HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.B.1. Revised Scott Co. Transit Agreement, Adoption of Updates to the Scott Co. UTMP
S. 10. I,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE COi~SENT
Memorandum
CASE NO.: Not Applicable
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
RE: Revised Scott County Transit Review Board (TRB) Agreement; Adoption of Updates to
the Scott County Unified Transit Management Plan (UTMP)
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2008
INTRODUCTION:
Council is asked to approve changes to the Scott TRB agreement that broaden the membership ofthat body, which
consists of elected representatives from the County and the cities in Scott County and which is advisory on transit
issues. A copy of the revised agreement is attached for Council's consideration. Council is also asked to adopt the
attached updates to the UTMP, which are also attached.
DISCUSSION:
Consistent with its purpose of planning for transit that serves Scott County residents, the TRB determined that it is
desirable to broaden the active membership of that body to include other communities. In response to that
determination, the TRB has recommended to the member organizations that the underlying agreement be revised as
found in the attached agreement. Given the rapid pace of progress in launching the Southbridge Crossings Transit
Station and the BlueXpress the Scott Transit Planning Team (TPT) and TRB also determined that it would be
appropriate to update the UTMP. Because the UTMP is a very lengthy document, it was decided to do a shorter
form and more concisely organized update, which defers to the original UTMP where it is still relevant. Council is
also asked to adopt the update to the UTMP.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Offer and approve a motion approving the revised Scott TRB agreement and the updates to the UTMP.
2. Do not adopt either or both the TRB agreement and the UTMP updates, and provide staff with direction about
possible objections or changes to either or both of the documents.
3. Table the item for additional information.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No.1, i.e. offer and approve a motion approving the revised Scott TRB agreement
and the updates to the UTMP.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Offer and approve a motion approving the revised Scott TRB agreement and the updates to the UTMP.
4A::h~
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
H:\CC\2008\05-06\TRB UTMP.doc
AMENDED AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING A
TRANSIT REVIEW BOARD AND PLANNING TEAM
FOR SCOTT COUNTY COMMUNITIES
THIS AGREEMENT is made this _day of , 2008 by and among the cities of PRIOR LAKE,
SAVAGE, SHAKOPEE, BELLE PLAINE, ELKO NEW MARKET, JORDAN, AND NEW PRAGUE, municipal
corporations organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and the COUNTY OF SCOTT, State of
Minnesota, henceforth to be known as "Members".
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the above Members originally entered into an Agreement Related to the Creation of a Transit
Review Board and Planning Team for Scott County Communities dated December 11, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Transit Review Board and Planning Team originally established have been successfully
collaborating over the past five years to make significant improvements to the transit options for Scott County;
and
WHEREAS, the governing body of each Member has adopted a Resolution or Letter of Support adopting,
either in full or in part, the Scott County Area Transit study, and the subsequent Unified Transit Management Plan
("UTMP"); and
WHEREAS, the Mission for the Transit Review Board and Planning Team is "to facilitate and plan for the
development of infrastructure and capital facilities within the County to serve regional transit needs; to facilitate
communication and coordination among the County's transit operators; and to strive to provide quality transit
options for Scott County commuters"; and
WHEREAS, to accomplish the goals and objectives set out in the UTMP, the Members deem it appropriate to
evaluate and update this Agreement; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT AGREED THAT:
SECTION 1 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A TRANSIT
REVIEW BOARD AND PLANNING TEAM
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. This Amended Agreement supersedes any and all prior transit agreements between the parties related to
the creation of a Transit Review Board and Planning Team.
3. The Transit Review Board shall be responsible for identifying, analyzing, recommending, and tracking
transit-related service and infrastructure projects that are in the best interests of Scott County transit users.
4. The Planning Team shall be responsible for providing technical support to the Transit Review Board, and
implementing the projects recommended by the Transit Review Board and approved by the Members.
5. The Members agree to establish a Transit Review Board and a Transit Planning Team subject to the
following terms and conaitions of this Agreement.
"H,_.'._.', .';0." -..-.-.'.'.
