WAKE FOREST PUBLIC TRANSIT PLAN
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION The project team evaluated the four alternatives by 1) estimating high-level operating costs for each alternative, 2) assessing how well each alternative met the stated purposes for transit expansion, and 3) summarizing the alternatives’ strengths and weaknesses. HIGH-LEVEL OPERATING COSTS To compare the alternatives, the project team developed high-level operating costs. These costs are based on initial assumptions about the operating scenario for each alternative and are not final recommendations for how the alternative would operate if implemented. Table 1 summarizes the comparative high-level operating costs for the alternatives. The annual operating cost for the existing WFL is also provided for comparison. The annual operating cost for Alternative A is similar to the existing WFL’s cost ($1,002,000 for the WFL, compared to $1,040,000 for Alternative A). This is primarily because the assumption for Alternative A is similar to the existing WFL. The West Loop of Alternative A will operate in a counterclockwise direction, while the East Loop would be clockwise. Table 1: Summary of High-Level Annual Operating Costs per Alternative
Alternatives
Existing WFL
A
B1
B2
C
Loop A $501,000 Loop B $501,000
West Loop $520,000 East Loop $520,000
Microtransit $700,000 WFL (A+B) $1,002,000
Microtransit $700,000 Alternative A $1,040,000
Microtransit $1,400,000
Total
$1,002,000
$1,040,000
$1,702,000
$1,740,000
$1,400,000
These costs are only for a high-level comparison of the alternatives, not for programing reasons.
ASSUMPTIONS Circulator • Circulator operating cost assumes vehicle revenue hour cost of $109.39 (FY2024 GoRaleigh cost). • Circulator loops in Alternative A assume the same service times and frequency as the existing WFL. Microtransit assumes vehicle revenue hour cost of $80. • Microtransit cost is based on number of vehicles needed. Ridership demand is a factor of vehicles needed. Generally, the larger the service area, the more demand. More vehicles will help ensure the service can meet the demand, fulfill more riders, and reduce waiting times for riders. • Microtransit cost assumes top end of cost range – higher ridership demand and more vehicles – two vehicles for Alternatives B1 and B2; four vehicles for Alternative C. Microtransit •
| 25 |
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online