The considerations used in developing this initial panel of alternatives are as follows:

• The goals adopted to guide the project are a primary consideration. The alternative must sufficiently address the goals listed in the Purpose and Need statement.
• The alternative must be practical in the sense that the mode or system has been implemented in other metropolitan areas successfully, must be physically feasible and constructible. The alternatives should not have obvious fatal flaws, such as dire adverse economic impacts or substantial political or institutional barriers.
• The alternative should not be such that it is obviously surpassed in cost effectiveness by another similar mode or alternative.

In addition, the alternatives selected for analysis must be consistent with and suitable to meet expectations of the FTA and NEPA for alternatives analyses.

The alternatives were identified based on the consultant team’s experience, and the prior work in the I-35 Corridor. Prior to the initiation of the first level alternatives screening these recommendations will be reviewed by the Technical Committee and the general public. Revisions will be made as necessary.

Description of Alternatives Recommended for Evaluation
The alternatives recommended for analysis at the first level of screening are as described in the following section.

1. No Build Alternative. This alternative is comprised of the existing transit services and I-35 freeway configuration, including projects that are committed (i.e. funding committed in a transportation improvement program or similar program).
2. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative. This alternative consists of low capital cost improvements to the transit system and to the I-35 freeway. For transit service an "enhanced bus system" in the corridor will be assumed. The enhanced bus service will be assumed to be the Smart Moves service plan for Johnson County, absent fixed guideway in the I-35 corridor and Rapid Rider Service (BRT) on Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway.
3. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on Arterial Streets. This alternative will consist of the TSM enhanced bus system plus BRT on surface arterial roadways, including but not limited to, Metcalf Avenue and Shawnee Mission Parkway. These are Rapid Rider routes identified in the Smart Moves plan. For purposes of the alternatives analysis, the Smart Moves Rapid Rider routes may be modified so that they are more comparable to a fixed guideway transit system on or along I-35.
4. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on I-35. This alternative employs various techniques to create a high capacity premium bus service using priority measures to free buses from traffic congestion on I-35 and other roadways. There are two distinct variations of this alternative:
   1. BRT with buses operating in lanes reserved exclusively for use by transit vehicles.
   2. BRT operating in lanes shared by transit vehicles and high occupancy vehicles (HOV’s).
   The BRT system included in the evaluation could use reserved or exclusive lanes, a reversible (i.e., one way) exclusive lane, queue-jumpers and/or other priority treatment.
5. Commuter Rail. Passenger rail service operated along existing railroad tracks shared with freight rail operations. The commuter rail alternative will be substantially the same as the commuter rail service developed in the I-35 Commuter Rail Advanced Planning project. The service would use the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks adjacent to I-35.
6. Light Rail Transit (LRT). A passenger rail service operated on new tracks constructed for the exclusive use of passenger rail vehicles. There are two distinct variations of this alternative:
   1. Electrically powered light rail vehicles (LRV’s).
   2. Diesel powered LRV’s

These six alternatives will be developed in sufficient detail in terms of cost, ridership potential and service characteristics for evaluation in the first level screening.

Other alternatives for the corridor may surface during the initial Advisory Committee meeting (October 27, 2004) and the initial public meeting (November 9,2004).

Alternatives not Recommended for Evaluation
There are several transit modes or systems that are not recommended for inclusion in the alternatives analysis process because they do not sufficiently address Johnson County’s goals or do not meet the established criteria. The following section identifies these modes and systems along with the reasons for not including them in the first level screening.

Rail Rapid Transit. This is a high capacity transit mode that is cost effective only in corridors with trip volumes and population and employment densities that far exceed the levels in the I-35 corridor. Rail Rapid Transit typically has a cost that is at least twice as high as LRT. In the I-35 corridor, the additional cost for rail rapid transit would not result in travel benefits beyond those that would be realized by far less expensive modes.

Monorail. There are no examples of a monorail transit system in operation in North America in a corridor similar to the I-35 corridor. This type of transit system is not considered a realistic alternative to the alternative systems recommended for further study.