12/16/1985 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ 't vehicle miles, average travel speed, average delay, and a number of other variables. These numbers provide an overall e indication of level of service, or how well the roadway performs the task of moving traffic. In addition to level of service, overall safety of the proposed roadway was considered. This is not the result of a computer analysis, but rather a professional judgment by staff taking into account such features as curvature, number of intersec- tions, potential conflicts due to driveways, and mixing of through and local traffic. (8) Cost: At this eastern end of the project, right-of-way acquisi- tion (including payment of damages, relocation assistance, etc.) is much higher than elsewhere on the project and varies con- siderably fromone alternative to another. The right-of-way criteria compares estimated dollar costs of the four alterna- tives. Construction cost of these alternatives is also compared. (C) Impacts on Businesses: These criteria compare the alternatives based on the number of businesses that would actually be dis- placed, as well as the general extent of other impacts that would occur. For example, less of a loading dock might consti- tute an impact for which the business would be compensated. These impacts, including displacement, are considered short-term e since they would be mitigated by monetary compensation. A third criterion under this heading, impacts on local circula- tion, addresses long-term effects on existing and future businesses within this industrial area. For example, some of the alternatives might impede local access and traffic movement which could have a detrimental effect on business operations. (0) ImDlementation Issues: It should be recognized that recom- mending an alternative not already included in the draft EIS would carry some risk of delaying the project. For example, an alignment that affects several businesses that have not already been identified as being impacted might require further study, a new EIS and/or additional public hearings. A related but somewhat different criterion is stated as "ac- ceptabil i ty to State/Feds. II This has been included because, even if the type of delay outlined above did not occur, there might still be technical or other reasons for the State or Federal agencies to question the desireability of the recom- mended alternative, and require further study before deciding to implement it. Finally, the likelihood of State/Federal funding for the project is listed. This is related to "acceptability," but reflects more specifically the State's ability and willingness e to commit funding to the selected alternative. The attached 2