Memo- DiscussionTransit Feasibility Study-Phase IMemorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Steven C. Mielke, City Manager,�W
Date: February 6, 1998 !!''
Subject: Discussion of Transit Feasibility Study —Phase I
Staff is seeking direction with regard to the transit study conducted by the cities of St.
Louis Park, Hopkins, and Minnetonka. The Phase 1 study has been completed in draft
form, and LSA Design is prepared to discuss this with each of the individual Council
members to determine next appropriate steps, and to discuss the potential value of a
Phase II study. Mr. Jim Lasher will be at the Council meeting to discuss the transit
study and respond to questions from the Council.
Three potential topics of discussion could include:
1. City of Hopkins goals
2. Concurrence on suggested transit vision
3. Next steps
Attached is the proposal that was approved by the Council in March of 1997, as well as
a copy of the draft summary of the report.
Mayo rcctransitanal ysis
Office of the City Manager
■
L S A
E S S.
I
March 24, 1997
Mr. Steveivftelke, City_Manager
City of Hopkins
1010 1st Street
Hopkins, MN 55343 -7573
Dear Steve:
LSA Desig
James `s er, A A
Principal
Sincerely,
c: Judie Erickson - City of St. Louis Park
File c: \97 -02 \032497SMie1ke.let.doc
•
LSA Design, Inc.
L.ind•i.ine 4re0teettue.
Anmtetnae, and Ph timiN
I lb .North Tiw.i Street
blotucavolc \,I, 35401
ohobe o11- 33 -371
nr b1:- 339 - - 433
irt
Attached please find our Fee Proposal to include the City of Hopkins in the Transit Feasibility
Study as we discussed in our March 13 meeting.
In the Weak eito 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 oflhis analysis. As a result of this meeting and the level of interest shown by
Conuitissioner Mary Tambornino, Hennepin County may be another source for funding other
than those we discussed in our meeting.. - _
_ Please review and contact me with any further questions or comments. I am available to meet and
review this proposal witliyou at your convenience, I am also available to attend your April 1 City
Council meeting should you wish a short presentation to the Council.
L S A
D E S
I G N
A.
SCOPE OF WORK
The following Scope of Work is very similar to the approved work program for the City of St.
Louis Park with minor modifications to reflect individual needs for the City of Hopkins. I
have made some assumptions regarding your level of interest in adding transit services as well
as the types of service (reverse - commute, regular -route city circulator, dial -a -ride, employee
shuttle program) the City may desire.
PHASE I - DATA GATHERING
Task 1.0 - Base Map /Limits of Study Definition/Transit Options
1.1 - Solicit electronic base map data from LOGIS, Hennepin 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 Lithits (plus 100' at edges)
b. Sub - regional area (surrounding 6 communities)
c. Regional view (complete transit taxing district)
1.3 - Identification mapping at City level of all:
a. Downtown Activity Center -
b. Additional Activity Centers
c. Employers (over 50 employees) •
d. General Land Use classifications
(We understand that the City of Hopkins does not have current
Land Use/GIS capabilities. We will generate the Land Use map
by hand for utilization with other GIS data.)
e. Recreational centers
f. Alternative mode transportation routes (bike paths, walking paths,
existing park and 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 regional in -place transit systems and case study
selected systems showing opportunities as they relate to this study.
Products: 1. Full color graphic mapping system for all levels of analysis in electronic
•
and hard -copy format.
•
LSA Design, Inc.
Land's. 911.1ruAbrre.
.1%. 0uir(ure, and nrmy
I `a \■ Eh T4n.1 Shoe
.tlunrrn mdr> bl.V' 53401
Piro ne a 1 - 339 - 29 .
ray ol2- 339 - :33
Steve Mielke
page - 2
Task 2.0 - Identify Existing_Transit/Transportation Activities Within the City
2.1 - Meet with City staff, and MCTO Planners and route supervisors.
Prepare exhibits showing existing route structure, ridership analysis, park
and ride and 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 with selected demand response providers (senior centers, •
employer shuttle services, etc.) to review their service plans and
identify duplication of effort and possible alternatives:
a. General Business Community
b. Senior /Elderly Populations
c. Students
d. School District
e: , University of Minnesota
2.4 - Coordinate two or three focus groups with the primary populations to gain
additional information on specific needs
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 -
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 Based School
c. Home Based Shopping
d. Home Based Work
e. Non -Home Based Other
f. Non -Home Based Work
2.9 - Preliminary investigation with HCRRA conceiniag possible use of
rail corridor for high -speed bus service. .
