The three alternatives were reviewed using a set of evaluation criteria. These criteria are mainly qualitative in nature but help understand the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. The project team conducted an analysis to judge whether the alternatives surpassed, met or did not meet the criteria. The evaluation criteria included:

• Safety – addresses existing and potential safety issues.
• Pedestrians and bicycles – provides a low “level of stress” with facilities for all ages and all abilities.
• Traffic operations – supports future volumes and operations.
• Transit operations – accommodates corridor bus operations.
• Vehicle access to properties – provides property access and parking.
• Storm water – improves storm water controls.
• Property impacts – minimizes the amount of property and right of way required.
• Construction costs – compares the expected cost for building the improvements.

Cost Comparison

All alternatives will include the reconstruction of Kitsap Way, stormwater facilities, new lighting and landscaping features. The cost differences between alternatives are mainly related to the type of non-motorized facilities, types of intersection improvements and the need for additional right of way.

Cost Comparison between Alternatives

Summary of Alternatives Analysis

The table below shows the results of the evaluation. Each alternative has areas of strength and weakness. The overall criteria category reflects an average score for all categories without weighing one category over another. The project team will add public input as a final category based on the results from this open house.