I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis Steering & Technical Advisory Committees Joint Meeting January 15, 2016 @ 10:00 AM SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Agenda I. Welcome & Introductions II. III. Project Update Screen Two Alternatives I. Travel Demand Forecasting IV. Financial Analysis V. Project Justification Screening VI. Next Steps and Schedule SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Project Partners SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

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 SC/TAC Meeting Winter 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 SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

FTA Capital Investment Grant Program New Starts Total Project Cost: Greater than $300M CIG Program Funds: Greater than $100M (60% CIG Max/80% Federal Max) 3-Phase Process Project Development (2-Years) Engineering (3-Years) Construction New fixed guideway BRT in separated ROW * Note: MAP-21 is now FAST : Fixing America s Surface Transportation (Transportation Bill through 2020) SC/TAC Meeting Small Starts Total Project Capital Cost: $300M or Less CIG Program Funds: $100M or Less (80% CIG Max) 2-Phase Process Project Development (3-Years) Construction Simplified financial evaluation New fixed guideway Corridor Based BRT (Not separated ROW) Winter 2016

Project Update Team Progress Since Summer Technical Advisory/Steering Committee Meeting SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Project Update: September Public Meetings Alternative Summerville North Charleston Charleston Total % Rank A: No Build - Commuter Bus 0 0 1 1 2% 12 B-1: US 78/US 52/Meeting BRT 5.5 4 3 12.5 23% 1 B-2: US 78/US 52/Meeting LRT 1 2 3 6 11% 3 B-3: US 78/US 52/East Bay BRT 1.5 2 6 9.5 18% 2 B-4: US 78/US 52/East Bay LRT 1 2 2 5 9% 4 C-1: US 176/US 52/Meeting BRT 1 0 2 3 6% 7 C-2: US 176/US 52/Meeting LRT 0 0 0 0 0% 13 C-3: US 176/US 52/East Bay BRT 0 1 1 2 4% 10 C-4: US 176/US 52/East Bay LRT 2 0 1 3 6% 7 D-1: Dorchester Rd/US 52/Meeting BRT 2 2 0 4 7% 5 D-2: Dorchester Rd/US 52/Meeting LRT 1.5 1 0 2.5 5% 9 D-3: Dorchester Rd/US 52/East Bay BRT 2 1 1 4 7% 5 D-4: Dorchester Rd/US 52/East Bay LRT 1.5 0 0 1.5 3% 11 TOTAL 19 15 20 54 100% If you had $100 to relieve traffic congestion how would you spend it? SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Project Update: CARTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis (Underway) Completed Short Range System Plan Developed Preliminary Mid-Range Plan Coordination with CARTA Route Advisory Committee Next Steps: Route Advisory Committee & CARTA Board Approval of Short Range Plan Short Range Plan Public Hearings Mid-Range Plan w/i-26alt Preferred Alternative SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Project Update: Alternatives Analysis Pre-Screen Alternatives (October 2014 March 2015) SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Project Update: Alternatives Analysis Screen One Alternatives (April - 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. SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Project Update: Screen One Alternatives Analysis Results I-26 ALT Screen One Goals Screen One Overall Scoring Alternative Goal 1: Improve mobility, accessibility, safety and connectivity of the transit system and region Goal 2: Promote 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 Total Score (Out of 175) Rank (1-20) Score (1-5) Low to High Score (1-5) Number Equivalent 4-US 52 / US 78 