HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.A.1. Discussion of Transit Funding and Governance Issues General Business 10. A. 1.
S1-IAKOPEE
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
DATE: 03/05/2013
SUBJECT: Discussion of Transit Funding and Governance Issues (B, D, E)
Action Sought
The City Council is asked to discuss and provide direction to staff regarding the approach the Council wishes to
take to address the issues outlined in this report and the attached presentation.
Background
Shakopee has been within the Transit Taxing District since about 1975. Even though properties in Shakopee were
taxed for transit service, for a number of years the service provided to the City was limited to a couple of Metro
Transit Commission (MTC) buses to and from Downtown Minneapolis from Monday through Friday. In 1984, the
state legislature adopted Minn.Stat. Sec. 473.388, which in essence allowed cities to "opt out" of the MTC service
and provide or procure their own services. Shakopee was the second city to opt out of MTC service and use the
property taxes collected to fund local transit services. For several years, the core of the city's services were a) a
dial -a -ride (DAR) service within the city limits, and b) support for a number of van pools. Subsequently, with the
passage of a constitutional amendment, the funding for transit in the Region moved from the property tax to the
Minnesota Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST). Capital funds continue to come from the property taxes collected in the
Transit Taxing District.
In 2003, consistent with the recommendations of the Scott County Unified Transit Management Plan (UTMP), the
DAR service was transitioned to Scott County Transit (Scott County), and Shakopee's local service was
transitioned to a regular route, timed circulator (Route 496). In July of 2007, the city, in partnership with the City
of Prior Lake and Scott County launched the BlueXpress commuter service to Downtown Minneapolis. That
service has been the fastest growing regional service in the last couple of years. The Scott Transit Planning Team
(TPT) has completed a transit capital and operations plan (attached for the Council's information). That plan
suggests that by about 2016 to 2018 the two cities will lack the operational funds to continue to support existing and
proposed new service.
Recommendation
The Council is asked to discuss the issues outlined in the attachments, and provide direction regarding how to
address transit funding and governance in the future. The Prior Lake City Council met in workshop on Monday,
February 25, 2013 and directed that their staff explore options that would merge /align their services with other,
larger regional providers such as SWT or MVTA.
Budget Impact
This discussion does not have a direct impact on the city's general fund budget, nor on the amount of funds that
would be available to the city to fund current and future transit service.
Relationship to Vision
This item relates to the following city goals;
B. Positively manage the challenges and opportunities presented by growth, development and change;
D Maintain, improve and create strong partnerships with other public and private sector entities;
E. Deliver effective and efficient public services by a staff of well- trained, caring and professional employees.
Requested Action
The Council is asked to provide direction regarding how to move forward on the transit funding and governance
issues outlined in this report and the attachments.
Attachments: transit presentation
Transit presentation 2
ommr* i
Transit in Shakopee
Past, Present & Future
City Council Regular Session
March 5, 2013
UI pkJac
Discuss the current state of transit and the
future of transit in Shakopee
Issues (in no particular order)
• The role of the Scott Transit Review Board (TRB)
• Possible changes in transit governance
• Funding
• Metropolitan Council posture on opt -outs
• Ridership /park & ride use
• CMAQ grants
• CTIB
• Governor's funding proposal
0 .0=4-5
#411
-0 iv_ 00—
• 4 separate providers
• Shakopee, Prior Lake, Scott County, Savage (MVTA)
• Work together, but function individually
• Transit Review Board (TRB)
• Elected officials represent each provider and
remaining Scott County cities
• Serves as policy board
Transit Planning Team (TPT)
• Staff representatives of each provider and other
communities
• Serves as technical committee
x r *, ' = I i di ISIL I LLLII 1 i JiiS1 11 i 1C IL -_
NM N ::
L dpI1c11 it i iouvti i iti iLS
Southbridge Crossings ' TH 169 Bus -Only Transit
Transit Station Advantage Ramp
• Opened in 2007 Opened in 2009
• 513 spaces ' Direct access from
• Federal State, Regional and Southbridge Crossings
Local funding partnership Transit Station to 169
F lo
s
e t�lp bTri
� sw etw
v : lurwsw
1)IM pR
D 7::°- 0./...-x .
*n"" TN CROSSINGS a
ON moot *O.44 TRANSIT �,. t.. 1 *, 1 ' rr 101_
GAL[Uallue.40 i , STATION * $.
•, 1 V 21 5 i x
x f T �
w
4.,., 4 ,..-, '' OtDtI.M1, 1 4. , II ! �r w 4. C i ' r. .r,�5rw U ¢ ` i s
Apr. ^
Mp j
■ w n
^t`A 6Q,9 4 / fiRY�4 g LtigtCN cm. m +t «.^
d Geloi L j 7 xF
milwr i - i 1 cil iSit. " LLUI t I lii II I iti IL
L001,10101 ii I IP, L VCH ICI i t. )
Eagle Creek Transit . l l Road Transit
Station Station
• Opened i n 2012 ' Scheduled to open in late
' 563 spaces 2013
• Federal, State, Regional and • 400 park and ride spaces
Local funding partnership ' Canopies, interior
.,.... r -- restrooms and waiting
Y
Z t \ /
... r space
a
0
uan.c�•a ," .x., `
21. ^
�- -�`` rec n.
r 111 - � . Yl, w. rr1 '" ur :1 _ " 111 II w r i I I III
- .....,—. . ter. w -�. -..
L
CU > o
2
..
O --I c :..
a
‘,..___J aid >'
t
O •—
N S r
N cu
i v = o
.• V 1 W oo Eo '
N >'
N N
CZ N
CU CU
Q > o
D. co
0 `°
H
L
CU
ima _ v
• o
C ,_,
O s"
a �
.0 a� a5 LI /
2
N
N i
CU
13
. —
1 CC
s (/) a O
t C I ',D.,,
ca
Ii 20
2 Ln
q,.
BlueXpress Total Riders
200,000 185,055
180,000 169,953
160,000 142,347 137,289 141,685
140,000
120,000
100,000 85,524 94,772 Total Riders
80,000 Laker Lines
2,304 54,090 48,452 48,909
60,000
40,000 z- 34,39
20,000
- 1 1 1 1 7
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
BlueXpress ridership increased by 254% since 2007
immorOf51 __
,. •
Scott County Dial -a -Ride Ridership
(Includes Carver County from 2007 +)
200,000 __
180,000
160,000 - --
140,000
120,000 - _
100,000
INI 4
80,000 - Ill
60,000
40,000
1 ? y
20,000 __
0 «._. .
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
■General Public •ADA CI Shakopee DAR RI Prior Lake DAR 'Medical Assistance
...,
e i
Residence Location 2010 2012 % Change
Shakopee 195 215 10%
Prior Lake 139 186 34%
Savage 287 247 -14%
Jordan 7 16 129%
Belle Plaine 3 7 133%
New Prague 2 16 700%
Elko New Market 23 -35%
Other 36 31 -95%
TOTAL 669 741 11%
tin,, ., Tray , -
Savage
Residence Southbridge Sea ate Burnsville Lakeville-
Ea • le Cree Park & TOTAL
s
Location Crossings �� ~ ~���°� xi Park & Ride Transit Station Kendrick
Ridgy
Shakopee 137 35 1 2 40 215
Prior Lake 64 30 4 1 62 25 186
Savage 31 1 41 1 172 1 247
Jordan 6 1 1 7 1 16
Belle Plaine 3 2 2 7
New Prague 2 8 6 16
Elko New
Market 7 16 23
Other 27 4 31
TOTAL 268 71 53 4 296 49 741
Metropolitan Council, 2012 Park and Ride Study
U c Si I I LUG i I ISL1
„.„ _Jr
2011 Met Council and Metro 2011 Suburban Provider
Transit Ridership by Type Ridership by Type
Commuter Dia -A-
Rail
1% Ride
Dial -A -Ride 1 0 �
2°/ Light Rail Express Bus Local
12% 11%
Bus
18%
Express
Bus
Local Bus 81%
74%
,--. -- CV
2 "
{— CO
tn-
CD ,
, .
VI
C , ,
00
:
Om t rr
I •
.-
t f o
J Lu . 0 -(,) g c:
F ijo , f-
r ...2., cc "i
,,, ,....,-
E - vC' - cr5 -
2 ° rri — H
cn H Cr'
co ti 2 N
1- 2 in X cc
c '
in
-.J () -
L
i11. _C 0
0 ,-1
Z IA'
0
0 0
VI Lo otil
0 .
2 NJ
-A , in-
, ,
tz
0 CD
Z
0 (N1
-
CU a) m cr,
CC cu
. . .
. ..
u.... _ (.),* Lf) 0
(1.)
L.. .r
u_
r1 r`l
a3 Is) ,---4
o
:I
Lc)
$._ -..... N
N
4 I TY ( sAd
1 I
I II
• 1 as 1
. B I u e X p r e s s Dial -a -Ride
10 AM trips SmartLink- :a• -.,
Rider's
10 PM trips Gui
8 reverse commutes (4 AM and 4 PM) r.. Transit System ViaP
• 1 midday t r i p
Mob* Sepswase 3011
• SmartLink Transit , ,,-
�x;r C �yy IIDUIF3 401. el q¢. 41t
'6%
1
Shakopee circulator ss
• Dial -A -Ride service DOWNTQWN
MINNEAPOLIS
_ _ _ ROUTES
• M vTA 490 EXPRESS
491,492,498
• 3 routes serving Savage Park and Rid '9.4„,----;;„,-:-'',
• Express route 464 (13 total runs) u .
tea Shut*CovAttoo
• Local route 444 to Mall of America
0
• Local route 421 (hybrid dial -a -ride) .. S�1xtu,k °." .
Vir
'Additional demand for commuter service on
169 corridor
• Demand for connections to Southwest LRT
• Additional demand on 35 corridor and Cedar
Avenue BRT (MVTA)
Increased demand for diaI-a-ride service due to:
Population growth
' Increased percent of elderly & transit dependent
population
• Local circulator service for Prior Lake, Shakopee
and Savage
6, Crossings Eagle Creek rschall Road
AIM
2013 11 trips 4 trips
2014 11 trips 4 trips 3 trips
2015 12 trips 5 trips 5 trips
2016 12 trips 5 trips 5 trips
2017 13 trips + service to LRT 6 trips + service to LRT 6 trips + service to LRT
• To provide service
3 additional buses purchased with CMAQ grant in 2014
3 additional buses purchased with CMAQ grant in 2016
Preliminary approval received in 2012
Operating costs will be our responsibility
oUu6cL ifrfulkaot.
BlueXpress Service
• Increased capital expenses
' Facility maintenance
• Increases Operational expenses
• Additional buses = additional operational costs
• Operating budget shortfalls by 2017
SmartLink Transit
• 120% funding increase required by 2017
Operations and Capital Plan
Recommendations
Funding
v��� a�.�� i5 a� �u i,a�i�ai ��ar r
,,;�,, . ter ,.: : � ! � en
neLurr tier iLia ithrig
A elle4r° the budget shortfall
' Eliminate service
. ' Increase revenues
• Supplement MVST with local funds
• County -wide JPA
• All cities contribute funds to transit service
• Join County Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)
• Governor's 1/4 cent sales tax proposal
• Authorized by Legislature in 2008
Members:
* 5 of the 7 Metro counties
* Each county has 2 members and 1 alternate
* Metropolitan Council has 1 member and 1
alternate
Purpose:
* Fund the planning, design, building and operation
of the Region's Approved Transit Way System
• Self- imposed 1/4 percent sales tax
0 \— ..1 11 a J I t. v� v u c
Vision:
A network of interconnected _t i
transitways that allows users j . I -^
ANOKA
to move efficiently and safely,
witsmevcio4
while mitigating congestion,
VAMP ;
enhancing economic . F �- ,
development and improving The Interchange iiii, . .,
environmental stability for the .- Union Depot
• region." ) L -... --
CTIB investments based
on the current map
`°
1
I
1 1%.4.A.).)cii
• Mandatory 1/4C sales tax in the 7- county metro
area dedicated for transit
' Stable source of funds
Raises an estimated $250M per year
Eliminate current transit operational funding
deficits
• Fully fund the Southwest LRT
• Allow 1% expansion of regional bus system
• Fund new bus and rail transitways over the next
20 years (BRT, streetcar and LRT)
_ * .
iliglanlillilMillitan ' ,
ifi . 4,0.0 at ", i 6 :) , i
- . 111U1111111M. AN I 7
Proposed System under Governor's Proposal
■111111 9 to Wr i , 0 1 A 5 10
'1
...e.......i...r.e..........■...■i M Iles
\
Nth,
■ , ,,.... 1
0
.
94 NORTH
I .z.
r 0
1.0`)/0 It 1
Annual Growth rs '
*
in Bus System 1024, N j 1 '4 ' III ,
P - _
L. -..., - -I / , - ) ;
HIGHWAY 3b
■
111 II ,4 E k pme 1
_ ilk. *gag 1111 .' 1 r
,- 41 0/:.4 7 4101 id 111111111• I '' 11 E ! .
ir....... -
1-394 MnPASS a., v',..... j
I
r a
b lm ,
1 _ ir • 4., , .. GREEN L1NEROMP- 2 --- -- -.=...
- 1 1' .\ 1 16 6t ' r
im ______ ,
3 ,...,
P-0' - 1 liT 1 ''' -.1.
p
, ,, la c..., lit ■••■ s
•-• '1 It's
III ' \ N. • ,,_. ?
-- TRANSIT NETVVORK
Governors Budget
' - it; dinkiil
1 it II ,), -' 5 --- -
'4 1
Ire _U° 1 _ _ ----, NEM METRO Blu me
(Hiawaa th / l Bottineau LRT)
I .
AMERICA _ - Z , 1 I METRO Green Line (Central /SWI.RT)
,
;
WOW' Tr PI II O ., ass METRO Re
O O Ora d n L g i e ne un ( e Co o dr T
.3
P ,
; I Nap
1 irially' t:f....:2,,../ Elm Gateway BRT or LRT
C
ME Potenbal Highway BRT (Corridors TBD)
g tu ": ir
2 Potential terial BRT
0.1 ''
. and/or Streetcar (Corridors TBD)
,
.,- =.... : Northstar Commuter Rad
2 . - fi
Up
,
Existing em
,
, aid lo- '
awn Ara
- _...1111111111=111
to grow 1% annually
1
�x rt ,.lt i
_-. , 4„;__,,,,,,,, 1111117W 1 0 ' II
10 ''''
*.. , 4k J-:11
∎11•••■111111111111110111 Miles
(�gy H 1 -j 1,� NORT `, P. ;1
1.O% Annual Growth I ‘,..111 11,104.. �3 1111
a ---- - - ----- t
in Bus System ® , f$ - J - mw t
Iwo .. � � � ■ Ill ` IL L HIGHWAY 38 � v 4 a 1
R MI
( ( ! --1 ,i"I �-� ,,ORV.EN I°IN =-----=....„....r. T e"
CL :
, ii i i 11 :,Cr.. o 1 ( to --
rid `I �,..` 1. �j ,
: .< ■ I WNNNtti UAW l'. :- - j 1 U TRANSIT NETWORK
—` 1 1� Governor's Budget ..
' l
L 1 - . ( I / H _ M FTRO B Line
_ ��• AMERICAN" e . _ ,j; J h J METRO Green L (Cen /SWLRT) T hy IntNC Union Depot
Y 212 w � ! J • 1,,,,, HW HWA i t F1E Rad 1 me (Cedar ART1 x
B METRO Orange Line (1.35W S ART) f''
r �
$� Gateway BRT or LRT
�
g r MI Pot nt I Mph way BRT (Corridors TOO)
_ ler Ely, - - - Potential 5e,t Arterial BRT '
and/or Streetcar (Cwrdon TBDi
- Nortlrslar Commuter Rail 4 * ; �
�. E./ogling Bus SYet.s 1 9
v = - r_ _Al 111111111111111 b grow 1% annually I
WAWA
l
i
y
Operations and Capital Plan
Recommendations
Governance
C: • _ .� di iLi 1-c:ipiticii rAcil i -in
' Two - Cities Model
• Prior Lake /Shakopee JPA
• County Model
• Combine all transit operations with SmartLink
' South of the River Model
Join MVTA
• 169 Corridor Model
• Join Southwest Transit
' County -Wide JPA Model
' Minnetonka Model
* Contract with Metro Council
' Suburban Transit Provider Model
®��� ' •
»; rty
1 x:
:
•
• Metropolitan Council is
i ; responsible for transit
- _ *____.___.; i within 7- County Metro
i
i
.J.0:41 - --- - -r - -- - --f
Area
Maple Grove i c--1, i i --
_. - z,1 (-� --. i Exception: Replacement
Plymouth "- ' Jr l qti
1 { I J services permitted by
i
.rid. � �r --+� ::._.._
-fi - Statute since 1982
1 tA 4 '' ' 1 ) I? .
