The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10B Transit Operations Plan4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2010 AGENDA #: 10B PREPARED BY: JANE KANSIER, BUILDING AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIRECTOR PRESENTER: JANE KANSIER AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TRANSIT OPERATIONS PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, AND SCOTT COUNTY, AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PURCHASE OF THE MARSHALL ROAD SITE FOR TRANSIT PURPOSES DISCUSSION: Introduction This agenda report serves two purposes. The first is to consider a Transit Operations Plan for bus service in Scott County. The plan is a joint effort of the cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee and Scott County. The second is to provide the Scott County Board with a resolution supporting the purchase of the Marshall Road site for transit purposes. History On February 1, 2010, the City Council considered the potential acquisition and development of the former Shakopee Dodge property (the Marshall Road site) located at 1615 Weston Court in Shakopee as a future transit site. At that time, the Council directed staff "to continue working with Scott County staff, the Metropolitan Council and the City of Shakopee to continue further exploration of the site at Marshall Road" (see attached minutes). Following that direction, the respective staff members collaborated on the development of an application for Chapter 152 funding through MN DOT. The application was formerly submitted by Scott County, and was recently approved by MN DOT. The Chapter 152 funding mechanism does not require any local contribution from either Shakopee or Prior Lake for the purchase of the property. However, as the site comes online, there will be a local contribution required for the operation of bus service from the site. With that in mind, the Transit Planning Team (TPT) decided it would be desirable to develop an operations plan including present transit services and facilities, programmed services and facilities, and possible service and facility expansions. The TPT hired Carol Becker to assist in the development of the plan. Current Circumstances The purpose of this plan is to respond to new system elements we have been trying to incorporate and integrate together: the Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC) bus, the two Southwest Transit (SWT) buses to serve US169 corridor, the three Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/October 4, 2010/transit_operation~lan_agenda_report.doc buses to be placed in service in 2013 and any additional fleet/service needed to bring the Marshall Road transit service on line if we are successful in purchasing the site. It is meant to provide you with a comprehensive picture of all these components and budget scenarios based on anticipated regional funding availability and the operations we anticipate supporting. The document is very detailed, so staff is providing the following bullet points summarizing the conclusions drawn by the plan. Park and Ride Facilities: The Eagle Creek Transit facility will be open for express bus service in late 2011, and the Marshall Road site, if purchased, may be operational in 201.3. An additional park and ride site at 282/17 is identified for 2030 or beyond. - The plan outlines three different scenarios for providing express service, or access to express service, from downtown Prior Lake. Increased Service Capacity: Additional buses and services will be available in the next fevv years. - JARC bus will provide at least two reverse commutes - Two SWT buses will provide service to Southbridge Crossings Transit Station - Three CMAQ buses will be available in 2013 for service to Eagle Creek Transit Station or Marshall Road. - A potential future CMAQ grant may provide additional service in 2016 Budget Implications: The plan outlines three budget scenarios, based on the increased service. - MVST grows according to State Forecast: Reserve fund balance will drop, but cities will be able to maintain all proposed service at least through 2016. - Zero growth in MVST: Reserves will be depleted by 2015. - MVST grows according to Metropolitan Council projections: Reserves will be depleted in 2016. Conclusion Accompanying this report is the most recent version of the Transit Operations Plan. This plan was reviewed and approved by the Transit Review Board on September 22, 2010. Representatives from Scott County will be available to discuss these plans with the Council. On September 21, 2010, the Shakopee City Council adopted a resolution supporting the purchase of the Marshall Road site for transit purposes. On September 28, 2010, the Scott County Board also approved this purchase. ISSUES: There are two major issues concerning this plan. The first is service to Prior Lake residents, and the second is budget implications. Each of these is addressed below. Service to Prior Lake Residents The City Council has expressed concern about whether or not Prior Lake residents will be adequately served by the Shakopee sites. The Council has indicated an interest in experimenting with a site in downtown Prior Lake. There are a few different options for providing service to downtown Prior Lake: http:l/finance1 /teams/am/October 4 2010/October 4, 20101transit_operation_plan_agenda_report.doc 2 1. Establish a park and ride lot in downtown Prior Lake. The original park and ride lot was located at the city-owned lot on Colorado Street. The City could once again sign this lot for transit and establish a bus stop at the site. The coach buses are able to access this area. 2. Establish a park and ride lot at Lakefront Park and utilize a shuttle bus to transport passengers to Southbridge Crossings Transit Station. 3. Establish a modified dial-a-ride service to shuttle passengers to the Southbridge Crossing Transit Station. The staff believes utilizing the Colorado Street lot for transit purposes is the least expensive and most workable solution. This site is the most visible and most easily accessible site for riders. We can offset some of the additional cost of serving this site by eliminating the Safe Haven Park and Ride.. In December, 2010, we will be making schedule changes to put the JARC bus in service. We can incorporate the new site in this change. The downside to the use of this lot is that it will remove available parking spaces for downtown businesses. Budget Implications The larger issue is the financial impact of increased bus service. This plan does not obligate the City to provide service beyond what we can afford based on our projected revenues. The plan does identify what may happen in the future if current trends continue. In the worst case scenario, the staff will continue to monitor our revenues and expenses, and the impact on our reserve balance. If revenues and reserves continue to decline, staff will propose a plan to reduce service to a level covered by the current revenue sources. The council can expect that those served by our transit system will register their displeasure at that time. FINANCIAL There is no direct financial impact to the City for the purchase of the IMPACT: Marshall Road site for transit purposes. However, the operations plan does include the financial impact as a result of expanded service. Even without the operations plan, it is likely transit revenues and reserves will be impacted. The operations plan allows us to monitor the situation and make informed decisions about future bus service for our community. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt a resolution approving the Scott County Transit Operations Plan, and adopt a resolution supporting the acquisition of the Marshall Road site for transit purposes. 2. Adopt a resolution approving the Scott County Transit Operations Plan, and adopt a resolution denying support of the acquisition of the Marshall Road site for transit purposes. 3. Adopt a resolution denying the Scott County Transit Operations Plan, and adopt a resolution denying support of the acquisition of the Marshall Road site for transit purposes. 4. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. RECOMMENDED The staff recommends alternative #1. This requires the following motions: MOTION: 1. A motion and second to adopt a resolution approving the -Scott County Transit Operations Plan. 2. A motion and second to adopt a resolution supporting the acquisition of n the Marshall Road site for transit purposes. Frank 2010/October 4, 2010(transit_operation_plan_agenda_report.doc 3 o~ PRIp1P U ~ 4646 Dakota Street SE ~'rNx~so`~A Prior Lake, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 10-xxx A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TRANSIT OPERATIONS PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, AND SCOTT COUNTY Motion By: Second By: WHEREAS, The City Council recognizes the value of providing quality, cost-effective transit services in the Prior Lake community; and WHEREAS, The City values its partnerships with the City of Shakopee, Scott County and other Scott County communities; and WHEREAS, The City's 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan identifies objectives for transit services that are addressed in part by the UTMP; and WHEREAS, In April, 2004, Scott County and the communities of Prior Lake, Shakopee, Savage, Belle Plaine, Elko New Market, Jordan, New Prague, and the Scott County HRA partnered to hire a consultant to develop a Unified Transit Management Plan (UTMP) to improve the delivery of transit services and infrastructure over the next fifteen years; and WHEREAS, The Prior Lake City Council adopted the UTMP on August 1, 2005; and WHEREAS, The Prior Lake City Council adopted updates to the UTMP on June 2, 2008; and WHEREAS, New conditions and opportunities called for development of a specific operations and service plan for bus service in Scott County; and WHEREAS, The specific details of the Scott County Transit Operations Plan are consistent with the adopted UTMP. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. The recommendations of the amended Unified Transit Management Plan are hereby adopted with the following conditions associated with its implementation: a. The City will remain in control of the management of and funding mechanisms for City-provided transit services. b. The City Council must formally approve the site, allocation of funds and any associated joint powers agreements for the construction of a regional park and ride facility. c. The identity of the City's Laker Lines commuter service shall be maintained and operated by its current provider. http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/October 4, 2010/transit resolutionl.doc PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010. YES NO M ser ser Erickson Erickson Hedber Hedber Keene Keene Millar Millar Frank Boyles, City Manager http:llfinancel/teams/am/October 4 2010lOctober 4, 2010ltransit_resoiution1.doc 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 10-xxx A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PURCHASE OF THE MARSHALL ROAD SITE FOR TRANSIT PURPOSES Motion By: Second By: WHEREAS, The City Council recognizes the value of providing quality, cost-effective transit services in the Prior Lake community; and WHEREAS, The City values its partnerships with the City of Shakopee, Scott County and other Scott County communities; and WHEREAS, The City's 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan identifies objectives for transit services that are addressed in part by the UTMP; and WHEREAS, In April, 2004, Scott County and the communities of Prior Lake, Shakopee, Savage, Belle Plaine, Elko New Market, Jordan, New Prague, and the Scott County HRA partnered to hire a consultant to develop a Unified Transit Management Plan (UTMP) to improve the delivery of transit services and infrastructure over he next fifteen years; and WHEREAS, The Prior Lake City Council adopted the UTMP on August 1, 2005; and WHEREAS, The Prior Lake City Council adopted updates to the UTMP on June 2, 2008; and WHEREAS, The purchase of the Marshall Road site is consistent with the adopted UTMP. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. The City of Prior Lake supports the Scott County purchase of the Marshall Road site with grant funds PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010. YES NO M ser M ser Erickson Erickson Hedber Hedber Keene Keene Millar Millar Frank Boyles, City Manager http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/October 4, 2010/transit resolution2.doc City Cound! Meeting Minutes February 1, 2010 Barstad; ~R~plied that all programs are open to everyone and explained that non-resident fees are not charged for th~f're safety camp, Erickson: Asked outthegardenplots. Barstad: Replied tha gistrafion for plots is being advertised. Erickson: Asked about FlN program for fishing (n Little Prtor. Barstad; Responded that th rogram is in cooperation with the Department of Nafurat ources which s#ocks Little Prior with fish. Hedberg: Amazed at haw much is complished with the staff and funds of the r cation program. Thanked the department for the active ' volvement that is encouraged with tt~e a programs. Asked how a neighborhood can get an the list far a Par arty. Barstad: Replied that two would beheld pe vening and the on opposite sides of fhe City. Twelve vril[ be sc uted Phis st programming held at them. Hedberg, Appreciates neighborhood events to get pe f , Miiiar: Asked haw many volunteers are used. Barstad: Replied That there are few volunteer op unities City staff due to liability issues. ant will select neighborhood parks parks that do not have any other that many programs have to be run by Miiiar; Stated that Teen Night is an impo t program as there are~lot of kids that have no activity toga to after school. Asked about the aver' t camping program at Lakefr f Park. Barstad; Described the area for~rifs and stated that the Pavilion wilt bean. Miiiar: irxpressed regret that tyre won't be as many Concerts in the Park tit year. Commented that fhe recreation programs are i ant part of activities in fhe community. Myser: Asked (f the s nstructor volunteers use of his boat. Barstad: Replie~ at the ski instructor is paid; but, for example, the tennis instructor a volunteer. Myser: Aske there are opportunities to expand programming and become the °winter mival" south of the river itract tourists into the city. Bars . ;Replied she has spoken with the Chamber about combining the Winter Blast with the! ce Golf ey nt. Added she is trying to cotlabarate, get sponsors, and think of resources to showcase the Ci . Presentation on Marschall Road Transit Station ~' Building and Transit Services Director i<ansier provided a brief background of the closure of the penny Hecker auto safes site and the discussion of that site for apark-and-ride. Stated that the site is consistent with the Unified Transit Management Plan ~UTMP). Noted that Scott County Rapresentative Marshall was in attendance and introduced Scott County representatives Assistant. County Administrator Vermillion, Transportation Program Manager Friese and Transit Manager Beam. Vermillion commented that both the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Transportatton believe this to be a favorable site, and that the purpose of tonight's presentation is to learn if the City is in- terested in talking about being a potential partner. Friese gave a PowerAoint presentation on fhe key elements of the UTMP agreement that was adopted in 2005, She then identified the eiements of successful park and rides including high speed service to major destinations, high service levels, proximity to limited access roadways, etc. Provided informafion That sup- ports the need for fu#ure transit stations in Scott County inciuding the number of residents that are commut- ing and where they are commuting to. Spoke of partnerships that allowed building of Sou#hbridge Grassing and l=ogic Creek Transit Stations and associated funding and. provided ridership numbers. Presented the site selection and design criteria the Metropolitan Council uses for Transit stations noting that the Denny Hecker site is consistent with most of the criteria. Described the property, its location, existing Buiiding s taffy Council MeeBng Minutes February 1, 2flifl amenities and that if has 474 parking spaces. Indicated the property has been vacant for over a year. De- scribed fheconcept ofthe proposed transit station; including indoor fleet storage, dispatch center and ad- ministrativeoffices, light fleet servicing, lobby area and the ability to add a bus ramp directly onto 169. Ex- plained that Scott County has committed $1.1 million to fhe project; Shakopee indicated they wanted to move forward with discussion; the Met Council concurs this is a good site and suggesfed funding options; and Mn170T indicated the location would be eligible for solicitation of funds. Comments: Keeney: Asked if this site is expected to shift ridership from other stations or create mare opportunities, and the projected number of riders from Prior Lake. Kanster: Replied that Prior Lake ridership comprises about 30% of BlueXpress ridership. This transit sta- #ion would be expected to increase the service of buses providing mid-day routes, etc. Keeney: Asked if they would be spreading the number of trips across all of the stations rather than every station getting more buses. Kansier: Replied there would be opportunity to split services such as a university bus leaving from apar- ticularstation. Keeney: Asked if the number of riders out of Prior Lake is expected to increase from the current 250. Kansier: Replied that people would not be served out of the new transik station for three to four years, but ultimately it is expected fo increase the number of riders. Keeney: Asked how much money Prior take is expected to cantribut@. Friese:. Replied that the Marshall park and ride was scheduled. for a future time when demand was antic- ipated to be there, some of which would come from the western-most development of Prior Lake. The ri- dershiptrend afincreasing number of riders is expecfed~to be sustained. Financial commitmen# was bud- geted for the Eagle Creek Transit S#ation, but other funding was found for That so they are proposing that Prior Lake's commitment for that station would be directed to the Marshall site. Vermillion: Identified that regional transit funding is from the State and the Met Councii, the County com- mitmenthas been for capital and operating monies are paid by cities from transit funding. Indicated that the Met Council stated they need focal contribution to continue pursuit of this site. This is an investment for the future. Erickson: Spoke of the SMSC 50-year lease of land for the Eagle Creek Transit Station, and how Prior Lake and Shakopee receive transit funds due to their opt-out of the metropolitan transportation system. Asked if a park and ride is planned near to the CR 171 CR 282 intersection. Kansier: Affirmed that was designated as a site fora 200-car park and rids with development of that area, anticipated to be after 2020. Erickson: Commented that the Marschalt site would serve Shakopee and communities to the southwest on h3wy 169, but does not feel sure it wilt serve Prior Lake residents. Agreed the money has been accumu- lating inthe City`s Transit Fund and If it is not used, it is defrimenfal to other members of the Transit Board. Believes it might be better for Prior take to spend that money to provide parking in a place that benefits downtown and eastern Prior Lake. Millar: Asked for clarification of the amenities the Marscha[I site would provide. Vermillion: Reviewed site selection criteria from the Met Council noting that most people are willing to drive to locations that have amenities of restrooms, lobbies, more buses, etc. and it is their task to figure out where people wilt congregate fo. Believes Prior take residents will drive a few miles to have the ameni- tiesand that eastern Prior Lake residents wi11 continue to drive fo Bumsvtlle to use that station. Millar: Commented that CR 17 will be a busy route in the future. Vermillion: Agreed there will be population movement fo western Prior take. Stated the current issue is that there is opportunity to purchase 425 stalls for a good price and the site should be preserved even if ft cannot be used for a few years. 7 City Council Meegng Minutes Fetxnary T, 24f0 Millar: Stated that Prior Lake is part of the Transit Rev'sew Board and should collaborate wifh the other members. Agreed there will not be much Prior Lake use ofi the site at first, but it will in the future. Supports this as a positive move, especially if the City uses fhe funds that were committed to fhe Eagle Creak Sta- tion. Hedberg: Asked haw many housing units are expected in the annexation area Kansler: Replied there would probably be 6,400 Units. Hedberg: Concurred that Prior lake might not need this station for several years, but having the transit station at the proposed site Is going fo be appropriate for Prioriake and the question is whether it is worth taking the funds committed for Eagle Creek and taking advantage of the opportunity. Stated that the mon- ey is inthe Transit Fund and he favors taking the opportunity. Myser: Clarifed fhaf the 2005 transit agreement iden#ified three park and ride sites wifh one of them on Marschali Road. Vermillion: Aff rmed. Myser: Asked why the Eagle Creek Transit Station was built. Vermillion: Replied that the long-farm need is identified to be 1,000 parking sfalfs. The Eagle Creek site catches people before they have fo go Through the CR 161 CR 21 intersection. After much discussion, the Transit Board decided it is effective to use two surface ramps wifh one off Marschali Road and the other off the Southbridge site. Myser: Asked if there would be a feeder bus from one station to the other. Vermillion: Replied that is not anticipa#ed as Marshall and Southbridge would have separate Hwy 169 ramps. Myser: Questioned whether residents would be wailing to drive to fhe Marshall Road station from Prior Lake, Vermillion: Believes they wilt. Kansler: Noted chat some people from Prior Lake drive past the Southbridge station to go to the Eden Prairie station due fo the amount of service and flexibility they can get there. Myser: Asked what other projects have been identified to use the funds if they are not used for this transit station. Kansler: Replied that the Capital Improvement Project has identified $440,000 of capital projects including the $220,000 scheduled for Eagle Creek. $62,000 is scheduled for the focal share of the JARC grant to buy a bus and another $353,000 Is committed for the purchase of three.buses if a grant is received and $180,000 is committed for operating costs. Noted that both capital and operating expenditures come out of the Transit Fund, Myser; Asked about the bus fhat travels CR 21 and whether it could stop at Fire Sfa#ion No.1 far passen- gers. Kansler: Replied that 131ueXpress buses come from Schmitty and Sons, the currently contracted vendor, which is located in Lakevifie. Explained That the contract will be bid again this year and if Schmitty did not get the contract, the buses could be coming from a different direction. Stated #hat the City can do the route however it wants and (here may be a few spaces at Fire Station No. fhaf could be used, but parking there is intended for availability of fire services and other City uses. Myser: Commented he would have interest !n an evaluation of the services provided fo residents of Prior Lake and whether it is reasonable to pursue a feeder service, $tafed that Prior Lake is part of a transit sys- tem and there are limes fhaf the City is a beneficiary of coristructlon built elsewhere and times the City is a contributor fo it; and we need fo remember the City is part of the broader component. