HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.B.2. Proposed Scott County Transit Operations Plan~3, 8. ~.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
RE: Proposed Scott County Transit Operations Plan
DATE: September 21, 2010
DISCUSSION:
Earlier this year, the Shakopee City Council, Prior Lake City Council and Scott County Board of
Commissioners gave their staffs direction to continue with discussions that would lead to a funding
proposal for the possible acquisition of the former site of Shakopee Dodge and Denny Hecker Dodge
(hereinafter Marschall road site). Following that direction, the respective staff members collaborated on
the development of an application for CH 152 funding through. Mn/DOT. The application was formally
submitted by Scott County.
Once the County was notified that the application was successful, staff, working through the Transit
Planning Team (TPT) determined that it would be desirable to develop an operations plan including
present transit service and facilities, programmed service and facilities expansions, and possible
expansions. The TPT contacted Carol Becker, who had formerly been a member of the Metropolitan
Council's Transportation staff to assist in the development of the operations plan.
Accompanying this report is the most recent version of that operations plan. Scott County needs to make
a decision soon about whether to acquire the Marschall road site. Input is being sought from the
Shakopee and Prior Lake city councils prior to the county board making a fmal decision on acquisition of
the site.
Representatives from Scott County, as well as Ms. Becker and city staff will be available for the
discussion and questions.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Offer and approve a motion accepting the draft Scott County Transit Operations Plan,-and informing
the Scott County Board that it either supports or does not object to the acquisition of the Marschall
road site for transit purposes...
2) Offer and approve a motion accepting the draft Scott County Transit Operations Plan, but informing
the Scott County Board that it does not support the acquisition of the Marschall road site for transit
purposes.
3) Table this item with direction to staff to obtain additional information and for modification of the
Scott County Transit Operations Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative number 1, offer and approve a motion accepting the draft Scott County
Transit Operations Plan, and informing the Scott County Board that it either supports or does not object to
the acquisition of the Marschall road site for transit purposes...
CC/0921 2010/transit operations plan
RELATIONSHIP TO CITY GOALS:
Matters related to the provision of transit service relate to City Goal B, high quality of life.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer and approve a motion accepting the draft Scott County Transit Operations Plan, and informing the
Scott County Board that it either supports or does not object to the acquisition of the Marschall road site
for transit purposes...
~~~
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
CC/0921 201.0/transit operations plan 2
Scott .County
Transit Operations Plan
~~} k .
A joint plan among the Cities of Shakopee and Prior Lake
and Scott County
BLUE PRF:~S ,
~;:;r~
~M
September 2010
°~.-
S~hakca~~e r_~ ~ ~,~
~,r :F
`~r~~i~
S~artL~r~k-,:-,:
Overview
This plan provides an overview of existing transit operations in Scott County. It covers the commuter
and transit-dependent programs, excluding the programs operated by Minnesota Valley Transit on
behalf of the City of Savage. It reviews the current status of funding for transit in the State of
Minnesota. It projects the funding needs for both commuter and transit-dependent programs into the
future.
2
Table of Contents
1) Existing System ................................................................................................................................... 4
Existing Transit Services ............................................:..:.............:.................................................... .. 4
Existing Park and Ride Facilities .................................................................................................... .. 5
Existing Transit Operators ..:........................................:.:...............:.............:................................... .. 6
Existing Garage Facilities .................................................................:...........:................:.................. .. 6
Program Performance ...................................................................................................................... .. 6
2) Long-term Commuter Service Needs ...............................:.............................................................. .. 8
Demand for the Commuter Market ................................................................................................ .. 8
Conceptual Model for Scott County Park and Ride Facilities ...................................................... .. 8
Proposed Commuter Facility Enhancements ................................................................................. 10
Proposed Service Expansions ........................................................................................................... .11
3) Long-term Transit-Dependent Service Needs ................................................................................ 13
Types of Services in Scott County .................................................................................................... 13
Integrated Model for Service Delivery ............................................................................................ 13
Existing Fleet ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Evolving Programs.. .........: ...:............................................................................................... ....... 14
Demand for Local Circulators and Dial-a-Ride Services .............................................................. 15
4) Transit Revenue Sources .................................................................................................................. 17
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Performance ...................................................................................:........ 17
State General Fund ...................................................................................:....................................... 19
Proposed Metropolitan Council Suburban Transit Funding Allocation Model .......................... 19
Policy Decisions about Resources Dedicated to Dial-a-Ride vs. other services ........................... 20
5) Commuter Services Future Operating Budgets and Operating Needs ....................................... 21
.Projected Operating Budget Changes ............................................................................................. 21
Funding Scenarios ..................................:........................................................................:................. 22
Scenario 1: State Forecasted MUST ............................................................................................ 23
Scenario 2: No growth in MUST .......................... ................................................................... 24
Scenario 3: Metropolitan Council Forecast ................................................................................ 25
2016 and Beyond .....................................................................................:......................................... 25
6) Transit-dependent Service Operating Budgets and Operating Needs ......................................... 27
Current Transit-Dependent Programs Funding Sources .............................................................. 27
Future Transit-Dependent Funding Needs : .......................:............................................................ 27
Projected Future Fleet Needs ........................................................................................................... 27
Future Funding Sources ................................................................................................................... 28
3
1) Existing System
Existing Transit Services
There are currently five kinds of transit service in Scott County:
Express service is provided the Cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee and Minnesota Valley Transit
(MVTA). Route 490 is provided jointly by the cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee, and by eight
coach buses. This service either starts at Prior Lake Safe Haven for Youth Park and Ride (4
trips) or from Southbridge Park and Ride (4 trips). The four trips that start from the Safe Haven
Park and Ride stop at the Southbridge Park and Ride. The clientele for this type of service is
typically persons working in downtown Minneapolis or attending the University of Minnesota,
who connect Downtown to other services that connect to the University. Each city provides its
own service but the programs are marketed jointly under the B1ueXpress name.
The City of Savage is part of a consortium of five cities that make up the Minnesota Valley
Transit Authority (MVTA). Because of this, Savage is served by MVTA.. MVTA is oriented
axound the I-35W and Cedar Avenue (TH 77) corridors. Although only Savage is physically
located within Scott County, many Scott County residents from other cities use the MVTA
service at the Savage and Burnsville Park and Rides. Planning for commuter service in Savage
and for the I-35 Corridor is handled by MVTA and by Metro Transit, and as such, are not
included in this study.
• Shuttle service (Route 498) which is two trips from Town Square Mall through Shakopee to the
Southbridge Park and Ride. These buses are timed to connect to the express service at
Southbridge.. They serve the Seagate Park and Ride which is not directly served by express
buses. Scott County operates this service under contract to the City of Shakopee.
