Loading...
CR 97-62 Transportation Feasibility Study March 27, 1997 , i Y 0 ~ + " o P K \ ~ Council Report 97-62 TRANSPORTATION FEASmILITY STUDY Proposed Action This is a discussion item. Several Council members are familiar with this project while others have not had a chance to review the information, Overview A meeting concerning transportation needs was held on March 21 sponsored by the West Metro Collaborative Action Uniting Support and Empowerment (CAUSE) Transportation Action Group (TAG). Representatives of the cities of Hopkins, Minnetonka, and St. Louis Park along with other organizations discussed transit in the western suburbs, One of the outcomes of this meeting was a proposal that the three cities fund a transportation feasibility study to: . determine current transportation needs . analyze current transportation alternatives . identifY new transit alternatives which would better serve the communities . prepare a plan for implementing recommended transit alternatives, Jim Lasher, ofLSA Designs, will be at the meeting to give more information about the study, Primarv Issues to Consider . What have the other cities done? St. Louis Park has already signed contract with LSA. They are funding the study by using part of a livable community grant. Staff is not aware, at this time, of any action taken by the City of Minnetonka, . How would this project be funded? . What is the estimated timeline for this study? Supportine: Information . Scope of Work and Fee Proposal from LSA Designs, . Article from March 26, 1997 Hopkins Sailor. Steven C. Mielke City Manager . L > s A \ ~ . E S, .. ~r .. '\ I G , N / , ~ 3 ..... , LSA Design, Inc. . Landscape ArcHitecture, ~ i -ArcJiitectllre. and Plallning 126 North Tlmd Street " ---- J"!!!.lIleapolis, MN 55401 " , . ') March 24, 1997 Pi'~lte 6~2-339-87~ fax 612.339.7433 , / Mr. Steve Mielke, City_Manager Citj of Hopkins . 1010 1St Street ,- Hopkins, MN 55343-7573 ~ * Dear Steve: Attached please find our Fee Proposal to include the City of Hopkins in tile Transit Feasibilitv Study as we discussed in our March 13 meeting.' .. '"' - -- In the West J:Jetro Cause meeting of March 21 in Hopkins; it 'became very apparent that an overall / . understanding and accounting of current needs and existing para-transit services will be a cornerstone of,tIiis anaIysis. As ~ result of this meeting and the level of interest shown by COnuIDssioner Mary Tambornino, Hennepin. County may be another source for funding other' than those we discussed in our meeting. _' _ / " _ Please review arid contact me with any further questions. or colnments; I am available to meet and - review this proposal wi~you at your convenience. I am also available to attend your Aprl11 City Council meeting should you wish a short presentation to the Council. Sinclll"ely; . .. "".. " ' .. - / A /, -" ~ J. .c: ~ Judie Erickson - CitY of 5t. Louis Parle: File c:\97~2\032497SMielke.1et.doc " . ." / ~ . ~ ,.. ., --'. '. L , S A , '" e=> E S , ~ .., , I G '-'N,' __ .' r' .. '4 SCOPE OF WORK " .. " , ,.. ~ LSA Design, Inc. .. Landscape Architectllre, . ~ .. Architecture, and Plmll!blg 126 North Tl/1rd Street, Milllleapolis, MN 5540 1 ~ , "\ J pilOl/.e 612-339-8729 fax 6]2,339-7433 " , , ~ , The'following Scope of Work is very similar to the approved work program for the City, of St. Louis Park with miiior mOdifications to reflect individual needs for the City of Hopkins. I have mad.e some assumptions regarding your level of interest in adding transit servi~ as well as the types of service (reverse-'COmmute, regular-route citY circulatOr, dial-a-ride, employee shuttle program) the City ~ay desire. '~, ..