Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout041607 Worksession MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: CC: FROM: RE: APRIL 16, 2007 MAYOR JACK HAUGEN, COUNCIL MEMBERS ERICKSON, HEDBERG, LEMAIR, MILLAR KELLY MEYER, ASST, CITY MA~ FRANK BOYLES, CITY MANAG~ TRANSIT WORK SESSION Introduction: Jon Ulrich, Scott County Board Member, and Lezlie Vermillion, Scott County Public Works Director, have asked to meet with the City Council to receive clarification regarding the City Council's position on current and future transit operations. Councilmember Erickson is the City's representative to the Transit Review Board, and Kelly Meyer is our representative to the Transit Planning Team. Historv: As the construction of the Southbridge Crossings Station nears completion, the focus of the Transit Review Board (TRB) has turned to the marketing and operation of the service. The service providers in the County include Prior Lake Laker Lines (only provider that currently offers express commuter service), Shakopee Transit (provides extensive local circulator within Shakopee and to Burnsville Transit Station), MVTA (serves Savage), and Scott County Transit (provides dia/-a-ride and other services by contract). At recent TRB meetings, it has become apparent that there is a philosophical difference between Prior Lake, Scott County and Shakopee regarding the meaning of cooperation and how each party should manifest this trait. Current Circumstances: In August 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution 05-141. Since that time, City staff has followed the direction provided by that Resolution. More to the point, the Resolution states: 1. The City will remain in control of the management and fundimt mechanisms for City orovided transit systems. The Unified Transit Management Plan (UTMP) provides that as a long range goal there could be one body composed of the participating entities that would control the finances, marketing and management of the operations. In 2005, when considering adoption of the UTMP, the City Council determined that this action was pre-mature for a number of reasons more specifically outlined in the attached materials. Still, some TRB members are already talking about checking with the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) as a possible manager for our system. Whether the "manager" is MVTA or TRB, there remain valid fundamental concerns. It is these concerns shown below that caused Prior Lake to opt out of MVTA in the first place, and remain valid concerns today: 4/16/2007 MEMORANDUM: TRANSIT WORK SESSION 2 a. If the funding (currently provided to Prior Lake and Shakopee individually) is blended together, it tends to flow to the biggest user. That is part of the reason why Prior Lake opted out of MVTA - money delivered on behalf of Prior Lake subsidized other cities. b. Larger systems are not as nimble from a service modification perspective, or a customer service perspective. The larger the transit system gets, the less capable of change it becomes. Ability to change service to meet local desires was also a reason for Prior Lake to opt out of the larger system. 2. The resolution also Drovides that "the staff is directed. when deemed aDDroDriate based uDon demand bv Prior Lake residents. to imDlement route and service changes recommended bv the Unified Transit Management Plan. inc/udinJi servin~ a temDorarv and/or future regional Dark and ride lot outside of the community. " Accordingly, the City has been working with and making financial commitments for providing service to both our Shepherd's Path park and ride, and the new Southbridge Crossing Station. We have one bus which fills at Shepherd's Path in the morning which will not stop at South bridge. Some believe that to be full the bus must be at standing room only levels. We disagree, as this is an inconvenience to riders who are asked to stand on a 55 minute commute. It is also a safety hazard, and a great way to lose customers. We are also proposing to double-back one Laker Lines bus to provide a 4th morning route at Prior Lake's cost. Currently, through coordination with Shakopee, there are scheduled to be seven morning routes serving Southbridge. We believe this is aggressive given that we don't know what the services demand