternative Varies by Highway Alternative

    TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT              
    1. Transportation System Mgmt
                 
    • Reclassify an existing lane
    N/A

    1. Special Purpose Lane
                 
    • HOV Lane

    See Hwy Rating #4,#5 See Hwy Rating #4,#5

    See Hwy Rating #4,#5

    • HOT Lane

    See Hwy Rating #4,#5 See Hwy Rating #4,#5

    See Hwy Rating #4,#5

    • Toll Lane

    See Hwy Rating #4,#5 See Hwy Rating #4,#5

    See Hwy Rating #4,#5

    • Reversible Lane

    See Hwy Rating #4,#5 See Hwy Rating #4,#5

    See Hwy Rating #4,#5

    • Flex Lane

    See Hwy Rating #4,#5 See Hwy Rating #4,#5

    • Express Lane

    See Hwy Rating #4,#5 See Hwy Rating #4,#5

    See Hwy Rating #4,#5

    ALTERNATE ROUTES              
    1. Crowfoot Valley Road
    22 min

    1. Parker Road (State Highway 83)
    26 min

    1. Extend Quebec to Castle Pines Parkway
    33 min

    1. Connect Castle Pines Parkway to Stroh Road
    27 min

    1. Highway 105
    75 min

    Least Favorable Moderate Most Favorable   N/A - Not Applicable

    FOOTNOTES:
     TRAVEL TIME IS CALCULATED FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND NOT THE EXISTING LANES. THIS ALTERNATIVES IMPROVEMENT DOES NOT ADD CAPACITY AND TRAVEL TIME CANNOT BE CALCULATED
     CANNOT BE COMPARED TO OTHER HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVES, DIFFERENT TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT
     DIFFERENT KIND OF IMPROVEMENT, TRAVELING PUBLIC CAN USE THIS ALTERNATIVE
     TRAVEL TIME OF ALTERNATE ROUTE (MINUTES)

    NOTE: TRAVEL TIMES OF ALTERNATE ROUTES CANNOT BE COMPARED TO EACH OTHER
    1. CROWFOOT VALLEY ROAD. START: PLUM CREEK PARKWAY END: LINCOLN / PARKER RD
    2. PARKER ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY 83). START: PLUM CREEK PARKWAY END: LINCOLN / PARKER RD
    4. EXTEND QUEBEC TO CASTLE PINES PARKWAY. START: PLUM CREEK PARKWAY END: LINCOLN / PARKER RD
    8. CONNECT CASTLE PINES PARKWAY TO STROH ROAD. START: PLUM CREEK PARKWAY END: LINCOLN / PARKER RD
    9. HIGHWAY 105. START: EL PASO LINE END: US 85 / C-470

     Alternate Route 4: Extend Quebec to Castle Pines Parkway assumes 4 lanes along the entire route. After further discussion with Douglas County and the public, it was determined that this alternate route is not consistent with Douglas County Master Plan and should have been eliminated in the first evaluation level: Eliminate Unrealistic Alternatives. This alternate route is no longer under consideration. The ratings shown previously reflect the 4 lane alternate route. The completion of Quebec as defined in the Douglas County Plan is included as a part of the No-Action system.

    GENERAL NOTE: THE ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR THESE CRITERIA ARE ONLY FOR THE SECOND LEVEL EVALUATION. MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS AND REFINEMENT OF THE ASSUMPTIONS WILL BE REQUIRED IN THE THIRD LEVEL EVALUATION.

    US 85 Ratings

     

    Mobility

    Environmental

    Implementation

    Community Values

     

    Travel Time between Origin & Destination

    Amount of New ROW Required

    Number of Disturbed Acres

    Ease of Construction

    Capital Costs (per mile)

    Commun
    -ity/Agency Support

    Ease of Use

    NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

                   

    HIGHWAY

                 
    1. Add 1 General Purpose Lane in each direction

    1. Add 2 General Purpose Lanes in each direction

    1. Add 1 Special Purpose Lane

    1. Add 1 Special Purpose Lane in each direction

    1. Improve the Existing 2 lanes

    1. Limited Access Control
    N/A

    1. Add New Interchanges
    N/A N/A N/A

    N/A

    1. Frontage Road
    N/A

    1. Relocate existing railroad, use ROW for highway
    N/A

    FIXED GUIDEWAY              
    1. Light Rail Transit

    1. Push/Pull Commuter Rail (improved tracks)

    1. Push/Pull Commuter Rail (new tracks)

    1. Self-Propelled (DMU) (improved tracks)

    1. Self-Propelled (DMU) (new tracks)

    1. Relocate existing railroad, use ROW for transit
    N/A

    N/A
    1. Improve existing freight railroad
    N/A

    N/A

    N/A
    RUBBER-TIRED TRANSIT              
    1. Bus

    Varies by Hwy Alternative

    Varies by Hwy Alternative

    Varies by Hwy Alternative

    Varies by Hwy Alt.

    Varies by Hwy Alt.

    TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

                 
    1. Special Purpose Lane
                 
    • HOV Lane

    • HOT Lane

    • Reversible Lane

    • Flex Lane

    1. Access Control Plan
    N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

    N/A

    ALTERNATE ROUTES

         <