-" '. , PHASE I - DATA ,GATllliKlNG ' ~ ..... ~ ( . ~ Task 1.0 - B~'" MaplLimits of Study'DefinitionITransit Ootions , , 1.1': Solicit electronic base map data from I:.OGIS, i~epin County, and '-' , , MnDOT for most current and accurate mapping information.' ",- ' 1.2 - Review study area implications and complete three appropriate levels of mapping:_ ~ - - a. City Limits (plus 100' at edges) b. Sub-regional area (surrounding 6 comriitmities) .., c. Regional view (complete tranSIt taxing district) 1.3 - Idl:!ltification - mapping at City level of all: a" _ Downtown ActiVity Center b., Additional Activity Centers" c. Employers (over 50 employees) . d~ General Land Use classificadons . - , _(We'understand that the City of Hopkins does not have current Land Use/GIScapabiliti~. We Win generate the Land Use. map by haiid for utilization with other GIS data.) , e. . Recreational centers.. ! ~ f. Altemative mode tfa1!sportation routes (bike. pa!hs, wa1k4tg paths, existirig park ~d ride lots, car-pool locations" and rail locations) g. ProPosed CIP for highway and street improvement projects , " h. Churches & Schools' '. , " .. 1.4 - Define,and list seleCt regioDat in-~transit systems and case study _ selected systems showing opportunities as they relate to this study. Produets: 1. Full color graphiC liiappirig system for~lllevels of unalysis in electronic , ~ andJwrd.:copy fO!7J'Ol" .' . . . .. ~ . , , J '..... '. -. .~' ,,--- ,. . ~ .. ~ ~ Stev,e Mielke page - 2 ~ ~ .. I - / , ... . . > / Task 2.0 - Identify Existini Transit/Trani$pOrtation Activities Within the city " . 2.1 - Meet with City staff, and MCTO Planners and route superviso~' Prepare exhibits showing existing route structure, ridership analysis, park and ride imd'transfer usage. . . 2.2 - Meet with MCTO and Metropolitan Council staff to review funding options and availability of transit tax funds.for community based transit. 2.3 - Meet withse1ested demand response providers (senior centers, . employer shuttle services, etc.) to review their service plans and " identify duplicatiOn of effort and possible alternatives: ~ , I a. General Business-Community . b. Senior/Elderly Populations c. Students d. School District e:, University of Minnesota . " - 2.4 - Coordinate two or three focus grolips with the primary populations to gain additional information .on specific n~s ' 2.5 __ Estimate employer demand for transit services. , 2.6 - License plate survey of community-based park and'ride locations and adjacent facilities along commuter routes. ' 2.7-- General route analysis'and passenger loading information, ride selected trips and talk: with passengers about service options, and record. general performance for the following routes: , . a. Route 12 . b. Route 70 _ v c... Route. 64 _ d. Route 53 e. Route 17 . f. 'Route 66 - g. Route 67 h. Metro:.Mobility . i. Hop-A-Ride 2.8 - Complete TAZ-analYsis of community-wide trips, both transit and auto, as , follows: . ' a. Home Base b. Home:Qased School c. Home:Qased Shopping d. Home:Qased Work e. ' Non-Home Based Other ~ f. Non-Home Based Work _' . 2.9 - Preliminary investigation with HCRR.I\ concemmg possible use ot , rail'corridor for high-speed bus service. Products: 1. Complete graphic analysis of all existing transit service and usage ptitrerns. . . ' .. .' " .. .. . ' "' Steve Mielke page - 3 . \ . . ' 2. General review of para- transit activities, grass-ropts 11IQbility efforts, and localized commuting patterns., ,3. Current rider projile. ' 4. Current levels of service. _. ' 5. Graphic and written analysis and synthesis of travel mode ptitterns within the community and, current trends for use of mass trailsit. - 6. Generalized Employer/Employee travel demand analysis;' '_ 7. Review ofHCRRAfuture-plansfor region . . , Task 3.0.- T ~nd UselTransit R"l~tionshiD Analysis . ';> .. ' 3.1 - Complete general assessment of City development patterns and densities for pedestrian and traDsit supportiveness. . 3.2 - Identify existing and potential transit corridors and nodes based on ,., accepted criteria. ' ' 3.3 :. Produce guidelin'<8 for future pedestrian and transit supportive development/redevelopment in tranSit corridor and node areas. , Products: 1. Definitions, criteria, and iiJentijication of transit corridors and nodes. . 2. C.oncep~l development guidelines for.transit co!ridor and node areas Task 4.0 - Data Synthesis and Refined Goals and Objectives. 