Woodburn Interchange EA

1. Woodburn Interchange EA Evaluation Framework Presentation SWG Meeting #2 April 10, 2003

2. 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

3. Establish The Evaluation Framework • Evaluation framework includes two types of criteria: • Threshold screening of feasible from non-feasible alternatives • Alternative evaluation of feasible alternatives

4. 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

5. Threshold Screening Process • Desired Outcome: • Eliminate infeasible, unreasonable alternatives/options • Spend resources evaluating alternatives/options that have realistic prospect of being implemented

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Woodburn Threshold Criteria • Draft Local Project Criteria • Relatively similar impacts or distinct advantage over another alternative

10. 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

11. Alternative Evaluation Process • Desired Outcome: • Select alternatives/options for detailed evaluation in the environmental document

12. 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

13. Woodburn Draft Evaluation Categories • Transportation & Safety • Natural Resources • Developed Environment • Implementation and Costs

14. Alternative evaluation process involves: • Developing criteria categories • Developing measurable criteria in each category • Rating alternatives • Weighting criteria • Calculating rankings

15. 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

16. Rating Alternatives • Based on data collected for each criteria • Developed by staff • Available for review and discussion by SWG

17. Alternative Safety # residential displacements A -1 Poor 6 A-2 Exceptional 12 A-3 Above Average 9 Alternatives will be rated for their performance against the criteria:

18. 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

19. Performance Value Criterion Measure Rate x Weight = Score A 3 20 60 B 4 70 280 C 1 10 10 D 2 25 50 Total Score 400 Evaluate Remaining Alternatives • Factual rating against performance measures • Value weighting to reflect trade-off in values • Single score for each competing alternative

20. Project Alternatives 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 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

21. 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

22. 0.89 0.71 0.64 0.62 0.58 0.44 0.36 0.33 0.32 0.32 Alternate 5 Alternate 1 Alternate 7 Alternate 6 Alternate 10 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 9 Alternate 8 Alternate 4 Criteria Legend Right-of-Way Impacts Natural Environment Impacts Community Livability Impacts Transportation Performance Cost Sensitivity Analysis -- Contribution by Criteria

23. 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