The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11C Transit Ops and Capital Plan 2012-2018 o � riu ti � u � 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 � CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2013 AGENDA #: 11C PREPARED BY: JANE KANSIER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER PRESENTED BY: JANE KANSIER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A THE SCOTT COUNTY TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL PLAN FOR 2012-2018 DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda report is to consider a Transit Operations and Capital Plan for bus service in Scott County. The plan is a joint effort of the cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee and Scott County. Hi StON As few as ten years ago, transit service in Scott County was minimal, and what little service existed was fragmented. In August 2000, at the request of Metropoli- tan Council representatives, Scott County hosted discussions on transit services provided in the Scott County area. As a result, the County, the City of Shakopee and the City of Prior Lake worked together to prepare the Scott County Area Transit Study in 2002. This study identified gaps in transit in the County, and the need for additional services. This study was followed by the Scott County Transit Demand Analysis in 2003, and finally by the Unified Transit Management Plan (UTMP) in 2005. All of the cities participated in the development of the UTMP. This plan established the framework for the transit system in Scott County as it exists today. A Transit Operations Plan was first completed in 2010. Since then, the Eagle Creek Transit Station has been completed, construction of the Marschall Road Transit Station is scheduled for 2013, and planning for the Southwest Light Rail Transit project is ongoing, with construction completion anticipated as soon as 2017. With that in mind, the Transit Planning Team (TPT) decided it would be de- sirable to update the existing operations plan to include present transit services and facilities, programmed services and facilities, and possible service and facility expansions. Current Circumstances The purpose of this operations plan is to provide an overview of existing transit operations in Scott County. It covers the commuter and transit-dependent pro- grams, 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 lays out a plan for future expansion of the system and projects the funding needs for both commuter and transit-dependent programs into the future. The following bullet points summarize the conclusions drawn by the plan. • Park and Ride Facilities: The Marschall Road Transit Station will begin op- erations in late 2013 or early 2014. With the addition of this site, the demand for park and ride spots will be met through 2020. • Increased Service Capacity: Additional buses and services will be available in the next few years. ➢ Three CMAQ buses are scheduled to arrive in 2013 for service to Eagle Creek Transit Station and Marschall Road. ➢ Three CMAQ buses are scheduled to arrive in 2016 for expanded service from all or one of the transit stations. ➢ The plan recommends providing regular bus service to the Southwest LRT once operations begin in 2017. • Budget Implications: The plan outlines two budget scenarios based on the assumption the cities' share of MVST will follow the current forecast. ➢ The first assumes service will be expanded as outlined in the plan. In this case, reserves will be depleted by 2017. ➢ The second scenario assumes no expansion of service beyond what we currently provide. In this case, we will be able to continue funding service beyond the five year growth period of this plan. Conclusion Accompanying this report is the most recent version of transit operations plan. This plan was reviewed by the Transit Review Board on January 23, 2013. ISSUES: Transit service in Prior Lake and in Scott County has come a long way in the last 10 years, and there continues to be increased demand for transit service. Once Marschall Road Transit Station is complete, the major transit capital infrastructure will be in place. Capital expenses in upcoming years will be for facility mainte- nance and buses. The next step in planning for transit is to look at the organizational structure for service delivery, and the plan outlines some options. It appears that some form of legislative action with respect to transit can be expected this session. The gover- nor's budget proposal may change the funding source of transit. Other legislation may be offered intended to modify the operation of transit and particularly "opt out." Accordingly SCALE will begin discussions on this matter on February 8, 2013. We expect these discussions to continue over the next year under the aus- pices of the Transit Review Board. Councilor McGuire is the city representative to this body. FINANCIAL The Operations and Capital Plan outlines the overall costs of providing transit ser- IMPACT: vice. Even without this plan, it is likely transit revenues and reserves will continue to be impacted. The 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 and Capital Plan. 2. Adopt a resolution denying the Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. RECOMMENDED The staff recommends alternative #1. This requires the following motion: MOTION: 1. A motion and second to adopt a resolution approving the Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan. , o� P �O�P � � � u 4646 Dakota Street SE `�NNE50� Prior Lake, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 13-x�cx A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL 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, It is estimated that for every $1 transit investment there is a$4 return on economic development; and WHEREAS, Economic Development is a high priority for the City Council of Prior Lake; and WHEREAS, SCALE has adopted an objective of having 50% of the 2030 population who lives in Scott County work in Scott County which will rely heavily on effective transit; 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 adopted updates to the UTMP on June 2, 2008; and WHEREAS, The Prior Lake City Council adopted the Scott County Transit Operations Plan on October 4, 2010; 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 and Capital 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 Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan is hereby adopted. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013. YES NO Hedber Hedber Keene Keene McGuire McGuire Morton Morton Souku Souku I Frank Boyles, City Manager I h�llsplashlteamslaMOctober 4 2010/Februarv 11 2013ITransit OQerations Plan Resolution 2-11-13.docx : �es 2 � i _ / � r' • / \ 2012-2(J18 Scott Count Transit 0 erations Y p and Ca ital Plan p �� - '�, �,�� "�� i � _ , , � . � _ 1 . .: � g , . _ _ _.� _ - � � a ---��, � - �� ., _�, f . -� °_ i »� � � ........ _ r � , � v. � �,. � a � '� � . � � �; � m � � � a��. ` �� ,� � ,�` � � `` � �'`j �,� � � ": t � �t� . � ; � :. ��: - , =� �p A loint Plan among the Cities of Shakopee and Prior Lake , and Scott County . �` , -, January 2013 � �� Table of Contents P a�e # Introduction 1 Existing System 2 Long-term Regular Route Service Needs 9 Long-term Dial-a-Ride Service Needs 15 Recommendations for Enhancement and Expansion 17 Transit Revenue Sources 20 Transit-dependent Service Operating Budgets and Needs 27 Future Operating Funding Sources 28 Capital Funding Needs 28 Future Funding Options 31 Organizational Structure for Service Delivery 32 Conclusion 33 Appendices Appendix A: Detailed Capital Needs 34 Southbridge Crossings Transit Station 34 Eagle Creek Transit Station 35 Marschall Road Transit Station 36 TH 169 Bus-Only Transit Advantage Ramp 37 BlueXpress Bus Fleet — Expansion 38 BlueXpress Bus Fleet — Replacement 39 SmartLink Bus Fleet — Expansion 40 SmartLink Bus Fleet — Replacement 41 SmartLink Bus Fleet — Other Capital 42 Appendix B: Current Fleet 43 BlueXpress (Shakopee Transit and City of Prior Lake) Fleet 43 SmartLink and Local Circulator Fleet 44 Appendix C: Summary of Transit Facilities 45 Southbridge Crossings Transit Station 46 Eagle Creek Transit Station 47 Marschall Road Transit Station 48 TH 169 Bus-Only Transit Advantage Ramp 49 Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Table of Contents Introduction As few as ten years ago, transit service in Scott County was minimal, and what little service existed was fragmented. In August 2000, at the request of Metropolitan Council representatives, Scott County hosted discussions on transit services provided in the Scott County area. As a result, the County, the City of Shakopee and the City of Prior Lake worked together to prepare the Scott County Area Transit Study in 2002. This study identified gaps in transit in the County, and the need for additional services. This study was followed by the Scott County Transit Demand Analysis in 2003, and finally by the Unified Transit Management Plan in 2005. All of the cities participated in the development of the UTMP. This plan established the framework for the transit system in Scott County as it exists today. The result of this work is an increase in commuters from approximately 58,000 in 2000 to 360,000 in 2011. This earlier work highlights the importance of transit to Scott County and to the entire region. Transit provides people with mobility and access to employment, community resources and recreational opportunities. Transit also helps to reduce road congestion and travel times, air pollution, energy and oil consumption. In 2012, it's estimated the current transit system takes approximate�y 1,400 vehicles off of the roads each day. In addition, dial-a-ride programs have expanded substantially since 2000. Both ADA and medical assistance service have been added. In addition, the Scott County dial-a-ride program merged with the Carver County dial-a-ride program. The result is that dial-a-ride service has increased from about 80,000 rides in 2000 to over 175,000 rides in 2011. Public transit also has a significant positive impact on economic development in the area. According to the American Public Transit Association, every $1 invested in public transportation generates approximately $4 in economic returns. Public transit not only takes local residents to work in the downtown area, it brings workers to Scott County for local employers. This will be a very important consideration if Scott County is to meet its goal of providing jobs for 50% of the population by 2030. The purpose of this operations and capital plan is to provide 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 lays out a plan for future expansion of the system and projects the both operational and capital funding needs for both commuter and transit-dependent services into the future. Scott County Transit Operations and Capita� Plan 2012-2018 Page 1 Existing System Existing Transit Services There are currently three types of transit service in Scott County: Express/Reverse Commute Service is provided by the cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee and by Minnesota Valley Transit (MVTA). The clientele for this service is typically persons working in downtown Minneapolis or working at/attending the University of Minnesota or someone that lives in the central cities who work in Scott County. The City of Savage is one of five cities that form the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) through a municipal joint powers agreement. Because of this, Savage is served by MVTA, and MVTA's Scott County service is oriented toward the I-35/35W corridor. The Savage Park and Ride is served by three routes, the 421, the 444 and the 464. The 464 provides six trips in the morning and seven trips in the evening between the Savage Park and Ride and downtown Minneapolis. This route connects through the Heart of the City Park and Ride before going into downtown Minneapolis. It also runs as a local service from the Savage Park and Ride along Glendale Avenue and Lynn Road to 125 and Glenhurst in Savage. Major revisions of Route 464 are currently programmed for March, 2013 and are briefly discussed in this report. The cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee each fund their own service but the programs are marketed jointly under the BlueXpress name, and service schedules are coordinated between the two cities. The BlueXpress provides service focused on the TH 169 corridor. Route 490 is provided jointly by the cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee and provides ten trips in the morning, ten trips in the evening and one mid-day trip between Scott County and downtown Minneapolis. Currently, two trips start at Dakotah Parkway, four from Eagle Creek Transit Station and the balance from Southbridge Crossings Transit Station. All trips stop at Southbridge Crossings Transit Station. In the evening, all ten trips stop both at Southbridge and Eagle Creek, with four continuing to Dakotah Parkway. MVTA's services are focused on the I-35/I-35W corridor. This highway runs near the eastern edge of Scott County and also has a high level of commuter transit service. MVTA commuter service focuses on the Burnsville