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---dont 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. 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. Evaluate Remaining Alternatives Factual rating against performance measures Value weighting to reflect trade-off in values Single score for each competing alternative PerformanceValue CriterionMeasureRate x Weight =Score A320 60 B470280 C110 10 D225 50 Total Score400

20. 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 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 Project Alternatives

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. Sensitivity Analysis -- Contribution by Criteria 0.89 0.71 0.64 0.62 0.58 0.44 0.36 0.330.32 Alternate 5 Alternate 1 Alternate 7 Alternate 6 Alternate 10 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 9 Alternate 8 Alternate 4 Right-of-Way Impacts Natural Environment Impacts Community Livability Impacts Transportation Performance Cost Criteria Legend

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