Laserfiche WebLink
FAT CI I jj 104111 r7�TrTi�l3iT��I <br />OW11111FAIl9O <br />The following describes the criteria, factors and considerations that contributed to the <br />recommendation of the LPA. <br />5.1 Results of Detailed Technical Evaluation <br />As presented in Sections 3.6 and 3.7, the Detailed Evaluation of the Reduced Set of <br />Alternatives considered how each alternative compared against the criteria and measures <br />of effectiveness (MOEs) presented previously in Table 3 -2. The criteria included: <br />• Accessibility and Livability <br />• Economic Development, Transit Supportive Land Use and Community Goals <br />• Environmental responsibility <br />• Travel Benefits, Choice and Reliability, and <br />• Cost Effectiveness and Financial Feasibility. <br />Streetcar Alternative 1 ranked number 1 overall in the Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives. <br />It was ranked first in Accessibility and Livability because it served the greatest number of <br />transit dependent households and was estimated to have the highest daily ridership of the <br />three alternatives. <br />Streetcar Alternative 1 also ranked the highest among the alternatives on Economic <br />Development, Transit Supportive Land Use and Community Goals. The existing land uses <br />along the eastern portion of the Streetcar Alternative 1 alignment provide the densities and <br />development patterns to support a high capacity transit system. Much of the land use <br />along the eastern portion of the Streetcar Alternative 2 alignment is governmental <br />/institutional uses and public parking structures, which are unlikely to redevelop in the near <br />term. Adopted land use plans that cover the streetcar alignment areas support and <br />encourage the types of development /redevelopment likely to occur in conjunction with high <br />capacity and transit, and existing development patterns provide opportunity for such <br />development/ redevelopment to occur. Because of the nature of the types of land uses <br />along the Streetcar Alternative 2 route, particularly the government offices and <br />courthouses along the central portion through the Downtown and Civic Center, land use <br />plans do not anticipate similar levels and types of development /redevelopment along its <br />alignment. <br />Streetcar Alternative 1 effectively serves key destinations within the corridor area, ranking <br />it first in Travel Benefit, Choice and Reliability. <br />Streetcar Alternative 1 ranked second among the alternatives in Environmental <br />Responsibility, while TSM ranked first. Because the TSM Alternative does not include <br />LPA Decision Report <br />July 2014 <br />55C -72 <br />5.1 1 Page <br />