- - - - - -- — - • 13 communities "opted
"a! Southwest Transit d
r _Alt . 1
i
o of regional system
. Shakopee ; . . I li
1 t Prior Lake i 1 Minnesota Valley t
____ ,�_; Transit Authority __ j ' Metropolitan Council still
t i i i 1 i 4 rt
pr-4 I -- � maintains control of
funds
ruiLy i5sU 101 tASt..uS5th
Trn►n ;IF 001,401/07 RturrrrI
• Primary role is to make recommendations on
system improvements
Capital infrastructure needed through 2020 is in
place
I' Attendance at TRB is waning
1 ' Is there a need for the TRB?
Can the TRB functions be incorporated into the
SCALE Services Delivery Committee?
..".
,..,, _
. . _
Consolidation
Provides opportunities for efficiencies
• Budget shortfalls projected by 2017
Potential issues with loss of local
control/influence
Larger groups may have more impact on
Metropolitan Council
41 How can we ensure current levels of service are
maintained?
Hit : LI SLUSSaii 1 -
mg � i?� ti 1 Ici iLe
If consolidation, what is the best option?
MVTA? Southwest Transit?
• Currently serves Savage ' Smaller consortium
• Scott County has a seat on the Currently serves 169 corridor
MVTA Board ' Long range plans identified
' Larger consortium growth south of the river
' Primary growth and service along 169 corridor
areas are to the east ' Potential for better
connections with Southwest
LRT
• Other options?
•
O
(/) bei
CU
CI
� i� O • Cli c
cn •N 73
> (,)
= IA
• .... 4
ti 1■11111111111
0
CLIM V)
0 LLB
•
rui Mit
Clinvirwrt Goverrnec 1 /4C Sales Tax
it Closes transit funding gaps
How should funds be allocated?
• CTIB (elected officials make decisions)
• Met Council (appointed members, regional
planning entity)
• Revised TAB (local elected officials)
;-...tam- � � � rUlil.y " 11111
ut
Support for cArtiht* ri Membership in
CPR
Establishes 1/4C sales tax without Governor's
proposal
Local elected officials make decisions
1/2C sales tax could be levied with Governor's
proposal
' Impact to County
• Many residents pay sales tax when shopping
outside of Scott County
Captures tourist sales taxes paid in Scott County
���. i Y di OIL li i .�I Idl`U�.1ee O .
cjb rdSL, e5e1 Il d( il.i rt,iY.t,lf
Q uestions/Discussion
City Council Regular Session
March 5, 2013
_..--... __- -_ _ _-- -- --- - -- ,
- �. ,�. �
; , B�vE PRESS
� j SmartLink-�--,��j�-�t�i�
�� ..
;
t , _ ,�
'`)3� } ;� ���� ��,�� ;��.
;�,�C;) , f ,��., � .,3,,C� � � � ���
, , r
� -_ ___ _ ----- ----- _________ �
��.�' 0 IC�C �,�0 l�!)�l�C v �x'-_"_r"��!�1 � • � A . . Q �
. o _. C � � � �
. __ �����.
�. :;�.: �,:�
� „,.� ,., . . :
,. ..
, :. ... - :,- � -- -
� � ` � .. � n, � c� 'n t';
� .
. , .. . . _ _
- - . -
,
� , _
. -. :. ..:: � , ��- - ,� �
`- — ,: , -- il_ - -
f r .+ � #�� �� � � ����I
��--^-_. . -- � �- r �.. ,� �,k ..�cr.Y� . 1 .;� �, � ��
� ' ��; ���� � �� a ��T _ � �} — .
�� � .�.�:� � ��� 2♦.
�I
��P�—`��—..�_ �� . �� . .- k 5 .
Ff�C���� '� .4��.�h� . — 6 � ;t �
i ��.. . At . I '�' , .�,_ �:
s ;`�i � � '' �?�t�+� --
�, � —
'a
��#' -
t' r � Y � ��`
— �
,
,
i
r
� d s -.-�, `�,.-'-'
,� i � 1
�� � �1'.. �
� j
— I
x` �s ��
.�'. j ,.:,'�. �.
� ,. .y�
>" 4
: . '
. . �
0 �
� � +� � � .. . � ����
— ���ti '. - .__..._ �_.._ �.
.' C . , .'� :. �
. "'._.� � �_. ..�'9_�_s. .. ..__�__ �_____.—____—�__..__ _. .�:
._. ... .. . ... . ._....._._._____'___;
'�I, I
I
i �
li
��
I; `
I'; �
��`,'t���n�'i�. ��1�._��� �t(?�����J ta^7� C��1�����
I+ I
t
(0}1 �lf�':�;Co�SCC:Y���•�E�k�.�'°�it���It t�c e�i� �
�' i
� :�'�:1�����Jc;o��x� 'C�c1U�C�!`io/ . I
_.
P'�ti+�r�{r �.+w. i 7
, i.
' iv; �'� .���`!r-� .., I ��:�C�G�=�i\Y1 C.1.C�.�:�) i
�����������rj � ` _`, �`4� ', ;
4�. .,1�1,7'i� 1, �'�!�`° �'��lsin� ' . `_ �_
I
�
� i
i
i
�
Table of Contents
Page#
Introduction 1
Existing System 2
Long-term Regular Roufe Service Needs 9
Long-term Dial-a-Ride Service Needs 15
Recommendations for Enhancement and Expansion 17
Transit Revenue Sources 20
Transit-dependent Service Operating Budgets and Needs 27
Future Operating Funding Sources 28
Capital Funding Needs 28
Future Funding Options 31
Organizational Structure for Service Delivery 32
Conclusion 33
Appendices
Appendix A: Detailed Capital Needs 34
Southbridge Crossings Transit Station 34
Eagle Creek Transit Station 35
Marschall Road Transit Station 36
TH 169 Bus-Only Transit Advantage Ramp 37
BlueXpress Bus Fleet—Expansion 38
BlueXpress Bus Fleet—Replacement 39
SmartLinl< Bus Fleet—Expansion 40
SmartLink Bus Fleet—Replacement 41
SmartLinl< Bus Fleet—Other Capital 42
Appendix B: Current Fleet 43
BlueXpress (Shakopee Transit and City of Prior Lake) Fleet 43
SmartLink and Local Circulator Fleet 44
Appendix C: Summary of Transit Facilities 45
Southbridge Crossings Transit Station 46
Eagle Creek Transit Station 47
Marschall Road Transit Station 48
TH 169 Bus-Only Transit Advantage Ramp 49
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Table of Contents
Introduction
As few as ten years ago,transit service in Scott County was minimal, and what little service
existed was fragmented. In August 2000, at the request of Metropolitan Council
representatives, Scott County hosted discussions on �transit services provided in the Scott
County area. As a result,the County,the City of Shakopee and the City of Prior Lake worked
together to prepare the Scott County Area Transit Study in 2002. This study identified gaps in
transit in the County, and the need for additional services. This study was followed by the Scott
County Transit Demand Analysis in 2003, and finally by the Unified Transit Management Plan in
2005. All of the cities participated in the development of the UTMP. This plan established the
framework for the transit system in Scott County as it exists today. The result of this work is an
increase in commuters from approximately 58,000 in 2000 to 360,000 in 2011.
This earlier work highlights the importance of transit to Scott County and to the entire region.
Transit provides people with mobility and access to employment, community resources and
recreational opportunities. Transit also helps to reduce road congestion and travel times,air
pollution, energy and oil consumption. In 2012, it's estimated the current transit system takes
approximately 1,400 vehicles off of the roads each day.
In addition, dial-a-ride programs have expanded substantially since 2000. Both ADA and
medical assistance service have been added. In addition, the Scott County dial-a-ride program
merged with the Carver County dial-a-ride program.The result is that dial-a-ride service has
increased from about 80,000 rides in 2000 to over 175,000 rides in 2011.
Public transit also has a significant positive impact on economic development in the area.
According to the American Public Transit Association, every$1 invested in public transportation
generates approximately$4 in economic returns. Public transit not only takes local residents to
work in the downtown area, it brings workers to Scott County for local employers. This will be a
very important consideration if Scott County is to meet its goal of providing jobs for 50%of the
population by 2030.
The purpose of this operations and capital plan is to provide an overview of existing transit
operations in Scott County. It covers the commuter and transit-dependent programs, excluding
the programs operated by Minnesota Valley Transit on behalf of the City of Savage. It reviews
the current status of funding for transit in the State of Minnesota. It lays out a plan for future
expansion of the system and projects the both operational and capital funding needs for both
commuter and transit-dependent services into the future.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 1
Existing System
Existing Transit Services
There are currently three types of transit service in Scott County:
Express/Reverse Comrnute Service is provided by the cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee and
by Minnesota Valley Transit (MVTA). The clientele for this service is typically persons
working in downtown Minneapolis or working at/attending the University of Minnesota or
someone that lives in the central cities who work in Scott County.
The City of Savage is one of five cities that form the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority
(MVTA) through a municipal joint powers agreement. Because of this, Savage is served by
MVTA, and MVTA's Scott County service is oriented toward the I-35/35W corridor. The
Savage Parl<and Ride is served by three routes,the 421, the 444 and the 464. The 464
provides six trips in the morning and seven trips in the evening between the Savage Park
and Ride and downtown Minneapolis. This route connects through the Heart of the City
Park and Ride before going into downtown Minneapolis. It also runs as a local service from
the Savage Park and Ride along Glendale Avenue and Lynn Road to 125th and Glenhurst in
Savage. Major revisions of Route 464 are currently programmed for March, 2013 and are
briefly discussed in this report.
The cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee each fund their own service but the programs are
marketed jointly under the BlueXpress name, and service schedules are coordinated
between the two cities. The BlueXpress provides service focused on the TH 169 corridor.
Route 490 is provided jointly by the cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee and provides ten trips
in the morning,ten trips in the evening and one mid-day trip between Scott County and
downtown Minneapolis. Currently, two trips start at Dakotah Parkway,four from Eagle
Creek Transit Station and the balance from Southbridge Crossings Transit Station. All trips
stop at Southbridge Crossings Transit Station. In the evening, all ten trips stop both at
Southbridge and Eagle Creel<, with four continuing to Dakotah Parl<way.
MVTA's services are focused on the I-35/I-35W corridor. This highway runs near the eastern
edge of Scott County and also has a high level of commuter transit service. MVTA commuter
service focuses on the Burnsville Transit Station. As such, a large number of Scott County
residents use MVTA services in the I-35/I-35W corridor by driving into Dakota County.
Planning for commuter service for the I-35 Corridor is handled primarily by MVTA and by
Metro Transit, and as such, are less central to this study.
Shakopee and Prior Lake provide reverse commute service services from downtown
Minneapolis to Scott County in the morning and back in the afternoon. As downtown
Minneapolis is the hub of most service in the Twin Cities, this provides a linl<from
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 2
throughout the region to jobs in Scott County. Routes 491and 492 provides four trips in the
morning and four trips in the evening as well as one mid-day trip. In addition,the 498
Shuttle provides one frip in the morning and one trip in the evening to distribuce and colleci
persons riding the reverse commute service.
Local Routes: Local routes are different from commuter routes in that they mal<e a number
of stops along the way to their destination. Local routes also do not operate on highways
and operate at less than freeway speeds. The clientele for this kind of service is typically
persons who live near the bus route. Often riders can walk from their homes to the local
route. Most local routes operate as local routes their whole length although some bus
routes can operate as local routes for part of their trip and as commuter routes for part of
their trip.
In Shakopee, Route 498 provides a connecfion between local stops and the Southbridge
Park and Ride. iravelers ride the local route to the commuter service at Southbridge which
connects to downtown.This shuttle connects twice in the morning and twice in the
afternoon. This route also serves the Seagate Park and Ride which is not directly served by
express buses. Scott County operates this service under contract to the City of Shakopee.
Route 496 provides a circulator service within the city of Shakopee. This route connects the
Seagate Park and Ride,the Work Force Center,Target and other local stops. This operates
once an hour. Two buses are used for this service. Shakopee also operates summer-only
shuttles (491)to popular destinations. Scott County operates this service under contract to
the two cities.
MVTA provides two local routes from Savage. One is Route 444, which connects the Mall of
America,the Cedar Grove Transit Station,the Burnsville Transit Station, Burnsville Center
and the Savage Park& Ride. This service operates one bus going south and one bus going
north every hour in Savage (with additional frequency through Burnsville and Eagan) and
both connects local areas with commuter service at various park and rides and connects
local riders with local shopping options. Service operates from approximately 5 AM to 11
PM on weekdays with shorter hours on Saturdays and Sundays.
The second route operated by MVTA is the 421. This route is a flex-route, which is a hybrid
of a regular route and a dial-a-ride service. It allows passengers to board at fixed stops at
set times, and also to deviate off-route to serve individuals within the designated service
area who are unable to get to the fixed stops.This service exists primarily for transit-
dependent persons who need a way to make a trip but may not have access to a car. In this
case, the flex service area extends approximately 3/4 mile on each side of the designated
route. The 421 operates weekday mid-days only from the Savage Park and Ride to the
Burnsville Transit Station along Egan Drive, Vernon Avenue, McColl Drive,TH 13, Glendale
Avenue and Lynn Avenue.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 3
Prior Lake operates a summer-only circulator service (the Local Laker Link). The purpose of
the Local Laker Link is to provide residents and students transportation to various parks,
shopping and schools.
Dial-a-ride service provided by Scott and Carver Counties: Dial-a-ride service is provided by
Scott and Carver Counties under the name SmartLink Transit. These programs include:
• General Public Dial-a-Ride: This service provides a safety net for persons who have
no other alternatives for transportation. The clientele typically includes persons with
disabilities, the elderly unable to drive, persons who do not own a car, and persons
too young to drive.This service will tal<e residents anywhere in the seven county
metropolitan area, either directly or through connections with other dial-a-ride or
regular route providers.
• Medical Assistance: Scott County, under contract to the State of Minnesota, provides
transportation for persons on medical assistance to get to medical-related services.
• ADA service under contract to the Metropolitan Council: The federal Americans with
Disabilities Act requires the transit system accommodate persons with disabilities in
areas where there is regular route service. This is federally mandated door-through-
door service for persons with disabilities that prohibit them from using regular
transit. The Metropolitan Council funds this service. Because this service is provided
as an alternative to local regular route service,the elimination of regular route
transit service can result in the elimination of the requirement to provide ADA
service to that city. The Metropolitan Council sets policy on how this service is
provided.
Existing Park and Ride Facilities
Currently Scott County has four park and ride facilities. These are:
• 5outhbridge Crossings Transit Station is located at 1401 Crossings Boulevard in
Shal<opee. The 515 space facility opened in 2007. In 2011, approximately 294 spaces
were utilized, an increase of 19%over the previous year. This was the largest increase in
usage of all the facilities in the metropolitan area that had been operating more than
one year. Some riders of the BlueXpress service walk to the station from nearby
developments or are dropped off at the station. Southbridge also has a transit
advantage in a bus-only ramp onto the highway, which reduces travel time by about ten
minutes.
• Eagle Creek Transit Station, with 555 parking spaces, is located at the intersection of CH
21 and Eagle Creek Boulevard in Shakopee. The facility began operations in July, 2012,
and replaced the much smaller Safe Haven Park and Ride. Some of the BlueXpress
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 4
service starts at this park and ride and then stops at the Southbridge Crossings Transit
Station on its way to downtown Minneapolis
• Seagate,with 82 spaces, is located adjacent to the Seagate Technology site near TH 169
and CSAH 83 in Shakopee. Currently approximately 28 spaces are utilized. No direct
express service operates from this park and ride but shuttle service is available to the
Southbridge Park and Ride,with connections to the BlueXpress services to downtown
Minneapolis.
• Savage Park and Ride,wifih 182 spaces, is located north of CSAH 42 at Huntington
Avenue in Savage. Currently approximately 63 spaces are utilized. This lot has struggled
to atiract new riders due to its location far from freeway access to either I-35W or TH
169. MVTA plans substantial modifications in March 2013 to provide both faster service
for some passengers and a wider range of trip choices.