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED i3Y MILLAR TO DIRECT STAFF TO CONTINUE INORKiNG WITH SCOTT COUNTY STAF1=, THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE TO CONTINUE FURTHER EXPLORATION OF THE SITE AT MARSHALL ROAD. qty Coundi Meeting Minutes February i, 20t0 Keeney; Slated he swill support the motion far further study but will take some convincing to see actual benefif to prior hake. Erickson: Concurred wish Keeney statement. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECONDED BY HEDgERG TO DIRECT STAFF TO EVALUATE OppORTUNITIES FOR USING TRANSIT [=t1NDS FOR A GOMB1NATi0N OF A PARKING FACIi_ITY ANiI HARK AND RIDE FOR A DOVI+NTOWN VICINITY L.OCATiON, Keeney: Suggested that since the expenditure of the Transit Funds is not restricted to capital there might be other uses for the money such as more buses or increased services. Myser: Asked about willingness to expand the motion fo look at a broader use of transit dollars for the city. Erickson: Replied tha# the downtown vicinity does not limit it to the downtown districf. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. Na public fl acing was canducted. OLU BUSINE No old business as canducted. NEW BUSINESS Preliminary Yearend i ancial Report. Finance Director Erickso reviewed the preliminary s mary financial reports for the General Fund, Wa- terand Sewer Fund, Water lity Fund and Transi [ und. Noted the reports are preliminary, unaudited and will change. Spoke of the r anus sources r~expenditures far the General Fund. Reviewed areas where expenditures varied more t projects - . Explained #hat fhe final report is scheduled to be brought to the Council in May. Comments; Hedberg: Commented that the con mad exp . ditures bring preliminary resuifs that are a good surprise. J, Erickson: Responded that de rtment mono did good job of containing and deferring costs. Hedberg: Stated that moving a monies into rase funds wil[ make budgeting easier for 2011. Millar: Asked if it is possibl a look at the status of t ~budget before the end of the year. J. Erickson: Replied that ports are issued to departmetr heads on a manfhly basis and to fhe Council quarterly. Since the Cit operates on a cash basis, reports ly reflect the invoices that have been submit- ted. At year-end we ova io a modified accrual basis, but tha ' not done throughout the year. Explained that some of the a enditure savings such as the Workers Comp rTsation premium reduction came in at the end of the Ye ~. Erickson: Wily~upport fhe preliminary report. Keeney: A fed if there will be a final report on the enterprise funds. J. Ericks~i: Affirmed stating that report would be sent to the Counciimemb r . Keeney; Stated he is happy to see that fhe City tightened up expenditures and shoed Hedberg and Millar remarks that it is a pleasant surprise. Stated that the explanations for variances in avings are good, Myser: Asked why the delinquent taxes are not budgeted. 9 Scott County Transit Operations Plan r; ~~T.r.'.._'- . -sF' _.._ . A joint plan among the Cities of shakopee and Prior Lake and Scott County September 2oto ~p-'' ~ S~ e~ . ~ SmartLink-r~at,,~t ~. ~~~ BLU,~~PRESS Shakopee L.ur£R ~,~ T}'~j~~f} / P' L M 5 ~Wao Tis i 1iGi~471` L•I,•`'~ Overview This plan provides an overview of existing transit operations in Scott County. It covers the commuter and transit-dependent programs, excluding the programs operated by Minnesota Valley Transit on behalf of the City of Savage. It reviews the current status of funding for transit in the State of Minnesota. It projects the funding needs for both commuter and transit-dependent programs into the future. 2 Table of Contents 1) Existing System ................................................................................................................................... 4 Existing Transit Services .................................................................................................................... 4 Existing Park and Ride Facilities ...................................................................................................... 5 Existing Transit Operators .......................................................................... ................................... 6 Existing Garage Facilities ................................................................................................................... 6 Program Performance ........................................................................................................................ 6 2) Long-term Commuter Service Needs ................................................................................................ 8 Demand for the Commuter Market .................................................................................................. 8 Conceptual Model for Scott County Park and Ride Facilities ........................................................ 8 Proposed Commuter Facility Enhancements ................................................................................. 10 Proposed Service Expansions ............................................................................................................ 11 3) Long-term Transit-Dependent Service Needs ................................................................................ 13 Types of Services in Scott County ............... ............ .................................................................. 13 Integrated Model for Service Delivery ............................................................................................ 13 Existing Fleet .........................................................................................................................:........... 14 Evolving Programs ................................................:........................................................................... 14 Demand for Local Circulators and Dial-a-Ride Services .............................................................. 15 4) Transit Revenue Sources .................................................................................................................. 17 Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Performance ............................................................................................ 17 State General Fund ........................................................................................................................... 19 Proposed Metropolitan Council Suburban Transit Funding Allocation Model .......................... 19 Policy Decisions about Resources Dedicated to Dial-a-Ride vs. other services ........................... 20 5) Commuter Services Future Operating Budgets and Operating Needs ....................................... 21 Projected Operating Budget Changes ............................................................................................. 21 Funding Scenarios ............................................................................................................................. 22 Scenario 1: State Forecasted MVST . ....................................................................................... 23 Scenario 2: No growth in MVST ................ ..............................:.............................................. 24 Scenario 3: Metropolitan Council Forecast .. .......................................................................... .... 25 2016 and Beyond ............................................................................................................................... 25 6) Transit-dependent Service Operating Budgets and Operating Needs ......................................... 27 Current Transit-Dependent Programs Funding Sources .............................................................. 27 Future Transit-Dependent Funding Needs ..................................................................................... 27 Projected Future Fleet Needs ........................................................................................................... 27 Future Funding Sources ................................................................................................................... 28 3 1) Existing System Existing Transit Services There are currently five kinds of transit service in Scott County: • Express service is provided the Cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee and Minnesota Valley Transit (MVTA). Route 490 is provided jointly by the cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee, and by eight coach buses. This service either starts at Prior Lake Safe Haven for Youth Park and Ride (4 trips) or from Southbridge Park and Ride (4 trips). The four trips that start from the Safe Haven Park and Ride stop at the Southbridge Park and Ride. The clientele for this type of service is typically persons working in downtown Minneapolis or attending the University of Minnesota, who connect Downtown to other services that connect to the University. Each city provides its own service but the programs are marketed jointly under the BlueXpress name. The City of Savage is part of a consortium of five cities that make up the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA). Because of this, Savage is served by MVTA. MVTA is oriented around the I-35W and Cedar Avenue (TH 77) corridors. Although only Savage is physically located within Scott County, many Scott County residents from other cities use the MVTA service at the Savage .and Burnsville Park and Rides. Planning for commuter service in Savage and for the I-35 Corridor is handled by MVTA and by Metro Transit, and as such, are not included in this study. • Shuttle service (Route 498) which is two trips from Town Square Mall through Shakopee to the Southbridge Park and Ride. These buses are timed to connect to the express service at Southbridge.. They serve the Seagate Park and Ride which is not directly served by express buses. Scott County operates this service under contract to the City of Shakopee. • Circulator service (Route 496 E and 496 W and 491 N and 491 S) which has two routes in the City of Shakopee, one east and one west, departing every hour from 5 am to 6 pm. Two buses are used for this service. Prior Lake and Shakopee also operate summer-only shuttles (491 N and S) to popular destinations. Five buses total are used for this service. Scott County operates this service under contract to the two cities. • Dial-a-ride service provided by Scott and Carver Counties otherwise known as (SmartLink Transit . SmartLink Transit dial-a-ride program provides services under several different programs in both Carver and Scott Counties. These programs include: • General Public Dial-a-Ride which provides a safety net service for persons who have no other alternatives for transportation. The clientele typically includes persons with disabilities, the elderly unable to drive, persons who do not own a car, and persons too young to drive. This service will take residents anywhere in the seven county area, either directly or through connections with other dial-a-ride or regular route providers. Medical Assistance under contract to the State of Minnesota. This is transportation for persons on medical assistance to get to medical-related services. 