Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Tiian{~IeRPgianat (' I -.';~.,:,: ,:~,°~ Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report <br />Table 3-25 summarizes the evaluation of detailed alternatives. <br />Table 3-25 Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation. <br />Ridership 2035 Ridership forecasts (without <br />interlining on BRT)* . O <br /> 2035 Ridership forecasts (with interlining <br />on BRT) Q ~ i <br /> 2035 System-wide transit ridership <br />Transportation <br />O <br />erations Traffic impacts ~ ~ Q <br />p Travel times ~ e . ~ Q <br />Expansion <br />Potential Ability for alignment to be extended in <br />future <br />~ <br />k ~ ~ ~ <br />Q <br />Stakeholder <br />S <br />t Public and agency support** ~ Q Q <br />uppor <br />Economic development potential- <br />~~ _ <br />(~ <br />Environmental <br />I <br />ct property acquisitions Q Q ('~ <br />mpa <br />s <br />Visual impacts ~ Q <br /> Wetland and stream impacts Ci <br /> Section 4(f) resources impacts Q 0 Q <br /> Air quality impacts ~ Q <br /> Construction impacts Q Q Q <br />Cost Capital costs (J <br /> Operating costs Q <br />*nnfly hoardings for RaT--High and eRT Low routes without inte rlined buses could aotentially be Maher os the <br />model estimated the ridership assuming Interlined buses. The BRT numbers thus do not account for <br />passengers that would transfer from feeder buses to BRT If the feeder buses were not sharing the BRT <br />guideway. ~ ""Note agency support has not been evaluated at the time of this report. Ratings only include <br />publicsupport. <br />The BRT-High and BRT-Low Alternatives clearly rate well in their ability to meet the first three project <br />goals. Both BRT Alternatives outperform the LRT Akernative in their ability to meet Goal 1: Improve <br />mobility through and within the study corridor, Goal 2: Increase transit efficiency and quality of service, <br />and Goal 3: improve transit connections. The end-to-end travel time for the BRT Alternatives is slightly <br />longer than the LRT Alternative; however, travel time does not seem to be a major differentiator with <br />regard to passenger preference, as ridership on the BRT-High and BRT-Low Alternatives exceeds that of <br />the LRT Alternative, even with a longer travel time. Additionally, while BRT-Low would result in <br />marginally worse traffic impacts than LRT and BRT-High, traffic impacts is also not a major differentiator <br />among the Build Alternatives. <br />Each of the three alternatives -LRT, BRT-High, and BRT-Low also meet Goai 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 />©urham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives .Analysis ! ~uiy 2011 13-45 <br />-- :-:~ <br />