Home Location of Park and Ride User§:
A 2010 license plate survey identified the home residences of parl<and ride users as follows:
Southbridge Savage Seagate Burnsville Lal<eville-
Safe Haven Park and Park and Transit Kendricl<
Crossings Ride Ride Station
Residence Location
Shakopee 112 7 2 74
Prior Lake 45 13 8 1 56 16
Savage 31 39 217
Jordan 7
Burnsville 3 S
Mankato 3
Belle Plaine 2 1
Eden Prairie 2
La I<evi I I e 2 1
New Prague 2
Rural Scott County 7 3 4 1 60 57
Other 10 1 3 4
TOTAL 226 25 63 8 407 73
(2010 Park and Ride Survey) (MVTA numbers from 2011 Park and Ride Survey)
As noted in the above table,Scott County residents use Dakota County park and rides in large
numbers as well. In the 2011 MVTA survey, approximately 217 Savage residents, 74 Shakopee
residents, 56 Prior Lake residents, and 60 residents of rural Scott County constituted over 30%
of the 1,268 users at Burnsville Transit Station or Heart of the City Park& Ride,while at the
Lakeville-Kenricl< (I-35) Paric& Ride there were 16 Prior Lake residents and 57 residents of rural
Scott County among the 395 overall users.
Scott CountyTransit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 5
Exi�ting Transit Operator§
There is a difference between transit service providers and transit operators.Transit providers
fund transit service and also choose how and when it will be provided.Transit operators hire
drivers and mechanics and supervise the actual driving of buses. It can be confusing because in
the Twin Cities, some entities are one, some are the other and some are both. In Scott County,
there are five transit providers:the City of Shakopee, the City of Prior Lal<e, MVTA,the State of
Minnesota and the Metropolitan Council. There are two operators: Scott County and Schmitty
and Sons.
Scott County functions as an operator for two major programs. The first program is the Route
498 Shuttle provided by the city of Shakopee.The second is a collection of dial-a-ride programs
marketed under the SmartLink name. These include the general public dial-a-ride program
(provided by the Metropolitan Council) the ADA service (also provided by the Metropolitan
Council)and the Medical Assistance program (funded by the State of Minnesota).
Scott County is in the process of shifting its operations center to a new facility at Marschall Road
and TH 169. This transition will be finished in summer of 2013, upon completion of the building
and site renovation project.The Marschall Road Transit Station, previously the site of an
automobile dealership, will allow storing much of the fleet operated by Scott County inside,
which will improve operational efficiency in the winter. Major repairs would still be carried out
at Scott County's maintenance garage. The Marschall Road Transit Station site will also serve as
a park and ride, allowing the transit staff to be located at a major hub. This should substantially
improve operational efficiency for Scott County.
Currently Shal<opee and Prior Lake contract with Schmitty and Sons for express bus transit
service. Schmitty and Sons uses a garage in Lakeville located east of I-35 off 210th Street for the
BlueXpress service. MVTA contracts with Schmitty and Sons Transit for all of its bus operations.
Schmitty's MVTA operations are run from two garages provided by MVTA in Eagan (3600
Blackhawk Road) and in Burnsville (11550 Rupp Drive). These locations allow Schmitty to
operate with a relatively short deadhead to destinations in Scott County, substantially reducing '
costs.
Program Performance
There are three types of transit service in Scott County: express service, local service and dial-a-
ride service. Over the last ten years, all have experienced substantial growth.
Both Shakopee and Prior Lal<e have undertaken a number of activities to increase their regular
route ridership over the last ten years. This has included shifting the Shakopee dial-a-ride
program to Scott County and beginning commuter service, construction of the Southbridge
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 6
Crossings and Eagle Creek transit stations, and the partnering of Prior Lake and Shal<opee to
provide a higher level of express service than either could provide independently. The result
has been subs�antial gains in transit ridership over the last five years.
��ott County Regular Route Ridership
(Excluding MVTA)
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000 -
50,000
- ,
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
o Shakopee o Prior Lake
Minnesota Valley Transit provides service in the city of Savage as well as four cities in Dakota
County. Ridership from routes in Scott County is shown below.
MVTA Scott County Riders by Route
soo,000
90,000 -
80,000 � _ _r--, _ �
� � ` I ti'-
70,000 I � ;
_._� ' � ,
' �
`� — � I .
60,000 � , �
50,000 _ i ._., ; I ; ; -- --
40,000 i ___ � � , , _ � _� I ;–
� . � � t� , '� �� � ' , �
; ! � � � �
30,000 ' _ � ,
� �. _� ! _' ' ' ��i � i , i i �__I
� a
20,000 - ' ` � r� `_, `
10,000 ( ' ;j i � � � � � � I � � � I ' �
' , _ < . ,
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
�RT 421 i i RT 444 Ci RT 464/490
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 7
There have also been substar�tial changes in dial-a-ride programs in Scott County. In 2006,
Shakop2e eliminated its dial-a-ride program to shift its funds to regular route (which has driven
ridership increases in ihat program). In 2007,the Meiropolitan Council started providing ADA
funding. Also Prior Lake began to provide a summer dial-a-ride in 2004. In 2009, Carver
County's transii program merged with the Scott County program. Those figures are shown
included in the Scott County numbers. In 2011,funding for medical assistance services also
began. All ofthese changes have driven substantial ridership increases.
S�ott Counfiy Dial-�-Ride Ridership
(Includes Carver County from 2007+)
200,000
180,000 -I
160,000
140,000 —
120,000
100,000 ---
80,000 — ;,k; —
60,000 �°'�;
40,000 —
20,000
0 �
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
�General Public �ADA ❑Shakopee DAR ■Prior Lake DAR �Medical Assistance
Together,these changes have resulted in a substantial increase in the use if transit services in
Scott County.
Scott C�unty Transit Ridership
500,000
400,000
300,000 -- --- — - — --
200,000 -- — - -- —
�
100,000 � ��
� �;,.
i �
- - � ��---� � __.. �
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
O Dial-a-Ride 0 BlueXpress �MVTA Scott Routes
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 8
Long-term Regular Route Service Needs
Type� of Service
Scott County has two types of regular route service:
Commuter service takes riders from Scott County to downtown Minneapolis. Commuter trips
are provided primarily in the AM and PM peaks although there is some off-peak service as well.
This service includes both express service which connects Scott County with downtown
Minneapolis and reverse commute service which brings riders from downtown Minneapolis to
Scott County. There are two programs providing commuter service, one operated by the cities
of Shakopee and Prior Lake, operating under the name BlueXpress, and one operated by MVTA,
which provides commuter service from one park and ride in the city of Savage.
Commuter service is supported by shuttle service which connects small park and ride or local
bus stops with commuter routes at park and rides. This service is currently provided by
Shakopee from the Town Square Mall,with stops throughout Shakopee, including the
Courthouse,St. Francis Hospital, the Seagate Park and Ride and ending at Southbridge. MVTA
local services also can be used as shuttles at times when express service is not available in a
particular area.
Local service is loca!bus routes tvpicallv operated with small buses in low density areas,
(although MVTA route 444 uses 40-foot buses for much of the day). Riders tend to be persons
with lower incomes without other alternatives for transportation, the elderly, persons with
disabilities and people too young to drive. Shakopee operates two circulator routes from five
am to seven pm connecting multiple employment centers, schools and other transit
destinations. Prior Lake provides a circulator in the summer, primarily for students going to
summer school and for persons too young to drive. MVTA local service (routes 421 and 444)
connect Scott County residents to destinations in Dakota County although route 421 does
provide some internal circulation within Savage.
Demand for the Commuter Market
The Metropolitan Council, in its 2030 Park-and-Ride Plan (updated May 26, 2010), projected a
demand of 1200 spaces by 2020 and 1700 spaces by 2030 in the TH 169 corridor. This study did
not project a separate demand level for the TH/CH101 corridor. These numbers includes parl<
and ride capacity in both Southwest Transit and in Scott County. This study projected that
demand was met for 2020 needs but that there was a deficit of approximately 400 spaces by
2030.This estimate was done before planning for the Eagle Creek and Marschall Road Transit
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 9
Station occurred.These two facilities, along with Southbridge Crossings Transit Station should
meet demand into 2030 if assumptions hold.
Demand for the I-35/I-35W South corridor was handled as a separate projection in the Park&
Ride Plan and identified a demand for 2,100 spaces by 2020 and 2,800 spaces by 2030, most of
which is already present in the corridor as a result of�the improvements funded by the Urban
Partners Program (UPA). Historically, service and facilities in this corridor have been addressed
by the Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Valley Transit(MVTA). Over the upcoming decades,
this work will need to respond to growing service needs from eastern Savage, Prior Lake,
Elko/New Marl<et and other eastern parts of Scott County. Plans developed by MVTA and Met
Council are in their respective Regional Service Improvement Plan submittals from 2011.
It should be noted all of this modeling excluded demand that wiil occur due to the Southwest
(Green Line) LRT. The Green Line LRT will open up completely new jobs marl<ets that are not
currently easily accessible by transit. Because of this, these projections may be low. In
addition, demand projections assumed current running speeds. The faster transit service
operates the more desirable the service is. Were TH 169 to be developed as a transitway,
demand for transit service and park and ride capacity would also increase.
Southwest (Green Line) Light Rail
Tlle SOUtI1W2St Llgllt R21I Ta�getF�eld,tat�o �, :
Southwesfi Corridor LRT � �',� Royalston S�ion f �
project, slated to be HCRRARecommendedAlignment ° �=
completed in 2017, will vanQWNCeStation�. `
Dmm;�vm
�u r.s:�sr��p ss
reshape transit in one- � �, '�' d
p ., �� Penn S[ation �
� o �� :,,_��1it Street Statfon
quarter of the Twin Cities. °�. °d s ; ;,'_,,;:_� ; p
Not only will the light rail � �°`" � , �
d7a � r°'o ��� �c Y .
� � s �. J� . WesC�Lake S[a[ion
connect southern suburbs qf'v "�s "'; °'�.� <�� �°r. ;
with downtown s 's �`'O � • �`
0
.Tt �ro'r i ' `. �� � .t i .�.�:;��: . _� �ii ��,cn
Minneapolis, it will open up �'d,o ; -� � � ,'•
210,OOOjobs that cannot �;� � ' f
,�;,.
currently be served �'�`; L„-�,
1'.I A\��4�.` ,._ ._.,�
efficiently with transit. � ,/ °
� � Opus Statlon �so mwosuar
Roughly half are in ; `�"`�"�
°E CitYWestStdtio0 SouNwes[LRTStaHons
concentrated in downtown "'" '
Pl:.,:,<�; Q �.5 , 2 n.(�.
� - 1 � 1 1
�����'- R111es �
Minneapolis and other half e``� �ey��%i� Tol�de�'e .,�,U:a,.
.. � Station
are served by stations along ��..�eo° ho��o� f �
the corridor. In addition, the `'` `i'` �s. �%" ;
�__-- 'RE'dznPreirie .
+� —Y Town�C nter Statlon
corridor is expected to add
60,000 new jobs by 2030.
Downtown Minneapolis is the hub of all transit in the Twin Cities and the light rail will allow
persons from all over the region to f-everse cornmute into the southwest quadrant of the regio�.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 10
The LRT is planned to open in 2017,within the planning horizon of this study. As the plans for
the LRT are developed, Scott County will need to review its service and how that service will
connect fio the Green Line. It is expected mosfi riders commuiing io downtown Minneapolis
will continue to use express bus service because of the shorter commute time and the
downtown stops. However,there will be new demand from riders in Scott County to access the
jobs and shopping along the light rail corridor.
There will also be demand from reverse commute riders wanting to access jobs in Scot�t County.
To accommodate this demand, a new hybrid local/commuter route taking riders to the light rail
and bringing reverse commuters in to Scott County could be developed. At minimum, service
should run from the County's three park and rides and the County's major employers to the
Green Line. This could be similar to MVTA routes 442, 444,and 446 which experienced strong
ridership growth after the Blue Line (Hiawatha) LRT opened. As the final LRT alignment has not
been selected, it is not possible to provide recommended routes at this point but it would be
logical to expect the route would connect the three pari<and rides and several major employers
then cross the bridge and connect with the light rail in a location with the shortest commute
time. Given that new bus funding and procurement can take some years, plans should include
additional vehicles for this service.
TH 169 Corridor
Although both Minneapolis and St. Paul have major downtown centers, from a population
perspective downtown Minneapolis is the center of the Twin Cities.
Still, in spite of the - - - ___ _
balance in 2410 MUSA and � �
Metropolitan
population Highv�ray System (� '��y�^
surrounding A -� _ _ _ _�
downtown �� _ '�� �
�� ,..
� � �
Minneapolis the ���� 20i01�1U5A ( "f
� '_ l.� r.iusn��;�,F���t � � —�tJ��l 1 � ���
region s long range G ( l ( ,1—�—��
--�,��,e,=�a�� ;��_ _�. r � r ''-'{
transit plan does i���fa�orHghways �^-Ib�- ' l �-,-I;_� �- ���
not currently list ,��_ -'`��(_ _��� J f
� ,_
TH 169 as a �; il.`�: 1- - -��- --�_" ` _ —
r I
--�-- -- "',��.�— � �.��
corridorfor ;� ,:`��— _,--; � ���i1•--�
development for -- —�- � `r - - `�J--
a r y �-\.:. , i ----� ❑ .
anything beyond '� �
ex ress bus with r� `°"°'� ` �'
p � �,�;�T,,:,,,:,F, � �_.,__� _ �' _—�
transit advantages "�' �--z
o s io zo
(the yellow line on
the adjacent map) and that only for the southern half. This means although substantial
improvements are being planned for north/south movements in the eastern part of the region,
none are being made for the wes�ern part oi ihe region. Yei ii ihis corridor was developed as a
transitway, it could provide a substantial time advantage for travelers from Scott and Hennepin
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 11
Counties going into downtown Minneapolis and ofher parts of the region. It would also
leverage the substantial managed lane investments already made in the I-394 corridor and
complement the Green Line (Southwest) LRT.
A designated transitway
alongTH 169could mean TwinCitiesTransiiways � �''
bus-onlyshoulders, Redlinesarecurrentlyin �
managed lanes, ramp meter service or in development. \�� �`:�\- - _.
b asses, riced d namic `- � '" � �
yp p y Dotted lines are routes �� t
shoulder lanes and other thatneedtobestudied. �� .�;��j,, ( _ � ,
._; _1 �
running-way advantages; � �� • -
Yellow lines are express j : , j L'J� —
high frequency, all-day bu5�outes. --_ �. � I _ ���s ; -`_ �
If
service; branded vehicles; � ��.� � � �,
MetrOOOlitdnCOU�u12C30 T�ansFortat cn � \ i
and im roved stations Po„ P,a� � - �� �;�� �:�
_..
P , n -.. � _ �`--—
including park-and-ride ��- � � � �-�- �������r�--�` � �\ �
,L_��` C�' �i\ \�
facilities and online stations. \
� � J,.- \
�. t1-- -- ' .[_T_� �. . `i
_:. � '�' . '\.—_... .-\
Scott County should �
continue to pursue a change
in the regional � --
Transportation Policy Plan
so TH 169 is included for consideration as a transitway. It should also pursue this corridor for
managed lanes, as they can also provide a substantial transit benefit.
Conceptual Model for Scott County Parl� and Ride Facilities
Transit service for commuters works best when it is placed in a location where a large number
of travelers must come together. This means locating park and rides at funneling points in the
transportation system. For example,the Burnsville Transit Station is extremely successful
because it is at the southern end of the I-35W Bridge across the Minnesota River. Drivers, who
want to go north, must funnel to that point because of the limited river crossings. Because the
Burnsville facility has a large catchment area, it is able to support high levels of transit service.
High levels of transit service are attractive to riders, making such locations even more
successful. Scott County has three such funneling poin'ts: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 parl<and ride
facilities.
The second point to locating park and ride facilities is that over time, parl<and rides fill up. In
addition, congestion points move as development expands outward. Because of this, park and
rides are often developed lil<e "pearls on a string" along major transportation corridors. This is
seen occurring in Burnsville and Lakeville,where a park and ride was developed in Lal<eville to
intercept travelers earlier in their trip to relieve demand at Burnsville. This same approach is
taken with the Cedar Bus Rapid Transit facility, where park and rides are strung along the
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 12
corridor. As ridership has grown and moved outward, additional park and rides have been
developed along Cedar Avenue. Ifi these facilities are located where buses can get off and on
the road quici<ly(or in the case of Cedar BRT or I-35W, not even leave the highway), one bus can
be used to serve multiple parl<and rides.This can improve frequency, reduce deadhead costs
and provide multiple alternatives for riders.