• Circulator service (Route 496 E and 496 W and 491 N and 491 S) which has two routes in the
City of Shakopee, one east and one west, departing every hour from 5 am to 6 pm. Two buses
are used for this service. Prior Lake and Shakopee also operate summer-only shuttles (491 N
and S) to popular destinations. Five buses total are used for this service. Scott County operates
this service under contract to the two cities.
• Dial-a-ride service provided by Scott and Carver Counties otherwise known as (SmartLink
Transit . SmartLink Transit dial-a-ride program provides services under several different
programs in both Carver and Scott Counties. These programs include:
• General Public Dial-a-Ride which provides a safety net service for persons who. have no
other alternatives for transportation. The clientele typically includes persons with
disabilities, the elderly unable to drive, persons who do not own a car, and persons too
young to drive. This service will take residents anywhere in the seven county area, either
directly or through connections with other dial-a-ride or regular route providers.
• Medical Assistance under contract to the State of Minnesota. This is transportation for
persons on medical assistance to get to medical-related services.
4
ADA service under contract to the Metropolitan Council. This is door-through-door service
for persons with disabilities. Riders have to be certified with the Metropolitan Council as
having disabilities that prohibit them from using the regular route bus system. This service
operates at the same times as regular route transit service in cities with local regular route
service. The loss of circulator service could result in the reduction of ADA service to that
city. The Metropolitan Council sets policy on when and how this service will be provided.
• Vanpools The City of Shakopee currently operates three vanpools under contract with VPSI.
The destination of these van pools is Downtown Minneapolis. These have been operating for
some time before express. bus service was available and operate in locations and times that
regular route service does not.
Existing Park and Ride Facilities
Currently Scott County has three park and ride facilities. These are:
• Southbridge Crossings Transit Station with 503 spaces. Currently approximately 225 are
utilized. Some riders of the B1ueXpress service walk to the station from nearby developments
or are dropped off at the station. Southbridge also has a transit advantage in a bus-only ramp
onto the highway, which reduces travel time by about ten minutes.
• Safe Haven for Youth with 60 spaces. Currently approximately 30 are utilized.
Sea ate with 60 spaces. Currently approximately 12 are utilized. Shuttle service is available to
the Southbridge Park and Ride, with connections to the B1ueXpress services.
A substantial number of Scott County residents use the Burnsville Park and Ride which is not located
physically in Scott County but is in the Scott County commute shed. In fact, The Metropolitan Council
did a license plate survey in 2008 and found that approximately 80 riders from Prior Lake were using
the Burnsville facility; almost exactly as many Prior Lake residents using Southbridge Park and Ride.
Both of these facilities saw about four times as many people as the Safe Haven Park and Ride which is
located in Prior Lake proper. The reason for this is that people are willing to drive further for higher
frequency service. The. Southbridge service is more attractive than the Save Haven service because
there are twice as many options for a ride. At the Burnsville facility at peak, buses depart for
downtown Minneapolis every three minutes. This means that riders do not have to wait for a bus,
reducing their commute time substantially. In addition, they have robust mid-day service, meaning that
riders have an easy way of returning to their vehicles should there be an emergency in the middle of the
day. Finally, the Burnsville facility has indoor waiting, something that is an important amenity in
inclement weather. Because of this, even though Burnsville Transit Station is not physically within
Scott County, it does serve a number of Scott County residents.
Similarly, a smaller but significant number of Scott County residents use Southwest station in Eden
Prairie. The 2008 license plate survey found that over 40 rides from Shakopee were using this transit
station. Frequency of service and access to the University of Minnesota are likely reasons for these
residents opting to use that facility. As frequency of service, additional destinations are served and
congestion increase at the River Crossings a number of these established transit riders are likely to
switch the B1ueXpress service.
5
Existing Transit Operators
There is a difference between transit service providers and transit operators. Transit providers fund
transit service and also choose how and when it will be provided. Transit operators hire drivers and
mechanics and supervise the actual driving of buses: It can be confusing because in the Twin Cities,
some entities are one, some are the other and some are both. In Scott County, there are five entities that
provide transit services: Scott County, the City of Shakopee, the City of Prior Lake, the State of
Minnesota and the Metropolitan Council. There are two operators: SmartLink Transit and Schmitty
and Sons. Scott County is both a provider and an operator.
This breaks down as follows:
Service Scott County Schmitty and Sons
Express (Shakopee/Prior Lake) XXX
Shuttle (Shakopee) XXX
Circulator (Shakopee/Prior Lake) XXX
Dial-a-Ride (SmartLink Transit/Met Council)
ADA Service (Metropolitan Council) XXX
XXX
Medical Assistance (State of Minnesota) XXX
Existing Garage Facilities
Scott County: Scott County is the contract provider for the Shakopee and Prior Lake circulators as well
as the provider for the SmartLink Transit service with. Carver County and the provider of ADA service
under contract to the Met Council. Scott County operates out of an old grocery store in the City of
Shakopee. These facilities are inadequate as they do not allow housing of any of the fleet inside,
something that improves operational efficiency in the winter time. The County also has limited space
for vehicle maintenance and repair, further inhibiting efficiency.
There is a proposal to acquire a site at Marshall Road. This site has repair facilities and indoor vehicle
storage that could be used for these activities. If this site is acquired, it could substantially improve
operational efficiency for Scott County.
Schmitty and Sons: Currently Shakopee and Prior Lake contract with Schmitty and Sons for large bus
transit service. Schmitty and Sons has their main garage in Lakeville Minnesota, east of 35 off210th
Street. This location lets them operate with a relatively short deadhead to destinations in Scott County.
Program Performance
Both Shakopee and Prior Lake have undertaken a number of activities to increase their ridership over
the last five years. This has included Shakopee shifting its dial-a-ride program to Scott County and
beginning commuter service, Scott County building the Southbridge Park and Ride and the partnering
of Prior Lake and Shakopee to provide a higher level of service at Southbridge than either could
provide independently.
6
Shakopee and Prior Lake Ridership
120,000
100,000
.80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
.;": -
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
® Shakopee ®Prior Lake
7
2) Long-term Commuter Service Needs
Scott County is a suburban, ex-urban and rural county, with limited walkable environments. Because of
this, its transit service has two focuses:
Commuters going to places with large walkable environments with large concentrations of
employment, i.e. downtown Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota. It should be noted
that there are two other large-scale centers with walkable environments, downtown St Paul and
the Mall of America but there is not demand from Scott County to these locations sufficient to
warrant transit service.
Transit-dependent populations who cannot drive, i.e. the elderly, persons with disabilities,
persons too young to drive and persons who cannot afford a car. These individuals are best
served with either dial-a-ride services or local regular route circulator services. Which type of
service depends on the density oftransit-dependent populations in a specific location
Commuter issues will be discussed in this chapter while issues facing transit-dependent populations
will be addressed in the next chapter.