Products: 1. Complete graphic analysis of all existing transit service and usage
patterns.
Steve Mielke
page -
•
2. General review of para- transit activities, grass -roots mobility e
and localized commuting patterns.
3. Current rider profile.
4. Current levels of service.
5. Graphic and written analysis and synthesis of travel mode patterns within
• the community and, current trends for use of mass transit.
6. Generalized Employer /Employee travel demand analysis.
7. Review of HCRRA future plans for region
Task 3.0 - Land Use /Transit Relationship Analysis
3.1 - Complete general assessment of City developnient patterns and
densities for pedestrian and transit supportiveness.
3.2 - Identify existing and potential transit corridors and nodes based on
accepted criteria.
3.3 = Produce guidelines for future pedestrian and transit supportive
development/redevelopment in transit corridor and node areas.
Products: 1. Definitions, criteria, and identification of transit corridors and nodes.
2. Conceptual development guidelines for transit corridor and node •
areas -
Task 4.0 - Data Synthesis and Refined Goals and Objectives
4.1 - Review gaps in information and formulate plan for•additional needs
such as household surveys, focus groups, and/or community
meetings. Complete additional work as required.
4.2 - Meet with City staff to review findings 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, I believe we should arrange meetings with all interested governmental
bodies and community groups to relay our findings and general direction to seek
consensus. I would accept your recommendation as to what groups should be involved
at this review point.
PHASE II - ALTERNATIVES STUDY
Task 5.0 - Feasibility Analysis of Transit Alternatives & Operational Plans
5.1 - Utilize graphic and written analysis and survey /focus group data to prepare
system alternatives and test each alternative against performance goals and
objectives.
5.2, Test Financial Feasibility of each system alternative.
5.3 - Meet with all appropriate City and Community groups to review plans and
Steve Mielke
page - 4
'solicit input.
5.4 - Revised•Plans as required.
Products: 1. Three system alternatives
2. Financial /ridership analysis
Task 6 0 - Public Faciities Planning and Programming
6.1 - Establish facilities design criteria and site selection process:
a. acre s
b. serviceability
c. cost of development/acquisition
d. proximity to highway system
e. current bus route proximity
f. visibility/security
g. regional system compatibility
6.2 - Review development options: -
Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TND)
Transit Oriented Developments (TOD)
Mixed -Use Development/Clustering
• ` Pedestrian/Bicyclist Planning
Transit Corridors
.' Site Layout and Design Issues
6.3 - Develop preliminary design guidelines for transit facilities.
Products: 1. Public Facilities Plan
Task 7.0 - Implementation Strategies/Management Plan
7. f - Prepare draft Implementation Plan for the following project elements:
1
a. System Implementation
b. Plan of Finance
c. Bidding /Operator 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: L Implementation Cost Estimates and Schedule for Routes and Public
Improvements
2. Preferred Management plan
Steve Mielke
page - 5
At this point, we should again meet with all interested governmental bodies to present the plans
- and our recommendations for the selected findings and general direction to seek consensus.
Task 8.0 - Final Report (Draft)
FEE PROPOSAL
8.1 - Prepare Draft and Final report of all project findings and submit for
review and comment.
8.2 - Attend Plani ing Commission and City Council meetings to present final
plans and seek authorization to prepare public bid documents as required.
Products: 1. Final Report - full color (copies as required)
2. Authorization to Proceed with Service Implementation Phase
MEETINGS
The original proposal to the City of St. Louis Park authorized 23 total meetings. So as to not
duplicate meetings, I propose that all meetings, outside of city staff meetings and specific
community groups within each city, be conducted including all three communities ( "three city
representation "). The following are the proposed meetings:
• City Staff Meetings 4
• MCTO/Metropolitan Council 2 (three city representation)
• Planning Commission
" Meetings 2
• City Council
Meetings 2
• Hopkins Chamber 1
• Downtown Council * 1
• University of Minnesota ' 1 (three city representation)
• Community Groups/Employers 6 (combine groups when possible)
TOTAL MEETINGS _ 19
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
ADDITIONAL SERVICES at the approved hourly rates.