The major Scott County park and rides follow this conceptual model. Southbridge Crossings
Transi't Station was built at the funneling point of the TH 169 Bloomington Ferry Bridge. Eagle
Creel<Transit Station is located west of Southbridge Crossings,just ofi oi`County Highways 16
and 21, along the same "string:'
The 2030 Parl<and Ride Plan identifies a site near the funneling point of the future principal
arterial (CH 17/TH 13 alignment south of TH 169) which will intercept persons who would have
been traveling on this major north/south corridor,TH 169 and TH 101. Scott County acquired a
site at the southwest quadrant of County Highway 17 and TH 169, consistent with the 2030
plan,for the Marshall Road Transit Station.
The 2030 County Transportation Plan identifies a fourth site at the intersection of TH 282 and
TH 13 to accommodate approximately 200 parking spaces. This site is par�t of the Prior Lake
annexation area, and is slated for significant commercial, industrial and residential development
after 2020. Because of this timeframe, it is not necessary to acquire a site within the timeframe
of this plan; however, as future development occurs, this need should be considered.
There are also two park and rides which are not located at funneling points or along roads at
funneling points, the Seagate Park and Ride and the Savage Park and Ride. Both of these park
and rides have low ridership and thus low levels of transit service.
These locations and how they work both with funneling and with "pearls on a string" can be
understood more clearly when viewed on a conceptual map. Distances are not to scale. The
green shapes are operated by MVTA,the blue shapes operated by Scott County, Shakopee
and/or Prior Lake. The orange shape is in development.
Conceptuai Scott County Park and Ride Plan
CH101 TH 169 I-35W
Minnesota
�-- River
TH 169 � �SouthbridgeP&R � gurnsville
Marschall � Transit
� Seagate Savage P&R Station
Road CR 21
� Eagle Creek P&R
Q � Lakeviile P&R
282&13 P&R
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 13
Using this conceptual map, i-i is possible ro see both of these principles. Park and rides are
located south of the TH 169 and I-35W bridges, as these are the natural funneling points for
iravelers. Anyone traveling north will have to pass by one of these points, mal<ing them natural
locations for transit stops. Burnsville Transit Station and the Southbridge Crossings Transit
Station both are located at these natural funneling points. Reliever park and rides are further
down from these funneling poin�s, intercepting travelers earlier. These secondary facilities
become important as development expands outward and conges'tion develops at key chol<e
points. The Lakeville Park and Ride, Eagle CreekTransit Station and the upcoming Marschall
Road Transit Station all act as secondary parl<and rides. Marschall Road will also act as a
funneling point for i H 169, County Highway 17 and County Highway 101 as development
extends in that direction.
This model also shows the importance of the TH 169 corridor.To the degree transit can move
faster from Scoict County into the downtown,travel times could be reduced. Improvements will
be completed in November 2012 for the TH 169/I-494 interchange and other improvements
have been made to the corridor. If the corridor were to have a bus-only shoulder lane or a
managed lane,travel time could be substantially reduced. At this point, however, the region's
long-term plan does not include such improvements.
In the meantime, Scott County should pursue as many transit advantages as possible to reduce
travel time.This includes a bus-only ramp at the Marschall Road site, bus shoulders and bus
shoulder enhancements in the TH 169 corridor and other investments to speed trips. Horizontal
curve sight distance issues have impeded the use of bus shoulders across the Bloomington Ferry
Bridge, but MnDOT has programmed bus shoulders on eastbound TH169 east of CH 83 in the
2015-2016 timeframe.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 14
Long-terr� Dial-a-Ride �ervice Needs
Types of Services in Scotfi County
In Scott County, there are three types of dial-a-ride service:
• General Public Dial-a-ride (�martLink Transit), which is door-to-door or door-through-
door transit service (depending on the leve) of mobility impairmenf of the individual).
Riders tend to be the elderly or persons with disabilities who are not certified through
Metro Mobility. SmartLink also serves Carver County. Service also includes trips for
persons receiving Medical Assistance.
• ADA Dial-a-Ride service under contract to the Metropolitan Council. This service is also
provided under the SmartLink logo. The federal Americans with Disabilities Act requires
the transit system accommodate persons with disabilities severe enough that they
cannot get to regular transit routes. The Metropolitan Council funds this service.
Because this service is provided as an alternative to local regular route service, the
elimination of regular route transit service can eliminate the need to provide ADA
service to that city. Conversely, the expansion of regular route service (as is projected to
be needed in 2017 in conjunction with the start of the Green Line (Southwest) LRT)
would trigger the expansion of service. The Metropolitan Council sets policy on how this
service is implemented.
• Medical Assistance under contract to the 5tate of Minnesota. This service is funded by
the State of Minnesota to transport low income persons to medical appointments.
Integrated I�lodel for Service Delivery
Currently, Scott County has an integrated model for service delivery for all of its dial-a-ride
programs.The same bus may picl< up a general public dial-a-ride user, then a medical assistance
user, then a person riding under the Americans with Disabilities program.This integrated model
helps reduce costs as buses are routed from one need to another rather than having separate
vehicles used for separate services. Scott County not only provides service for Scott County but
also for Carver County. This helps increase the volume of service, reducing per-trip costs.
SmartLink Transit also integrates across types of trips.This also helps to reduce costs, especially
if only a small number of trips are needed for a regular route bus, like the Shal<opee shuttle
service.
Demand for Dial-a-Ride Services
Dial-a-ride service primarily serves four types of clients:the elderly, persons with disabilities,
persons who do not own a car and persons too young to drive. Persons without automobiles
may include low income worl<ers as well as persons in a stage of life such as being a student or a
stay-at-home parent.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 15
To some degree, the size of this demand is a function of the size of the population. For Scott
County, its population has been growing and is projected to continue to grow. This means
demand for dial-a-ride and circulator type services will also be increasing. Population is
projected to grow aimost 60% between 2010 and 2030,which will directly affect demand for
dial-a-ride services. The number of persons with disabilities and low income persons can be
assumed to grow at the same rate as the overall population, meaning there will be 60%more
persons with disabilities and low income by 2030. The number ofi persons 18-24 is projected ro
grow overall in the population by about 5%, meaning that rhis cohort will grow 65% in the
County. Both of these groups will drive demand for dial-a-ride services.
A second issue is the changing population. Over the next twenty years,there will be a profound
demographic shift in the region as the baby boomers age.This will increase the specific
populations that dial-a-ride programs serve. According to the Minnesota State Demographer,
the elderly population will more than double in Minnesota between 2010 and 2030.To put this
in perspective, one out of every four persons will be over the age of 65 in 2030,as opposed to
one out of every eight today. (Minnesota State Demographer's Office, 2012)
The number of people drawing medical assistance is projected to increase by 80% between
2010 and 2030. (Minnesota State Department of Human Services)
Scott County Population
250,000
200,000 -
150,000 -
100,000
50,000 -- � —
p ----- -----------i—
2010 2020 2030
Metropolitan Council-2012
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 16
Number of Persons in Specific Age Cohorts
1,400,000
1,200,000 ..................................................................................................
1,000,000 .......... .......... .... ....... .................. . . ............ ..�- -._...
800,000 ................................................................. ........ ........... •--..... : 98-24
-m-65+
600,000 ... -� ................... ......................... ......................................
-�-5-17
400,000 . ................_ °--............. --.-.:. �----............................ --.......
200,000 �. ............ . ............................................. ...................... ...
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Minnesota Demographer,2011
Based on the combination of the increasing population and the increasing age of the
population,the demand for dial-a-ride and local circulator transit is projected to increase 120%
between 2010 and 2030.
Scott County, as well as the larger society,faces a critical question in how it will meet this need.
Oftentimes,transportation is the critical factor in the decision of whether to allow someone to
stay in their home versus moving into a care facility. With transit services the elderly population
has the ability to get to a doctor's appointment or shopping, thus allowing them to stay in their
homes. This results in substantially lower costs for both the individual and society on the
whole. But government, specifically transit providers, bears this cost, while the savings accrue
to other budgets. Government will need to carefully weigh the costs versus the benefits of
providing dial-a-ride and circulators.
Recor�mendations for Enhancerr�ent and Expansion
The purpose of this plan to identify the optimum levels of service necessary to meet the
anticipated need for Scott County riders in the next several years (2013-2018). The following
paragraphs list the recommendations for facility,fleet and service changes to meet these needs.
Proposed Commuter Facility Enhancements
Enhancements to existing park and ride facilities include bringing the Marschall Road Transit
Station (MRTS) online in 2014. MRTS will provide an additional 400 park and ride spaces,thus
meeting demand for at least the next ten years. Should additional capacity be needed, one of
the existing sites could be expanded or decked.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 17
Scott County's long-range plan identifies a park and ride at CH 17,TH 282 and TH 13 after 2020.
Demand for this location is not sufficient until further development occurs in the area.The
current Metropolitan Council plan does not identify a need i`or additional capacity in the I-35/
35W corridor until 2030.
Proposed Service Expansi�ns for �lue Express in the TH 169 Corridor
Currently commuter service in the TH 169 corridor is provided by ten coach buses. Five of�these
buses start at the Eagle Creek Transit Station then go to Southbridge Crossings Transit Station,
while another five stop solely at Southbridge Crossings.
2014
It is projected the Marschall Road site will become operational in 2014 and service will be added
from this location. Starting service from this location will require a minimum of three buses to
provide at least three trips in the morning and three in the evening. More are prefierable.
Funding for additional buses is available from CMAQ(expected 2015 or 2016) but issues with
procurement lead times will need to be addressed to ensure vehicles will be available when this
facility opens.
2015
In 2015,service from the Marschall Road Transit Station should be expanded to provide at least
five trips in the morning and five in the evening. Three additional buses will be needed;two of
the buses will run from MRTS and the third bus will be used in the Southbridge/Eagle Creek
service corridor. Again, issues with the lead time for procuring buses will need to be addressed
if this service is going to be initiated. The City of Shakopee, on behalf of BlueXpress, submitted
a CMAQ grant application in 2011 for three coach buses.
2017
In 2017,transit in Scott County may need to be adjusted to meet two focuses: 1) Growing
demand for transit from the existing park and rides to downtown Minneapolis, and 2) Extending
or reconfiguring service due to the opening of the Green Line (Southwest) LRT. The Green Line
LRT will ultimately provide transit access to roughly the same number of jobs as downtown
Minneapolis. Scott County residents will want and need transit access to these jobs. Providing
reverse commute access from the LRT stops to major employers will also be advantageous to
Scott County. To serve this new marl<et,a new hybrid local route which connects the Scott
County transit stations and the County's major employers with the light rai► should be created.
This route could include stops at the three major park and rides and at the County's largest
employers, such as Mystic Lal<e Casino,Seagate, Canterbury and St. Francis medical campus.
Service could be provided no less than every 15 minutes during peak periods to the Green Line
LRT and could run 15 hours a day, seven days a week. This will bring outbound riders to the
Green Line LRT and bring reverse commute riders into Scott County.
Prior Lal<e and Shakopee also intend to request�three additional CMAQ buses in 2013 io
increase service in the TH 169 corridor. If successful, the funds become available in 2017.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 18
These vehicles would be used either for express trips to downtown Minneapolis or for the LRT
link. In addition,Scott County should obtain two additional small buses to enhance circulator
service connected with the ligh�rail.
Prior Lake and Shakopee also have the opportunity to submit an application for three additional
buses in the 2015 CMAQgrant cycle. Again, if successful, the funds would become available in
2019 and the new buses could be used for additional service between the LRT and Scott County
or to meet growing demand for express service into downtown Minneapolis.
These changes mean that by 2017,the number of trips to downtown would be:
Southbridge Crossings Eagle Creek Marschall Road
2012 11 trips 4 trips X
2013 11 trips* 4 trips* X
2014 11 trips* 4 trips* 3 trips(3 CMAQ)
2015 12 trips* 5 trips* 5 trips
(11 existing, 1 CMAQ) (4 existing, 1 CMAQ) (3 existing, 2 CMAQ)
2016 12 trips* 5 trips* 5 trips
(11 existing, 1 CMAQ) (4 existing, 1 CMAQ) (3 existing, 2 CMAQ)
2017 13 trips* 6 trips* 6 trips
(11 existing, 2 CMAQ) (4 existing, 2 CMAq) (3 existing, 2 CMAQ)
+service to Green Line LRT + service to Green Line LRT +service to Green Line LRT
* it may be feasible to start all buses serving the Eagle Creek/Southbridge Crossings corridor at
the Eagle Creek Transit Station.
Proposed Service Expansions f�r I�IVTA and Metrop�litan Council in the
I-35/35W Corridor
MVTA has programmed a commuter service improvement for March, 2013 which will provide
three additional buses to serve Savage Park& Ride. As a result, service will be modified to
travel more directly and quicl<ly to I-35W by using County Road 42,the bypass ramp in
Burnsville, and the new HOT lane installed in 2011. The buses and startup operating funding are
supplied by a CMAQgrant through the end of 2015. Starting in early 2016, MVTA will require
additional operating funding to maintain the service improvements.
MVTA has no additional Scott County commuter service improvements planned through 2016.
However, proposals for additional hours of service on route 421 in 2013 and overall local service
coverage and frequency improvements in 2015 are components of MVTA's Service Investment
Strategy and were submitted as projects for the 2011 RSIP.
Met Council proposed no improvements in the I-35/35W corridor in its 2011 RSIP project list.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 19
Transit Revenue Sources
liilot�r Vehicl� �ales Tax (MVST) Perf�rmanee
Before looking at specific budgets, it is important to understand the regional transit funding
piciure. Prior to 2001,transit was primarily funded from two sources: 1) property taxes, and 2)
the Stafe General Fund. The property tax was enabled in 1970 when the private Twin Cities
Rapid Transit Company (which had provided streetcars, then buses) was taken public. The
property tax continued until 2001 when, under the State's property tax reform, it was replaced
with a portion of the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax or MVST, the tax one pays when one buys or selis
a motor vehicle. At the time, MVST had been growing faster than inilation over a number of
years due to several factors: people were buying larger, more expensive vehicles;families were
acquiring two or even three or more vehicles per household; women were still entering the
worl<force in increasing numbers and purchasing vehicles for their commute; more and more
development was in auto-oriented land use patterns, requiring an automobile; and incomes
were increasing and people were investing a portion of that income in vehicles.
Soon after MVST became the primary revenue source,these trends began to reverse. The 2000
census showed there was approximately one vehicle per driver, meaning saturation of
automobiles had about reached a peak. Gas costs increased, so people began to buy smaller,
cheaper, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Women's participation in the workforce leveled off. With
the recession in 2001 and again in 2007, people had less disposable income and delayed the
purchase of vehicles or purchased smaller, less expensive automobiles. The price of
automobiles has also remained static, and in some cases, with the entrance of several Asian
companies, automobile prices have declined. The end result is the revenues collected from the
MVST have been declining. The blacl< line on the chart below shows actual collections from
2003 to 2011. Revenues declined from 2003 to 2009 and have recovered slightly from 2009 to
2011. The inflation-adjusted revenue line shows revenues have declined by about a third and
have only slightly begun to recover.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 20
Statewide MVST Revenues
�700
$600 =--_- �,.�
_�—
•;;� �
`�----__--�--...�� i
i
$500 •,,... "'��.
.,���=.–.-'�i
c$400 ,... -
o "'
� $300 - - —
$200
$100
$0 � �
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
�----=-�Actual �•••<• CPI-Adjusted Actual --- 2/12 Forecast
Projections of future revenues show a recovery, although the previous forecasts have been
extremely optimistic. Even if the projected recovery were to occur, on an inflation-adjusted
basis revenues would still be below the 2003 levels.
In 2001, Minnesota Statute Chapter 473.388 was amended to set out the formula under which
suburban transit providers would receive a share of MVST. In 2010, after the State Constitution
was amended in 2006 to allocate a greater share of MVST to transit,the Metropolitan Council
adopted the Revenue Allocation Policy. While State statute mandates suburban transit
providers a specific percentage of MVST based on the 2001 legislation,the Metropolitan
Council's Revenue Allocation Policy bases the allocation of any additional share of MVST from
the constitutional amendment on the provider's fund balance. If a provider's fund balance
exceeds the amount determined by the Metropolitan Council,the provider will not be eligible
for any share of the MVST funds above the original percentage. Transit service in Scott County,
and specifically in Prior Lake and Shal<opee, is a relatively young service. Over the years, the
cities have accumulated fund balances to be used to grow transit service and facilities as
population and demand increases. The Revenue Allocation Policy means Prior Lake and
Shakopee must spend down reserves to a minimal amount in order to receive any additional
funds from the region. The longer-term impact is to reduce the ability of suburban transit
communities to retain funds from year to year to make investments.