Demand for the Commuter Market
The Metropolitan Council in its 2030 Park-and-Ride Plan (updated May 26, 2010) identified the TH
169 Corridor as having park and ride utilization in 2008 of 600 spaces. This includes park and ride
capacity in both Southwest Metro Transit and in Scott County. They also project a demand by 2030 of
1700 spaces. Currently there are 1300 spaces existing or funded, leaving a demand of 400 spaces
currently unfunded. This study identified this corridor as a "Medium Priority" for investments.
This study did not project a separate demand level for the TH/CH101 corridor.
Demand for the I-35W corridor was handled as a separate projection and is being addressed by the
Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Valley Transit (MVTA). This work will address growing demand
from east Savage, Prior Lake, Elko/New Market and other eastern parts of Scott County. Most
operating impacts will be handled through the Metropolitan Council and the MVTA budgets. However,
as the population of southeastern Scott County increases, B1ueXpress may wish to offer some service
along the 35 corridor. Although need for this service is in the distant future, it should be considered as
a future budget impact.
Conceptual Model for Scott County Park and Ride Facilities
Transit service for commuters works best when it is placed in a location where a large number of
travelers must come together. This means locating park and rides at funneling points in the
transportation system. For example, the Burnsville Park and Ride is extremely successful because it is
at the southern end of the I-35W Bridge across the Minnesota River. Drivers, who want to go north,
must funnel to that point. Because the Burnsville facility has a large catchment area, it is able to
support high levels of transit service. High levels of transit service are attractive to riders, making such
locations even more successful. Scott County has three such funneling points: the three bridges which
cross the Minnesota River: the I-35W bridge, the TH-169 bridge and the TH-101 bridge. These
locations are the three key funneling points in the County and are the natural locations for park and ride
facilities.
The second point to locating park and ride facilities is that over time, park and rides fill up. In addition,
congestion points move as development expands outward. Because of this, often park and rides are
developed like "pearls on a string" along major transportation corridors. This is seen occurring in
Burnsville and Lakeville, where a park and ride was developed in Lakeville to intercept travelers earlier
in their trip to relieve demand at Burnsville. This same approach is taken with the Cedar Bus Rapid
Transit facility, where park and rides are strung along the corridor. As ridership has grown and moved
outward, additional park and rides have been developed along Cedar Avenue.
If these facilities are located where they can get off and on the road quickly (or in the case of Cedar
BRT or I-35W, not even leave the highway), one bus can be used to serve multiple park and rides. This
can improve frequency, reduce deadhead costs and provide multiple alternatives for riders.
Several of the Scott County-Park and Rides follow this conceptual model of park and rides located at
funneling points and park and rides strung along like beads on a string. Southbridge Transit Station
was built at the funneling point of the TH 169 Bloomington Ferry Bridge. The County secured a site
further out from this park and ride as a reliever for when the Southbridge facility needs relief. This site,
Eagle Creek is strategically located south of the CH21 and CH18 intersection which is anticipated to
have congestion delays in the future. This will provide opportunity to remove single occupancy
vehicles out of this intersection
The 2030 Park and Ride Plan proposes site near the funneling point of the future principal arterial (CH
17/TH 13 alignment south of TH169) which will intercept persons who would have been traveling on
this major north south corridor, TH 169 and TH 101. Scott County is in the process of acquiring a site
at the south west quadrant of CH17 and TH169, consistent with the 2030 plan, for the Marshall Road
Transit station.
The 2030 Park and Ride Plan identify a fourth site that can accommodate approximately 200 spaces at
the intersection of TH 282 and TH 13. This site is part of the Prior Lake annexation area, and is slated
for significant commercial, industrial and residential development after 2020. Because of this
timeframe, it is not necessary to acquire a site within the timeframe of this plan.
There are also two park and rides which are not located at funneling points or along roads at funneling
points, the Seagate Park and Ride and the Savage Park and Ride. Both of these park and rides have low
ridership and thus low levels of transit service.
These locations and how they work both with funneling and with "pearls on a string" can be
understood more clearly when viewed on a conceptual map. Distances are not to scale. The green
shapes are operated by MVTA, the blue shapes operated by Scott County and Shakopee and/or Prior
Lake. The orange shape is proposed.
9
Conceptual Scatt County-Park and Ride Plan
.
CH101
-- '~ ~~
Marshall ;.
Road
(Proposed) Seagate
TH 1a9
_r -
_ _ __, --
-~'~ '~ Southbridge P&R
® Eagle Creek P&R ~LL
Prior LakeP&R
Savage
-35W'
Minnesota
"?River
`L`~ Burnsville P&R
fem. Lakeville P&R
This model also shows the importance of the TH169 corridor. To the degree that transit can be sped up
from Scott County into the downtown, travel times could be reduced. Improvements are already
planned for the TH 169/I-494 interchange and other improvements have been made to the corridor. If
the corridor were to have abus-only shoulder lane or a managed lane, travel time could be substantially
reduced. At this point, however, the region's long-term plan does not include such improvements.
.Proposed Commuter Facility Enhancements
Enhancements to the park and ride facilities include bringing the Eagle Creek Park and Ride on-line yet
in 2011. Funding is in place and construction has begun for this facility.
The second addition to this plan is to add a park and ride at CH 17 and U.S. 169. Negotiations are
currently underway with Mn/DOT, Scott County and the Metropolitan Council for capital funding for
this location. This site could provide between 350 and 400 spaces with surface parking. Adding this
amount of parking would provide the amount of park and ride spaces projected to be needed by the
Metropolitan Council for 2030. The Prior Lake Ciry Council and the Shakopee City Council have both
indicated preliminary support for the acquisition of this site. The City Councils will be asked for
verification of that support as part of the adoption of this service plan.
With the economic downturn, there have been reductions in employment in downtown Minneapolis.
Because of this, ridership in both the region and in Scott County has declined slightly over the last
several years. It is not clear when employment will recover and begin to grow in the downtown area
and when residential construction will resume at previous levels. Because of this no additional park
and ride capacity is projected to be needed at this time beyond that already being developed.
Use of the Safe Haven for Youth site as a park and ride will be discontinued with the opening of the
Eagle Creek site. Without Safe Haven,. all of the BlueXpress Park and Ride facilities will be located in
Shakopee. The Prior Lake City Council is concerned the residents of Prior Lake will not be adequately
served by Shakopee sites. The Eagle Creek site will be a more attractive terms of access, speed of
service and amenities than a downtown Prior Lake site. The Southbridge site will be even more
attractive due to the higher level of service. That being said, the Prior Lake City Council has expressed
an interest in experimenting with a site in the downtown to test these assumptions. Because of the
routing of the Schmitty buses, it will be possible to test whether a downtown Prior Lake site is viable.
