The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.a. Opt Out Presentation/ � • r,�., t�� ,1-> � � � ��Z� �� :'t?7�i 14`•fF�l ` T 1"� � � � �� ` �t� !j f2n�;Chd�71!t�lf MIt�dN( ;ni.� �`,n�st �l.ic��+l�!/C-/�l-� f,1? 1:'"i 1.ti1 Agenda I#em 3a TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator FROM: Dean Johnson, Directqr of Community Development i DATE: April 13, 1989 � i SUBJ: April 18, �989 Regular Meeting Agenda Item 3a. i � � ; , � � Attached are copies of the six-city Needs Assessment Transit Study ((?�l Out) Executive Summary. I will make a brief presentation of the study � along with the consultants. We would like to use this lime to address ! any detailed questions you may have about the study at lhis time. � � The basic conclusions of the study are that transit' needs are not being i met in the six cities; taxes generated in the six cities exceed the cost ; of service provided; the excess taxes are not currently avai(able f�r � transit improvements by Che six cities; and improvements ta the existing � transit system can be made withoui increasing the local tax burden. The 4 basic recommendation of the study is to "o�t out" of the existing ; regional transit system. i No action will be requested at this time. � ;,` � t i � � � j i" � � � # � � , ,� ''j , I � � � . �- �1X �ITY �EE ' - � � � �. ' ' ' ' � ' h , �: ,.a K 1 1�.. 1�.. � r�, r � �� r �t� EAGAN / � ; T�,e, � `"' SAVAGf ! Bt1RNSYiLLE APPLE VALLEY . .. ..: CO.RI iA . � a . i �- ROSENI�UNT � PR�R LAKE , , � , 4 � • �+�- � �... • • , , • � • . . � � . � �RF � �.. �.. � � � • ` � � � �... - � N ,,�.. SIX CITY , NEED� ASSESSMENT T�►AN�I`T STUDY � �- SUMNZARY REP(JRT � , :... Prepared for the Cities of "-� APFIe Valley,Burnsville, Eagan, Prior Lake, Rosemount and Savage �.. ; i.w j . Prepared By L. j� � STRGqR.ROSCOE-FAUSCH,INC. 1.,. �� CONSUI.'TING ENGIN�ERS � I ti... �.... V ApriI, 1989 � _ ,,.. - � � � � TA$LE OF CONTENTS { �-- PAQE INTRODUCTIQN i:. 1 ... ,� EXIBTIN�3 SERVICES 3 , TRI4NSIT NEBDS S t.._ BERVICB OFTIONS FOR PRIQRITY MARKETS 9 � Service Outside fihe Study Area "` Service Inside the Study Area 9 . 9 4 �.- RFPLACEMENT S�RVICES 10 �VALUATION OF SERY�CL ALTERNATIVES � 11 � CONCLIISIONS/1tECOMMEI�tDATIONB `-' 17 I FIGURES �.. Figure 1 - Study Process 2 `� Figure Z - Regular Route Transit 4 Figure 3 - Transit Markets ` 6 Figure 4 - Employment Clusters , 8 ` Figure 5 - Trunk Line and Feeder System 14 Figure 6 - Five-Year Financial Analysis ' y Assuming Opt-Qut Dec�sion i5 Figure ? - Five-Year Financial Analysis , Assu�ning No Opt-Out Decisiorr 16 �.. i.� ; . , _ � � INTRODUCTIOI'd ; The Minnesota Transit Service Demonstration Program, commonly ;,�, known as the opt-out program, was established by the Minnesota Legislature in 1981. This program gives certain communities the opportunity to replace regular route transit service operated by the MetropoZitan Transit eommission (MTC) with more community �- oriented �ervic�, Communities intending to opt-out were required . to qive notice of intent by July 1, 1989. Legisiative sunset provisions have now been enacted for the program and cammunities ,.,,. have to ae�ia� by July 1, 1989 whether or not to proceed with replacement services. `" The Cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Priar Lake, Ro�emount and Savage developed a joint powers agreement to apply � for funding fram the Regional Transit Board (RTB) to conduct an �.. evaluation of the feasibility of an opt-out program. The Needs Ase�essment Transit Study, as funded by the RTB, was undertaken to ; ider�ti�y existing and future transit needs in the area and to � evaluate service options that could be pursued to meet those needs. A key eiement of the evaluat�an process was whether the communities collectively or individually should pursue a loeally ` operated transit system or if they should remain as part of the +- metropQlitan