In 2011,the State Legislature further reduced the amount of MVST allocated to the suburban
transit providers by reducing the amount received in State Fiscal Year 2011 by a total of$3.3
million in SFY 2012 and 2013. The Metropolitan Council made the decision on how these
reductions would be taken from each provider. For Prior Lake, this legislation meant a 37%
reduction in MVST and ior Shakopee it meani a 13% reduction. Overall, the Scott County
reduction is 23%.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 21
The overall result has been a declining amount of�unding going to the suburban transit
authorities. The table and chart below identify the MVST received by the cities ofi Prior Lake
and Shakopee.
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Allocation
$1,400,000
$s,zoo,000 � — .�����
- - 1 � �" � -- �
$i,000,000 >. � i
�� [
$soo,000 - ' �—
�
$600,000 " ,�''--� '---� °`r---
' .j � � ,
$400,00o j— � r----� �
s � i �� ( !
$zoo,000 - j -- '
$o �
�
2010 2011 2012 2013
C�Shakopee C7 Prior Lake
Source: Metropolitan Council
In the next ten years, several significant regional transit investments are scheduled to begin
operations.These include the Central and Southwest Corridors, the Green Line LRT, the Cedar
Avenue bus rapid transit corridor, and other service expansions. A major issue is how the
declining regional funding will be balanced among existing services, new bus service and
corridor service in the future.
State General Fund
The State of Minnesota provides general fund monies for transit.These funds were used as a
supplement to the property taxes levied for transit. Prior to 2001, suburban transit authorities
received their subsidy through the property tax. In 2001, a property tax reform bill shifted
transit subsidy funding from the property tax to the motor vehicle sales tax. Soon after, the
MVST began to falter. In 2004,the state made up some of this shortfall with state general fund
monies. These general fund revenues began to be shared with the suburban transit authorities.
Over the last biennium, however, the State general fund has had a substantial shortfall due to
the economic recession. Tax revenues declined substantially and reductions were made in
many different areas. As a result, general fund revenues for transit have declined substantially.
Shakopee and Prior Lal<e have not received any transit funding from the State general fund since
2009.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 22
State Genera) Funds for Transit
$ZOO,000,000
$90,000,oao
$80,000,000 -- --
$�o,000,000 - --- — —
$60,000,00o u. --- - - - --
$so,000,000 — — —
$40,000,000 -- -
$30,000,000 - —
�
$zo,000,000
. " --- -- -- ''.
>:
$io,000,000 �,: __— ___--- --
So ' '' --,- __; __ ;-
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Funds allocated to the Metropolitan Council for transit
Commuter Services Future Operating Budgets and Operatin� Needs
Projected Operating Budget Changes (BlueXpress and Dial-a�Ride)
A number of changes will impact the Scott County system. These include:
• Addition of three CMAQ buses in the I-35W corridor serving Savage Park& Ride in 2013
(operated and funded by MVTA;these costs are excluded from the remainder of the
operating budget analysis)
• Addition of three CMAQ buses in 2014
• Opening the Marschall Road Park and Ride in 2014
• Addition of three CMAQ buses in 2015
• Potential addition of three CMAQ buses in 2017
• Additional service to the Green Line (Southwest) LRT in 2017
In the past,transitional operating funds have been included in federal applications which
covered 80%of costs for three years. These operating costs are assumed as follows:
3 2013 CMAQ Buses 3 2015 CMAQ Buses 3 2017 CMAQ Buses
2013 X X X
2014 20% X X
2015 20% X X
2016 20% 20% X
� Z��.7 �.���o Z�% X
Z��.B �.���o Z��o Z��o
2019 100% 100% 20%
2020 100% 100% 20%
Scott CountyTransit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 23
li is not a given that these will be available in the future under the recently approved MAP 21
legislation. If this policy were to change, it would increase operating costs in both operating
scenarios 201�and 2015 and 2017 by approximaiely$450,000 and in 2016 and 201� by
approximately$900,000. This would increase deficits in all of those years.
The following analysis assumes each trip from Scott County to down�own Minneapolis wili cos�
$165,000 in 2012 dollars. Costs should be assumed to escalate at 3%a year.
3 2013 3 2015 3 2017 LR i Local �otal Needs
CMAQ CMAQ CMAQ
2013 $0 X X $0
2014 $101,970 X X $101,970
2015 $105,029 X X $105,029
2016 $108,180 $108,180 X $216,360
. 2017 $557,127 $111,425 X $711,750 $1,380,302
2018 $573,841 $114,768 $114,768 $740,220 $1,543,597
2019 $591,056 $591,056 $118,211 $769,829 $2,070,152
2020 $608,788 $608,788 $121,758 $800,622 $2,139,955
Operating Funding Scenarios
The future of transit funding for Scott County and the entire region is more unceriain than ever.
Because of this, it is important to run a number of scenarios to understand the choices that rnay
be ahead for policy mal<ers. Base assumptions for all scenarios include:
• Base bus costs increasing at 3%a year.
• Administrative costs increasing at 1%a year.
• Green Line LRT service begins operations in 2017.
• Fare recovery is 20%for commuter service and 10%for circulator service.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 24
Operating Funding -- �aseline �cenario
Revenues 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
MVSTShakopee $719,140 $687,000 $700,740 $714,755 $721,902 $736,340 $751,067
MVST Prior Lake $485,000 $627,738 $640,293 $653,099 $666,161 $679,484 $693,073
Fares $437,700 $483,928 $514,001 $524,291 $556,236 $804,397 $847,651
Other Prior Lake $37,000 $33,000
Other Shakopee $42,000
Fund Balance
Shakopee $248,911
Fund Balance Prior
Lake $129,000
�otall2evenues $2,098,75'1 $1,831,666 $1,855,033 $1,892,14�} $1,944,299 $2,220,221 $2,291,791
Expenditures
Big Bus Shakopee $657,810 $666,000 $685,980 $706,559 $727,756 �a749,589 $772,077
Big Bus Prior Lake $648,000 $655,500 $675,165 $695,420 $716,283 $737,771 $759,904
Circulator $360,000 $360,000 $370,800 $381,924 $393,382 $405,183 $417,339
Add 3 CMAQ 2013 $101,970 $105,029 $108,180 $557,127 $573,841
Add 3 CMAQ 2015 $108,180 �111,425 $114,768
Add 3 CMAQ 2017 $118,211
LRT Circulator $740,220 $769,829
Southbridge Ops $60,000 $60,000 $61,800 �63,654 $65,564 $67,531 $69,556
Eagle Creek Ops $41,000 $55,000 $56,650 $58,350 $60,100 $61,903 $63,760
Marschall Road Ops $15,000 $30,000 $49,000 $50,470 $51,984 $53,544 $55,150
Personnel-Shakopee $74,460 $31,090 $31,712 $32,346 $32,993 $33,653 $34,326
Personnel-Prior Lake $94,174 $96,266 $97,229 $98,201 $99,183 $100,175 $101,177
Planning $33,000 $52,500 $32,500 $33,475 $34,479 $35,514 $36,579
Admin Shakopee $32,727 $3,330 $3,430 $3,533 $3,639 $3,748 $3,860
Admin Prior Lake $19,530 $13,380 $13,514 $13,649 $13,785 $13,923 $14,063
Expenditures $2,035,701 $2,023,066 $2,179,749 $2,242,610 $2,415,507 $3,671,305 $3,904,A39
,4nnual Change $63,050 (�999,�'0�7) (i63?.4,716) ($350,465) (aLl7'i,2.09) (�'i,459,08�1) ($9,6�i2,64�)
Ending Balance $1,942,907 $1,751,507 $1,426,791 $1,076,326 $605,117 (�II�}5,967) (�2,�5II,615)
Note:3% inflation assumed for expenditures, except 2% inflation assumed for Shakopee Personnel and
1%inflation assumed for Prior Lal<e Personnel
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 25
An alternative scenario eliminating all increases in service from 2013 fhrough 2018 and
eliminating all circulator service is also included. From this, it is possible to conclude current
funding levels are nor enough ro even sustain existing service much less meet demand for
growth.
�perating Funding -Alternative Scenario
Revenues 2012 2013 2014 �015 2016 2017 2018
MVST Shakopee �719,140 $687,000 $700,740 $714,755 $721,902 $736,340 $751,067
MVST Prior Lake a�485,000 $627,738 $640,293 $653,099 $666,161 $679,484 $693,073
Fares $437,700 $483,928 $493,607 $503,479 $513,548 $523,819 $534,296
Other Prior Lake $37,000 $33,000
Other Shakopee $42,000
Fund Balance Shakopee $248,911
Fund Balance Prior Lake $129,000
TotalRevenues $2,098,751 $1,831,666 $1,834,639 $1,871,332 $1,909,611 $9,939,6A3 $1,978,436
Expencli4ures
Big Bus Shakopee $657,810 $666,000 $685,980 $706,559 $727,756 $749,589 $772,077
Big Bus Prior Lake $648,000 $655,500 $675,165 $695,420 $716,283 $737,771 $759,904
Circulator
Add 3 CMAQ 2013
Add 3 CMAQ 2015
Add 3 CMAQ 2017
LRT Circulator
Southbridge Ops $60,000 $60,000 $61,800 $63,654 $65,564 $67,531 $69,556
Eagle Creek Ops $41,000 $55,000 $56,650 $58,350 $60,100 $61,903 $63,760
Marschall Road Ops �a15,000 $30,000 $49,000 $50,470 $51,984 $53,544 $55,150
Personnel-Shakopee $74,460 $31,090 $31,712 $32,346 $32,993 $33,653 $34,326
Personnel-Prior Lake $94,174 $96,266 $97,229 $98,201 $99,183 $100,175 �a101,177
Planning $33,000 $52,500 $32,500 $33,475 $34,479 $35,514 $36,579
Admin Shakopee $32,727 $3,330 $3,430 $3,533 $3,639 $3,748 $3,860
Admin Prior Lake $19,530 $13,380 $13,514 $13,649 $13,785 $13,923 $14,063
Total Expendi'tures $1,675,701 $1,663,066 $1,706,979 $1,755,657 $9,80b,766 $1,857,3�§9 $1,910,451
Annual Change $423,050 $168,600 $127,660 $115,676 $95,845 $82,294 $67,985
Ending Balance $1,942,907 $2,111,507 $2,239,167 $2,354,843 $2,�150,688 $2,532,982 �2,600,967
Note: 3% inflation assumed for expenditures,except 2%inflation assumed for Shakopee Personnel and
1%inflation assumed for Prior Lake Personnel
- . , ,. . �.,�__ -,,,,-, ,�,o Paee 26
Transit-dependent Service Operating Bud�ets and Needs
Current Transit-Dependent Programs Funding Sour�es
Programs servicing the transit-dependent populations cost Scott County$3.47 M in 2011.This
included all the activities under fhe SmartLink program as well as contract services for Prior
Lake and Shakopee. This was funded from a number of programs as shown in the table below:
2011 Dial-a-Ride and Small �us
a
Ftegular Route Budget
,
:��
���� , �Dial-a-Ride$2.6M
m 3 :-� �� n.� �
~ � � �Medical Assistance$448K
�` �
'�,
� �r « k �ROUte 496$3301<
#� � ;, .
''Prior Lake Route$31K
�498 Shuttle$63K
Funding from the Metropolitan Council for dial-a-ride service comes from a combination of
Motor Vehicle Sales Taxes and State General Funds. State Medical Assistance funds come from
a combination of state general funds and federal grants. The Prior Lake and Shakopee circulator
funds come from the Motor Vehicle Sales Taxes.
Future Transit-Dependent Funding IVeeds
If we assume:
• SmartLink Transit does not take on any additional programs (as assumption that has not
held true for the last five years)
• Demand for dial-a-ride services increases both with the increased population projected
for Scott County and with the increase in ihe percentage of persons who are elderly
• Inflation is 3%a year
Then by 2020, funding will need to increase by 120%o, from $3.47 million in 2011 to $7.7 million.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 paQP��
Projected Dial-a-Ride Future Fieet IVeeds
If the fleet increases to meet demand, it will mean adding three buses every two years from
2011 to 2020, or 15 additional buses.
Future Operatin� Funding Sources
As noted above, about half the fiunding for Scott County commuter services comes from the
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax and over a quarter from the State Sales Tax. Assuming funding is
available to increase programs to meet demand,funding would need to increase 120% between
2011 and 2020 to meet inflation and growth in demand. This requires the following amounts,
assuming the current funding distribution does not change in the future.
Funding Source 2011 �udget 2020 Need
Metropolitan Council Dial-a-Ride/ADA $2,594,947 $5,708,883
State of Minnesota Medical Assistance $448,137 $1,059,015
Shakopee Route 496 $330,115 $726,252
Prior Lake Summer Route $31,973 $70,341
Shakopee 498 Shuttle $63,789 $140,336
Total $3,468,961 $7,704,827
The same questions about funding sources noted for regular route service also apply to dial-a-
ride funding. MVST has declined about a third from 2003 to 2010 and there is continued
uncertainty about where it will go in the future. The State General Fund spending for transit has
also seen steep declines. These changes could substantially affect whether funding will be
available for this expansion.
Capital Funding Needs
Transit is a capital-intensive activity. As such, it requires funds to both maintain existing
infrastructure and add new infrastructure. Funding comes primarily from three sources:
• Regional Transit Capital (RTC) funds are generated by a property tax levied throughout
cities within the Transit Taxing District(TTD). In Scott County, cities in the TTD include
Shal<opee, Prior Lake and Savage. The funds are allocated by the Minnesota Legislature
and administered by the Metropolitan Council. Typically these funds are used for
replacement vehicles, existing infrastructure and matching federal funds.
• Funding for expansion vehicles and park and rides primarily comes from federal grants.
The most prominent source is Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ)funds although
there have been funds from the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and American
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 28
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These funds are allocated competitively through the
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). Typically they require a 20%o match which is
provided from RTC funds.
• National Transit Database or NTD funds are generated by reporting transit statistics to
the federal government. The region has a "you earn it,you I<eep it" philosophy for
certain parts of the reporting so funds are allocated back to various transit providers
based on their reporting statistics. Shakopee has typically earned about$70,000 per
year and Prior Lake about$40,000 per year. These funds are available for whatever
transit purposes those en'tities choose.
With its first park and ride,Southbridge Station, Scott County also needs to begin a capital
maintenance plan for park and ride facilities. Ideally,the following routine should occur:
Transit Station Maintenance:
• Every 3 years: Cracl<sealing �striping; Minor maintenances
• Every 5-6 years: Seal coating&fog seal;Security/Technology replacement(cameras,
wireless routers)
• Every 10-12 years: Mill/overlay&striping (depending on pavement condition)
� Every 20 years: Major rehabilitation/concrete replacement; Reconstruction of major
elements
Fleet Replacement:
• Every 5 years for SmartLink Transit Buses
• Every 12 years for BlueXpress (Coach) Buses
TH 169 Bus Ramp Maintenance:
• Every 5 years: Crack Seal and Stripe Fog Line
• Every 7 years:Seal Coating and Strip Fog Line
• Every 15-18 years: Mil/overlay�C striping (depending on pavement condition).
TH 169 Bus Ramp Maintenance Agreement between Scott County and Minnesota
Department of Transportation stipulates the fiollowing State responsibilities:
• The State will mow roadside grasses in the area of the Bus Only Ramp to NB TH
169 when it normally mows the TH 169 Corridor at no cost to the County,
• The State will perform minor pothole patching of the Bus Only ramp when
other pothole patching is done on TH 169, at no cost to the County.