10
There are a few different options for providing service to downtown Prior Lake.
1. Establish a park and ride lot in downtown Prior Lake. The original park and ride lot was
located at the city-owned lot on Colorado Street. The City could once again sign this lot for
transit and establish a bus stop at the site. The coach buses are able to access this area.
2. Establish a park and ride lot at Lakefront Park and utilize a shuttle bus to transport passengers to
Southbridge Crossings Transit Station.
3. Establish a modified dial-a-ride service to shuttle passengers to the Southbridge Crossing
Transit Station.
Each of these options would increase operating costs by a minimum of $25,000 to $35,000 per year.
This cost could be somewhat offset by eliminating the Safe Haven park and ride location.
The Metropolitan Council's park and ride plan identifies a park and ride at TH 282 and TH 13 after
2020. Demand for this location is not sufficient until further development occurs in the area.
Proposed Service Expansions
Currently commuter service in the TH169 corridor is provided by eight coach buses. Four of these
buses stop in Prior Lake then go to Southbridge Park and Ride while another four stop solely at
Southbridge.
Developing areas often secure sites when they become available, avoiding the problem of being left
with less-ideal locations, paying very high land prices, or having to condemn out property owners after
ideal sites are developed. Because of this, park and ride capacity often exceeds current service levels
until population growth reaches equilibrium. Currently about half of the park and ride spaces available
are being utilized. This means that additional commuter service can be accommodated at existing
facilities.
In addition, there is not enough park and ride capacity to meet 2030 projections. This means that
should ideal locations become available, they should be acquired to accommodate population growth.
2010
In 2010, an additional bus has been funded through the Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC)
program. This bus will provide reverse commute service from downtown Minneapolis to the
Southbridge Park and Ride, where it will connect with shuttle service to employers. This bus will be
operated by Schmitty and Sons from its Lakeville garage. Because of this, it can be routed through the
Southbridge Park and Ride on its way into Minneapolis on its inbound trip, providing an additional trip
in from Southbridge at almost no additional cost. The morning in-bound trip and the evening out-
bound trip will be coordinated with the shift times for several major employers.
2011
The Cities of Shakopee and Prior Lake have reached a tentative agreement with Southwest Transit.
Sometime in late 2010, SWT will begin two buses at Southbridge Park and Ride and then have them
stop at Anderson Lakes Park and Ride, which is off TH 169. Shakopee and Prior Lake will
collectively also stop two of their buses at Anderson Lakes Park and Ride. This will increase the
number of buses to Anderson Lakes by two and the number of buses at Southbridge by two at little
increased cost. The result is that in 2011, Southbridge will have an increase of three trips in the
11
morning and in the evening.
The Metropolitan Council has designated two smaller buses from the SmartLink Transit fleet for use
specifically in the City of Prior Lake. With these buses, Prior Lake plans to revise its local summer
service in 2011 in order to increase riders and to attract a variety of riders. The initial plan is to create a
modified dial-a-ride service. Riders will still be able to call for a ride, but rather than door to door
service, there will be a designated stop for riders in a given area. This will better utilize the buses
throughout the entire day. Shakopee will also make revisions to its schedule in 2011.
2013
It is projected that the TH 169 and CH 17 site will be ready to become operational in 2012 or 2013,
assuming funding becomes available. Starting service from this location will require a minimum of
three buses to provide at least three trips in the morning and three in the evening. There are a number
of alternatives for providing buses to serve this site:
An additional three buses have been funded through the federal Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality
(CMAQ) program for Prior Lake/Shakopee service. These buses could be used to start service to
this site. This would require the Metropolitan Council or another entity to provide funding in
advance of 2013 to begin the bus procurement in 2011 or 2012 so buses would be available in 2013.
It would be possible to shift three buses from the Southbridge service to the Marshall Road site to
provide service until the three CMAQ buses become available. This would require reducing
service at Southbridge until vehicles became available. This may or not be desirable depending on
ridership levels in 2013.
2015
Prior Lake and Shakopee intend to request three additional CMAQ buses in 2015 to increase service in
the TH169 corridor. These buses would become available in 2017 or earlier if either the Metropolitan
Council or another entity provides advance funding for the vehicles. It should be noted that due to the
variability in the economy, a check of demand should be made before ordering these vehicles.
These changes would mean that by 2015, the number of trips from each major park and ride would be:
Southbrid e Ea le Creek TH169/CH17
2010 9 trips
8 existin , 1 JARC X X
2011 11 trips
9 existin , 2 SMTC 4 trips X
2012 11 tri s 4 tri s X
2013 11 trips 4 trips 3 trips
(3 CMAQ)
2014 11 tri s 4 tri s 3 tri s
2015 12 trips
11 existin , 1 CMA 5 trips
4 existin , 1 CMA 5 trips
3 existin , 2 CMA
12
3) Long-term Transit-Dependent Service Needs
Typically, there are four types of individuals who are mobility-impaired and dependent on transit:
• the elderly
• persons with disabilities
• persons too young to drive
• persons who cannot afford to -own a car
Types of Services in Scott County
In Scott County, there are three types of transit service provided for these individuals:
• Dial-a-ride (SmartLink Transit), which is door-to-door or door-through-door service depending
on the level of mobility impairment of the individual. Riders tend to be the elderly or persons
with disabilities. This service is currently provided by SmartLink Transit. Cost per rider in
2010 is project to be $11.41 per rider. Dial-a-ride includes both general public dial-a-ride which
is available to every person and service provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) which is restricted to persons who have been certified as having disabilities which
prohibit them from using the regular route transit service. Service also includes trips for
persons receiving Medical-Assistance.
• Shuttle service, which connects small park and ride or local bus stops with commuter routes at
park and rides. Riders of this service tend to be lower income persons who cannot afford
automobiles to take them to a park and ride. This service is currently provided by Shakopee
from the Town Square Mall, with stops throughout Shakopee, including the Courthouse, St.
Francis Hospital, the Seagate Park and Ride and ending at Southbridge. Cost per rider is
projected to $6.99 per rider in 2010.
• Circulator service, which are local bus routes typically operated with small buses in low density
areas.. Riders tend to be persons with lower incomes and the young who do not have other
alternatives for transportation. Shakopee operates two circulator routes from 5 am to 7 pm on
the hour connecting multiple employment centers, schools and other transit destinations. Also,
Prior Lake provides a circulator in the summer, primarily for students going to summer school
and for persons too young to drive. The cost per rider for the Shakopee service is $11.09 per
rider and the cost per rider for the Prior Lake service is slightly less than $20 a ride.
