Elmwood Avenue

Park Street

Main Street

Laurel Street Station

TransitTr Element of the COATS Columbia Area Transportation Study Long Range Transportation Plan Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1 Purpose of the Plan ...... 1 Summary of Recent Planning Efforts ...... 1

Chapter 2: Transit Environment ...... 7 Demographic Profile...... 7 Major Trip Generators and Attractions ...... 8 Exhibit 2-1: 2000 Housing Density ...... 9 Exhibit 2-2: 2000 Employment Density ...... 10 Exhibit 2-3: 2000 Median Income ...... 11 Exhibit 2-4: Major Trip Generators and Attractions...... 12 Regional Travel Patterns...... 13 Exhibit 2-5: Daily Vehicle Trips Between Zones (2000)...... 14 Future Conditions ...... 15 Exhibit 2-6: 2025 Household Density ...... 16 Exhibit 2-7: 2025 Employment Density ...... 17

Chapter 3: Current Transit Services...... 19 CMRTA Services ...... 19 Fixed-Route Network ...... 19 Exhibit 3-1: Fixed Route Spans of Service ...... 21 Exhibit 3-1: CMRTA Service Coverage Area ...... 23 Exhibit 3-2: LOS Criteria for Service Area Coverage ...... 24 Exhibit 3-3: Transit-Supportive Areas in the Central Midlands Region...... 25 Exhibit 3-4: Weekday Passengers per Revenue Hour Statistics ...... 27 Exhibit 3-5: Weekday Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Statistics ...... 27 Exhibit 3-6: Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio Statistics ...... 28 Exhibit 3-7: Saturday Passengers per Revenue Hour Statistics ...... 29 Exhibit 3-8: Saturday Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Statistics ...... 29 Exhibit 3-9: Saturday Farebox Recovery Ratio Statistics ...... 30 Exhibit 3-10: Sunday Passengers per Revenue Hour Statistics ...... 31 Exhibit 3-11: Sunday Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Statistics ...... 32

i Exhibit 3-12: Sunday Farebox Recovery Ratio Statistics...... 32 Exhibit 3-13: Route Travel Times ...... 34 Exhibit 3-14: Route Directness...... 35 Exhibit 3-15: DART Ridership Trends ...... 37 Exhibit 3-16: DART Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Trends ...... 37 Exhibit 3-17: DART Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Trends...... 38 Exhibit 3-18: DART Farebox Recovery Trends ...... 38 Trolley Service...... 39 Exhibit 3-19: Trolley Ridership Trends ...... 40 Exhibit 3-20: Trolley Passengers Trips per Revenue Hour Trends ...... 40 Peer Group Analysis ...... 41 Exhibit 3-21: Trolley Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Trends...... 42 Exhibit 3-22: Trolley Farebox Recovery Trends ...... 42 Exhibit 3-23: Peer Group Analysis Data ...... 43 Exhibit 3-24: Peer Group Analysis: Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour ...... 44 Exhibit 3-25: Peer Group Analysis: Operating Cost per Passenger Trip...... 44 Exhibit 3-26: Peer Group Analysis: Farebox Recovery Ratio..... 45 Budget and Funding Sources ...... 45 Exhibit 3-27: CMRTA Operating/Administrative Budget (FY 2003 & FY 2004) ...... 45 Exhibit 3-28: CMRTA Operating/Administrative Revenue Sources...... 46 Exhibit 3-29: CMRTA Capital Budget (FY 2004) ...... 47 Exhibit 3-30: SCANA Trust Fund Baseline Projection...... 49 Other Transit Service Providers...... 50 Human Service Agency Services and Opportunities ...... 50 Exhibit 3-31: USC Bus Routes ...... 52 Other Providers ...... 52

Chapter 4: Long Range Goals...... 55 Values ...... 56 Goals and Objectives ...... 56 Short-Range Goals...... 56 Long Range Goals ...... 58 Exhibit 4-1: Long Range Transit Vision ...... n/a Exhibit 4-2: Financially Constrained Plan...... 59 Exhibit 4-3: Short-range Transit Plan ...... 60 ii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Sometime around the year 2035, the population COATS planning area. Much of the document of the Columbia-Newberry Consolidated was excerpted or adapted from work done for Metropolitan Statistical Area will reach the one- the Central Midlands Regional Transit Authority million mark. It is unlikely, during this period of (CMRTA) by Wilbur Smith Associates as part metropolitan growth, that new highway of CMRTA’s Transit Development Plan (TDP). construction will keep up with the growth in Chapters 2 and 3 consist entirely of material traffic. While few people doubt that private from the Transit Development Plan. The TDP is automobiles will still be the predominant mode particularly concerned with the important task of of transportation in the Central Midlands thirty making the new CMRTA bus transit system years from now, public mass transit will fulfill financially sustainable. some important functions, including: ƒ Providing a mobility alternative for Public Involvement Efforts persons unable to rely on private Most of the public involvement activities were automobiles due to age, disability or conducted during 2004 as part of the Transit income. Development Plan. The following outreach ƒ Efficiently moving people within mechanisms were employed: densely populated areas and congested ƒ Public surveys; corridors. ƒ Public forums; ƒ Connecting workers with employment ƒ Stakeholder input; centers ƒ Presentations and workshops with ƒ Connecting the Central Midlands to special interest groups other population centers, such as ƒ Public input from earlier efforts. Charlotte, through the Southeastern High Speed Rail Corridor. SUMMARY OF RECENT PLANNING ƒ Responding to the growing desire of EFFORTS many Americans to live in urban settings and communities less dependant Central Midlands Regional Transit on the automobile Authority’s Transit Development Plan ƒ Responding to the rapid growth of the (TDP) (2004-2005) elderly population ƒ Offering a more environmentally The most recent transit plan, the Central friendly alternative to the automobile Midlands Regional Transit Authority’s Transit Development Plan (TDP), was the first planning PURPOSE OF THE PLAN effort since the CMRTA took over operation of The Transit Element of the COATS(Columbia bus service in 2002. Area Transportation Study) Long Range Transportation Plan documents issues, The Central Midlands Regional Transit opportunities, and strategies for continued Authority (CMRTA) initiated the TDP effort to) development of public transit services in the to help define the future role of transit in the Central Midlands. The plan will also serve as a region. The CMRTA is still in its infancy, guide for future transit planning efforts. having assumed responsibility for public transportation services in the metropolitan The Transit Element was prepared for adoption Columbia area on October 16, 2002. A plan is by the Central Midlands Council of needed to chart the course for CMRTA over the Governments, acting as the Metropolitan next twenty years, with a focus on financial Planning Organization (MPO) for the sustainability.

1

Before CMRTA gained responsibility for transit make additional service-related services in the region, fixed-route bus and recommendations for existing services. paratransit services were operated by the Input from CMRTA customers, the general SCANA Corporation, which is the parent public, and other stakeholders plays a company of South Carolina Electric and Gas prominent role in defining the service (SCE&G), a local electric and gas utility. strategies detailed in the Transit SCANA had been forced to operate transit Development Plan. To achieve the level of service under a century-old State law, but an community support that will be needed to agreement was reached between SCANA, the sustain CMRTA, customers must be able to City of Columbia, and the newly-created Central see that their concerns are being addressed Midlands Regional Transit Authority to transfer in a responsive manner. ownership of the system to the public sector. At a Crossroads: South Carolina’s As part of this agreement, SCANA is providing Multimodal Transportation Plan a significant monetary contribution toward Through 2022 transit operations, which is expected to help South Carolina Department of subsidize the system for a period of 5-7 years. Transportation, 2003 However, this money (the “SCANA Trust Fund”) is limited, and planning needs to The SCDOT’s Multimodal commence now to develop a strategy to ensure Transportation Plan is a broad, long- financial sustainability after the SCANA Trust range proposal for all of the major Fund monies have been depleted. Thus, a transportation modes: highways, public central element of this TDP is to define a mass transit, rail, bicycle and pedestrian funding strategy that will support transit facilities, and airports. The transit operations over the long term. component identifies five key strategies for improving mass transit services: This TDP focuses on several time periods, ƒ Expand transit services to currently including 7-year, 15-year, and 20-year horizons. unserved communities Although the short-term (7-year) element of the ƒ Combine other community uses plan will define recommended changes in with transit services services, the primary focus of this effort is ƒ Establish information exchange and defining a vision for the future, and establishing partnerships with other the steps necessary to realize the vision. transportation mode operations ƒ Establish interregional cooperation Until now, CMRTA and its Board of Directors between existing transit providers have been focused almost entirely on short-term ƒ Provide funding incentives for issues related to the start-up of operations. Now multimodal transportation activities. that CMRTA is establishing a strong foothold, this study provides an opportunity for CMRTA The rail component covers freight rail, to take a larger-scale view of its visions for the passenger rail, commuter rail, and high- future. As these visions are developed, the speed rail. Desired, long-range passenger service and financial strategies that must be rail routes are identified, including several implemented to achieve these visions will also commuter rail routes and high-speed rail be defined. corridor segments in the Central Midlands. The plan concludes with recommendations Focusing on the short-term, the TDP allows for statewide improvements for all travel CMRTA to assess the performance of its modes. Particularly noteworthy current services, including route changes recommendations include: that were made at the time of transition. A ƒ Collaboration with local significant amount of data is available now governments to develop long- that was not collected prior to transition, range financial plans for all existing which will provide information needed to transit systems,

2

ƒ Evaluating and improving the Bringing High Speed Rail to South apportionment process for State Carolina Mass Transit Funds, Central Midlands Council of Governments, ƒ Working with MPO’s to develop 2004 effective, productive Para transit This brief report was prepared for local and fixed route transit in each MPO policy makers to present to the South area, Carolina legislative delegation in ƒ Working with Councils of Washington DC. It advocates futher Government to improve planning on the High Speed Rail Corridor, coordination of rural human service and consideration of additional high speed transportation, routes identified in Senator Hollings’ ƒ Identifying local transit services proposed ARRIVE 21 transit legislation. needed to support intercity rail and high speed rail, and ƒ Improving highway and transit linkages to commercial airports

Columbia Area Transportation Study (COATS) Long Range Intermodal Transportation Plan Central Midlands Council of Governments, 2003 As an MPO, CMCOG updates the COATS Long Range Transportation Plan every five years. Upon adoption, the Transit Element will be incorporated into the Long Range Plan. The Long Range Plan addresses all the major transportation modes, with the most emphasis on the highway system. The On/Off Passenger Count and On-Board Transit Element is intended to provide more Survey Data Summary RLS and Associates, in-depth analysis and guidance of future Inc. transit needs. October 22, 2001 This effort produced a Columbia Area South Carolina High Speed Rail Corridor TransitSystem Ridership Profile: 42% of Improvement Study, respondents use the system 4-5 daysper week; SCDOT and Wilbur Smith Associates, 40% use the service 6-7 days per week; 18% use 2001 the service 1-3 days per week.· Approximately This statewide study of the two major 80% of respondents say that they were using branches of the Southeatern High Speed Rail Columbia Area Transit System to get to work.· Corridor is of interest because it includes an Approximately 62% of respondents do not use analsis of the prospects for the proposed the transit service on any of the five major high speed rail connection from Washington holidays· Approximately 73% of respondents DC to Jacksonville, FL through Raleigh, NC must transfer to reach their final destination. and Columbia. The study also explores the possibility of a direct link from Columbia to Charlotte, NC.

3

The most important service features were ƒ Concentrate future development in the “frequency of service” and “bus routes taking vicinity of potential rail stations. passengers where they want to go”. When ƒ Act to ensure that existing or potential presented with three choices for “most desired station sites remain available for future service improvement”, 42% would prefer if rail service. Railroad Coordination service were provided later at night. 38% would ƒ Maintain contact and dialogue with like more frequent service, and 20% requested railroad owners and other rail service to more locations. 50% of respondents stakeholders. reside in the 29203 or 29204 zip codes. Another 11% reside in the 29201 zip code, and 10% Right-of-Way Preservation reside in the 29205 zip code. 22% of ƒ Monitor the status of rail lines in the respondents work in the 29203 zip code 20% service area and work in the 29201 zip code, 17% work in the ƒ take actions necessary to maintain 29204 zip code, and 12% work in the 29205 zip rights-of-way that one day might be code. Surveys were also conducted on the useful in instituting regional rail or trolley service, but because of low ridership, other transportation services. only 13 trolley riders were surveyed. Ridership profiles of individual routes were also Ryder/ATE, Inc. Operational Review developed. Ryder/ATE, Inc. 1998. This study included operational reviews in Central Midlands Regional Rail Study – Final five areas: Report R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc. in 1. Review of Previous Service Analysis; association with HNTB and KPMG LLP 2. Paratransit Operations Review; June 22, 2000 3. Assess Facility and Equipment Stated “The 2005 and subsequent ridership and Requirements and Maintenance Practices; service performance measures projected for 4. Assess Long-Term Legal and Personnel CMCOG area services are not strong and do not Obligations; and compare well with other, more mature passenger 5. Review Funding Agreements. rail services.” Also noted that “Should The review of previous service analysis was population, congestion and/or gasoline prices provided as a follow-up to an earlier study increase faster than presently anticipated, conducted in June 1993. Several of the potential rail ridership could reach levels that recommended changes had not been made, but would make rail passenger service a viable part have since been made. Several recommendations of the region’s transportation master plan.” (including service to Columbiana Centre Mall and ending evening route service at 10:00 PM) Study noted several steps for CMCOG to take to have still not been implemented. The Paratransit maintain passenger rail service as a viable future Operations Review noted non-compliance with transportation option: the Americans with Disabilities Act with regard Planning Steps to capacity constraints. The Facility Review ƒ Monitor and participate in other rail noted environmental issues at the existing studies and projects to preserve Operations / Maintenance Facility. Funding commuter rail options and take Scenarios were developed for potential public advantage of opportunities. takeover, but these are no longer relevant. ƒ May be feasible to allow for the development of interim park-and-ride lots where they eventually may be used as rail station parking lots.