• The State will provide Snow and Ice Control on the Bus Only ramp from
Stagecoach Road to NB TH 169 concurrently with snow and ice control
operations on TH 169. The State will plow and apply deicing chemical as
needed to keep the Bus Only Ramp as reasonably free of snow and ice as
practicable to facilitate use by busses between 6:OOAM and 3:00 PM Monday
through Friday, at no cost to the County.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capitai Plan 2012-2018 Page 29
Based on this plan,the following capital infrastructure is needed:
c0 0 0 0 o N o 0 o W a o o cD o o r N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 � o 0 o tn
M � ��� � � � �� ���� � t9 O O O N O O O O EA[Y O EPr U3 O�
O ' tH tA _ O [f O� O 1� o� � f� N O O O 1�
N V �N G� O a N N ta C� N V O N �(1 �fl O (O � 1� a N
N G1 c0 � �(1 t[l fA L� Q N V � O (mf}�C') N � t� (�O � G�i
N (� c- � d3 t9 (D F- EA N b3 Efl fA ES3 ff3 Ef3 U7 ("J (O
� � EA (%E9 � EA 1 tf3 �
O
F-
0 0 0 o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o 0 o m
ene»ene» o �n a e>r»e»FnF»e> o ures�v�eno cro enrne>in u� o �nen o
N W �IJ C') t� N 4l V m ro O I�
�y � r r N p N V a] �t 1�
� LL] (D O N N N V N N
� ��� � � fA �fR ff'. H3
(O O O O N O O O O O O O O ro O O O O O O O O O O O O [O O O O N
N EH tA fA tn O O O W Efi tA EH H3 � H3 EA fA V3 eR¢] O U3 EA O U-](O � k9 eA EPr �fl
W C1 N �] US C'� � O O 4l (O ('�
N U� O f� O � 1� N �61 O (O N O
O
N � ��bq N ry kR (A eA N N
N
� � EA E9
0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c> o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o 0 o co
EA fA fA fA N O O (ii EA fH fA tfl EA 11J fA fn Efl t�EA O EA EA V3 EA E9(O � (A tA fR L`l
Np� p p G� O O N c0 m
� oJ N cri C'i o tn V �Y C']
N � eA EH N N E9 �O N
� � tA EH
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �(l (O O O O
N fR efl ER I� cJ a O m tA 64�1 Ni 1� fA O eA EA EA N U>O O O K: I� O tA EA f�
r1 r) �- r t» I� o co c'> r co c� �n o r
� � cJ (") t� O� m O �[J G> O� ch C] � [0
� � � � fA EA � N !�A fH 4�h N EA� N V
N d. N N tR <A �j
� �j Fi4 �3
O O O O N O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O (O (O O O O N
EA(n t9 fA OJ O O Efl fn f9 d3 EA EA N fA O O EA EA O ff1 O EA O tR� N O E9 EH Q�
t0 O O tO O O O O (O oJ N O CD
� O N ro � � � O �!1 LL� O O c"1 O
0 � � (J LJ N �N � EA � N � m (D
N _� yj fA H3 EA EA
� � V3
O O O O N O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O N
¢J tfl EA VT M (O V tA 69 EA Yi tA EA kA O fA H3 tA�] O O kA O eH O c'J fA 64 ef1
N I� �Il N O O a O e- O � C�i O
�` O 1� N N O ~ � 1�(7i V (D I� O O
� (r�] 7 � � O ry � ��69 � fA CO O
� E£3 K nj N
� � fA fA
0 0 0 o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o rn o 0 o rn
fA�N3 fA�] O O EA e�HS K3 EA fA m � V3 EA FA EA fA N OO O EfT O ��N � O�� ¢1
� (+J N M
N cJ � M p c0 G1 rn O� c] CJ c")
. N V 6�9� � N ��� � ��� E�9
ER �
0 0 0 o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a� o o c�
� tA EA tA N N N E,9 EA V3 kA 69 eA (D EA O EP, eA O N O Hi tR O k9 O N O VS (D
� � o � � t- N �n o � m o u� r o r-
I� 'd' � 0] LL� a- N O 4l O> O � tn �
o m � v cn m o F» o �n e» � in t�o rn
N N � tA N3 Q? N di
N �
� } b? EA Vi fR
0 0 0 o co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o o a m
eA U3 eA H3 N t0 7 Ef3 EA U3 N3 E9 kA N U)O tA EH EA O t9 EA fA O 64 O N O t�EA N
cf O � N a V �(] M G7 N LL� O V'
0 oi c6 m m � � r `fl � co ui m
N N V3 tA N N � � !A 6m4 N N
� � tA e�
O O O O O N O O O 0] O O O O O O I� N O O O O O O O O O O O O m
O fA EA O O th O ffl Efl OJ E5 f1T F� N eA O O � tfi O u}O fA Hl tA O O O EA EA
O N V N �Il N N O a m N M N N O N
� a ri�ri co ri co � ri m v m ai rn r;o �
N 0� C� (9 N L(1 O] p tP � � EA M �� � �
N N �D N �eA Ui C'J ry Ui oJ � � fA �
Vi 69 tf3 � � b9 Ef3
O O O V O O O (�l �(1 a (0 O O N 4l N C'l O O d' O O O O O O O O O 7 .
t") ("1 H)�A (D O t+] O m N tY] � fA Efi Cl c� i� O 4� N tA c] N 69 tA EA fA ER EA O v3 H3 (O
c- ('1 4� O �Il O N ttl c0 � � � O� � Ul N ID I� O m
� N U� N (0 (D L^, ro Q� �] � N tn N (7 N (O N V
N �p O N (� I� O LL� a N N 0] N EA FA � N �.
� M O (`� (") Ci a � f� p � N 1� � tA
M d' EA En u3 EP, EA � iC1 N `- a'
0 Efl EA Uj (A � 0 EA ER f9 fA Q
n`. a o
¢
�
N � U
N C O �',
�y � U �
m
N C] N N � '�O�
O
C � � J p � d � � �U.
C a � � o r m m ai 4' � c \ � -o
� a r- o "� � � a c\ ° F � o c � °' ° F" �
u, ❑ o m o o L � �- _ v m E o �
�.� R 'u Q � U � U a cn c P � � E m E n c' � c °J �
a A 3 Q � p � ❑ � m i� °1 T c � m' �� n � a � 2
'a. � _ � ¢ K I- F- � y � � ru o: a '� � � I- c�
� a LL � z , z Z � � u� � � ' � � � � u � � Q�. ��
U � LL � � � � � � O O o o � u o g �
� u m m m � c m m = .-. U U � u o a� 2 � �'� U m � �'•:. x m � '�
N w � a�
R O � N N DaI � ��aI � t��0 (CiZ o o L O p� m � � � '` � N > L O� CUi � 3 L 'LL.
F- U 6. LL LL lL VJ CL LL LL F F- (n (n O d 4.' W U 0] H (n U(/J O (n .J (n 0] ll1 O
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 30
Future Funding Options
Scott County is in a difficult position in that most of fhe region's jobs are north of the Minnesota
River yet there are no plans between now and 2030 to increase the capacity of bridges or roads
between Scott County and these jobs. If Scotf County is going to continue to grow,there needs
to be a way of moving more people on the existing roads and bridges.Transit provides such an
option. As the analysis above indicates, existing revenues will not meet the growing demand for
transit much less meet current needs. Shakopee and Prior Lake fund reserves will be exhausted
by 2016 and it will be necessary to either bring in new revenues or make significant reductions
to commuter bus service.
Eliminate Service: One option is to eliminate all but the most popular express bus routes. Even
without a reserve balance,the cities will continue to share a portion of MVST as required by
State statute. The express service could be reduced and restructured so costs do not exceed
revenues. This option will greatly reduce access to jobs.
Increase Revenues:Another option is to increase the revenues available for transit. The Motor
Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) has declined precipitously while at the same time it is being used to
fund operations for several new transitways. The State General Fund has had a substantial
shortfall over the last biennium,with reduced support to transit as a result. As a result, neither
can be relied upon for additional revenue. Because of this,traditional revenue sources most
lil<ely will not be available.
Potential revenue sources include:
• Supplement MVST with funds from the city's general fund. While we might be able to
maintain existing service levels,this would most likely result in an increase in the local
property tax levy. It may also result in increased requests for local service.
• Explore the possibility of a County-wide JPA in which all Scott County municipalities
contribute funding to transit services. Again, this would probably result in increased
local tax levies, but would spread the increases out among several local governments.
At the same time, it is likely other cities would seek more transit service within their
borders.
• Join the County Transit Improvernent Board (CTIB). CTIB was created through
Minnesota State statute in 2008 and is currently made up of five counties in the Twin
Cities: Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, and Washington. The main goal of CTIB is to
collect a sales tax and put that towards transit improvements in the Twin Cities.The
sales tax is a quarter of a percent and has been generating about$85,000,000 annually.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 31
Scott County is eligible to join CTIB. Currently, if a CTIB member county contributes less
than 3%of the total revenues, the county retains its contribution. In 2010 (the most
current data publically available), Scott County would have contribuied 3.006%oi`the
total revenues. However, given that the economic recovery has been uneven, it is
possible that Scott County may currentiy be under this threshold. If so,the County
would have approximately$3 million available for transit services should it join CTIB. Ifi
the County is over this threshold, it could negotiate with fhe CTIB board to determine if a
portion of these funds could be dedicated to transit operating needs within the County.
This level of funding could provide revenues needed to both maintain exiting service and
meet demand both to downtown Minneapolis and to jobs newly accessible along the
Green Line (Southwest) LRT.
Or�anizational Structure for Service Deliv�ry
There are questions about the efficacy of the current structure of transit service operations in
Scott County. Transit is a regional activity, yet it is being managed to some degree at a
municipal level. Municipal interests are not always aligned with regional needs. Changing the
current structure of transit service could be one way of addressing this issue. It is also possible
that this could reduce administrative costs, although this would not be enough to address the
serious structural deficits forecast for the near future.
Scott County and its cities should explore whether other organizational structures would better
fix the overall needs of the county. Some alternatives to be explored include:
• Ajoint powers board between Shakopee and Prior Lake (Two Cities model)
• Prior Lal<e and Shal<opee joining MVTA(South of the River model)
• Prior Lake and Shakopee joining SWT(TH 169 Corridor model)
• Prior Lake and Shal<opee joining Plymouth or Maple Grove (New Joint Powers model)
• Scott County taking overall all management of commuter transit activities and
integrating it into its existing transit program (SmartLinl< model)
• County-wide joint powers agreement where all Scott County municipalities contribute
funding to transit services. (County-wide JPA model)
• Contract with the Metropolitan Council for transit service (Minnetonka model)
Each of these alternatives has pros and cons. Over the next year,the Transit Review Board
should continue to discuss these options.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 32
Conclusion
Over the last i`ive years,�transit ridership has grown dramatically.This is reflective of the unmet
demand for transit service to access jobs. Demand is expected to continue to increase in the
next five years as congestion makes travel around the region increasingly difficult and the
opening of the Green Line LRT provides access to a whole new market of jobs easily accessible
with transit. Parl<and ride infrastructure at Eagle Creel<and Marschall Road is coming on-line to
meet this demand. New transit service is needed from these facilities and from existing
facilities. This will require adding twelve more trips and twelve more vehicles to the fleet by
2017. Operating funding projections show that current revenues are not only insufficient to
meet future needs-they are insufficient to even meet current service levels. Policy makers are
going to have to make hard choices to either reduce access to high-payingjobs or increase
revenues for transit.
Demand for dial-a-ride services is expected to grow much faster than the general population as
the number of people above age 65 swells. The number of persons living in poverty gets bigger
and the number of persons with disabilities increases with population growth. It is necessary to
account for inflation in costs projections. As a result,funding needs for this program are
expected to double from 2011 to 2020. Three-quarters of the funding for this activity is
controlled by the Metropolitan Council. If the Metropolitan Council does not meet this need,
policy makers in Scott County will need to decide if they would pursue other funding for these
activities or reduce access to services for the county's most needy residents.
Transit is important to Scott County and to the entire region. It provides people with mobility
and access to employment, community resources and recreational opportunities. Transit also
helps to reduce road congestion and travel times, air pollution and energy and oil consumption.
Public transit also has a significant positive impact on economic development in the area. If the
county is going to continue to prosper,transit is a necessary component of future plans.
In the very near future, funding shortfalls will threaten the future of transit operations. Over
the next two years, Scott County residents and elected officials will need to make hard decisions
about how transit will operate in Scott County. It is important to begin this planning now, in
order to position the county for the future.
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 33
Appendix A: Detailed Capital Needs
M o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EA fA Ef?E9 O� N � 69 fA fA fR 64 EA � EH o O � m m N I� O fA 00 (H(fl �
� �i �(1 0] f� ° ' ' '
N �y O o N R � t�ti M �N- ! Ol � � (V
N ��� � O N H3 N (A fA O�
� f- EA EfT Ef�ffl �3
O
I--
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N O �f"! iC N N M O i(1
O N c~�J (ND O 6�9 � � N
N EA ER ff3 N EA tf3 �
�� � O
�
N N
O 0
N N
o O � p
� V?Vi �'9 �j
O •
N N in
O "LS
N N 3
� o o O o o � Z
Of N N p� o N M 1� N
m N o oJ rn o m �
p � O N V3 � 6� � N
N � M N E9 [fl N
� EA EA � N
LL
� O o O O O O � �
Q O O O O O O
� � O O t0 � O O � � �
O O VJ tn O
O � O � O O �f1 ln p �
N �EA Efl F1> N ��
6�9 N
N
N
o O o O o O .�'_.
O O O O
r O O � � O O O 3
. c0 'C Q N N p p
O M � O) O 1� � �
N fA V3 fR N fA � py N
�
a
0 o O o O o � O
O O O O O O � �
� �p � tn � N M O � �
N Cl fD N C�i Ol
O N c'] � O Efl ("J fA � �U
N tfl EA ffl N fR Hi �
O
U
° °m °o °o °o m
� r- o m � m m g.
N � � �
O EA Efl EA O (A � C
N N d
�
U
0 0 0 o a . �
� CO O � O N p
d' �� u�i a � � a.o
� N
0 0
N N u- N
.� `'
C T
p O O O O � 3
O O O O O � m �
o �n �1 N M � � N
M 6� N � r � [h � � �
O fR EfJ b9 � FA �
N N � � o
N �
N
Q1
o V o I� �- 1� c0 co ao r] d' .--� � �U`
[t (D o o cO I� � � � I� O� t7 � N � � .(n
Q O � O � ro C(J � � p a- ln tfl (7 h � � �`
M N I� O f� I� W M fa (D 'd' N lD C �
� O o N [O � N � M N W O O V m M �� M d' ¢ O.t!1
' N -EA EA (A fA fA � ' N �EA (O M Lj�O
� �- ff3 64 � a EA EA � �(� O cV
�y � (n N
� � U a a
F- E � `G° �
�
�n c �j Fa- �� ,�
m � � �
� E � � � o
N N N � O
f� Y N N U 0 a U O
�
U N N N J Y � � � C � N
� U -O t/1 (Q UJ O L (9 ld ` � 4-' T IO � N � C�
� C �6 -� O C C d� 'D C
a ,�1 o c � d cn o o � o � � o o � ��m
ti o `o_ m � � . f- .,., a-c v � F- � h
t m � Q o F-' CO a tLn c c a°'i 'o E � E � c°�i L c °� Q a� a�i
� c
o = � � Q � pHO ❑ m m QT c � m s� °� �� °� � � a�i
m F- ct�it�i ¢ z � zz m °' ? w � c ° � � m w � � � m u=_. i, �.
