Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
' art <br />Based on the information presented in Table ES-1, the BRT-High and BRT-Low Alternatives clearly rate <br />well in their ability to meet Goal 1: Improve mobility through and within the study corridor, Goal 2: <br />Increase transit efficiency and quality of service, and Goal 3: Improve transit connections. In terms of <br />ridership,. a -significant difference between LRT and BRT is that local bus routes can make use of the <br />guideway in addition to the exclusive bus rapid. transit service. This is termed interlining. The interlined <br />buses include not only feeder buses, but also additional bus routes that could make use of portions of <br />the bus guideway (busway). Riders could opt for aone-seat ride along the guideway onboard the feeder <br />buses or could transferto another route at one of the busway stations, thus potentially double-counting <br />the boardings for BRT where the LRT would only see one boarding. it is not surprising that the sum of <br />the ridership from the interlined bus routes and the BRT exceeds the LRT ridership. When. looking at <br />total transit trips in the region, however, this phenomenon is equalized between LRT and the BRT <br />Alternatives. All three alternatives would increase system-wide transit trips in the region by a <br />comparable amount. <br />The end-to-end travel time for the BRT Alternatives is slightly longerthan the iRT Alternative; however, <br />travel time does not seem to be a major differentiator with regard to passenger pre#erence, as ridership <br />on the BRT-High and BRT-Low Alternatives exceeds that of the LRT Alternative, even with a longer travel <br />time. tt should be noted that the travel time estimate for the BRT-High and BRT-Low Alternatives <br />assume that the BRT-High Alternative will be permitted. to run. along the. existing and proposed <br />Pettigrew Street, which is within the NCRR corridor. If the alignment is not permitted to operate within <br />the rail corridor, alternate alignment options could increase travel times by 3 to 4 minutes. Additionally, <br />while BRT-Low would result in marginaAy worse traffic impacts than LRT and BRT-High, traffic. impacts <br />are also not a major differentiator among the Build Alternatives. <br />Each of the three alternatives -LRT, BRT-High, and BRT-Low -meets Goal 5: foster environmental <br />stewardship; however, the use of fossil fuels by buses makes LRT a more sustainable and desirable <br />technology over the long term. And, while each would result in limited impacts. to the natural and built <br />environments, environmental impacts have not proven to be a major differentiator between the <br />alternatives. <br />From a cost perspective, the BRT-High and BRT-Low Alternatives best meet Goal'. 6: Provide a cost- <br />effective transit. investment by providing a lower capital cost investment and O&M costs within the. <br />planning horizon for the proposed project. In terms of capital costs, while LRT presents substantially <br />higher costs than BRT, the cost of the LRT Alternative is still within the range of affordability as detailed <br />in the Financial Plan being- prepared for Durham, Orange, and Wake Counties. For O&M costs,. as noted <br />in Section 3.2.7, decision-makers must also consider that long-term, the O&M costs of the BRT <br />Alternatives will likely escalate higher than those of the LRT Alternative due to the shorter life span of <br />buses compared to trains, operations (driver) costs, and, potentially, fuel costs. <br />U'Itimately the decision of whether BRT or LRT is acost-effective technology choice will depend Largely <br />on ridership. Currently, the .BRT Alternatives do have slightly higher forecasted. boardings but, as <br />discussed' in Section 3.2.7, as peak hourly volumes reach the range more comparable to existing LRT and <br />BRT systems, LRT can meet the increased demand at a lower capital and O&M investment than BRT. <br />While the BRT Alternatives have demonstrated ability to be competitive regarding most project goals, <br />the LRT Alternative clearly surpasses the BRT Alternatives under Gaal 4: Support local and regional <br />economic development and .planned growth management initiatives. The LRT Alternative has <br />demonstrated public support and a proven record of producing local and. regional economic <br />fur ~,.t .:,~ °~e ..,~~ ,_~.~rrtdor A ~~nx~`=9-,a Ar~~i=. ~~ I ,~,alv ~ .'i°'° l `~ <br />