Basic Services
LSA Design, Inc. will provide the aforementioned Professional Planning Services for a Not To
Exceed fee of $19,600 including photocopving, blue printinglplot services, mileage. postage and
photography. The following, if required, will be charged as direct reimbursable's:
Report Copies
Electronic Data (County, LOGIS, & MnDOT Fee's)
Messenger Services
Steve Mielke
page -6 -
We propose to invoice this project hourly each month and will utilize the following 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
C: File C:\ 97- 02 \032097SMielkeScope.mem.doc
Sub - Consultants
Use of Focus Group consultants such as Decision Resources, Inc. will be considered
ADDITIONAL SERVICES. I have included out`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 meeting if your would like me to present any of
this information.
January 3, 1998
PHASE ONE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY •••
• •
SAINT LOUIS PARK MINNETONKA Z HOPKINS
LSA Design, Inc.
1
Changing Development and Travel Patterns
A. Today, trips to downtown Minneapolis account for only 4% (18,319 of 467,692) of the total trips
originating from the study area cities. About 1/3 of the people going to downtown Minneapolis from
the study area use transit.
B. 96% of trips originating from the study area are going to places other than downtown Minneapolis.
Less than 1% of people making these trips use transit.
C. Although travel patterns have changed, the overwhelming majority of transit service is still oriented
to /from downtown Minneapolis. Desired transit connections within and between the study area
communities, especially north -south connections, are not currently available.
D. By the year 2000, there will be approximately 100,000 jobs in the study area cities. This compares
with approximately 130,000 jobs in downtown Minneapolis in the year 2000. Because many of these
jobs will be filled with workers from other parts of the region, access to the regional work force will
become an even more pressing issue in the future
II. Increasing Congestion
A. All principal arterial roadways within the study area are presently congested during the afternoon rush
hour period. This includes Interstates 394 and 494 and Highways 7, 100, and 169. This congestion is
projected to worsen and extend further to the west in the coming years.
B. Projections indicate that 63,000 additional trips per day will originate from within the study area by
2010. According to the Metropolitan Council's Transportation Policy Plan, such increases in travel
demand will need to be accommodated without significant expansion of the existing highway system.
C. Thus, improvements in transit services and facilities will be necessary to maintain current mobility
levels and lifestyle quality.
III. Expanding Community Involvement in Transit
A. Community -based planning efforts contribute to a more effective transit system. Both Transit
Redesign, the Metropolitan Council's action plan to ensure the future viability of transit, and the
Transportation Policy Plan promote increased community involvement in the transit planning
process. This study seeks to accommodate this goal for the cities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, and
Minnetonka.
B. The Metropolitan Council is open to restructuring and redesigning ineffective services within the
study area communities, and the Council envisions working collectively with the cities to improve
transit services. A number of routes within the study area have per passenger subsidies that exceed
Metropolitan Council established thresholds for review and restructuring.
C. Transit operations are funded in Large part through property taxes. The three study area cities
dedicated approximately $4.6 million dollars of property tax revenue to transit operations funding in
1996. Region -wide, property taxes account for about 45% of the total transit operations revenue.
Assuming this ratio held true for the study area communities, total for transit operations in
the three cities would be just over $10 million each year. Expanding community involvement in
transit planning will help insure that these transit funds are spent in a locally effective manner.
IV. Preliminary Goals
A. Increase the life -cycle mobility options of residents within the study area communities;
B. Redesign existing transit service delivery to enhance the accessibility, reliability, convenience, and
use of transit by and for area residents; and,
C. Apply the savings generated by redesign initiatives to create and enhance community based transit
options in the communities investing in the redesign efforts.
V. Study Phases
A. The task of Phase One has been to quanta and describe existing transit services and desired
connections within the study area communities. This document presents a summary of the
information gathered in Phase One and sets the stage for Phase Two.
B. The task of Phase Two is to develop transit service and facilities alternatives and implementation
strategies that improve desired connections.
DRAFT -PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3C SAINT LOUIS PARK at MINNETONKA FS HOPKINS
LSA Design, Inc.
PAGE 1
January 3, 1998
•
PHASE ONE DRAFT OVERVIEW
Phase One information and observations can be generally summarized as follows.