C-1 -BRT 22 23 20 23 25 20 157 1 Medium-High 4 6-US 52/ US 176 C-2-BRT 21 25 22 21 19 15 148 2 Medium-High 4 5-US 52 / US 78 C-1 -LRT 22 15 20 24 21 17 133 3 Medium-High 4 7-US 52/ US 176 C-2-LRT 21 16 22 22 17 16 131 4 Medium-High 4 15-CSX Rail Line/Bus via US 78 F-1-BRT 19 17 14 23 18 16 124 5 Medium-High 4 2-Dorchester Road B-BRT 17 23 12 13 16 12 116 6 Medium 3 1-I-26 A-BRT 16 18 16 19 10 19 115 7 Medium 3 18-CSX Rail Line/Bus via US 176 F-2 -BRT 19 17 16 19 16 11 115 8 Medium 3 16-CSX Rail Line/Bus via US 78 F-1-DMU 19 8 14 24 18 15 107 9 Medium 3 12-Norfolk Southern Rail Line E-BRT 12 17 12 18 14 16 106 10 Medium 3 3-Dorchester Road B-LRT 19 14 12 14 14 13 100 11 Medium 3 19-CSX Rail Line/Bus via US 176 F-2 -DMU 18 8 16 20 16 10 97 12 Medium 3 17-CSX Rail Line/Bus via US 78 F-1-CR 15 6 12 25 17 14 94 13 Medium 3 10-Santee Cooper Utility Corridor D-2-BRT 11 20 12 11 8 12 94 14 Medium 3 8-SCE&G Utility Corridor D-1-BRT 9 19 12 14 9 11 93 15 Medium 3 13-Norfolk Southern Rail Line E-DMU 10 8 12 19 14 16 88 16 Medium 3 20-CSX Rail Line/Bus via US 176 F-1-CR 14 6 14 21 15 9 84 17 2 14-Norfolk Southern Rail Line E-CR 10 6 10 20 13 16 80 18 2 9-SCE&G Utility Corridor D-1-LRT 9 11 12 15 6 14 79 19 2 11-Santee Cooper Utility Corridor D-2-LRT 11 11 12 12 6 13 77 20 2 SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Screen Two Alternatives Analysis Considerations for selecting Preferred Alternative to move forward into Project Development SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Project Update: Screen Two Alternatives Analysis (September 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 SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Screen Two: Travel Demand Forecasting FTA Simplified Trips on Project STOPS Travel Demand Model; BCDCOG Land Use Data, CARTA Ridership Data BRT Annual Ridership Forecasts range from 1.4M to 2.0M Annual Trips LRT Annual Ridership Forecasts range from 1.7M to 2.7M trips Annual Trips BRT FORECASTED RIDERSHIP (CURRENT YEAR-2015) Screen Two BRT Alternatives Corridor Miles Total Stations Total Vehicles Forecasted Ridership Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-3: US 78/EB BRT Alt C-1: US 176/Mtg BRT Alt C-3: US 176/EB BRT Alt D-1: Dorch/Mtg BRT Alt D-3: Dorch/EB BRT 23.1 24.3 22.1 23.2 24.6 25.8 18 19 16 17 16 17 16 17 14 15 17 18 1,986,586 2,024,734 1,369,571 1,430,550 1,637,185 1,746,138 LRT FORECASTED RIDERSHIP (CURRENT YEAR-2015) Screen Two LRT Alternatives Corridor Miles Total Stations Total Train-Sets Forecasted Ridership Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT Alt B-4: US 78/EB LRT Alt C-2: US 176/Mtg LRT Alt C-4: US 176/EB LRT Alt D-2: Dorch/Mtg LRT Alt D-4: Dorch/EB LRT 23.1 24.3 22.1 23.2 24.6 25.8 18 19 16 17 16 17 15 16 14 15 16 17 2,671,227 2,715,155 1,774,460 1,864,050 2,310,844 2,339,166 SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Screen Two Funding & Project Readiness: FTA CIG Project Justification Criteria Local Financial Commitment during Project Development (50%) Reasonableness of assumptions (50%) Commitment of Capital and Operating Funds (25%) Current Transit Capital and Operating Conditions (25%) Average Fleet Age (Under 8 Years for Medium Rating) Bond Ratings over last 2 Years/Current Ratio (Assets to Liabilities) Recent Service History for Medium Ranking Historical Positive Cash Flow/No Cash Flow Shortfalls Only Minor Service Adjustments in Recent Years SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Screen Two Funding & Project