Route-Option Comparison
Compare route alternatives with documented evidence, reviewer scores and explicit project weights.
See whether a change in one criterion’s importance changes the ranking. Download a record of inputs, scoring assumptions and both rankings.
- •ERA Route Selection Manual (2013), Chapter 10, multicriteria comparison context
- •Route selection teams
- •Highway planners
- •Engineering reviewers
Score = Σ (normalized weight × reviewer score)Normalized weights sum to one. Reviewer scores range from zero to one, with larger scores preferred.Use these outputs for preliminary checks. They do not constitute official engineering approval. Verify the inputs, method and results against the project criteria before using them for design or construction.
Criteria and weights
The loaded values are synthetic. Enter your own criteria, units, scoring rules and relative weights.
Use 0 for the least favourable result and 1 for the most favourable. Use the same rubric across options. Review mandatory constraints separately before interpreting a rank.
Route evidence and scores
Record the evidence and its source, then enter the reviewer score and rationale. Direction and rubric are recorded for review. The tool uses the score you enter.
Comparison and sensitivity
The remaining criteria keep their relative proportions. The sensitivity case leaves the baseline weights intact.
- Route length · Baseline 60% · Sensitivity 70%
- Connections served · Baseline 40% · Sensitivity 30%
| Option | Baseline score | Baseline rank | Sensitivity score | Sensitivity rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Route A | 0.560000 | 1 | 0.620000 | 1 |
| Route B | 0.560000 | 1 | 0.520000 | 2 |
Scores are rounded to six decimal places before ranking. Equal scores share a rank. Scroll the table sideways on narrow screens.
Scoring method and worked example
Normalize each nonnegative weight by the sum of all weights, then sum the products of those shares and the reviewer scores. All scores use the same preference scale, from 0 (least favourable) to 1 (most favourable). The tool records how you turn evidence into a score without applying that rubric automatically.
The synthetic routes use length and connections served. At weights 60:40, Route A scores 0.8 × 0.6 + 0.2 × 0.4 = 0.56. Route B scores 0.4 × 0.6 + 0.8 × 0.4 = 0.56. At 70:30, A leads 0.62 to 0.52. At 40:60, B leads 0.64 to 0.44. This difference shows how the decision changes with the importance of length. Scores are rounded to six decimal places before ranking.
In sensitivity mode, set one criterion’s share and distribute the remainder in the other criteria’s baseline proportions. A missing evidence value, source, rubric, reviewer score or rationale keeps the comparison incomplete, including at zero-weight criteria that may enter sensitivity analysis. The workspace supports one to eight criteria and two to six routes.
ERA Route Selection Manual 2013.pdf, Chapter 10, Tables 10-3 to 10-5, printed pages 10-10, 10-12 and 10-16–10-17, PDF indices 120, 122 and 126–127 (zero-based), provides the multicriteria comparison context. The tool uses project-supplied weights and rubrics. Screen mandatory constraints, such as unacceptable impacts, separately. A high weighted score cannot override those constraints.
Record the evidence basis before scoring. For one related workflow, use the earthwork quantity audit to reconcile interval volumes before comparing quantities across options.