transit system. � � A Project Management Team (PMT) consisting of city managers and city adminiatrators from the six cammunities was responsible for poliey d�rection. A Project Adviso Team � �y (PAT) consisting of staff from each of the six cities, and staff from the Regional `' Transit Board (RTB) were responsible for on-going management of the study. The study process is summarized in Figure 1. I ,� i;.. ; Z.. ir. i , � , _ � � FIGURE 1 ! SIX CITY NEEDS ASSES5MENT TRANSIT STUDY :.... STUDY PRCICESS � � ; 1• Reviewed availability and performance of existing transit `� services � . regu2ar route transit service ;- • other transportation services 2. Identified existing and future transit needs `T . transit need indicators of general population and employment . employment cancentratians �- . retail concentrations . other travel generators includinq educational and health care facilities ;_ . e�nployer surveys . potential transit markets ; j 3• Identified service delivery strategies :... . peak period (6:00 to 9soQ a.m. and 3 :0o to 6:04 p.m. ) , . off-peak periad {middayj :�. . existing replacement services 4. Screer►ed alternatives " • quality of service • farebox recovery ratia . subsidy per passenger _ . percent of tax levy used �. Evaluated peak and off-peak period service options � . operating cost • farebox revenu�s . � . subgidy . " • passengers . fleet requirements . transit property tax requirements ,,� . 5-year anaiysis � , ,. 2 ... � � � -: ; EXISTiNG SERVICES �... , Regular route transit service in the study area as shown in � ' � Figure 2 is provided by the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) and Airport Express. The MTC operates 9 of the il existing routes. There are 66 daily bus trips operated with service ` primarily to downtown Minneapolis ar►d St. Paul, There are about �- 3,100 passengers per day on these routes. Service is provided or�ly during the peak morning and evening commuting periods (6:00 j to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:p0 p.m. } . The annual operating cost ` of the service in 1988 was $2.4 million, farebox revenue was $1.0 million and the subsidy requirement was $1.4 miilion. During that sam� year, the six communities eontributed $2.4 million in transit property taxes to the metropolitan system. The average " subsidy per passenger for service in this area is about This compares to the metropolitan area avera e of $1�g�� express routes. g $1•70 far all ;_._ There are 16 park-and-ride lots located in the study area which , provide over 1,lOQ parking spaces. �n average, about 6fl percent of these spaces are used on a daily basis. ;� �-- Metra Mobility is the service operated for individuals who are unable to use� reguiar route t�ansit service because of , disability. This is a riders choice system where the, passengers �,; choose from certifisd providers serving their communa.ties. The certified providers in the study area are DARTS for Dakota County and Handicabs for Scott County. ..., Additianal paratransit services are operated in the study area by � DARTS, Dakota County Volunteer Trar�sportation Program, Community i... Action Council Volunteer Transportation Program and Scott County Human Services Transportation Program. These services are , available primarily for the elderly and handicapped. � � _. �_ �... ; i � ` 4.. � . � .. . � � . . 3 �.. � c r_ r _ _ r— c— <<--. �_-__ f-_— �----- �-_--- �____ � �----• �---. �.__ �. �Y. �.�.:: EACiAN 60, �a �f ,, � . ¢ �' , �� .S � f�' . , fi' , f�.. � ) •1r� :�' .�f �',, � I! �� - +a 4' �; ��=�� , . �� ; -- .-- .��' ::�1� +v 1 ii;1� 4 ,� �t t t v�ap ` '� ' •r `�'r( -�7�tf �� —�/ -t • , .. t� � , it +t 1 1/2 O 1 2 t.EGEMD •� ✓ ��' . � � �,; a.Y � -F � �"� � �� , �.t•. +� . . �. wl • i. � �� }f �i : � � - TRAttSIT AOUTE$ - � ,r,• - '' ,�y� '1 hts� ,� �;tF, F yy",F�•'�'{�,f � �`� �*_ ' �t t� � . LQy��Gy��Ai. r El�TrsE.