will be. Because Shakopee and Prior Lake each maintain the management of our operations, we have the flexibility to add or delete service as demand and funding dictate. All evening buses will stop at the South bridge Crossings Station, and all evening Shakopee Transit buses will continue to the Shepherd's Path park & ride if they have riders who need that stop. In addition, Prior Lake has worked to amend our current transit operations contract with Schmitty & Sons to include Shakopee as a third party so that they can have operators to run their new express routes. The Council will consider approval of the amended contract in May. 3. As a third condition. the City Council has directed that the City Council must formallv aDDrove the site. any allocation of funds. and any associated ioint Dowers agreements for the construction of a reJiional Dark and ride facilitv. Staff has follwed this direction as adopted. 4. The final condition of the resolution is that the identity of the City's Laker Lines commuter service shall be maintained and oDerated bv the current Drovider. The TRB is recommending that the transit system in the County be renamed to "Blue Express" and that all marketing occur under this moniker. The proposal is that any individual system names become secondary. Staff believes that "Laker Lines" and "Shakopee Transit" have established identities, and the names reflect and encourage community identity. 4/16/2007 MEMORANDUM: TRANSIT WORK SESSION 3 The Blue Express name and logo creates unnecessary confusion, and limits the flexibility for buses to provide future routes that are either (1) not express, or (2) whose destination is not downtown Minneapolis. Other providers across the region identify and market routes by route number (i.e. route 490 served by Laker Lines.) The route number and destination typically appear on the LED destination signs on the front of the bus. Some have argued that it is confusing for riders to have multiple providers but the Laker Lines logo is unique among transit buses and easy for the customer to spot. Also, it is not unusual for a pocket schedule to include more than one route number or provider, so staff believes it can effectively coordinate marketing efforts with Shakopee in order to be customer-friendly, while allowing "Laker Lines" and "Shakopee Transit" to maintain their primary identity. Conclusion: From a staff perspective, Resolution 05-141 is every bit as relevant today as when it was passed. At some point, when the system is up and operating and has matured, there may come a time for greater centralization. Initially, the staff believes the new operations can be provided through continued coordination between Shakopee and Prior Lake, rather than through combination of services. The Council should hear the presentation from the County and provide staff with direction if it desires to depart from the policy set forth in the Resolution. If so, a new resolution would be prepared for City Council adoption at an upcoming meeting. For background purposes, I have attached the following for your information: · Resolution 05-141 · August 1, 2005 staff report which provides an in-depth background on transit. · A matrix outlining the impacts of the UTMP recommendations on local services. · A document entitled "Prior Lake's Role in Transit Partnerships in Scott County". 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 RESOLUTION 05.141 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE UNIFIED TRANSIT MANAGEMENT PLAN WITH CONDITIONS Motion By: LeMair Second By: Fleming WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the value of providing quality, cost-effective transit services in the Prior Lake community; and WHEREAS, the City values its partnerships with Scott County and other Scott County communities: and WHEREAS, in April 2004, Scott County and the communities of Prior Lake, Shakopee, Savage, Belle Plaine, Elko, Jordan, New Market, New Prague and the Scott County HRA, partnered to hire a consultant to develop a Unified Transit Management Plan r6ilI.'