Ranking the Alternatives

The project team identified criteria to assess how successful each alternative would be at achieving the goals of this project. We used the criteria to score each alternative’s performance and rank them based on a comprehensive view of performance criteria.

Alternative 3 (Roundabouts) performed the best overall. This alternative showed the most success at improving safety, increasing pedestrian and bicycle mobility and accessibility, and streamlining operations for all vehicle types. Alternative 1 (Traffic Signal & Channelization Enhancements) was a close second because it showed the most success at increasing connectivity for populations with limited mobility, improving operations along the corridor, and minimizing impacts to adjacent properties and the environment.

A summary table outlining the evaluation criteria and scoring results is shown below.

Objective Criteria Alternative Concepts
Signal Enhancement SPUI Roundabout
1.
Improve Local and Regional Mobility
Vehicular Operations.How well does the alternative reduce vehicular delay along the corridor icon representing very high benefit icon representing high benefit icon representing very high benefit
Improve Local Access. How well does the alternative improve the operations and safety of side street approaches along the corridor? icon representing high benefit icon representing low benefit icon representing very high benefit
Improve System Resiliency. How successful is the alternative in reducing unexpected delays and breakdowns caused by high volumes? icon representing low benefit icon representing medium benefit icon representing high benefit
Increase Walking/Biking Mobility. To what degree does the alternative expand and/or improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the corridor? icon representing low benefit icon representing no benefit icon representing high benefit
Improve Transit Speed and Reliability. How well does the alternative reduce delay experienced by transit vehicles? icon representing low benefit icon representing high benefit icon representing very high benefit
2.
Improve Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists
Vehicular Safety. To what degree does the alternative reduce vehicular collisions or conflict points along the corridor? icon representing no benefit icon representing no benefit icon representing very high benefit
Enhance Active Transportation Connectivity and Comfort. How well does the alternative improve the comfort and safety of pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the corridor? icon representing no benefit icon representing low benefit icon representing low benefit
Increase ADA Accessibility. To what degree does the alternative expand and provide ADA accessible facilities along the corridor? icon representing very high benefit icon representing low benefit icon representing high benefit
3. Other Factors Implementation Feasibility. What is the impact of the alternative to adjacent structures and properties? Would the alternative extend right-of-way into privately-owned property? (low impact = high benefit) icon representing high benefit icon representing low benefit icon representing no benefit
Environmental Impacts. What is the alternative’s environmental impact, especially as it relates to stormwater pollution? (low impact = high benefit) icon representing very high benefit icon representing low benefit icon representing low benefit
Project Cost. How do the construction costs for this alternative compare to the others? $ $ $ $ $ $
Overall Ranking 2nd 3rd 1st

Satisfaction of Criteria

icon representing no benefit

No benefit

icon representing low benefit

Low benefit

icon representing medium benefit

Medium benefit

icon representing high benefit

High benefit

icon representing very high benefit

Very high benefit