� .I:'. I� �' .f � LJh��'J �'Yy\i f ' +. �� ' .. ^x�� '. /'� ,� .��'_' � f5 -�tr �.�. ��..�� M�,1 tf' . . . . PARiCLAN[�UNOEVEIOPED �, ..� �, `�4�1 �:��" „r4�� , ;1` ''i � . r . �� yrt ` ^ ' , � , + � j� r � ` : � 4 . �� ^: >��a�� . � :i.� ..� ... �, -i . " ' � . l� ��-�r}+Ycf�7Z ! ' ��• A6. . . . GiTY BOUNDARIES ........... i--�� . � S ,� .. . , ............ K`i .........:.:::::::.�. ,, !r �� s.: � ��r 4 r' }�t ��, . s ,. � ' �;. � �g .�:;: � � - �,.sr.'+A�'":S4`r.,t.,� 3 � , t �`m vr•n f� y� .��ts��^- � � . �� '" +�"" k{,�?:t,�it x�-`iP� .t��4 � �4& ;�,� �m�,�l'R ti� ; rari. �r "'" �.r. �� S �> � '�'�-�J F+,��g1� i" a fr '?' i, ?.�'ti48 � •ie. "r• l {. � Mi� � °` },p+�� 'i��.�}�'� �p4xs t�i,`�'y'��,pj o �nA• ��.}'�'�.��' �Y �a*'w` ;l, . � i �� M;-�._---a��.�'��. 't `&`�, .,�.� -.� � �1��..� .\'� ' Snr`i�S � � ' ` �.�-t 'Z ,.� � � ; �` . ..a_ � ' y �} ��. + �r.' �a�� 4 ��.�X�� :xi � h� .��F .�_.. r ;-::�y � r F�� .;� �. . � .. F Y an4� 1 �' �rFs i 'Y 1 I !� ... `. �' ' ' K �� '� �fi'�. � �. ' � ` , ... F. `�s -� ,Y,�, y•�t��.\ 2" '� )� #' � 1 ��`I. i� ` i . ,� � �. "�'fi°�'°.a. ��; �� . �. . � •� a�t y; p � I i. '� r�s �e,.� i' � .1.•- ,,- R�� :,�Y �C } Yi�f � r.l.'k` � 'r � � � d �. "ti� i. r«-.- ��- W . � �.'{it� � ��`� -,d.� � �� .i � �� .�� . .. f "F>tti��'{r� ,•�+Sr'� � x � � + �a:. � :,� �� .�..._. ' � �Y� � �'�� : �', Y,�^ ;�2 �> .t. �. ' �'.* � r l F. � r ""..";�� t,",�h�tF r ��:. � : :..L .6�� h� " � .. :. � 35N,��' �,�. ::a �� "''c � ,�: t ''� �C3"iC",+� '_*� '�-�az" ,��r a:a'� � �-�. .„"�;s}��... �rz. `.�� ,�`r�x.+� ce ti r'� ' �. . .;. „ � i�. + ' ' "' � l'�. . �'R� � i .. . .. . . . .... ......,. . , s..`��`� � •� ..... . . .. .. _ , F� . �. � �� . . � ... . j . � : �' ' ," x,.:. ..� , . �-, �.. . . .�. �.�j. � . .;'' a . `' . aer}f�Jd � t .. ....... ........ ... ..... ... . .. ._....... ... t � . ,', '� "" � �-: � :�., ;2.a ;: f t` :' ' . h '�" MY. .. , � n � , SAVAGE BURN3VILLE APPLE VALLEY ROSEMOUNT ��.'�`•4xx' ..: .. 2� �i � PRIOR LAKE STRGAR- � xoscoE. NEEDS ASSESSMENTfiRANSIT STUDY FIGURE FAUSCH, IN�. REGULAR ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICE _ 2 � .� �. ; � TRANSIT NEED S ; ! �- The transit needs for the area were determined by examining the foilowing key indicators: ; �„ 1. Generai population and empioyment cancentrations , 2. Concentration of elderly, youth and low income hauseholds i' `` 3. Travel desires for work and non-work purposes � . � 4. Loeation and concentration of educationai, health care and ,- retail facilities The study area has undergone tremendous growth in the recent � past. In 1970, the population of the six cities was about � 5Q,U00. By 1�80 that grew to 95,000 and by 1988 it stood at about I45,000. Projections by the individua2 cities for 1995 put the population at abaut 215,000. The area employment is expeGted - tQ experienee similar growth as the current level of about 50,000 expands to over 60,000 by 1995. The area generally has medium to low levels of eiderly and low income households. All of the cities have a high percentage of � youth. �-- The analysis of travel patterns indicates high levels of trips that are internal to the study area, far both work and non-work i trips. Burnsville and Eagan are the major destinations for �,, general travel with larqe numbers of work trips al•sa destined to the Mir►neapolis and St. Paul Central Husiness Districts {CBDs) . � The major travel generators ir► the area are employment concentrations in Eagan and Burnsville and the retail coneentration around Burnsville Shopping Center. Educational and � he�lth car� faciiities are dispersed throughout the area. v Each city participating in the study evaluated the �.evel of ! transit need within the study area. The evaluation foeused on 15 i� potential transit markets grouped under off- eak p peak period work trips, P period work tri s or non-work trips as shown in Figure 3• The