4

Coordination / Consolidation of Human ownership. Although the transfer has now taken Service Transportation and Paratransit place, the Community Impact Subcommittee did Services Ecosometrics, Inc. January 16, 1998 identify a number of reasons why public Major conclusions are as follows: Human transportation is needed in the community, and service transportation in Richland and Lexington these statements remain relevant today: Counties is now provided on an agency-by- agency basis, with very little coordination of ƒ Regional Economic Development. operations or other transportation functions. Existing and new employers need Human service transportation and paratransit employees. services are now large and expensive activities ƒ Retail merchants need customers. in Richland and Lexington Counties. However, ƒ Public transit provides a reliable very few agencies can accurately account for connection for many citizens. their expenditures. We conclude that actual ƒ Public transit is a useful employer expenditures on human services transportation recruitment are very much. In the two-county area, these ƒ strategy. transportation services cost much more than they ƒ Public transit is especially important to should and are not provided cost-effectively. European and Far East investors in Despite the current level of expenditures, many making U.S. investment decisions. persons are not receiving needed transportation ƒ The American Public Transit services. Many of the vehicles now in use will Association estimates that $1.00 need to be replaced soon. Significant invested in transit would result in a $3 to improvements are possible and are $3.50 increase in business revenues recommended. The concepts most applicable nationwide. initially include centralized dispatching and ƒ Welfare Reform. Welfare changes will coordinated operations; at least some force more persons to seek employment. consolidation of operations. There are many Many will be unable to afford private benefits to be gained from creating more transportation or taxicabs. Public transit coordinated human service and paratransit provides a means to attain operations. Leadership is needed to make the ƒ Independence and Quality of Life desired changes occur. Without intervention, ƒ Citizens need access to health and current patterns of uncoordinated, duplicative, medical care. Being able to remain in and expensive services are likely to continue. their homes longer reduces the need for institutional housing (especially true Regional Community Transit Study Report for the elderly and persons with and Recommendations Greater Columbia disabilities). Chamber of Commerce June 1997 ƒ Reduces dependence on other family This report documents the efforts of a Regional members. Community Transit Committee, which was ƒ Improves the environment. Helps convened in January 1997 to study public transit reduce congestion and travel time. services in the Columbia area and recommend long-term solutions. Much of the report centered on developing possible scenarios for the transfer of the transit system from SCE&G to public

5

The remaining chapters of this plan include a scan of the transit environment (demographics, regional travel patterns, and future conditions); an inventory of existing transit services; and a final chapter outlining a vision for long range, development of the regional transit system.

Who Benefits? ƒ Employers ƒ Taxpayers (because getting persons off welfare saves tax money) ƒ Past welfare recipients who now may become new taxpayers ƒ Persons without transportation options ƒ Family members who may have to provide “taxi service” to other family members

Columbia Area Transit Study – Phase II Final Report of the Yellow Light Committee CGA Consulting Services, Inc, BANCO, and Burton and Associates, Inc. October 19, 1992. Phase I of this study “reviewed the deterioration of the current bus service and the desirability of developing a strategy to improve the public transportation network”.

Phase II was conducted “to review in greater detail the issues to be considered when contemplating any change in the responsibility for providing bus service and in the ownership of that service”. Phase II also examined “what changes could be made to the existing operation to make the system more effective and to attract a broader segment of the population”. The results of this study provide to following: 1. Specific improvement recommendations; 2. Preliminary cost and revenue estimates; 3. A ten-year prioritized improvements schedule; and 4. A description and sequence of the next steps and actions needed.

6

Chapter 2: Transit Environment

KEY POINTS:

• Although many of the largest trip generators and attractions are currently served by transit, there are significant clusters that are not currently served.

• Many more trips are made to destinations close to home than to other areas in the region.

• Significant increases are expected in trip-making, especially in suburban areas, but sprawling land use patterns present a challenge for transit service.

patterns, existing service performance, and DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE stakeholder and public input to develop a A demographic profile of the Central Midlands comprehensive picture of transit needs. region was prepared to compare existing service areas to concentrations of housing and Household Density employment, with the overall goal of identifying Exhibit 2-1 shows current (Year 2000) housing currently-unserved areas that may have a need densities in the Central Midlands region. As can for transit service. Areas with significant be seen in the figure, most of the areas of higher housing and employment densities may be density are located east of downtown Columbia, indicative of transit needs, and areas with low between downtown Columbia and Forest Acres. median household incomes may also suggest Most are these areas are currently served by one areas where transit could serve residents who do or more bus routes. not have access to an automobile. There are additional pockets of higher density These three characteristics (housing density, north of downtown Columbia, in West employment density, and median income) are Columbia, and in the St. Andrews area. Areas in discussed in more detail below. Data from the St. Andrews in particular are not well served, 2000 Census and Central Midlands Council of with only one route currently operating in the Governments were mapped in conjunction with area. On the other hand, there are also areas that existing transit routes. Data at the Traffic are currently served that have very low Analysis Zone (TAZ) level were utilized. population densities, particularly south of Projections for housing and employment density downtown Columbia. There are certainly in 2025 were also mapped, and are discussed concentrations of housing in these areas, but later in this Section. because of surrounding land uses (e.g. industrial areas around Bluff Road), housing It is important to note that demographic concentrations are not apparent on the map. information is merely one element in The performance of routes operating in these determining potential transit enhancements, and low-density areas should be carefully examined. does not provide sufficient information in isolation to recommend appropriate service Employment Density changes. However, these data are used in Current employment densities (i.e. locations of conjunction with an examination of trip jobs) are illustrated in Exhibit 2-2. The highest generators and attractions, regional travel concentrations of jobs are located in downtown

7 Columbia, which is the hub of the CMRTA automobile. However, care must be taken to not system. In addition, there are also significant alienate the primary users of the system (the concentrations of jobs in other areas: transit-dependent population) in the process of attempting to attract more “choice” riders. • Forest Acres (along Forest Drive); • Northeast Columbia (along the Two Notch MAJOR TRIP GENERATORS AND Rd. corridor, in the Carolina Research Park / ATTRACTIONS Providence Hospital Northeast area, and Analyzing the locations of major trip generators around the Blue Cross / Blue Shield campus and attractions provides valuable information at I-20 and I-77); regarding points at which there is a potential for • St. Andrews (Bush River Rd., Broad River significant levels of ridership, as well as the Rd., and St. Andrews Rd.); major destinations for current and potential • Harbison; transit users. Major trip generators, or locations • Lexington; and where concentrations of customers reside, • West Columbia / Cayce (along Sunset Blvd., include apartment complexes and colleges. Meeting St., and Knox Abbott Dr.). Major trip attractions, or destinations, include locations such as the following: Although the Columbia Mall area is well-served by transit, many of these other areas have • Hospitals / Health care facilities; limited or no transit service. • Shopping / employment areas; • Government offices; Median Income • Libraries; and Median income is traditionally examined as an • Schools. indicator of areas where lower levels of automobile ownership are likely, resulting in a These major generators and attractions were higher dependence on transit services. Exhibit plotted in relation to the current bus routes, and 2-3 presents the median household income in the are shown in Exhibit 2-4. Generators and Central Midlands region. attractions are labeled by facility type, and the shaded area surrounding each transit route Significant lower-income areas are present in indicates the area within ¼ mile of the route (the north Columbia, in the St. Andrews area, and industry standard for maximum walking distance south of downtown Columbia. There are to a bus stop). additional smaller concentrations of lower- income areas throughout the region. Many of Data for trip generators and attractions are taken the lower-income areas in north Columbia and from the South Carolina Department of south of downtown Columbia are well-served by Commerce’s Quality of Life survey, which was transit, but other areas, particularly St. Andrews, last updated in 1999. It should be noted that do not have significant levels of transit service. daycare facilities are shown in Lexington County only, because locational data for most Identifying areas of higher income provides Richland County daycare facilities were useful data as well. These areas are located unavailable. primarily in suburban areas, where “premium” services (e.g. Express bus service with park-and- As can be seen on the map, many of the major ride lots) may be more attractive to residents. trip generators and attractions in the Columbia As shown in the exhibit, current transit services area fall within the ¼ mile buffer of existing are extremely limited in higher-income areas. fixed routes. This level of proximity is especially evident in downtown Columbia, as To be attractive to these “choice” riders (i.e. well as neighborhoods north and east of riders who are not dependent on transit), transit downtown Columbia. service must be competitive with the

8

Exhibit 2-1: 2000 Housing Density

9 Exhibit 2-2: 2000 Employment Density

10

Exhibit 2-3: 2000 Median Income

11 Exhibit 2-4: Major Trip Generators and Attractions

12

Although many of the largest trip generators origins and destinations, transit enhancements and attractions are currently served by transit, can be examined in consideration of these travel there are significant clusters that are not patterns. currently served. Areas with significant generators and attractions that are not currently To assess these travel desires, the Central served include the following: Midlands Council of Governments (CMCOG)’s regional travel demand model was utilized. This • St. Andrews model projects travel demand between a There are a number of apartment complexes network of Traffic Analysis Zones, based on a that are not currently served, including those variety of data including socioeconomic on Bentley Dr., Longcreek Dr., and off of characteristics, trip making surveys, land use Broad River Rd. and St. Andrews Rd. north information, and transportation facility of I-20. information. The model covers the urbanized area of the Central Midlands region, and is used • Seven Oaks / Harbison / Irmo for a number of transportation planning A large concentration of unserved trip activities, including identifying needed generators and attractions (apartment improvements to the transportation network. complexes, shopping areas, health care facilities, etc.) is located along the St. This model was developed using 2000 data as Andrews Rd., Harbison Blvd., and SC 60 the base year, and projected travel demands for corridors. 2025. This discussion is based on an analysis of Year 2000 travel demands; however, future • West Columbia projected travel demands are addressed later in Several apartment complexes north of this Section. Sunset Blvd. (e.g. Riverbend Apartments, Park Place Apartments) are not currently It is important to note that the model is oriented served. primarily toward automobile travel, and it illustrates travel demands in terms of the number • Northeast Columbia of daily vehicle trips that can be expected A number of apartment complexes north of between individual zones. Thus, the model can Decker Blvd. and along Parklane Rd. are not not be used to predict transit ridership between served by transit. There are several other zones, but it is a useful tool to determine where attractions along the Parklane Rd. corridor, people are traveling to and from. The absolute and there is a growing concentration of number of vehicle trips between zones is not as health care facilities near the Farrow Rd. and important as the relative number of trips Two Notch Rd. corridors. between zones as compared to other origin- destination pairs. • Southeast Columbia Although Garners Ferry Rd. is well-served, Although overall travel patterns can be there are several apartment complexes just examined, it is also important to consider that outside the ¼ mile buffer, including areas on the model does not explicitly display Gills Creek Parkway and True St. socioeconomic or land use data in its results. Even if an area is expected to produce a REGIONAL TRAVEL PATTERNS significant demand for travel, transit service may be difficult to justify if it is a higher-income area Description with few likely transit customers. Thus, the An analysis of regional travel patterns was information produced from this analysis can not conducted to gain a better understanding of be considered in isolation; the other data where people are traveling to and from in the described in this report must be examined in Columbia region. By determining these areas of conjunction with the conclusions of this regional travel demand analysis.

13 Analysis • Lower Richland; The travel demand data were examined at two • Richland Northeast; and levels: • West Columbia / Cayce.

• Flows between regions within the CMRTA This analysis focused primarily on the existing service area; and CMRTA service area and surrounding environs, • Travel within regions of the service area. because the existing service area represents the areas of highest population and employment As stated earlier, the regional travel demand density. Confining the origin-destination model projects vehicle flows between individual analysis to the existing service area is not TAZs. There are several hundred TAZs in the intended to imply that additional areas will not Columbia urbanized area. To make this be considered for service; rather, areas for new information easier to understand, data from service will be identified primarily through other individual TAZs were aggregated to form six mechanisms, including stakeholder and public service districts within the Columbia region: input.