Transit Station. As such, a large number of Scott County residents use MVTA services in the I-35/I-35W corridor by driving into Dakota County. Planning for commuter service for the I-35 Corridor is handled primarily by MVTA and by Metro Transit, and as such, are less central to this study. Shakopee and Prior Lake provide reverse commute service services from downtown Minneapolis to Scott County in the morning and back in the afternoon. As downtown Minneapolis is the hub of most service in the Twin Cities, this provides a link from Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 2 throughout the region to jobs in Scott County. Routes 491and 492 provides four trips in the morning and four trips in the evening as well as one mid-day trip. In addition, the 498 Shuttle provides one trip in the morning and one trip in the evening to distribute and collect persons riding the reverse commute service. local Routes: Local routes are different from commuter routes in that they make a number of stops along the way to their destination. Local routes also do not operate on highways and operate at less than freeway speeds. The clientele for this kind of service is typically persons who live near the bus route. Often riders can walk from their homes to the local route. Most local routes operate as local routes their whole length although some bus routes can operate as local routes for part of their trip and as commuter routes for part of their trip. In Shakopee, Route 498 provides a connection between local stops and the Southbridge Park and Ride. Travelers ride the local route to the commuter service at Southbridge which connects to downtown. This shuttle connects twice in the morning and twice in the afternoon. This route also serves 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. Route 496 provides a circulator service within the city of Shakopee. This route connects the Seagate Park and Ride, the Work Force Center, Target and other local stops. This operates once an hour. Two buses are used for this service. Shakopee also operates summer-only shuttles (491) to popular destinations. Scott County operates this service under contract to the two cities. MVTA provides two local routes from Savage. One is Route 444, which connects the Mall of America, the Cedar Grove Transit Station, the Burnsville Transit Station, Burnsville Center and the Savage Park & Ride. This service operates one bus going south and one bus going north every hour in Savage (with additional frequency through Burnsville and Eagan) and both connects local areas with commuter service at various park and rides and connects local riders with local shopping options. Service operates from approximately 5 AM to 11 PM on weekdays with shorter hours on Saturdays and Sundays. The second route operated by MVTA is the 421. This route is a flex-route, which is a hybrid of a regular route and a dial-a-ride service. It allows passengers to board at fixed stops at set times, and also to deviate off-route to serve individuals within the designated service area who are unable to get to the fixed stops. This service exists primarily for transit- dependent persons who need a way to make a trip but may not have access to a car. In this case, the flex service area extends approximately 3/4 mile on each side of the designated route. The 421 operates weekday mid-days only from the Savage Park and Ride to the Burnsville Transit Station along Egan Drive, Vernon Avenue, McColl Drive, TH 13, Glendale Avenue and Lynn Avenue. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 3 Prior Lake operates a summer-only circulator service (the Local Laker Link). The purpose of the Local Laker Link is to provide residents and students transportation to various parks, shopping and schools. Dial-a-ride service provided by Scott and Carver Counties: Dial-a-ride service is provided by Scott and Carver Counties under the name SmartLink Transit. These programs include: • General Public Dial-a-Ride: This service provides a safety net 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 metropolitan area, either directly or through connections with other dial-a-ride or regular route providers. � Medical Assistance: Scott County, under contract to the State of Minnesota, provides transportation for persons on medical assistance to get to medical-related services. • ADA service under contract to the Metropolitan Council: The federal Americans with Disabilities Act requires the transit system accommodate persons with disabilities in areas where there is regular route service. This is federally mandated door-through- door service for persons with disabilities that prohibit them from using regular transit. The Metropolitan Council funds this service. Because this service is provided as an alternative to local regular route service, the elimination of regular route transit service can result in the elimination of the requirement to provide ADA service to that city. The Metropolitan Council sets policy on how this service is provided. Existing Park and Ride Facilities Currently Scott County has four park and ride facilities. These are: • Southbridge Crossings Transit Station is located at 1401 Crossings Boulevard in Shakopee. The 515 space facility opened in 2007. In 2011, approximately 294 spaces were utilized, an increase of 19% over the previous year. This was the largest increase in usage of all the facilities in the metropolitan area that had been operating more than one year. 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. • Eagle Creek Transit Station, with 555 parking spaces, is located at the intersection of CH 21 and Eagle Creek Boulevard in Shakopee. The facility began operations in July, 2012, and replaced the much smaller Safe Haven Park and Ride. Some of the BlueXpress Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 4 service starts at this park and ride and then stops at the Southbridge Crossings Transit Station on its way to downtown Minneapolis • Seagate, with 82 spaces, is located adjacent to the Seagate Technology site near TH 169 and CSAH 83 in Shakopee. Currently approximately 28 spaces are utilized. No direct express service operates from this park and ride but shuttle service is available to the Southbridge Park and Ride, with connections to the BlueXpress services to downtown Minneapolis. • Savage Park and Ride, with 182 spaces, is located north of CSAH 42 at Huntington Avenue in Savage. Currently approximately 63 spaces are utilized. This lot has struggled to attract new riders due to its location far from freeway access to either I-35W or TH 169. MVTA plans substantial modifications in March 2013 to provide both faster service for some passengers and a wider range of trip choices. Home Location of Park and Ride Users: A 2010 license plate survey identified the home residences of park and ride users as follows: Savage Seagate Burnsville Southbridge Safe Haven Park and Park and Transit Lakeville- Crossings Kendrick Residence Location Ride Ride Station Shakopee 112 7 2 74 Prior Lake 45 13 8 1 56 16 Savage 31 39 217 Jordan 7 Burnsville 3 8 Mankato 3 Belle Plaine 2 1 Eden Prairie 2 Lakeville 2 1 New Prague 2 Rural Scott County 7 3 4 1 60 57 Other 10 1 3 4 TOTAL 226 25 63 8 407 73 (2010 Park and Ride Survey) (MVTA numbers from 2011 Park and Ride Survey) As noted in the above table, Scott County residents use Dakota County park and rides in large numbers as well. In the 2011 MVTA survey, approximately 217 Savage residents, 74 Shakopee residents, 56 Prior Lake residents, and 60 residents of rural Scott County constituted over 30%a of the 1,268 users at Burnsville Transit Station or Heart of the City Park & Ride, while at the Lakeville-Kenrick (I-35) Park & Ride there were 16 Prior Lake residents and 57 residents of rural Scott County among the 395 overall users. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 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 transit providers: the City of Shakopee, the City of Prior Lake, MVTA, the State of Minnesota and the Metropolitan Council. There are two operators: Scott County and Schmitty and Sons. Scott County functions as an operator for two major programs. The first program is the Route 498 Shuttle provided by the city of Shakopee. The second is a collection of dial-a-ride programs marketed under the SmartLink name. These include the general public dial-a-ride program (provided by the Metropolitan Council) the ADA service (also provided by the Metropolitan Council) and the Medical Assistance program (funded by the State of Minnesota). Scott County is in the prACess of shifting its operations center to a new facility at Marschall Road and TH 169. This transition will be finished in summer of 2013, upon completion of the building and site renovation project. The Marschall Road Transit Station, previously the site of an automobile dealership, will allow storing much of the fleet operated by Scott County inside, which will improve operational efficiency in the winter. Major repairs would still be carried out at Scott County's maintenance garage. The Marschall Road Transit Station site will also serve as a park and ride, allowing the transit staff to be located at a major hub. This should substantially improve operational efficiency for Scott County. Currently Shakopee and Prior Lake contract with Schmitty and Sons for express bus transit service. Schmitty and Sons uses a garage in Lakeville located east of I-35 off 210th Street for the BlueXpress service. MVTA contracts with Schmitty and Sons Transit for all of its bus operations. Schmitty's MVTA operations are run from two garages provided by MVTA in Eagan (3600 Blackhawk Road) and in Burnsville (11550 Rupp Drive). These locations allow Schmitty to operate with a relatively short deadhead to destinations in Scott County, substantially reducing costs. Program Performance There are three types of transit service in Scott County: express service, local service and dial-a- ride service. Over the last ten years, all have experienced substantial growth. Both Shakopee and Prior Lake have undertaken a number of activities to increase their regular route ridership over the last ten years. This has included shifting the Shakopee dial-a-ride program to Scott County and beginning commuter service, construction of the Southbridge Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 6 Crossings and Eagle Creek transit stations, and the partnering of Prior Lake and Shakopee to provide a higher level of express service than either could provide independently. The result has been substantial gains in transit ridership over the last five years. Scott County Regular Route Ridership (Excluding MVTA) 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 - 50,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 ■ Shakopee ■ Prior Lake Minnesota Valley Transit provides service in the city of Savage as well as four cities in Dakota County. Ridership from routes in Scott County is shown below. MVTA Scott County Riders by Route ioo,000 90,000 80, 000 < ,,: 70,000 ��.�.n„ � . � 60,000 -- 50,000 ' — �-- — r' � r f�� 40,000 � � — — a" ; ;� 30,000 � � �— �g ' — 20,000 �� 10, 000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 � RT 421 � RT 444 �" RT 464/490 Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 7 There have also been substantial changes in dial-a-ride programs in Scott County. In 2006, Shakopee eliminated its dial-a-ride program to shift its funds to regular route (which has driven ridership increases in that program). In 2007, the Metropolitan Council started providing ADA funding. Also Prior Lake began to provide a summer dial-a-ride in 2004. In 2009, Carver County's transit program merged with the Scott County program. Those figures are shown included in the Scott County numbers. In 2011, funding for medical assistance services also began. All of these changes have driven substantial ridership increases. Scott County Dial-a-Ride Ridership (Includes Carver County from 2007+) 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 - �- -- ' 80,000 -� - — -- — 60,000 - _. , �. 40,000 -- 20,000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 ■GeneralPublic ■ADA �ShakopeeDAR �PriorLakeDAR �MedicalAssistance Together, these changes have resulted in a substantial increase in the use if transit services in Scott County. Scott County Transit Ridership 500,000 ----- 400,000 300,000 - � 200,000 -_ __ ... __ __. 100,000 -- �� 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 ■ Dial � BlueXpress � MVTA Scott Routes Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 8 Long-term Regular Route Service Needs Types of Service Scott County has two types of regular route service: Commuter service takes riders from Scott Countv to downtown Minneapolis. Commuter trips are provided primarily in the AM and PM peaks although there is some off-peak service as well. This service includes both express service which connects Scott County with downtown Minneapolis and reverse commute service which brings riders from downtown Minneapolis to Scott County. There are two programs providing commuter service, one operated by the cities of Shakopee and Prior Lake, operating under the name BlueXpress, and one operated by MVTA, which provides commuter service from one park and ride in the city of Savage. Commuter service is supported by shuttle service which connects small park and ride or local bus stops with commuter routes at park and rides. 