Readiness: FTA CIG Project Justification Criteria Screening Criteria Based on FTA Project Justification Criteria (50%) 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 Dollar Value based on change in Vehicle Miles Traveled for Air Quality Emissions, Energy Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Safety Land Use Population and Employment from Census Data within ½ Mile of Stations Legally Binding Affordability Restricted Housing within ½ Mile of Stations (Incomes below 60% of Area Median Income) Central Business District Parking Supply (Cost per Day & Spaces per Employee) Economic Development Transit Supportive Plans and Policies (existing and planned densities and market trends compatible with transit; growth management and land conservation policies ) SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Screen Two - Cost Effectiveness Rating: Annualized Capital Construction & O&M Costs/Annual Trips on Project-BRT Operating Costs Assumptions: $120/ Hour for BRT Capital Construction Costs are Annualized using FTA s Standard Cost Categories and Planning Level Cost Estimates Highest Rating: BRT B-Alternatives on US 78: $9.12 Per Trip (B-1 Line Street) & $9.64 (B-3 East Bay) B-3 (East Bay Alignment) Cost Benefit of Extension: $142 Per Trip BRT TOTAL COSTS - CURRENT YEAR 2015 Screen Two BRT Alternatives Capital Construction Cost Annual Operating Cost Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-3: US 78/EB BRT Alt C-1: US 176/Mtg BRT Alt C-3: US 176/EB BRT Alt D-1: Dorch/Mtg BRT Alt D-3: Dorch/EB BRT $359,061,298 $373,414,886 $335,703,418 $350,319,307 $377,527,234 $392,149,473 $5,850,240 $6,654,480 $5,465,280 $5,645,280 $6,694,800 $6,874,800 BRT COST EFFECTIVENESS RATING - CURRENT YEAR 2015 (CY) Cost Effectiveness (CY) BRT Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-3: US 78/EB BRT Alt C-1: US 176/Mtg BRT Alt C-3: US 176/EB BRT Alt D-1: Dorch/Mtg BRT Alt D-3: Dorch/EB BRT Total Estimated Capital Costs $359,061,298 $373,414,886 $335,703,418 $350,319,307 $377,527,234 $392,149,473 Annualized project capital cost (2015) $12,257,933 $12,869,651 $11,530,768 $12,145,835 $13,009,074 $13,624,141 Annual O&M Cost $5,850,240 $6,654,480 $5,465,280 $5,645,280 $6,694,800 $6,874,800 Annual Linked Trips 1,986,586 2,024,734 1,369,571 1,430,550 1,637,185 1,746,138 Annualized capital and operating costs $18,108,173 $19,524,131 $16,996,048 $17,791,115 $19,703,874 $20,498,941 Annualized cost per annual linked trip on the project $9.12 $9.64 $12.41 $12.44 $12.04 $11.74 Value used in Rating $9.12 $9.64 $12.41 $12.44 $12.04 $11.74 Preliminary FTA Rating ($9.99 or Lower for Medium) Medium Medium SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Screen Two - Cost Effectiveness Rating: Annualized Capital Construction & O&M Costs/Annual Trips on Project-LRT Operating Costs Assumptions: $291/Hour for LRT Capital Construction Costs are Annualized using FTA s Standard Cost Categories and Planning Level Cost Estimates All LRT Alternatives have Low Rating LRT TOTAL COSTS - CURRENT YEAR 2015 (CY) Screen Two LRT Alternatives Capital Construction Cost Annual Operating Cost Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT Alt B-4: US 78/EB LRT Alt C-2: US 176/Mtg LRT Alt C-4: US 176/EB LRT Alt D-2: Dorch/Mtg LRT Alt D-4: Dorch/EB LRT $2,077,637,037 $2,177,619,117 $1,976,143,912 $2,076,139,718 $2,153,124,497 $2,253,120,295 $13,696,390 $15,805,991 $13,259,680 $13,696,390 $15,805,991 $16,242,701 LRT COST EFFECTIVENESS RATING - CURRENT YEAR 2015 (CY) Cost Effectiveness (CY) LRT Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT Alt B-4: US 78/EB LRT Alt C-2: US 176/Mtg LRT Alt C-4: US 176/EB LRT Alt D-2: Dorch/Mtg LRT Alt D-4: Dorch/EB LRT Total Estimated Capital Cost $2,077,637,037 $2,177,619,117 $1,976,143,912 $2,076,139,718 $2,153,124,497 $2,253,120,295 Annualized project capital cost (2015) $83,307,534 $87,441,224 $78,633,747 $82,767,611 $87,056,711 $91,190,575 Annual O&M Cost $13,696,390 $15,805,991 $13,259,680 $13,696,390 $15,805,991 $16,242,701 Annual Linked Trips 2,671,227 2,715,155 1,774,460 1,864,050 2,310,844 2,339,166 Annualized capital and operating costs $97,003,924 $103,247,215 $91,893,427 $96,464,001 $102,862,702 $107,433,276 Annualized cost per annual linked trip on the project $36.31 $38.03 $51.79 $51.75 $44.51 $45.93 Value used in Rating $36.31 $38.03 $51.79 $51.75 $44.51 $45.93 Preliminary FTA Rating ($9.99 or Lower for Medium) Low Low Low Low Low Low SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Screen Two - Mobility Improvements: Annual Trips on Project Total Annual Trips on Project Transit Dependent Riders (No Vehicle Households) have weight of 2 Trips Current Year 2015 (CY) Trips and Horizon Year-2035 (HY)Trips Given Weight of.5 and Summed Highest Rating: B Alternatives-US 78/US 52 BRT MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS(CURRENT YEAR & HORIZON YEAR) Mobility Improvements (BRT) Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-3: US 78/EB BRT Alt C-1: US 176/Mtg BRT Alt C-3: US 176/EB BRT Alt D-1: Dorch/Mtg BRT Alt D-3: Dorch/EB BRT Annual Linked Trips on Project: (CY) 2,660,823 2,746,367 2,014,330 2,139,756 2,010,573 2,225,589 Annual Linked Trips on Project: (HY) 3,001,265 3,051,840 2,344,946 2,418,641 2,343,212 2,527,016 Value used in Rating 2,831,044 2,899,104 2,179,638 2,279,199 2,176,893 2,376,303 Preliminary FTA Rating (5,000,000 or Higher for Medium) Low Low Low Low LRT MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS (CURRENT YEAR & HORIZON YEAR) Mobility Improvements (LRT) Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT Alt B-4: US 78/EB LRT Alt C-2: US 176/Mtg LRT Alt C-4: US 176/EB LRT Alt D-2: Dorch/Mtg LRT Alt D-4: Dorch/EB LRT Annual Linked Trips on Project: (CY) 3,438,811 3,552,388 2,490,313 2,668,337 2,833,934 2,913,987 Annual Linked Trips on Project: (HY) 3,852,659 3,890,229 2,856,476 2,975,255 3,220,038 3,250,672 Value used in Rating 3,645,735 3,721,309 2,673,395 2,821,796 3,026,986 3,082,330 Preliminary FTA Rating (5,000,000 or Higher for Medium) SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Screen Two - Congestion Relief: New Transit Trips New daily transit trips are new transit riders that did not previously ride fixed routes Loosely defines total number of daily vehicles removed from corridor US 78 (B) & Dorchester (D) Alternatives generate the most new transit trips LRT Alternatives generate more new transit riders than BRT Alternatives BRT CONGESTION RELIEF - CURRENT YEAR (CY) & HORIZON YEAR (HY) Congestion Relief (BRT) Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-3: US 78/EB BRT Alt C-1: US 176/Mtg BRT Alt C-3: US 176/EB BRT Alt D-1: Dorch/Mtg BRT Alt D-3: Dorch/EB BRT New Weekday Linked Transit Trips (CY) 3,772 3,629 1,801 1,687 3,793 3,762 New Weekday Linked Transit Trips (HY) 4,174 4,006 2,134 1,992 4,227 4,177 Value used in Rating 3,973 3,818 1,968 1,840 4,010 3,970 Preliminary FTA Rating( 2,500 or higher for Medium) Medium Medium Medium Medium LRT CONGESTION RELIEF - CURRENT