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

    		             
    1. Extend Quebec to Castle Pines Parkway
    		33.3 min
    1. 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:

    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!
    Click to view enlargement of the Long-Term Vision Through 2020 and Beyond!

    Last Updated: 07.07.2008 04:13 PM

    This is a Colorado Department of Transportation    Project Website!

    SouthI-25@hdrinc.com