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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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

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

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

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

13. 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)

14. BRT Running Ways
EMX, Eugene, OR

15. 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

16. BRT Stations
San Bernardino, CA SBX
San Bernardino, CA SBX

17. BRT Stations
San Bernardino, CA SBX

18. BRT Stations
MAX, Las Vegas, NV

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

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

21. Service and Operating Plans
Major corridors
More direct than local service
Anchored by major activity centers
Las Vegas Max Video (2:55)
Las
VelociRFTA, Roaring Fork Valley, CO

22. 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

23. Questions 1362 McMillan Avenue Suite 100 Charleston, SC 29405