Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 14 · column 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
merical ranking from five (superior) down to one (poor) for each of the objectives and the ranking was multipled by the weighting factor to give each option a score.
For example, the project as designed was ranked superior from the standpoint of improved safety; improved safety has a weighting factor of five so that meant 25 points. It also ranked superior for improved capacity which had a weighting factor of two for 10 points.
The original project was rated fair in public acceptance, and with a weighting factor of six, that added 12 points. At the bottom end, the project as designed earned a poor ranking for construction cost, environmental impact, and maintenance, producing 10, three, and eight points respectively. The six categories totaled 58 points.
The same exercise gave widening the existing road a score of 127, second only to 131 points for reducing the road width (which garnered a perfect 10 on construction costs, VDOTs top priority in the value engineering study).
At public hearing, VDOT was mum
At the pre-allocation hearing in Culpeper this spring and at the pub
84.4%