COM 0716.006 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PEB-17-98 TUE 14:59 - ~~~P. BS'I I i ~ - I~ Multlmodal i this measures the degree of provision of non-SUS' "altemative modes" associated with each altemative scenario. Scored subjectively, a high degree oCrnulti-modalism is scored with a I, a medium degree ofmulti-modalism with a 3, and a low degee is scored with a 5, i Aesthetics This criterion is included to assess the visual impacts oC an improvement upon the general area. Scored subjectively, a high degree of aesthetics is scored with a 1, a medium degree of aesthetics with a 3, and a low level of aesthetics is scored with a Environmental This criterion assesses the potential impact of a!a a~ emative upon environmentally sensitive areas. The lower the degree of impact, the bettrh Scored subjectively, a low degree of environmental impact is scored as 1, medium environrnental impact is scored as 3, and a~ high. degree of environmental impact is scored as S. 5.3 EVALUATION OFALTERIVATIVEPAt1~'2~4GES Tables S-6, 5-~, 5-8 and S-9 provide, by geographic a;-aa, the systemwide evaluation results for the various packages of modeled street and highway improvements. Table 5-6 furnishes results for islandwide circulation alternatives, Table 5-7 for Puna circulation alternatives, Table 5-8 Cor Hilo arculahon alternatives and Table 5-9 for Kona circulation altematives• Each altemative represented a uniquely coded highway network dill-eacut from the others. Each altemative scenario was reviewed for the subjective criteria and TR.~~,iv7aLAIV model outputs from the HEVAL (I~igitway EVALuation) module were recorded. Ccmpanson of results should be made within geographic areas and not between or among geographic areas, as there were differences in what was taken as "background" network (owing, for exarr;,;le, to greater network detail being required for conducting subarea studies like that for the Hilo i.ub m area), Mixed results aze evident in viewing Tables 5-6 th . u:;h 5 9. As an example with respect to islandwide circulation (Table 5-6), Alt 4 compares fav~;ably im performance measures owing at least partly to the gains to be achieved by widening Hawaii Belt Road from Hilo to Waimea yet the same proposed widening renders the altemative 1.1~ysically questionable because of the very rough terrain along the Hanmakua coast. Regardinc., `una circulation (Table 5-7), dmere do not appear to be panicularly significant differences amoral 'he four alternatrve schemes. Hrlo (Table 5- 8) is another example where results aze roughly c~~u!F•arable for Alts 1, 3, 4 and 5; Alt 2 is characterized by less VMT (good) and lower levels .,r mobile-source pollutants (good), but more VI-IT (bad) and more delay (bad), In respect of iC~m3 circulation (Table 5-9), Alt 1 compares favorably along the lines of VHT, congested speed, o,'::I delay, CO emissions and HC emissions; however Alt 4 compazes well on VMT, user cast. -iccident cost, Iv'Ox emissions and safety parameters. Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan Page 77 DRAI~1'FINAL REPORT (January 1998)