level of need was based on the patential size of each , market, the �easibility of effectively serving the market and the � degree to which that market is currently being served. The evaluation identified a high level of need for additional � transit service for eak `-� p period work trips to the central cities and downtawns of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and to several other ; ��70� activity centers outside of the study area, (primarily �. • � � � � i . � � � � � � . � . .. � : �� . � � . . . . . . ` FIGURE 3 � SIX+CITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT TRAIVSIT STUDY � : TItANSIT N�AItT�ETB ! . � PBAR PERIOD WORiC TRIPS 1. To Central Citie� and CBDs 2. Tc� other major activ�ty centers outside study area ` (Bloomington strip, Airport, University of Minnesota) 3. To and from other suburbs outside study area �` 4. Reverse commute from central cities 5. Local trips (within study area) � OFF-PEA$ WORK TRIFS (IN BOTH DIRECTIONSa � 6. Student part-time workers 7. Shift workers � " 8. Health care workers 9. Retail workers � , NON-WORlC TRZPB �"' 10. Elderly(Retail, Health care, Enter�ainment/social) j 11. Disabled (Retail, Heaith eare, Entertainment/social) �... 12. Youth {Ret�il, Entertainrnent/soeial, Sport facilities/ � events, Other special events) � 13. Special Events (Racetrack/Bingo/Valley Fair, other special ; events j �- 14. Shoppers Within Activity Centers ; 15. Other (Retail trips, Personal business, Entertain- ' ment/sacial) � �... . 6 _ � � along the I-494 strip) . The need to serve off-peak period work trips was identif�ed as highest for student part-time wqrkers and i retail workers, The highest need for additional transit service for non-work trips was among the elderly, disabled and youth � markets. ' � The analysis of trafl�sit need indicators was supplemented in the study by specia� survey aata fram area employers. Six employment clusters were identified .in the area as shown in Figure 4 and � ma�or employers within those clusters were asked to supply home 4- address information for all em lo ees, p y Over 40 employers responded with infarmation for about 16,000 employees. The key ; results of the survey include; , � 1. In five of the six clusters, more than 50 percent of ; employees live within the six-community study area. The � exceptian was Cluster B, northeast Eagan, where less than 20 percent of employees iived within the study area. �' 2• In five flf six clusters, the principal community of the - cluster contains at least 20 percent of all employees for that cluster. The smailer the cluster, the greater the coneentration of employees within the principal cammunity. � 3• For five of eix alusters, the proportion of employees originating north a� the Minnesota River is relatively small � (le�s than 25 percent) . Few significant concentrations exist as these employees are dispersed across many communities. { t.. i L L.. i �.. �.. 7 i_ �-_ � -- � � �. ��._ +.T._ �--_ {-_ �__— �---- .. , �___ i � _ a � + f__ _ � ___ �.�_ �_, LEGEND , TNANSIT ROUTE� EJ►cil►ti 40GAL �, ,* , EXpRE33—�----- Sif.... ; . s++�aa�c.�; e � ;L , ° ', MAJQR EMFLdYER3 {r: � � � � � � � � #� ♦ � i • ��;, , 9 L1 s000 �� woo sae wr «� ms aas �ovaEa ,�^.� � REt'AH.GOMCENTRATIONS �;� r�� ' � � � � � � � . �� _ '•t� r'� . �� . . . _ ° `, .- � . i � � � • � '��f � r ,,' 1 va o i 2 `l , •-��r �'� '�"� � ° ' +Yn.taN eeo.aoo �arAoa zao.aoa ise,me teoAuo s�,aoo :s.oea aauaEPE[T � �l .,��'� i1�1 '.� � : ` F; : EMPLOYMENT CONCENI'RATIONS � ' ' ,:;.M ,� . � . j�� ,, � �,�'�� ;� : 1�1�\�\��\\�\�1H1\�� . PARKLANLyUNOEVELOPED �- Y }1 f , .F , - � ��„� �-��" - .� . �. �; ,: . ,�: , , „ ��t ,,.> ..�` ` � '�/' �:; Y�J � < a?•»�, ^i Z : �', , , , __�' � � � . » „ . 1 't � .t , ,� '$ ' CITY BOUNDARIES....`..... .. �' • ` . . ( -. L $ -� ..................., � '�"� .}` ti,+ � T�%�',," aa�.. ; � }rx ?Y�: �'4' 4' s � � �5�+'•�..