• Columbia; The origin / destination table for travel demand • Irmo / St. Andrews; between the six service sectors is shown in • Lexington; Exhibit 2-5. These figures indicate the number of daily vehicle trips between sectors.

Exhibit 2-5: Daily Vehicle Trips Between Zones (2000) Destination West Origin Irmo / St. Lexingto Lower Richland Columbia Columbia / Andrews n Richland Northeast Cayce Columbia 447,580 32,1164,806 24,545 47,764 32,969 Irmo / St. Andrews 32,133 162,000 6,159 1,913 8,774 20,463 Lexington 4,842 6,16263,825 586 1,632 16,989 Lower Richland 24,567 1,915 584 38,256 2,830 3,199 Richland Northeast 47,765 8,788 1,636 2,846 108,698 4,340 West Columbia / 33,013 20,457 16,987 3,201 4,345 113,713 Cayce

Findings It is apparent from these data that the amount of evaluating transit service changes. For example, travel within particular service sectors is much there are an estimated 162,000 daily vehicle greater than the travel demand between sectors. trips within the Irmo / St. Andrews area, but For example, while there are an estimated only one route currently serves a limited portion 447,580 daily vehicle trips within the core area of this area. of Columbia, there are and estimated 95,529 vehicle trips between the core area of Columbia For travel between sectors, the highest demands and Richland Northeast (two-way travel). As are between the Columbia core and the Richland would be expected, the greatest travel demands Northeast area, followed by travel between the are within the core area of Columbia. Because Columbia core and West Columbia / Cayce, and many more trips are made to destinations close between the Columbia core and Irmo / St. to home than to other service sectors, this type Andrews. of local-area travel should be considered when

14

FUTURE CONDITIONS Future Travel Patterns Projected travel patterns in 2025 were analyzed Because this TDP is oriented to planning for in the same way as the 2000 travel demands both the short-term and the long-term, future described earlier in this Section. Exhibit 2-8 conditions with regard to demographics and shows these trends, and as can be seen, regional travel patterns were examined. The significant growth in travel is anticipated. This intent of this exercise is to help determine growth is especially evident in the projected potential future transit markets. number of trips within the Richland Northeast and Lexington districts. The projected number Future Demographics of trips within the Richland Northeast district in Exhibit 2-6 illustrates the projected housing 2025 is 75% higher than the number of trips in density in 2025. As can be seen, a number of 2000; while the Lexington district is expected to areas are expected to see notable increases in see an 88% increase over the same time period. density (as compared to 2000 housing density shown in Exhibit 2-1). Density is projected to Travel within districts is expected to continue to increase throughout the region, both in the core be much more prevalent than travel between area as well as in the surrounding suburbs. zones, although notable growth is anticipated between the Columbia core area and the Although Richland Northeast and Lexington are Richland Northeast area. projected to see continued significant growth, overall densities will remain low due to the Significant increases are expected in trip- sprawling land use patterns. Thus, it will making, especially in suburban areas, but continue to be difficult to serve the area with sprawling land use patterns present a challenge traditional fixed-route transit outside of the for transit service. Although there will certainly major corridors. The I-26 corridor in the Irmo/ be transit needs in these areas, the dispersed land St. Andrews area is also expected to see uses are difficult to serve with traditional fixed- continued growth, along with West Columbia/ route services. CMRTA will need to develop Cayce and areas east of downtown Columbia. innovative service techniques to operate efficiently and effectively in these suburban Changes in employment density, as shown in areas. Exhibit 2-7, are not as dramatic, with continued growth occurring in areas where high concen- trations of jobs currently exist. Downtown Columbia is expected to maintain its role as the regional employment hub, but pockets of higher density development are also projected in the Irmo/St. Andrews area, Richland Northeast, and West Columbia/Cayce.

15 Exhibit 2-6: 2025 Household Density

16

Exhibit 2-7: 2025 Employment Density

17

18

Chapter 3: Current Transit Services

KEY POINTS:

• Clearly, some routes perform well and others are in need of improvement.

Howerver , CMRTA must adopt specific service standards to appropriately judge route performance.

• CMRTA’s operating performance is well with in the range of peer cities, although slightly below average.

• CMRTA relies on the SCANA Trust Fund for half of its operatins/administrative revenues.

CMRTA SERVICES government currently contributes monies to CMRTA. The Authority has been a good CMRTA provides fixed-route bus, paratransit, steward of these funds, operating under budget and trolley services in the metropolitan during its first fiscal year (2002-2003). Columbia area. Services are provided in municipalities throughout the area, including CMRTA offers service using a fleet of 43 transit Columbia, Cayce, West Columbia, Forest Acres, buses (new in 2002), 17 paratransit vehicles, and Arcadia Lakes, Springdale, and in 6 rubber-tired vintage trolleys. Daily operations unincorporated areas of Richland and Lexington are contracted to Connex TCT. Overall Counties. Charter services are also provided management and administration duties are through partnerships with two local private performed by a staff of three full-time companies. permanent employees and one full-time temporary employee. CMRTA is governed by a 33-member Board of Directors, comprised of representatives from FIXED-ROUTE NETWORK jurisdictions throughout the Midlands. The Authority was established as a “Regional Description Transportation Authority” under the South The fixed-route bus network provides mobility Carolina Code of Laws (Title 58, Chapter 25). connections for thousands of residents in the CMRTA initiated operations in October 2002, Central Midlands region. There are a total of 30 assuming responsibility for the services formerly fixed routes, operating in a hub-and-spoke operated by the SCANA Corporation. At the system centered on downtown Columbia. All 30 time of transition, a new bus fleet was put into of these routes operate on weekdays, 24 routes service, route revisions were made, and a fare operate on Saturdays, and 14 routes operate on increase was instituted. Transit is enjoying a Sundays. Service is provided 365 days per year, higher profile in the Midlands, and steady with a Sunday schedule in effect on the ridership gains have resulted. following holidays:

The system relies primarily on funding from • July 4 State and Federal sources, passenger fares, and • Labor Day the SCANA Trust Fund (created as a component • Thanksgiving Day of the transition agreement). The City of • Christmas Day Columbia also contributes funds. No other local • New Year’s Day

19 Regular service is provided on all other holidays. All routes except two (Route 7 and Route 36) terminate at the downtown Columbia transfer center located at the intersection of Laurel St. and Sumter St.

Fixed-route buses generally operate from 5-6 AM until 11 PM-12 AM during the week, with reduced hours of service on weekends. Service is typically provided every 30-60 minutes during the week, with less frequent service (every 60- 120 minutes) on weekends. The span of service for each route is shown in Exhibit 3-1.

Overall Statistics: The following statistics illustrate the performance of CMRTA fixed routes in Fiscal Year 2003 (October 16, 2002 – September 30, 2003):

Ridership: 2,043,046 passenger trips Revenue Hours: 121,525 hours Revenue Miles: 1,527,081 miles Farebox Revenue: $1,285,596 (incl. pass sales)

(Source: “By Mode Summary” spreadsheet provided by Connex; CMRTA FY 2004 Budget)

20

Exhibit 3-1: Fixed Route Spans of Service Route Weekday Saturday Sunday / Holiday 1 5:20 AM–11:55 PM 5:45 AM -11:50 PM 7:25 AM-9:54 PM 2 5:30 AM–11:55 PM 5:45 AM-11:25 PM Combined with Rte. 1 3 5:55 AM-7:39 PM 6:05 AM-7:34 PM No service 4 5:55 AM-7:25 PM 6:00 AM-7:39 PM 8:55 AM-8:00 PM 5 7:15 AM-9:45 PM (4) 7:15 AM-9:45 PM (4) 7:15 AM-9:45 PM (4) 6 5:40 AM-8:30 PM 5:40 AM-8:45 PM 7:45 AM-9:09 PM 7 6:10 AM-7:14 PM (1) 8:00 AM-6:29 PM (1) No service 8 6:35 AM-9:00 PM 6:35 AM-9:15 PM 8:10 AM-8:45 PM 11 5:50 AM-9:30 PM 6:05 AM-9:28 PM 8:30 AM-8:57 PM 12 5:25 AM-10:25 PM 6:00 AM-10:50 PM 7:45 AM-9:37 PM 13 8:15 AM-6:29 PM No service No service 15 6:30 AM-11:19 PM 6:30 AM-11:19 PM 8:15 AM-9:35 PM 16 6:10 AM-10:08 PM 6:10 AM-10:08 PM 7:10 AM-9:53 PM 17 7:30 AM-7:13 PM 7:30 AM-7:13 PM No service 18 8:15 AM-5:14 PM (1) No service No service 19 5:50 AM-9:51 PM 6:30 AM-9:54 PM 9:00 AM-9:28 PM 20 8:30 AM-11:15 PM (2) 6:40 AM-11:15 PM 7:40 AM-10:25 PM 21 6:10 AM-6:58 PM No service No service 22 6:30 AM-6:28 PM (1) No service No service 23 5:30 AM-11:35 PM (3) 5:45 AM-11:35 PM (3) 9:30 AM-7:24 PM 24 5:30 AM-6:25 PM 5:30 AM-6:25 PM No service 25 6:05 AM-10:55 PM 6:15 AM-10:45 PM 8:00 AM-6:51 PM 26 5:45 AM-10:55 PM 6:00 AM-10:50 PM 9:00 AM-7:54 PM 28 6:30 AM-6:35 PM No service No service 29 6:45 AM-7:20 PM 6:45 AM-7:19 PM No service 30 6:30 AM-7:14 PM (4) 6:30 AM-7:14 PM (4) No service 31 6:05 AM-7:27 PM (4) 6:05 AM-7:27 PM (4) No service 34 6:35 AM-6:30 PM 6:35 AM-6:30 PM No service 35 6:20 AM-6:15 PM (1) 6:20 AM-6:15 PM (1) No service 36 6:45 AM-6:28 PM No service No service

(1) Service available only during peak hours (2) No service 4:30 PM-6:30 PM (3) Only one run after 6:30 PM (4) Limited midday service

(Source: CMRTA Route Schedules effective Dec. 1, 2002)

21 Fares: At the time of transition to public Transportation Research Board’s Transit ownership, a system-wide fare increase was Capacity and Quality of Service Manual instituted, raising the cost of a single ride to (TCQSM) project, is designed to enable transit $1.00 (from $0.75). A “Special Needs Fare”, system evaluation in a manner similar to the available to pre-qualified individuals with methods used to determine Level of Service for disabilities as well as the elderly, is available for highway facilities as documented in the $0.50. A ten-ride pass is also available for Highway Capacity Manual. $7.50. The basic premise of the concept is that selected Several additional multi-day passes have been performance measures have six designated approved, but are not yet available: ranges of values, graded from “A” (best) to “F” (worst), based on a passenger’s perception of a • 1-day pass: $2.00 particular aspect of transit service. • 5-day pass: $9.00 • 31-day pass: $32.00 The use of LOS techniques has significant implications throughout this TDP. Performance Transfers for connecting buses are available free measures can be compiled to form a “transit of charge upon request. A transfer is accepted report card”, and objectives and for two hours from the time it was issued. recommendations can be developed based on LOS thresholds. For example, a long-term Service Analysis Techniques objective could include improving peak-period A detailed efficiency and effectiveness analysis frequencies on critical routes to meet the was performed on CMRTA’s existing fixed- frequency criteria for LOS “B”. route services. This analysis was performed at the system level, examining service strengths The LOS evaluation framework was used for and weaknesses of the system as a whole, and at several performance measures in the CMRTA the individual route level, examining the service evaluation. At the system level, service area provided on existing routes. Consideration of coverage was analyzed using an LOS current services at both of these levels is needed framework, and at the route level, span of to provide a complete assessment of current service and service frequency were examined services and to formulate responsive action using LOS criteria. More details about the items for service improvements. specific performance measures in which the LOS framework was utilized are found later in At the system level, a service coverage analysis this Section. and a peer review (both described below) were conducted to evaluate overall performance in Service Coverage: Fixed-route services cover comparison to areas of potential need and in much of the metropolitan Columbia area, as comparison to similar transit systems. At the illustrated in Exhibit 3-1. route level, a series of performance measures was used to determine route characteristics, and A service coverage analysis was conducted to to compare performance across routes. Level of determine how well existing fixed routes serve service (LOS) criteria were also applied to areas in the Central Midlands with significant several performance measures. household and employment densities. This analysis compares the total “transit-supportive Level of Service Analysis: A major element of area” (areas meeting minimum household and the efficiency and effectiveness evaluation at employment densities as defined below) to the both the system level and the route level is the amount of area “served” by fixed-route service concept of using a Level of Service analysis. (areas within ¼ mile of a fixed route, which is This concept, developed as part of the the standard guideline for the maximum distance that customers will walk to a bus stop).