Integrated Model for Service Delivery
Currently, Scott County has an integrated model for service delivery. The same bus is used to provide
shuttle service under contract to Shakopee, and then may pick up a SmartLink general public dial-a-
ride user, then a medical assistance user, then a person riding under the Americans with Disabilities
program. This integrated model helps reduce costs as buses are routed from one need to another rather
than having separate vehicles used for separate services. For example, the typical cost of an ADA trip
through Metro Mobility is over $22 a ride. With the integrated model used by SmartLink Transit, ADA
trip costs are about $11.41 a ride. SmartLink integrates across county boundaries. Scott County not
only provides service for Scott County but also for Carver County. This helps increase the volume of
service, reducing per-trip costs. SmartLink Transit also integrates across types of trips. This also helps
to reduce costs, especially if only a small number of trips are needed for a regular route bus, like the
Shakopee shuttle service.
13
Existing Fleet
Currently Scott County operates 33 buses. Twenty-four of these buses are small transit buses known as
"cut-aways" that operate on van-based chasses and have a capacity of between 18 - 21 passengers with
two wheel chair positions. Nine of these buses are larger buses which are larger capacity, typically 24
- 27 passengers with four to five wheel chair capacities.
Evolving Programs
SmartLink Transit, especially the cities of Shakopee, Savage and Prior Lake, has been evolving from
rural communities to 'urban communities over the last 20 years. Because of this, there has been a great
amount of evolution and experimentation in the mix of transit programs, especially in the last ten years.
SmartLink Transit, as a service provider, has been asked to take on more and more different programs
over time. The chart below shows ridership figures for the various programs operated from 2003 to
2009.
225
000 Scott County Service Ridership
,
000
200
,
175
000
,
150
000 ^ Carver
, ADA
125,000
100
000 - ^ Prior Lake Reg Rt
^ Shakopee Reg Rt
.
, - A
75
000
- Shakopee D
R
,
50
000
-
- - ^Scott Reg Rt
®Gen Pub DAR
,
25, 000
-
--x-
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2009
Changes include:
• Shakopee terminating its dial-a-ride program, with these clients being taken over by SmartLink
Transit's dial-a-ride program.
• The initiation of Shakopee's regular route service.
• The experiment of providing a Scott County regular route to replace dial-a-ride demand, an
experiment that was later terminated.
• The provision of ADA service under contract to the Metropolitan Council.
• The addition of service for Carver County under the SmartLink program.
• The addition in 2010 of provision of service for Medical Assistance.
Because of all of these changes, ridership has almost doubled from 2003 to 2009 and is projected to
have more than doubled by 2010.
14
Demand for Local Circulators and Dial-a-Ride Services
Dial-a-ride service primarily serves four types of clients: the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons
who do not own a car and persons too young to drive. Persons without automobiles may include low
income workers as well as persons in a stage of life such as being a student or a stay-at-home parent.
To some degree, the size of this demand is a function of the size of the population. For Scott County,
its population has been growing and is projected to continue to grow. This means that demand for dial-
a-ride and circulator type services will also be increasing. Population is projected to grow almost 60%
between 2010 and 2030, which will directly affect demand for dial-a-ride services. The number of
persons with disabilities and low income persons can be assumed to grow at the same rate as the overall
population, meaning that the there will be 60% more persons with disabilities and low income by 2030.
The number of persons 18-24 is projected to grow overall in the population by about 5%, meaning that
this cohort will grow 65% in the County. Both of these groups will drive demand for dial-a-ride
services.
Metropolitan Council
A second issue is the changing population. Over the next twenty years, there will be a profound
demographic shift as the baby boomers become physically infirm. This will increase the specific
populations that dial-a-ride programs serve. It is expected that the elderly population will more than
double between 2014 and 2030. (Minnesota Demographer's Office) To put this in perspective, this is
one out of every person being over the age of 65 in 2030, as opposed to one out of every eight today.
The number of people drawing medical assistance is projected to increase by 80% between 2010 and
2030. (Minnesota State Department of Human Services)
15
Population by Age
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
.600,000
400,000
200,000
0
ffi... ,...~---- _ ~
~..
_.. ~
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Minnesota Demographer
-~ 18-24
-- 65+
-~ 5-17
When one figures the increasing population and the increasing demand due to the aging of the
population, it is projected that the demand for dial-a-ride and local circulator transit will increase 120%
between 2010 and 2030.
Scott County, and the larger society, faces a critical question in how it will meet this need. Oftentimes,
transportation can be the critical factor in maintaining someone in their home versus in an institution.
Being able to get to a doctor's appointment or shopping may allow someone to stay in their home,
saving that individual, and society on the whole; a substantial amount of money. But government,
specifically transit providers, bears this cost, while the savings accrue to other budgets. Government
will need to carefully weigh the costs versus the benefits of providing dial-a-ride and circulator
services.
16
4) Transit Revenue Sources
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Performance
Before looking at specific budgets, it is important to understand the regional transit funding picture.
Prior to 2001, transit received money primarily from two sources: property taxes and' the State General
Fund. The property tax was enabled when the private Twin Cities Rapid Transit Company (which had
provided streetcars, then buses) was taken public in 1970. The property tax continued unti12001 when,
under the State's property tax reform, it was replaced with a portion of the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax or
MVST. The MVST is the tax one pays when one sells a motor vehicle. When this was done, the
MVST had been growing faster than inflation over a number of years. This was due to several factors.
People were buying larger, more expensive vehicles. Families were acquiring two or even three or
more vehicles per household. Women were still entering the workforce in increasing numbers and
purchasing vehicles for their commute. More and more development was in auto-oriented land use
patterns, requiring. an automobile. Also, incomes were increasing and people were investing a portion
of that income in vehicles.
Soon after transit began receiving revenues from the MUST, these trends began to reverse. The 2000
census showed that there was approximately one vehicle per driver, meaning saturation of automobiles
had about reached a peak. Gas costs increased, meaning people began to buy smaller, cheaper, more
fuel-efficient vehicles. Women's participation in the workforce leveled off. With the recession in 2001
and then beginning again in 2007, people have less disposable income and are delaying the purchase of
vehicles or purchasing smaller, less expensive automobiles. The price of automobiles has also not been
increasing. In fact, with the entrance of several Asian companies, automobile prices have declined in
some sectors. The result is that the revenues collected from the MUST have been declining. The red
line on the chart below shows actual collections from 2003 to 2009.