�""t�"'�"�^s4""s: . 'f . 3�¢: .�''„, :�; z� �� ± . i {{.Q�#� ;* ,re;w °•'��...;� . . .t�; . � , , •.P._ ��`k � .,�:: {f..*'`a� S ��.., art� ��ti�T. ..��''�,1�'. �'r �,..5� S i � ti�.; ... . $ �� tiz�� ,s .�i,, . ; . 'T �S� sx _ {��' s q8,. ..�E };.• �.� .1 �. .t,,, r� r f�:, � �w.� .*�" .�sr '� "�y� �% �;' 1 �,) � 0;46. - i \:. �� "z,u��, '�� a ;�t, �'t. V.��, �J . �v 3� �' s�. ..� .. , , ' �� -' � �, :�.� . . � : . - �n�` '? �: t SF�' �.f S z��' . _. ��"` ;��k" ^�s .. �s.&f � . "�S. .l�. . f�,�. � �� "' ` , .a_ � ..—. ..: : . : . " ..:✓ �d.X � � ^` .art� :,a.."'«"r'""' � -� . . °a «.... �. .�. .' i \\ •�.. : '�1 . . �' .. �T � `,. �\ �� p r �, ' ' �� S. � � � �'� �' e dt � . - O -^'�C�xi%t� �„� �� .n, F ��. � �°.. .-� y� �„��,�v ';'� � �. i (' , i� �.'%' �„� _ � � , ��'�'�. . ��,: � ,< , y�: '4 k �, . .^T, �.�`� :�&. ,�y+ �� aa � . t .. r _y ,' � �" s' : dAg' .' .� 3rJ� � �� : �t. j,b��a.w� ' ��'�. , . .� . . : .. ..... ., � `f' � g .. �� .. . ...... . .....:. � . .".?`�'kbk�l�t�' ✓�. ......�,.�'..�.w. f '_#;;:. .1. . S t . .✓ , . � �..� . ... . . � ....... ......+ ... .. �: � . . . •�-• . ........ . ........... .j . 1• , . . ... ...... ..... � t ,..� . �• � � SAVAGE � �� BURNSVILLE APPLE VALLEY � � R03EMOUNT � � : �'i'?. "F'�-ic '-'� �D . . . . � . .. . �. . . .}� _. .... ' . . .. � PRIOR iAKE EMPLOYMENT CLUSTERS o�r� iasiaa � �� NEEDS ASSESSMENT TRANSIT STUOY eosc�s• P'��: EMPLOYMENT CLUSTERS F1�4 RE . � � � ``" SE RVICE arri UNS F4R PRI ORITY MAR:KETS -- �ervice out-�i e �he Study Area � The primary needs €or serviee to and from outside the six f community study area are for eak � re�ults of the need evaluati n tYpieriod work trips. Based on , peak period trips to the �O central cities and downtowns of Minneapolis and St. Faul, and the ;� trips to other major metro area activity centers were identified � as high priority needs. � + Service options to accommodate these needs include the following: w 1. Continue and possibly expand the existing peak period express service to Minneapolis and St. Paul. This service � uses larqe buses to ciraulate as collectors in the suburbs and then operate non-stop to the downtowns. Park and ride lots in the suburban areas are also served. -� 2. Establish a separate collector sy�tem in the suburbs to feed transfer sites and then operate a separate express service to the CBDs. The feeder system could operate over fixed , routes and sehedules or using a dial-a-ri.de basis. The most ef€icient callector vehicle will probably be of small or medium capacity. The transfer sites would be the staging areas for collector vehicle� to converge and transfer `- passengers to large capacity vehicles for completion of the �xpress trip to the downtown areas. Park and ride spaces would be available at the transfer sites and at other �� iocations in the area. ��,ce Tns;de the Stua____v_-�A�paa `� � The primary needs for trar�sit service within the study area include peak and off-peak service. Service options available to � meet these needs inelude the following: �,-- 1. Establish fixed route and fixed schedule circulators that ! connect ma�or residential concentrations with em lo � retail concentrations within the study area. Rou es ncould �� be focused on neighborhoods or activity centers. ,� 2. Implement dial-a-ride services for �-- periods. �� ea}� peak and off-peak P period service could be subscription system where users sign-up in advance for regular service. , The cff-paak service can be truly on-demand similar to taxi .,� operations. 3. Continue the operation of existing services for the elderly � and handicapped. The existing Metro Mobility and the other paratransit serviees provide reasonable levels of serviee for much of the market. 9 .