22

Exhibit 3-1: CMRTA Service Coverage Area

23 To be considered “transit supportive”, an area located in the central core of the Columbia area, must have a minimum household density of and most of these areas are located within ¼ three households per acre, or a minimum mile of one or more fixed routes. Thus, transit- employment density of four jobs per acre. The supportive areas in the central core are served term “supportive” is defined as being able to relatively well. However, there are several large support fixed-route transit service with a tracts northwest of downtown Columbia that are minimum frequency of one hour. These areas classified as transit-supportive but are not were analyzed using 2000 Census data for currently served. These areas, stretching from Traffic Analysis Zones in the study area. St. Andrews to the Harbison area, should receive careful consideration for additional services. The concept of “transit-supportive” areas is a key component of the TCQSM methodology; Route Efficiency and Effectiveness however, it is merely one tool for transit An efficiency and effectiveness analysis was analysis. Transit services can certainly be viable conducted to determine the strengths and in areas that are not defined as “transit- weaknesses of each route, using a supportive”, and the context of local comprehensive assessment of performance characteristics should receive primary measures and a comparison of statistics among consideration when evaluating service coverage. all the routes. The purpose of this analysis is to examine the performance of each route, but it is A level of service framework was used in not intended to judge the performance of conjunction with the service coverage analysis, individual segments within each route. To based on the percentage of transit-supportive perform more detailed analyses of individual area that is actually served by a fixed route. route segments, a new boarding and alighting Exhibit 3-2 illustrates the minimum criteria for study would be needed. transit coverage to meet each LOS threshold. The revenue and ridership data used for the Exhibit 3-2: LOS Criteria for Service route-level analyses are taken primarily from the Area Coverage farebox system on board the vehicles. Most of LOS Percentage of Transit-Supportive the analyses are performed using data from the Area Served by Fixed Routes period of April 2003 through March 2004. This A 90.0 – 100.0 is the most recent 12-month period for which B 80.0 – 89.9 complete data are available (at the time of C 70.0 – 79.9 analysis), and because complete installation of D 60.0 – 69.9 the fareboxes did not occur until early 2003, data E 50.0 – 59.9 from months prior to April 2003 is incomplete. F < 50.0 Although the time period of analysis does not (Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of correspond to a fiscal year or calendar year, it Service Manual (TCRP)) provides the most accurate 12-month assessment of the system at the time of this report.

Exhibit 3-3 shows the transit-supportive areas in To help illustrate their relative performance, a the metropolitan Columbia area in comparison Route Profile was developed for each fixed to the areas currently served by transit (within ¼ route. These profiles contain detailed statistics mile of an existing route). The total percentage for each route, including the ranking of each of the transit-supportive area that is currently performance measure in comparison to other served is 67 percent, which corresponds to LOS CMRTA routes. Data from these profiles were “D” (see Exhibit 3-2). then organized by performance measure, to enable a direct comparison of specific perfor- As illustrated in Exhibit 3-3, the majority of mance measures among all routes. Route areas classified as “transit supportive” are Profiles are included as Appendix B.

24 Exhibit 3-3: Transit-Supportive Areas in the Central Midlands Region

25 Route Performance Charts: The data from the Each of these routes averages more than 29 Route Profiles were compiled to form a series of passengers per revenue hour. However, four Route Performance Charts for major routes carry fewer than 10 passengers per performance measures. These charts illustrate revenue hour: the performance of each route in comparison to other CMRTA fixed routes. Route Performance • Route 7 (Percival Rd. test route); Charts were developed for the following • Route 18; performance measures: • Route 36; and • Route 35. • Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour (weekdays, Saturdays, Sundays); With regard to the operating cost per passenger • Operating Cost per Passenger Trip trip and farebox recovery ratio, many of the (weekdays, Saturdays, Sundays); same trends are apparent. Routes with low • Farebox Recovery (weekdays, Saturdays, ridership typically have a high operating cost per Sundays); passenger trip and a low farebox recovery ratio. • Route Travel Time; and • Directness of Route. Three routes have excessively high operating costs per passenger, as illustrated in Exhibit 3-5: Definitions for these terms are provided in the glossary in Appendix A. • Route 7 (Percival Rd. test route); • Route 18; and These performance measures were evaluated • Route 36. separately for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays due to the significant differences in The operating cost per passenger trip on each of ridership during these periods. these routes is over $9.00.

At this point, CMRTA has not adopted specific Farebox recovery is typically examined closely service benchmarks with regard to these as a performance indicator. The typical performance measures. Once CMRTA has CMRTA route has a farebox recovery ratio of adopted a series of service standards, approximately 17% (when measured on a route- conclusions can then be drawn about the by-route basis), although five routes recover performance of each route in relation to the more than 25% of their operating costs through adopted benchmarks. the farebox (as shown in Exhibit 3-6):

Weekday Route Performance: As shown in • Route 16; Exhibit 3-4, the typical CMRTA fixed route • Route 34; averages approximately 17 passengers per • Route 1; revenue hour of service; however, some routes • Route 24; and have much high and much lower passenger • Route 22. loads. The routes with the highest passenger loads are as follows: However, five routes also have a farebox

recovery ratio of less than 10%: • Route 16; • Route 34; and • Route 7 (Percival Rd. test route); • Route 1. • Route 18;

• Route 36;

• Route 35; and

Route 13. •

26

Exhibit 3-4: Weekday Passengers per Revenue Hour Statistics

40.0

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0 Average Route

15.0

Passengers per Revenue Hour per Revenue Passengers 10.0

5.0

0.0 7 1836351325173 5 26286 192 314 2012298 231121302215241 3416 Route Number

Exhibit 3-5: Weekday Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Statistics

$20.00

$18.00

$16.00

$14.00

$12.00

$10.00

$8.00

$6.00

Average Route Operating Costper Passenger Trip $4.00

$2.00

$0.00 7 18 36 35 13 25 17 3 5 26 28 6 19 2 31 4 20 12 29 8 23 11 21 30 22 15 24 1 34 16 Route Number

27 Exhibit 3-6: Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio Statistics

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00% Average Route

15.00% Farebox Recovery Ratio

10.00%

5.00%

0.00% 7 18 36 35 13 3 28 25 17 5 26 6 2 4 19 31 12 20 29 23 11 21 8 30 15 22 24 1 34 16 Route Number

Saturday Route Performance: Routes usually The average operating cost per passenger trip is have lower passenger loads on Saturdays as higher on Saturdays than on weekdays, but this compared to weekdays. The Saturday passenger level is due primarily to the excessive operating load on a typical CMRTA route is cost per passenger of Route 7, which inflates the approximately 13 passengers per hour. overall average. These costs are shown in However, the two top-performing routes in the Exhibit 3-8. system, Route 16 and Route 1, have virtually the same passenger loads on Saturdays as on Farebox recovery averages approximately13% weekdays. As shown in Exhibit 3-7, these two on Saturdays (as compared to about 17% on routes, along with Route 15, have comparatively weekdays), but Route 16 and Route 1 maintain a high levels of ridership. much higher level of farebox recovery than the other routes. On the other hand, two routes At the other end of the spectrum, two routes (Route 7 and Route 35) recover less than 5% of average fewer than 10 passengers per hour: their operating costs through the farebox. These data are summarized in Exhibit 3-9. • Route 7 (Percival Rd. test route); and • Route 35.

28

Exhibit 3-7: Saturday Passengers per Revenue Hour Statistics

40.0

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0 Average Route

Passengers per Revenue Hour 10.0

5.0

0.0 7 35 3 2 17 6 25 19 4 31 5 29 23 30 11 12 24 8 26 20 34 15 1 16 Route Number

Exhibit 3-8: Saturday Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Statistics

$45.00

$40.00

$35.00

$30.00

$25.00

$20.00

$15.00

$10.00 Operating Costper Passenger Trip Average Route $5.00

$0.00 7353 217625194315292330111224826203415116 Route Number

29 Exhibit 3-9: Saturday Farebox Recovery Ratio Statistics

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00% Average Route Farebox Recovery Ratio

10.00%

5.00%

0.00% 7353172625194315232911308122624342015116 Route Number

Sunday Route Performance: Because of The average operating cost per passenger trip is limited ridership, CMRTA operates only 14 of relatively high, due to the fact that three routes 30 routes on Sundays, and these routes operate (Routes 6, 23, and 5) have operating costs in at reduced frequencies. The average passenger excess of $9.00 per passenger trip. These costs load on Sundays is approximately 10 passengers are illustrated in Exhibit 3-11. per revenue hour; however, this average is inflated by the strong performance of three The farebox recovery ratio on an average route routes that have significantly higher passenger is about 11% on Sundays (as compared to 13% loads than average (as shown in Exhibit 3-10): on Saturdays and 17% on weekdays). Routes 1, 16, and 15 all have recovery ratios in excess of • Route 1; 19%; however, 9 of 14 routes have recovery • Route 16; and ratios of less than 10%. These data are • Route 15. displayed in Exhibit 3-12.

Three routes have significantly lower passenger loads (approximately 5 passengers per hour):

• Route 6; • Route 23; and • Route 5.

30

Exhibit 3-10: Sunday Passengers per Revenue Hour Statistics

25.0

20.0

15.0

Average Route 10.0 Passengers per Revenue Hour 5.0

0.0 62351925118122026415161 Route Number

31

Exhibit 3-11: Sunday Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Statistics

$10.00

$9.00

$8.00

$7.00

$6.00 Average Route

$5.00

$4.00

$3.00

Operating Cost per Passenger Trip per Operating Cost $2.00

$1.00

$0.00 62351925118122026415161 Route Number

Exhibit 3-12: Sunday Farebox Recovery Ratio Statistics

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

Average Route 10.00% Farebox Recovery Ratio

5.00%

0.00% 23651982541112262015161 Route Number

32 Ridership by Time-of-Day: Ridership levels Directness of Routes: The directness of each vary on each route according to the time-of-day. route is computed as the one-way trip distance The peak ridership periods generally occur (via roadway) divided by the straight-line during the morning hours (4:00 AM – 7:00 distance between the two endpoints. This figure AM), but vary from route to route. Ridership gives an indication of how much deviation also generally decreases significantly after 7:00 occurs from primary corridors. This quantity is PM on weekdays, due to a combination of difficult to compute in some cases, due to loops decreased demand as well as decreased at the outer end of routes. In these cases where availability of service (12 of 30 routes do not the route endpoint may not be at the outermost operate after approximately 7:00 PM on point on the route, the total round-trip distance weekdays). Additional routes cease operation at was divided by two to obtain a one-way approximately 10:00 PM on weekdays. distance. The straight-line distance was then Different trends are also apparent for weekdays, computed between the two points farthest away Saturdays, and Sundays. from each other on that particular route. In many cases, routes that are less direct These data are shown by route in charts typically have lower route efficiency measures contained in the Route Profiles (see Appendix (e.g. passengers per revenue hour, farebox B). Ridership by time-of-day will be reviewed recovery ratio). However, in the case of for each individual route, and recommendations CMRTA, no conclusive trends are apparent with for service expansions / reductions will be made regard to route directness as compared to overall as appropriate. performance. This is most likely due to the overall short travel times of the routes (even Route Travel Time: The average one-way travel those that are not as direct as others). time of CMRTA routes is 25 minutes, ranging from a minimum of 8 minutes (Route 13) to a The two most direct routes, as shown in Exhibit maximum of 39 minutes (Route 15). A number 3-14, are Route 35 and Route 7. In the route of the routes have relatively short travel times, efficiency measures presented earlier, these two with 8 routes having a travel time of less than 20 routes are two of the more poorly-performing minutes. These travel times are illustrated in routes. However, Route 16, which is also one of Exhibit 3-13. The shorter routes (particularly the most direct routes, is one of the highest- those with a travel time of less than 20 minutes) performing routes. The least-direct route, Route will be examined to determine if there are any 12, is near the system average in all performance opportunities for route extensions or combining measures. Thus, route efficiency and two short routes into a longer route to make effectiveness do not appear to be related to route more efficient use of available time. directness.

