Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> , <br /> I. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES <br /> I EVALUATION CRITERIA <br /> , The evaluation criteria may be different depending on the alternatives or options that are being <br /> evaluated. Not all criteria will necessarily be applicable to every alternative, In general the <br /> evaluation criteria should relate to the goals and objectives that were identified for the project. Some <br /> , goals and objectives may require -more than one evaluation criteria and there may be additional <br /> criteria that do not directly relate to a stated goal or objective that should be considered. <br /> , The evaluation criteria should cover the following goals and objectives. <br /> , 0 Improve Safety <br /> 0 Meet Forecast Traffic Demand <br /> , 0 Support Travel Demand Management <br /> , 0 Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian Movement <br /> Improve Community Image <br /> ,- 0 <br /> 0 Minimize Impacts on Adjacent Land Uses <br /> , 0 Avoid Degradation of Water Quality <br /> 0 Minimize Social and Environmental Impacts <br /> I <br /> CAPACITY OF AL TERNA TIVE CROSS-SECTIONS <br /> , The capacity of an urban arterial is usually determined by the capacity at the signalized intersections, <br /> since these are the locations where there are also large volumes of crossing traffic and therefore the 't!i;",_ <br /> , through movement on the arterial is, interrupted. The chart on the following page shows typical dai~ ' <br /> volumes that .can be carried on different cross-sections assuming that the signalized intersections <br /> control the capacity on the arterial. The service volumes were estimated based on traffic conditions <br /> , typical for a suburban arterial. The purpose ofthe chart is to provide a general sense of the volume <br /> of traffic that can be carried by different cross-sections, "The actual capacity and level of service at <br /> any specific intersection will depend on the geometrics and traffic conditions at that intersection. <br /> I Also shown on the chart is the traffic volumes that can be carried by a two lane rural highway at <br /> different levels of service. This graph is applicable to long segments of roadway which have <br /> , relatively little access and cross traffic, On these segments the level of service is defined as the <br /> .percent of time that vehicles are delayed. Although it may not be directly applicable to Highway 96, <br /> .- <br /> ,J 64 <br /> ..,.",- <br />