�. � � � ; � `"" REPLACEMENT SERVICES � �- Three -replacement � service projects have been developed in the metr�politan area under the opt-out program. � • Plymauth Metrolirtk began in October 1983. It provides a combination of commuter express and local circu2ator service and �� has remained qvite stable since its be innin . `- service is now bein g g Dial-a-ride g planned for the midday serviae. ; Cost per passenger = $4.95 i,� Farebox recavery � 21� Fassenqers per capita = 2.5 i ` 19�8 Available Tax Levy - $1, i1Q,000 Subsidy Required = $ 404,p00 , Feraent of Tax 'Levy Used - 36� Shakopes Area Transit began September 1984. It consists of commuter vanpaol.ing and local dial-a-�ide. The dial-a-ride has ` outperfarmed the vanpool service. Cost per passenger = $3.84 Fazebox recovery � 16� -- Passengers per capita = 4,.8 1988 Availabie Tax I,evy = $ 227 OOQ ,_ Subsidy Required = $ 186,000 Percent of Tax Levy Used - 82`k `-� Southwest Metro }aegan December 1986 and consists of commuter express, local commute, local fixed route and dial-a-ride. It ! has cha�nged sinae inception by shifting toward more dial-a-ride. � � Cost per passenger = $7,�� Fare�ox recovery � 1�� P�asengers per cagita = 2.5 � 1988 Available Tax Levy = $1,26Q OQO ; Subsidy Required = $ 876,000 �- Percent of Tax Levy Used = 69� - .... ; �... � , 10 � � � " EYALUATI4N 4F SERVICE ALTEItNATIVES �. Ther� were- five .peak period service alternatives and nine aff- . peak periocl alternatives developed for detailed analysis. Each , peak alternative was analyzed individually and in combinat:tan � with all off-pe�k alternatives. The key analysis variables `` included the annual operating cost, farebox revenue, subsidy and .� fleet requirements along with the number of passengers carried and the number of transit vehiele trips provided. Additional �- measures of performance were analyzed including the cost and subsidy per pa�senqer, the farebox recovery ratio and the percent of available trainsit tax levy used. For a11 alternatives, a high µ and low cost estimate was used in an effart to bracket prospective bids. � The evaluation af alternatives concluded that there were several �-- options for the six communities that would better satisfy local transit needs without increasing the tax burden. Al1 of these options will most likely require the aommunities to apt-out of _ the MTC service area and develop a separate local area transa.t service. The establishment of a local serviee will allow greater local control of transit property tax contributions and faster development of additional lQcal transit service as the needs `_ arise. The ex,�sting l�vel of transit gropert taxes �- communities is ab+�ut y p�id from the six $2.4 million per year. The mi11 rate associated with the levy is 1.25 mills as the area receives no midday transit service. The existing transit service in the area ` requires an annual subsidy of $1,40 million. Therefare, the excess tax eontributions from th� six communities was about $1.0 million for 1988. This amount is utilized elsewhere in the i metrvpol�.tan area to subsidize the �ransit service. If the `- communities opt-out, they can use u to 90 P percent� of their tax contribution for replacement service. ; j,.,. Transit property tax revenues from the six communities have been incre�►sing steadily over the pas�t five years. The average growth ; rate has been �ust over 15 percent per year for the combined �. revenues. Thi� rate of growth far exceeds the inareased cast of `" transit operations over that same time period. � ' � , L �..,. � , 12 �.,. . � . `' The best options for developing replacement service in 1990, assuming a decision to opt-out of the MTC service area, are as follows: � REPLI3CE THE EXISTING ROUTE STRUCTURE WITH A SIMILAR SERVICE. MAINTAIN THE SAME ROUTE STRUCTURE, NUMBER OF TRIFS AND FREQUENCI�. SELECT THE OPERATOR TBROUGH THE BID PROCESS. ,, Estimated Operating Cost far 1990 = $2.80 - $3. 10 million Subsidy Required = $1.70 - $2.00 million �-- Passengers Carried = 810, 000 . 