I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis Public Meetings: North Charleston, January 25, 2016 Charleston: January 26, 2016 Summerville: January 28, 2016
Agenda I. Project Update II. III. IV. Screen Two Alternatives Analysis Recommended Alternative Next Steps Public Meeting January 2016
Project Partners
Project Overview: Purpose & Goals 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 Public Meeting January 2016
Study Process: Pre-Project Development Pre-Project Development (Local Planning Process) 15-Months Comprehensive Operational Analysis In Depth Analysis of Current Transit Network 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 (FTA) Coordination Following Guidelines for Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grant Program Locally Preferred Alternative + 20-Year Transit Plan for I-26 Corridor Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Program (Federal Process) Up to 10 Years (Typical) Public Involvement Surveys, Public Outreach, Public Meetings, Project Website, Quarterly Newsletter, Facebook & Twitter
Project Update: 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 Public Meeting January 2016
Project Update: Alternatives Analysis Pre-Screen Alternatives (October 2014 March 2015)
Project Update: Alternatives Analysis Screen One Alternatives (April 2015 - August 2015) 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 rightof-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.
Project Update: Screen Two Alternatives Analysis (September 2015 December 2015) Alternatives Recommended to Move Forward to Screen Two Alternative A: No Build Commuter Bus on I- 26 Alternative B-1/B-2: US 78/US 52/Meeting BRT/LRT Alternative B-3/B-4: US 78/US 52/East Bay BRT/LRT Alternative C-1/C-2: US 176/US 52/Meeting BRT/LRT Alternative C-3/C-4: US 176/US 52/East Bay BRT/LRT Alternative D-1/D-2: Dorchester Rd/US 52/Meeting BRT/LRT Alternative D-3/D-4: Dorchester Rd /US 52/East Bay BRT/LRT Public Meeting January 2016
Screen Two Alternatives Analysis Detailed screening using FTA criteria Ridership forecasting using STOPS model Planning level cost estimation for BRT & LRT Stations: Park & Rides Transit Hubs Neighborhood Semi-exclusive guideway and mixed traffic Public Meeting January 2016
Screen Two Alternatives Analysis: FTA CIG Project Justification Criteria Cost Effectiveness Cost per Trip Must be Under $10 for Medium Rating Mobility Improvements Total Number of Trips on the Project 5M or Higher for Medium Rating Congestion Relief Number of New Weekday Transit Trips 2,500 for Medium Rating Environmental Benefits Land Use Economic Development Dollar Value based on change in Vehicle Miles Traveled for Air Quality Emissions, Energy Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Safety Population and Employment from Census Data within ½ Mile of Stations Legally Binding Affordability Restricted Housing within ½ Mile of Stations Central Business District Parking Supply (Cost per Day & Spaces per Employee) Transit Supportive Plans and Policies
Screen Two: Project Justification Screening Results Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System of buses that operate like a conventional rail in reserved guideways or mixed traffic.
Screen Two: Project Justification Screening Results Light Rail Transit (LRT) 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.
Screen Two: Project Justification Screening Results Top Preliminary Ratings (Medium): B-1: BRT US 78/US 52 to Line Street B-3: BRT US 78/US 52 to Calhoun (Additional Cost per Trip for extension to Calhoun is $142) 2 nd Tier Ratings (Medium-Low to Medium): D-1: BRT on Dorchester Road to Line Street D-3: BRT on Dorchester Road to Calhoun 3 rd Tier Ratings (Medium-Low): C-1 BRT on 176/US 52 to Line Street C-3 BRT on 176/US 52 to Calhoun All LRT Alternatives Public Meeting January 2016
Screen Two - Highest Ranking Alternative: B-1(BRT) US 78/US 52/Meeting Street to Line Street Alt B-1: US Station Name 78/Mtg BRT Main/Richardson 551 E. 5th/Berlin Myers 807 US 78/Royle 427 US 78/College Park 370 US 78/I-26 156 Rivers/Otranto 556 Rivers/Ashley Phosphate 257 Rivers/Stokes 193 Rivers/Remount 521 Rivers/Mall 392 Rivers/Durant 240 Rivers/McMillan 631 Rivers/US 52 176 Meeting/Milford (Braswell) 122 Meeting/Mt. Pleasant 231 Meeting/Romney 99 Meeting/Huger 191 Meeting/Line 957 Total 6,877
Screen Two - Highest Ranking Alternative: B-1(BRT) US 78/US 52/Meeting Street to Line Street Total Annual Trips: 2 million trips per year 3,772 New daily transit trips Total systemwide annual trips: 6.5 million Planning Level Construction Costs: $360 Million $15.5 M/Mile 23.1 Mile Corridor 18 Stations Planning Level Operating Costs: $5.9M/Year Weekday Service: 4:00 AM 1:00 AM; 10-minute peak, 20-minute non-peak, 30-minute early/late Saturday: 6:00 AM 1:00 AM, 20-minute service Sunday: 7:00 AM 11:00 PM, 30-minute service Public Meeting January 2016
Vehicles Running Ways Stations Branding 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 Service
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, hybridelectric, 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 Running Ways SBX, San Bernardino, CA
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 TOD 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 VelociRFTA, Roaring Fork Valley, CO
Project Funding: FTA Capital Investment Grant Process Project Development 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 Engineering Commitment of 50% of matching funds Significant progress with engineering Recommendation for Construction Grant Agreement Construction How Would You Fund a Regional Transit System? 3 to 5 Years
Next Steps Select Preferred Alternative (Winter 2016) CARTA to Adopt COA recommendations (Winter 2016) Identify i26alt Phases/FTA Grant Program (Spring 2016) Request Entry into Capital Investment Grant Program Complete Project Development and Engineering: (3 to 5 Years) Construction Public Meeting January 2016
Where will transit take you in five years? i26alt.mindmixer.com