Build Alternatives Clause Samples

Build Alternatives. The Engineer shall describe the build alternatives including ROW, and easement information.

Build Alternatives a. The Engineer shall describe the build alternatives including ROW, and easement information. b. The Engineer shall describe the no build alternative.

Build Alternatives i. When there is a large number of build alternatives, only a representative sampling of the most reasonable examples covering the full range of alternatives must be presented. ii. Determining the number of reasonable build alternatives in the EA depends on the project and the facts and circumstances of each case.

Build Alternatives. The Engineer shall review the model structure and recommend any zone and network changes necessary to support the corridor analysis. For the No-Build Conditions and preferred alternative, the Engineer shall develop the directional Anticipated Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Volumes and Turning Movements for the base-year (2025), design-year (2045) and pavement design year (2055), and related traffic data in coordination with TPP. The developed traffic projections must be utilized for preparation of the geometric design schematic of the preferred alternative, IAJR and environmental analysis. The Engineer shall calculate the traffic forecasts for the 30th highest design hourly volumes from the AADT for the main lanes, ramps, cross streets, interchanges, intersections, and frontage roads for the no-build and preferred alternative for the base year 2025 and design year 2045. These projections must include graphic representations of the anticipated daily movements along the corridor (suitable for inclusion in the design schematic, IAJR and environmental document) and the Traffic Analysis for Highway Design table. The Engineer shall prepare a Traffic Projections Methodology memo, based on the information provided in the TPP traffic analysis package. The Engineer shall review the proposed methodology with the State and must refine it based on these discussions. Traffic volumes developed by the Engineer must be submitted to TPP for review and approval, and the Engineer shall revise the traffic volumes based on TPP’s comments.

Build Alternatives. As part of the screening process, equal levels of detail were used to identify and evaluate four Build Alternatives, 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B, in the environmental document and associated engineering studies. All four alternatives reduce average daily traffic volumes and current traffic congestion, support the efficient movement of goods and services throughout the region, and improve the efficiency of interregional travel by reducing travel times for SR 108 in concurrence with the project purpose and need. After review of public comments, the Project Development Team met on February 5, 2018 to discuss the proposed project alternatives. During the meeting, the four build alternatives in the environmental document (Alternatives 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B) were discussed relative to any issues raised by the public during the public review period and the local agencies’ input on the locally preferred alternative. It was then determined that Alternative 1B was the alternative preferred by the public, associated local agencies, and Caltrans. As a result, The PDT recommended Alternative 1B as the Preferred Alternative for the following reasons: • Alternative 1B meets the purpose and need of the project. • Alternative 1B has fewer adverse impacts to homes and businesses in the area. • Alternative 1B maximizes traffic operations compared to Alternatives 2A or 2B. • Alternative 1B is closest to the urbanized areas and planned growth areas in the region. • The local jurisdictions (City of Modesto, City of Oakdale, City of Riverbank, and Stanislaus County) unanimously support the selection of Alternative 1B as the locally preferred alternative. The common and separate engineering features and impacts are described below per the sections as follows: • Common for Alternatives 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B within Segment 1; • Common for Alternatives 1A and 1B within Segment 2; • Common for Alternatives 2A and 2B within Segment 2; • Common and Separate for Alternatives 1A and 2A within Segment 3; • Common and Separate for Alternatives 1B and 2B within Segment 3.

Build Alternatives i. The Engineer shall describe the various build alternatives using maps or other visual aids, such as photographs, drawings, typical sections, or sketches. ii. A clear understanding of each alternative’s termini, location, costs, and the project concept should be detailed including:

Build Alternatives. The following sections describe the direct and indirect impacts anticipated with operation of the proposed project. Each alternative and variations within each alternative are described separately because of their respective impacts. As previously mentioned, the noise environment in the study area includes non-traffic noise from the POA facility, planned POA expansions, ARRC operations, aircraft flights from the Elmendorf AFB and the ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Anchorage International Airport. Noise from these non- traffic sources is expected to continue during operation of the proposed KAC facility and will contribute to the overall noise environment within the study area.

Build Alternatives. The same ▇▇▇▇ presented under Existing Conditions will be presented for the opening and design year. The Consultant will qualitatively assess bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and potential neighborhood impacts due to the proposed interchange modifications. The Consultant will work with the PDT to develop a list of metrics appropriate for use in this evaluation. The Consultant will use project traffic data to qualitatively assess conditions and provide feedback to the PDT.

Build Alternatives. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0EF7DD01-5DEF-492D-AF48-72F6373D49D2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 973D3771-56AD-4A37-8E90-25E408E93E1A i. When there is a large number of build alternatives, only a representative sampling of reasonable examples covering the full range of alternatives must be presented. ii. Determining the number of reasonable build alternatives in the EA depends on the project and the facts and circumstances of each case. iii. Describe the various build alternatives using maps or other visual aids, such as photographs, drawings, typical sections, or sketches. iv. A clear understanding of each alternative’s termini, location, costs, and the project concept should be detailed including: 1. Number of lanes 2. Right-of-way (ROW) requirements 3. Median width 4. Access control. v. Identify the status and extent of the different types of ROW that may be used for the alternatives under consideration for the project: 1. Land that has been or shall be reserved or dedicated by local government(s). 2. Land to be donated by individuals. 3. Land to be acquired through advance or hardship acquisition. NOTE: Where such lands are reserved, the EA should state that the reserved lands shall not influence the alternatives to be selected. vi. Development of more detailed design for some aspects (e.g., USACE or USCG permits, noise factors, and wetlands) of one or more alternatives may be necessary during preparation of the EA to evaluate impacts or mitigation measures or to address issues raised by other agencies or the public. vii. The choice of a preferred alternative is made following the evaluation of alternatives, early coordination, engineering analyses and environmental studies. Districts usually make this decision.