YEAR (CY) & HORIZON YEAR (HY) Congestion Relief (LRT) Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT Alt B-4: US 78/EB LRT Alt C-2: US 176/Mtg LRT Alt C-4: US 176/EB LRT Alt D-2: Dorch/Mtg LRT Alt D-4: Dorch/EB LRT New Weekday Linked Transit Trips (CY) 6,293 6,118 3,396 3,343 5,919 5,807 New Weekday Linked Transit Trips (HY) 6,940 6,705 3,929 3,828 6,591 6,432 Value used in Rating 6,617 6,412 3,663 3,586 6,255 6,120 Preliminary FTA Rating( 2,500 or higher for Medium) Medium Medium Mdium Medium Medium Medium SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Screen Two Land Use & Economic Development Uses Regional Travel Demand Model (2010 & 2035) Land Use Data Based on ½ Mile Radius of Proposed Station Locations Current Year Employment and Population Density Ratings for all Alternatives: Low Horizon Year (2035) Population Density Ratings: Horizon Year (2035) B-2: US 78 to East Bay Employment Rating: Opportunity for improvement during project development: Station Area Planning & TOD Ordinances BRT & LRT STATION AREA LAND USE CRITERIA Total - All Station Areas (1/2-mile radius) (2010 BCDCOG Travel Demand Model) Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT Alt B-3: US 78/EB BRT Alt B-4: US 78/EB LRT Alt C-1: US 176/Mtg BRT Alt C-2: US 176/Mtg EB LRT Alt C-3: US 176/EB BRT Alt C-4: US 176/EB LRT Alt D-1: Dorch/Mtg BRT Alt D-2: Dorch/Mtg LRT Alt D-3: Dorch/EB BRT Alt D-4: Dorch/EB LRT Housing Units - All Types (2013 Census) 14,534 13,932 13,964 13,362 13,107 12,505 Housing Units - Legally Binding Affordability Restricted 1,225 1,126 1,382 1,279 932 829 Population 28,861 26,857 27,989 25,985 28,697 26,693 Employment at New Project Stations 28,058 33,336 23,521 28,799 18,730 24,008 Land Area (Square Miles) 13 14 11 12 11 12 Housing Unit Density (units per square mile) 1,136 1,030 1,228 1,103 1,149 1,030 Population Density (person per square mile) 2,257 1,986 2,462 2,146 2,515 2,199 Employment Density (person per square mile) 2,194 2,466 2,069 2,378 1,642 1,978 Station Area Share of Legally Binding Affordability Restricted Housing Units 8.4% 8.1% 9.9% 9.6% 7.1% 6.6% FTA Breakpoings: Employment (70,000+ for Medium) Low Low Low Low Low Low FTA Breakpoints: Populaton Density (5,760 for Medium) Low Low Low Low Low Low SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Screen Two-Environmental Benefits: Dollar Value based on change in Vehicle Miles Traveled for Air Quality Emissions, Energy Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Safety BRT Alternatives Assume Hybrid Bus LRT Alternatives Assume Electric Light Rail Car Uses Annualized Capital Construction and Operating Costs B-1 & B-3 Alternatives have a Preliminary Medium Ranking BRT ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS (CURRENT YEAR & HORIZON YEAR) Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT) BRT (Savings) Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-3: US 78/EB BRT Alt C-1: US 176/Mtg BRT Alt C-3: US 176/EB BRT ALT D-1: Dorch/Mtg BRT Alt D-3: Dorch/EB BRT Mode/Technology VMT VMT Change VMT VMT Change VMT VMT Change VMT VMT Change VMT VMT Change VMT VMT Change Automobile Annual VMT 23,695 6,847,855 22,929 6,626,481 12,684 3,665,676 12,033 3,477,537 19,479 5,629,431 19,096 5,518,744 Hybrid Bus -1,096,831-1,137,759-1,017,562-1,058,490-1,201,504-1,242,432 Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg Alt C-1: US 176/Mtg Alt C-3: US 176/EB Alt D-1: Dorch/Mtg Alt D-3: Dorch/EB Alt B-3: US 78/EB BRT Environmental Benefits Summary