I. Existing Transit Services
A. MCTO (Metro Transit) 1995 Region -wide System Profile
I. Annual Ridership: 61,059,000
2. Total operating costs: $126,158,655
3. Cost per passenger: $2.07
B. Service Groups and Definitions
1. Express Service: faster and more direct transit service used primarily for work trips to and from
downtown Minneapolis during the morning or afternoon rush hours, here divided into
southwestern and I -394 corridor services.
2. Suburban Local Service: slower and less direct transit service used for suburb to suburb travel
throughout the day for shopping trips, medical appointments, and other trip purposes 4
3. Urban Local Service: slower and less direct service between the suburbs and downtown
Minneapolis running throughout the day used by a variety of travelers for all trip purposes
4. Peak Period Replacement Service: express type services that replace or supplement urban local
services during the AM and PM peak travel periods, used primarily for trips to and from work
Study Area
A , Bus Rate
Street
Existing Transit Services
Figure 1
1 0 1 2 3 8 5 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 MOes
DRAFT -PHASE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY $g SAINT LOUIS PARK ag MINNETONKA gg HOPKINS
LSA Design, Inc.
PAGE 2
January 3, 1998
1
11. Express Services
A. Summary Observations
1. Express services traveling along the fastest and most direct route are overwhelmingly desired by
riders.
2. Much of the existing express service provides local or feeder type service for large portions of the
trip, making the express service slower and less direct.
3. In a number of cases, service on the I -394 and southwest corridors is redundant or uncoordinated
with other express services operating on those corridors.
4. According to riders surveyed, express trips by bus along the southwestern corridor take
approximately one and a half times as long as the same trip by car. However, inbound commuters
on the I -394 corridor reported that riding the bus (front park and ride lots) was as fast if not faster
that driving during rush hour.
5. Because there are only a few trips available, passengers report that consistency and on -time
performance are essential.
6. The number of riders on local portions of express service in the westernmost portions of the study
area is low enough that small buses would be sufficient to meet current needs.
7. Express rider inconveniences are created by infrequent headways; slow or unavailable midday
return trips; a lack of system legibility, simplicity, and coordination; inadequate route and
schedule information; and, a lack of walk -up boarding and park and ride amenities.
Average Daily
Passengers:
995
Monthly Expenses:
$90,261.18
Average Subsidy
per Passenger:
$3.17
DRAFT -PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY % SAINT LOUIS PARK 3 MINNETONKA 8B HOPRINS
LSA Design, Inc.
cpc Hopkins ,A/ Route within acceptable subsidy range
MxmetonMa (Route 67)
"/ Route above subsidy Threshold Level pnor to
'Asa. Louis Park oompebtVve contracting (Routes 64 and 70)
Notes Routes are only snavn extending 1 mile beyond Study Area borders. Profiles are from mbred time penods.
SW Express Route Performance
Figure 2
a p MS
PAGE 3
January 3, 1998
B. Improvements
1. Reconfigure express services to a simplified, hierarchical truth and feeder route structure around
major facilities, with peak period small bus feeders and pulse dial -a -ride services in less dense
areas.
2. Provide frequent and direct express service from transit stations with maximum headway and
minimum average mph requirements and midday express return trips.
3. Replace large bus service on selected westernmost portions of study area routes.
4. Streamline I -394 express service and apply savings to a small bus all day frontage road circulator
plan with enhanced frequency and utility for midday trip needs along the corridor.
5. Competitively contract all transit services in suburban environments to provide residents with the
best possible return on their transit investment, improve efficiency of services, and allow for an
expansion in the kinds of services offered.
Average Daily
Passengers:
2833
Monthly Expenses:
$274,754.27
Average Subsidy
per Passenger:
$2.91
ono Hopkins /A/ Route within acceptable subsdy range
Minnetonka (Routes 71,73,74,75)
,x_554 Loins Park A/ Route above Threshold Level
(Routes 76)
Note Routes are only strewn ezterding 1 mite beyond Study Area borders Profiles are from October 1996.
I -394 Express Route Performance
Weekday Service Figure 3
a z
DRAFT-PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY X SAINT LOUIS PARK Fg MINNETONKA 8$ HOPKINS
LSA Design, Inc.