33

Exhibit 3-13: Route Travel Times

45

40

35

30

Average Route 25

20

15

One-way Travel Time (minutes) 10

5

0 132 1119296 3 174 1 7 16368 122125263023243134182022285 3515 Route Number

34

Exhibit 3-14: Route Directness

1.90

1.80

1.70

1.60

1.50

1.40 Average Route Directness Ratio 1.30

1.20

1.10

1.00 12293 26158 115 256 1 1819284 3036172431221320342123162 7 35 Route Number

Summary of Route-Level Analysis Findings specified benchmarks. Depending on the At this point, no conclusions can be formally standards adopted, action items will be specified drawn regarding the performance of CMRTA for routes that are not meeting performance fixed routes in comparison to standard goals, as well as for routes that are exceeding performance benchmarks, because CMRTA has performance goals. not yet adopted a set of service standards. The Route Performance Charts illustrate the routes PARATRANSIT SERVICE that are high performers and low performers in Description terms of passenger loads, operating costs, and Dial-A-Ride Transit (DART) is CMRTA’s farebox recovery. Clearly, there are paratransit (demand-response transportation) commendable routes as well as routes that are service that is provided to individuals with deficient; however, it is inappropriate to specify disabilities who can not use the fixed-route and these routes without having service standards in trolley network. This service is provided to place. meet the requirements of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA). The next step in the analysis of the fixed route system is for CMRTA to adopt a set of service DART provides curb-to-curb, advance standards and benchmarks, which would then reservation, shared ride transportation service. allow the comparison of current performance This service is available to individuals who are (using the Route Profiles in Appendix B) to the certified as having a disability that prevents

35 them from using traditional fixed-route services. November 2002 (when the changeover in DART DART serves customers located within ¾ of a operations occurred) through March 2004. fixed route, and is available during the same operating hours as the fixed-route service. Ridership: DART ridership has increased There are no restrictions on the purpose or dramatically since the transition to public frequency of trips for DART customers. ownership, as illustrated in Exhibit 3-15. Between November 2002 and March 2004, a Overall Statistics: The following statistics 44% increase in ridership occurred. This illustrate the performance of DART service in increase is due to several contributing factors, Fiscal Year 2003 (statistics are shown for including expanded service area (the DART November 1, 2002 – September 30, 2003 due to service area increases as the fixed-route service a changeover in operations effective November area increases) and improved quality of service 1, 2002): with fewer trip denials (encouraging more usage of the system). Ridership: 53,409 passenger trips Revenue Hours: 28,325 hours Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour: The Revenue Miles: 525,466 miles number of passenger trips per revenue hour has Farebox Revenue: $92,033(incl. pass sales) remained relatively stable during FY 2003 and FY 2004, as presented in Exhibit 3-16. As (Source: “By Mode Summary” spreadsheet ridership has increased during this period, so has provided by Connex) the number of vehicle hours of service provided.

Fares: The DART fare is $2.00 per one-way Operating Cost per Passenger Trip: As shown trip. Fares for paratransit service are higher than in Exhibit 3-17, the operating cost per passenger for fixed-route service because of the specialized trip has fluctuated, but is currently nature of the service provided. This fare meets approximately 14% lower (as of March 2004) the requirements of the Americans with than it was in November 2002. Although total Disabilities Act. operating costs are higher than they were in November 2002, ridership has increased by an Current Issues even greater percentage, resulting in a lower unit cost per passenger trip. An ADA compliance review was conducted in

October 2003, evaluating all aspects of current Farebox Recovery: The DART farebox operations. A number of recommendations were recovery ratio has fluctuated somewhat in recent issued to address both “real” and “perceptual” months, but was approximately the same at the problems. These recommendations are fully end of FY 2003 as it was at the beginning of FY discussed in the Central Midlands Regional 2003, as displayed in Exhibit 3-18. The farebox Transit Authority ADA Compliance Review recovery ratio as of October 2003 was (Delta Services Group, October 2003). CMRTA approximately 8%. Data for months after is currently working to implement these October 2003 were not available at the time of recommendations. this analysis.

Service Performance

Although DART services can not be evaluated on a “route-level” basis, many of the same performance indicators that are used in the examination of fixed-route service remain applicable for paratransit service. Trends are shown for the time period beginning in

36 Exhibit 3-15: DART Ridership Trends

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000 Passenger Trips

2,000

1,000

0 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2002 2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004

Exhibit 3-16: DART Passengers Trips per Revenue Hour Trends

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Passenger 0.5

0.0 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2002 2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004

37 Exhibit 3-17: DART Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Trends

$27.00

$24.00

$21.00

$18.00

$15.00

$12.00

$9.00

Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Cost Passenger per Operating $6.00

$3.00

$0.00 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2002 2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004

Exhibit 3-18: DART Farebox Recovery Trends

20.0%

18.0%

16.0%

14.0%

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

Farebox Recovery Ratio 6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0% Nov 2002 Dec 2002 Jan 2003 Feb 2003 Mar 2003 Apr 2003 May 2003 Jun 2003 Jul 2003 Aug 2003 Sep 2003 Oct 2003

38 TROLLEY SERVICE The trolley fare is the same as that of the fixed- route system - $1.00 per trip. Passes accepted Description on fixed routes are also accepted on trolley Trolley service formerly operated by the City of routes. Columbia was transferred to the auspices of CMRTA as part of the initiation of CMRTA Service Performance services in October 2002. These rubber-tired Data for trolley service are not as readily replica trolleys serve as circulators in the available as data for the fixed-route and DART downtown Columbia area. operations. The new farebox system, which

collects revenue and ridership data In December 2002, trolley routes were modified automatically, was not installed on the trolleys to provide improved access to the National until January 2004. In addition, a significant Advocacy Center and USC campus, Five Points, amount of earlier data are not directly and greater access to restaurants and attractions comparable to recent data, because charter in the Congaree Vista area. service data were included with many of the

operating reports, and it is difficult to isolate Current trolley services are divided into two data related specifically to general public schedules: service.

• The “Daytime Trolley” operates from 7:00 Thus, data examined in this report are based on AM until 5:30 PM Monday – Friday, with the period of June 2003 through March 2004, the same loop route operating in both which represents the most reliable data available “clockwise” and “counterclockwise” at the time of this analysis. These data represent directions. Service is provided in each general public service only; statistics for charter direction every 30 minutes. These routes service are not addressed in this examination. serve downtown Columbia, the Congaree

Vista, USC, University Commons in Cayce, Ridership: Trolley ridership declined over the Five Points, and the Bull Street corridor to second half of 2003, but has steadily increased Palmetto Richland Hospital. in early 2004, as shown in Exhibit 3-19.

Although the recent increases in ridership are • The “Evening Entertainment Trolley” impressive from a percentage standpoint (45% operates from 5:30 PM until 11:38 PM increase in ridership between November 2003 every night except Saturday (there is no and March 2004), the absolute ridership remains service on Saturday evenings). The loop low. Approximately 4,500 passenger trips were route for the Evening Entertainment Trolley taken in March 2004, compared with is slightly different than the Daytime Trolley approximately 3,100 passenger trips in route; the Bull Street corridor is not served November 2003. in the evening, but service is provided on Devine Street to The Whitney Hotel. Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour: Exhibit 3- Service is provided every 23 minutes in the 20 illustrates trends in the number of passenger counterclockwise direction, and every 45 trips per revenue hour, which has fluctuated in minutes in the clockwise direction. recent months similarly to overall ridership. Although this measure has increased in recent In addition to regularly-scheduled services, months, it is still low, particularly in comparison CMRTA partners with two local private to other fixed routes. Only one fixed route companies to provide charter trolley services for (Route 7 - the Percival Rd. test route) has a special events. lower number of passenger trips per vehicle hour than the trolley service.

39 Exhibit 3-19: Trolley Ridership Trends

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000 Passenger Trips

1,500

1,000

500

0 Jun 2003 Jul 2003 Aug 2003 Sep 2003 Oct 2003 Nov 2003 Dec 2003 Jan 2004 Feb 2004 Mar 2004

Exhibit 3-20: Trolley Passengers Trips per Revenue Hour Trends

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Revenue per Trips Passenger

0.5

0.0 Jun 2003 Jul 2003 Aug 2003 Sep 2003 Oct 2003 Nov 2003 Dec 2003 Jan 2004 Feb 2004 Mar 2004

40 Operating Cost per Passenger Trip: The most recent year available) were used for peer operating cost per passenger trip for trolley cities. The data shown include fixed-route and service is high (over $9.00 per passenger trip as paratransit services only; trolley services are not of March 2004), but has decreased significantly incorporated into this analysis. from the November 2003 figure of $12.50 per passenger trip. These trends are presented in Furthermore, it should be noted that the data Exhibit 3-21. shown in the “operating characteristics” section for CMRTA are based on 11.5 months of data Farebox Recovery Ratio: As shown in Exhibit for fixed-route service, and 11 months of data 3-22, the farebox recovery ratio for trolley for paratransit service (i.e. slightly less than one service is low. In fact, DART service currently full fiscal year). This inconsistency is due to the has a higher farebox recovery ratio than the transition date (which occurred mid-month), and trolley service. This performance measure has the fact that Connex did not assume shown positive movement in recent months, but responsibility for paratransit operations until these trends must continue for this service to November 1, 2002. perform comparably to most fixed routes. As can be seen in Exhibit 3-23, CMRTA has the PEER GROUP ANALYSIS third-lowest fixed-route ridership of the systems reviewed. However, the system also operates the Description second-lowest number of fixed-route service The purpose of a peer group analysis is to hours. Thus, CMRTA’s performance in terms of compare the performance of CMRTA’s services passenger trips per revenue hour is well within to those in similar settings, to gain a better the bounds of that of the peer cities, as shown in understanding of the context in which services Exhibit 3-24. The measure of paratransit are provided. Transit performance in several passenger trips per revenue hour has a very cities was examined in three major categories: limited range in most cases, although CMRTA is at the low end of the range. • Operating characteristics; • Performance measures; and In terms of operating cost per passenger trip, • Financial information. CMRTA’s costs are slightly above average as compared to the peer group for both fixed-route Eight peer cities were selected for this and paratransit service, as shown in Exhibit 3- evaluation. The cities chosen are similarly-sized 25. CMRTA’s farebox recovery ratio is slightly cities located in the Southeast. With regard to below average, as displayed in Exhibit 3-26. transit, regional cities are much more CMRTA’s overall farebox recovery ratio is comparable to the Columbia region than cities in approximately 19%, and the average farebox other parts of the country, because of the recovery ratio for the peer cities is 20%. different transit cultures in different regions. This selection enables the comparison of transit Summary services available in the Columbia area to those In summation, CMRTA’s operating performance in similarly-sized areas. is well within the range of the peer cities that were evaluated, although typical performance Exhibit 3-23 shows the data table compiled for measures for CMRTA are slightly below the this analysis. Data for each of the peer cities average of the peer group. Also, it is notable were obtained from the 2002 National Transit that the amount of fixed-route service offered by Database, and data for CMRTA were obtained CMRTA is less than the level offered in most directly from CMRTA. To enable the most peer cities. consistent comparisons possible, FY 2003 (Oct. 16, 2002 – Nov. 1, 2003) data were used for CMRTA, and Calendar Year 2002 data (the

41 Exhibit 3-21: Trolley Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Trends

$14.00

$12.00

$10.00

$8.00

$6.00

$4.00 Operating Cost per Passenger Trip

$2.00

$0.00 Jun 2003 Jul 2003 Aug 2003 Sep 2003 Oct 2003 Nov 2003 Dec 2003 Jan 2004 Feb 2004 Mar 2004

Exhibit 3-22: Trolley Farebox Recovery Trends

10.0%

9.0%

8.0%

7.0%

6.0%

5.0%

4.0%

Farebox Recovery Ratio Recovery Farebox 3.0%

2.0%

1.0%

0.0% Jun 2003 Jul 2003 Aug 2003 Sep 2003 Oct 2003 Nov 2003 Dec 2003 Jan 2004 Feb 2004 Mar 2004

42 Exhibit 3-23: Peer Group Analysis Data

2,474,951 3,724,420 400,324 71,904 179,594 208,886 36,684 2,048 52 16 22,967 155,231 1,692 46 7 1,825,183 3,112,405 312,677 136,665 541,527 2,310,349 3,408,411 466,719 165,789 360,331 25,139 54,286 1,749 47 15 MS Knoxville,TN LittleRock, AR Raleigh, NCGA Savannah, 333,057 2,578,527 419,830 2,240,181 19,102 212,011 34,560 1,238 68 11 940,405 833,760 314,328 58,839 292,637 23,230 39,877 1,818 27 8 1,808,341 1,973,107 206,328 128,373 343,509 23,544 48,922 1,185 9 51 2,194,264 3,375,732 669,659 162,291 423,210 38,832 69,717 1,833 43 15 0%9% 19% 7% 0% 6% 28% 20% 90% 0% 46% 17% 64% 45% 4% 19% 52% 0% 21% 39% 34% 18% 0% 0% 14% 15% 21% 51% 2% 37% 8% 3% 28% 1% 1% 1% 1,564 $3,816,567 $199,992 $3,714,325 $845,916 $141,019 $2,733,290 $107,306 $66,723 $129,665 CMRTA CTC CARTA CARTA JATRAN KAT CATA CAT CAT Columbia Baton Rouge, LA Charleston,SC Chattanooga,TN Jackson, 479,019 1,705 7 59 478,971 2,914,076 23,948 179,448 68,203 5,589,436 Total Total Total Total Buses 43 Paratransit 570,603 ParatransitParatransit 1.7Paratransit 0.10 $20.54Paratransit 2.8 $1,134,258 0.14 $12.45 $849,243 1.8 0.10 $28.95 $2,018,018 2.1 $818,229 $16.73 0.24 $1,092,105 $27.39 1.7 $865,164 0.13 $25.03 $741,770 1.8 0.10 $1,179,951 $13.66 $1,158,608 0.12 2.2 $7.60 0.50 6.8 $16.11 0.18 2.0 Paratransit 32,266 Paratransit 17 Paratransit 55,232 Fixed Route 1,527,081 Fixed Route 121,525 Fixed RouteFixed Route 16.8Fixed Route 1.3 $3.09Fixed Route 31.1 $6,314,931 1.9 $1.85 $10,330,354 20.8 $8,779,093 1.5 $2.60 15.4 $9,368,132 $3,458,334 $4.75 1.1 14.2 $8,808,191 $8,320,244 $4.15 10.6 0.9 $8,305,624 $3.93 $9,005,401 20.6 0.9 $2.44 22.8 1.5 $2.67 20.7 1.7 $2.42 1.5 Fixed Route 2,043,046 Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage Percentage of Percentage Total Receipts Total Total Receipts $1,391,637Total Receipts $3,689,897Total Receipts $0 $2,295,396 $647,724Total Receipts $1,593,261 $2,070,786 $2,826,890 $807,561 $4,411,361 $387,468 $577,010 $0 $3,426,938 $839,173 $2,163,486 $1,421,328 $3,081,900 $2,018,842 $1,891,695 $4,863,018 $0 $2,756,009 $4,454,570 $0 $1,653,529 $5,853,606 $4,264,202 $400,000 $0 $1,793,712 $5,521,346 $1,299,457 $1,469,243 $18,253 $2,208,163 2000 Population 420,537 per squaremile) Density (persons Farebox Recovery 19% 33% 23% 26% 7% 9% 16% 20% 26% General Information General Financial Information Trip Trips Performance Measures Federal Operating Characteristics Expenses Vehicles in Assistance State Funds Local Funds Local Other Sources per Passenger Passenger per Revenue Miles Revenue Annual Vehicle Annual Vehicle Operating Cost Cost Operating Revenue Hours Total Operating Urbanized Area Passenger Trips Trips Passenger Trips Passenger Passenger Fares Passenger perMile Revenue Maximum Service Maximum Annual Passenger per RevenueHour Connex "By Summary"Mode for CMRTA CMRTA FY04 Budget Operating Revenues Sources: 2002 National Transit Database