1990 Tax Contribution �. @ i.25 mili� � $2.90 million Amount Avai�.able for Replacement 5ervice (90�) _ $2.60 million Additional Tax Funds Available ' For Transit Activities after = $0.60 - $0.90 Million _ Meeting Subsidy Requiremer�ts of Replacement Service - � This option requires modest local preparation prior ta estabTishinq replac�ment service and local management and administration requirements are mina.mized initially. The additional tax funds are available far local transit activities �- including �tart�up orqanizational, management and marketing costs as well as capital iterns sueh as vehicles, shelters and park-and- ; riae lots. � IF ADDITI�NAL SERVIeE IS REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY, TRIPS CAN BE ADDED TU TXOSE ROUTES HAVING LESS THAN THREE TRIPS DURING EACH PEAK i PERIOU j1�ORNING AND EVENINGJ . THE PERFORMANCE OF THE EXPAIVDED �-- SERVICE WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS; i Estimated Operating Cost for 1990 = $3.25 - $3.60 million �... ' Subsidy Required = $2.2Q - $2.6o mill.ion Passengers Carried � 83o,ovo . �� 1990 Tax Gontribution @ 1.25 mills � $2.90 million Amour�t Availabie for �- Replaeement Service (90$j = $2.60 million � Additional Tax Funds Available �, far Transit Ac�ivities after Meeting Subsidy Requirements ' $ � ' $0.4o MilZion of Replacement Service .._ ... . 12 �... �: # � � � The longer term strategy for replacement service would be to : expand service as needed, trying to improve efficiency by � convertinq to trunk and feeder and eventually developing a midday seruiee. . _.. _ . . �.. 1. Revise tha rcute structure by develaping a trunk line and � feeder system for 1991 {see Figure 5) . Characteristics o this new system might inalude: £ � i a• Trtznk line system operates strictly between downtawns - '" and transfer stations near northern edge of study area - (near the river) , �. b. Transfer stations used to coordinate connections between feeder routes and trunk lines as weli as provide space for park and ride. Initially, existing park and ride � lots will be adequate for transfer function. c, Feeder system would be fixed route or dial-a-ride. y Coveraqe of previc�us fixed route users must be ensured. 2. Add aff-peak local area service by providing midday and possibly early evening in 1991 or 1992. Service should be developed siowly with initial service most likely focussed on retail elusters sueh as Burnsville Center, Eagan Town Center and Cedarvale. ~ 3. Add midday trunk line �ervice ta Minneapolis and St. Paul CBD�s and possibly Bloomington strip by 1992. Use off-peak ; lacal service as feeders to trunk line. Begin expansion af �, park-�nd-ride facilities�as needed. When miaaay �eixea route service is added, mili levy moves to 1.5o miils. � 4. Expand off-peak local area serviee in 1992 to include `" weeker�d service. ; The five-year finanaial analysis for the recommended service plan � under an opt-out decision is compared to th� five-year analysis assuming no apt-out decision in Figures 6 and 7, ,� �.. �.. �.. ;,,, . } 13 � � c � r r _ �_ �� ,i_.__-_ �--�-- f— �----- � �--_ �---- �..___.� .��,,. E..� ��. �..�. �._.... MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL EAGAN . .... . . ... . . . . .,.,:...:,:. . � ,. . . _q� � r. Re. T � � LEG�ND � t v2 0 � 2 � � � �� CITY BOUNDARiES.�''`�?%'�t;� ' � �� TRANSfER CENTERS k �,,,.,,�,. . � � .� '�� a�� :' ' . r �z�� '�� r H. ,! M1 � � ; ; �-a � . . � �.� .� .� . � �. �.' . . � J3w.a"..�..:wY.r.i.fr:#+:R��.rrb�< ?.L�.S. . �'�5.......s .,. ��` ....,,. +r4 �.Y'.n . . .� �w�t � � �, ;� � §. . . ... .... ... .. .. ...... . ��,�,��. .... � , �, �� ' � � � � � �r�° :�,;.,.�:� ��I / �,.."��' � � �� >: ,..... �. �� : S: M � co.RB 4z � f � � , 3 "� y� � a <� : . � � � � � � . .� . . � . . . �. . � �� ' � � . � ' s �'i �r � � . � . . � . . . . � . `'�+�a r�`. . . �` . '. ' Si � a'�:':..f .,� � �.