PAGE 4
January 3, 1998
III. Suburban Local Services
A. Summary Observations
1. Route headways are infrequent and service hours /days are limited.
2. No logical point of convergence exists for transfers between suburban local routes and urban
local routes, thereby making it difficult to establish a legible transit network.
3. Community based transit options in the study area communities are compromised by slow
connections to downtown Minneapolis and the absence of connections within portions of the
study area and to other parts of the region.
4. Senior citizen riders want better access to main entrances of retail and medical locations. Walk -up
passenger boarding facilities are absent, deficient, or create safety and security problems.
5. Currently, the majority of riders on these routes do not have cars available to make their trips.
6. These services are considered more reliable than Metro Mobility and Hop -A -Ride.
7. Repeat ridership is high and passengers indicated they would use the service much more often if
service frequency were increased.
B. Improvements
1. Orient and integrate community center /retail circulator services around transit hubs providing
midday express to other hub locations throughout the region.
2. Make service to major destinations for transit riders more convenient by providing pedestrian
corridors or bus access to front doors of destinations rather than to remote parking lot locations.
3. Provide passengers safe, secure, comfortable, and convenient places to board the bus, transfer
between buses, and obtain system information.
Average Daily
Passengers:
56
Monthly Expenses:
$13,900.78
Average Subsidy
per Passenger:
$7.65
st x Hopkins i v Route privately contrasted; subsidy not available
Mmrretonka (Route%) Suburban Local Route Performance
/V Route in demonstration penod
a Louis Park (Route 614) Figure 4
Note Routes are only shown extending 1 mae beyond Study Area borders. Profiles are from inked time periods
z Was
DRAFT -PHASE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY X SAINT LOUIS PARK 8B MINNETONKA 38 HOPKINS
LSA Design, Inc.
PAGE 5
January 3, 1998
TV. Urban Local Services
A. Summary Observations
1. Urban Local service attempts to serve at least four conflicting trip purposes by: providing trips
within Minneapolis; providing suburb to downtown Minneapolis trips; providing suburb to
suburb trips; and, providing midday return trips to park and ride facilities.
2. Service is delivered with large vehicles, which are more expensive to operate than smaller buses.
3. Urban Local service between the study area and downtown Minneapolis travels along Glenwood
or Hennepin Avenues, creating long travel times for study area riders. Many of these riders would
prefer a more direct, highway- oriented trip between suburban origins /destinations and downtown
Minneapolis.
4. Multiple branches of the same route (different ending points or route segments) make routes
difficult to understand or inconvenient for riders not traveling to the specific locations served by
the route diversions.
5. There are overlaps /redundancies between Urban Local and Peak Period Replacement Services.
6. Intra -study area trip needs are not currently being met by Urban Local services. These trips as a
percentage of total Urban Local trips range between 1% and 7% depending upon the route.
B. Improvements
1. Design services to fulfill only one or two of the above mentioned trip needs.
2. Simplify route structures, make them less circuitous, and remove duplications of service. Service
diversions to private developments via shuttles or demand responsive services from major transit
facilities rather than as portions of the regular route.
3. Provide passengers with safe, secure, comfortable, and convenient places to board the bus,
transfer between buses, and obtain system information.
innetorlka:=
Average Daily
Passengers:
14,745
Monthly Expenses:
$667,431.55
Average Subsidy
per Passenger:
$1.35
a Hopkins AV Ra¢o within acceptable subsoy range (Routes 9.17)
Mnnetonka IV Route above Threshold Level 1 (Route 8)
`a SL touts Pak N Route above Threshold Level 2 (Route 12)
Note Routes are thy shown extendmg 1 mite beyond Study Area borders. Profiles are from OdOber 1998.
Urban Local Route Performance
Saturday Service Figure 5
o ]
DRAFT -PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY aB SAINT LOUTS PARK 3C MINNETONKA 8B HOPKINS
LSA Design, Inc.
PAGE 6
January 3, 1998
V. Peak Period Replacement Services
A. Summary Observations
1. These services draw ridership away from Urban Local routes because they provide a faster and
more direct trip to the same general destinations.
2. Passengers indicated that they would like these routes to travel in an express mode for an even
greater portion of the trip.