43 Exhibit 3-24: Peer Group Analysis: Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0 Fixed-route Paratransit 15.0

10.0 Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Revenue per Trips Passenger 5.0

0.0 Columbia Raleigh, NC Raleigh, Jackson, MS Jackson, Knoxville, TN Knoxville, Savannah, GA Little Rock, AR Rock, Little Charleston, SC Baton Rouge, LA Chattanooga, TN

Exhibit 3-25: Peer Group Analysis: Operating Cost per Passenger Trip

$35.00

$30.00

$25.00

$20.00 Fixed-route Paratransit $15.00

$10.00 Operating Cost per Passenger Trip $5.00

$0.00 Columbia Raleigh, NC Raleigh, Jackson, MS Jackson, Knoxville, TN Savannah, GA Savannah, Little Rock,AR Little Charleston, SC Charleston, Baton Rouge, LA Rouge, Baton Chattanooga, TN Chattanooga,

44 Exhibit 3-26: Peer Group Analysis: Farebox Recovery Ratio

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

Farebox Recovery Ratio 10%

5%

0% Columbia Raleigh, NC Raleigh, Jackson, MS Knoxville, TN Savannah, GA Little Rock,Little AR Charleston, SC Baton Rouge, LA Chattanooga, TN

BUDGET AND FUNDING SOURCES The annual audit of these figures had not been completed as of the publication of this report; CMRTA utilizes a variety of funding sources to thus, FY 2003 figures are estimated. meet its operating, administrative, and capital needs. Major funding sources (defined in more Exhibit 3-27: CMRTA Operating / detail below) include the SCANA Trust Fund, Administrative Budget (FY 2003 & FY Federal and State grants, and passenger fares. 2004)

FY 2003 Operating / Administrative Budget Category of FY 2004 Estimated Expenditures Budget Because CMRTA is still in its infancy, there is Expenses little historical data on which to base budget Administrative $359,716 $126,694 projections. However, CMRTA has been quite Operations & $8,286,99 $7,808,954 effective in controlling expenses. CMRTA’s FY Maintenance 6 2004 operating / administrative budget totals Insurance $52,338 $49,284 $9,358,759. Estimated expenses for FY 2003 Technical $500,494 $309,486 totaled $8,375,740, which is over $800,000 less Services than the budgeted figure of $9,200,746. The FY Utilities $154,783 $79,267 2004 operating budget and estimated FY 2003 Taxes & Fees $4,432 $2,054 expenses for major expense categories are shown in Exhibit 3-27. TOTAL $9,358,75 $8,375,740 9

45 The actual FY 2003 expenses were significantly expected higher costs for contract operations, less than the projected figures for several professional services, and utilities. reasons, including the following: A number of revenue streams supply funds to • Limited CMRTA staffing; pay for these expenses, as shown in Exhibit 3- • Lower contract operations cost than 28. Over half of the revenues come from the expected; and SCANA Trust Fund, while approximately 25% • Lower professional / technical services cost comes from Federal and State grants. Passenger than expected. fares account of 17% of the total revenues. (Note that this figure is slightly different than the However, utilities costs were higher than farebox recovery ratio of 19% presented in the projected. peer review, because the figures below account for the percentage of the total operating and The FY 2004 budget reflects higher projected administrative budget.) Detailed descriptions of expenses to account for additional CMRTA staff each of these funding sources are given later in members that are now employed, as well as this Section.

Exhibit 3-28: CMRTA Operating / Administrative Revenue Sources

Interest Income Gas Tax / Sales Tax Trolley Charter 1% Refunds Revenue 2% 1% Farebox / Pass Revenue State Grant (SCDOT 17% SMTF) 8%

Federal Grant (FTA Section 5307) 19%

Local Trolley Subsidy (City of Local Funds - Cola.) SCANA (Trust Fund) 1% 51%

Source: CMRTA FY 2003 Operating / Administrative Budget (Estimated Revenues)

46 Capital Budget The primary revenue sources used to cover the CMRTA’s FY 2003 capital budget was limited costs of capital expenses are Federal grants in scope, but due to a number of planned (FTA Section 5307 and 5309 grants), with projects, the FY 2004 capital budget is SCANA Trust Fund monies used as the required significantly higher. A total of $5,547,760 is local match. However, additional funds budgeted for capital expenses in FY 2004. designated for local match related to the Projects included in the budget are shown in proposed new Headquarters facility are available Exhibit 3-29. from SCANA and the City of Columbia. These funds were made available as part of the Exhibit 3-29: CMRTA Capital Budget CMRTA transition agreement. (FY 2004) Item FY 2004 Funding Sources Budget As illustrated above, CMRTA relies on a variety Vehicle Purchase / Lease $260,000 of funding sources to support its operating, (Four DART vehicles) administrative, and capital needs. Each of these Vehicle Purchase / Lease $110,000 major funding sources is described below. (Four support vehicles) Bus Stop Signage $500,000 SCANA Trust Fund: The SCANA Trust Fund (Phase I of signage project) is a $15 million account established as part of Other Enhancements $86,000 the transition agreement between SCANA and (Bike racks for buses) CMRTA. These monies are designated to help Engineering and Design $350,000 subsidize transit operations for a period of time, Services until the fund is exhausted. These funds are (Prelim. Engineering for new used as local matching monies required to obtain Headquarters facility) Federal funds, and are also used to support Property Acquisition $3,300,000 operational costs that are not eligible for Federal (Property for new assistance. Headquarters facility) Facility Renovations and $100,000 Before these funds have been exhausted, another Repairs significant source of local funds must be in (Renovation of admin. place, or the system will not be able to operate at facility and Transfer Center the level of service necessary to serve local security enhancements) residents. Because of the limitations on uses of Shop Equipment $150,000 Federal funds (described below), local monies (Capital maintenance items) must be available to support transit operations. Office Furniture / Equipment $200,000 (Furniture / equipment for RTA offices) Computer Hardware & $341,760 Software (MDT / AVL system and

computer workstation

upgrades)

Other Equipment $150,000

(Video cameras for buses)

TOTAL $5,547,760

47 Based on the current expenditures of CMRTA, a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section baseline projection was established to determine 5307 Grant: This grant is provided to urbanized the length of time before the Trust Fund is areas throughout the country on a formula basis, depleted. This baseline projection assumes a and is used primarily for capital and planning continuation of the current level of service. If projects. These funds are used to reimburse services are expanded in the interim, these funds 80% of eligible costs, with a local match will be available for a shorter period of time; requirement of 20%. However, FTA’s likewise, if services are reduced, these funds will definition of “capital” includes maintenance last longer than shown in the baseline projection. costs; thus, all maintenance costs are eligible expenses for reimbursement under this program. As specific short-term recommendations for Because maintenance activities are included CMRTA are developed, this projection will be under the CMRTA “Operating / Administrative” revisited to determine the impact of the budget, this funding source is actually used to recommendations on the length of time before meet capital, operating, and planning needs. All the Trust Fund is expended. capital expenses are eligible for Section 5307 assistance, as are technical assistance (planning) Exhibit 3-30 shows the baseline Trust Fund project costs. projection, using conservative assumptions regarding the system’s revenues and FTA Section 5309 Grant: These grants are expenditures over the coming years, and provided to fund capital projects, including fleet assuming a continuation of the current level of replacements and construction of new facilities. service. The large capital project that appears in Operating assistance is not an eligible use of FY 2006 is the construction of a new CMRTA these grants. For larger systems, Section 5309 Headquarters facility. However, because funds are available to fund large-scale capital separate local funding sources are available for investments such as light rail, commuter rail, this project, construction of the Headquarters and bus rapid transit. These grants are provided facility does not have a major impact on the to specific systems for specific projects through Trust Fund. Congressional “earmarks”. Assistance for bus- related projects is typically provided with a 20% Based on these assumptions (using FY 2004 local match requirement, but due to intense figures and FY 2005 budgeted figures), the project competition, major investments (i.e. SCANA Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted “New Starts”) require a larger local match to be during the early part of FY 2007, or slightly favorably considered for funding. more than four years from the transition to public ownership that occurred in October 2002. State Mass Transit Fund (SMTF): These monies are administered by the South Carolina Annual SCANA Transit Subsidy: In addition to Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and are monies provided by SCANA for the Trust Fund, distributed to transit agencies across the state SCANA also committed to providing an annual based on grant applications. These funds are transit subsidy of $2.47 million for seven years provided by a set-aside of ¼ of 1 cent per gallon beginning in FY 2004, as negotiated through the from the State’s fuel tax receipts. This grant is transition agreement. intended primarily to serve as matching money for other (i.e. Federal) grants.