. ~ "
. a..
SECTION 11- MEMBERSHIP
11. All Active Members shall have equal voting authority and equal opportunity to provide input on potential
projects. Active Members shall be those that participate in reQular Transit Review Board on an on-Qoinq basis.
2. At the discretion of the Transit Review Board, Scott County area agencies and organizations, as well as
other transit providers shall be invited to attend Transit Review Board meetings as non-voting members.
SECTION 111- TRANSIT REVIEW BOARD
1. The Transit Review Board shall be comprised of elected officials of the Members (hereinafter referred to
as the "TRB").
2. The TRB shall have two officers: a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson who shall be annually elected..
The Chairperson presides at all the meetings and in the absence of the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson
convenes and presides over the meeting.
3. Officers are elected by the TRB Members at the first meeting of each calendar year. This action shall be
the opening order of business and new officers shall take office immediately upon election.
4. Each Member may appoint an alternate TRB Member who shall have voting privileges and shall be
acknowledged in the meeting minutes as to which Member entity they represent as an alternate.
5. The TRB is responsible for addressing goals and recommending actions, implementation or redirection
I related to planning and implementation of transit infrastructure improvements._ The TRB shall direct responsibility
for meeting strategic goals, completing objectives, or taking other planning actions as updated during regular
quarterly meetings or at meetings specially requested.
6. Decisions related to the day-to-day operations, funding or promotion of the bus system or other transit
services shall be made solely by the governmental entities that own and operate said transit services and in
collaboration with one another.
7. All TRB Members shall make every effort to gain any necessary authorizations from their respective
government agencies within a thirty (30) day period.
8. All other actions by the TRB shall require a majority vote of the Members including direction by the TRB to
the Planning Team.
SECTION IV - PLANNING TEAM
1. The Planning Team shall consist of staff person(s) designated by the Members (hereinafter referred to as
the "Planning Team").
2. The Planning Team shall have a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. The Chairperson presides at all the
meetings, and in the absence of the Chairperson, the Vice Chairperson convenes and presides over the meeting.
~..
~- ~.-
. ~
~ .
3. At its first meeting of each calendar year, the Planning Team shall elect the Chairperson and Vice
Chairperson. This action shall be the opening order of business and new officers shall take office immediately
upon election.
4. The Planning Team shall undertake studies related to existing and needed transit services and facilities,
make recommendations to the TRB for goals, improvements, changes and additions to the transit infrastructure,
shall act as technical advisors to the TRB, and shall be responsible for completing direction given by the TRB.
SECTION V - MEETING PROTOCOL
1. TRB and Planning Team Members may adopt operating rules and procedures for meetings.
I 2. TRB meetings will occur on a monthly basis or more frequently as needed and shall be noticed seven
calendar days in advance. Planning Team meetings will occur on a monthly basis or more frequently as needed.
I 3. In order for the TRB or Planning Team to conduct business, representatives of four (4) Active Members
must be present.
SECTION VI- STRATEGIC GOALS
1. Annually the Planning Team shall prepare a set of strategic goals for approval by the TRB. The strategic
goals shall list objectives for each goal and include an accountability process to meet each goal outcome.
2. The TRB will monitor the progress towards completion of the strategic goals; and in consultation with the
Planning Team, make modification as necessary.
3. The fiscal year of the TRB and the Planning Team shall begin on the first day of January and end on the
31st day of December of every year. Strategic goals shall be adopted at the first meeting of each year or as soon
thereafter as practically possible. The first strategic goals and fiscal year shall begin on the date of the initial
meeting of the TRB.
SECTION VII- ASSETS
If the TRB acquires assets either through contributions from Members or through other funding sources, the TRB
shall develop regulations governing asset management including provisions dealing with a withdrawing Member.
SECTION VIII- TERMINATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Any Member may, upon notice, terminate its participation under this Agreement. A terminating Member shall
provide the TRB ninety (90) days written notice of its intent to terminate.
SECTION IX - AMENDMENTS
Amendments to this Agreement may only occur at a regular meeting of the TRB, require a majority vote of all the
Members, and must be formally approved by the governing body of each Member.