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. MVTA local services also can be used as shuttles at times when express service is not available in a particular area. Local service is local bus routes tvaicallv operated with small buses in low densitv areas (although MVTA route 444 uses 40-foot buses for much of the day). Riders tend to be persons with lower incomes without other alternatives for transportation, the elderly, persons with disabilities and people too young to drive. Shakopee operates two circulator routes from five am to seven pm connecting multiple employment centers, schools and other transit destinations. Prior Lake provides a circulator in the summer, primarily for students going to summer school and for persons too young to drive. MVTA local service (routes 421 and 444) connect Scott County residents to destinations in Dakota County although route 421 does provide some internal circulation within Savage. Demand for the Commuter Market The Metropolitan Council, in its 2030 Park-and-Ride Plan (updated May 26, 2010), projected a demand of 1200 spaces by 2020 and 1700 spaces by 2030 in the TH 169 corridor. This study did not project a separate demand level for the TH/CH101 corridor. These numbers includes park and ride capacity in both Southwest Transit and in Scott County. This study projected that demand was met for 2020 needs but that there was a deficit of approximately 400 spaces by 2030. This estimate was done before planning for the Eagle Creek and Marschall Road Transit Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 9 Station occurred. These two facilities, along with Southbridge Crossings Transit Station should meet demand into 2030 if assumptions hold. Demand for the I-35/I-35W South corridor was handled as a separate projection in the Park & Ride Plan and identified a demand for 2,100 spaces by 2020 and 2,800 spaces by 2030, most of which is already present in the corridor as a result of the improvements funded by the Urban Partners Program (UPA). Historically, service and facilities in this corridor have been addressed by the Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Valley Transit (MVTA). Over the upcoming decades, this work will need to respond to growing service needs from eastern Savage, Prior Lake, Elko/New Market and other eastern parts of Scott County. Plans developed by MVTA and Met Council are in their respective Regional Service Improvement Plan submittals from 2011. It should be noted all of this modeling excluded demand that will occur due to the Southwest (Green Line) LRT. The Green Line LRT will open up completely new jobs markets that are not currently easily accessible by transit. Because of this, these projections may be low. In addition, demand projections assumed current running speeds. The faster transit service operates the more desirable the service is. Were TH 169 to be developed as a transitway, demand for transit service and park and ride capacity would also increase. Southwest (Green Line) Light Rail The Southwest Light Rail Targetfield$tation ro ect slated to be SOUthweSt COrrid0l' LRT m ,� Royalxton 5[ tion � e . � p� . HCRRA Recommended Alignment Van White Sta[ion completed in 2017, will ° ° � � _,. reshape transit in one- � � PennStation g � o �`� �� 21it Street Stntion quarter of the Twin Cities. `�� a '�� "� �, f � � Not only will the light rail , _ " °- �" r y " . �.,^�, m V � �� ° 'o � °� . �t�lake Station connect southern suburbs 4 s -� � t �� with downtown s 's�, ��-�'� . �� s o J` 1 dfy .. . . . . . . { Minneapolis, it will open up �'d,.o o, � a �,,,, 210,000 jobs that cannot �'� v �{ � currently be served "" ,,, efficiently with transit. Roughly half are in � r ' OpusStatlon s,,,a,,, � .��, �J City WESt StOtion Southwest LRT Scations concentrated in downtown o 0.5 , z Minneapolis and other half = T�*� �o�deR �,�� a e 5`'�� = Triangie are served by stations along ��`a� �o�aoc 5tation the corridor. In addition, the `�` �den Prairie ++ Town Center Station corridor is expected to add 60,000 new jobs by 2030. Downtown Minneapolis is the hub of all transit in the Twin Cities and the light rail will allow persons from all over the region to reverse commute into the southwest quadrant of the region. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 10 The LRT is planned to open in 2017, within the planning horizon of this study. As the plans for the LRT are developed, Scott County will need to review its service and how that service will connect to the Green Line. It is expected most riders commuting to downtown Minneapolis will continue to use express bus service because of the shorter commute time and the downtown stops. However, there will be new demand from riders in Scott County to access the jobs and shopping along the light rail corridor. There will also be demand from reverse commute riders wanting to access jobs in Scott County. To accommodate this demand, a new hybrid local/commuter route taking riders to the light rail and bringing reverse commuters in to Scott County could be developed. At minimum, service should run from the County's three park and rides and the County's major employers to the Green Line. This could be similar to MVTA routes 442, 444, and 446 which experienced strong ridership growth after the Blue Line (Hiawatha) LRT opened. As the final LRT alignment has not been selected, it is not possible to provide recommended routes at this point but it would be logical to expect the route would connect the three park and rides and several major employers then cross the bridge and connect with the light rail in a location with the shortest commute time. Given that new bus funding and procurement can take some years, plans should include additional vehicles for this service. TH 169 Corridor Although both Minneapolis and St. Paul have major downtown centers, from a population perspective downtown Minneapolis is the center of the Twin Cities. Still, in spite of the balance in 201Q MUSA and �--� i � population Metropolitan � � ,-. -� . _ _ . � ._..�_ __,, Highway System � � � surrounding - --- ------ ; � ; �r. _ �t.._._.. � -� �-,,. - - i-- downtown - � � " ; __ � Minneapolis, the �� ;- , - f __.. , � (� nnusnce�te�pomi - . - 1 --�_� . region s long-range �, ��roM,� transit plan does - -� ' � �=� �� Majw NigfwayE ��. tx.�' ` not currently list " �� TH 169 as a j k ,'. , --�-_.�_� ._____ ` �, �; corridor for '�. r . �.__ development for ___ } _� r' .; , l � _�_... � .��.� � � , �, ; anything beyond '-� � _ express bus with � ��'� � � � ° �' � � -. ° � transit advantages e , � ��'A� � �� i - - - (the yellow line on the adjacent map) and that only for the southern half. This means although substantial improvements are being planned for north/south movements in the eastern part of the region, none are being made for the western part of the region. Yet if this corridor was developed as a transitway, it could provide a substantial time advantage for travelers from Scott and Hennepin Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 11 Counties going into downtown Minneapolis and other parts of the region. It would also leverage the substantial managed lane investments already made in the I-394 corridor and complement the Green Line (Southwest) LRT. A designated transitway ----------- ------ - -- B�OIIgTH 169 COU�d 1712811 TwinCitiesTransitways : �� % , bus-only shoulders, Red linesarecurrentlyin ' service or in development. "� managed lanes, ramp meter ` �,� t ;' l bypasses, priced dynamic Dottedlinesareroutes \\ �' - t� '�� " that need to be studied. � � shoulder lanes and other ��- ` �. f 1"Ulliling-Way ddV811t8g25; Yellowlinesareexpress �� I,A� - high frequency, all-day bus routes. �' � ' � . � �"" service; branded vehicles; (l ,. „- — j ' Metropolitan[ouwl1o30 Transponation ' ` . �..9 �' � / . and improved stations, pp��.p�pp �� including park-and-ride f ,.. �'r ��`? �« , � , �;. .._ � , � ; � � � �� facilities and online stations. � �- �.� __�- _� �-. : � : �` ,e ��; F� . ... ... -� � T _ Scott County should ;� " l continue to pursue a change �_ r ; in the regional _ , ; ---- �� ____~ Transportation Policy Plan so TH 169 is included for consideration as a transitway. It should also pursue this corridor for managed lanes, as they can also provide a substantial transit benefit. 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 Transit Station 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 of the limited river crossings. 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. 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, park and rides are often 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 Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 12 corridor. As ridership has grown and moved outward, additional park and rides have been developed along Cedar Avenue. If these facilities are located where buses 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. The major Scott County park and rides follow this conceptual model. Southbridge Crossings Transit Station was built at the funneling point of the TH 169 Bloomington Ferry Bridge. Eagle Creek Transit Station is located west of Southbridge Crossings, just off of County Highways 16 and 21, along the same "string:' The 2030 Park and Ride Plan identifies a site near the funneling point of the future principal arterial (CH 17/TH 13 alignment south of TH 169) which will intercept persons who would have been traveling on this major north/south corridor, TH 169 and TH 101. Scott County acquired a site at the southwest quadrant of County Highway 17 and TH 169, consistent with the 2030 plan, for the Marshall Road Transit Station. The 2030 County Transportation Plan identifies a fourth site at the intersection of TH 282 and TH 13 to accommodate approximately 200 parking spaces. 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; however, as future development occurs, this need should be considered. 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, Shakopee and/or Prior Lake. The orange shape is in development. Conceptual Scott County Park and Ride Plan CH101 TH 169 I-35W Minnesota River TH 169 • � Southbridge P&R gurnsville Marschatl � Transit � Seagate Savage P&R Station Road CR 21 f Eagle Creek P&R Q Lakeville P&R 282 & 13 P&R Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 13 Using this conceptual map, it is possible to see both of these principles. Park and rides are located south of the TH 169 and I-35W bridges, as these are the natural funneling points for travelers. Anyone traveling north will have to pass by one of these points, making them natural locations for transit stops. Burnsville Transit Station and the Southbridge Crossings Transit Station both are located at these natural funneling points. Reliever park and rides are further down from these funneling points, intercepting travelers earlier. These secondary facilities become important as development expands outward and congestion develops at key choke points. The Lakeville Park and Ride, Eagle Creek Transit Station and the upcoming Marschall Road Transit Station all act as secondary park and rides. Marschall Road will also act as a funneling point for TH 169, County Highway 17 and County Highway 101 as development extends in that direction. This model also shows the importance of the TH 169 corridor. To the degree transit can move faster from Scott County into the downtown, travel times could be reduced. Improvements will be completed in November 2012 for the TH 169/I-494 interchange and other improvements have been made to the corridor. If the corridor were to have a bus-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. In the meantime, Scott County should pursue as many transit advantages as possible to reduce travel time. This includes a bus-only ramp at the Marschall Road site, bus shoulders and bus shoulder enhancements in the TH 169 corridor and other investments to speed trips. Horizontal curve sight distance issues have impeded the use of bus shoulders across the Bloomington Ferry Bridge, but MnDOT has programmed bus shoulders on eastbound TH169 east of CH 83 in the 2015-2016 timeframe. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 14 Long-term Dial-a-Ride Service Needs Types of Services in Scott County In Scott County, there are three types of dial-a-ride service: • General Public Dial-a-ride (SmartLink Transit), which is door-to-door or door-through- door transit service (depending on the level of mobility impairment of the individual). Riders tend to be the elderly or persons with disabilities who are not certified through Metro Mobility. SmartLink also serves Carver County. Service also includes trips for persons receiving Medical Assistance. • ADA Dial-a-Ride service under contract to the Metropolitan Council. This service is also provided under the Smartlink logo. The federal Americans with Disabilities Act requires the transit system accommodate persons with disabilities severe enough that they cannot get to regular transit routes. The Metropolitan Council funds this service. Because this service is provided as an alternative to local regular route service, the elimination of regular route transit service can eliminate the need to provide ADA service to that city. Conversely, the expansion of regular route service (as is projected to be needed in 2017 in conjunction with the start of the Green Line (Southwest) LRT) would trigger the expansion of service. The Metropolitan Council sets policy on how this service is implemented. • Medical Assistance under contract to the State of Minnesota. This service is funded by the State of Minnesota to transport low income persons to medical appointments. Integrated Model for Service Delivery Currently, Scott County has an integrated model for service delivery for all of its dial-a-ride programs. The same bus may pick up a 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. 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. Demand for 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. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 15 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 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 there will be 60%a 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. A second issue is the changing population. Over the next twenty years, there will be a profound demographic shift in the region as the baby boomers age. This will increase the specific populations that dial-a-ride programs serve. According to the Minnesota State Demographer, the elderly population will more than double in Minnesota between 2010 and 2030. To put this in perspective, one out of every four persons will be over the age of 65 in 2030, as opposed to one out of every eight today. (Minnesota State Demographer's Office, 2012) The number of people drawing medical assistance is projected to increase by 80% between 2010 and 2030. (Minnesota State Department of Human Services) Scott County Population 250, 000 200, 000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2010 2020 2030 Metropolitan Council - 2012 Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 16 Number of Persons in Specific Age Cohorts 1,400,000 1,200,000 ...................................................... ............_ .................. ....... 1,000,000 ........................ .... ... ...... - -. �.... �� '��`__ �i ............ ............... .. ... �:::. :::� . ..................... 18 800,000 . ............. - 65+ 600,000 .... ..................................................... .... ...... ......... � 5 400,000 � .......... .... �f/.� , � 200,000 �-� --- � 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Minnesota Demographer, 2011 Based on the combination of the increasing population and the increasing age of the population, the demand for dial-a-ride and local circulator transit is projected to increase 120% between 2010 and 2030. Scott County, as well as the larger society, faces a critical question in how it will meet this need. Oftentimes, transportation is the critical factor in the decision of whether to allow someone to stay in their home versus moving into a care facility. With transit services the elderly population has the ability to get to a doctor's appointment or shopping, thus allowing them to stay in their homes. This results in substantially lower costs for both the individual and society on the whole. 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 circulators. Recommendations for Enhancement and Expansion The purpose of this plan to identify the optimum levels of service necessary to meet the anticipated need for Scott County riders in the next several years (2013-2018). The following paragraphs list the recommendations for facility, fleet and service changes to meet these needs. Proposed Commuter Facility Enhancements Enhancements to existing park and ride facilities include bringing the Marschall Road Transit Station (MRTS) online in 2014. MRTS will provide an additional 400 park and ride spaces, thus meeting demand for at least the next ten years. Should additional capacity be needed, one of the existing sites could be expanded or decked. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 17 Scott County's long-range plan identifies a park and ride at CH 17, TH 282 and TH 13 after 2020. Demand for this location is not sufficient until further development occurs in the area. The current Metropolitan Council plan does not identify a need for additional capacity in the I-35/ 35W corridor until 2030. Proposed Service Expansions for Blue Express in the TH 169 Corridor Currently commuter service in the TH 169 corridor is provided by ten coach buses. Five of these buses start at the Eagle Creek Transit Station then go to Southbridge Crossings Transit Station, while another five stop solely at Southbridge Crossings. 2014 It is projected the Marschall Road site will become operational in 2014 and service will be added from this location. 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. More are preferable. Funding for additional buses is available from CMAQ (expected 2015 or 2016) but issues with procurement lead times will need to be addressed to ensure vehicles will be available when this facility opens. 2015 In 2015, service from the Marschall Road Transit Station should be expanded to provide at least five trips in the morning and five in the evening. Three additional buses will be needed; two of the buses will run from MRTS and the third bus will be used in the Southbridge/Eagle Creek service corridor. Again, issues with the lead time for procuring buses will need to be addressed if this service is going to be initiated. The City of Shakopee, on behalf of BlueXpress, submitted a CMAQ grant application in 2011 for three coach buses. 2017 In 2017, transit in Scott County may need to be adjusted to meet two focuses: 1) Growing demand for transit from the existing park and rides to downtown Minneapolis, and 2) Extending or reconfiguring service due to the opening of the Green Line (Southwest) LRT. The Green Line LRT will ultimately provide transit access to roughly the same number of jobs as downtown Minneapolis. Scott County residents will want and need transit access to these jobs. Providing reverse commute access from the LRT stops to major employers will also be advantageous to Scott County. To serve this new market, a new hybrid local route which connects the Scott County transit stations and the County's major employers with the light rail should be created. This route could include stops at the three major park and rides and at the County's largest employers, such as Mystic Lake Casino, Seagate, Canterbury and St. Francis medical campus. Service could be provided no less than every 15 minutes during peak periods to the Green Line LRT and could run 15 hours a day, seven days a week. This will bring outbound riders to the Green Line LRT and bring reverse commute riders into Scott County. Prior Lake and Shakopee also intend to request three additional CMAQ buses in 2013 to increase service in the TH 169 corridor. If successful, the funds become available in 2017. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 18 These vehicles would be used either for express trips to downtown Minneapolis or for the LRT link. In addition, Scott County should obtain two additional small buses to enhance circulator service connected with the light rail. Prior Lake and Shakopee also have the opportunity to submit an application for three additional buses in the 2015 CMAQ grant cycle. Again, if successful, the funds would become available in 2019 and the new buses could be used for additional service between the LRT and Scott County or to meet growing demand for express service into downtown Minneapolis. These changes mean that by 2017, the number of trips to downtown would be: Southbridge Crossings Eagle Creek Marschall Road 2012 11 trips 4 trips X 2013 11 trips* 4 trips* X 2014 11 trips* 4 trips* 3 trips (3 CMAQ) 2015 12 trips* 5 trips* 5 trips (11 existing, 1 CMAQ) (4 existing, 1 CMAQ) (3 existing, 2 CMAQ) 2016 12 trips* 5 trips* 5 trips (11 existing, 1 CMAQ) (4 existing, 1 CMAQ) (3 existing, 2 CMAQ) 2017 13 trips* 6 trips* 6 trips (11 existing, 2 CMAQ) (4 existing, 2 CMAQ) (3 existing, 2 CMAQ) + service to Green Line LRT + service to Green Line LRT + service to Green Line LRT * It may be feasible to start all buses serving the Eagle Creek/Southbridge Crossings corridor at the Eagle Creek Transit Station. Proposed Service Expansions for MVTA and Metropolitan Council in the I-35/35W Corridor MVTA has programmed a commuter service improvement for March, 2013 which will provide three additional buses to serve Savage Park & Ride. As a result, service will be modified to travel more directly and quickly to I-35W by using County Road 42, the bypass ramp in Burnsville, and the new HOT lane installed in 2011. The buses and startup operating funding are supplied by a CMAQ grant through the end of 2015. Starting in early 2016, MVTA will require additional operating funding to maintain the service improvements. MVTA has no additional Scott County commuter service improvements planned through 2016. However, proposals for additional hours of service on route 421 in 2013 and overall local service coverage and frequency improvements in 2015 are components of MVTA's Service Investment Strategy and were submitted as projects for the 2011 RSIP. Met Council proposed no improvements in the I-35/35W corridor in its 2011 RSIP project list. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 19 Transit Revenue Sources Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) PerFormance Before looking at specific budgets, it is important to understand the regional transit funding picture. Prior to 2001, transit was primarily funded from two sources: 1) property taxes, and 2) the State General Fund. The property tax was enabled in 1970 when the private Twin Cities Rapid Transit Company (which had provided streetcars, then buses) was taken public. The property tax continued until 2001 when, under the State's property tax reform, it was replaced with a portion of the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax or MVST, the tax one pays when one buys or sells a motor vehicle. At the time, MVST had been growing faster than inflation over a number of years 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; and incomes were increasing and people were investing a portion of that income in vehicles. Soon after MVST became the primary revenue source, these trends began to reverse. The 2000 census showed there was approximately one vehicle per driver, meaning saturation of automobiles had about reached a peak. Gas costs increased, so people began to buy smaller, cheaper, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Women's participation in the workforce leveled off. With the recession in 2001 and again in 2007, people had less disposable income and delayed the purchase of vehicles or purchased smaller, less expensive automobiles. The price of automobiles has also remained static, and in some cases, with the entrance of several Asian companies, automobile prices have declined. The end result is the revenues collected from the MVST have been declining. The black line on the chart below shows actual collections from 2003 to 2011. Revenues declined from 2003 to 2009 and have recovered slightly from 2009 to 2011. The inflation-adjusted revenue line shows revenues have declined by about a third and have only slightly begun to recover. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 20 Statewide MVST Revenues $�oo $600 � ""� i �— i $500 � o $400 F .... . . � $300 $200 $100 -- - $0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 �Actual • • • • • • CPI-Adjusted Actual — — — 2/12 Forecast Projections of future revenues show a recovery, although the previous forecasts have been extremely optimistic. Even if the projected recovery were to occur, on an inflation-adjusted basis revenues would still be below the 2003 levels. In 2001, Minnesota Statute Chapter 473.388 was amended to set out the formula under which suburban transit providers would receive a share of MVST. In 2010, after the State Constitution was amended in 2006 to allocate a greater share of MVST to transit, the Metropolitan Council adopted the Revenue Allocation Policy. While State statute mandates suburban transit providers a specific percentage of MVST based on the 2001 legislation, the Metropolitan Council's Revenue Allocation Policy bases the allocation of any additional share of MVST from the constitutional amendment on the provider's fund balance. If a provider's fund balance exceeds the amount determined by the Metropolitan Council, the provider will not be eligible for any share of the MVST funds above the original percentage. Transit service in Scott County, and specifically in Prior Lake and Shakopee, is a relatively young service. Over the years, the cities have accumulated fund balances to be used to grow transit service and facilities as population and demand increases. The Revenue Allocation Policy means Prior Lake and Shakopee must spend down reserves to a minimal amount in order to receive any additional funds from the region. The longer-term impact is to reduce the ability of suburban transit communities to retain funds from year to year to make investments. In 2011, the State Legislature further reduced the amount of MVST allocated to the suburban transit providers by reducing the amount received in State Fiscal Year 2011 by a total of $3.3 million in SFY 2012 and 2013. The Metropolitan Council made the decision on how these reductions would be taken from each provider. For Prior Lake, this legislation meant a 37%o reduction in MVST and for Shakopee it meant a 13% reduction. Overall, the Scott County reduction is 23%. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 21 The overall result has been a declining amount of funding going to the suburban transit authorities. The table and chart below identify the MVST received by the cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee. Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Allocation 51,400,000 $i,zoo,000 ° -�— � � S1,000,000 ,�; � , S aoo,000 ', ° ��'� �----�� _- ,�; 5600,000 S400,o00 S2oo,o00 So 2010 2011 2012 2013 � Shakopee ! Prior Lake Source: Metropolitan Council In the next ten years, several significant regional transit investments are scheduled to begin operations. These include the Central and Southwest Corridors, the Green Line LRT, the Cedar Avenue bus rapid transit corridor, and other service expansions. A major issue is how the declining regional funding will be balanced among existing services, new bus service and corridor service in the future. State General Fund The State of Minnesota provides general fund monies for transit. These funds were used as a supplement to the property taxes levied for transit. Prior to 2001, suburban transit authorities received their 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. These general fund revenues began to be shared with the suburban transit authorities. Over the last biennium, however, the State general fund has had a substantial shortfall due to the economic recession. Tax revenues declined substantially and reductions were made in many different areas. As a result, general fund revenues for transit have declined substantially. Shakopee and Prior Lake have not received any transit funding from the State general fund since 2009. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 22 State General Funds for Transit $ioo,000,000 S9o,000,000 Sso,000,000 S�o,000,000 $60,000,000 SSO,000,000 Sno,000,000 530,000,000 S2o,000,000 510,000,000 So 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Funds allocated to the Metropolitan Council for transit Commuter Services Future Operating Budgets and Operating Needs Projected Operating Budget Changes (BlueXpress and Dial-a-Ride) A number of changes will impact the Scott County system. These include: • Addition of three CMAQ buses in the I-35W corridor serving Savage Park & Ride in 2013 (operated and funded by MVTA; these costs are excluded from the remainder of the operating budget analysis) • Addition of three CMAQ buses in 2014 � Opening the Marschall Road Park and Ride in 2014 • Addition of three CMAQ buses in 2015 • Potential addition of three CMAQ buses in 2017 • Additional service to the Green Line (Southwest) LRT in 2017 In the past, transitional operating funds have been included in federal applications which covered 80% of costs for three years. These operating costs are assumed as follows: 3 2013 CMAQ Buses 3 2015 CMAQ Buses 3 2017 CMAQ Buses 2013 X X X 2014 20% X X 2015 20% X X 2016 20% 20% X 2017 100% 20% X 2018 100% 20% 20% 2019 100% 100% 20% 2020 100% 100% 20% Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 23 It is not a given that these will be available in the future under the recently approved MAP 21 legislation. If this policy were to change, it would increase operating costs in both operating scenarios 2014 and 2015 and 2017 by approximately $450,000 and in 2016 and 2018 by approximately $900,000. This would increase deficits in all of those years. The following analysis assumes each trip from Scott County to downtown Minneapolis will cost $165,000 in 2012 dollars. Costs should be assumed to escalate at 3% a year. 3 2013 3 2015 3 2017 LRT Local Total Needs CMAQ CMAQ CMAQ 2013 $0 X X $0 2014 $101,970 X X $101,970 2015 $105,029 X X $105,029 2016 $108,180 $108,180 X $216,360 2017 $557,127 $111,425 X $711,750 $1,380,302 2018 $573,841 $114,768 $114,768 $740,220 $1,543,597 2019 $591,056 $591,056 $118,211 $769,829 $2,070,152 2020 $608,788 $608,788 $121,758 $800,622 $2,139,955 Operating Funding Scenarios The future of transit funding for Scott County and the entire region is more uncertain than ever. 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 3% a year. • Administrative costs increasing at 1% a year. • Green Line LRT service begins operations in 2017. • Fare recovery is 20% for commuter service and 10% for circulator service. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 24 Operating Funding - Baseline Scenario Revenues 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 MVST Shakopee $719,140 $687,000 $700,740 $714,755 $721,902 $736,340 $751,067 MVST Prior Lake $485,000 $627,738 $640,293 $653,099 $666,161 $679,484 $693,073 Fares $437,700 $483,928 $514,001 $524,291 $556,236 $804,397 $847,651 Other Prior Lake $37,000 $33,000 Other Shakopee $42,000 Fund Balance Shakopee $248,911 Fund Balance Prior Lake $129,000 Total Revenues $2,098,751 $1,831,666 $1,855,033 $1,892,144 $1,944,299 $2,220,221 $2,291,791 Expenditures Big Bus Shakopee $657,810 $666,000 $685,980 $706,559 $727,756 $749,589 $772,077 Big Bus Prior Lake $648,000 $655,500 $675,165 $695,420 $716,283 $737,771 $759,904 Circulator $360,000 $360,000 $370,800 $381,924 $393,382 $405,183 $417,339 Add 3 CMAQ 2013 $101,970 $105,029 $108,180 $557,127 $573,841 Add 3 CMAQ 2015 $108,180 $111,425 $114,768 Add 3 CMAQ 2017 $118,211 LRT Circulator $740,220 $769,829 Southbridge Ops $60,000 $60,000 $61,800 $63,654 $65,564 $67,531 $69,556 Eagle Creek Ops $41,000 $55,000 $56,650 $58,350 $60,100 $61,903 $63,760 Marschall Road Ops $15,000 $30,000 $49,000 $50,470 $51,984 $53,544 $55,150 Personnel-Shakopee $74,460 $31,090 $31,712 $32,346 $32,993 $33,653 $34,326 Personnel - Prior Lake $94,174 $96,266 $97,229 $98,201 $99,183 $100,175 $101,177 Planning $33,000 $52,500 $32,500 $33,475 $34,479 $35,514 $36,579 Admin Shakopee $32,727 $3,330 $3,430 $3,533 $3,639 $3,748 $3,860 Admin Prior Lake $19,530 $13,380 $13,514 $13,649 $13,785 $13,923 $14,063 Expenditures $2,035,701 $2,023,066 $2,179,749 $2,242,610 $2,415,507 $3,671,305 $3,904,439 Annual Change $63,050 (�:�i9 �,4fi0) (;�.32�,"r 16) (;�:`s:�Ct,�a65) (;�=,-71,209? ($ �,�;�51,OSG) (S1,fi2,6o��s; Ending Balance $1,942,907 $1,751,507 $1,426,791 $1,076,326 $605,117 ($345,967) ($2,458,615) Note: 3% inflation assumed for expenditures, except 2% inflation assumed for Shakopee Personnel and 1% inflation assumed for Prior Lake Personnel Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 25 An alternative scenario eliminating all increases in service from 2013 through 2018 and eliminating all circulator service is also included. From this, it is possible to conclude current funding levels are not enough to even sustain existing service much less meet demand for growth. Operating Funding - Alternative Scenario Revenues 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 MVST Shakopee $719,140 $687,000 $700,740 $714,755 $721,902 $736,340 $751,067 MVST Prior Lake $485,000 $627,738 $640,293 $653,099 $666,161 $679,484 $693,073 Fares $437,700 $483,928 $493,607 $503,479 $513,548 $523,819 $534,296 Other Prior Lake $37,000 $33,000 Other Shakopee $42,000 Fund Balance Shakopee $248,911 Fund Balance Prior Lake $129,000 Total Revenues $2,098,751 $1,831,666 $1,834,639 $1,871,332 $1,901,611 $1,939,643 $1,978,436 Ex enditures Big Bus Shakopee $657,810 $666,000 $685,980 $706,559 $727,756 $749,589 $772,077 Big Bus Prior Lake $648,000 $655,500 $675,165 $695,420 $716,283 $737,771 $759,904 Circulator Add 3 CMAQ 2013 Add 3 CMAQ 2015 Add 3 CMAQ 2017 LRT Circulator Southbridge Ops $60,000 $60,000 $61,800 $63,654 $65,564 $67,531 $69,556 Eagle Creek Ops $41,000 $55,000 $56,650 $58,350 $60,100 $61,903 $63,760 Marschall Road Ops $15,000 $30,000 $49,000 $50,470 $51,984 $53,544 $55,150 Personnel-Shakopee $74,460 $31,090 $31,712 $32,346 $32,993 $33,653 $34,326 Personnel - Prior Lake $94,174 $96,266 $97,229 $98,201 $99,183 $100,175 $101,177 Planning $33,000 $52,500 $32,500 $33,475 $34,479 $35,514 $36,579 Admin Shakopee $32,727 $3,330 $3,430 $3,533 $3,639 $3,748 $3,860 Admin Prior Lake $19,530 $13,380 $13,514 $13,649 $13,785 $13,923 $14,063 Total Expenditures $1,675,701 $1,663,066 $1,706,979 $1,755,657 $1,805,766 $1,857,349 $1,910,451 Annual Change $423,050 $168,600 $127,660 $715,676 $95,845 $82,294 $67,985 Ending Balance $7,942,907 �2,111,507 $2,239,167 $2,354,843 $2,450,688 $2,532,982 $2,600,967 Note: 3% inflation assumed for expenditures, except 2% inflation assumed for Shakopee Personnel and 1% inflation assumed for Prior Lake Personnel Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 26 Transit-dependent Service Operating Budgets and Needs Current Transit-Dependent Programs Funding Sources Programs servicing the transit-dependent populations cost Scott County $3.47 M in 2011. 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 as shown in the table below: 2011 Dial-a-Ride and Small Bus Regular Route Budget ��. � � _ �m�;� n=� ■ Dial-a-Ride $2.6M ` ` ■ Medical Assistance $448K `_� �� ;,, g � �'� � ��' , � � ; ■ Route 496 $330K ��' � ; ' � k � ; r� ``s i : �� s a��rt,i�8�� °�,; ,,,�� ,,�,,� � Y ��., Y �^�r,,� � fi 8 � �� , � �s : ; Prior Lake Route $31K ��a 498 Shuttle $63K Funding from the Metropolitan Council for dial-a-ride service 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. Future Transit Funding Needs If we assume: • 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 3% a year Then by 2020, funding will need to increase by 120%o, from $3.47 million in 2011 to $7.7 million. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 27 Projected Dial-a-Ride Future Fleet Needs If the fleet increases to meet demand, it will mean adding three buses every two years from 2011 to 2020, or 15 additional buses. Future Operating Funding Sources As noted above, about half the funding for Scott County commuter services comes from the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax and over a quarter from the State Sales Tax. Assuming funding is available to increase programs to meet demand, funding would need to increase 120% between 2011 and 2020 to meet inflation and growth in demand. This requires the following amounts, assuming the current funding distribution does not change in the future. Funding Source 2011 Budget 2020 Need Metropolitan Council Dial-a-Ride/ADA $2,594,947 $5,708,883 State of Minnesota Medical Assistance $448,137 $1,059,015 Shakopee Route 496 $330,115 $726,252 Prior Lake Summer Route $31,973 $70,341 Shakopee 498 Shuttle $63,789 $140,336 Total $3,468,961 $7,704,827 The same questions about funding sources noted for regular route service also apply to dial-a- ride funding. MVST has declined about a third from 2003 to 2010 and there is continued uncertainty about where it will go in the future. The State General Fund spending for transit has also seen steep declines. These changes could substantially affect whether funding will be available for this expansion. Capital Funding Needs Transit is a capital-intensive activity. As such, it requires funds to both maintain existing infrastructure and add new infrastructure. Funding comes primarily from three sources: • Regional Transit Capital (RTC) funds are generated by a property tax levied throughout cities within the Transit Taxing District (TTD). In Scott County, cities in the TTD include Shakopee, Prior Lake and Savage. The funds are allocated by the Minnesota Legislature and administered by the Metropolitan Council. Typically these funds are used for replacement vehicles, existing infrastructure and matching federal funds. • Funding for expansion vehicles and park and rides primarily comes from federal grants. The most prominent source is Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) funds although there have been funds from the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and American Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 28 Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These funds are allocated competitively through the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). Typically they require a 20% match which is provided from RTC funds. • National Transit Database or NTD funds are generated by reporting transit statistics to the federal government. The region has a"you earn it, you keep it" philosophy for certain parts of the reporting so funds are allocated back to various transit providers based on their reporting statistics. Shakopee has typically earned about $70,000 per year and Prior Lake about $40,000 per year. These funds are available for whatever transit purposes those entities choose. With its first park and ride, Southbridge Station, Scott County also needs to begin a capital maintenance plan for park and ride facilities. Ideally, the following routine should occur: Transit Station Maintenance: • Every 3 years: Crack sealing & striping; Minor maintenances • Every 5-6 years: Seal coating & fog seal; Security/Technology replacement (cameras, wireless routers) • Every 10-12 years: Mill/overlay & striping (depending on pavement condition) • Every 20 years: Major rehabilitation/concrete replacement; Reconstruction of major elements Fleet Replacement: • Every 5 years for SmartLink Transit Buses • Every 12 years for BlueXpress (Coach) Buses TH 169 Bus Ramp Maintenance: • Every 5 years: Crack Seal and Stripe Fog Line • Every 7 years: Seal Coating and Strip Fog Line • Every 15-18 years: Mil/overlay & striping (depending on pavement condition). TH 169 Bus Ramp Maintenance Agreement between Scott County and Minnesota Department of Transportation stipulates the following State responsibilities: • The State will mow roadside grasses in the area of the Bus Only Ramp to NB TH 169 when it normally mows the TH 169 Corridor at no cost to the County, • The State will perform minor pothole patching of the Bus Only ramp when other pothole patching is done on TH 169, at no cost to the County. • The State will provide Snow and Ice Control on the Bus Only ramp from Stagecoach Road to NB TH 169 concurrently with snow and ice control operations on TH 169. The State will plow and apply deicing chemical as needed to keep the Bus Only Ramp as reasonably free of snow and ice as practicable to facilitate use by busses between 6:OOAM and 3:00 PM Monday through Friday, at no cost to the County. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 29 Based on this plan, the following capital infrastructure is needed: m0000w oom000 �o oona000 000 �no o�n ty t0 f9 t9 a�D ti m� N f0 N f9 Vi tA O^f fA O O O N O O O O f9 a O!9 f9 � � O t rnarmd�rm o0o r� N '�V OD � O Ny EA t9 � N M O(V 10 1n O f0 a I� � fV N� tD � 1t'1 fA 61 � �� O 00 � N� f0 0I t0 M N f9t9 F � �M�M��f9 � c0 f"1 � � H f 9 a�9 � �N � � � O � u9 H ��E9�0 t�0 ��M�M�/A� O �� y��N O b�90 ��M�t�[911� 0 6�9tl�9 0 N OC IC) � I� N lf) s{ 01 OD O 1� o ac �" r o o ao y m iri � N N(O O f �y H f7� N N t9 tl9 fA tl9 H fA � (O O O O N O O O O O O O O aD O O O O O O O O O O O O K1 O O O Rl � N t9 fA /A LL] O O O OD t9 f9 fR f9 1!1 fA fA fA f9 fA Kl O f9 f9 O f9 t0 f9 1A f9 1[] aD C') N 0� f9 C7 O O 1!7 f0 0] O 0�0 �� O N � RI O t0 fV Ih N f0 � H N N f9 � f9 � N � � � � O O O O� O O O O O O O O � O O O O O O O O O O O O� O O O� � o fAfAf9dim O O EAf9fAt9t9E9 � O fAfA f9fRf9O E9fAfAfAf9N � f9f9t9 � �. � 0� N M C') � . N � f9 f9 N N �M a � N � � � � � O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O p O O O O O O 4� tD O p O N fA ER fA h(O V O OD f9 fA fA f9 1� f9 O N9 fA f9 a0 !9 O O O 1fl I� O tA t9 h . � C M � I�� fA 1� O t0 M 1� t0 � 1[1 O h � a l� fA M! � O m N � M�� O N O N N� � � N E9 f9 fA N� f9 �� cV 4'> Vi O O O O N O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O p O O O t0 f0 O O O N f9 f9 fA fA W O O f9 !R f9 tA 1A di m t9 O O f9 f9 O fA O fR O f9 � N O fA tli CI m (O O O i0 O O O O (O OC N O t0 O N 00 O � 1n O �Ci ln O O M O p M � t0 p 4'/ �[) fA N �f1 O N � 69 43 � N fA N fA fA N OI f0 di f9 49 f9 V3 � � O O O O N O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O N m fAE91A� � V Nf dlERf9f9f9 O fR0 fAfAf9 � O� O f90 f9�0 � fAMM Q A a� /) O I� N OD O A In 1� � a (O h O O p 1� (O h O N � h fA f9 t0 fA V N N� �� O N E9 f9 fA m O � � fA M O O O O� O O O O O O O O� O O O G O O O O O O O W O O O� e�e»e»eam o o.nen�eRenen m �fn��eno 0 o eno dso m o en�n m tO c') N("1 OC �p N O M O OJ 1n O OC p � t0 O1 M p OD Of W � 01 M a � O') N � � �M � N � � tl�9 � � M f� � f I � � O O O O 01 O O O O O O O O 61 O O O O O O O O O O O O 61 O O 01 a ER ER f9 N N 0� fA f9 f9 f9 f9 t9 f0 fA O t9 fA O 00 O fA f9 O t9 O m O!9 (O �a oru� r- � o�m o u�ro � n v vi m �i 'O oo� n�m m o � ° o�»a ° �s i � m {y N 1C1 !9 W �y � fR �M I� O W � V! � �M y� fy �M O O O O a0 O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O QI O O O W � f9 !9 ER fA N� t0 N fA fA f9 !9 f9 f9 N� a fA O f9 f9 f9 M Ni fA f9 S tA � � O fR fA N � � N N f9 fA N N � � � O�D N f`�') fA Vi � � y � �. � O O O O O N O O O O] O O O O O O I� N O O O O O O O O O O O O 01 O E9 EA O O M O fR f9 W t9 t9 fA N t9 O p !9 O f9 O fA tA f9 O O O fA E9 M G aD V N 1n N N M O O� N M N N O N v ri ui m ci m ri ao � oi oi oi ri o �c p N aD M(O N � 6] 1!'1 � fR M di RI {y N tO N� fR f9 M N fA W� fA (O � ( . fA H9 fA fA N3 f9 fA O O O'�T O O O f") 1n � t0 O O N 10 N M O O V O O O O O O O O O V . � M�� 1� O��f1 O� O m �� M � r O� N f9 M N� f9 fR f9 f9 fA fA O 1A tA t0 . OD �f1 � N t0 h O 01 N(V � N t0 f0 1Ci OG m 00 � � In N M fV f0 (V tf OG O W C� 1� O ln � N N N OD N fR fR W I[1 ` « O (� 0� M�M �� r 0 � N f� t0 t0 a M f9 N LL p tl�9 di d! Ef! � � H�M N3 � Q a` a o ¢ o E V N O � M C y U N u� E d a�i p� �e �i _ w m a � U v N J Y Q' d � � �. U Y y a ` C m C D J O C L {0 l0 E Q' W N C I� O C Y a N O 0 � e N O 'O LL C C« M m m C L�� H D E E � � N C C ~ � W E N � a �q�¢�� c � � a�i �� m u o E Z t0 'O � � lL l �� C C C 0 H C � N� C V . LL « �� LL��g W��00 0 0 � � c°�i� m o W � \ � W c a ° m a�i a�i m 4 y v'H 'w U U � d c� Q c> 5�c V :: 5'� w�� a�i : o� ��i a a� � m�i a� W� c c � � L c o��'� N a� S� t t d� 3 r ° a� � c� a��u.m�LL u.��m�no a�wc�mrv�c�rnorn�mmmo :� Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 30 Future Funding Options Scott County is in a difficult position in that most of the region's jobs are north of the Minnesota River yet there are no plans between now and 2030 to increase the capacity of bridges or roads between Scott County and these jobs. If Scott County is going to continue to grow, there needs to be a way of moving more people on the existing roads and bridges. Transit provides such an option. As the analysis above indicates, existing revenues will not meet the growing demand for transit much less meet current needs. Shakopee and Prior Lake fund reserves will be exhausted by 2016 and it will be necessary to either bring in new revenues or make significant reductions to commuter bus service. Eliminate Service: One option is to eliminate all but the most popular express bus routes. Even without a reserve balance, the cities will continue to share a portion of MVST as required by State statute. The express service could be reduced and restructured so costs do not exceed revenues. This option will greatly reduce access to jobs. Increase Revenues: Another option is to increase the revenues available for transit. The Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) has declined precipitously while at the same time it is being used to fund operations for several new transitways. The State General Fund has had a substantial shortfall over the last biennium, with reduced support to transit as a result. As a result, neither can be relied upon for additional revenue. Because of this, traditional revenue sources most likely will not be available. Potential revenue sources include: • Supplement MVST with funds from the city's general fund. While we might be able to maintain existing service levels, this would most likely result in an increase in the local property tax levy. It may also result in increased requests for local service. • Explore the possibility of a County-wide JPA in which all Scott County municipalities contribute funding to transit services. Again, this would probably result in increased local tax levies, but would spread the increases out among several local governments. At the same time, it is likely other cities would seek more transit service within their borders. • Join the County Transit Improvement Board (CTIB). CTIB was created through Minnesota State statute in 2008 and is currently made up of five counties in the Twin Cities: Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, and Washington. The main goal of CTIB is to collect a sales tax and put that towards transit improvements in the Twin Cities. The sales tax is a quarter of a percent and has been generating about $85,000,000 annually. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 31 Scott County is eligible to join CTIB. Currently, if a CTIB member county contributes less than 3% of the total revenues, the county retains its contribution. In 2010 (the most current data publically available), Scott County would have contributed 3.006% of the total revenues. However, given that the economic recovery has been uneven, it is possible that Scott County may currently be under this threshold. If so, the County would have approximately $3 million available for transit services should it join CTIB. If the County is over this threshold, it could negotiate with the CTIB board to determine if a portion of these funds could be dedicated to transit operating needs within the County. This level of funding could provide revenues needed to both maintain exiting service and meet demand both to downtown Minneapolis and to jobs newly accessible along the Green Line (Southwest) LRT. Organizational Structure for Service Delivery There are questions about the efficacy of the current structure of transit service operations in Scott County. Transit is a regional activity, yet it is being managed to some degree at a municipal level. Municipal interests are not always aligned with regional needs. Changing the current structure of transit service could be one way of addressing this issue. It is also possible that this could reduce administrative costs, although this would not be enough to address the serious structural deficits forecast for the near future. Scott County and its cities should explore whether other organizational structures would better fix the overall needs of the county. Some alternatives to be explored include: • A joint powers board between Shakopee and Prior Lake (Two Cities model) • Prior Lake and Shakopee joining MVTA (South of the River model) • Prior Lake and Shakopee joining SWT (TH 169 Corridor model) • Prior Lake and Shakopee joining Plymouth or Maple Grove (New Joint Powers model) • Scott County taking overall all management of commuter transit activities and integrating it into its existing transit program (SmartLink model) • County-wide joint powers agreement where all Scott County municipalities contribute funding to transit services. (County-wide JPA model) • Contract with the Metropolitan Council for transit service (Minnetonka model) Each of these alternatives has pros and cons. Over the next year, the Transit Review Board should continue to discuss these options. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 32 Conclusion Over the last five years, transit ridership has grown dramatically. This is reflective of the unmet demand for transit service to access jobs. Demand is expected to continue to increase in the next five years as congestion makes travel around the region increasingly difficult and the opening of the Green Line LRT provides access to a whole new market of jobs easily accessible with transit. Park and ride infrastructure at Eagle Creek and Marschall Road is coming on-line to meet this demand. New transit service is needed from these facilities and from existing facilities. This will require adding twelve more trips and twelve more vehicles to the fleet by 2017. Operating funding projections show that current revenues are not only insufficient to meet future needs - they are insufficient to even meet current service levels. Policy makers are going to have to make hard choices to either reduce access to high-payingjobs or increase revenues for transit. Demand for dial-a-ride services is expected to grow much faster than the general population as the number of people above age 65 swells. The number of persons living in poverty gets bigger and the number of persons with disabilities increases with population growth. It is necessary to account for inflation in costs projections. As a resu►t, funding needs for this program are expected to double from 2011 to 2020. Three-quarters of the funding for this activity is controlled by the Metropolitan Council. If the Metropolitan Council does not meet this need, policy makers in Scott County will need to decide if they would pursue other funding for these activities or reduce access to services for the county's most needy residents. Transit is important to Scott County and to the entire region. It provides people with mobility and access to employment, community resources and recreational opportunities. Transit also helps to reduce road congestion and travel times, air pollution and energy and oil consumption. Public transit also has a significant positive impact on economic development in the area. If the county is going to continue to prosper, transit is a necessary component of future plans. In the very near future, funding shortfalls will threaten the future of transit operations. Over the next two years, Scott County residents and elected officials will need to make hard decisions about how transit will operate in Scott County. It is important to begin this planning now, in order to position the county for the future. Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 33 Appendix A: Detailed Capital Needs 00000000000000 P'! fq �q y� yg �� M fy �g yq y� yi fq ^ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � o o � ro m N� N� o �� r � N N M O O N � O O N f0 f� O O O 1� � N O � N �� N N fA �K � � �� H fA fA Vi Vi Vi � O H � N O N uO"1 N N PO'1 0 N �. N � �K �K N � H�9 � N . di � � H � 0 � N N O O N N � � � � '�6 N N C � O O O O O F W N N � O N � 1� O 2 N O m N O N �K 1�+1 O�i m � . N � o'I N fA fA N fA � � y � o O O O O O p � � � O O (�O � O O (�O � y � � O � O W O O N N Q . C . N �� f A H�9 N � N�9 � � N N N 0 o O o O O � n (O C O ^ � O O . 3 �f1 O L . N � N K f9 N � � � y N � O O O O O O � Q � (�O O � � N � O � L � � ��. N � � � N � b�9 � N � U V! > O O O O p V . �. .. � A O O� N p�p � . �. � . � N � � f9 N � � . t 7 .. � f�0 O p Q N f0 � � � � O y � = O O N N N LL N � � C T O O O o O O p m v . O �f1 N N fh �[1 � N � P7 Oi a� h M aD Oi 0 H N�9 � N � � � �. V N '� O .. o vo r nco � c�aor� v.� �(5 v �o 0 0 �o n c� r�� o �n o m ro m � � �p � ii u�i m� o m Q � M 1n f� O h I� O] M aO t0 �t N l0 n a � C�' C fD N t0 O� N W N M f0 t9 V! OD O1 Q' 3 � O O N t0 T N'�Y o'I W O O� Cp M �'1 � O� � Y a N f9 E9 fA fA f9 � 'C N N fR f0 M¢().O ; fA � � � a �� pN� � �fAN @ � V � a F � � d o � c w U � � �v . � � � � o N y � � y � � O Q N � �W C � O ��V�p��. O � U� y Y � O W � �q � N � C� N R N Uf . C. �..�� I� O C J 'Y a� O 0 G Q � N O . C ��: C O C � C � m m N 'O E� N C C ~ �.� o � ��Q�Q�a c c � ~ � �� a�i � m c o E a a °� (A � 2 F- � F � �-° � c �n � N ' m � � C lL LL � Z Z Z N C � l0 G p N C R d � C V = w N o LL��g ��OO ' �� °"° w m W�� m� LL ��' F u � c .. U� � o y 2 c�i � <n o � x m� �� Q � d N N N d� N -�N W M C�`y 01 C y Q U C Y V= C�3 W 2' d O N � J�� d li li LiLL !n d' Li li �� U tn O a� W U a� � tn U In U V) J fn 00 DO O : :, (� . Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 34 M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � fA EA fA EA EA O O EA fA EA Nf EA fA O fA 69 tfl fR EA O O O fA O fA O EA tA EA 69 O �� aO N O N O N CO O O � N N CO � N � � a0 aO (D O N L�I t� � � Q N O fA M 01 � � VJ EA F' � EA � ffi � O F �. N l� 0�0 � N f�7 � O � N � � � N � H�9 V! � . N C�O_ � O N O O � O M � O) N M Et? fA N � � O � � � O � N N O O N N � C�O n � � O O O M t0 m Ef! N H � � N � � O �. � fA EA 6�9 � Vl � � N N O O O O O O O O � �� M � O O � N � � � N � 4�'1 � � o�p �. � � � . � (O R O t0 O O O O N � fA � � N d) � O N EA fA EA � GH � � N N O O O p p � m M M � c��j O M N � �M b N M � O �„� f9 EA �N- M EA � N � N � �Cf O O(O tt O � O O O q y�,. ��C1 � O T� � � r �� LC aD M N �. �� OO � t� (O M O � M h f� ap � � � 4 � M � H�9 � � � � � b�9 M � Q � a N " M b9 N a N� � � EA fA 69 d9 Q o � U � � F fn c �j a� � .c � � � � � �° co �°� •� c m o � ~ N N Y � � � U � 2 tn Y N O m �q � N � C � V a� �dfA c � � � � c R N V � � o c �e o � � � M m m � L � � � . ,w � -a Q E a � i a � i E c � c m 2 �� c c � a�i �� m c o E a > W U C 2 f � O\�� C t� f6 �— N'N N > LL LL� Z Z�� C C %� C 0 vl C �p W d~ C V = p LL � �� OO O O u � ��m �'�� tn o �� m LL c ._ u o 2 R d N N N � �N U1 N Vl �� 47 C y Q U c Y U= d C�� W Q' � N (A J d, ll lL � fn Q' lL L�L �� fn � O a 2 W U CO � fn U fn O(n J fn m m O � «L Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 35 M O O O O O N O O O a0 O O O O O f� N O O O O O O O O O O O O O) � fA fA f9 O O M O EA EA oD fA fA N EH O O O O O O EA tA EA b4 fA Vi EA tA � aD O� a0 N M O� m O O O O Ci N N �CY 47 cD M � � M a0 � O O aD O � N oD N N � O 0 CO m O N � O � �� E+9 EA N F fA a0 �� EA EA EA M F f9 Ei9 EA fn N O O p N O O O P1 � 69 � N � � fA O O O O � O O � � � O O O N Cj tC) N �"� fl9 fA � N � � O O p O O p O O 0 � � O N O O N � � � N � � � � O � � � W � � N N pp O O O �O O O O O p OD O O O O N � O N EA tA � N � � b M 9 O O � M� O � O O N � � � N fff EA � � � � eD {p � � N � N O O � fn � � Y! ��Cl O O 1� r N O 49 N �� O N fA O EA O Efi E9 � � ° o �° �� d �� ° o � � N � � � O � 1� N � 69 O O M � O O h N � aO O N °J N O O � �� N C7 O� Q1 M M tD M a0 � � � u fA � � O �� O N N � � H3 � �M O O O 1� p O O O O r p N� � r.� O� C « � � �V � � � V' Q) �+j O .0 N M b9 EA O � 0 G� N Q� f0 a � EA M a N �� M � � � � y O C �o E U � � Y d _ N a� ;g � = N N J Y � � � � � �. a y J N C L ` � � � c'o oa� c c � � c o m o o m ° f0 « � c c d o m � 'u Q� � m d� c c a� � 'o E�� m c � 1°- � � � Up� •• � e c�t c ia � Q � � � � � � � c � � � � � O � LL LL L � Z � N N? 3 x� C O y C � W�� C N p � g�� O O o o w�'� �°� f d m �� m ' a L° �° �� o c ��.. ... U c� � � o y � c".� � <n o x m� � a� a> m a; . y y in m «� y a� c,� Q c� ��e V z w? �'3 W� & o � a� a�i a� :�° m a� �i �° �° c c L � L c o��'= L° a � r L a�i � 3 r f q J C LL LL L L f n d' LL L � H�( n f A O d Q' W U m I- fn U fn O fA J!n CO m O Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 36 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0°� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p EA EA EA fA � fA EA N (O fA EA EA ^ EA fA EA EA tA � O O fA fA M O EA fA tf! EA � N . N � � � � � � � � � � � H9 Vi � EA V► O I� N � N � N N 0 0 0 0 .- ° � � � � ° m o � vi o es en N N O p N fA N tH � O N N O O O � � � � � � � N � � N � � O p Op � pp Vi a� � O p N N O � � � � � O O o�p � � � I� O O � � p � O CO (D N EA � N � fA d3 O 10 � Ip � � � O p N N O � � � N � O � O � � M O � M M N � N � tA O a � a ° �n .- e - 0 0 N N O M � �y � � � N � N . V' � � �[) (O O Q � ti n �"� � N T Q' N � M N N M � a Q+ � � + � � � � � � O p •� .` V a a � � m � �� Y N _ N U7 � ' � l9 �. N J •� C � O 7 N V N Y N O l6 � y� E y � C 7 'O V) J 'C L C ` � � C N m . oiS 1� O� Y a � O 7 � N � W � C p [p O O f6 � • f0 i' C N�� f0 C c° m 'u Q M F- m d v c c d o 'a E E� a � ° � �2 2 2 � �n V p p .. � � � — m E E � a> o F F �21 m� m �� d .= m c'�.i o E ~ � � C LL LL LL �� Z Z�� j ,fs >� C 0� C � W N F" C� � �� O O O O u � >'C U N y� 2� N_ � �'i � m m c m m.. ... U U� � o�� tA o \ W�� `m CI O N'y ,.+ ... � 01 C y Q U C Y U �.,�, C C `y ' : A+ V �O 'a ��p'6 �p 'O 'a C C O O L O L C N� V lC � N L U N N � � N .. J: d LL 11 Il fn d' lL Il F- F� (n (n O G. � W U m F !n U fn O(n J fn m m O M Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 37 � M m��m�u M ° oo ° o ° oo ° o ° o ° o ° o ° o ° o ° oaav ° M O '7 M W O O O(O (O (O N N N GD OD aD M M M 00 N u] (O O O O O O O O O O N V C7 Q7 � V�� 1� 1� h O O O 1� f� h 0� N� h c0 0 1n 1[I �� In 1n 1� � 1� �O t0 t0 t0 �O [O �O � � � � ui Vi Vi Vi Vi Vi f» en e» ui rn Vi en Vi Vi � o � » � � H 0 0 N � N � N N O O N N N O M V V V M a0 N O M M c� O aD N O O O N O o � N h h I� � � t0 V O � t0 f0 t0 O . N V) N N V3 V3 E!� N fA fA M O O O � O � N N O O N N 0 0 o O o 0 0 � O <t o�D � a�O V � V 4] � ' ln � � V (O O O O O O � � V M a0 � f0 (O f0 OJ N y) N ty EA y) E!i E9 t9 O O � � � m O O N N O�D N O O O O O aO 1� f0 N N N t0 �ti v " i` r ��n " . p I") M 1� O ll] 4'1 47 1� . N � N7 N FA fA N7 �9 fA H � t!i � Vi O O N N R (�O O O O O O � V M W f0 (O (O 00 � h V � O O O p 6� N N 0 V V V N N N � � N H �N � � V3 Vi V� O O v 'R a � 0 0 N N m a c � ° o o ° o ° o ° o ° o ° o F M'�f f0 O � O O O O � N O (7 M � � N N �N � N H H� � f9 fA � Q Q � d� O � O � 3 � � � � � � w Q o � o U r N N \ U a` a` � � N � Y N 'O � N � � � 7 �m � d y J y U.� y " N f6 �� L (p w C y � O �� J y d(/J � 7 01 01 T C 7 . -q. ' C C k n 0 C� p p L�� f6 � M M M uY b�q 1� h 1� O O O O O O ��. a JC M m ' �. 3 d �� C U 0� a f� C C � F� C O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N F Q� � x�� = F Q O �� p�� y N N N N N N N N N � �� _.� m W F LL LL LL \ Z� Z Z �� X � N M R b(O h a0 �� 2 m�� Q Q O O 11 � M Ol N N N N N N tA Ml N N N t/1 N 7 7 7 7 7 7� 3 7 7 3 7 7 7 7 d� d N N N N O d d 'N U U \ d m 00 00 CO m m m m m m m m m 0� OD � Z � a o�o v v m a-o � � o o L '0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 �� m a� d m d�� m m m w m a� d a� v m d m m m v o i- a��cn�LL��cnu�o azzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :�z Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 38 �,.� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � fA t9 EA f9 O fA f9 E9 fA M fA di f9 O fA tH O O O O O O O O O O O O O O fA O . � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N Y� u7 N N LL] � N �[1 �Cl N N N N N N N M M � N N h N N N N N N f� t� t� h h lh v a o rn fn �s fa fn tn v_ H diu� i»usdiu9e»tfl � i» e� vi 0 � ° o ° o ° o ° o N O O N o 0 O � � O � � �y N N N N N M Vi V/ f9 H � < N N O O N N O O O � O � N N O O N N O O O O O O O O � � �[I � LL7 tn p N N p N N N � � N � � 00 O O 00 O O O O O O O p h h � 1n N �[f N� u7 1� N � � N N f� N N N N m N � � � Vi Vi EA Vf fA fA t9 d3 (A d9 fH n r� N N ip � � i0 O M N N O O O O O O � � f0 � (V (V (V f0 0 0 �nr� N � N� N fA fH Ni � O O M f9 � a v N N O O O O O O N N N p N r� (�D ui e� N iy `A `» � � � M O O O N N N N N P+ SHH N �, `o 0 a` a m � LL m u� Y m J p !6 N C N Y Y d' N N Y7 N N� C L w �1. �� C�O J O d� C d � U C O m 0 O�� O � y 3 N j Q C Q N V O U d!n C C R � F C F d o �� m � C LL l " �� Z Z�� C C � N (O O 1n cr <O (O f0 (O O O O o O LL �� O O o o I� o rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m O O O O O O O O O N N N N N �1 W�� C��!- .� U U� j� N � N N N N N N N N N .�. CI . d N Ol N.d � N N C C L' � N � C7 V �[9 t0 1� 00 OI O M N N� M M w ovva R aa o ot �o`a�u cvu�00000 T d v d d a� w L° L� � � P�n�nin0000000o v ¢� F- a��Liu)�tL�l-h-rn(n0 am�oamar�vvvaco��o�c`ac� Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 39 M O O O O C7 O O O O O O O C7 O M O O O O O O C7 � EA di fA !H N f+H fA d9 fff V) V! EA a0 EA W fA bY fA d7 EA EA N O N � � � � N T T � 0�1 m � � � ,� , EA !H ~ d! fA O F N a�D a�0 N � a�0 ��. p aD a0 � a0 c0 N N fA fA fJ! fA f0 f0 fD (D N � � � ��Cl � N N N d9 69 tl� Hh � t0 f�0 � (�D O � O p O O �� N 69 EA N EA fA � . � (�O C�O (�O f0 � � 01 O p N � � N � fA f�1 N N N � � N N 0 O p O O M b9 N EA 69 N N N N �`'� M M � � � T M M I� M (� N � � � O�i m � b9 N M fA T m � 01 . � LL� � eD � ��fi � � Q rn N rn rn . . N fA b9 fA y> � O�i O�i Q Q r W a�0 N a�0 a�0 . � N � b4 N E/> b9 W � � � � � � � N W a�0 � 0�0 0�0 t9 EA N EA fA O p p � O � �. � �"� N N M N fV p �"� M � c7 C� N � �D N �O a0 � � � � . �� w M +�' q b�9 O p y�9 ` p o N 'r N a a d m LL � u�i _ � J p f0 N y . m N Y N O f0 � N C '6 N � 'C L N C p C'O -� O d(n C � 'C . C C • � m � C L O � Y N � m Q ��Q,� V acA c c � �o � u d i o tn W ��Fa-�� a m ~ LLti�� °> a� � c � c LL� � g �� p p�p o 0 u ' :s • • d � � �° � o � � .. .. C) U � � c p� • N Vl �' � d! f6 aj a o � av � � o o o ¢ f-�' a`iiii�icn�iiii � �in<io a` w Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 40 �� M O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q f9 f9 f9 f9 O f9 f9 (H f9 f9 f9 f9 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O � O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N � � � N fV iA N N N(V (V N N N N IV N ui �[i (V N(V N N N N fV (V (V (V N sf ' N f7 1'� � I� f� N h N 1� h 1� h 1� f� I� h N N N h N h f� I� 1� I� h h 1� f� 1� i+I M M F t9 f9 f9 tA fR f9 fA f9 fR 1A 1A f9 fA f9 f9 fA fA f9 fA f9 M f9 l+I f9 H f9 H�N � N O � � fg O p� N � N N N � N � o � y� N N � N � O f9 N � N � N o p OI p� � N � N 0 0 0 0 0 � o ° o � o o ° o ° 0 o � t0 N (V N �� N � N� N �N U�9 H N � Vf O � r � n � N � N O O � O � � � O O O O N sT � N N r� n V � � � � � � � 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � O O O O O O O O O O O O O � � � b �n uI �(1 cV (V (V N N(V N � . N n m N � N N I�M H�� n K � H m � V! VJ E9 H3 y) a ° o ° o V °o °o N � � � N � N � N � N K! � � b3 O O O O �,.� O O M O O O O O � (V N N (V � O �Y p t� N h ti � N M � N f9 � fR b9 M � � `.f q C O O �� N � � O O O O O O � � O V M .�} �. fA y9 � d �M U a a` �i d w LL � d _ � N O A C d Y �' �m � N Y N O W ry� � E cv� oa� c :! � c�i c o m o c L�� o m � m fn �� C ¢ u�i U�' U a tn c c � F � C p c= l ¢°� F F y� � o 0 o ao m m ao m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � � F lL LL� Z� Z Z C C 11 f0 (O 1� W GD OD f0 f0 (O O O O o 0 . LL � �� R�� O O O O �� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O N N N O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � „ U�� C��«!-� U U� v N N N N N N N N N N � 01 ��. d N N N.d.. � 01 N N �"� W d 4� <D h eD N O� N M (V C') � In � m N N N M C1 c 1 f�7 c�] c�7 R sF � T �� l6 �� V V L Q O o O O O N N N o O O O o O O O O O O O O O o . Q F C LL lL LL(n d' lL LL F- F(n fn � d � � N N � � t f f�0 V�V ��( (�O f�0 f t f0 f�0 (�O � c�0 f�0 f�0 ��(�O Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 41 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o �rnf»�vtnu�sf»��tnf» v f»�nfn�a«n�fnrR.a�rnvvsf»en a N O O O O N N N � N N � N1 fA ~ Ui V► O F 0 o O o � � � � N � � N 61 � o � a o � a N � � N � � o O o O � ��[1 ��f1 4�'1 p (O f0 Q t0 f0 N � � N � � � � O O N N N N N � � N � � N � � N d1 N! � � � � T O1 � O� m 01 p �`'� M 0 M M N � � N � � � � � � � O O � O O O " � p N � � N � � h I�CJ L�q A 1� ��[1 N � � � � � f9 f9 N fA f9 O O O O t0 G�O a�D 10 op pp O M � p M ^ N � � N ^� � O o � � � 1[1 �L) N 1� � O � � N � � N � M O O O O v � �r a � i p � � �p •- •- N fA Eff N EA ffl O O p p M N N M N N O � � O � � N fA fR N fA fA O � O� � M � M 0 O � O O �C N 'C N a a E E c �j w c�i y � E w LL ac a� y � a � c @ O � N W Y � � � m �� tp Y N O l0 y � UI � ��.