Forecast Statewide MVST Revenues
$580 -
y $530 -
0
$480 -
$430 -
$380 T _ ~ ~ - -~- - ~ -~- - ~~ -_-T--~-,
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Actual - - - 02/05 ' _ - 02/07 - - - 02109 - - - 02/ 10
This decline has been a dilemma for forecasters. The State of Minnesota Department of Finance puts
out a forecast for MVST revenues as part of its twice-yearly budget forecast. From 2003 to the present,
every forecast has assumed a recovery of the declines of the MVST revenue. The chart above shows
17
forecasts from February 2005, February 2007, February 2009 and February 2010 and how the State
projected a recovery in MVST revenues. One can see that each forecast has simply over-estimated the
amount of revenue that would be collected from the MVST. This has made mid-term planning very
difficult for the transit system as each forecast has assumed a recovery that did not materialize.
In November 2006, Minnesota voters agreed to a constitutional amendment to fully dedicate MVST
revenues to transportation. In this amendment, the percentage of MVST dedicated to metropolitan
transit services was increased from 21.5% ultimately to 36%. The phase-in of this change is as
follows:
2003: 21.5%
2004: 21.5%
2005: 21.5%
2006: 21.5%
2007: 21.5%
2008: 24%
2009: 27.75%
2010: 31.5%
2011: 35.25%
2012: 36%
2013: 36%
The result is that metropolitan transit is getting a larger portion of a shrinking pie. The red line in the
chart below shows the actual MVST collections for metropolitan transit. Even though the pie is
shrinking, declines in transit funding have been less dramatic as they have gotten a larger portion of the
shrinking pie. However, suburban transit providers like Prior Lake and Shakopee have not yet shared
in the increased percentage from 2003 to 2009. Even still, revenues for metropolitan transit declined
from 2004 to 2009. This decline is even more dramatic when inflation is taken into account. It should
also be noted that although 2010 is not yet complete, monthly collections are again running
significantly behind projections.
Like the overall forecast, the mid-range forecasting for transit revenues has been quite difficult. The
chart below shows the amount that was forecast in February 2005, February 2007, February 2009 and
February 2010 and where actual collections ended up (the red line). As can be seen, actual growth has
substantially lagged forecast growth. This has meant that there have needed to be continual
adjustments in the budget to account for these declines.
This chart also shows that state projections from February 2010 show a recovery of the MVST
revenues starting in 201,1. Current state projections would provide the following for regional transit:
2009: 122.8
2010: 124.7 (+2%)
2011: 156.8 (+26%.)
2012: 165.5 (+6%)
2013:171.7 (+4%)
The July forecast update made no changes to this forecast.
18
Projected MVST Revenues for Metroplitan Transit
-
2 ®
$
10 ~
a
1
$
90
170 ® s
H $ .
r
~
O ®
~ r
® ,~ '`
150 ~ ® s
$
~ 4 ~
e
$130
• ~ - -
- .
110
$
90
$
2003 2004.2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Actual - - - 02/05 - - - 02/07 - - - 02/09 - - - 02/10
Going foreword, it appears that the consensus is that as of August 2010, any recovery will be slow and
protracted. In the last two years, we have seen the United States automobile industry on the brink of
financial collapse. Two of the big three auto makers were taken public for a time due to the stresses of
people choosing to put off large purchases like automobiles. It is very possible that the recovery
forecast in the most recent State budget forecast will not materialize. There has never been more
uncertainty in what future revenues may look like. Given this history of lack of meeting forecast
growth, any financial plan for transit service will need to provide multiple scenarios in the case the
MVST falters further.
State General Fund
Prior to 2001, opt out communities received their transit subsidy through the property tax. In 2001, a
property tax reform bill shifted transit subsidy funding from the property tax to the motor vehicle sales
tax. Soon after, the MVST began to falter. In 2004, the state made up some of this shortfall with state
general fund monies.
As of this point in 2010, the State has a budget shortfall of $6.9 billion, including inflation on a budget
of $32 billion. How this shortfall is going to be resolved is unclear at this time but it could result in
substantially fewer revenues available for transit services. This could affect the dial-a-ride program in
Scott County directly as well as the availability of MVST funding for expansion of the commuter
services indirectly.
Proposed Metropolitan Council Suburban Transit Funding Allocation Model
In addition to uncertainty about how much MVST revenues will be collected and how much state
general fund monies will be received, there is uncertainty about how funds will be allocated among the
transit providers in the region. The Metropolitan Council has proposed a new methodology for
allocating transit funds which sets fund balance targets for each service. If fund balances go above
targets, then MVST funding would be reduced. If fund balances went below targets, then fund
balances would be replenished from reserves held by the region. The hope is that this would smooth
19
.revenues. The short-term impact, however, is that for transit entities that have built reserves for
projects, these reserves would be used by the region.
In addition,. a number of regional transit investments will be brought on-line over the next ten years.
These include Central LRT, possibly Southwest LRT, possibly additional bus rapid transit corridors and
other service expansions. How funding will be balanced among existing services, new bus service and
corridor service is an uncertainty going into the future.
Policy Decisions about Resources Dedicated to Dial-a-Ride vs. other services
One of the policy decisions that the region is going to have to make is how many resources will be
allocated to dial-a-ride services versus other types of services. Typically dial-a-ride services have
higher subsidies than regular route services, sometimes three or four times higher. But these programs
also typically provide services to the most needy in a community and also provide services in locations
where regular route transit service is not feasible. It is not clear how the region is going to make
choices between these two alternatives but given the potential for dwindling resources, it is possible
that difficult choices will need to be made in the future.
20
5) Commuter Services Future Operating Budgets and Operating Needs
Projected Operating Budget Changes
A number of changes over the next five years will be able to be absorbed with negligible costs for the
Shakopee and Prior Lake services. These changes include:
The addition of two Southwest Transit buses in exchange for two B1ueXpress buses stopping at
Anderson Lakes
• The addition of the site at TH169 and CH 17 as a park and ride
• Potential changes or additions of a park and ride in Prior Lake
There are a number of changes in the operating budget over the next several years, however, that will
have an impact on the operating budget. These include:
Adding one bus from the Jobs Access/Reverse Commute program in 2010
Adding three CMAQ buses. in-2013
Adding 3 CMAQ buses in 2015
Some of these changes have transitional funding which will reduce costs for several years at start-up of
the service. These changes are as follows:
1 JARC Bus 3 2013 CMAQ Buses 3 2015 CMAQ Buses
2011 50% X X
2012 50% X X
2013 100% 20% X
2014 100% 20% X
2015 100% 20% X
2016 100% 100% 20%
2017 100% 100% 20%
2018 100% 100% 20%
2019 100% 100% 100%
2020 100% 100% 100%
21
It is projected that each trip for a coach bus from Scott County to downtown Minneapolis will cost
$150,000 in 2010 dollars. Costs should be assumed to escalate at 5% a year to provide a cushion in
case fuel shortages arise. This would mean that costs that would be borne by Shakopee and Prior Lake
for the above service expansions would be:
1 JARC Bus 3 2013 CMAQ Buses 3 2015 CMAQ Buses Total
2011 $75,000 X X $75,000
2012 $78,750 X X $78,750
2013 $165,375 $ 99,225 X $264,600
2014 $173,644 $104,186 X $277,830
2015 $182,326 $109,396 X $291,721
2016 $191,442 $574,327 $ 114,865 $880,634
2017 $201,014 $603,043 $ 120,609 $924,666
2018 $211,065 $633,195 $ 126,639 $970,899
2019 $221,618 $664,855 $ 664,855 $1,551,328
2020 $232,699 $698,098 $ 698,098 $1,628,895
Funding Scenarios
The future of transit funding for the Twin Cities is more uncertain than it has ever been. Because of
this, it is important to run a number of scenarios to understand the choices that maybe ahead for policy
makers.