~- .......
. . ~
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, this Agreement of the Scott Area Transit Review Board have hereunto set their
hands the day and year first above written.
City of Belle Plaine City of Elko New Market
City of Jordan City of New Prague
City of Prior Lake City of Savage
City of Shakopee County of Scott
..... ' . .'
. . ~
Introduction:
In 2005 a Unified Transit Management Plan (UTMP) was prepared for the
planning and development of transit serving Scott County. The UTMP was
ratified by Scott County and the cities within the County. Because of the
extraordinary cooperative efforts that the UTMP generated, the partners have
been able to accomplish early many of the tasks recommended in the original
UTMP. As a result, it was deemed appropriate in 2007 to update the UTMP.
It was contemplated that it would take significantly more time to accomplish the
expansion of express commuter service to Downtown Minneapolis and the
construction of Scott County's first significant park and ride facility. Many of the
long-term recommendations for service, capital investments and long-term
funding were less fully developed. This update is intended to provide specifically
more detail related to the longer term recommendations.
This Update continues to rely on the underlying detail and analysis that are
contained in the original UTMP. To the extent that this Update may be silent on
a specific aspect of service description, service delivery, long-term planning,
funding, or capital investments, readers are referred to the original UTMP.
Organization of the Update:
For this update, an attempt has been made to simplify the organization of the
recommendations. This organization is as follows;
. Relationship to Comprehensive Planning, 2030 and Beyond
. Long-Term Funding Issues
. Update Recommendations
0 Express bus service
. Background
. New or additional service
. Capital investments
0 Suburban local service
. Background
. New or additional service
. Capital investments
0 Dial-a-Ride service
. Background
. New or additional service
. Capital investments
0 Connections to other services/service providers
. Commuter rail
. Light rail transit
. . ..;;;,.
. H:\CC\2008\05-06\UTMP Update Final 04032008 CC.doc 1
. Bus rapid Transit
Relationship to Comprehensive Planning, 2030
and Beyond
Townships, cities and counties within the seven-county Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area are engaged in the process of preparing their decennial comprehensive
plan updates. The City of Prior Lake has received Metropolitan Council approval
of its 2030 plan. In preparing their 2030 plans Scott County and the City of
Shakopee are looking beyond the 2030 timeframe to ultimate build out
conditions. All other communities in the County are engaged in the update
process.
A key element of any comprehensive plan is the transportation element. Its
importance is evidenced by the fact that the Metropolitan Council designates it as
one of the "regional systems." Without appropriately planned, funded and time
transportation improvements, both growth and quality of life for Scott County
residents is negatively impacted. For that reason, this Update is being prepared
with the 2030 planning process in mind, especially as it relates to major roadway
corridors that might be served by transit as well
Long Term Funding Issues
For several years, transportation funding has been a critical issue in Minnesota.
In recent years, the state legislature's debates over funding have evidenced the
realization that it is not just a question of funding roads and bridges, but also
transit alternatives. With the collapse of the 1-35W Bridge concerns have
recently been re-focused on the adequacy of the state's basic road and bridge
i nfrastructu re.
Passage of the constitutional amendment to dedicate MVST funds to
transportation and transit was an important step. However, that action does not
begin to generate any new funds for transit operations until 2008 or 2009, and
the amount of new money it generates will not be anywhere near enough to meet
the demands for new or expanded transit alternatives. With the passage of a
major transportation funding bill during the 2008 Minnesota Legislative Session,
there will be new money available for transportation and transit issues, but it is
not yet completely clear how that funding will be split between transportation and
transit modes.
The need for new or increased funding falls into three categories;
. Funds for implementation of new service;
., -.- '
H:\CC\2008\05-06\UTMP Update Final 04032008 CC.doc .. 2
. Funds for the operation and/or expansion of both existing and new
services; and
. Funds for capital investments (e.g. land acquisition, park and ride facilities,
stations, buses, etc.)
