My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2024-07-22-minutes-public-works-&-cds-study-session
>
Meetings
>
2024
>
08. August
>
2024-08-06 10:00 AM - Commissioners' Agenda
>
2024-07-22-minutes-public-works-&-cds-study-session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2024 1:31:29 PM
Creation date
8/1/2024 1:14:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
8/6/2024
Meeting title
Commissioners' Agenda
Location
Commissioners' Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Supporting documentation
Supplemental fields
Item
Approve Minutes
Order
1
Placement
Consent Agenda
Row ID
120774
Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
160
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CHAPTER 4: ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CRITERIA <br />The evaluation methodology included the <br />development of: <br />• Project Goats (from Purpose and Need presented in <br />Chapter 1) and total assigned points for each Goal; <br />• Evaluation Criteria for each Goal; and <br />• Performance Measurements (points) for each <br />criterion ranging from 1 (alternative does not meet <br />or improve the criterion) to 3 (alternative meets or <br />exceeds goal of criterion). <br />Each Performance Measurement was assigned a <br />Weight based on the Goal's assigned points and <br />its number of criteria. For each Alternative, a total <br />weighted score was determined by summing the total <br />weighted scores for each Project Goal. <br />Performance Rating Methodology <br />The Performance Rating for each criterion is based on the total Assigned Points for each <br />Project Goal divided by the number of Evaluation Criteria for that Goal. <br />For example, Freight Mobility was assigned 10 points, and has 3 criteria. Therefore, each <br />criterion's maximum weight would be 3.3 points (10 divided by 3). <br />The Weighted Score for each Alternative's ability to meet the overall Goal was calculated as <br />follows: <br />Criterion's Performance Measurement Weight (1, 2, 3) times the Weight (based on the Goal's <br />Assigned Points and number of Criteria). <br />Alternative Criteria Scoring Example: <br />1. If an Alternative was being scored on the Project Goal Freight Mobility - <br />Freight Mobility = Max 10 points out of 100 Total Goal points <br />2. There are 3 Evaluation Criteria for Freight Mobility: <br />Freight Mobility 10 pts maximum divided by 3 categories = <br />Max 3.3 pts per Performance Measurement <br />3. Performance Measurement'3' = Max Value, 7 = Moderate Value, '1' = Minimum/No Value <br />So if the Performance Measurement for this Alternative is "3 - Increases freight <br />throughput", it would receive 3.3 pts (Max value). <br />If it is rated as a "2 Moderately increase freight throughput", it would receive 1.7 pts <br />(Moderate Value). <br />If it is rated as a "1 - Did not increase freight throughput", it would receive 0 pts <br />(Minimum/No Value). <br />VOLUME 1: FEASIBILITY REPORT 1-90 Corridor - Easton to Cle Elum Feasibility Study 1 53 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.