~I::M] to improve the delivery of transit services and infrastructure over the next 15 years; and WHEREAS, the Unified Transit Management Plan has been completed and the Council has had several opportunities for review; and WHEREAS, the City's 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan identifies objectives for transit service that are addressed in part by the Unified Transit Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned about relinquishing the identity, funding and governance of a successful transit service to one that proposes a much larger model that is unproven; and WHEREAS, the staff has recommended that the City first implement the service improvements of the D1iJlI~ and then work to develop the long-term identity, funding and governance based upon the demand of a successful system. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1) The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2) The recommendations of the Unified Transit Management Plan are hereby adopted with the following conditions associated with its implementation: a. The Citywill relTlain.incontrol of the management of and funding mechanisms for, City provided transit services. ~ www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 ./ b. Staff is directed, when deemed appropriate based upon demand by Prior Lake residents, to implement route and service changes recommended by the Unified Transit Management Plan. including serving a temporary and/or future regional park & ride lot outside the community. c. The City Council must formally approve the site, any allocation of funds. and any associated joint powers agreements for the construction of a regional park & ride facility. d. The identity of the City's Laker Lines commuter service shall be maintained and operated by its current provider. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2005. Hauaen X Hauaen Flemina X Fleming LeMair X LeMalr Petersen Absent Petersen Zieska X Zleska YES NO Frank BOYIe~r .. R:\RESOLUTI\ADMINRES\2005\05-141 Unified Transit Management Plan. DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: August 1, 2005 10B Frank Boyles, City Manager Kelly Meyer, Asst. to the City Manager AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE UNIFIED TRANSIT MANAGEMENT PLAN. DISCUSSION: Introduction and Historv:ln January 2001, the City Council chose to opt-out of the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVT A) in order to provide improved local transit services to Prior Lake residents. Since that time, the City has developed and operated the Laker Lines express commuter, and the Local Laker Link summer circulator. In March 2003, Scott County and the cities of Prior Lake, Shakopee, Savage, Belle Plaine, Elko, Jordan, New Market, New Prague and the Scott County HRA, created a Transit Review Board and Transit Planning liearn. Its mission is to enhance the transit options of all Scott County residents through an intergovernmental best management process. This mission is also consistent with the City Transportation goals in its 2020 (now 2030) Vision and Strategic Plan. It is not surprising that as our community continues to grow, so must our services and how we provide them. In April 2004, the City Council authorized Prior Lake's participation to cooperatively select a consultant to develop a unified transit management plan (UTMP). The purpose of the UliMP was to study existing services available within Scott County, get feedback from transit users and transit stakeholders on service needs,. and to recommend an action plan that identifies how Scott County entities could partner to improve the delivery of transit services and infrastructure over the next 15 years. The plan has now been completed, distributed and presented to SCALE, and each of the organizations who are proposed to participate in the Transit program. The City Council previously heard a presentation of the UTMP by John Mulcahey of Scott County, and has since conducted a work session on this topic as well. The City Council is being asked to accept the plan and provide the staff with direction for its implementation. Councilmember Fleming is in his first year representing Prior Lake on the Transit Review Board, and may also have additional comments to offer. CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES: Attached is an Executive Summary of the UTMP. The UTMP has brought several issues to the forefront that require Council direction, including: Changes in express, circulator and dial-a-ride services Park & ride lot(s) Service Identity www.cityofpriorlake.com 1:\CQUNCIL\AGNRPTS\2005\0801 o~b'}:1~ 9~~ffio / Fax 952.447.4245 System management System operator Funding ISSUES: Shown below is a brief summary of the report recommendations and some staff suggestions regarding each: . 