Scott County and its communities are fortunate to have a structure in place
through which efforts can be channeled to affect the long-term funding issue at
the federal and state level, i.e. the Scott County Association for Leadership and
Efficiency (SCALE). The partners in the UTMP should continue to work through
SCALE to identify and utilize new and additional sources of funding for transit
services and improvements that serve Scott County and its residents.
STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
Express bus service:
Background:
The principal recommendations of the original UTMP were to 1) expand
express commuter service to Downtown Minneapolis, and 2) construct a
park and ride facility for that service in the vicinity of TH 169 and CR 18.
With the opening in July of 2007 of the 500-space "Southbridge Crossings
Transit Station," the expansion of Prior Lakes express service, and the
commencement of Shakopee's express service (both services known and
marketed as the BlueXpress), these recommendations have been
implemented far ahead of schedule. Federal construction money has
been secured for a second park and ride site at the intersection of CR 16
and future CR 21. That parcel is owned by the Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community (SMSC), and Scott County is working with the SMSC to
acquire the site. It is in detailed design as a part of the CR 21 project, and
is expected to be in service in 2011 or 2012.
New or additional Service:
0 BlueXpress Service to Downtown Minneapolis:
At the current rate of ridership growth, it is expected that additional
commuter runs will need to be added by 2009.
Recommendations:
. The BlueXpress service should be expanded as demand
increases, funding for additional buses become available
and park and ride spaces are brought on line to meet the
demand. . .~.
...,. . ... .
H:\CC\2008\05-06\UTMP Update Final 04032008 CC.doc 3 .
. The schedule should be routinely evaluated and adjusted
with the aim of making each of the express runs reach nearly
full capacity (generally understood as 40 or more
passengers) .
0 Express Service to the University of Minnesota and 1-494
Corridor
The original UTMP identified the University of Minnesota and 1-494
Corridor as commuter destinations that should be considered for
future express service. Other transit providers (such as MVTA and
SW) have found the University of Minnesota to be a destination that
they could fairly readily serve because it is more concentrated. The
1-494 Corridor, while it is home to a substantial employment
concentration, is far more dispersed geographically, and thus has
proven more difficult to serve.
Recommendation: Given that no new funding is currently
available, it is recommended that additional study be done in 2008
to determine the actual demand for service to these two
destinations, and the likelihood that such service would be
successful. As new MVST funds become available in 2009, or if
other operational funding sources become available, new service to
one (or possibly) both of these markets should be instituted.
Capital investments:
Expansion of the BlueXpress service to Downtown Minneapolis and
opening of new express service to the University of Minnesota and/or 1-
494 Corridor will require a) additional coach buses and b) additional park
and ride capacity. Discussions are already underway between Shakopee
and the Metropolitan Council to acquire one new additional coach, but
more will be needed. In addition, more parking capacity will need to be
available at either the South bridge Crossings park and ride or a second
site. Additional parking capacity at the Southbridge Crossings site would
involve constructing a parking deck, which would be quite expensive. For
that reason, it seems more prudent to move forward first, if possible, with
the acquisition of the proposed second site at CR 16 and future CR 21,
which has a federal funding commitment for construction.
Long term, there is a need to evaluate the need, if any for additional park
and ride facilities along identified principal arterials in Scott County's 2030
comprehensive plan.
Recommendations:
.-.. '-.. ..... '
H:\CC\2008\05-06\UTMPDpdate Final 04032008 CC.doc .60. . 4
. Acquire and construct the CR 16/21 park and ride site by 2010 to
accommodate additional parking to serve the Downtown
Minneapolis, and possibly, University of Minnesota and 1-494
Corridor express services.
. Using federal funds, construct a bus-only ramp providing access
directly from Stagecoach Road to TH 169.
. Continue to seek regional or other capital funds for the construction
of additional parking space in the form of a parking deck at the
Southbridge Crossings Transit Station, with the intent to have the
additional space available in the 2012-2015 timeframe.
. Working with Scott County and its communities, in 2008 possible
future areas for the location of park and ride facilities along principal
arterials in the County.
..-..