Base assumptions for all scenarios include:
• Base bus costs increasing at 4% a year.
• Administrative costs increasing at 3% a year.
• Fare revenues being recovered for 20% of commuter costs and 10% of shuttle and circulator
costs.
• That new costs are phased in as shown above under "Projected Operating Budget Changes."
The projections show net changes on the Shakopee and Prior Lake budget.
• It is assumed that the SmartLink Transit dial-a-ride budget is not included in this projection as it
is not affected by the addition of park and ride capacity.
• Projections are done for three biennia into the fitture. Because of the extreme uncertainty in
funding, it does not make sense to extend the projection further.
22
Scenario 1: State Forecasted MUST
This scenario assumes the current state forecast for the MVST.
Under this scenario, the state forecast projects a 26% increase in MVST from 2011 to 2012, offsetting
the increase in bus costs. Fund balances are drawn down in each year but fund balances still stay above
policy minimums unti12016.
Scenario 1: Assume State Forecast for MVST
Adjusted
Revenues 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
MVST Shakopee $678,000 $691,560 $871,366 $923,648. $960,593 $1,008,623 $1,059,054
MVST Prior Lake $484,000 $493,680 $622,037 $659,359 $685,733 $720,020 $756,021
Fares Shakopee $164,800 $186,392 $193,998 $218,453 $227,521 $236,970 $269,786
Fares Prior Lake $90,000 $133,328 $138,661 $164,053 $170,813 $177,854 $277,079
Other Shakopee $85,000 $68,000 $54,400 $43,520 $34,816 $27,853 $22,282
Prior Year Fares $400,000
Other Prior Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,,.: .
Total Revenues $1,901,800 $1,572,960 $1,880,461 $2,009,032 $2,079,477 $2,171,320 $2,384,223
txpenaitures
Big Bus Shakopee $625,000 $650,000 $676,000 $703,040 $731,162 $760,408 $790,824
Big Bus Prior Lake $601,000 $625,040 $650,042 $676,043 $703,085 $731,208 $760,457
Added JARC Bus $75,000 $78,750 $165,375 $173,644 $182,326 $191,442
Added 3 CMAQ
2013 $99,225 $104,186 $109,396 $574,327
Add 3 CMAQ 2015 $114,865
Circulator
Shakopee $330,000 $343,200 $356,928 $371,205 $386,053 $401,495 $417,555
Circulator Prior
Lake $80,000 $83,200 $86,528 $89,989 $93,589 $97,332 $101,226
Vanpools
Shakopee $68,000 $70,720 $73,549 $76,491 $79,550 $82,732 $86,042
Admin Shakopee $111,400 $114,742 $118,184 $121,730 $125,382 $129,143 $133,017
Admin Prior Lake $94,520 $97,356 $100,276 $103,285 $106,383 $109,575 $112,862
$1,909,920 $2,059,258 $2,140,257 $2,406,383 $2,503,034 $2,603,616 $3,282,617
Change in Fund Balance ($8,120) ($486,298) ($259,796) ($397,351) ($423,556) ($432,296)
Ending Fund Balance $2,511,880 $2,025,582- $1,765,787 $1,368,436 $944,879 $512,583
$2,520,000 CY2009 Balance
It would be possible to forego the circulator, shuttle and vanpool services to maintain policy fund.
balances. The County may want to explore other funding sources as an alternative. Some of the
alternatives listed under the "2016 and Beyond" heading may want to be explored earlier than 2016.
23
Scenario 2: No growth in MUST
If there is no growth in the MUST, the transit system runs out of money somewhere in 2014.
Traditionally, such dramatic scenarios are not necessary but given the uncertainty both in the economy
and in the political realm, it is prudent to look at this alternative.
Scenario 2: No growth in MVST
Revenues 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2096
MVST Shakopee $678,000 $678,000 $678,000 $678,000 $678,000 $678,000 $678,000
MVST Prior Lake $484,000 $484,000 $484,000 $484,000 $484,000 $484,000 $484,000
Fares Shakopee $164,800 $186,392 $193,998 $218,453 $227,521 $236,970 $269,786
Fares Prior Lake $90,000 $133,328 $138,661 $164,053 $170,813 $177,854 $277,079
Prior Year Fares $400,000
Other Shakopee $85,000 $68,000 $54,400 $43,520 $34,816 $27,853 $22,282
Other Prior Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenues $1,901,800 $1,549,720 $1,549,059 $1,588,025 $1,595,151 $1,604,676 $1,731,148
Expenditures
Big Bus Shakopee $625,000 $650,000 $676,000 $703,040 $731,162 $760,408 $790,824
Big Bus Prior Lake $601,000 $625,040 $650,042 $676,043 $703,085 $731,208 $760,457
Added JARC Bus $0 $75,000 $78,750 $165,375 $173,644 $182,326 $191,442
Added 3 CMAQ
2013 $0 $0 $0 $99,225 $104,186 $109,396 $574,327
Add 3 CMAQ 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $114,865
Circulator
Shakopee $330,000 $343,200 $356,928 $371,205 $386,053 $401,495 $417,555
Circulator Prior
Lake $80,000 $83,200 $86,528 $89,989 $93,589 $97,332 $101,226
Vanpools
Shakopee $68,000 $70,720 $73,549 $76,491 $79,550 $82,732 $86,042
Admin Shakopee $111,400 $114,742 $118,184 $121,730 $125,382 $129,143 $133,017
Admin Prior Lake $94,520 $97,356 $100,276 $103,285 $106,383 $109,575 $112,862
$1,909,920 $2,059,258 $2,140,257 $2,406,383 $2,503,034 $2,603,616 $3,282,617
Change in Fund Balance ($8,120) ($509,538) ($591,198) ($818,357) ($907,883) ($998,939)
Ending Fund Balance $2,511,880 $2,002,342 $1,411,144 $592,787 ($315,096) ($1,314,036)
$2,520,000 CY2009 Balance
Under this scenario, the system runs out of funds in 2014. This may accelerate the decisions to
terminate the circulators or to seek additional funding.