BRT BRT BRT BRT BRT Value of Environmental Benefits $168,834.84 $46,934.77 ($565,757.34) ($678,723.23) ($318,262.47) ($410,407.81) Annualized Capital and Operating Cost of Project $18,108,173.00 $19,524,131.00 $16,996,048.00 $17,791,115.00 $19,703,874.00 $20,498,941.00 Ratio of Environmental Benefits to Annualized Costs 0.9% 0.2% -3.3% -3.8% -1.6% -2.0% FTA Criteria (0% or Higher for Medium Medium Medium LRT ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS (CURRENT YEAR & HORIZON YEAR) Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT) LRT (Savings) Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT Alt B-4: US 78/EB LRT Alt C-2: US 176/Mtg LRT Alt C-4: US 176/EB LRT Alt D-2: Dorch/Mtg LRT Alt D-4: Dorch/EB LRT Mode/Technology VMT VMT Change VMT VMT Change VMT VMT Change VMT VMT Change VMT VMT Change VMT VMT Change Automobile Annual VMT 40,448 11,689,472 38,743 11,196,727 23,785 6,873,865 22,981 6,641,509 31,915 9,223,435 30,789 8,898,021 Light Rail/Street Car (Car Miles) -2,193,662-2,275,518-2,035,123-2,116,980-2,403,006-2,485,008 Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg Alt C-2: US 176/Mtg Alt C-4: US 176/EB Alt D-2: Dorch/Mtg Alt B-4: US 78/EB LRT Environmental Benefits Summary LRT LRT LRT LRT Alt D-4: Dorch/EB LRT Value of Environmental Benefits ($402,083.74) ($666,803.41) ($1,440,448.95) ($1,635,171.19) ($1,403,250.79) ($1,623,222.98) Annualized Capital and Operating Cost of Project $97,003,924.16 $103,247,214.60 $91,893,427.16 $96,464,001.16 $102,862,701.60 $107,433,275.60 Ratio of Environmental Benefits to Annualized Costs -0.4% -0.6% -1.6% -1.7% -1.4% -1.5% FTA Criteria (0% or Higher for Medium SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Screen Two: Project Justification Screening Results - BRT Alternative Characteristics Screen Two BRT Alternatives Corridor Miles Total Stations Total Vehicles Forecasted Ridership Capital Construction Cost Annual Operating Cost Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-3: US 78/EB BRT Alt C-1: US 176/Mtg BRT Alt C-3: US 176/EB BRT Alt D-1: Dorch/Mtg BRT Alt D-3: Dorch/EB BRT 23.1 24.3 22.1 23.2 24.6 25.8 18 19 16 17 16 17 16 17 14 15 17 18 1,986,586 2,024,734 1,369,571 1,430,550 1,637,185 1,746,138 $359,061,298 $373,414,886 $335,703,418 $350,319,307 $377,527,234 $392,149,473 $5,850,240 $6,654,480 $5,465,280 $5,645,280 $6,694,800 $6,874,800 Screen Two: Project Justification Criteria Cost Effectiveness Mobility Improvements Congestion Relief Environmental Benefits Cost per Trip Trips on Project New Transit Trips Cost /Benefit Ratio $9.12 2,831,044 3,973 0.009 $9.64 2,899,104 3,818 0.002 $12.41 1,968-0.033 $12.44 2,179,638 1,840-0.038 $12.04 4,010-0.016 $11.74 2,279,199 3,970-0.020 2,176,893 2,376,303 Rating Rating Rating Rating Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Low Employment 28,058 33,336 23,521 28,799 18,730 24,008 Land Use Population Density 2,257 1,986 2,462 2,146 2,515 2,199 Rating Low Low Low Low Low Low Economic Development Rating Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Overall Rating Medium Medium SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Screen Two: Project Justification Screening Results - LRT Alternative Characteristics Screen Two LRT Alternatives Corridor Miles Total Stations Total Train-Sets Forecasted Ridership Capital Construction Cost Annual Operating Cost Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT Alt B-4: US 78/EB LRT Alt C-2: US 176/Mtg LRT Alt C-4: US 176/EB LRT Alt D-2: Dorch/Mtg LRT Alt