4 • ADA service under contract to the Metropolitan Council. This is door-through-door service for persons with disabilities. Riders have to be certified with the Metropolitan Council as having disabilities that prohibit them from using the regular route bus system. This service operates at the same times as regular route transit service in cities with local regular route service. The loss of circulator service could result in the reduction of ADA service to that city. The Metropolitan Council sets policy on when and how this service will be provided. • Vanpools The City of Shakopee currently operates three vanpools under contract with VPSI. The destination of these van pools is Downtown Minneapolis. These have been operating for some time before express bus service was available and operate in locations and times that regular route service does not. Existing Park and Ride Facilities Currently Scott County has three park and ride facilities. These are: • Southbridge Crossings Transit Station with 503 spaces. Currently approximately 225 are utilized. Some riders of the BlueXpress service walk to the .station from nearby developments or are dropped off at the station. Southbridge also has a transit advantage in a bus-only ramp onto the highway, which reduces travel time by about ten minutes. • Safe Haven for Youth with 60 spaces. Currently approximately 30 are utilized. Seagate with 60 spaces. Currently approximately 12 are utilized. Shuttle service is available to the Southbridge Park and Ride, with connections to the BlueXpress services. A substantial number of Scott County residents use the Burnsville Park and Ride which is not located physically in Scott County but is in the Scott County commute shed. In fact, The Metropolitan Council did a license plate survey in 2008 and found that approximately 80 riders from Prior Lake were using the Burnsville facility, almost exactly as many Prior Lake residents using Southbridge Park and Ride. Both of these facilities saw about four times as many people as the Safe Haven Park and Ride which is located in Prior Lake proper. The reason for this is that people are willing to drive further for higher frequency service. The Southbridge service is more attractive than the Save Haven service because there are twice as many options for a ride. At the Burnsville facility at peak, buses depart for downtown Minneapolis every three minutes. This means that riders do not have to wait for a bus, reducing their commute time substantially. In addition, they have robust mid-day service, meaning that riders have an easy way of returning to their vehicles should there be an emergency in the middle of the day. Finally, the Burnsville facility has indoor waiting, something that is an important amenity in inclement weather. Because of this, even though Burnsville Transit Station is not physically within Scott County, it does serve a number of Scott County residents. Similarly, a smaller but significant number of Scott County residents use Southwest station in Eden Prairie. The 2008 license plate survey found that over 40 rides from Shakopee were using this transit station. Frequency of service and access to the University of Minnesota are likely reasons for these residents opting to use that facility. As frequency of service, additional destinations are served and congestion increase at the River Crossings a number of these established transit riders are likely to switch the BlueXpress service. 5 Existing Transit Operators There is a difference between transit service providers and transit operators. Transit providers fund transit service and also choose how and when it will be provided. Transit operators hire drivers and mechanics and supervise the actual driving of buses. It can be confusing because in the Twin Cities, some entities are one, some are the other and some are both. In Scott County; there are five entities that provide transit services: Scott County, the City of Shakopee, the City of Prior Lake, the State of Minnesota and the Metropolitan Council. There are two operators: SmartLink Transit and Schmitty and Sons. Scott County is both a provider and an operator. This breaks down as follows: Service Scott County Schmitty and Sons Express (Shakopee/Prior Lake) XXX Shuttle (Shakopee) XXX ~I Circulator (Shakopee/Prior Lake) XXX i Dial-a-Ride (SmartLink Transit/Met Council) ADA Service (Metropolitan Council) XXX XXX '~,, ~' Medical Assistance (State of Minnesota) XXX Existing Garage Facilities Scott County: Scott County is the contract provider for the Shakopee and Prior Lake circulators as well as the provider for the SmartLink Transit service with Carver County and the provider of ADA service under contract to the Met Council. Scott County operates out of an old grocery store in the City of Shakopee. These facilities are inadequate as they do not allow housing of any of the fleet inside, something that improves operational efficiency in the winter time. The County also has limited space for vehicle maintenance and repair, further inhibiting efficiency. There is a proposal to acquire a site at Marshall Road. This site has repair facilities and indoor vehicle storage that could be used for these activities. If this site is acquired, it could substantially improve operational efficiency for Scott County. Schmitty and Sons: Currently Shakopee and Prior Lake contract with Schmitty and Sons for large bus transit service. Schmitty and Sons has their main garage in Lakeville Minnesota, east of 35 off 210th Street. This location lets them operate with a relatively short deadhead to destinations in Scott County. Program Performance Both Shakopee and Prior Lake have undertaken a number of activities to increase their ridership over the last five years. This has included Shakopee shifting its dial-a-ride program to Scott County and beginning commuter service, Scott County building the Southbridge Park and Ride and the partnering of Prior Lake and Shakopee to provide a higher level of service at Southbridge than either could provide independently. 6 Shakopee and Prior Lake Ridership 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 ^ Shakopee ^ Prior Lake 2) Long-term Commuter Service Needs Scott County is a suburban, ex-urban and rural county, with limited walkable environments. Because of this, its transit service has two focuses: • Commuters going to places with large walkable environments with large concentrations of employment, i.e. downtown Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota. It should be noted that there are two other large-scale centers with walkable environments, downtown St Paul and the Mall ofAmerica but there is not demand from Scott County to these locations sufficient to warrant transit service. • Transit-dependent populations who cannot drive, i.e. the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons too young to drive and persons who cannot afford a car. These individuals are best served with either dial-a-ride services or local regular route circulator services. Which type of service depends on the density oftransit-dependent populations in a specific location Commuter issues will. be discussed in this chapter while issues facing transit-dependent populations will be addressed in the next chapter. Demand for the Commuter Market The Metropolitan Council in its 2030 Park-and-Ride Plan (updated May 26, 2010) identified the TH 169 Corridor as having park and ride utilization in 2008 of 600 spaces. This includes park and ride capacity in both Southwest. Metro Transit and in Scott County. They also project a demand by 2030 of 1700 spaces. Currently there are 1300 spaces existing or funded, leaving a demand of 400 spaces currently unfunded. This study identified this corridor as a "Medium Priority" for investments. This study did not project a separate demand level for the TH/CH101 corridor. Demand for the I-35W corridor was handled as a separate projection and is being addressed by the Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Valley Transit (MVTA). This work will address growing demand from east Savage, Prior Lake, Elko/New Market and. other eastern parts of Scott County. Most operating impacts will be handled through the Metropolitan Council and the MVTA budgets. However, as the population of southeastern Scott County increases, B1ueXpress may wish to offer some service along the 35 corridor. Although need for this service is in the distant future, it should be considered as a future budget impact. Conceptual Model for Scott County Park and Ride Facilities Transit service for commuters works best when it is placed in a location where a large number of travelers must come together. This means locating park and rides at funneling points in the transportation system. For example, the Burnsville Park and Ride is extremely successful because it is at the southern end of the I-35W Bridge across the Minnesota River. Drivers, who want to go north, must funnel to that point. Because the Burnsville facility has a large catchment area, it is able to support high levels of transit service. High levels of transit service are attractive to riders, making such locations even more successful. Scott County has three such funneling points: the three bridges which cross the Minnesota River: the I-35W bridge, the TH-169 bridge and the TH-101 bridge. These locations are the three key funneling points in the County and are the natural locations for park and ride facilities. 8 The second point to locating park and ride facilities is that over time, park and rides fill up. In addition, congestion points move as development expands outward. Because of this, often park and rides are developed like "pearls on a string" along major transportation corridors. This is seen occurring in Burnsville and Lakeville, where a park and ride was developed in Lakeville to intercept travelers earlier in their trip to relieve demand at Burnsville. This same approach is taken with the Cedar Bus Rapid Transit facility, where park and rides are strung along the corridor. As ridership has grown and moved outward, additional park and rides have been developed along Cedar Avenue. If these facilities are located where they can get off and on the road quickly (or in the case of Cedar BRT or I-35W, not even leave the highway), one bus can be used to serve multiple park and rides. This can improve frequency, reduce deadhead costs and provide multiple alternatives for riders. Several of the Scott County Park and Rides follow this conceptual model of park and rides located at funneling points and park and rides strung along like beads on a string. Southbridge Transit Station was built at the funneling point of the TH 169 Bloomington Ferry Bridge. The County secured a site further out from this park and ride as a reliever for when the Southbridge facility needs relief. This site, Eagle Creek is strategically located south of the CH21 and CH18 intersection which is anticipated to have congestion delays in the future. This will provide opportunity to remove single occupancy vehicles out of this intersection The 2030 Park and Ride Plan proposes site near the funneling point of the future principal arterial (CH 17/TH 13 alignment south of TH169) which will intercept persons who would have been traveling on this major north/south corridor, TH 169 and TH 101. Scott County is in the process of acquiring a site at the south west quadrant of CH17 and TH169, consistent with the 2030 plan, for the Marshall Road Transit station. The 2030 Park and Ride Plan identify a fourth site that can accommodate approximately 200 spaces at the intersection of TH 282 and TH 13. This site is part of the Prior Lake annexation area, and is slated for significant commercial, industrial and residential development after 2020. Because of this timeframe, it is not necessary to acquire a site within the timeframe of this plan. There are also two park and rides which are not located at funneling points or along roads at funneling points, the Seagate Park and Ride and the Savage Park and Ride. Both of these park and rides have low ridership and thus low levels of transit service. These locations and how they work both with funneling and with "pearls on a string" can be understood more clearly when viewed on a conceptual map. Distances are not to scale. The green shapes are operated by MVTA, the blue shapes operated by Scott County and Shakopee and/or Prior Lake. The orange shape is proposed. 