3. Passengers also expressed a desire to have these routes run during the midday.
4. These routes are primarily used for work related commute and reverse commute trips.
B. Improvements
1. Remove overlaps with Urban Local routes by completely replacing redundant Urban Local
service with Peak Period Replacement service during periods of overlap.
2. Service private developments, such as Cargill, with subscription shuttles from major transit
facilities, such as the CR73 Park and Ride.
Average Daily
Passengers:
669
Monthly Expenses:
$57,071.58
Average Subsidy
per Passenger:
$2.58
°sx Hopkins ti/ Rode within acceptable subsidy range
(Route 63)
Minnetonka Al Rolle above threshold Level 1
j St LOUIS Park (Route 39)
Noto Routes are only shown extending 1 mile beyond Study Area borders. Profiles are from October 1996.
Peak Replacement Route Performance
Figure 6
DRAFT -PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY $g SAINT LOUIS PARK 3g MINNETONKA $g HOPKINS
LSA Design, Inc.
PAGE 7
January 3, 1998
VI. Paratransit (Metro Mobility and Hop -A -Ride) and Community -Based Transportation Providers
(Senior Organizations, Social Service Agencies, and Religious Organizations)
A. Summary Observations
1. Social service and community based transportation providers fill a vital role by providing
supplementary services to individuals who are unable or unwilling to use Metro Transit or Metro
Mobility services.
2. The services of these community -based providers are not integrated with the regional transit
system, creating inefficiencies.
3. These providers suffer from shortages of vehicles and drivers and cannot fully meet the current
level of demand for their services.
4. Providing transportation services supplemental to regionally provided services draws resources
away from the other programs and services that these social service organizations provide.
5. The need for flexible transportation services is increasing in the communities in light of the
expanded transportation needs of welfare to work job seekers.
6. The Hop -A -Ride program may not be able to continue to provide service in the future.
7. Providers surveyed suggested that a dial -a -ride system would help meet the needs of their service
population.
8. Providers surveyed were generally critical of existing public transportation services.
9. Metro Mobility subsidy per passenger is $16.08; community -based providers average a $4 -7
subsidy per passenger with volunteer drivers; Hop -A -Ride, which uses a cab company to provide
service, has an average subsidy of about $3 within its limited service area.
10. Senior Community Services, which provided Dial -a -Ride services, is in need of a local vehicle
storage facility.
B. Improvements
1. Community /social services /welfare to work demand response services
2. Computer integrated demand response shuttles
VII. School District Transit Services
A. Summary Observations
1. Afternoon extra - curricular activity buses and work study programs have the greatest need for
supplementary transit services.
2. Policy, safety, and legal issues surrounding the integration of school transit and public transit
would need to be addressed if such integration were to occur.
DRAFT -PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY X SAINT LOUIS PARK $8 MINNETONKA X HOPKINS PAGE 8
LSA Design, Inc. • January 3, 1998
VIII. Activity Centers
Activity centers include: Community centers, social service centers, municipal facilities, religious
institutions, schools, libraries, and retail centers.
A. Summary Observations
1. Service by multiple providers to the Ridgedale area and other retail centers is not delivered in a
coordinated manner.
2. Service to a number of community activity centers is not available, and only four of29 daycare
centers are within 1500 feet of transit station or park and ride facilities.
3. Approximately 'A of the identified activity centers were more than 750' from fixed route transit
services.
4. A number of activity centers do not currently permit direct transit access to their main entrances.
5. Some activity centers have site design and circulation issues or are in locations that prevent
transit from servicing them effectively.
B. Improvements
1. Remedy transit access and circulation issues at major activity centers. R
2. Involve activity center representatives in the transit planning process to ensure that service
configuration and hours effectively meet the needs of' intended patrons.
nint Hopkins ;3 Community Center 1 Religious Institution NOTE: Green symbols represent anal*/ Miners %Pim
Minnetonka Y : seyiooi approximately 1500 feet of Metro Transit routes. Red symbols
A De Care a Library repaint me smogs snmm s '
sixth of me study arean red
„q; SL Louis Park 7 Muncipal 3 Retail ae serviced by Plymouth MetroIRk roses.
Activity Centers
Figure 7
2M.
DRAFT -PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY X SAINT LOUIS PARK 8$ MINNETONKA X HOPKINS
LSA Design, Inc.
