Charleston County Council Meeting Fixed Guideway Transit Alternatives Analysis & CARTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis Charleston County Council Meeting Thursday, July 21, 2016 @ 5:00 PM

i-26ALT Study Process We are here Pre-Project Development (Local Planning Process) October 2014 – April 2016 We are here Comprehensive Operational Analysis In Depth Analysis of Current Transit Network Locally Preferred Alternative + Short and Mid-Range Transit Plan CARTA Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis of I-26 Corridor Alternatives Analysis for I-26 Corridor for Commuter Bus or Fixed Guideway Transit (BRT, LRT, Commuter Rail, etc.) Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Program (Federal Process) 6-10 – Years (Typical) Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Coordination Following Guidelines for Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grant Program CARTA Tri-County Link Valley Rapid – BRT in San Jose, CA (recent) Public Involvement Surveys, Public Outreach, Public Meetings, Project Website, Quarterly Newsletter, Facebook & Twitter 2

CARTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis System and route evaluation to develop short and mid-range transit service recommendations. CARTA Transit System 16 Fixed Routes & Neighborhood Circulators 4 Express Routes to North Charleston, Summerville, West Ashley, Mt. Pleasant, & James Island 3 Downtown Area Shuttle (DASH) Trolley Routes Operates 62 vehicles during peak service

CARTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis CARTA fixed route service caries appx. 16,000 customers per day 52% of all trips occur on one of 4 routes: Route 10 Rivers Ave. (24%) Route 211 Meeting/King Trolley (12%) Route 12 Upper Dorchester (8%) Route 11 Airport/Dorchester (8%) Most Active Stops: North Charleston SuperStop (Rivers & Cosgrove) Mary Street Parking Garage (Meeting & Mary)

CARTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis How can CARTA optimize the current system to focus existing resources on improving service to current transit markets and set aside revenues for future vehicle and technology investment? Short-Range Plan Average vehicle fleet age is 13 Years Increased traffic congestion = longer travel times Inconsistent schedules inconvenient transfer times poor on-time performance Mid-Range Plan Capital investments Modern vehicles Bus stop amenities (shelters, benches, real-time arrival) Fare payment options Improved frequency and travel times on primary corridors Feeder services into premium transit corridors

Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis The purpose of the I-26 Alternatives Analysis is to improve transit service and enhance regional mobility along the 22-mile I-26 Corridor connecting Summerville, North Charleston, and Charleston. Goal 1: Improve Mobility, Safety, Accessibility and Connectivity of the Transit System and Region Goal 2: Provide a Cost Effective and Financially Feasible Transit Alternative Goal 3: Support Local Land Use Objectives Goal 4: Plan for Projected Growth in an Environmentally Sustainable Manner Goal 5: Respond to Community Needs and Support Goal 6: Support a Diverse Regional Economy

Alternatives Screening Process Detailed screening using federal criteria Ridership forecasting using Federal STOPS model Planning level cost estimation for BRT & LRT Station Analysis: Park & Rides Transit Hubs Neighborhood Semi-exclusive guideway and mixed traffic analysis Bus Rapid Transit System of buses that operate like a conventional rail in reserved guideways or mixed traffic. Light Rail Transit Short passenger rail cars on fixed rails in right-of-way that is separated from other traffic or mixed with traffic, powered electrically from an overhead electric line. Hybrid Rail Urban passenger train service operated as light rail or commuter rail service using electric or diesel self-propelled passenger cars. (EMU/DMU) Commuter Rail Urban passenger train service consisting of local, short distance travel between a central city and adjacent suburbs using electric or diesel locomotive hauled passenger cars.

Highest Ranking Alternative: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) US 78/US 52/Meeting Street to Line Street Total Annual Trips (2015): 2 Million 6,874 Daily Transit Trips (3,772 “New” daily transit trips) Systemwide CARTA and BRT Annual Trips: 6.5 million 23.1 Mile Corridor 18 Stations/16 Vehicles Estimated Capital Construction Costs: ($15.5 M/Mile) Federal: $216M Local: $72M Other Match: $72M Total Estimated Cost: $360 M Estimated Operating Costs: $5.9M/Year Weekday Service: 4:00 AM – 1:00 AM; 10-min. peak, 20-min. non-peak, 30- min. early/late Saturday: 6:00 AM – 1:00 AM, 20-minute service Sunday: 7:00 AM – 11:00 PM , 30-minute service One-Way Travel time: 60 Minutes

Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Vehicles Running Ways Stations Branding Service Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) A system of rubber-tired buses that operate like a conventional rail in reserved guideways or mixed traffic. Cities with BRT: Jacksonville, FL; Orlando, FL; Las Vegas, NV; Los Angeles, CA; Eugene, OR; Everett, WA; Cleveland, OH

BRT Vehicles Stylized and branded conventional or articulated vehicles Orange Line, Los Angeles, CA

BRT Vehicles Low floors Level boarding Wide doors on both sides Off vehicle fare collection EMX, Eugene, OR

BRT Vehicles Carry 40 to 85 passengers Bicycles on vehicle Alternative, clean fuels i.e. CNG, hybrid-electric, electric

BRT Running Ways Mixed traffic or exclusive bus lanes Arterial curb bus lanes Shoulder busways and bus lanes Arterial median busways Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

BRT Running Ways EMX, Eugene, OR

BRT Stations ¼ to 2 miles spacing Permanent structures with weather protection Amenities and passenger information Safe and secure Convey identity and image Design integrated with surroundings Supportive of Transit Oriented Development EMX, Eugene, Oregon

BRT Stations San Bernardino, CA SBX San Bernardino, CA SBX

BRT Stations San Bernardino, CA SBX

BRT Stations MAX, Las Vegas, NV

BRT Branding Unique Identity from other systems Consistent graphics Swift (Community Transit, Everett, WA

BRT Branding Unique Identity from other systems Consistent graphics First Coast Flyer (JTA), Jacksonville, FL VelociRFTA, Roaring Fork Valley, CO

Service and Operating Plans Major corridors More direct than local service Anchored by major activity centers Las Vegas Max Video (2:55) Las https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG-RJUc6hUM VelociRFTA, Roaring Fork Valley, CO

Project Development Engineering Construction Next Steps: Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grant Process Complete NEPA and related environmental laws Select Locally Preferred Alternative Adopt LPA in Fiscally Constrained LRTP Obtain Medium Project Rating under Project Justification Evaluation Obtain commitment of 30% of matching funds* Complete 30% design and engineering Project Development Commitment of 50% of matching funds Significant progress with engineering Recommendation for Construction Grant Agreement Engineering Construction 3 to 5 Years 2 to 4 Years

Questions 1362 McMillan Avenue Suite 100 Charleston, SC 29405 www.bcdcog.com