9 Conceptual Scott County Park and Ride Plan GH101 I TH 169 I I-35W .--~, ,---~ ,---r ,~. ,-,~-~ ,---- !,r-~ Minnesota L` .~~~~,~7~ ~~~"~h ~'' ~--~7 '?River • ~.~- Southbridge P&R Burnsville P&R Marshall Road (Proposed} t Eagle Creek P&R Seagate Prior Lake P&R ~ ~ Lakeville P&R Savage This model also shows the importance of the TH169 corridor. To the degree that transit can be sped up from Scott County into the downtown, travel times could be reduced. Improvements are already planned for the TH169/I-494 interchange and other improvements have been made to the corridor. If the corridor were to have abus-only shoulder lane or a managed lane, travel time could be substantially reduced. At this point, however, the region's long-term plan does not include such improvements. Proposed Commuter Facility Enhancements Enhancements to the park and ride facilities include bringing the Eagle Creek Park and Ride on-line yet in 2011. Funding is in place and construction has begun for this facility. The second addition to this plan is to add a park and ride at CH 17 and U.S. 169. Negotiations are currently underway with Mn/DOT, Scott County and the Metropolitan Council for capital funding for this location. This site could provide between 350 and 400 spaces with surface parking. Adding this amount of parking would provide the amount of park and ride spaces projected to be needed by the Metropolitan Council for 2030. The Prior Lake City Council and the Shakopee City Council have both indicated preliminary support for the acquisition of this. site. The City Councils will be asked for verification of that support as part of the adoption of this service plan. With the economic downturn, there have been reductions in employment in downtown Minneapolis. Because of this, ridership in both the region and in Scott County has declined slightly over the last several years. It is not clear when employment will recover and begin to grow in the downtown area and when residential construction will resume at previous levels. Because of this no additional park and ride capacity is projected to be needed at this time beyond that already being developed. Use of the Safe Haven for Youth site as a park and ride will be discontinued with the opening of the Eagle Creek site. Without Safe Haven, all of the B1ueXpress Park and Ride facilities will be located in Shakopee. The Prior Lake City Council is concerned the residents of Prior Lake will not be adequately served by Shakopee sites. The Eagle Creek site will be a more attractive terms of access, speed of service and amenities than a downtown Prior Lake site. The Southbridge site will be even more attractive due to the higher level of service. That being said, the Prior Lake City Council has expressed an interest in experimenting with a site in the downtown to test these assumptions. Because of the routing of the Schmitty buses, it will be possible to test whether a downtown Prior Lake site is viable. 10 There are a few different options for providing service to downtown Prior Lake. 1. Establish a park and ride lot in downtown Prior Lake. The original park and ride lot was located at the city-owned lot on Colorado Street. The City could once again sign this lot for transit and establish a bus stop at the site. The coach buses are able to access this area. 2. Establish a park and ride lot at Lakefront Park and utilize a shuttle bus to transport passengers to Southbridge Crossings Transit Station. 3. Establish a modified dial-a-ride service to shuttle passengers to the Southbridge Crossing Transit Station. Each of these options would increase operating costs by a minimum of $25,000 to $35,000 per year. This cost could be somewhat offset by eliminating the Safe Haven park and ride location. The Metropolitan Council's park and ride plan identifies a park and ride at TH 282 and TH 13 after 2020. Demand for this location is not sufficient until further development occurs in the area. Proposed Service Expansions Currently commuter service in the TH169 corridor is provided by eight coach buses. Four of these buses stop in Prior Lake then go to Southbridge Park and Ride while another four stop solely at Southbridge. Developing areas often secure sites when they become available, avoiding the problem of being left with less-ideal locations, paying very high land prices, or having to condemn out property owners after ideal sites are developed. Because of this, park and ride capacity often exceeds current service levels until population growth reaches equilibrium. Currently about half of the park and ride spaces available are being utilized. This means that additional commuter service can be accommodated at existing facilities. In addition, there is not enough park and ride capacity to meet 2030 projections. This means that should ideal locations become available, they should be acquired to accommodate population growth. 2010 In 2010, an additional bus has been funded through the Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC) program. This bus will provide reverse commute service from downtown Minneapolis to the Southbridge Park and Ride, where it will connect with shuttle service to employers. This bus will be operated by Schmitty and Sons from its Lakeville garage. Because of this, it can be routed through the Southbridge Park and Ride on its way into Minneapolis on its inbound trip, providing an additional trip in from Southbridge at almost no additional cost. The morning in-bound trip and the evening out- bound trip will be coordinated with the shift times for several major employers. 2011 The Cities of Shakopee and Prior Lake have reached a tentative agreement with Southwest Transit. Sometime in late 2010, SWT will begin two buses at Southbridge Park and Ride and then have them stop at Anderson Lakes Park and Ride, which is off TH 169. Shakopee and Prior Lake will collectively also stop two of their buses at Anderson Lakes Park and Ride. This will increase the number of buses to Anderson Lakes by two and the number of buses at Southbridge by two at little increased cost. The result is that in 2011, Southbridge will have an increase of three trips in the 11 morning and in the evening. The Metropolitan Council has designated two smaller buses from the SmartLink Transit fleet for use specifically in the City of Prior Lake. With these buses, Prior Lake plans to revise its local summer service in 2011 in order to increase riders and to attract a variety of riders. The initial plan is to create a modified dial-a-ride service. Riders will still be able to call for a ride, but rather than door to door service, there will be a designated stop for riders in a given area. This will better utilize the buses throughout the entire day. Shakopee will also make revisions to its schedule in 2011. 2013 It is projected that the TH 169 and CH 17 site will be ready to become operational in 2012 or 2013, assuming funding becomes available. Starting service from this location will require a minimum of three buses to provide at least three trips in the morning and three in the evening. There are a number of alternatives for providing buses to serve this site: • An additional three buses have been funded through the federal Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) program for Prior Lake/Shakopee service. These buses could be used to start service to this site. This would require the Metropolitan Council or another entity to provide funding in advance of 2013 to begin the bus procurement in 2011 or 2012 so buses would be available in 2013. • It would be possible to shift three buses from the Southbridge service to the Marshall Road site to provide service until the three CMAQ buses become available. This would require reducing service at Southbridge until vehicles became available. This may or not be desirable depending on ridership levels in 2013. 201 S Prior Lake and Shakopee intend to request three additional CMAQ buses in 2015 to increase service in the TH 169 corridor. These buses would become available in 2017 or earlier if either the Metropolitan Council or another entity provides advance funding for the vehicles. It should be noted that due to the variability in the economy, a check of demand should be made before ordering these vehicles. These changes would mean that by 2015, the number of trips from each major park and ride would be: Southbrid e Ea le Creek TH169/CH17 2010 9 trips 8 existin , 1 JARC X X 2011 11 trips 9 existin , 2 SMTC 4 trips X 2012 11 tri s 4 tri s X 2013 11 trips 4 trips 3 trips 3CMA 2014 11 tri s 4 tri s 3 tri s 2015 12 trips 11 existin , 1 CMA 5 trips 4 existin , 1 CMA 5 trips 3 existin , 2 CMA 12 3) Long-term Transit-Dependent Service Needs Typically, there are four types of individuals who are mobility-impaired and dependent on transit: • the elderly • persons with disabilities • persons too young to drive • persons who cannot afford to own a car Types of Services in Scott County In Scott County, there are three types of transit service provided for these individuals: Dial-a-ride (SmartLink Transits which is door-to-door or door-through-door service depending on the level of mobility impairment of the individual. Riders tend to be the elderly or persons with disabilities. This service is currently provided by SmartLink Transit. Cost per rider in 2010 is project to be $11.41 per rider. Dial-a-ride includes both general public dial-a-ride which is available to every person and service provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which is restricted to persons who have been certified as having disabilities which prohibit them from using the regular route transit service. Service also includes trips for persons receiving Medical Assistance. Shuttle service, which connects small park and ride or local bus stops with commuter routes at park and rides. Riders of this service tend to be lower income persons who cannot afford automobiles to take them to a park and ride. This service is currently provided by Shakopee from the Town Square Mall, with stops throughout Shakopee, including the Courthouse, St. Francis Hospital, the Seagate Park and Ride and ending at Southbridge. Cost per rider is projected to $6.99 per rider in 2010. Circulator service, which are local bus routes typically operated with small buses in low density areas. Riders tend to be persons with lower incomes and the young who do not have other alternatives for transportation. Shakopee operates two circulator routes from 5 am to 7 pm on the hour connecting multiple employment centers, schools and other transit destinations. Also, Prior Lake provides a circulator in the summer, primarily for students going to summer school and for persons too young to drive. The cost per rider for the Shakopee service is $11.09 per rider and the cost per rider for the Prior Lake service is slightly less than $20 a ride. Integrated Model for Service Delivery Currently, Scott County has an integrated model for service delivery. The same bus is used to provide shuttle service under contract to Shakopee, and then may pick up a SmartLink general public dial-a- ride user, then a medical assistance user, then a person riding under the Americans with Disabilities program. This integrated model helps reduce costs as buses are routed from one need to another rather than having separate vehicles used for separate services. For example, the typical cost of an ADA trip through Metro Mobility is over $22 a ride. With the integrated model used by SmartLink Transit, ADA trip costs are about $11.41 a ride. SmartLink integrates across county boundaries. Scott County not only provides service for Scott County but also for Carver County. This helps increase the volume of service, reducing per-trip costs. SmartLink Transit also integrates across types of trips. This also helps to reduce costs, especially if only a small number of trips are needed for a regular route bus, like the Shakopee shuttle service. 