1. Chanaes in Express. Circulator and Dial-a-Ride Services: Express SeNice - The U1iMP proposes that the Laker Lines service change its routes to utilize the 169 corridor, and that at least one additional route be added. The UTMP also recommends that Shakopee initiate at least three additional commuter routes. The Laker Lines service is also recommended to stop at a temporary. park & ride location to provide service to Shakopee residents. Circulator SeNice - The UTMP proposes that Prior Lake and Shakopee cooperate to realign their local fixed routes to operate a year-round circulator that connects the two communities. Currently the only circulator service offered in Prior Lake is the Local Laker Link which operates only during the summer. Dial-a-Ride - The UTMP recommends that Scott County assume all responsibility for dial-a-ride service in the County. This service would remain substantially the same for Prior Lake. Shakopee .would discontinue any dial-a-ride service it is currently providing. Comments: Staff has already realigned the Laker Lines express routes to utilize the Highway 169 corridor. One of the biggest advantages to Prior Lake of operating our own system, is that service changes can happen relatively quickly. The concept of utilizing Highway 169 is especially timely because bus shoulders are available, lanes have been added, and stoplights are being eliminated. As construction concludes, the route should get even quicker. This change will also allow Shakopee and Savage riders to use our Laker Lines service once a temporary park & ride has been established. We will also work to add a third bus as demand dictates. With respect to circulator service, the Council should consider whether a joint service with Shakopee is necessary at this time. Currently, the Local Laker Link service is a summer route implemented to address the needs primarily of Prior Lake youth in reaching summer schools, jobs, and park destinations. At this time, staff does not believe there is enough year-round demand for circulator service to justify the associated costs. Staff would recommend continuing the Local Laker Link summer service until a more extensive fixed route service is demanded by users. Scott.County currently contracts for the operation of this service for Shako pee and for Prior Lake's summer circulator. In the future, we should periodically issue RFPs for providers to assure cost-effectiveness. 1ihat Scott County assumes all responsibility for dial-a-ride service seems appropriate. They are currently providing service throughout the County. 1:\COUNCIL\AGNRPTS\2005\080105 UTMP adoption.DOC 2. Park & Ride Lots: The UTMP proposes an 1100 stall regional park & ride lot or transit station in the vicinity of Highway 169 between CSAH 83 and CSAH 18. This lot acquisition and overlay is targeted to be funded jointly by Prior Lake, Shakbpee, Scott County, and the Metropolitan Council. It is . possible that development of the sites would require additional funding. There are currently two sites that have been evaluated and are under consideration by the Transit Review Board and Transit Planning Team. The first is a site located at Highway 169 & County Road 18, and the second is a site on the southwest comer of CSAH 16 & CSAH 21 extended (said extension of CSAH 21 from CSAH 42 to CSAH 16 is scheduled in the County CIP for 2009. The extension from CSAH 16 to CSAH 18 is programmed for 2007). Even though only one site was identified as a need in the UTMP. discussion has taken place that both sites should be acquired. Preliminary discussions have taken place with the property owners who seem willing to discuss acquisition. Th~ TPT would also look to use either one of these sites, or a separate site to act as a temporary park & ride so that service can be provided sooner than it would take to develop a regional lot. The topic of a regional park & ride lot, the opportunity to purchase the existing Laker Lines lot, realignment of express service, and the concern for available parking in the