�@ ca� oa� � � � � � c � 0 J U C O m O O f6 �� I� e C � � m a� 'u Q,� F in a rp c c a> a E� E E°> °c a�i L C� U 0(1 p . . Q.' C U L C � � O � S F � � K � F � � N � �' N ,3 � N � N LL IL lL � Z� 2 2�� 7 �� C� N C N W� C m ., �� 00 0 0 � o�� ` �� in o ��\ x m y � YI d N N N Y� d N C C U U N GI L C N Q(J C U U= r C� W R� � yi � � a�i a� w f0 m�'i a� @� c c L Q c o��'� i° a� � t L a�i �� r 4 � aLL a�wc�mFinU<nOcn�<nmmo Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 42 Appendix B: Current Fleet v o�� 0 0 000 � �00000�� Z Z ZZZZz ��>>��»»> �k��°°��ggggg � � � �� k k��KKKKK o uuu�� H �cnm �n m mmm�n�nmmmm�n �n � � N r r � O� r N N� M O Ol N V I� N V O m(D h[�] N OJ � l0 O1 M W(O N I� O� m Ih N 1� M O M V � t t � N� N�.� m.�- � tO (O t0 (h N(V m � Y Y Y�� Y W W W W W W W W W W g g g gaaaaaaaaaa 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O o A O O O O O O O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q� O K n�� K� S S= S S S S S S n. a a a �n cn �n fn v� (n �n �n `n �n v v v m m m > > > 'S 'S 'S 'S 'S 'S "5 N W N N N N N N �� J J J J J J J C C C C C x C C G N N� O N(� O O Vl (n (n J f/7 V] U1 (n (n T �� 071 07l o7S �-0 �-0 � ��d W�-0 � 4'1 >> J J� „ ..Y'. « «�� a a � �.Y a �, � L L E V L L L U L L O O O O O U"' "' U U U U U U l.7 V1 V1 N V] fn U U (n U] (n (n (n (q (lJ (n (7 (n v �� J JC�C7 C'1 � � K J J J C � � W W�� d i i � � � U U Z Z Z � N m m 0 � F� U U U `° J J � OO��F� u m m� p� z Z O O O ' � "� � zzz � m m � o o E N o 0 0 0 0°° E E E o � � � � � � � o 0 0 � J � U U LL � U U U U U N(7 LL LL LL u1 m m l'J ��C - N�L��QQ_ � i � m m� U U � U U U U U U� �� U �� t o�� Q Q L t � o C � � a o 0 0 �.� o 0 0 0 o U ( i o 0 0 # � a'O =�n �[l U �[l �n �� u�i u�'1 dj Qj U U U � � S] .O �� L� O O O� � N N N� L L L � }� J— U U y '�O D U U U U d d O O O N m — m m l7 �� (:J W �� tn a r5 ' cbd ib n'� ��d�d�d�oio5�o N 0 S o m o � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� N�N �-�1 N N N N N N N N�N �N �N N�N N 3 O .. � Z Z � L o �� Ed v m m Z °o ° a _ o ° o ° o ° o ° o ° o � � � = ° J J= v v U N v v c v v H N U U U £� � aoo c� �,00000rn�c�c�c� t o u « o � � ` m m N O � rno 0 m o � ~ � o � � `o�000 oo ° � O � s a � a a = a a a a a m m a a a Sc� � e ��00000 � 3' o rv a QQ �n g QQQQQ i.� on y L a < aw a aaaaa�nw�mm X X Q �� LL li LL t0 d � Y Y o O ��w F 0��vWWvovv L Z C7 U' (� a a x m aa aa dXXLLl LL � N c a a t� ❑ > ��° � CI C� �� LL S�� ti LL LL LL li 3 N � N Np O� O O O� �� ^ O O O N O O� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N E Z N �� O t0 1� [O O� c] O O O t � � � t�h V1 i[J O O�� O O O O �� Q� ��o �� vco o v vv aco �o�o�o mco � > Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 43 C d � y m v a a a�n u+ �n �n u+ �n n n n n n n� w m m m m m m m m m m m m m o 0 0 o u� y N o o N H o 0 o N a o o H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N o 0 o N o 0 0 0 0 o r o 0 0 0 ° w n N n ti ti N H ti N H ti ti H N H rv N rv N m C �� O O O o 0 0 o O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 o O O O O o O O e �,� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o o a o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4��q� O O D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � ��(, Nl t"i M {'1 f'f M M Cf Ih PI ('1 O! Ih Nl C'1 1") Hl VI Pl 1� Nl M Cl Pi t'i !f Pl t7 FI 1'i N! Nl Cl C'1 lh � N N N(V N N N N N N N N N N N N N{V N{V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N M H N M N M 19 M N N N N N M H N K tl1 H H H H N N Y! M f9 M N N O C # 4 y � CI V n o V o m �Yi m '� Y. N o o G o � � � e � � � � o o e�- m m �� m � � � H �� U U U Y Y � Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y J Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ��m Q Q Q U U �� U U U U U U U U U U U U U V U U U U U U U U V U F � O D D � n 1` 1� 1� 1� A A 1` A'- A 1` 1� I` 1� 1� 1�. I` n 1� 1� I� 1` h 1� A 9 C G U. y � M ot m tlf M M O] CO o] o] M ot M W M OJ W O] O] W W M W O] M M f�.�:��.:} ti o 0 0 0 0 0 o ry o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ry Q Q o 0 0 o N o 0 0 0 n C a � m o � a o �,� � tt � ..� a a °n ° a r ° a ° n � ° .�°� n .�` ti .�°� n " ° .°�� e ° m h n .°� n ° !a m" 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3� H a 3 3 3� 3 r� N e o 3 �� 3 �. 3 .i 3 3� a o� a `u c d "' H � N N; � 4 r rv N.�- v rv e W � v rv � H n rv r� n n � rv n N n n N n N rv � U..L�..� 2 2 2 2 Z Z 2 2 Z 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z Z Z 2 2 2 Z 2 2 2 2 Z 2 2 Z 2 2 ��W y � e`3 v & a �'a� "� "� e v a v v a"a o ^ v "� "� � m v a a v "e i i. .....� � � o ` o ` o ` o ` �.E mm < < � � ��,�.�,m�n�o �� ,�,�ee�o �.R o � N N� d� y, y N O O O O O O O N N N O N O O O G � _ _ b b C - _ S m U v U U A N o L y 0 1 � � � C .. Y V�� Y J J c J J J c c c F�- J J J J J J J C~~~ C J J C t C C r'C C a a r t t t t t t C'C v C t t � � a a m n m m n m A n m n n m w m m d a m `° m °i a a E E E E E E E o o E E E E E E E E E o ° o E E E ��..m N 2 N N l� lq t/1 y fA N t/1 N t� (/1 N N Y p!q f� M N N M N N M Y Y Iq !q N U N N N N N Q d N N a �� c+ �n a ev rv v w n a a a ; m h � _ A — _ Y T T O M1` C 'O � 4 > 'O 'O - 9 C L � � � '� 9 9 > D D 'C O II - - - � O O d d O ``p LL d a a ` d O O O O O� ; LL LL V u V Y�, li LL. LL U U U LL li IL V LL LL IL LL �� m .:....�...... - � � � ... N� i� ur � VI N N N N N N gi � �i 1� I�i �i t 9{ �i ; LL U' 0 U' U' (7 U' U' C7 U' p O O❑ 0 0 U' U' U' U' (7 U' U' U' U' G U' U' (7 U' U' t7 U' 0 0 O 4 � O O O O:o --- p � � � � � � a a 'O �� U o �� K K K K � � rv tl1 . tll tq N nl u! O � � 0 �:'� �n � .+ a c n � �n �� ^' a a a d a ° a ° a ° e � e ° v ° v ° a ° a ° a ° a ° a ° a ° v ° a ° a ° a o ° a ° a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 m � Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 44 Appendix C: Summary of Transit Facilities Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 45 --...._.._ -- -_ _ _ --- -_ e«E PRESS Sout ridge Crossings Transit Station �:_ SmartLink �r�an��t 1401 Crossings Boulevard, Shakopee, MN 55379 Owner: : Description: Scott County Southbridge Crossings, the first transit station in Scott County, opened in 2007. In ;' 2011, approximately 294 spaces were utilized, an increase of 19% over the previous Location: ;' year. Southbridge utilizes a transit advantage bus-only ramp (funded separately) SE Corner of onto the highway, which reduces travel time by about ten minutes. TH 169 and CH 21 �� Site and Facility Information: � � � ( �w E ., - � Corridor Served: � � _, _ TH 169 � Site size: � � � . � • Site Area: 9.18 Acres 6 - � -- � -- '-,.�_ � Bus Routes: . Parking Lot SurFace: ._„ ` f '""' 490 491 496, 498 x �- F� , , o Bituminous: 24,800 SY { � , Rain Gardens: 0.26 Acres f � ' ' • ,� ` .. � • �,. � ° °: Number of Parking . Sidewalks: 13,658 SF , '� { � "° " ` � Spaces: . Access Rd: 938 LF f � 513 r "� , � � • Bus-way: 738 LF ; ; , . � _ � 4 z . o�...,.. , . , o Pavers:1,200SY '�?� ` Year Purchased: � o Concrete: 2,897 SY �� 2006 :� � ,�--- ��' `�� ' �� r�, �� .� � _ � � � Parking Stalls: 513 Total � � �- �� '� �� Year Built: � i�� 2007 � • Number of Standard Stalls. 479 � � �.�� '� � • Number of 15 Minute Stalls: 23 _ Contractor: • Number of Handicapped: 11 � .� � � ; , ,. fi, , Quiring Trucking & ' � � ' "� �� i � - ` ` ',, Excavation, LLC Facilityfeatures: ; �4�; ��',._} ,�� ° • Site Signs: 4 �� ` � °" � � ` �� ` � �� Initial • Number of Benches: 5 �� ' �`` Number of Shelters: 3 i� � �� - , �� 4` Costsruction � � Number of Trash Receptacles: 2 �� '�� $1,946,094 • Number of Bike Locker Units: 2(2 bikes per locker) • Number of Bike Racks: 2 Right-of-Way • Flag Pole: 1 Costs: • Bollards:43 $2,428,116 • All Surface Drainage to Adjacent Pond Funding Sources: � Electrical Components: Federal, State, • Number of Lighting Fixtures: 26 Regional, Local o Single: 12 o Double:12 � 0 4X:2 • Security Cameras: 6 plus an Antenna • Gates: None " Irrigation: • Water source: Shakopee City water � • Number of heads: 195 � Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 46 -- -- --- __-- - -- e�vE PE?ESS E a g I e C re e k Transit Station � SmartLink r�GgG>�,: 6600 Eagle Creek Boulevard, Shakopee, MN 55379 Owner: Description: SMSC With 563 spaces, Eagle Creek Transit Station is located off CH 21 and CH 16. Operations began July 2012, and replaced the Safe Haven Park and Ride. This Lease Holder: station provides additional capacity for Southbridge Crossings Transit Station. The Scott County BlueXpress serves Eagle Creek on its way to downtown Minneapolis. Location: Site and Facility Information: <..� . , SW Corner of Site Size: � �� a '-` ° ` CH 16 and CH 21 { • Site Area: 13.29 Acres ""� °° ��. .� � . � Parking Lot SurFace: �' � . . Corridor Served: o Bituminous: 26,083 SY ^�'==�� °�,� TH 169 • Rain Gardens: 1.16 Acres ��.. � • Sidewalks: 18,773 SF ""� `'� ��' ° ��"�a Bus Routes: o Concrete: 11,973 SF f � F . � 490, 491 o Pavers: 6,800 SF � � ��° , _ ° • Access Rd.: 540 LF X• Number of Parking '� o Asphalt: 1440 SY �� `�' ,. Spaces: . Bus-way: 620 LF � 563 o Concrete: 3,173 SY Year Leased: Parking Stalls: 563 Total 2009, 25-Year Term, � • Number of Standard Stalls: 536 Renewable � • Number of 15 Minute Stalls: 13 � • Number of Motorcycle Stalls: 3 Year Built: • Number of Handicapped Stalls: 11 2012 (Future expansion to 761 permitted) Facility Features: Contractor: . Site Signs (Monuments): 3 Enebak Number of Benches: 4 Construction Co. � • Number of Benches in Shelter: 6 Initial • Number of Shelters: 1 Construction • Shelter Area Pavers: 6,800 SF Costs: • Number of Trash Receptacles: 2 $1,241,800 • Number of Bike Locker Units: 2(2 bikes per locker) • Number of Bike Racks: 4 Lease Cost: • Interpretive Sign: 1 $113,340 Electrical Components: $1,508.40 per years 1 25 $s ,016.80 per years 26-50 "" • Number of Lighting Fixtures: 33 o Single:18 Funding Sources ` o Double: 6 Federal, State, o Triple: 9 Regional, Local • Security Cameras: 14 • Gates: 2(Magnetic AutocontrolT"^, Model MT58) Irrigation: • Water Source: Private On-Site Well Water • Number of Heads: 538 Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 47 - ------ ------ B��E PRESS Marschall Road Transit Station �_: St1'1a1't ��;�,;�t 1615 Weston Court, Shakopee, MN 55379 Owner: Description: Mn/DOT The Marschall Road Transit Station, previously the site of an automobile dealership, will serve as the transit hub for Scott County. The site includes a park and ride for Location: , Blue Xpress service and the transfer site for SmartLink. Transit staff and busing SW Corner of ' storage will be located in the building. Service is expected to be fully operational in TH 169 and CH 17 i'; 2014. Corridor Served: Site and Facility Information: TH 169 Site Size: Bus Routes: . Site Area: 6.80 Acres TBD Parking SurFace (Bituminous): 19,669 SY . • Sidewalks: 1,330 SF � _ � °� Number of Parking � g �� ` � i , �i � � , ,� t:�,r°� Spaces: • Bus-way . 5,620 SY �,: � � r ; �?;� � W` 442 � P � .� , Q > � Parking Stalls: 442 Total . :C��--'� �� ;fi= (400 for Park 8� Ride� 42 for Building Use) ��9 '_-- �� '-� == �' Year Purchased: � .� `�� ,� — ,-• � �� . ;. ; 2010 • Number of Standard Stalls: 433 ; ,� �--� �"" ,�- , ;' _ • Number of Handicapped Stalls: 9 + � -�`� ° _ 4 � '� � y -�,F. � � —•T ' � =_ Year Built: ';�, i j f� , '�� ` 2013 Facility features: ( ; � �� "" { ` � � , � :: �r �, y,� r � • Number of Benches: 8 -� I ` �, � _--= "�"' �_,�r� ' Contractor: • Flag Poles: 2 � � r�a <. J TBD • Number of Bike Racks: 1(10 Bike Capacity) Initial Electrical Components: Construction • Number of Lighting Fixtures: 24 Costs: • Security cameras: TBD TBD • Gates: 1 (ThomTech WERC-GATE) Right-of-Way Irrigation: Costs: • Water source: Shakopee City Water $3,374,629 • Number of Zones: 13 Funding Sources: - � — - --� State Regional '� -�- �? > > .� fi �,�"'�'� ..�.� f�r � ,»,_�, _ & _ �. , . ., Local � - � . .1 �:� �� -�� . �� ^ " > � �, _ . —.. 4 � � � "A �� `'� .a _' � �,„ 1 � ":i1 ,+aYll , � kr �� —a. r � � � ` ^ > � t - �s � ;•' ��r�� , , , , , � . . J : �� _, , .. _ - _ ; � _ � � 3 � . < - ->. �,� � > - �.. . � � ' '�, i � M_ - ____. __ __... _ � � Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 48 B��E PRESS TH 169 Bus-Only Transit Adva ntage Ra m p ,: SmartLink Owner: Scott County Description: The Bus-Only Transit Advantage Ramp was installed as part of the County Highway Location: 21 and Eagle Creek Transit Station construction project in 2009. The Ramp TH 169 & connects Blue Xpress and other transit services along County Highway 21 to Trunk Stagecoach Rd "'; Highway 169, reducing travel time by about ten minutes. Both the Southbridge ' Crossings and Eagle Creek Transit Stations utilize the Ramp for a faster express Corridor Served: connection to downtown Minneapolis. TH 169 ` Site and Facility Information: Bus Routes: . 18' Wide Bus-way Length: 1,832' 490, 491, 496, 498 " Electrical Components: Year Built: . Number of Lighting Fixtures: 1 2009 . Advance Sensor: on the NW Corner of Overpass • Gate: 1 (ThomTech WERC GATE) Contractor: . Battery Back-up System Enebak Construction Co. __�m___�_.... ____� � , _ _. # .;�,� < , , � k Initial � � Construction � ` ,� Costs: I � � �,. _ . , __ _.._ _ . � _ _ _ �: $819,984.30 ? � �` ' ,.,: . � _ � _... �-�. , ..,: : ..,., � � �,� a `'�- Funding Sources: � � �� , � � � � Federal, State, � � w= � � � � • �-� � ; Regional, Local • � �°" � �_ _ ' ' � � � �.; � � ` � ��:{ 4„�� `�.� , � r � � .� � `,. ` �� '�' .� ��'� �� f �.� � �� ` ��. � `��,' � ' ��r � s � ��i v � i � �.,# � �; 3.� .. t . '�' ��.+`.�x,�^r`t'"��I � ,��g �� .� ;� � ��,,� <,>� �.,„ �'"� �.�.'� .�.� ,.� , . r�' 3 . � �. .s . �",� � Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 49