13 Existing Fleet Currently Scott County operates 33 buses. Twenty-four of these buses are small transit buses known as "cut-sways" that operate on van-based chases and have a capacity of between 18 - 21 passengers with two wheel chair positions. Nine of these buses are larger buses which are larger capacity, typically 24 - 27 passengers with four to five wheel chair capacities. Evolving Programs SmartLink Transit, especially the cities of Shakopee, Savage. and Prior Lake, has been evolving from rural communities to urban communities over the last 20 years. Because of this, there has been a great amount of evolution and experimentation in the mix of transit programs, especially in the last ten years. SmartLink Transit, as a service provider, has been asked to take on more and more different programs over time. The chart below shows ridership figures for the various programs operated from 2003 to 2009. Scott County Service Ridership 225, 000 200, 000 175, 000 150,000 ^ Carver ^ ADA 125,000 ^ Prior Lake Reg Rt 100,000 _ O Shakopee Reg Rt Shakopee DAR 75, 000 ^ Scott Reg Rt 50,000 Gen Pub DAR 25, 000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Changes include: • Shakopee terminating its dial-a-ride program, with these clients being taken over by SmartLink Transit's dial-a-ride program. • The initiation of Shakopee's regular route service. • The experiment of providing a Scott County regular route to replace dial-a-ride demand, an experiment that was later terminated. • The provision of ADA service under contract to the Metropolitan Council. • The addition of service for Carver County under the SmartLink program. • The addition in 2010 of provision of service for Medical Assistance. Because of all of these changes, ridership has almost doubled from 2003 to 2009 and is projected to have more than doubled by 2010. 14 Demand for Local Circulators and Dial-a-Ride Services Dial-a-ride service primarily serves four types of clients: the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons who do not own a car and persons too young to drive. Persons without automobiles may include low income workers as well as persons in a stage of life such as being a student or a stay-at-home parent. To some degree, the size of this demand is a function of the size of the population. For Scott County, its population has been growing and is projected to continue to grow. This means that demand for dial- a-ride and circulator type services will also be increasing. Population is projected to grow almost 60% between 2010 and 2030, which will directly affect demand for dial-a-ride services.. The number of persons with disabilities and low income persons can be assumed to grow at the same rate as the overall population, meaning that the there will be 60% more persons with disabilities and low income by 2030. The number of persons 18-24 is projected to grow overall in the population by about 5%, meaning that this cohort will grow 65% in the County. Both of these groups will drive demand for dial-a-ride services. Metropolitan Council A second issue is the changing population. Over the next twenty years, there will be a profound demographic shift as the baby boomers become physically infirm. This will increase the specific populations that dial-a-ride programs serve. It is expected that the elderly population will more than double between 2010 and 2030. (Minnesota Demographer's Office) To put this in perspective, this is one out of every four persons being over the age of 65 in 2030, as opposed to one out of every eight today. The number of people drawing medical assistance is projected to increase by 80% between 2010 and 2030. (Minnesota State Department of Human Services) 15 Population by Age 1,400,00 1,200,00 1,000,00 800,00 600,00 400,00 200,00 -*-18-24 ~- 65+ ~- 5-17 When one figures the increasing population and the increasing demand due to the aging of the population, it is projected that the demand for dial-a-ride and local circulator transit will increase 120% between 2010 and 2030. Scott County, and the larger society, faces a critical question in how it will meet this need. Oftentimes, transportation can be the critical factor in maintaining someone in their home versus in an institution. Being able to get to a doctor's appointment or shopping may allow someone to stay in their home, saving that individual, and society on the whole, a substantial amount of money. But government, specifically transit providers, bears this cost, while the savings accrue to other budgets. Government will need to carefully weigh the costs versus the benefits of providing dial-a-ride and circulator services. 16 1.'!JV I~OV 10(V IOOV 1.'J.7V LYVV LV IV LV LV LVJV Minnesota Demographer 4) Transit Revenue Sources Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Performance Before looking at specific budgets, it is important to understand the regional transit funding picture. Prior to 2001, transit received money primarily from two sources: property taxes and the State General Fund. The property tax was enabled when the private Twin Cities Rapid Transit Company (which had provided streetcars, then buses) was taken public in 1970. The property tax continued unti12001 when, under the State's property tax reform, it was replaced with a portion of the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax or MVST. The MVST is the tax one pays when one sells a motor vehicle. When this was done, the MVST had been growing faster than inflation over a number of years. This was due to several factors. People were buying larger, more expensive vehicles. Families were acquiring two or even three or more vehicles per household. Women were still entering the workforce in increasing numbers and purchasing vehicles for their commute. More and more development was in auto-oriented land use patterns, requiring an automobile. Also, incomes were increasing and people were investing a portion of that income in vehicles. Soon after transit began receiving revenues from the MVST, these trends began to reverse. The 2000 census showed that there was approximately one vehicle per driver, meaning. saturation of automobiles had about reached a peak. Gas costs increased, meaning people began to buy smaller, cheaper, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Women's participation in the workforce leveled off. With the recession in 2001 and then beginning again in 2007, people have less disposable income and are delaying the purchase of vehicles or purchasing smaller, less expensive automobiles. The price of automobiles has also not been increasing. In fact, with the entrance of several Asian companies, automobile prices have declined in some sectors. The result is that the revenues collected from the MVST have been declining. The red line on the chart below shows actual collections from 2003 to 2009. Forecast Statewide MVST Revenues $580 y $530 c 0 $480 $430 $380 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Actual - - - 02/05 - - - 02/07 - - - 02/09 - - - 02/10 ~ . ' • ~ • ~ ~ ' „ , ~ • i ~ i This decline has been a dilemma for forecasters. The State of Minnesota Department of Finance puts out a forecast for MVST revenues as part of its twice-yearly budget forecast. From 2003 to the present, every forecast has assumed a recovery of the declines of the MVST revenue. The chart above shows 17 forecasts from February 2005, February 2007, February 2009 and February 2010 and how the State projected a recovery in MVST revenues. One can see that each forecast has simply over-estimated the amount of revenue that would be collected from the MVST. This has made mid-term planning very difficult for the transit system as each forecast has assumed a recovery that did not materialize. In November 2006, Minnesota voters agreed to a constitutional amendment to fully dedicate MVST revenues to transportation. In this amendment, the percentage of MVST dedicated to metropolitan transit services was increased from 21.5% ultimately to 36%. The phase-in of this change is as follows: 2003: 21.5% 2004: 21.5% 2005: 21.5% 2006: 21.5% 2007: 21.5% 2008: 24% 2009: 27.75% 2010: 31.5% 2011: 35.25% 2012: 36% 2013: 36% The result is that metropolitan transit is getting a larger portion of a shrinking pie. The red line in the chart below shows the actual MVST collections for metropolitan transit. Even though the pie is shrinking, declines in transit funding have been less dramatic as they have gotten a larger portion of the shrinking pie. However, suburban transit providers like Prior Lake and Shakopee have not yet shared in the increased percentage from 2003 to 2009. Even still, revenues for metropolitan transit declined from 2004 to 2009. This decline is even more dramatic when inflation is taken into account. It should also be noted that although 2010 is not yet complete, monthly collections are again running significantly behind projections. Like the overall forecast, the mid-range forecasting for transit revenues has been quite difficult. The chart below shows the amount that was forecast in February 2005, February 2007, February 2009 and February 2010 and where actual collections ended up (the red line). As can be seen, actual growth has substantially lagged forecast growth. This has meant that there have needed to be continual adjustments in the budget to account for these declines. This chart also shows that state projections from February 2010 show a recovery of the MVST revenues starting in 2011. Current state projections would provide the following for regional transit: 2009: 122.8 2010: 124.7 (+2%) 2011: 156.8 (+26%) 2012: 165.5 (+6%) 2013:171.7 (+4%) The July forecast update made no changes to this forecast. 18 Projected MVST Revenues for Metroplitan Transit $210 - $190 - N $170 - c 0 $150 - $130 - $110 - 2003 2004 2005 2006. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Actual - - - 02/05 - - - 02/07 - - - 02/09 - - - 02/10 Going foreword, it appears that the consensus is that as of August 2010, any recovery will be slow and protracted. In the last two years, we have seen the United States automobile industry on the brink of financial collapse. Two of the big three auto makers were taken public for a time due to the stresses of people choosing to put off large purchases like automobiles. It is very possible that the recovery forecast in the most recent State budget forecast will not materialize. There has never been more uncertainty in what future revenues may look like. Given this history of lack of meeting forecast growth, any financial plan for transit service will need. to provide multiple scenarios in the case the MVST falters further. State General Fund Prior to 2001, opt out communities received their transit subsidy through the property tax. In 2001, a property tax reform bill shifted transit subsidy funding from the property tax to the motor vehicle sales tax. Soon after, the MVST began to falter. In 2004, the state made up some of this shortfall with state general fund monies. As of this point in 2010, the State has a budget shortfall of $6.9 billion, including inflation on a budget of $32 billion. How this shortfall is going to be resolved is unclear at this time but it could result in substantially fewer revenues available for transit services. This could affect the dial-a-ride program in Scott County directly as well as the availability of MVST funding for expansion of the commuter services indirectly. Proposed Metropolitan Council Suburban Transit Funding Allocation Model In addition to uncertainty about how much MVST revenues will be collected and how much state general fund monies will be received, there is uncertainty about how funds will be allocated among the transit providers in the region. The Metropolitan Council has proposed a new methodology for allocating transit funds which sets fund balance targets for each service. If fund balances go above targets, then MVST funding would be reduced. If fund balances went below targets, then fund balances would be replenished from reserves held by the region. The hope is that this would smooth 19 revenues. The short-term impact, however, is that for transit entities that have built reserves for projects, these reserves would be used by the region. In addition, a number of regional transit investments will be brought on-line over the next ten years. These include Central LRT, possibly Southwest LRT, possibly additional bus rapid transit corridors and other service expansions. How funding will be balanced among existing services, new bus service and corridor service is an uncertainty going into the future. Policy Decisions about Resources Dedicated to Dial-a-Ride vs. other services One of the policy decisions that the region is going to have to make is how many resources will be allocated to dial-a-ride services versus other types of services. Typically dial-a-ride services have higher subsidies than regular route services, sometimes three or four times higher. But these programs also typically provide services to the most needy in a community and also provide services in locations where regular route transit service is not feasible. It is not clear how the region is going to make choices between these two alternatives but given the potential for dwindling resources, it is possible that difficult choices will need to be made in the future. 20 5) Commuter Services Future Operating Budgets and Operating Needs Projected Operating Budget Changes A number of changes over the next five years will be able to be absorbed with negligible costs for the Shakopee and Prior Lake services. These changes include: ~ The addition of two Southwest Transit buses in exchange for two B1ueXpress buses stopping at Anderson Lakes The addition of the site at TH169 and CH 17 as a park and ride • Potential changes or additions of a park and ride in Prior Lake There are a number of changes in the operating budget over the next several years, however, that will have an impact on the operating budget. These include: Adding one bus from the Jobs Access/Reverse Commute program in 2010 Adding three CMAQ buses in 2013 Adding 3 CMAQ buses in 2015 Some of these changes have transitional funding which will reduce costs for several years at start-up of the service. These changes are as follows: 1 JARC Bus 3 2013 CMA Buses 3 2015 CMA Buses 2011 50% X X 2012 50% X X 2013 100% 20% X 2014 .100% 20% X 2015 100% 20% X 2016 100% 100% 20% 2017 100% 100% 20% 2018 100% 100% 20% 2019 100% 100% 100% 2020 100% 100% 100% 21 It is projected that each trip for a coach bus from Scott County to downtown Minneapolis will cost $150,000 in 2010 dollars. Costs should be assumed to escalate at 5% a year to provide a cushion in case fuel shortages arise. This would mean that costs that would be borne by Shakopee and Prior Lake for the above service expansions would be: 1 JARC Bus 3 2013 CMAQ Buses 3 2015 CMAQ Buses Total 2011 $75,000 X X $75,000 2012 $78,750 X X $78,750 2013 $165,375 $ 99,225 X $264,600 2014 $173,644 $104,186 X $277,830 2015 $182,326 $109,396 X $291,721 2016 $191,442 $574,327 $ 114,865 $880,634 2017 $201,014 $603,043 $ 120,609 $924,666 2018 $211,065 $633,195 $ 126,639 $970,899 2019 $221,618 $664,855. $ 664,855 $1,551,328 2020 $232,699 $698,098 $ 698,098 $1,628,895 Funding Scenarios The future of transit funding for the Twin Cities is more uncertain than it has ever been. Because of this, it is important to run a number of scenarios to understand the choices that may be ahead for policy makers. Base assumptions for all scenarios include: • Base bus costs increasing at 4% a year. • Administrative costs increasing at 3% a year. • Fare revenues being recovered for 20% of commuter costs and 10% of shuttle and circulator costs. • That new costs are phased in as shown above under "Projected Operating Budget Changes." The projections show net changes on the Shakopee and Prior Lake budget. • It is assumed that the SmartLink Transit dial-a-ride budget is not included in this projection as it is not affected by the addition of park and ride capacity. • Projections are done for three biennia into the future. Because of the extreme uncertainty in funding, it does not make sense to extend the projection further. 22 Scenario 1: State Forecasted MUST This scenario assumes the current state forecast for the MVST. Under this scenario, the state forecast projects a 26% increase in MVST from 2011 to 2012, offsetting the increase in bus costs. Fund balances are drawn down in each year but fund balances still stay above policy minimums unti12016. Scenario 1: Assume State Forecast for MVST Adjusted Revenues 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 MVST Shakopee $678,000 $691,560 $871,366 $923,648 $960,593 $1,008,623 $1,059,054 MVST Prior Lake $484,000 $493,680 $622,037 $659,359 $685,733 $720,020 $756,021 Fares Shakopee $164,800 $186,392 $193,998 $218,453 $227,521 $236,970 $269,786 Fares Prior Lake $90,000 $133,328 $138,661 $164,053 $170,813 $177,854 $277,079 Other Shakopee $85,000 $68,000 $54.,400 $43,520 $34,816 $27,853 $22,282 Prior Year Fares $400,000 Other Prior Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenues $1,901,800 $1,572,960 $1,880,461 $2,009,032 $2,079,477 $2,171,320 $2,384,223 Expenditures Big Bus Shakopee $625,000 $650,000 $676,000 $703,040 $731,162 $760,408 $790,824 Big Bus Prior Lake $601,000 $625,040 $650,042 .$676,043 $703,085 $731,208 $760,457 Added JARC Bus $75,000 $78,750 $165,375 $173,644 $182,326 $191,442 Added 3 CMAQ 2013 $99,225 $104,186 $109,396 $574,327 Add 3 CMAQ 2015 $114,865 Circulator Shakopee $330,000 $343,200 $356,928 $371,205 $386,053 $401,495 $417,555 Circulator Prior Lake $80,000 $83,200 $86,528 $89,989 $93,589 $97,332 $101,226 Vanpoois Shakopee $68,000 $70,720 $73,549 $76,491 $79,550 $82,732 $86,042 Admin Shakopee $111,400 $114,742 $118,184 $121,730 $125,382 $129,143 $133,017 Admin Prior Lake $94,520 $97,356 $100,276 $103,285 $106,383 $109,575 $112,862 $1,909,920 $2,059,258 $2,140,257 $2,406,383 $2,503,034 $2,603,616 $3,282,617 Change in Fund Balance ($8,120) ($486,298) ($259,796) ($397,351) ($423,556) ($432,296) Ending Fund Balance $2,511,880 $2,025,582 $1,765,787 $1,368,436 $944,879 $512,583 $2,520,000 CY2009 Balance It would be possible to forego the circulator, shuttle and vanpool services to maintain policy fund balances. The County may want to explore other funding sources as an alternative. Some of the alternatives listed under the "2016 and Beyond" heading may want to be explored earlier than 2016. 23 Scenario 2: No growth in MUST If there is no growth in the MVST, the transit system runs out of money somewhere in 2014. Traditionally, such dramatic scenarios are not necessary but given the uncertainty both in the economy and in the political realm, it is prudent to look at this alternative. Scenario 2: No growth in MVST Revenues 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 MVST Shakopee $678,000 $678,000 $678,000 $678,000 $678,000 $678,000 $678,000 MVST Prior Lake $484,000 $484,000 $484,000 $484,000 $484,000 $484,000 $484,000 Fares Shakopee $164,800 $186,392 $193,998 $218,453 $227,521 $236,970 $269,786 Fares Prior Lake $90,000 $133,328 $138,661 $164,053 $170,813 $177,854 $277,079 Prior Year Fares $400,000 Other Shakopee $85,000 $68,000 $54,400 $43,520 $34,816 $27,853 $22,282 Other Prior Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenues $1,901,800 $1,549,720 $1,549,059 $1,588,025 $1,595,151 $1,604,676 $1,731,148 Expenditures Big Bus Shakopee $625,000 $650,000 $676,000 $703,040 $731,162 $760,408 $790,824 Big Bus Prior Lake $601,000 $625,040 $650,042 $676,043 $703,085 $731,208 $760,457 Added JARC Bus $0 $75,000 $78,750 $165,375 $173,644 $182,326 $191,442 Added 3 CMAQ 2013 $0 $0 $0 $99,225 $104,186 $109,396 $574,327 Add 3 CMAQ 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $114,865 Circulator Shakopee $330,000 $343,200 $356,928 $371,205 $386,053 $401,495 $417,555 Circulator Prior Lake $80,000 $83,200 $86,528 $89,989 $93,589 $97,332 $101,226 Vanpools Shakopee $68,000 $70,720 $73,549 $76,491 $79,550 $82,732 $86,042 Admin Shakopee $111,400 $114,742 $118,184 $121,730 $125,382 $129,143 $133,017 Admin Prior Lake $94,520 $97,356 $100,276 $103,285 $106,383 $109,575 $112,862 $1,909,920 $2,059,258 $2,140,257 $2,406,383 $2,503,034 $2,603,616 $3,282,617 Change in Fund Balance ($8,120) ($509,538) ($591,198) ($818,357) ($907,883) ($998,939) Ending Fund Balance $2,511,880 $2,002,342 $1,411,144 $592,787 ($315,096) ($1,314,036) $2,520,000 CY2009 Balance Under this scenario, the system runs out of funds in 2014. This may accelerate the decisions to terminate the circulators or to seek additional funding. 24 Scenario 3: Metropolitan Council Forecast The Metropolitan Council also has a forecast for MVST distribution. Assuming no changes, this alternative would mean that the system would not run out of funds during this forecast period, although balances would go below the 35% that the Metropolitan Council has said it would like to maintain. Scenario 3: Met Council Forecast Revenues 2010 2011 2092 2013 2014 2015 2016 MVST Shakopee $678,000 $785,000 $863,000 $867,000 $889,000 $911,000 $956,550 MVST Prior Lake $484,000 $561,000 $610,000 $620,000 $635,000 $650,000 $682,500 Fares Shakopee $164,800. $186,392 $193,998 $218,453 $227,521 $236,970 $269,786 Fares Prior Lake $90,000 $133,328 $138,661 $164,053 $170,813 $177,854 $277,079 Prior Fares $400,000 Other Shakopee $85,000 $68,000 $54,400 $43,520 $34,816 $27,853 $22,282 Other Prior Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenues $1,901,800 $1,733,720 $1,860,059 $1,913,025 $1,957,151 $2,003,676 $2,208,198 Expenditures Big Bus Shakopee $625,000 $650,000 $676,000 $703,040 $731,162 $760,408 $790,824 Big Bus Prior Lake $601,000 $625,040 $650,042 $676,043 $703,085 $731,208 $760,457 Added JARC Bus $0 $75,000 $78,750 $165,375 $173,644 $182,326 $191,442 Added 3 CMAQ 2013 $0 $0 $0 $99,225 $104,186 $109,396 $574,327 Add 3 CMAQ 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $114,865 Circulator Shakopee $330,000 $343,200 $356,928 $371,205 $386,053 $401,495 $417,555 Circulator Prior Lake $80,000 $83,200 $86,528 $89,989 $93,589 $97,332 $101,226 Vanpools Shakopee $68,000 $70,720 $73,549 $76,491 $79,550 $82,732 $86,042 Admin Shakopee $111,400 $114,742. $118,184 $121,730 $125,382 $129,143 $133,017 Admin Prior Lake $94,520 $97,356 $100,276 $103,285 $106,383 $109,575 $112,862 $1,909,920 $2,059,258 $2,140,257 $2,406,383 $2,503,034 $2,603,616 $3,282,617 Change in Fund Balance ($8,120) ($325,538) ($280,198) ($493,357) ($545,883) ($599,939) Ending Fund Balance $2,511,880 $2,186,342 $1,906,144 $1,412,787 $866,904 $266,964 $2,520,000 CY2009 Balance 2016 and Beyond It is clear that in 2016 and beyond, current revenues are not enough to sustain increased growth. At that point, Scott County will need to make a decision about how it is going to increase transit revenues if it wants to continue to increase access to employment in downtown Minneapolis and continue its safety net of transportation. Currently there are a number of options that will need to be explored in the next several years if funding patterns