D-4: Dorch/EB LRT 23.1 24.3 22.1 23.2 24.6 25.8 18 19 16 17 16 17 15 16 14 15 16 17 2,671,227 2,715,155 1,774,460 1,864,050 2,310,844 2,339,166 $2,077,637,037 $2,177,619,117 $1,976,143,912 $2,076,139,718 $2,153,124,497 $2,253,120,295 $13,696,390 $15,805,991 $13,259,680 $13,696,390 $15,805,991 $16,242,701 Screen Two: Project Justification Criteria Cost Effectiveness Mobility Improvements Congestion Relief Environmental Benefits Cost per Trip Trips on Project New Transit Trips Cost /Benefit Ratio $36.31 3,645,735 6,617-0.004 $38.03 3,721,309 6,412-0.006 $51.79 2,673,395 3,663-0.016 $51.75 2,821,796 3,586-0.017 $44.51 3,026,986 6,255-0.014 $45.93 3,082,330 6,120-0.015 Rating Rating Rating Rating Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Employment 28,058 33,336 23,521 28,799 18,730 24,008 Land Use Population Density 2,257 1,986 2,462 2,146 2,515 2,199 Rating Low Low Low Low Low Low Economic Development Rating Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Overall Rating SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

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 (Addition Cost per Trip for extension to Calhoun is $142) 2 nd Tier Ratings( to Medium): D-1: BRT on Dorchester Road to Line Street D-3: BRT on Dorchester Road to Calhoun 3 rd Tier Ratings (): C-1 BRT on 176/US 52 to Line Street C-3 BRT on 176/US 52 to Calhoun All LRT Alternatives SC/TAC Meeting Winter 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 SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Screen Two - Highest Ranking Alternative: B-1(BRT) US 78/US 52/Meeting Street to Line Street Total Annual Trips: 2 Million 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 Peak Base Early/Late Span of Service 6 AM - 9 AM 4 PM - 7 PM 9 AM- 4 PM 7 PM - 9 PM 4 AM-6 AM 9 PM - 1 AM Weekday 4:00 AM - 1:00 AM 10 Minutes 20 Minutes 30 Minutes Saturday 6:00 AM - 1:00 AM 20 Minutes 20 Minutes 30 Minutes Sunday & Holiday 7:00 AM- 11:00 PM 30 Minutes 30 Minutes 30 Minutes SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Next Steps: Project Refinement Select Preferred Alternative: January 2016 Develop Mid-range Transit Plan (COA): January 2016 Screen Two Public Meetings: January 2016 Short Range Plan Adoption (CARTA): Winter 2016 Refine Short-Term Phasing Options/Determine FTA Grant Program (Winter 2016) Identify 1 st Phase Core Trunkline for Fully Dedicated Fixed Guideway Other Transitway enhancements Peak Hour Bus Lanes/Bus on Shoulder Lanes Limited Stop Service Transit Signal Priority & Technology to improve Transit Travel Time Request Entry into Project Development (Spring/Summer 2016) SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Conceptual Rendering of Median Bus Lanes SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Conceptual Rendering of Mixed Traffic SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016

Next Steps: FTA Capital Investment Grant Process 1. Project Development (2-Years under New Starts; 3 Years under Small Starts) 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 Must complete these steps within 2-years 2. Engineering (3+Years New Starts Only) Commitment of 50% of matching funds Significant progress with engineering within 3-Years Recommendation for Construction Grant Agreement Evaluation Rating Availability of CIG program funds Project readiness Construction (2+ Years) * Small Starts have 3-Years in Project Development to gain 50% of funding commitment, there is no Engineering phase. SC/TAC Meeting Winter 2016