LL � N N � - t6 0I
� u m m ` � c m �v � � U � u o ai 2 °o � o� � o o�w x m � � Q
� � N N U] � .� UJ N N N C « � d L C N Q U C U U '�C � 'C � W � N a � C
w U �Q 'O "a � j9 a -6 C C � O ,� �p � Q' C N � . (4 N N L U N N L U1 U l9
O N N N N LL] Ul � � O U C O 3 ` � N > L Ol N � �
Ul J n. lL LL tl fn d' LL LL F- I- U c!J O � � W U m F (n U � O ln J (n �] o] O «� : C7
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 34
o Site: Eagle Creek Transit Station
rt
rt
� Loca4ion: CH 21 &CH 16
0
c
�
.� Prior to To4a1 2013
� Prm'ectFinancin 2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2029 2022 -22
� Federal/FHWA` $1,579,545 �0
�
�* Federal/FTA 5307 $0
� Federal/JARC $0
a
� State/MN/DOT Bonds $0
�' Regional/RTC Bonds $0
° Federal/N7D Prior Lake $88,530 $0 $2,920 �0 $3,600 $32,960 $0 $3,160 $0 $3,600 $30,560 $76,800
�
v Federal/NTD Shako ee $304,000 $0 �4,380 $0 $5,400 $49,440 $0 $4,740 $0 $5,400 $45,840 $115,200
Q Transit O erating/Prior Lake $37,976 $0
� Transit O erating/Shako ee $56,964 $0
� Scott Count $113,130 $0
� Scott Count Regional Rail $0
"� Other/ $0
� $0
rv Total �2,180,145 $0 $7,300 $0 $9,000 $82,400 $0 $7,900 $0 $9,000 �76,400 $192,000
0
N
N
N Prior to
� Project Expenditures 2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 202'i 2022 Tofal
°O Right of Way $113,130 �u0
Engineering �97,800 $0
Construction/Improvements $1,387,360 $0
Bus Access Ram $0
Traffic Management $0
Striping $7,300 $7,300 $7,300 $7,300 $29,200
Crad<Seal $9,000 $9,000 $18,000
Seal Coat $54,100 $54,100 $108,200
Overlay $0
Shelter!E ui ment Replacement $6,000 $600 $6,600
Lighting Re lacement $0
Security/Technology/Mobile Comm. �15,000 $15,000 $30,000
Bus Expansion $0
Bus Re lacement $0
Other/ $0
� �0
Total $1,598,290 $0 $7,300 $0 $9,000 $82,400 $0 $7,900 $0 $9,000 $76,400 $192,000
� "Federal FHWA iunds include STP/CMAQ/ARRA
v
�
�
w
�
� Si�e: Marschall Road Transit Station
0
o Location: TH 169&CH 17
c
�
.� Prior 40 7otaC 2013
-i Pro'ectFinancin 2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 -22
� Federal/FHWA` $�
�: Federal/FTA 5307 $�
� Federal/JARC $0
� State/MN/DOT Bonds $2,392,000 �1,681,800 51,681,800
�' Regional/RTC Bonds $225,000 $225,000
° Federal/NTD Prior Lake $48,000 $146,232 $3,000 S43,000 $0 $3,600 $12,000 $0 $2,000 �3,600 $12,OD0 $225,432
�
� Federal/NTD Shako ee $72,000 $4,500 $64,500 $0 $5,400 $18,000 $0 $3,000 $5,400 $18,000 $118,800
� Transit O eratin /Prior Lake ��
Q
c� Transit O eratin /Shako ee $�
-�'a Scott County $1,079,077 �53,288 $53,288
v Scott County Regional Rail $�
v Other/ ��
v
�
�, Total $3,591,077 $2,106,320 $7,500 $107,500 $0 $9,000 $30,000 $0 $5,000 $9,000 $3Q000 $2,304,320
0
N
�' Prior 40
o Pro'ect Expenditures 2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 202'! 2022 7o4a9
o Right of Way $3,374,629 $�
Engineering $219,348 553,000 $7,500 $2,500 $63,000
Construction/Im ro�ements $1,898,407 $1,898,407
Bus Access Ram �154,912 $154,912
Traffic Management $100,000 $100,000
Striping $5,000 $5,000 �5,000 $5,000 $20,000
Cracl<Seal $9,000 $9,000 $18,000
Seal Coat $25,000 $25,000 $50,000
Overlay
$0
Shelter/E uipment Replacement ��
Lighting Replacement ��
Security/Technalogy/Mobile Co $�
Bus Expansion $�
Bus Re lacement ��
Other/ ' $�
$0
Total $3,593,976 $2,106,319 $7,500 $107,500 $0 $9,000 $30,000 $0 $5,000 $9,000 $30,000 $2,304,319
�
v
�
�
w
rn
o Si4e: lN 169 Bus Ramp
�
� Locafiion: TH 169&CH 21
0
c
�
,� Total 2013
� Pro'ectFinancin Prior4o 2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2079 2020 2021 2022 -22
�
� Federal/FHWA" $537,745 ��
r' Federal/FTA 5307 ��
-o Federal/JARC $�
� State/MN/DOT Bonds $�
o• Re ional/RTC Bonds �a3,180 $16,180 $19,360
N Federal/NTD Prior Lake $0 $0
� Federal/NTD Shako ee $0 ��
fl- Transit O eratin /Prior Lake $100 $100 $200
m Transit O eratin /Shako ee $80 $80 $160
� Scott Count $�
� Scott Count Re ional Rail $�
v Other/ $�
�
0
o Total $537,745 $0 $0 $3,180 $0 $16,180 $0 $180 $0 $180 $0 $19,720
N
N
"' Pro'ect Expenditures Priorto 2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Tofal
0
� Right of Wa $�
Engineering $128,776 $�
Construction/Im ro�ments ��
Bus Access Ramp $613,220 $�
Traffic Management $�
5triping $180 $180 $180 $180 $720
Crack Seal �a3,000 $3,000
Seal Coat $10,000 �10,000
Overla $�
Shelter/E ui ment Re laceme ��
Li htin Re lacement $�
Securit /Technolo /Mobile $6,000 $6,000
Bus Ex ansion ��
Bus Re lacement ��
Other/ $�
$0
Total $741,996 SO �0 S3,180 $0 $16,180 $0 $180 $0 $180 $0 $19,720
� *Federal FHWA funds include STP/CMAQ/ARRA
v
00
m
w
V
M cn o 0 o cn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o cv o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v v v o c� .
cn e» es e» co e» E» v3 e» �,s <» e» r� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v v v r�
p d- � O] O O O (D (D CO N N N N O] Q� M C') M N
N u� [p .- N o 0 0 O O o ' ' ' ' ' 'O O o
V (7 ¢1 d' d' V 1� I� f� O O O f� f� I� o]
� 6J 1� (O 0 � � � tn lI] � LL� tf] �fl (D (O CD LD CO (O CO
� F'� H Eli ff3 EPr EA Ef3 EA ER ER Ef7 fH fl3 EA V3 ff, m
O � V3 EA EJ}
H
p O
N � N �
N N
0 0
N N
N o c`N') V V '� c"�
N N O M M M O
� (D V' O � (O tD [O O
N EH N N V3 U3 EA N
EA V3 �
O � O �
N N
O O
N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rNi o � °m °m °ro v
m a � m - - - �
� v co o � o 0 0 0
° v c� m � co cn cn m
N � N fp fp E»
EA El3 �
En EA
� W
p O
N N
O O o 0 0 0 0
ro N o 0 o O o
p] I� (O N N N (O
n o N M n M
f� V � f� f� f�
o ch � I� o � �EA �
N � � N �
U3 Ef] fA
p O
N � � �
O O
N N
o O O o 0 0 0
� (p O O O O O
V c� m co co (D o]
�
0 0 0
� N M cNO � N � � (ND
N � N � ��
V3 EH �
O O
tY � � �
O O
N f`7 a
�
O O O O O O � U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �
M � (p O � O O O O
`- N O C] M � O
� N M �f) � ln tn i[] �
� N fA ' � EH 69 E9 ' 'O
EA EA � Q Q
� d
O O U' �
� M EA � �,.� EH Q (3il
O O a o U �
� N '� N V
a a �
� � �
� N
LL N � v �
N y � _ -O .O
� J O � U O
m N U] s' d' C
Y p� - -6
N .p � N J O � � C L 'O N
c a �
x r O C Y ` O � � � � C
C C o m � O L � � I6 th M M �n �n �n f� I� I� N N N � ,� N.
c'� m � a� o a � � �- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 .n
� a 'u Q � U F- U a � c c � � c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c� N N N N c� � Q �
�� X � � Q � O � p p '� �� � N N N N N N N N N � � i i i � �
[n W � 2 1- Q � CC F I- � � Q o � � � � � = c�
lL LL "') Z � Z Z C C X � N (h V ln (O 1� 0] m �
LL � � � W LL
� � � � � O O O O �A N U1 u] N u] t� cl N N t/1 Ul tn fA U1
.. i� m � m � c m �o .- .. U U � � � � � � � � � � � 3 � � � � m z
m o m �in »- v m n� 07 m m m �] rfl cfl 0] o] m o7 m o7 �.
°' a 'o a a -°JC � a a � � o o � '0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a ai
� a a� v m � m � � � � c� � m a� m a� a� m a� a� a� a� a� a� m m m � o
¢ F- a � u. u. v� � � � � � cncn0 azzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 38
� Asset: Blue Y�oress Bus Fleet
0
�
�
n Type: Replacement
O
� Total 2013-
� Pro"ect Financin Priorto 2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 22
�
v Federal/FHWA" $�
N Federal/FTA 5307 $�
� Federal/JARC $�
-� State/MN/DOT Bonds $�
� Re ional/RTC Bonds $269,000 �0 $216,000 $0 $0 $697,OOD $125,000 $125,000 $1,432,000
� Federal/NTD Prior Lake
$0
� Federal/NTD Shako ee $�
vTransit O eratin /Prior Lake $�
� Transit O erating/Shako ee $�
Q
n Scott Count $�
� Scott Count Reqional Rail $�
f*' Other/
30
°' $0
v
m Total $0 $269,OD0 $0 $216,000 $0 $0 $697,000 $125,000 $0 50 3125,000 $1,432,000
�
^� Pro'ect Expenditures Priorto 2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2D22 Total
� 6513 2002 $125,000 $�
N 6514(1991) $125,000
$0
N
0 4515 2006 $125,D00 $125,D00
� 6061 2010
$125,000 $125,000
4004 2005 �72,00� $72,000
3066 2004 $125,DOD $125,000
4017(2006 �125,000 $125,000
4018 2006 5125,000 $125,000
4019(2006) �125,000 $125,000
4D20 20D6 $125,000 $125,000
6053 2007 5125,000 $125,000
64021 2008 �u72,000 $72,000
64022(2008 $72,000 $72,000
64D37(2010) 572,000 $72,000
64038 2D1D $72,000 $72,000
64039(2010) $72,000 $72,000
$0
Total $250,000 $269,000 $0 �216,000 $0 $0 $697,000 �125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $1,432,D00
�
n�
W
N
W
�
�
�
0
� Asszf: SmartLink Bus Fleet
n
0
� Type: Expansion
�
�
�
� Prior to
� Yo4a9 2013
� Pro"ecYFinancin 2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2027 2022 -22
�
f+' Federal/FHWA' $p
� Federal/FTA 5307 gp
�D Federal!JARC
$0
°+, State/MN/DOT Bonds $p
° Re ional/RTC Bonds $83,200 $86,528 $89,989 $93,589 $97,332 $101,226 $98,176 $104,699 �111,586 $118,858 �985,183
� Federal/N7D Prior Lake gp
Q Federal/NTD Shako ee gp
� Transit 0 eratin /Prior Lake gp
�a Transit Operating/Shal<opee $p
v Scott Count $p
� Scott Count Re ional Rail $p
� Other/ $p
N
° Total $0 �83,200 $86,528 $89,989 $93,589 $97,332 $101,226 $98,176 $104,699 $111,586 �118,858 $985,183
N
N
� PPIOP40
� Pro'ect Expenditures 2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Yo4al
$0
Expansion Buses $83,200 $86,528 a89,989 $93,589 $97,332 $101,226 $98,176 $104,699 $111,586 $118,858 $985,183
$0
$D
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total $D $83,200 $86,528 $89,989 $93,589 $97,332 �101,226 $98,176 $104,699 $111,586 $118,858 $985,183
v
a�
Uu
N
A
O
n Asse4: SmartLink Bus Fleet
0
,-+
�
n Type: Replacement
0
� Tota I 2013
� Pro'ectFinancin Priorto 2013 2013 2014 2015 201fi 2017 2018 2019 2020 2029 2022 -22
�
� Federal/FHWA* $�
� Federal I FTA 5307 $�
'� Federal/JARC $�
� State/MN/DOT Bonds $�
a
� Re ional/RTC Bonds 3432,000 $341,000 �125,000 $879,000 $341,000 $0 $216,000 �0 SO $0 $0 $2,334,000
� Federal/NTD Prior Lake $�
� Federal/NTD Shako ee $�
'^ Transit O eratin /Prior Lake $�
� Transit O eratin /Shako ee ��
°' Scott Count $�
� Scott Count Re ional Rail $�
� Other/
0
v
� Total �432,000 $341,000 $125,000 $879,000 �341,000 $0 $216,000 �u0 $0 $0 $0 $2,334,000
�
N Pro'ect Ex enditures Priorto 2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
� 12D5 2006 $72,000 $72,000
N 1206 2006 $72,000 �72,000
N 1207 2007 $125,000 5125,000
0
� 1208 2008 372,000 �72,000
1209 2008 $125,000 $125,000
12'10 2�08 $72,000 �72,000
642"11 2010 $72,000 $72,000
64212 201D "�72,000 $72,000
64213 201D $72,00� $72,000
4012 2006 $72,000 �72,000
4013 2006 $72,000 $72,D00
4014 2006 �72,000 $72,�00
4015 2001 $72,000 $72,000
6401B 2008 $125,000 $125,000
64019 2008 $125,000 $125,D00
64020 2008 $125,000 $125,000
64023 200B �72,000 $72,000
64024 2009 $125,000 $125,000
64030 2010 $72,000 $72,DOD
64031 2010 $72,000 $72,000
64032 201D $72,000 $72,000
64033 2010 �72,000 $72,000
64034 201D 572,000 $72,000
64D35 2010 $72,000 $72,000
v 64036 2010 $72,000 �72,D00
00 64040 2011 $72,000 $72,OD0
� 64041 2011 �72,OOD $72,000
� 64042 2011) $72.000 572,000
Total $432,000 $341,000 $125.000 $879,000 �341,000 $0 $216,000 $0 $0 $0 �0 $2,334,000
n A:sefi: SmartLink Bus Fleet
0
�
o Type: Other Capital
� P ri or to ToYa I 2013
� Pro'ect Financin 2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2029 2022 -22
� $0
v Federal/FHWA'
v�+ Federal/FTA 53D7 ��
� Federal/JARC $�
� State/MN/DOT Bonds ��
� Re ionaU RTC Bonds �9,200 �11,5D0 $11,500 $13,800 $11,500 $110,856 $13,915 $14,260 $16,560 $14,950 $228,041
Federal/NTD Prior Lake $�
� Federal!NTD Shako ee ��
v Transit 0 eratin /Prior Lake $�
Q Transit O eratin /Shako ee ��
t� Scott Count $�
-�a Scott Count Re ional Rail ��
v Other/ $�
v
°' Total $0 $9,200 �11,500 $11,500 $13,800 $11,500 $110,856 $13,915 $14,260 $16,560 $14,950 $228,041
�
N
p Prior to
��., Pro'ect Ex enditures 2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
N Ri ht of Wa
�0
a $o
N En ineerin
� Construction/Im rovements $�
Bus Access Ramp $�
Traffic Mana ement $�
Stri in ��
Crack Seal ��
Seal Coat ��
O�erla $�
Shelter/E ui ment Re lacement ��
Li htin Re lacement $�
Securit /Technolog /Mobile Comm. $9,200 $11,500 $11,500 $13,BOD $11,500 $110,856 $13,915 $14,260 $16,560 $14,950 $228,041
Bus Ex ansion ��
Bus Re lacement $�
Other/ $�
Total $0 59,200 $11,500 $11,5D0 $13,800 $11,500 $110,856 �13,915 $14,260 $16,560 $14,950 $228,041
v
n�
04
�
�
N
N Dn
O 'a
rt
n �
O �
C
� �
� �
� �.