H:\CC\2008\05-06\UTMP'Update Final 04032008. CC.doc 5
Suburban Local Service:
Background:
At present, the City of Shakopee/Shakopee Transit provides Monday-
Friday circulator service within the City of Shakopee. Both Prior Lake and
Shakopee have also provided summer circulator services for the past few
years. At present and for the next few years, the volumes of riders
utilizing these services would not seem to warrant the expansion of these
services.
New or additional Service:
Recommendation: No new or additional service is recommended
at this time.
Capital investments:
Recommendations: No additional investments are recommended at
this time.
~. H:\CC\2008\05-06\UTMP Updat~ final 04032008 CC.doc 6
Dial-A-Ride (DAR) Service:
Background:
In general, the Metropolitan Area is experiencing growth in its population
of elderly and persons with disabilities as demonstrated in the following
table. These trends are also reflected in Scott County
Twin Cities: Disabled
Age group 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
16 to 64 years: 175491 187580 194764 200300 203298 206978
65 to 74 years: 28202 34435 45571 56370 64825 69595
75 years and over: 65480 68059 72316 83981 104757 127025
16 Years and Over 269172 290075 312652 340650 372880 403599
Age group 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
5 to 14 399,559 400,777 408,238 422,184 441,967 457,661
15 to 64 1,959,183 2,094,149 2,174,353 2,236,154 2,269,626 2,310,710
65 to 74 137,552 167,954 222,269 274,936 316,177 339,442
75+ 134,661 139,966 148,722 172,709 215,436 261,232 I
The principal recommendations of the original UTMP were that 1) the
cities of Shakopee and Prior Lake not provide service and 2) that Scott
County take over OAR for the entire County. Effective January 1, 2007,
Scott County Transit took over OAR for the entire County, with the City of
Shakopee making a one-time payment of about $100,000 for its transit
operating funds to facilitate the transition.
New or additional Service:
As the County's population grows, and the demographic composition of
the County's population changes, the demand for OAR will likely increase,
and the specifics of service delivery may change.
Recommendation: Scott County Transit needs to continually
monitor both ridership and travel patterns of dial-a-ride users. As
ridership on these services increases, Scott County Transit needs
to develop a series of service benchmarks to identify high ridership
.- ..... '
H:\CC\2008\05-06\UTMP Update Final 04032008 CC.doc 7
and high productivity dial-a-ride corridors as candidates for
transitioning from dial-a-ride to route deviation or fixed route
services.
Recommendation:
Capital investments:
Recommendations: If Scott County Transit chooses to continue
providing dial-a-ride services directly, a separate maintenance and
storage facility will need to be developed for dial-a-ride and local
circulator service vehicles. This facility should be located in close
proximity to the transit center in order to minimize deadhead (non-
revenue) service hours and costs.
...>. ..
~ . . H:\CC\2008\05-06\UTMP Update Final 04032008 CC.doc 8
Connections to Other Services/Service Providers:
Background:
Several proposals for dedicated transit ways in the form of new commuter
rail (e.g. the Dan Patch line from Minneapolis south and touching eastern
Scott County); light rail transit (LRT, e.g. the Southwest Corridor from
Minneapolis to Eden Prairie); and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT, such as the 1-
35 BRT and Cedar Avenue BRT) that would have an impact on Scott
County and its users are under study. Of most interest are the 135W BRT
which would be available and convenient to residents of eastern Scott
County, and the Southwest Corridor LRT. Indeed, Elko New Market is a
logical, potential terminus of the 135 W BRT. It is not yet clear how bus
service under the UTMP should be coordinated with this and other
services that may develop. It is important that the Scott TPT and TRB
monitor the planning for these and other transit services (such as possible
1494 service), as well as participate to the greatest extent possible, and
develop specific recommendations to connect Scott County transit service
providers services with them.
New or additional Service:
Recommendation: No new or additional service is recommended
at this time.
Capital investments:
Recommendations: No additional investments are recommended at
this time.
. .0 ,.....
H:\CC\2008\05-06\UTMP Update Final 04032008 CC.doc 9