Laserfiche WebLink
4 ALTERNATIVES <br />EVALUATION CRITERIA <br />The evaluation criteria selected to evaluate the <br />proposed alternatives were developed based <br />on the project purpose and goal statements <br />presented in Chapter One for this study. The <br />alternatives evaluation was completed in <br />two phases (tiers): Tier 1, an Initial Evaluation <br />and a Revised Evaluation of all alternatives; <br />and Tier 2, a Targeted Evaluation of the top <br />ranked alternatives. For each goal statement, <br />a number of evaluation criteria and <br />measurements were developed. <br />The Tier 1 Evaluation consisted of the seven <br />preliminary alternatives identified in Chapter <br />2. The Tier 1 Evaluation included two rounds of <br />evaluation: <br />• An initial evaluation which was presented <br />to the public for input; and <br />• A revised evaluation which incorporated <br />public input. <br />Alternatives with better performance <br />(represented by higher scores) were then <br />advanced to the Tier 2 Targeted Evaluation, <br />which provided a more comparative <br />assessment of the remaining alternatives. <br />Additional criteria were added to the Tier 2 <br />evaluation to further distinguish the remaining <br />alternatives. <br />The evaluation process drew upon insights <br />from both Kittitas County (County) <br />and Washington State Department of <br />Transportation (WSDOT) staff, as well as input <br />from the public and stakeholders. Feedback <br />gathered on the alternatives and evaluation <br />criteria through public webinars and an open <br />house was incorporated into the evaluation <br />process. Public surveys provided an additional <br />opportunity for the public to provide input <br />on the alternatives and evaluation process. <br />For additional information about the public <br />engagement process and comments received, <br />please refer to Chapter 5. <br />4.1 Evaluation Criteria <br />The evaluation methodology was developed to <br />measure how well each alternative meets the <br />project purpose and goals. The analysis was <br />primarily qualitative with some quantitative <br />data used to develop performance ratings. <br />VOLUME 1: FEASIBILITY REPORT 1-90 Corridor Easton to Cle Elunn Feasibility Study 152 <br />