N
� W
�; ••
� �
� �
N �
�
O fD
� �
v �
Q T
n VehideNum Year VinNum Model ModelYear:Manufac[ure-Model-Chassis-VendorFuel GaraRe Or�anization Miles Provider Ower (p
� — —
� 6512 2002 16AGKBXA02R06190 LTC-37 2002-Bluehird:LTC-37-BLUEBIRD-BLUEBIRD-DF Schmitty&Sons-Lakeville PRIORLAKE 316,442 SCHMIIT'&SONS LR �
m 6513 20D2 16AGK3XA22F206191 LTC-37 2002-Bluebird:LTC-37-�LUE6IRD-BLUEBIRD-DF Schmitty&Sons-Lakeville PRIORIAKE 339,187 SCHMITTY&SONS LR
� 6514 1991 15GCD0914M1083146 PHANTOM 1991-Gillig:PHANTOM-GILLIG-GILLIG-DF Schmitty&Sons-Lakeville PRIORLAKE 63,725 SCHMITfY&SONS LR
v 4515 2006 �MBPDMPAX7P057883 D4500 2006-MCI:D4500-MCI-MCI-DF Schmitty&Sons-Lake�nlle PRIOR LAKE 218,277 SCHMITfI'&SONS LR
� 6061 2010 1MBPDMEASAP059583 D4500 201D-MCI:D450�-MCI-MCI-DF Schmitty 8 Sons-LakeNlle PRIOR LAKE 66,477 SCHMITfY&SONS LR
iv 4004 2005 1 FDXE45PSSHA60244 GCII 2�05-Goshen Coach:GCII-Ford--DF City of Pnor Lake PRIOR IAKE 2D2,389 SCOTf COUN'fY LR
� 3066 2003 1HV6TAAM14H616542 3200 2003-Eldorado:3200-Chev�-SUPERIOR-DF CilyofPriorLake PRIORLAKE 187,002 SCOTI'COUN71' LR
N 4017 2006 1MBPDMPA47P057880 D4500 2006-b1CI:D4500-MCI-MCI-DF Schmitty&Sons-Lakevile SHAKOPEE 179,844 SCHMIIT'&SONS LR
N 4018 2006 1MBPDMPA67P057881 D4500 2006-MCI:D45D0-MCI-MCI-DF Schmitty&Sons-LakeHlle SHAf<OPEE 188,G72 SCHMITTY&SONS LR
� 4019 2006 1MBPDMPA87P057882 D4500 2006-MCI:D4500-MCI-MCI-DF Schmitty&Sons-LakeHlle SHAKOPEE �77,728 SCHMITTY850N5 LR
� 4020 20D6 1MSPDMPA87P057879 D4500 2006-MCI:D4500-MCI-MCI-DF Schmitry&Sons-Laketille SHAKOPEE 172,321 SCHMITTY&SONS LR
6D53 2007 1M8PDMPA17P057884 D4500 2007-MCI:D4500-MCI-MCI-DF Schmitty&Sons-Lakev�lle SHAKOPEE 167,819 SCHMITfY&SONS LR
64021 2008 1FDXE45S58DB09779 STARTRANS 2008-Supreme:STARiR,4NS-Fortl-NORTH CENTR4L-GA ScottCounty SHAKOPEE 63,130 SCOTTCOUNiY LR
64022 2008 1FDXE45S38DB0978� STARTRANS 2�08-Supreme:STARTRANS-Ford-NORTH CENTR4L-GA ScottCounty SHAKOPEE 65,506 SCOTTCOUNiY LR
64037 201D 1FDFE4FS1ADA82337 GCII 2D10-GoshenCoach:GCtl-Ford-NORTH CENTRAL-GA ScottCounty SHAKOPEE 30,093 SCOTTCOUNIY LR
64038 2010 1FDFE4FSOADA84659 GCII 2010-GoshenCoach:GCll-Ford-NORTH CENTRAL-GA ScottCounry SHAKOPEE 23,525 SCOTTCOUNN LR
64039 2010 1FDFE4F57ADA84660 GCII 2010-GoshenCoach:GCll-Ford-NORTH CENTRAL-GA ScotlCounty SHAKOPEE 24,846 SCOII'COUNN LR
was replaced with a 2012 coach that arti�2d on 6/28/2012(bus#5062)
2 coaches ha�been ordered to replace the two units abo�e
'o
a�
�
�
A
w
v
� a � eeaa � � � � � e � � � � � o00
o � } sso 00o sa
o _
� a
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
v
�
aooaooaoo 00 00000000000a00000aoa0000
, a oaoaoaoRo ao 0000a0000000000000a0000a
a _ - 0000aoaao ao ooaooa00000a00000000a000
0000a � aao ae a � � oo � ooaoo � 0000a0000000
� n �j n n n n t'f n CI r� c� � e� C�n C�n 1'1�'!1'f n c��f n r1 n n n r� n �I n -
� N N N N N N N IV NN N N fV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N fV{V N
N N W N W N N N N N tll �'! Vl N YI N N U N Yl U) N N UI N 1l1 N N w w N
� L
#
n u o �
�d �' " ¢ a a � °r' .°'- .°'- � � .°' � o 0 0 0°� o°, m .- ° m o m e°, ."'m- .m-
N h U V U Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y J Y Y J Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
c m a a a � �.�, � u", � � h ��n � � � � u�, � �.", �.�, � � � n � c� c� u N c�
�
o q
m `
� E m m m
o " o 0 0 o a
� = i
6 tiHHNrtiHHH n �., rvNNrNti NHNHHNrv ..� rHNnn nNN « « ..� nNN
C
6
U
C �
U �
o � - -
�
a �
� H n
'-' m "' 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 _ � 3 3 3 � � 3 3 3 a 3 3 � � � 3 � � 3 3 3 3 3 � 3
`y c w � �
o u � z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
� _ � n o � o
F
" � O O O O
u E E E E � � ^ " � � "
z
m
= d
u
u ?
t � ° °
u �U ' ' ' rv �N`' � ti
] � _
� c � c c c � c c s c c � � � c c c G � c c � c c � � y c c � c c �
._ J J ._ '_ '_ '_ .� J ._ '_ '_ '_ '_ '_ F i- _ x ._ .J J - s Y c F F H ._ '_ ._
� C V C t C t C C L T C C C L t 'C L L L L t t C C L C L C
E Z E E E E E E E � E E E E E E ° E E E E E E E E E °N E E
m N N Ul 1n N N 1/1 UI N Ul N y Ul N s Y N N N N lJl 1� N N y N t/1
U
N N N tn N
Q Y
N
Y
u
3
N
u - _ _ _
N � .� �O - � � �� �'a _ _ _
� ' lL U 1L U Y' LL U U U LL LL V LL
m
v
U y N � u1 N N N N N ui �' � a�i � d a�i N N N N N u� N �n N u1 u1 N N u1 N N V1 � � �
U LL (7 Q f.7 U' (7 U' U' (7 U' O p ❑ ❑ � � U' U' U' 'U U' U' U' 'U (7 U' U' 'U (7 'U L7 U' U' 0 0 0
>
U U U U U o
CI p O p p p ;p _ _ _
9 � � �` !2 `� 'o 'o v
� U � R' R' R' K
y � o
H N N N N rv N N N N N �v r N N tv rv N N N t� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N q A � q q „ „ N „
m N N N !n N O ❑ ❑ ❑
r a ¢ a a a ¢ a a a
" S 'z � 3 � 3 3 3 3 3
0
m �
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 44
Appendix C: Summary of Transit Facilities
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 45
BLUE PRESS SOUthbrldge CrOSSII1gS
Transit Station
�;;SmartLinkiransit '�401 Cros�ings Boulevard, Shakopee, MN 55379
Owner: De�cription:
Scott County Southbridge Crossings, the first transit station in Scott County, opened in 2007. In
2011, approximately 294 spaces were utilized, an increase of 19% over fhe previous
Location: year. Southbridge utilizes a transit advantage bus-only ramp (�funded separately)
SE Corner of onto the highway, which reduces firavel time by about ten minutes.
I H 169 and CH 21 -
_ , ,
Site and �acility Information: °' •-�°
Corridor Served: R � , �� �
TH 169 Site size: � ��' �
���
• Site Area: 9.18 Acres — - ��� -- "
69 - � . *�-a "'�-•
�u� Routes: • Parking Lot Surface: �, `� �"" :��,
490, 491, 496, 498 o Bituminous: 24,800 SY �°°°°°r ,����-{� ;� ' �`� y � � �; °
.;�.� �:
• Rain Gardens: 0.26 Acres `�:.� „ � kn. : ' c � ' i-�
r r� � ' ��',:. .,.., �M,. 3 3
Number of Parkirrg . Sidewalks: 13,658 SF , � 'k. { < <.
Spaces: . Access Rd: 938 LF .s E � , -
513 . Bus-way: 738 LF _ � : � �3 `r ,_
o Pavers: 1,200 SY �
Year Purchased: o Concrete: 2,897 SY � � - - -
2006 ���,�„����`�'
�.� ? �r .
Parking Stalls: 513 Total � �,�:-� �,� '
1(ear �uilt: . Number of Standard Stalls: 479 � k�'�" ' 's�� � �
2007 .{!',`? . .�'�,.' ° '
• Number of 15 Minute Stalls: 23 ,=� , . � �-
Contractor:
• Number of Handicapped: 11 � � :;�F ���� �,,
� � �=��• '� s+ ,�''
Quiring Trucking & € a �;�z ��t:.}t :�,�'� �� . .
Excavation, LLC Facility features: , i}4 �= L�a . � ; << t
�; c �•� * ��k�-e �
• Site Signs: 4 ,�, ° �
• Number of Benches: 5 , '� �� � '�' �.„ �
Initial � . � ;,
Con�truction • Number of Shelters: 3 f" ��y �� � �' �� '
<���, � { �..� -{;� ,:. �
Co�ts: • Number of Trash Receptacles: 2 t—�- °- - h� --
$1,946,094 • Number of Bike Locker Units: 2 (2 bikes per locker)
• Number of Bike Racics: 2
Right�of-Way • Flag Pole: 1
Co�ts: • Bollards: 43
$2,428,116 • All Surface Drainage to Adjacent Pond
Funding Source�: Electrical Components:
Federal, State, • Number of Lighting Fixtures: 26
Regional, Local o Single: 12
o Double: 12
0 4X: 2
• Security Cameras: 6 plus an Antenna
• Gates: None
Irrigation:
• Water source: Shakopee City water
• Number of heads: 195
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 46
BLUE PRESS Eagle Creek
� .
Transit Station
r•�SmartL111 �rGns�� 6600 Eagle Creek Boulevard, Shakopee, MN 55379
Owner: De�cription:
SMSC With 563 spaces, Eagle Creek Transit Station is located off CH 21 and CH 16.
Operations began July 2012, and replaced the Safe Haven Par4z and Ride. This
Lea�e I°lolder: station provides additional capacity for Southbridge Crossings Transit Stafion. The
Scott County BlueXpress serves Eagle Creek on its way to downtown Minneapolis.
Location: Site and Facility Information: ` F__,__ r
---�-._�—_--
SW Corner of Site Size: �,` ,. '. .
CH 16 and CH 21 • Site Area: 13.29 Acres '" "° � s..... ��� '
• Parking Lot Surface: `�' - �+�--.=..�.'
�orridor Served: o Bituminous: 26,083 SY - "}a
TH 169 • Rain Gardens: 1.16 Acres " . • � - - `
• Sidewalks: 18,773 SF `.;:;;�""� r` '•
`�
�us Route�: o Concrete: 11,973 SF � ' �� s
490, 491 o Pavers: 6,800 SF ; f '�' _
• Access Rd.: 540 LF ••� " � ,"' _
Number of Parking ' o Asphalt: 1440 SY
Spaces: . Bus-way: 620 LF ! �z --- - - ��� `_`
563 o Concrete: 3,173 SY
Year Leased: Parking Stalls: 563 Total
2009, 25-Year Term, ` • Number of Standard Stalls: 536
Renewable • Number of 15 Minute Stalls: 13
• Number of Motorcycle Stalls: 3
Year Built: • Number of Handicapped Stalls: 11
2012 (Future expansion to 761 permitted)
Facility Features:
Contractor: Site Signs(Monuments): 3
Enebak • Number of Benches: 4
Construction Co. • Number of Benches in Shelter: 6
.
Initial • Number of Shelters: 1
Construction • Shelter Area Pavers: 6,800 SF
Costs: • Number of Trash Receptacles: 2
$1,241,800 • Number of Bike Locker Units: 2 (2 bikes per locker)
• Number of Bike Racks: 4
Lease Cost: • Interpretive Sign: 1
$113,340 Electrical Components:
$1,508.40 per years 1-25;
$s,016.80 per years 26-50 • Number of Lighting Fixtures: 33
o Single: 18
Funding Sources: o Double: 6
Federal, State, o Triple: 9
Regional, Local • Security Cameras: 14
• Gates: 2 (MagneficAutocontrolT"', Model MT58)
Irrigation:
• Water Source: Private On-Site Well Water
� • Number of Heads: 538
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 47
B��E PRESS Marschall Road
Transit Station
_:'�;:SmartLinkTransit 1615 Weston Court, Shakopee, MN 55379
__ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ . _
Owner: De�cription:
Mn/DOT The Marschall Road Transit Station, previously fhe site of an aufiomobile dealership,
will serve as the fransit hub for Scoffi County. The site includes a park and ride for
Location: Blue Xpress service and fhe transfer site for SmartLink. Transit sfiaff and busing
SW Corner of storage will be located in the building. Service is expecfied io be fully operational in
TH 169 and CH 17 : 2014.
Corridor Served: Site and Facility Information:
TH 169
Site Size:
�us Routes: . Site Area: 6.80 Acres
TBD Parking SurFace (Bituminous): 19,669 SY
.
Number of Parking • Sidewalks: 1,330 SF � !E 3:i��o„6=��3��:t �i�i€ �!'I�� , •�
I E t:un�`a
Space�: • Bus-way . 5 620 SY �� Q. _� �-. •°°:;
442 �.a.` .� p��'�. _�:�i��s�-��
" �l.,� .a� I �.
4`� ,�-�`� �����'
Parking Stalls: 442 Total • ��-�_�,rl �
(400 for Park� Ride; 42 for Building Use) `�`�9 �'d��'W��
Year Purchased: �-.- + . n�`�T-. -s9 ;_-- _
• Number of Standard Stalls: 433 ;i=�,:m. •��"2`�'"- ��� --..���
2010 - --�- ° ` --
• Number of Handicapped Stalls: 9 � - __"'`�=_. - -V�'= - °
� _ �Y�r `
Year�uilt: !� ` �===
2013 Facility features: � �f "_ _ �- °'° - ��''��
' L..�::r,...,
• Number of Benches: 8 u� ��„ :��=•' �P�^ `
Contractor: • Flag Poles: 2 — �--�`` � '"°�
TBD • Number of Bike Racks: 1 (10 Bike Capacity)
Initial Electrical Components:
Construction • Number of Lighting Fixtures: 24
Costs: • Security cameras: TBD
TBD • Gates: 1 (ThomTech WERGGATE)
Right-of-Way Irrigation:
Costs: • Water source: Shakopee City Water
$3,374,629 . Number of Zones: 13
Funding Source�: = -
B��F PRESS TH 169 Bus-Only Transit
Adva ntage Ra m p
-�:SmartLinkTransit
Owner:
Scott County Description:
The Bus-Only Transit Advantage Ramp was installed as par� of the County Highway
�.ocation: 21 and Eagle Creek Transit Station construction project in 2009. The Ramp
TH 169 & connecfis Blue Xpress and other transit services along County Highway 21 to Trunk
Stagecoach Rd Highway 169, reducing travel time by aboufi ten minutes. Both the Southbridge
Crossings and Eagle Creek Transit Stations utilize the Ramp for a faster express
Corridor�erved: connection to downtown Minneapolis.
TH 169
Site and Facility Information:
Bus Routes: • 18'Wide Bus-way Length: 1,832'
490, 491, 496, 498
�lectrical Components:
Year�uilt: . Number of Lighting Fixtures: 1
2009 . Advance Sensor: on the NW Corner of Overpass
• Gate: 1 (ThomTech WERC GATE)
Gontractor: . Battery Bacl<-up System
Enebak
Construction Co. -----------------��,-f,---
Initial % 'r ,� �•
Construction , ,,� ��,.
Costs: _-�=.:- r-, � ___— .�_ .,.,�_
$819,984.30 es ��_ - ��`" . 4. ��
,
�
, ..,.� � � �` , .�
Funding Sources: . 'j �'� � ' � '
Federal, State, ! � ,. �� � �� �2 ' �; �,
Regional, Local �,,�� , �- � . .. ,. � � �s +
- f�
� , . �_ r.:
_ , _ ; �;�-
. , � ,
- - — e � . 'S �� �� ..r_
—w ----�- . -- --- �.._ ----
� 2Y���„1*' .��y }R-- "�
a � � �
� � ;a '.a`� � .�'� . . ���.
� . � s z.s � ��� �f 1:!
d�,r�"�'�;° � ���' ,-�� � . ,' ,u,� i
� � � �S } l.
,
'. . . 4 3�♦ ��.... ���}� ���
'Y,y+,`-' . 1NC�w-. t . �.,yt'�� y�`q�,"Pv
��� ,�,�,�L S �4 Y i
� f . � �'7"'�' J� �4`r� 4�'i
r� i�
+ _ ° !� s°'� ,.?.� .�.� � 1�
� � «� `,J
. Y � , � T3�'t�
z � �
q�11 �;5.'t .a 7n . ,.
-0 �
� �. xy -. .�.t: � y�
� a,-`,.M
_ �rY' ,_ �
�' ��.
,'::
Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan 2012-2018 Page 49