24
Scenario 3: Metropolitan Council Forecast
The Metropolitan Council also has a forecast for MVST distribution. Assuming no changes, this
alternative would mean that the system would not run out of funds during this forecast period, although
balances would go below the 35% that the Metropolitan Council has said it would like to maintain.
Scenario 3: Met Council Forecast
Revenues 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
MVST Shakopee $678,000 $785,000 $863,000 $867,000 $889,000 $911,000 $956,550
MVST Prior Lake $484,000 $561,000 $610,000 $620,000 $635,000 $650,000 $682,500
Fares Shakopee $164,800 $186-,392 $193,998 $218,453 $227,521 $236,970 $269,78ti
Fares Prior Lake $90,000 $133,328 $138,661 $164,053 $170,813 $177,854 $277,079
Prior Fares $400,000
Other Shakopee $85,000 $68,000 $54,400 $43,520 $34,816 $27,853 $22,282
Other Prior Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenues $1,901,800- $1,733,720 $1,860,059 $1,913,025 $1,957,151 $2,003,676 $2,208,198
Expenditures
Big Bus Shakopee $625,000 $650,000 $676,000 $703,040 $731,162 $760,408 $790,824
Big Bus Prior Lake $601,000 $625,040 $650,042 $676,043 $703,085 $731,208 $760,457
Added JARC Bus $0 $75,000 $78,750 $165,375 $173,644 $182,326 $191,442
Added 3 CMAQ
2013 $0 $0 $0 $99,225 $104,186 $109,396 $574,327
Add 3 CMAQ 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $114,865
Circulator
Shakopee $330,000 $343,200 $356,928 $371,205 $38Ei,053 $401,495 $417,555
Circulator Prior
Lake $80,000 $83,200 $86,528 $89,989 $93,589 $97,332 $101,226
Vanpools
Shakopee $68,000 $70,720 $73,549 $76,491 $79,550 $82,732 $86,042
Admin Shakopee $111,400 $114,742 $118,184 $121,730 $125,382 $129,143 $133,017
Admin Prior Lake $94,520 $97,356 $100,276 $103,285 $106,383 $109,575 $112,862
$1,909,920 $2,059,258 $2,140,257 $2,406,383 $2,503,034 $2,603,616 $3,282,617
Change in Fund Balance ($8,120) ($325,538) ($280,198) ($493,357) ($545,883) ($599,939)
Ending Fund Balance $2,511,880 $2,186,342 $1,906,144 $1,412,787 $866,904 $266,964
$2,520,000 CY2009 Balance
2016 and Beyond
It is clear that in 2016 and beyond, current revenues are not enough to sustain increased growth. At
that point, Scott County will need to make a decision about how it is going to increase transit revenues
if it wants to continue to increase access to employment in downtown Minneapolis and continue its
safety net of transportation. Currently there are a number of options that will need to be explored in the
next several years if funding patterns do not change dramatically. These options include:
• Reduction or elimination of circulators and shuttles, with the corresponding loss of ADA service
• Joining the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)
25
• Tapping the Regional Railroad Authority levy for transit operations
• Obtaining an increased proportion of the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax
• Obtaining increased State General Fund monies
• Developing new revenue sources
26
6} Transit-dependent Service Operating Budgets and Operating Needs
Current Transit-Dependent Programs Funding Sources
Currently programs service transit-dependent populations-cost Scott County $3.28 M in 2010. This.
included all the activities under the SmartLink program as well as contract services for Prior Lake and
Shakopee. This was funded from a number of programs:
Scott County Transit Revenue Sources
MnDOT Rural
Fares, Programs,
$458,800 $185,700
Access to Met CAUnCl1:
Jobs Grant, ADA,
\
$240,000 '~ ~ $564,000
,,, ~ \
Shakopee
~
~
:.Circulator,- „~.
1
•'~~~~ ,
'~:c~:,~
$264,000 .. ~,
.' ' , ~t _ ~j Met Council:
Prior Lake :,.
~ Scott DAR,
,~
Grculator, ~ $569,000
$32,000
Medical Met Council
Assistance, Carver DAR,
$550,000 $420,000
Funding from the Metropolitan Council comes from a combination of Motor Vehicle Sales Taxes and
State General Funds. State Medical Assistance funds come from a combination of state general funds
and federal grants. The Prior Lake and Shakopee circulator funds come from the Motor Vehicle Sales
Taxes. The Access to Jobs grant is only for two years. The other revenue sources are expected to be
on-going.
Future Transit-Dependent Funding Needs
If we assume that:
SmartLink Transit does not take on any additional programs (as assumption that has not held
true for the last five years)
Demand for dial-a-ride services increases both with the increased population projected for Scott
County and with the increase in the percentage of persons who are elderly
Inflation is 4% a year
Then by 2020, funding will need to increase by 120%, from $3.28 million. in 2010 to $7 million.
Projected Future Fleet Needs
If the fleet increases to meet demand, it will mean adding three buses every two years from 2010 to
2020, or 15 additional buses above the existing 33.
27
Future Funding Sources
The CY 2010 SmartLink budget is funded through a number of programs which receive money from a
number of sources.
Amount Funder
Source
$564,000 Met Council: ADA State General Fund
$569,000 Met Council: Scott DAR MVST
$420,000 Met Council Carver DAR MVST
$550,000 Medical Assistance Federal and State General Fund
$32,000 Prior Lake Circulator MVST
$264,000 Shakopee Circulator MUST
$240,000 Access to Jobs Grant Federal Grant
$458,800 Fares Riders
$185,700 Mn/DOT Rural Programs MVST
$3,283,500 Total
About half the funding comes from the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax and over a quarter from the State Sales
Tax.
Scott County Transit Funding Sources
Federal/ Fares,
State $458,800
General
Funds,
$550, 00
State '~~~ ~' MVST,
General $1,470,700
Fund,
$564,000
Assuming that funding were available to increase programs to meet demand, funding would need to
increase 120% between 2010 and 2020 to meet inflation and growth in demand. This would require the
following amounts, assuming that the current funding distribution does not change into the future.
2010 Funding 2020 Need
$1,470;700 MVST $3,235,540
$564,000 State General Fund $1,240,800
$550,000 Federal/ State General Funds $1,210,000
$458,800 Fares $1,009,360
$3,043,500 Total $6,695,700
28
The same questions about funding sources that were noted for regular route service also apply to dial-a-
ride funding. The MUST has declined about a third from 2003 to 2010 and there is great uncertainty.
where it will go in the future. The State General Fund has a shortfall of roughly one-quarter for the
upcoming biennium and deep cuts are anticipated for many programs. These changes could
substantially affect whether funding will be available for this expansion.
29