4.1 - Review gaps in information and formutate plan for.additio~ needs such as 'household sUrveys, focus groups, and/or co!Dmunity meetings. . Complete additional work as required. ' ~ 4.2.- Meet with City staff to review finliings and relevant data. 4.3" - Prepare a detailed performance goals and"objectives statement and . criteria for selecting system alternatives, financing, implementation, and management. . . . ( . . . , At this point, 1 believe we shoUld arrange meetings with ~.1l interested governmental bodies find community groups to relay our findings and general direction to seek ' consensus. I would accept your recommendation as to what groups should be involved ~misreviewim~ ' ~SE n - ALTERNATIVES STUDY I _ T~~k 5.0 - Fp~~\bility Analysis of Transit Alternatives & Ooerational Plans . 5.1 ~ Utilize graphic and written analysis arid survey/focus group data to prepare system alternatives and test each alternative against performance goals and ' objectives. . 5.2.- Test Finaneial FeasibilitY of each system alternative. 5.3 - Meet with all appropriate City and Community groups to review plans and .. ., s~ Mielke page - 4 ; . SoliCit input. 5.4 - Revised-Plans as required. Products: i. Three system alte'rnatives , 2. Financial/ridership analysis " Task 6.0 - Public Facilities Plannin2 and Proerammin2 . . , . . " -', r ~ 6.1 - Establish facilities design criteria and site selection process: > . a. access " b. ,serviceability . c. cost of development/acquisition -d. proximity to high~y system e. current. bus route proXimity J. visibility/security " .' $. regiorial system compatib!lity - 6.2 - Review development oPtions: . Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNp) , Transit Oriented Developments (rOD) .--:. Mixed-Use Development/Clustering . . , PedestrianlBicyclistPlat)ning Transit Corridors .' Site Layout and Design issues , 6.3 - Develop preliminary design guidelines for transit facilities. . ' ~ ~ Products: I.Public Facilities Plan Task 7.0 - Implementation StrategieslMan~em~nt Plan 7.1' - Prepare draft Implementation Plan for the following project elements: .' ., a. System Implementation b. Plan of Finance c. BiddinglOpefator Selection Process d. Public Facilities Plan e. Grant Application Options f. Overall Project Schedule, g, Contract Management Options " ... ~ ,. . 7.2 - Review draft plan and solicit comments 7.3 - Revise as required . Products: 1. Implementation Cost Ertimates and Schedulefor Rotltes and Public Improvements , 2. Preferred Managenientplan. 0' . '. , . , Steve Mielke page-s' / At this point, we should again meet with all interested governmental bodies to present the plans and our reco~ons fOT the selected findings and general direction to seek consensus. . Tll~k 8.0 - Final R~rt (Draft) 8.1 - Prepare Draft and Final report of all project findiIigs and submit for , revi~w and comment: .' 8.2 - Attend Planillng Commission and City Council meetings to present final plans and seek authorization to prepare public bid documents as requ4"ed. - Products: 1. Final Report - full cql(Jr'(copies as required) ,2. Authorization to Proceed with Service Implementatfon Phasl! MEETINGS . . o The original proposal to the City of St. Louis Park authorized 23 total meetings. So as to not duplicate meetings, I propose ~hat all meetings, outside of city stiff meetings and specific community groups within each cii}r, be i:oDl~ucled includii\g all three commtmities ("three city , representation").,_ The following are the proposed meetings: - ~ .. - \ . . City Staff Meetings 4 . MCTO/Metropolitan Council ,2 (three city representation) . Plaimin'g CoIDIiiission ' , Meetings . City Council , ' Meetings - 2 - . Hopkins Chamber 1 . Downtown Council . 1 . University of Minnesota 1 (three city representation) . Commtmity Groups/Employers -6 (combine ~oups when possible) TOTAL MEETINGS 19 2 '... ,~ . . . ' . As total meetings can quickly increase on projects like this, I propose that we include the 19 meetings I have listed as a BASIC SERVICES and meetings over this total will be billed as ADDmONAL SERVICES at the approvep hourly rates. . , FEE PROPOSAL '. Basic Services ' , LSA Design, InC'. 