PAGE 9
January 3, 1998
Major Employers/Reverse Commute
A. Summary Observations
1. By the year 2000, there are projected to be 100,000 jobs within the three study area cities. This
compares with 130,000 projected jobs in downtown Minneapolis.
2. By the year 2010, there are projected to be more jobs than residents in Minnetonka.
3. 74% of employers responding to the study survey were willing to work with localized
carpoollvanpool coordinators to increase ridesharing; 79% would be willing to provide employee
information to a localized carpoollvanpool coordinator for the purpose of rideshare matching.
4. 61% of employers responding do not currently provide incentives for employees to use transit,
but 76% would be willing to do so in the future.
5. 49% of employers responding indicated that convenient, daily transit services to their location
would improve their company's competitiveness in employee recruiting.
6. 96% of employers responding had not heard of the Transit - Related Development Tax Incentive.
7. Employers within the study area are not currently provided with consistent levels of transit
service based on either number of employees, participation in transit/rideshare programs, or the
provision of transit amenities /facilities.
8. Express reverse commute service is not effective in targeting major employment concentrations
in the study area, and feeder bus reverse commute programs do not exist in the study area. Most
reverse commute service is currently provided through slower moving Urban Local service.
B. Improvements
1. Employer subscription shuttles and vanpools from major transit stations and/or reverse commute
feeder bus service from major transit stations
2. Employer circulators /midday convenience service circulators
Napkins • 50-99 Employees ♦ 593.999Employees * 10930* Eployeea
Mlnetana a 100-249Employees S 9300.4999 Employees N Express Raids
x St fails Pak 250-499 Employees • 593.99999 Employees ^/ NmExpress Recite
Major Employers
Figure 8
1 2 we
DRAFT -PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 38 SAINT LOUIS PARK 88 MINNETONKA Fc HOPKINS
LSA Design, Inc.
PAGE 10
January 3, 1998
X. Transit Facilities
A. Summary Observations
1. Park and ride use is heaviest at the most identifiable lots, the lots with the fastest express service,
and lots with the greatest number of passenger conveniences.
2. Large park and ride facilities directly contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of suburban
express services.
3. Kiss -and -Ride and Park- and -Pool increase at identifiable transit facilities with adequate capacity.
4. Many passengers are currently waiting for buses at inconvenient, uncomfortable, or unsafe
boarding points. A number of locations throughout the study area have slightly fewer boardings
than the regional standard for bus shelter placement, but would benefit from shelters or improved
passenger waiting areas.
5. Metro Transit has $1 million in Federal ISTEA grants available for shelter improvement projects.
Accessing this money for projects within the study area would require a 20% local match.
6. Public transit facilities can create an image of reliability and permanence for transit in suburban
environments where buses themselves are only occasionally present.
7. Southwestern corridor park and rides are generally not Large enough to be effective as point
sources for generating sufficient ridership volumes or creating an image of permanence and
reliability.
8. There are many opportunities to improve transit infrastructure within the current capital
improvement plans and better integrate it with other travel options, but these opportunities need
to be taken advantage of.
= wopk. 9Faimew,ExceiSor .S Beth EIS,'agogue a GuNWmkField A Hwy 1Mneha SW Park and Riders
Minnetonka A Ce. Rd. BOTNmetonka ^a Westwood Wtbvan Obakh ✓Z VNq Maas a MryV)IOt -Kmart
z-i St Louis Park 3 a eele SVMkinemnka a Co. Rd. 3!71h Ave. S. A MmebmMM1OWYmna 0 4394 Park and Ride Figure 9
ke
NOTE: lmgesymbolsdenote park and ridehmlIBm. Smaller symbols el the same aolor and shape represent home laaetlem 0 users at those Mollifies. 1 n 1 2R9
DRAFT -PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY X SAINT LOUIS PARK 3C MINNECONKA ag HOPKINS
LSA Design, Inc.
PAGE 11
January 3, 1998
B. Improvements
1. Locate and expand park and ride facilities in a proactive and substantial manner rather than
developing them on an ad hoc basis in available remnant ROW.