48 Exhibit 3-30: 3-30: SCANA Trust Fund Baseline Projection $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 81,212 $ $ 570,000 $ $ 61,494 $ $ 1,757,155 $ $ 438,263 $ $ 211,629 $ $ 41,176 $ $ 192,773 $ $ 175,465 $ $ 1,391,366 $ $ 8,238,138 $ $ 90,000 $ 15,048,672 $ $ $ 200,000 $ $ 200,000 $ $ 1,000,000 $ $ 800,000 $ $ 800,000 $ 14,048,672 $ $ $ 8,038,138 $ $ 78,847 $ $ 570,000 $ $ 59,703 $ $ 1,705,976 $ $ 425,498 $ $ 207,480 $ $ 39,977 $ $ 192,773 $ $ 170,354 $ $ $ $ 1,350,841 $ $ 7,948,039 $ $ 90,000 $ 14,639,487 $ $ 200,000 $ $ 200,000 $ $ 1,000,000 $ $ 800,000 $ $ 800,000 $ 13,639,487 $ $ 7,748,039 $ 4,996,429 $ $ 76,550 $ $ 570,000 $ $ 57,964 $ 1,656,287 $ $ 413,105 $ $ 203,411 $ $ 38,812 $ $ 192,773 $ $ 165,392 $ 2,470,000 $ 1,311,496 $ 5,196,429 $ $ 90,000 $ 14,242,221 $ $ 200,000 $ $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ $ 800,000 $ $ 800,000 $ 13,242,221 $ 4,723,060 $ $ 74,321 $ $ 570,000 $ $ 56,275 $ 1,608,046 $ $ 401,073 $ $ 199,423 $ $ 37,682 $ $ 192,773 $ $ 160,575 $ 2,470,000 $ 1,273,297 $ 4,923,060 $ $ 90,000 $ 13,856,525 $ $ 200,000 $ $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ $ 800,000 $ $ 800,000 $ 12,856,525 $ 4,457,691 $ $ 72,156 $ $ 570,000 $ $ 54,636 $ 1,561,210 $ $ 389,391 $ $ 195,513 $ $ 36,584 $ $ 192,773 $ $ 155,898 $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,470,000 $ 1,236,211 $ 4,657,691 $ $ 90,000 $ 13,482,063 $ $ 200,000 $ $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ $ 800,000 $ $ 800,000 $ 12,482,063 $ $ 4,192,740 $ $ 70,054 $ $ 570,000 $ $ 53,045 $ $ 1,515,738 $ $ 378,050 $ $ 191,679 $ $ 35,519 $ $ 192,773 $ $ 151,358 $ $ 7,348 $ $ 961,261 $ $ (3,431,478) $ $ 2,470,000 $ $ 1,200,205 $ $ 4,392,740 $ $ 90,000 $ 13,118,508 $ $ $ $ 200,000 $ $ 200,000 $ $ $ 1,000,000 $ $ 800,000 $ $ 800,000 $ 12,118,508 $ 3,912,766 $ $ 68,014 $ $ 570,000 $ $ 51,500 $ 1,471,590 $ $ 367,038 $ $ 187,921 $ $ 34,484 $ $ 192,773 $ $ 146,949 $ $ 37,259 $ 4,874,027 $ 961,261 $ 2,470,000 $ 1,165,247 $ 3,912,766 $ $ 90,000 $ 22,765,542 $ $ $ $ $ 181,000 $ $ - $ $ 200,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 8,800,000 $ $ 800,000 $ 11,765,542 $ $ 3,639,982 $ $ 66,033 $ $ 570,000 $ $ 50,000 $ $ 1,428,728 $ $ 356,348 $ $ 184,236 $ $ 33,480 $ $ 192,773 $ $ 142,669 $ $ 67,299 $ 8,803,609 $ 4,874,027 $ $ 2,470,000 $ $ 1,131,308 $ 3,929,582 $ $ 90,000 $ 16,272,445 $ $ 654,318 $ $ 289,600 $ $ 200,000 $ $ 4,849,589 $ $ 3,743,671 $ $ 800,000 $ $ 11,422,856 27,453 4,279,037 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 $ 1,851,481 $ $ 64,739 $ $ 557,000 $ $ - $ 1,476,438 $ $ 349,361 $ $ 58,745 $ $ 21,718 $ $ 192,787 $ $ 139,872 $ $ 78,395 $ 10,693,510 $ 8,803,609 $ $ 2,470,000 $ 1,109,126 $ 1,889,901 $ $ 90,000 $ 9,730,172 $ $ 38,420 $ $ 200,000 $ $ 270,510 $ $ 216,408 $ 9,459,662 Trolley 31,703 DART 106,041 Fixed-Route 1,025,069 Charter RevenueCharter 50,413 State RevenueState 647,724 Advertising RevenueAdvertising - Federal RevenueFederal 1,593,261 Ticket Sales 260,527 SmartRide Revenue - Misc. Tax Refunds 205,521 Interest RevenueInterest 58,314 Annual SCANA Transit Subsidy - Farebox Revenue Farebox Local of Trolley (City Cola.) Subsidy 118,130 FTA Section 5309 Grant5309 FTA Section Transit Revenues Mass State FundsColumbia Matching of City Funds Matching Facility SCANA 15,682 27,540 134,460 2,019,000 Raw Water Savings (City of Water Cola.)Raw (City Savings - FTA Section 5307 Grant5307 FTA Section 109,813 Power Generation Funds (City of Cola.) (City Funds Generation Power 800,000 Operating Deficit Amount in Trust Fund Beginning of FY Trust Beginning AmountFund in 15,000,000 Amount in Trust Amount Fund End of FY 10,693,510 Operating Revenues(except Trust Fund) Total Deficit (to come from Trust Fund) Trust from come (to Deficit Total 4,306,490 Total Expenses 8,513,006 Capital Deficit Capital Capital ExpensesCapital 137,266 Capital Revenues (except Trust (except Fund) Revenues Capital Operating ExpensesOperating 8,375,740

49

City of Columbia Subsidy: As part of the • Advertising Revenue transition agreement, the City of Columbia Although no revenue is currently received provides a subsidy of $1 million per year from advertising, this subject is being (starting in FY 2004) to support overall explored by CMRTA, particularly with operations, in addition to $90,000 per year regard to advertising on the trolleys. (started in FY 2003) to sustain trolley service. OTHER TRANSIT SERVICE PROVIDERS Farebox Revenue: Passenger fares and receipts A large number of organizations in the from pass sales are an important part of the Central Midlands region have a strong overall revenue stream, but like all other transit interest in the transportation needs of their systems in the country, fares alone can not pay clients / customers. for the total costs of operating the CMRTA system. Currently, CMRTA recovers Coordination opportunities with these approximately 19% of its operating costs organizations vary, from potentially extending through passenger fares and pass sales, which is current routes to providing maintenance services in line with the peer systems reviewed. for vehicles operated by these organizations.

CMRTA has undertaken a detailed analysis of Other Sources: In addition to the funding opportunities for coordination of services with programs described above, several other funding these providers. That analysis is included in the sources provide limited support for operations. Transit Development Plan. Although the funds received from these sources are limited, every dollar is important. HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY SERVICES • Charter Revenue AND OPPORTUNITIES The CMRTA trolleys are routinely charted The public and private non-profit agencies that for special events, through a partnership have been identified as providing and/or between CMRTA and two local private contracting for transportation service in the businesses. The funds received from these Central Midlands region are listed below. charters can be used to support operations.

• Tax Refunds Public Agencies: As a Regional Transportation Authority, • Lexington County Recreation and Aging CMRTA is not responsible for paying most Commission (LCRAC) state and federal fuel or sales taxes, and is • Irmo / Chapin Recreation Commission thus eligible for a refund of taxes that are • Palmetto SeniorCare charged at the time of purchase. • Richland County Department of Social Services (RCDSS) • Richland Disabilities & Special Needs • Interest Income Board Interest is accrued from the CMRTA bank • Lexington County Department of Social balance, and can be used to support Services (LCDSS) operations. However, the amount of • Lexington County Community Mental revenue received from this source will Health Center (LCCMHC) decrease as the Trust Fund is expended.

50

• Columbia Area Mental Health Center There are two potential coordination (CAMHC) opportunities between the SCDOE and • State Department of Health and Human CMRTA: Services (DHHS) • Richland County DHHS 1. Use of CMRTA buses to provide • Lexington County DHHS school trips; and 2. Use of SCDOE buses to provide public rider trips. Private Non-Profit Agencies:

• Babcock Center, Inc. Richland County School District One, • Friendship Center, Inc. Student Transportation Services • Council on Aging of the Midlands (Title Richland County School District One is the XIX and Congregate Meals Programs) State’s fourth largest school district with 47 • Wheels-Harbison Area Transit schools and more than 25,000 students from • Respite House Inc. urban, suburban, and rural communities in/near • South Carolina Episcopal Home Columbia. The District covers 482 square miles • Lexington/Richland Alcohol and Drug and borders Sumter, Calhoun, Lexington, and Abuse Council Fairfield Counties.

South Carolina Department of Education, University of South Carolina Office of Transportation USC is the state’s oldest and largest public The mission statement of the SC Department of university with an enrollment of about 35,000 Education (SCDOE), Office of Transportation is students at eight campuses around the state. to “provide, maintain, and service the state USC Columbia, the largest campus, offers more school bus fleet; manage the school bus driver than 350 undergraduate and graduate courses training and certification program; monitor through 16 colleges/schools. The Columbia school transportation safety and provide campus includes 155 facilities on 358 acres. programs to enhance student transportation safety; assist districts with school bus routing For 2003-2004, enrollment for the Columbia and scheduling; assist districts in responding to campus totaled nearly 25,300 with a full-time state and Federal school transportation mandates faculty of 1,099. Based on a statistical summary and administer the state pupil transportation for Fall 2003, 17,133 students were funding program.” undergraduates and 40% of undergraduates (6,853) lived on campus. Several transportation services are provided on the campus including a shuttle bus system.

51

Exhibit 3-31 USC Bus Routes

Route Stops Blue Coliseum, CLS/Towers, PE Center, Nursing Red Coliseum, Horseshoe, Pendleton Garage, Capstone/Moore School of Business, Greek Village Green Bates, CLS/Towers, Swearingen Engineering Yellow Bates, Nursing, Engineering at Catawba North Loop 1600 Hampton, Barnwell Parking Lot, Capstone/Moore School of Business, Nursing, NAC Express Coliseum, Horseshoe, School of Music/Visitor Center 7:30 am – 11:00 am

The Carolina Shuttle operates Monday through OTHER PROVIDERS Friday from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm during the Fall Other transportation providers such as private and Spring semesters. The Shuttle does not run for-profit and adjacent public transit providers on a set schedule but attempts to arrive at the identified by the consultant are listed below. designated stops every fifteen minutes. The routes are color coded and include the following: Private For-Profit Providers:

• Blue Ribbon Taxicab One bus operates on each route except for the Yellow route, which has two buses in operation • Checker-Yellow Cab during the morning hours. • Driving Miss Daisy

An Evening Shuttle runs from 6:00 pm to 12:30 Adjacent Public Provider: am during the Fall and Spring semesters. Stops • Santee Wateree Regional Transit include the Coliseum, Russell House, Authority BA/Capstone, Maxcy, Byrnes Center, Towers/CLS, Swearingen, the Roost, Bates, the Blue Ribbon Taxicab PE Center/South and East Quad Area, and the Blue Ribbon Taxicab has been established in the Greek Village. Columbia area for over 70 years and has a shareholder ownership structure. The taxi The Carolina Shuttle is operating an Express company offers statewide 24 hour 7 day a week Route during the Summer semesters from the service with a fleet of 107 sedans. Coliseum to the Horseshoe (primarily to In addition to providing demand service, Blue transport faculty and staff) from 7:30 am to 9:30 Ribbon has several public and private contracts am and 3:30 pm to 5:30 pm. to include the transport of:

The Vehicle Management & Parking Services • Customers to/from maintenance garage division of USC operates and manages the for Dick Dyer; Shuttle services with seven 28-passenger buses • Client work trips in Richland County for for the daytime and Express routes and two 15- Columbia Housing Authority; passenger vans for the Evening Shuttle. In • Employees to/from lodging for intercity addition, the division maintains and coordinates bus, freight, and airline companies; and the use of four 40-passenger buses for groups. • Young teenagers to/from rehabilitation programs in Richland and Lexington Counties for Lexington/Richland County Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council.

52

Checker Yellow Eastover Transit Service, Sumter-Columbia Checker Yellow has been established in the Vanpool, Camden Smart Ride, and Medicaid Columbia area for over 20 years and is a family- Contract. SWRTA does mix cash/public and owned business. The taxi company offers contract customers to the extent possible to statewide 24 hour 7 day a week service with a maximize the use of each vehicle. fleet of 100 sedans. Eastover Transit Service operates between In addition to providing demand passenger and Eastover and Columbia Monday through Friday parcel delivery service, Checker Yellow has with a 6:00 am, 1:30 pm, and 4:30 pm route several public and private contracts to include starting at the Eastover Town Hall and the transport of: terminating at the CMRTA Transfer Center. Return trips leave Columbia at 7:30 am, 3:00 • High school students to/from work trips pm, and 6:00 pm. The service includes 7 stops for Richland County School District #1; on the inbound and 8 stops on the outbound trip • Clients to/from Columbia Area Mental in Columbia. The one-way regular fare is $1.50 Health; ($.075 for senior citizens, ADA eligible riders, • Clients and employees to/from and children between 5 and 12). Commission for the Blind; Depending on vehicle availability, a 45- • Clients to/from medical trips for State passenger wheelchair accessible bus is often Worker’s Compensation Fund; used on the trips. The average ridership for • Equipment between Providence, Baptist, service from Eastover to Columbia by run is as Richland, and Lexington hospitals; and follows: 20 at 6:00 am; 4 at 1:30 pm; and 3 at • Patients to home for Providence, 4:30 pm. The average ridership from Columbia Baptist, Richland, and Lexington to Eastover by run is as follows: 1 at 7:00 am, 7 hospitals. at 3:00 pm; and 12 at 6:00 pm.

Driving Miss Daisy Currently, only a couple of riders travel to the Driving Miss Daisy (based in Lexington) CMRTA Transfer Center to access the CMRTA provides shopping, medical, and recreation trips route system. A majority of riders disembark at to senior citizens within a 100 mile radius of stops along Garners Ferry Road (e.g. Wal-Mart Columbia. As part of the service, the driver also and Dorn Veterans Hospital). SWRTA is acts as a personal care assistant to include interested in exploring the advantages of a helping the customer at doctor visits, taking discounted transfer between the Eastover and notes for family, and running errands. Requests CMRTA services, which could spark additional for specialized service are referred to DART. ridership to the Columbia area. The personalized service cost $24 per hour. Sumter–Columbia Vanpool provides weekday Santee Wateree Regional Transportation commuter service using a 13-passenger van. Authority The service has several established passengers The Santee Wateree Regional Transit Authority (8 to 20 years), and there are no empty seats on (SWRTA), based in Sumter, provides several the van. SWRTA has received additional types of transportation services to residents in requests for service and plans to expand the over 110 towns within eight counties. Services service in August with a 22-passenger that intercept CMRTA’s service area include the wheelchair accessible bus. (Note that the expansion is contingent upon the arrival of new buses.)