do not change dramatically. These options include: • Reduction or elimination of circulators and shuttles, with the corresponding loss of ADA service • Joining the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) 25 • Tapping the Regional Railroad Authority levy for transit operations • Obtaining an increased proportion of the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax • Obtaining increased State General Fund monies • Developing new revenue sources 26 6) Transit-dependent Service Operating Budgets and Operating Needs Current Transit-Dependent Programs Funding Sources Currently programs service transit-dependent populations cost Scott County $3.28 M in 2010. This included all the activities under the SmartLink program as well as contract services for Prior Lake and Shakopee. This was funded from a number of programs: Scott County Transit Revenue Sources MnDOT Rural Fares, Programs, $458,8001 $185,700 Access to 1 \ Met Council: Jobs Grant, \ ADA, $240,000 ~ ~ $564,000 Shakopee Grculator,- $264,000 Met Council: Prior Lake / Scott DAR, Glrculator, J $569,000 $32,000 Medical Met Council Assistance, Carver DAR, $550,000 $420,000 Funding from the Metropolitan Council comes from a combination of Motor Vehicle Sales Taxes and State General Funds. State Medical Assistance funds come from a combination of state general funds and federal grants. The Prior Lake and Shakopee circulator funds come from the Motor Vehicle Sales Taxes. The Access to Jobs grant is only for two years. The other revenue sources are expected to be on-going. Future Transit-Dependent Funding Needs If we assume that: • SmartLink Transit does not take on any additional programs (as assumption that has not held true for the last five years) • Demand for dial-a-ride services increases both with the increased population projected for Scott County and with the increase in the percentage of persons who are elderly ~ Inflation is 4% a year Then by 2020, funding will need to increase by 120%, from $3.28 million in 2010 to $7 million. Projected Future Fleet Needs If the fleet increases to meet demand, it will mean adding three buses every two years from 2010 to 2020, or 15 additional buses above the existing 33. 27 Future Funding Sources The CY 2010 SmartLink budget is funded through a number of programs which receive money from a number of sources. Amount Funder/Program Source $564,000 MefCouncil: ADA State General Fund $569,000 Met Council: Scott DAR MVST $420,000 Met Council Carver DAR MUST $550,000 Medical Assistance Federal and State General Fund $32,000 Prior Lake Circulator MVST $264,000 Shakopee Circulator MVST $240,000 Access to Jobs Grant Federal Grant $458,800 Fares Riders $185,700 Mn/DOT Rural Programs MVST $3,283,500 Total About half the funding comes from the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax and over a quarter from the State Sales Tax. Scott County Transit Funding Sources Federal/ Fares, State $458,800 General Funds, $550, 00 i State ~ MVST, General ~ $1,470,700 Fund, $564, 000 Assuming that funding were available to increase programs to meet demand, funding would need to increase 120% between 2010 and 2020 to meet inflation and growth in demand. This would require the following amounts, assuming that the current funding distribution does not change into the future. 2010 Funding 2020 Need $1,470,700 MVST $3,235,540 $564,000 State General Fund $1,240,800 $550,000 Federal/ State General Funds $1,210,000 $458,800 Fares $1,009,360 $3,043,500 Total $6,695,700 28 The same questions about funding sources that were noted for regular route service also apply to dial-a- ride funding. The MUST has declined about a third from 2003 to 2010 and there is great uncertainty where it will go in the future. The State General Fund has a shortfall of roughly one-quarter for the upcoming biennium and deep cuts are anticipated for many programs. These changes could substantially affect whether funding will be available for this expansion. 29 10/4/2010 Septemberioto i . ',y - r ~"':~r . ~w t Marschall Road Transit Station & Scott CountyTransit Joint Operations Plan Presentation to Prior Lake City Council ber 4 2 10 Presentation Outline Marschall Road Transit Station 1. Regional Partnership i Funding 2. Joint Scott County Transit Operations Plan i.. Background/History z Future Opportunities a. Downtown Prior Lake Options a. Requested Action Unified Transit Plan - Recommended the Development of Larger Park & Ride Facilities - Consolidate Demand - Provide Cost Efficiencies for Site Amenities - Elements of Successful Park and Ride Facilities - Dirett High-Speed Service to Major Destinations - High Service Levels - Proximate to Limited Access Roadways - Supporting Land Use 10/4/2010 v Regional Transit Needs Park and Ride - Regional Park and Ride Study identifies future need - Vicinity ofTH 169 and CH 17 - Additional Park and Ride at 28211 3/1 7 (2030) - Included in 2030Twin Cities Transportation Policy Plan - Future need 2013-2030 time frame - Bus Fleetlndoor Storage a ems. xvx. vei `. <,t ~_ i c.. vaa ~ ~ 9 r wsu,uia1 ~ g ~~ ~a ~ r » ~~~ ~ a A Ir ~¢~ ~~ -~ ~~ 8A O r d":: ~ 1 ~ 4` ~ ~~. Y~IS~ © C~ypy ~~pa Marschall__RoadTransit Station Concept________.__ - Indoor Fleet Storage for up to 20 buses (SmartCink, Shakopee & Prior Lake Circulators) - Possible expansion of building for more indoor fleet storage - Dispatch Center &Administrative Offices - Transit Station - LobbyArea Suitable - Park and Ride - 400 stalls - Ability to add bus ramp directly onto 169 via ramps - 730+ higher density housing units within % mile radius - Retail & Health Care employment concentrations 2 10/4/2010 Regional Funding Partnership - Mn/DOT ChapterTH P52 BondsTransit Facility - Notified -Highest Scoring Applicant - $2.39 Million Purchase - 2010, County to fund. remaining costs - $1.17 Million Renovations -2013 - Owns 20 years -reverts to County - No longer requires local contribution for acquisition - Consistent with Regional Study - Local Transit Support for TH 169 Regional Investment - Managed Lane - TransitVVay Construction Cost Per Stall - Metro Region Average -price per stall (Past I 0 years) - Surface Lot - $4,000 to $ 16,000 per stall (included leased lots) - Average Per Sall: $8,582 - Decked - $ 10,800 to $28,500 per stall - Average Per Sall: $13,395 - Southbridge Price Per Stall - $7,365 - Eagle Creek Price Per Stall - $3,850 (Lease from SMSC) - Marschall Road Price Per Stall - $8,000 -(projected) _-__County Board_and City Councils.-_frugal_with tax_do~lars__ - Summary -Capital - Great transit site - Existing transit orient development - Access to US 169 - Unique circumstance to provide operations in one location to dial-a-ride, circulator and express bus services - Price per stall below Region average - Many existing improvements can be used in transit - Equals savings 3 10/4/2010 Acquisition F~,tnding Package - Mn/DOT - $2.39 Million - 2010 - $1.17 Million - 2013 Park and Ride Revisions - Scott County - +/_ $0.9 Million -2010 (closing costs to be determined) - Smart LinkTransit - Operating Costs of Local Transit Services - Blue Fxpress - Operating Costs of Park and Ride and additional express service Joint Operations Plan - What have we accomplished since 2003 - UTMPAdoption - 2005 by Shakopee, Prior Lake, Scott County (Updated 2008) - Blue Express -operated by Cities - Local Circulators and DialA Ride by County Southbridge Station -2007 Eagle Creek -2010 - Funded in Partnership by: Funded in Partnership by: Met Council Met Council MnlDot Federal STP and FederalARRA Scott County Scott County Prior Lake Shakopee Blue Express Ridership Growth Shakopee aotl Prfor i.aka Potlerahfp k7gWa ,_._ _...-.._..-...-..... ...._... __..,-_._ .. .. .e ...-. Iaa,000 ii 84.C~ ~' 80.000 ia.00D 7O,ta0 7002 7003 1001 7068 701.9 7001 7x8 ~ Pmtata^ 9Urpro 4 10/4/2010 Growing Transit Need - Metropolitan Region's 2030Transportation Policy Plan - Heavy Emphasis on increased Transit in region ~ Double Ridership by 2030 - Heavy Emphasis on increasing Transit ridership on congested freeway corridors (TH 169 and I-35W) - Local Support for Transit Investment with no planned capacity toTH 169 - Supporu Future Transit Way Designation forTH 169 - Supporu Fuwre Managed Lane for TH 169 _Scott.County's_frojected. Growth Scotteovnty PopvWeon FR.tol - ~_..'.~a wgow ~mox +icem ~vn o #~ as tow A!etopat~ba Com~d - 5 SmartLink Service Ridership 10/4/2010 Minnesota Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) - ConstitutionalVote in 2006 Dedicated not less then 40% to Transit Operations : - Legislature directed 40% toTransit and 60% to Highways - Fully implemented by 2012 - MVST has been declining since vote MVST Blue Express Operation Funding Source Pral9end MV4T Rwmun for MStroplihn Transit u9a ---.~._.~.- --~..._. -e _~=~ also 1 912a , r-. ,~ Si W 4130 _ SItO _ Sao ' 21,60 2009 2~5 2070 2401 1W3 8008 2010 fi11 20R 20ta -num- - .mus- - -rom- . -ozm- - .ovw What does that mean for Blue Express Expansion 1J1KCBus 32013f„~L4QBuses 32013Chl1QBuses Togl 2011 575,000 X & 575,000 2072 57S35tl ,\" `.C 578,750 2013 $165.375 S 99,225 8 5264,600 2074 $173.644 5704,156 X 5277,530 2015 $182,326 5109,396 X 5291,721 2016 5191.dd2 11;4,327 S 114,565 5880,634 2017 5201.OId 5603.043 S 120.609 5924,666 201$ Sgt 1,065 5633,745 5126,639 5970,899 2019 $227,618 5664,$11 - S 664,855 $1,151321 2020 S?32,699 5695>09S S 695,098 51,428.895 6 10/4/2010 Metropolitan Council Forecast - Assumptions: - In the middle of previous two -most realistic - Fund balances are drawn down each year and would go below the 35% minimum - v n OII 2012 ~ ~ 2015 2016 - S -MVST .78 .86 .86 .88 .91 .95 - PL -MVST .56 .61 .62 .63 .65 .68 - Other .38 .38 .42 .43 .44 .56 - Total 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2 0 2 2 - Total Exp. 2.0 2.I 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.2 - Fund Balance 2.5 2.1 1.9 1:4 .86 .26 Smart LinkTransit Operating Scott CountyTranstt Revanue Sources MH)O7 idral Faes, Ftogrems, 't 5185,700 Accesst~~ t, t~ktCau"iC Jobs GYatlt, AG4. 5210~OOD ~` 4.000 Shakopee GA'clnata, 8264.000 t4el LbtutciC Ftku Lake Scott fN.R Orci&ita, s569.oEro 532.000 hYQa:al tvLt axmc® Assistance. Over MR """""' S550,OOD 5420.000 Operating Plan and Capital Plan are Consistent with the UTMP - County and Region - Provide the regional infrastructure - Provide local dial a ride service - City's of Shakopee and Prior Lake - Provide the express operating service - Provide the park and ride operating service - Under two of three MVST Scenarios operating plan is within guidelines 7 10/4/2010 Transit Options in Downtown Prior Lake - Downtown Park and Ride - Use Colorado Sueet Lot - Coach buses can access site - Lakefront Park - Existing parking loss - Establish shuttle to Southbridge Crossings and Eagle Creek - Modified Dial-A-Ride - Passengers pll for a ride to Southbridge Crossings or Eagle Creek Transit Options in Downtown Prior Lake - Staff Recommendation - Establish Park and Ride on Colorado Sueet Lot - Eliminate Safe Haven Lot to offset costs tJtiliies ><IsCng~GCy wned'IoP R over parki~p b- ~ downtown bus r -. Visible a d I, ~_~ i I Coach bu m l 6 Month Schedule and Actions Needed - County BoardAction-September 28 - Approved Acquisition Funding Agreement with Mn/DOT - Authorized Staff to Purchase Property - Future County Board Action - Complete Acquisition by Nov. i - By end of year enter into Partnership agreement with Mn/DOT on use of property and transfer ownership - CityAction-Support Operating Plan - Shakopee-Sept 21 - Begin developing plans for building and site renovations - Joint application for CMAQ in 201 I for Buses 10/4/2010 Requested Action - Adopt a resolution supporting the acquisition of the Marshall Road site for Transit purposes - Adopt a resolution approving the Joint Scott County Transit Operations Plan