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

<