Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3. THIRD BIlIDGE SCOIlING <br /> <br />Upon reviewing the results of the weighted criteria and equivalencing the <br />environmental andlystem lections of the .coring Iheeta, the Technical <br />Committee questioned whether or not the initial criter~ .coring actually <br />.. represented a reasonable measurement by which the bridges could be rated. Were <br />there any changes in the rating Icheme that needed to be modified? After lome <br />deliberation it was decided that several criteria Iho~ be reevaluated. All <br />of the changes were directed to various System Considerations criteria. As a <br />result, the following criteria were mod1ried: <br /> <br />1. Functional Classification <br /> <br />In order to place more emphasis on metropolitan system bridges as <br />opposed to those that are more local 1n nature, the criterion scoring <br />was revisecl. A new category, Metro HiGhway, was added and given a <br />score of .t. Consequently the minor arterial .core was revised from <br />..1 to zero, and the collector and local classifications were cOl:lbined <br />and scored as -1. Bridges considered part of the Metro HiGhway system <br />were Number 1 (Ta 101), Number 9 (TH 610), NlI:lber 12 (1-694) and the <br />two bypass scenario bridges, Number 3b and 6b (South Diamond Lalce- <br />Thurston and CIl 14 - Riesling Bl respectively). <br /> <br />2. Right-of-Way Purchase <br /> <br />Lee Sta."T felt that after baving taken a closer look at the individual <br />scoring, the 109th - Hanson Bl bridge (Number 8) should have been <br />regarded as a Hard Purchase rather than an Easy Purc2se. As a result <br />the bridge ."as given a -1 -score rather than .., for this criterion. <br /> <br />3. Eight-of-Way Cost <br /> <br />After a' simile!' 'review of the right-of-way cost analysis, Lee Ste!':' <br />recOlll:llended changing the scoring of Bridges 1 and 8 (Noble Av-Crooked <br />Lake Bl and 109th-Eanson 51 respectively) f:'Cll:..1 to -1. This <br />reflected a more acc1:rate picture of the anticipatec. cost. The tw-o <br />bypass alte:-..atives (Bridges 3b and 6b) were also given -1 scores for <br />this criterion. GiVe:! the nature of the roadway system needed to <br />create an effective bypass, the right-of-way costs would be high. <br /> <br />1;. Leng-..h of COIIIlectiJ:Ig Approaches <br /> <br />For the same reasoDiJ:Ig in the right-of-vay costs, the bypass <br />alteroatives were given -1 scores for ,this criterion. The roaci...y <br />syste::: neeliec. 1:: 2. llytlal!s sce=1o is consicierec. a pa.-t of the <br />approach to the bridges. <br /> <br />The bridge scoring c:-iteria sheets (now f1:rther JIIodifie:l) we:-e ae~ \:Sec. to <br />calculate COll:posite sco:-es. The Met:oo Council averaged tlle results and <br />produced the bridge r-""""g shO\oOl 1:: r:'gl:re 1; and Table 3. <br /> <br />b-=t <br /> <br />