Key West Transit Development Plan FY2025-2034

Proposed Alternatives

Ranked Alternatives Each service alternative received a score by using the process summarized previously. The alternatives from each improvement type were scored against each other, then the alternatives were ranked based on their respective score, as seen as shown in Table 6 . It’s important to understand that these rankings are meant to offer insights based on data. They are not definitive or prescriptive because community needs, and available resources can change. Factors like the city’s strategic plan and other important documents also influence priorities. Table ES-6: Alternatives Ranked by Respective Score Corridor ID 4 5 6 7 8 Name DL (longer service hours) LKS (increased headways) WFX (Longer service hours &increased headways) South Connector North Connector

Level of interest in specific alternatives (Low-1, medium-low-2, medium-3, medium-high-4 and high-5), as indicated by Transit Priorities Survey

Survey Results

5

5

3

3

3

Public Outreach

Sub-Category Rating Average Score:

5.0

5.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

Traditional Market

Percent of corridor in "Medium", “High” or “Very High” transit orientation area Percent of corridor area that meet “High” Density Threshold Assessment (DTA) threshold for employment or dwelling-unit density Connectivity to key activity centers/ hubs locally and regionally

4

1

5

1

2

Discretionary Market Local/Regional Market

4

1

5

3

3

Transit Markets

4

5

5

1

1

Sub-Category Rating Average Score:

3.0

2.3

5.0

1.7

2.0

Trips per hour (TBEST generated trips per revenue hour of service) Cost per trip (including new trips)

Productivity

3 5

1

1 1

2 4

5 5

Productivity & Efficiency

Cost Efficiency

4

Sub-Category Rating Average Score: Project Overall Rating Score Sum:

4.0

2.5

1.0

3.0

5.0

12.00

9.83

9.00

7.67

10.00

RANKING:

1

3

4

5

2

Transit Development Plan FY 2025–2034

Page 13