I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis Project Update Charleston Area Transportation Study (CHATS) Policy Committee Meeting Monday, November 16, 2015 @ 10:00 AM Spring 2015 www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update November 2015
Agenda Project Update Screen Two Alternatives Analysis FTA Project Readiness Next Steps www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update November 2015
Project Partners www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update November 2015
Project Overview: Purpose & Goals T he 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 www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update November 2015
Study Process: Pre-Project Development Pre-Project Development (Local Planning Process) October 2014 – December 2015 Comprehensive Operational Analysis In Depth Analysis of Current Transit Network over Next 20 Years Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis of I-26 Corridor Locally Federal Transit Alternatives Analysis for I-26 Corridor for Commuter Bus or Fixed Preferred Administration Guideway Transit (BRT, LRT, Commuter Rail, etc.) Alternative Capital Investment + Program 20-Year (Federal Process) Transit Plan Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Coordination 6-10 – Years for I-26 Following Guidelines for Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grant (Typical) Corridor Program Public Involvement Surveys, Public Outreach, Public Meetings, Project Website, Quarterly Newsletter, Facebook & Twitter www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update November 2015
Project Update: Pre-Screen Alternatives (October 2014 – March 2015) www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update November 2015
Project Update: Screen One Alternatives Analysis (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 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. www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update November 2015
Screen Two Alternatives Analysis (Underway) 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– BRTLRT 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 November 2015 www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update
Screen Two Alternatives Analysis Refining the Alternatives Ridership Forecasting Using FTA’s Simplified Simplified-Trips-on- Projects Software (STOPS) Guideway Analysis Mixed Traffic versus Dedicated Guideway Healthline BRT Center Median or Side Lanes Cleveland, OH Neck Area Constraints – King, Meeting, Other ROW Peak Hour Bus Lanes to MUSC Station Location Analysis Downtown Summerville or Azalea Square North Charleston Transit Hub DT Charleston Transit Hub METRO LRT, Phoenix, AZ www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update November 2015
Screen Two Alternatives Analysis Refining the Alternatives Short-Term Phasing Options Identify 1 st Phase – Core “Trunkline” for Fully Dedicated Fixed Guideway “Transitway” enhancements Peak Hour Bus Lanes Limited Stop Service Transit Signal Priority & Technology to improve Transit Travel Time Bus on Shoulder Lanes Capital and Operating Cost Estimates Develop Transit Feeder Service www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update November 2015
Screen Two Funding & Project Readiness FTA Capital Investment Grant Program New Starts Small Starts Total Project Capital Cost: Total Project Cost: Greater $250M or Less than $250M CIG Program Funds: $75M CIG Program Funds: or Less Greater than $75M 2-Phase Process 3 Phase Process Project Development Project Development Construction Engineering Simplified financial Construction evaluation New Fixed guideway New fixed guideway Corridor Based BRT (Not BRT in separated ROW separated ROW) www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update November 2015
Screen Two Funding & Project Readiness FTA Capital Investment Grant Process 1. 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 Must complete these steps within 2-years 2. Engineering Commitment of 50% of matching funds Significant progress with engineering within 3-Years 3. Recommendation for Construction Grant Agreement Evaluation Rating Availability of CIG program funds * Small Starts have 3-Years in Project Project readiness Development to gain 50% of funding commitment, there is no “Engineering” phase. www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update November 2015
Screen Two Funding & Project Readiness FTA CIG Project Justification Criteria Screening Criteria Based on FTA Project Justification Criteria (50%) 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 November 2015 www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update
Next Steps Screen Two Alternatives Analysis using Funding & Project Readiness Criteria: September- November 2015 Select Locally Preferred Alternative: December 2015 Technical Advisory Committee/Steering Committee Meeting Complete CARTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis: December 2015 Final Project Plan: January 2016 Upcoming Meetings Stakeholder Meetings: Ongoing Technical Advisory/Steering Committee Meeting: Mid-December 2015 Public Meetings: January 2016 www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update November 2015
J in the Conversation! i26alt.mindmixer.com Visit us on the web: www.i26ALT.org Email us: info@i26ALT.org Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Spring 2015 www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update November 2015
CARTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis Update Charleston Area Transportation Study (CHATS) Policy Committee Meeting Monday, November 16, 2015 @ 10:00 AM Spring 2015 www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update November 2015
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 November 2015 www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update
CARTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis CARTA fixed route service caries appx. 16,000 customers per day In 2014, CARTA reached 5 million riders 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) November 2015 www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update
CARTA System Analysis: Ridership Characteristics Service Area Households with No Vehicle Transit Dependent Ridership 54% Female 65% Black/African American 58% annual income $30,000 or less 48% under Age 35 75% did not have a car available for their trip 42% travel between home and work 50% pay cash fare November 2015 www.i26ALT.org CHATS Update
Recommend
More recommend