downtown Prior Lake area, has led staff to further question whether the City's local park & ride lot (Colorado street) is in the best location. Comments: Staff believes there is demand for a regional transit station. From an operations standpoint, for Laker Lines to serve a regional park & ride in the general area proposed at CSAH 18 & 169, or CSAH 21 extended & CSAH 16, would be relatively smooth, and the service would reach a larger number of users. In the short term, staff would recommend participating in service improvements by serving a temporary park & ride lot. Prior Lake could provide funding from transit to assist in the acquisition of the property for a regional park & ride lot, but staff has some concern about acquiring both sites. The UTMP recommended that one site was needed. In addition, the sites seem very close together geographically if two sites were to be developed. There are issues with both sites from an access standpoint: 1. Currently CSAH 18 & Highway 169 is difficult to access for riders. It would need the interchange at the extension of CSAH 21 and CSAH 18 to be completed to make it convenient for riders. The interchange is contemplated in the CSAH 21 extension project. Bus pull off lanes along CSAH 18 would also improve bus access. The County is reviewing the feasibility of this improvement. 2. For the CSAH 16 & CSAH 21 site, the extension of CSAH 21 will not be complete until approximately 2010. The only way to access the site until then would be from McKenna Road or CSAH 18. Both routes would add additional time to the commute which is a major concern for current riders. In addition, Prior Lake would likely be participating in the acquisition of property that it would not be able to easily access until 2010. 1:\COUNCIL\AGNRPTS\2005\062005 UTMP adoption. DOC Staff is looking for direction from the City Council on several issues: a. Participating in the purchase of either of the identified park & ride sites would mean contributing transit funds for property outside the . corporate city limits. The Council should determine if this is a policy it is comfortable with. In addition, at such time as the lot is improved with a ramp or other improvements, the City Council would also need to evaluate the appropriateness of funding improvements in another city. b. Which park & ride location does the Council support as the most appropriate location for a park & ride facility? The staff would not. recommend eliminating the local park & ride lot. For Prior Lake residents, a local lot is more convenient than a regional lot - at least in the short term. Once a regional lot is developed, users may find it more convenient to drive directly to the regional lot. However, the City has completed a parking study that indicates there will be parking shortages in the downtown area both north and south of CSAH.21. To address this issue, staff would recommend relocation of the park & ride lot to Shepherd's Path. The downtown lot would be purchased utilizing non-transit funds so it is unrestricted with regard to users and available during the traditional work day for business employees and customers. This would be a more expensive alternative in that relocating the lot would mean leasing parking space, but from a service standpoint, Shepherd's Path is in a very good location. ------ 3. Service Identity: The original report recommended that a single identity for county-wide transit services would be more appealing to users. Comments: Staff believes that Laker Lines has established an identity with our riders and within our community, and that it is possible to retain individual identity in a regional partnership. We would like to try to refine this concept before losing the Laker Lines identity. 4. System ManaQement: The UTMP recommends that a formal system of governance be implemented which might be a joint powers agreement with discussion open for long-term governance. Comments: Staff would recommend retaining its current management of the service. Staff believes that the City should not lose control of its funds or the ability to modify service to meet local transit demands. 1ihis does not preclude the City from entering into partnerships with other transit providers where appropriate. 