06/03/86 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

adver.e errect. If the criterion produced no.discernable erfect it was given a aoore or wzerow. Criteria checked as YES or NO were given a .1 or .1 depending upon whether or not the response was regarded as a benefit or detriment. Arter each criterion had been assessed, two additional scores were included: o the ratio or total trips to 11I101_ trips o the ratio of total trip diversions rrom TH 169 to III1n1m1llD diversions from TH 169 The composite scores from these sessi9ns were tabulated by Metro Council starr and an average score was determ1ned. The init1al bridge ranlt1ngs were made trom this exercise, using the average of each commun1ties numbers. The results are shown in both Figure 2 and Table 1. 2. SECOND BRIDGE SCORING The Com=1ttee reviewed the io1tial bridge scoring results a:1d decided that some criteria should have been given great;er weight than others. The initial rating gave each criterion equal weight. The communities were then asked to submit their own recommended weights for the eleven criteria identified for modification at the meeting.' Specifically, the critera were: 1. Tratfic patter:lS 2. construction detours 3. Controversy 1;. ConsiStency with local plans 5. Use of 4r lands 6. ~ic noise 7. Functional classification 8. Length of Approaches 9. ROW purchase cost '0. Deficiency 1'. Effects on Tn 169 The critera sheets (now weighted) were once more used to rate each bridge. Composite scores were again tabulated by the Metro Council and an average was deter::W1ed. . . In conjunction with the criteria weighting, the Technical Co=1ttee also telt that perhaps too mucn emphaSis was being given to the environmental aspects oompared with the system concerns. The criteria scorino; sheets do contain 26 sepa....te ite~ under the Envirol1!:lental Assesscellt wile only listing 7 separate items under System considerations. To recti:r this situation and give equal consideration to both sections, toose it~ under System Considerations were tactored based on the lIlaxi:llUm scores possible (13.2) compared with toe maxi:I\l:I possible in the Environmental Assessment section (26). In thiS case, the tactor was set at 2. (MathematicallY, the factor worked out to be 1.g696969 but was rounded tor s1mpl1city.) Taking the ...esults of the second bridge scoring, those with the weighted criteria, the Metro Council tabulated composite scores .and produced an average. '!he result of thiS b...idge scoring ettort is shown in FiSW" 3 ~ Ta~l, 2. \ I I \ I b2