53

Camden Smart Ride provides commuter service with stops in Camden, Lugoff, and Columbia. The service started June 7, 2004. The first month of service is free. Then riders must pay either $1.50 per one-way trip, $15 per week, or $55 per month. The inbound run starts in Camden at 7:10 am and arrives in Columbia at 8:00 am, and the outbound run departs Columbia at 5:05 pm and arrives back in Camden at 6:10 pm.

The system is adding an earlier inbound (6:10 am) and outbound (4:05 pm) run on July 12. Several riders have expressed interest in the earlier schedule.

Since initiation June 7, the service has been averaging 12 to 14 people a day. SWRTA plans to use a 22-passenger bus with a bike rack for this service (contingent on arrival of new buses). Currently, the bus is traveling back to Sumter after the inbound trip, unless service is needed back to Camden.

SWRTA and CMRTA have established a free transfer system for Smart Ride customers to travel to/from their Columbia workplace on the fixed route system and CMRTA Transfer Center. SWRTA is interested in contracting with CMRTA to provide maintenance/vehicle back-up service for times when CMRTA can respond faster to a vehicle issue than the SWRTA base in Sumter. Such service may include on-site maintenance or the transfer of riders to a CMRTA bus, as the ultimate goal is customer satisfaction.

Medicaid Contract provides demand response service in Sumter, Orangeburg, Kershaw, and Clarendon Counties for Medicaid eligible clients as scheduled through the local DHHS office. Service is provided to Columbia as requested; thus, routes and times vary.

54

Chapter 4: Long Rangecommunity Transit benefits. ThePlan transit services of 2030 will have grown out of the original fixed route

This chapter begins with a long-range vision and demand responsive routes operated by the statement for transit in Central Midlands Central Midlands Regional Transit Authority The vision statement is followed by values and (CMRTA) since 2002. The foundation for all needs identified by CMRTA board members. progress by 2030 stems from the ability of the Short- range and long-range goals and objectives for improving regional transit are also included. CMRTA, in its first decade of operation, to Finally, a 20-year, financially constrained transit achieve financial sustainability through efficient program and a short-range list of high priority operations, an effective route and fee structure, system improvements are presented. and development of reliable funding sources from the federal, state and local governments. Long Range Vision Statement: Transit in 2030 Transit will have helped cities and towns in the The Vision Statement is based on public input, Central Midlands develop more efficiently by suggestions by CMRTA and CMCOG board and promoting more compact suburban development subcommittee members and recommendations pattern and by increasing the livability of from previous planning efforts. The purpose of central city neighborhoods. Some residential the vision statement is to convey an ambitious, and commercial developments near transit but realistic, image of what the transit system in routes will be designed to capitalize upon the the Central Midlands could become over the convenience and efficiency of the transit system. next twenty-five years. Exhibit 4-1 is a Transit Vision Diagram. The core public transit services will continue to be fixed route bus, demand responsive minibus, In the year 2030, the mass transit systems of the and express/commuter bus; however some Central Midlands of South Carolina will provide higher capacity routes using enhanced bus and a high degree of mobility for a diverse group of rail technologies will eventually emerge. Aside travelers. Excellent services will be available to form providing transportation within central traditional transit user groups, including those Columbia, the system will link the communities too young or old to drive, low income citizens, of the Central Midlands region. Transit will also the disabled and those without access to an provide important intermodal linkages to the automobile. airport and high-speed rail transit stations. Specialized systems will connect the social As a result of improvements in the quality, service clients, including the elderly, with extent and efficiency of transit services, transit service providers. will also become the travel mode of choice for a broader constituency, including college The transit fleet will enhance air quality by students, suburban commuters, and families or using clean fuels and by somewhat reducing the individuals who choose a less automobile growth rate of automobile traffic. An intermodal dependent lifestyle. transportation center, modern transit administrative and fleet headquarters facilities, There will be broad community support for mass and a variety of technological innovations transit, as the traveling public comes to falling under the heading of “intelligent understand that aside from being an important transportation systems” provide support to the alternative to the private automobile, transit efficient operation of the transit system. also has economic, environmental and

55 VALUES ƒ Develop partnerships with potential The overall goals/values that were developed niche markets (e.g. local colleges and through the planning process and will be used as universities, new Convention Center). a basis for defining performance measures are as follows: ƒ Explore and implement an advertising • Productivity and cost-effectiveness; program to generate revenue. • Mobility; • Safety; ƒ Explore partnerships with advertising • Reliability; companies to provide additional bus • Affordability; shelters at high-demand locations. • Cleanliness; and ƒ Investigate the concept of providing • Convenience. maintenance services for other local

agencies that provide transportation GOALS AND OBJECTIVES services. This section presents short-range and long-range goals and objectives for developing a strong ƒ Participate in efforts to secure additional transit component to the regional, Multimodal funding for transit at the State and transportation system. Federal levels. A list of needs was identified during the transit development plan process, using objective and GOAL: Provide a high quality transit subjective analyses and community input. This services, within the system’s financial list provided the basis for the short-range goals constraints. and objectives below. The short-range goals Objectives: have been supplemented with long-range goals, ƒ Identify the overall level of service based on recommendations from other recent desired, in consideration of the transit planning projects. operating costs of the service.

SHORT-RANGE GOALS ƒ Utilize service standards to analyze the existing system and identify under- GOAL: CMRTA must achieve financial performing services. sustainability as the transit operating trust fund is depleted. This is the ƒ Examine service alternatives for low- overriding transit goal for the immediate performing services, including service future, since most improvements in cuts if necessary. regional transit are likely to depend on making the RTA financially sustainable. ƒ Identify and enhance services to niche Objectives: markets (e.g. colleges and universities, ƒ Establish a dedicated local funding major employers, Fort Jackson). source. This need is first and foremost, and is absolutely critical to the future ƒ Enhance services that are performing viability of the CMRTA system. well (e.g. provide more frequent service, longer hours of operation, etc,) ƒ Establish partnerships with local employers and businesses, through the ƒ Expand service coverage in underserved Commuter Choice initiative or by areas (e.g. St. Andrews). soliciting financial support for services provided.

56

ƒ Demonstrate new services in currently ƒ Provide passenger amenities to enhance unserved areas with a high number of the quality of service to customers (e.g. potential trip generators and attractions uniform bus stop signs, shelters, (e.g. Harbison). NextBus technology, etc.)

ƒ Demonstrate new service models (e.g. ƒ Explore the potential creation of neighborhood circulators, late-night “neighborhood transit centers” to demand-response service, etc.). provide a focal point for more neighborhood-oriented services. ƒ Develop and market services to attract new riders to transit, but do not alienate ƒ Explore the potential need for park-and- current customers. ride facilities to be served by current and future transit services. ƒ Continue to investigate high-capacity transit modes, in light of the potential GOAL: Create a strong administrative availability of local, State, and Federal system to guide CMRTA’s progress. funding. Objectives: ƒ Adopt Policies and Procedures that ƒ Continue to develop Express routes with guide administrative and operating park-and-ride facilities in major decisions. corridors, as a precursor to potential higher-capacity transit services. ƒ Increase the level of participation from ƒ Utilize Intelligent Transportation members of the Board of Directors, both Systems (ITS) technology to improve at regular meetings and as part of future the efficiency of operations. planning processes.

ƒ Continue to provide training ƒ Continue to expand the use of clean opportunities for Board members to fuels and take advantage of educate them about transit opportunities to increase energy administration, planning, and efficiency. operations.

GOAL: Systematically upgrade and ƒ Provide necessary CMRTA staff to be maintain CMRTA’s capital facilities. self-sufficient, without relying on Objectives: assistance from the Central Midlands ƒ Maintain an attractive fleet of transit Council of Governments staff. A vehicles that provide a positive public Finance Director is needed immediately. image for the system. ƒ Ensure that the CMRTA staffing level is ƒ Develop an effective Headquarters appropriate for the level of transit service facility that will serve the needs of the provided. system well into the future.

57 LONG RANGE GOALS LONG RANGE GOAL: Encourage land development and travel patterns that LONG RANGE GOAL: After CMRTA upport a higher utilization of mass achieves financial sustainability, explore transit. opportunities for higher capacity transit Objectives: modes. Objectives: • Provide technical assistance and support ƒ Study the feasibility of commuter rail, for local land use planning and growth bus rapid transit, or express bus routes management strategies to promote along major transportation corridors. “transit friendly” development patterns in the future. ƒ Monitor development trends and technology with regards to the ƒ Develop advisory guidelines and model feasibility of light rail transit ordinances for transit-oriented development. ƒ Develop a multi-modal transportation ƒ Form partnerships with other regions, particularly in North and South center in downtown Columbia. Carolina, to promote and plan the ƒ Support development of small town Southeastern High Speed Rail Corridor. transit services identified in the Rural ƒ Protect rights of way for future rail Long Range, Multi-modal transit. Transportation Plan.

ƒ Planning for multi-modal center Financially Constrained Transit Plan Exhibit 4-2 presents a Financially Constrained ƒ Commuter rail or BRT links from Plan for the years between 2005 and 2025. outlying population centers to downtown Columbia Short Range Transit Plan Exhibit 4-3, the Short-range Transit Plan ƒ Explore a commuter rail link to identifies federally funded transit facilities and Charlotte and HSR Corridor to the services to be provided within the Central airport. Midlands between 2005 and 2010.

ƒ Provide a transit connection to the airport.

58 CENTRAL MIDLANDS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Exhibit 4.1 Federally Designated Southeastern Highspeed Rail Corridor Long Range Transit Vision Arrive 21 Proposed Rail Corridors Potential Rail Link to Charlotte To Charlotte, NC Potential Commuter Rail Corridors

Whitmire

Winnsboro

Ridgeway To Raleigh, NC Newberry Pomaria Peak Potential Intermodal Center SilverStreet Camden (Downtown Columbia) Blythewood Prosperity Chapinn Elgin Irmo

Forest Acres Lexington

Batesburg- Leesville Eastover Gaston Pelion Swansea

St. Matthews

Cameron To Atlanta, GA

To Savannah, GA To Charleston, SC EXHIBIT 4-2 Long Range Transportation Plan: Transit Element (DRAFT)

Projects with Identified Funds Project Funding Source Estimated Cost notes Section 5307 $28,000,000 1 Preventive Maintenance Operations / Local Revenues $7,000,000 2 Administration State Mass Transit Funds $11,400,000 3 Other On-going Operations / Administration Costs Local Revenues $72,120,000 4 TOTAL $118,520,000

Section 5307 $4,800,000 5 Facility Development Local Revenues $1,200,000 6 Section 5307 $16,700,000 7 Capital Fleet Replacement Local Revenues $4,175,000 8 Section 5307 $500,000 9 Transit Enhancements Local Revenues $125,000 10 TOTAL $27,500,000

Unmet Needs (No Funds Identified) Project Possible Funding Source Estimated Cost Operations / On-going Operations / Administration Needs Local Revenues $109,480,000 Administration 11 Section 5309 $4,800,000 12 Facility Development Local Revenues $1,200,000 13 Capital Section 5309 $8,140,000 14 Fleet Replacement Local Revenues $2,035,000 15 TOTAL $125,655,000

notes 1 (estimated at $1.4 million X 20 years = 80% of total) 2 (20% match for preventive maintenance) 3 (assumed $570,000 X 20 years) 4 (amount available after funding other line items)

5 (Federal $ to fund 80% of $12 million = $9.6 million. Split equally between 5307 and 5309) 6 (20% match) 7 (amount available from the $50 million after funding other line items) 8 (20% match) 9 (1% of estimated $50 million 5307 allocation) 10 (20% match)

11 (amount necessary to fully fund projected needs of $200 million) 12 (Federal $ to fund 80% of $12 million = $9.6 million. Split equally between 5307 and 5309) 13 (20% match) 14 (amount necessary to fully fund projected fleet replacement needs of $31.05 million) 15 (20% match)

60

Exhibit 4-3 Short Range Plan

Transit Projects (In Thousands)

PROJECT NAME 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL

Dial-A-Ride Transit (DART) 208 208 208 208 208 1,040

Santee Wateree RTA 305 305 305 305 305 1,545 Santee Wateree RTA –ITS 275 275 275 275 275 1,375 Newberry Co, Council on Aging 42 0 0 0 0 42

Newberry Co. Disabilities & Special 36 0 0 0 0 36 Needs

MIRCI –Mental Illness Recovery Center, Inc 23 0 0 0 0 23 Fairfield Co. Transit System 150 150 0 0 0 300

CMRTA-Capital Projects 9,000 9,000 9,000 3,000 3,000 33,000 Central Midlands COG 1,304 1,357 1,414 1,380 1,383 6,838 2,500 CMRTA 500 500 500 500 500 CMRTA-Capital 1,658 1,741 1,915 2,106 2,106 9,526

Lexington Co. Recreation 45 0 0 0 0 45 Fairfield/Newberry Disabilities & 21 0 0 0 0 21 Special Needs 65 Transit Enhancements -Columbia 65 0 0 0 0

TRANSIT TOTAL 13,632 13,536 13,617 7,774 7,777 56,356

61