2. Develop major facilities, including park and rides, transit stations/hubs, transitways, and
maintenance facilities to allow for major service reconfigurations that would improve
effectiveness. Major facilities could include:
• Highway 7 corridor dedicated transitway: 1-494 to Highway 100 /downtown Minneapolis
• HOV access improvements at various locations
Transit stations at:
• Highway 100/Excelsior or Highway 100/Highway 7
• Downtown Hopkins
• I- 494/Highway 7
• CR 73 park and ride improvements or Plymouth Road Transit Center expansion
• Park and ride expansion and daycare center at the Louisiana Avenue Transit Center
3. Develop minor facilities, including enhanced walk -up passenger boarding points within the
communities and at major activity centers to increase transit effectiveness in serving
community residents and to make transfers more convenient. Minor facilities could include:
• Neighborhood Stops /Shelter improvements
• Trails & Transit integrated signage concept
• Activity center site design improvements for access and circulation
Center
General Mills "
Golden Valley huthera
...'
islarla ue
Minnetonka Blvd& SSGSt&
Northomee . a• Minr.etrica Blvd
City Hall pawl
• •
Wayzata Park and Ride
irm Hopkins s Bus Bench (by US Bench)
Minnetonka a Bus Shelter
Tie St. Louis Pads Park and Ride Facility
NOTE. The park and ride facilities along 1-394
all have custom bus shelters and benches.
Transit Amenities
Figure 10
2 Wes
DRAFT -PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY X SAINT LOUIS PARK 3e MINNETONKA X HOPKINS
LSA Design, Inc.
PAGE 12
January 3, 1998
1
1
1
1
1
1
XL Land Use and Transit
A. Summary Observations
1. By the year 2000, there are projected to be 116,200 residents and 100,875 jobs in the three study
area cities. -
2. The greatest job growth is projected for the Opus II area and to its immediate west.
3. The Transit- Related Development Tax Incentive was designed to encourage certain kinds of
development along higher frequency bus routes. However, it presents cities with reduced property
tax revenue and potential TIF complications while providing no additional controls over site
development issues and developer TDM plans.
4. For a hypothetical $30 million office park in St. Louis Park, the incentive would result in a
$223,746 per year savings, which totals about $6.7 million in property tax savings over 30 years.
5. Site design issues or privately imposed bus access restrictions at major employment and retail
centers do not support effective and efficient transit service.
B. Improvements
1. Corridor based Travel Management Districts that include all cities along I -394 and Highways 5
and 7 would be effective in reducing single- occupancy vehicle trips and alleviating congestion.
Individual city initiatives are generally less effective than corridor based efforts.
2. Transit services should be enhanced along identified corridors and between pockets of
concentrated land use. These services should reflect the nature of the corridor they serve, be it a
continuous commercial/industrial corridor or a nodal retail/residential corridor.
Mg Higher Denney Residential
Lower Density Reddened
CommorityrOpert space
Commercial
MO Vacant Commerdel
Ng Industrial
Min 11RYRnmWNtlan
Blprme Bus Route
A/NodEspnse Bus ROES
0 Minded BowWry
Existing Land Use
Figure11
O 2 Mo
DRAFT -PHASE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY X SAINT LoUIS PARK $g MINNETONKA X HOPKINS
LSA Design, Inc.
PAGE 13
January 3, 1998
Hopkins Y
mit
1^ Qualifying Transit Route
Mnnetonka J rr i Other Trarsit Route
AZ St Louis Park P \/ Street
isa Transit Tax Incentive Zone Transit Tax Incentive Zones
Note. This map is for reference only and is not a Figure 12
legal document. The zone shown along Louisiana
Avenue north of Cedar Lake Road no longer qualifies.
2 sae
XIL Information Services
A. Summary Observations
1. Bus stops are often not readily identifiable and do not provide route information.
2. Transit route and community trail systems information are not integrated with one another.
3. Bus schedules are perceived by passengers as difficult to understand.
B. Improvements
1. A comprehensive information coordination and advertising campaign.
2. A new communications philosophy: Route information is designed for maximum passenger
legibility and convenience and if passengers don't understand it, it needs to be better.
3. Interactive Internet trip planning using GIS based map server and origin/destination processing
software.
4. Real -time bus location and arrival information at major facilities /web page.
5. General legibility improvements for schedules.
DRAFT -PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3g SAINT LOUIS PARK F$ MINNETONKA 98 HOPKINS
LSA Design, Inc.
PAGE 14
January 3, 1998