Laserfiche WebLink
scenarios that only reduce or remove some of the parking. Scenario C would enhance the <br />pedestrian character of 4th Street to the benefit of restaurants, cafes, shops and other <br />adjacent businesses. Traffic flow along 4`h Street would be improved, allowing for more <br />reliable streetcar operations and reduced potential for conflicts between automobiles and <br />streetcars. Although approximately 132 on- street parking spaces would be eliminated <br />under Scenario C, there is adequate parking available in nearby parking structures located <br />just off and accessible from 4th Street. However, during environmental review process and <br />accompanying public comment there was opposition expressed by adjacent businesses to <br />the removal of parking along 4`h Street and the potential impact to their businesses. <br />� • r u � �, t " � r, <br />The screening criteria used to evaluate the Project Alternatives relate directly to the <br />Purpose and Need and the goals and objectives for the Project, and they are similar with <br />those used in the first stage of the initial screening. The measures of effectiveness <br />identified for each criterion, presented in Table 2 -2, were refined for the Detailed <br />Evaluation to better highlight the distinguishing characteristics of each of the Project <br />Alternatives. <br />Table 2 -2: Detailed Evaluation Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness <br />SCREENING CRITERIA <br />MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS <br />Number of transit- dependent households within A mile <br />Accessibility /Livability <br />of the alignment <br />Ridership <br />Assessment of the transit supportiveness of land uses <br />Economic Development, Transit <br />served by the project <br />Supportive Land Use and Community <br />Assessment of economic development opportunities of <br />Goals <br />parcels served by the project <br />Community Support <br />Environmental Responsibility and <br />Amount of right-of-way required <br />Sustainability <br />Environmental tradeoffs <br />Travel Benefits, Choice and <br />Reliability <br />Customer service (route travel times between 0 D pairs) <br />Capital cost estimate <br />Capital cost per route mile <br />I - - --- <br />Cost and Financial Feasibility <br />---- - -- -- - - - - -- - - - -- -- -- <br />Estimated annualized operating cost <br />Estimated operating cost per hour <br />LPA Decision Raport <br />July 2014 <br />55C -46 <br />2.16 1 Page <br />