Laserfiche WebLink
CHAPTER 4: ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CRITERIA <br />Using the same process used in the Tier 1 <br />Evaluation, Table 4-5 presents the Tier 2 <br />Targeted Evaluation for 1-90 Alternatives' <br />Performance Measurements (rating) for the <br />identified criteria. Additional traffic modeling <br />was also undertaken which compared the <br />three alternatives. The results of this modeling <br />exercise are presented at the end of Appendix A <br />The public input via a survey and Open House <br />was conducted in February 2024 (see Chapter <br />5). The public voted on one or more preferred <br />alternatives. Alternative 2 received the most <br />votes with Alternatives 3 and 1 almost tied <br />(see Figure 5-3). The public heavily favored <br />improvements that encroached upon the <br />median over outside widening or outside of the <br />1-90 corridor. <br />Table 4-6 below presents a summary of <br />weighted scores for each alternative by Project <br />Goal, as well as a diagram (Figure 4-2) showing <br />how each alternative compared to each other. <br />Detailed evaluation worksheets, along with <br />explanations for the scoring, are included in <br />Appendix H. A comprehensive environmental <br />evaluation was also performed, and findings <br />are presented in Appendix G. <br />4.4 Alternatives Selected <br />to Move Forward <br />The Tier 1 Evaluation identified all three <br />1-90 alternatives as the best -performing <br />alternatives aligning with the Project Goals <br />compared to alternatives outside of the <br />1-90 right-of-way corridor. However, given <br />the comparable scores for all three 1-90 <br />alternatives, the County and WSDOT conducted <br />a Tier 2 Evaluation to further compare the top <br />three alternatives to each other still based on <br />the Project Goals. <br />Although all three 1-90 alternatives scores <br />were again very close, the County and WSDOT <br />concluded expansion in the median of 1-90 <br />would likely cause less disruption to traffic <br />flow, and less physical impacts to the natural <br />environment and surrounding communities. <br />Therefore, Alternatives 2 and 3 will move <br />forward and be further evaluated in the next <br />phases of this study. More information about <br />next steps is presented in Chapter 6. <br />VOLUME I: FEASIBILITY REPORT 1-90 Corridor Easton to Cle Elum Feasibility Study 1 65 <br />