Laserfiche WebLink
4 ALTERNATIVES <br /> EVALUATION CRITERIA <br /> The evaluation criteria selected to evaluate the <br /> proposed alternatives were developed based Chapter Overview <br /> on the project purpose and goal statements <br /> presented in Chapter One for this study.The * Evaluation criteriaused during <br /> alternatives evaluation was completed in Tier 1 Initial and -• Evaluation <br /> two phases (tiers):Tier 1, an Initial Evaluation Evaluation <br /> and a Revised Evaluation of all alternatives; * Criteria used for the Tier 2 Targeted <br /> and Tier 2, a Targeted Evaluation of the top Evaluation <br /> ranked alternatives. For each goal statement, Alternatives - forward <br /> a number of evaluation criteria and <br /> measurements were developed. <br /> The Tier 1 Evaluation consisted of the seven Transportation (WSDOT) staff, as well as input <br /> preliminary alternatives identified in Chapter from the public and stakeholders. Feedback <br /> 2.The Tier 1 Evaluation included two rounds of gathered on the alternatives and evaluation <br /> evaluation: criteria through public webinars and an open <br /> • An initial evaluation which was presented house was incorporated into the evaluation <br /> to the public for input; and process. Public surveys provided an additional <br /> opportunity for the public to provide input <br /> • A revised evaluation which incorporated on the alternatives and evaluation process. <br /> public input. For additional information about the public <br /> Alternatives with better performance engagement process and comments received, <br /> (represented by higher scores)were then please refer to Chapter 5. <br /> advanced to the Tier 2 Targeted Evaluation, <br /> which provided a more comparative <br /> assessment of the remaining alternatives. 4.1 Evaluation Criteria <br /> Additional criteria were added to the Tier 2 The evaluation methodology was developed to <br /> evaluation to further distinguish the remaining measure how well each alternative meets the <br /> alternatives. project purpose and goals.The analysis was <br /> The evaluation process drew upon insights primarily qualitative with some quantitative <br /> from both Kittitas County (County) data used to develop performance ratings. <br /> and Washington State Department of <br /> VOLUME 1: FEASIBILITY REPORT 1-90 Corridor-Easton to Cle Elum Feasibility Study I S2 <br />