� . � .. . . . . � ��. � . . . � . � . � . . . . . � .: - fi .� . : � . . � . . . . � .. S ....!a.'s��,.''qr...�'�t"��n��' .?rf.�„^��".�'�`.5�... ..��.`�` C �3� � � � :: ."� ;,. . .:.. . , ac@��,�.�.`�,..."'"+�'.sc...yy,xh��s`s�%` £:sw v'✓. .�` + �� z a �, .. .,. . . . .. .. .:. �lY.,',,, .?�'. ...,. 'xTx.'`"��.,.��x�. ��''..�,.`,..s.�.,'�.�7„�<,`,...� �� - .,> � .?�cE,�,•s '; '�� '�', SAVAGE BURNSVII.LE APPLE VA�LEY ROSEMOUNT h � ,� s�,,.,M, � PRIOR LAKE STRGA.It- � �oscoE- NEEDS ASSESSMENT TRANSIT STUDY FIGURE FAUSCH. . IN�. TRUNKLINE & FEEDER SYSTEM 5 • �' FIGURE 6 SIX CITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT TRANSIT STUDY y F�"�AR FIIVANCIAL ANALYSTS ASSUMING OPT-OUT DECISION FINANCIAL ANALYSIS {Miltions of Doliars) a .- .�.$$ 9$9 1 90�aj 1991�b� 1992 f�) 992 �d� Estimated Cost $2.�5 $2.60 $ 2.80 $ 2.85 $ 3 . 15 $ 3.55 _. Estimated Revenue $1.04 $1.05 $ 1,i0 $ 1. 15 $ 1.25 $ 1.30 , Estimated SubsidY $1.45 $1.55 $ 1.70 $ 1.70 $ 1.9Q $ 2.25 Estimated Transit Property Tax $2.40 $2.65 $ 2.90 $ 3.20 $ 3.50 $ 4.20 - Additional T x Available E�� o.00 $o.00 $ 0.90 i.ao (90$ Level) $ $ 1.25 $ �..50 Passengers carried 77�,000 790,OOp 810,000 920,000 960,OOQ 99p,000 Notes: (a) Assumes replacing existin eak ` 9 p period service but no additional . changes. Mill rate at 1.25 mills. �- (b) Assumes revisian of peak service to trunk line and dial-a-ride feeder�, along with diai-a-ride off-peak service. Mill ra�e at 1.�5 mills. ; (�) Assumes modest system expansion and growth of off-peak dial.-a- `" r3.de service. Mill rate at 1.25 mills. (d) Assumes moclest expansion oF trunk and feeder system by adding ! midday fi�ced route service and grawth o� off-peak dial-a-ride ' �- serv�,ce as syst�m matures. , . t�he mill rate to increasE toT1�54imi11soute m�dday serv�.ce forces ,` C�) Excess funds not r�coverable under existing service. Under ��.� r�:placement s�rvice, �xcess funds can be used for park and ride lots, waiting shel�ers� promotion, administration or fare assistance. Amount avaiiable is 90 percent of total Gontribut3.on minus required subsidy. These funds can only be applied to transit related expenditures. �. , 15 � • � . FIGURE 7 SIX CITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1'RANSIT STUDY `� FIVE-YEAR FINANCLAI,ANALYSI$ASSUMIlVG NU QPT-QUT �'INANCIAL ANALYSIS �-- (MIllions af Daliars)�a� • ;�-- .�$$ 989 9p 1991 1992 - Estimated Cost $2.45 $2.60 $ 2.80 $ 2.85 .. $ 3.00 � Estimated Revenue $1.00 $1.05 $ 1.10 $ 1, 15 $ 1.20 . Estimated Subsidy $1.45 $1.55 $ 1.70 $ 1.70 $ 1.8Q - Estimated Transit Property Tax $2.�0 $2.65 $ 2.90 $ 3.20 $ 3 .50 — Exees� Tax Contributions fb� $0.g5 $1. i0 $ 1.20 $ 1.50 $ 1.70 ` Passengers Carried 77p,00p 790,400 81Q,000 830,000 850,000 Notes: � �a� ��su�es no ehange in existing peak period service. Modest growth in ridership. ` (b) Exeess tax contributa,ons are not availalale for local use. \ �.- .: � L � � � � � � � :_ • 16 �, • i , ` caxeLusiorrs V 1• The existi.ng fixed route transit service operated only during morning and evening peak commuting periods and focussed primarily on the Minneapolis and St. Paul downtawns { does not meet all local area transit needs. �.. • 2. The amount of transit property taxes contributed by the six aommunities during 1988 for operation of the metropolitan '"' transit sy�stem exceeded the subsid re � y quirement of services aperated within the communities by almost one million dollars. � 3• The amount of tax funds cqntributed by the six communities above the subsidy required is not available at present time � for local transit uses. v� �. Replacement tran€�it serviee options are available to better satisfy local transit needs without increasing the locaT �- transit tax burden. � RECOMMENDATIONS L1. apt-out, 2. Replace existing service in 1990. ! , ;_, 3. Convert to trunk/feeder in 1991. �. Expand in �uture as needs arise (incrementally) . l� � � � � . � - 1? l