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 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
Add 1 General Purpose Lane in each direction
Add 2 General Purpose Lanes in each direction
Add 1 Special Purpose Lane
Add 1 Special Purpose Lane in Each Direction
Add Frontage Road	N/A
Add New Interchanges	N/A	N/A	N/A		N/A	N/A
FIXED GUIDEWAY
Light Rail Transit
Self- Propelled Rail (DMU)
Relocate existing railroad, use existing ROW for transit	N/A						N/A
RUBBER-TIRED TRANSIT
Bus	Varies by Highway Alternative	Varies by Highway Alternative	Varies by Highway Alternative	Varies by Highway Alternative	Varies by Highway Alternative
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
Transportation System Mgmt
Reclassify an existing lane	N/A
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
Crowfoot Valley Road	22 min
Parker Road (State Highway 83)	26 min
Extend Quebec to Castle Pines Parkway	33 min
Connect Castle Pines Parkway to Stroh Road	27 min
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

Add 1 General Purpose Lane in each direction

Add 2 General Purpose Lanes in each direction

Add 1 Special Purpose Lane

Add 1 Special Purpose Lane in each direction

Improve the Existing 2 lanes

Limited Access Control

N/A

Add New Interchanges

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Frontage Road

N/A

Relocate existing railroad, use ROW for highway

N/A

FIXED GUIDEWAY

Light Rail Transit

Push/Pull Commuter Rail (improved tracks)

Push/Pull Commuter Rail (new tracks)

Self-Propelled (DMU) (improved tracks)

Self-Propelled (DMU) (new tracks)

Relocate existing railroad, use ROW for transit

N/A

N/A

Improve existing freight railroad

N/A

N/A

N/A

RUBBER-TIRED TRANSIT

Bus

Varies by Hwy Alternative

Varies by Hwy Alternative

Varies by Hwy Alternative

Varies by Hwy Alt.

Varies by Hwy Alt.

TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

Special Purpose Lane

HOV Lane

HOT Lane

Reversible Lane

Flex Lane

Access Control Plan

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

ALTERNATE ROUTES

Extend Quebec to Castle Pines Parkway

33.3 min

Extend US 85

57.8 min

Least Favorable Moderate Most Favorable N/A - Not Applicable FOOTNOTES:  RAISED MEDIAN TYPICAL SECTION  OPEN MEDIAN TYPICAL SECTION  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  ASSUMES FIXED GUIDEWAY LOCATED IN EXISTING RAILROAD ROW  ASSUMES FIXED GUIDEWAY LOCATED IN NEW ROW PARALLEL TO EXISTING RAILROAD ROW  DIFFERENT KIND OF IMPROVEMENT, TRAVELING PUBLIC CAN USE THIS ALTERNATIVE  SEE HIGHWAY RATINGS #3, #4  SEE HIGHWAY RATINGS #1  A PLAN ONLY, DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION  Alternate 3: 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 No-Action system. TRAVEL TIME OF ALTERNATE ROUTE (MINUTES) NOTE: TRAVEL TIMES OF ALTERNATE ROUTES CANNOT BE COMPARED TO EACH OTHER 3. EXTEND QUEBEC TO CASTLE PINES PARKWAY. START: PLUM CREEK PARKWAY END: C-470 / QUEBEC 4. EXTEND US 85. START: PLUM CREEK PARKWAY END: C-470 / US 85 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. Packages for Evaluation Packages for improvements to I-25 and US 85 were developed using the results of the Second Level Evaluation: Evaluation of Alternatives by Mode and Corridor, with consideration of public input, cost-effectiveness, compatibility of the elements, and other issues. These packages do not represent the Long-Term Vision (Preferred Strategy). They were developed for the purpose of testing concepts and combinations of alternatives. The results of the evaluation of these alternatives will be used to refine these packages or combine them into another package to be developed into the Long-Term Vision. US 85 Packages I-25 Packages Click on the package for the definition Package A : No-Action Package B : Reconstruct US 85/Safety Improvements Package C : Add General Purpose Lanes Package D : Add General Purpose Lanes with Regional Bus Service Package E : Fixed-Guideway Transit with Reconstructed US 85/Safety Improvements Package F : Add General Purpose Lanes with Fixed-Guideway Transit Note: Appropriate Supporting Measures, Early-Action Projects, and an Access Control Plan are included in packages B through F. Park-n-Ride stations/lots are included in all transit packages.     Package 1 : No-Action Package 2 : No-Action with Supporting Measures Package 3 : Add General Purpose Lanes Package 4 : Add Special Purpose Lanes with Regional Bus Service Package 5 : Fixed-Guideway Transit Package 6 : Add General Purpose Lanes with Fixed-Guideway Transit Package 7 : Add General Purpose Lanes with Limited Fixed-Guideway Transit Note: In addition to Package 2, appropriate Supporting Measures are included in packages 3 through 7. Park-n-Ride stations/lots are included in all transit packages. All of the packages include the Early-Action Projects. The Early-Action Projects are safety improvement projects that have been previously approved through separate studies and environmental clearances. These projects are either in the design phase or construction phase. In addition to these projects, Douglas County and Town of Castle Rock have committed to roadway improvements. Typically these improvements address local needs and deficiencies. The third level of evaluation analyzes the improvement packages against each other. The results of this level will be used to develop the Long-Term Vision, which will include two separate plans (one for I-25 and one for US 85). Results of 3rd Level Evaluation The third level of evaluation analyzes the packages that were developed as part of the second level of evaluation. This level is more detailed and challenging than the first two levels. The values developed will be for comparison purposes only and will be refined as the Long-Term Vision is developed. The criteria are as follows: Level of Service Travel Time by Mode Capacity Ridership Congestion Average Daily Traffic Safety Capital Costs Operation & Maintenance Costs Cost Per New Transit User Variable User Cost Right of Way Required Disturbed Acres Noise Impacts Air Quality Does it Require Moving the Railroad? US 85 I-25 Click the links for detailed information: US 85 Cost Summary US 85 Environmental Summary US 85 Mobility Summary I-25 Cost Summary I-25 Environmental Summary I-25 Mobility Summary Compatibility Table The Compatibility Table is used to illustrate what packages are compatible with each other. Packages were eliminated for the following reasons: Packages that do not meet the Purpose and Need and do not have public concurrence Fiscal constraints with some combinations of packages Packages that place transit options in competition The compatibility chart identifies the package compatibility: Package Compatibility Chart After the completion of the third level of evaluation, the South I-25 Corridor and US 85 Corridor limits were extended to include the I-25 roadway between Lincoln Avenue and C-470. The Long-Term Vision has been updated to show the addition of a general purpose lane to the C-470 Interchange. View the South I-25 Long-Term Vision for South I-25 & US 85 through 2020 & Beyond: Long-Term Vision Through 2020 and Beyond Click to view enlargement!