'will provide the aforementioned Professional Planning Services for a Not To Exceed fee of$19,600 inclupmg photocopying, blue printing\plqt services, mileage. postage and photography. The following, ifrequired, will be charged as direct reimbursable's: . . . . , , , Report Copies Electronic Data (County, LOGlS, & MnDOT Fee's) Messenger Services ~~ ... r .. . . , - , Steve Mielke page-6 - . -' We propose ~o ill.Voice this project hourly ea~h month and will utilize the follo~g general billing rates: ~ Principal Senior Professional Professional Staff Technical Staff Secretary Administrative Staff Expenses $80.00 to $105/hour $65.00 to $85/hour $50 - $60/hour - $32 ~ $47.50/hour $42.50/hour ' $25.00/hour at invoice , " Sub-Consultants - Use oJFocus Group consultants such as Decision Resources, Inc. will be considered - ADDmONAL SERVICES. I have included oUI'"time to coordinate general meetings-and small group sessions, but it may become necessary to bring in Decision Resources, Inc. specifically if a ,. large "Employer Focus Group" is done. -' I am available to attend the April 1 City Council meetin,g if your woula like me to present any of this information." - , c: _ File C:\97~02\032097SMielkeScope.mem.doc .. - , , . . , , . ,. ----. Benae listened to "Where the Wild Things Aren !lS storytime series. The 'Wild Thing' character .kins Library Saturday afternoon. (Craig Las. -r the City address rLity projects en a banner year folkS who laid the five, 10, 15 years Miller, Jerre Miller and'Henry Pokorney, as well as former councilmembers Paul Lund, Bob Anderson. They represent sev- eral of the many city officials troduced former Meeting focuses on next action steps By Beth'Wohlberg Staff Writer The possibility of finding so- lutions to suburban transporta_ tion problems drew more than 30 people to the conference table at the Hopkins' Area Family Re- source Center on March 21. The meeting, sponsored by West Metro Collaborative Ac- tion Uniting Support and Em- powerment (CAUSE) Trans- portation Action Group (TAG), initiated the first of what is ex- pected to be, many discussions between the cities of Hopkins, , . M!nnetonka and St. Louis Park; the three school districts; the , Legislature; social serviCe orga-' nizations; the Metropolitan 'Council; and The Foundation HealthSystem Minnesota. . ' 'The impetus for a comniunity , meeting stemmed from "On the Road Again .c.," a report by TAG that analyzed' a survey focused on. transit-dependent popula- tions. The survey analysis reaf- firmed the perception that trans- portation is an integral problem for many suburban residents. "BasiCally, our current trans- portation system is not work- ing," said Karen Kingsley; plan- ning and,development manager for Community Action for Sub- urban Hennepin. "People are ,not receiVing needed services. They aren't getting to a doctor Or the grocery store easily.' Hopkins The city of Hopkins has been addressing local transportation problems with Hop-A-Ride, an advanc~~reservation, shared- ride, door-to-door transporta_ tion service that serves all of Hopkins and a few locations out- side the city, including Methodist Hospital, Shady Oak Beach and the Knollwood area. ' The limitations of Hop-A_ Ride make it inconvenient or im- possible for some to use. Low-in~ come individuals can use the service for $1.20 per ride but, if the rider does not qualify; the fare is $4. Some people cannot make advance reservations and Hop-A-Ride does not serve all the- areas people need to access. "Over the last four years we have added locations outside the city limits: said Hopkins City Manager Steve Mielke. "But we continually get requests for mOre locations outside of the city. And the fare is a lot less ex- pensive because of the size, only four square miles, and the popu- lation, 16,000 people. The fare would be a lot more than $4 if someone needed to get from the, east