5. System Operator: The UTMP recommends that a third party be contracted for the administration and operation of commuter services, and that Scott County be responsible for local fixed service and dial-a-ride service. Comments: The Laker Lines service provider, Schmitty '& Sons, has done a very good job serving Prior Lake's needs to this point. The Council may want to consider if it is necessary to change operators. To assure cost- ~. 1:\CQUNCIL\AGNRPTS\2005\062005 UTMP adoption.DOC ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: effectiveness, it may be appropriate to solicit proposals periodically for all service types. 6. Fundina: The UTMP suggests initially pooling transit funds with Shakopee, . and in the future seeking a dedicated local funding source if necessary. It also suggests that future options could include consolidating back into MVT A or to Southwest Metro. Comments: The staff is recommending that the City not lose control of its existing funding, but rather enter into cooperative agreements with Shakopee on an as-needed basis. In addition, neither seeking a local funding source or annexing into a larger provider are desirable alternatives and should be pursued very carefully. Conclusion. Looking at the report recommendations over the long term, there are more positives than negatives. From a staff perspective, it would be most appropriate to move carefully toward some the objectives. Prior Lake sought to operate its own transit system because other systems could not address our needs, give us the identity we sought, or the flexibility to modify our system as we see fit to meet our residents' needs. This is not to say that we cannot work together in an effort to achieve UTMP objectives - which for the most part are to provide improved services and transit infrastructure to Scott County residents. The attached resolution approves the Unified Transit Management Plan with a number of the conditions outlined herein. 1. Adopt Resolution 05-XX accepting the Unified Transit Management Plan with the conditions outlined herein. Staff is also seeking a motion and second directing staff as to the City's participation in acquiring a regional park & ride site. 2. Deny the resolution and provide staff with additional direction. Alternative No.1. 1:\COUNCIL\AGNRPTS\2005\062005 UTMP adoption. DOC ft: <( :e :e ~ CI). 05. CI) w ~ . CI) !2. z :5 c.. .... z w :E w C> <( Z <( :E ,-. .... Ci) z ~ .... c w u: 'z ~ en c: o :.;:; c.. o en - CJ.) c: u ~"> ~ ~ ~ CJ.) <..)CfJ c:~ o ~ _c: u ~ ~I- E~ <..) . en (]) en o c.. e 0.. 0.. ~ .1- =:) en CJ.) u .~ CJ.) en - c: CJ.) &;;.. .... .~ () "C ClJ .... c:: c:: .c:: ::l 0 offi co - co 0 ClJ E >..9 E ClJ gt, "OE~3::go - c:: ,_ en ~ ::l ClJ ~ ...: - co 0"C~0:::l.c:: u ,- ClJ -c 0 CJ) Q) CI) en 't:: 0. ~ ~.$. 5 .9 of: .5 :,:j :co u en ~ .... ..... t:: 0') ~"Ql ,2 ~ ~~.3 Q) Q:ctlX .2.... -.lQ) _ "0 0- Q) t::~'C5 -co~ "S '0, u ~~~ Cl)3:"O Q)Q)- c:: c: ::l :,:j<:~ d)u5~ ~'x~ -.lQ)Q) :g - c:: '0 ~< :g3:~~ '- Q) l:::2: ~c:8.... ..... .0 0.(60') 0"0<01:: -c:.....gt Q) ::l C Q) ,..'- en 0.....- ro o .~ .{g c: "ffi ~ o'ffi .c::enEE CJ)cnQ)~ ~~go Q)....ro- ~O'EQ) co~Q)~ ....J >> 5 Oro 'C:: Ol en .0.. CI) Q) Q) U ,S '2: ....J Q) d)Q)en ~c<c ctlO~ ....Jz> I I :2: ~ ~ I ~ 8- & ......:.::: ro o ca > 't::..c ca 0.. en en ...."0 ..... m c:: Q)-E2 ..:o:::rox ~0.Q) -"00 ctlc::- gco~ -.I -a. m 0 c:,~ ~ 'ffi ~ CD cQ).c: . 'ffi en en .:2: ~ .c:: ..s~ . ....J 3: en Q)CJ) "5~ eCD ""ffi~ U m .215 Q)....J .... .... o 0 E"t:: 3:0.. .E.9 ro,S .c::_o2:--c .9'0 ::l-C:Q) "0- U 0 of: 0 :2 m 0:: "Om. ....> m c: "0 a. ffi.E~. t:: c: CO"S ~c.$ a. .32.... m 0 ,- m Ol en >- ::l Q) 15 u~-c ca ~"E 0 ~ ....J m - c:: 0)'-"- 3: co mc:CO>~O - o 0. ,- - = Q)"= ~ ro .t:: 0 oS ~ ctl en ctl Q) 0.. "ffi of: ~ Q; Q) ....J ,!::: ..c ctlE m g. ~ 5 6- en :g O.c:: "t:: u (,,) - Cl. ro en m..:.:::, =:::Q)Q)c: 5= Q)...lG:5 0"E 3: 0 enca_Q)ca -c ~~~~~~~ -=E"Smctlca ::l (,,) ,_ 0 Ol -= .... oQ)-3:....enc: 3: .!::: ctl .!l:! "c 0 m "C:5 ai ca -- U ...lG .9 t:: ,": c: E 0) .5 >-,2 ai 0 ~ ..0 ....:::en(,,)O) -c o == 'u 'S - 0)::; .;::..0 0) ~ 0 5 0 0.. ro "C ~ >:2: 3: "'E roOl 0.5 .c x _ro c..... :Q.. ~ ro 0 en en "C ::: C..c Q)::: E 3: E::: o en u c ~ ~ >- -;, , (j)c::~ m~.g ,5 li5:5 :::: c..::l ::>oro .... .... m m -c -c 'S: os: 2 ~ c...c... -S::i 00 a.c..