end of St. Louis Park to the west end ofMinrietonka." , Mmnetonka The city of Minnetonka com- pleted a survey last summer ad- dressing transportation. When residents were asked if they needed' .more '.transportation, most responded "yes." When asked if they would support mare ~pormti~,mootresp~ded "yes." But when residents were asked if they would use the transportation, most responded "no." When further questioned about financially supporting transportation for those who need it, most responded "no." Minnetonka staff have been working ~ solutions such as a dial-a-ride system or a circular route to downtown Hopkins and the Knollwood Center. They have tried to incorporate the Opus Business Complex. as well as the future transit stop in the West Ridge Market off Highway 394 and Hopkins Crossroad. "We do have a significant pro- gram for seniors at the senior center. We use a 20-passenger bus with all volunteer senior dri- vers," said Minneto'nka City Manager Dave Childs. "We haven't had a problem finding TRANSIT: Tp Page 19A' Transit. ,New I Froin Page lA volunteer drivers. The concern we have now is that some drivers are nervous about operating the new wheelchair 00." St. Louis Park St. Louis Park has an advantage over . Hopkins and Minnetonka because' of its close proximity to Minneapolis. MCTO buses regularly enter and leave St. Louis ParK. The disadvantage, said St. Louis Park City Manager Charlie Meyer, is that MCTO caters to employers or employees. "It [MCTOl doesn't serve special , transportation needs," said Meyer. "It ' has never been an acute problem but it is a chronic nagging one." HopkinslSt. Louis Park SunoSailor/Wednesday, March 26, 1997 19A route to provide some transit relief The goal for St. Louis Park is to have , access to transportation within a quarter mile for every city resident. "We want a system that will provide families with opportunities for transit even if they may have transportation now. We want to provide an incentive for people to get out of their cars and use trans- portation," said Mayor Gail Dorfman. The city hired Jim Lasher ofLSA De- sign to perform a feasibility study within, St. Louis Park but now, with the incep- tion of TAG, the feasibility study is being proposed for a tri-city study. Tri-city Throughout the three cities, local transportation is meeting 25 percent of . the total p~pulation need, according to the TAG report. "If we work 'with all three cities, we could help a larger percentage like 75 to 80 percent," said Fran Hesch, chair of West Metro CAUSE. In response to the growing need for transportation in the, western suburbs, the MET Council has reserved funds for a new route. Route 614 targets Knoll- wood Mall, Mainstreet in Hopkins, Westridge and Ridgedale Center. The route is designed as a mini-bus, circular route from B a.m. until 7:20 p.m. "This route will be operated by a 12- passenger van accessible to people in wheelchairs. Perhaps we could blend Hop-A-Ride into this route in downtown Hopkins," said John Dillery, transit plan- ner for the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council is.considering more legs and links to this mini-bus route: "Money is dedicated to go to roads, not to bus companies. We've been trying to get a constitutional amendment to change that but it never !lies. If we would only fund the bus companies the way it should be funded, ridership would increase and dependency on cars would decrease," said Rep. Jim Rhodes, District 44A. Those at the meeting brainstormed on using current transportation in a broad- er capability, such as using the Same buses for transportation of school age children and commuters - that way par- ents can drop off children on their way to work. Other funds for transportation that could possibly be expanded are funds from food shelves, community education and service organizations. If a viable transportation option became available, most members of the meeting seemed willing to focus funds to that area. See story below for the 1ie:l:t aetion steps.