<: OO~ I I> Q)O)~ l!i 15 ~ 0....J Ol ~....ro ctlo> .c:: ';:: ca enCl.en 'Q),Ea. ""ffi 'O';f: ~;5:a.. o . E .c ~ .~ .!d -= 2 Q) 0.- C C Q) ~...,.. ro Q) o ,-C o'~ t:: E U.-C I 1::.2 0) t::c>-roOl> .- 'ro..o a. Q) 0 ctl cbo....~ C Ol en-Ol ~ '-"f: rot:: E ctl -c (,,) ~ :s .- :2: c c.c:. t:: .2.0 .2 ....(1).... ~ Ol o"O.g ~ >- ,5 ..c 5 Cl. !1>=~ Q.....Q)..;. - m -' ~ v.. o..~ (I),..,. E".. ~ c: x ::: ..... >""" Q) 0) Q)C:~~Q) en-c ~:; (I) c... ~ ~ 0'Ci) .S 5 ..5 Q) ~ '0 :; ~ -:-I 3: >-:5"'S - Q) Q) - 'E ~~$"ffi ~ ~ 0 ;> c =,....J .... ~ 0 ....., .::i ::l (I) ~ (,,) "Ci) 2= U(I)O) := "0 >-c ~~ o~ 00.. =1\1 o c ~.Q _Olm (I)~Q) ..:.:::....0. cacaO ....J(,,)~ .... 0 ro ,2 0 .c:: Q:l.O(/) cD' ca. m -c, o.C 0.2 ..:.:::- ~.5 en.Q" ro (I) ~ ctl ~ >- .$ = (I).Q ~ 5<: :s z~. ~o::~~ ...:.:: ~ (I) I ~Cl. 8-~ 51'6iij ~. ';::: u .c: ca Cl..Q(/)en -c c (I) ro ":':::(1) ro (,,) ....J ._ .... .~ . . ".2 (I) J!3. ....(I).c. 0.._(1) ~~E (1)0(1) (1)'- > o.~e o ..... 0. ..lo::(I)E ~:2 .- (/)>1'6 ......e~ oo.~ ~.9 u = Ol o c. 0'- o..."g .2 Q)-c (I) c 0..2 0_ ~.- ctl rJ) .c::C en~ - -CO) c> ro ctl . Q)..c . iij .-==- ~ .....J- u c c 5~ctl .- ~- .... ::l ro 0..(,,)..0 (I) >- (I) Ol rJ) > Q) c Q) ....J. ca C) .c:: c ""ffi () co c 0) .c: rJ) g u 0 ~ '2: Q) :s u Q) -c Q.) '~ u 'u <: (/) c CO Q) ca l.L - (I) Ol en CJ) c: oS ~ .... c ""ffi Q) :s 0. u > '0.. c x 0 0 co ::l UJ ....J c.::> U u.. .... m ::g~ ::l co 0- 3:'0 ~""E ,s g Q) ....JcoCii ......... >- Q) t:: rJ) ..:0::: ,- .... ctlcn.9 ::: 'x l2 ctl Q) ::l o_u o a,!::: ....Jcu Q.) "0 .t:: I ctl . 1'6 :s Q) o.~= o_i'n m c c: > CI,) L.., CI,) Q) ::l -c~rn 1'6 .9i$-==- CI,) CI,) .c :9 "C ..lo::CI,)rJ) os: co rJ). O ....J"~ 0 .... ....~o. a. OQ)"C o ';:: rJ) c: , - o......roc: ~ ~.9 rJ) ,2 C Q) l2 .~ 'C5 ::l . Q) ::l := U5 ,~ rJ) 0. r= 5 _ '-' Q) O'~ E'- _u..:.:::..... rJ) (5 .~ ca "E E ffi u Q).c::.- 0 .... (/) rJ) (/) .2. u ~ Q) "C "C 0:: C I ::l .... co ~ Q) ~ ffi ~ 0 ~ 05 I ..- >- I I "E Q.)....~....::l l!i.9 ca 0 0 OCO....J'C5U iij"S5"S=g ..c 2 'C 2 (.) (/) 'u c.. 'u (/) Prior Lake's Role in Transit Partnerships in Scott County April 2007 Participated in cost for Unified Transit Management Plan Study with all other Scott County governmental entities. Accelerated implementation of 3rd Laker Lines route in response to UTMP. Changed Laker Lines express service to utilize 169 corridor, rather than 35W, as recommended by UTMP. Agreed to partner with Shakopee, County and Met Council for regional capital facility improvements in the region (500 stall park & ride at South bridge Crossings, and 500 stall park & ride at CSAH 16/CSAH 21). Identified in the UTMP as the highest priority. Entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for construction of South bridge Crossings Park & Ride. Participated in cost (with Shakopee) for engineering design - $50,785. The County's costs have been in providing staff to manage, supervise the project. Participated in cost (with Shakopee) for local construction match required by federal grant - $32,142 (Phase I). The County's costs have been in providing staff for management of the project, and in facilitating grant applications in connection with the CSAH 21 extension. Participated in cost (with Shakopee) for local construction match required by federal grant - $163,970 (Phase II). The County's costs have been in providing staff for management of the project, and in facilitating grant application in connection with the CSAH 21 extension. Committed to MnDOT to providing an additional express route (as did Shakopee) for a 2- year period to help mitigate congestion anticipated by Crosstown reconstruction project, even though the funding provided will not cover the total costs of providing the additional routes. Actively participate in both Transit Review Board and Transit Planning Team. Facilitated Shakopee's ability to provide express service through our contract with Schmitty & Sons. Clear and consistent in communicating the concerns and direction provided by the City Council. The UTMP provided that initially the new / additional services could be provided through coordination of the operations, scheduling, marketing, and funding between Shakopee Transit and Laker Lines. Prior Lake has been operating under that scenario, where the County's perspective (and Shakopee's, to some extent) is that those functions should be combined.