Memo- Phase II Transit StudyMemorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Steven C. Mielke, City Manager
Date: September 30, 1998
Subject: Phase II Transit Study
Office of the City Manager
In 1997 the cities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, and Minnetonka jointly contracted with the firm of
LSA Inc. for a transit feasibility study. The study was divided into Phase I and Phase II efforts,
and the City of Hopkins authorized only Phase 1 to be completed.
Phase I was completed and delivered to the three cities who, since then, have been discussing
the concept of moving forward with a Phase II completion of the analysis. The purpose of the
study was to determine whether or not there were areas for potential improvement of the transit
systems within the three -city area. The study concluded that there were, in fact, opportunities
for service design changes, and recommended a vision for a revised transit system in the three -
city area
City staff has been working with the other cities and with the Metropolitan Council to determine
how best to move forward with a secondary phase to this analysis. An agreement has been
reached between the staffs of the three cities and Metro Transit staff on how to proceed.
Attached is a proposed Phase II work plan, along with a time frame for completion of that
analysis. Also attached is a report which has been presented to the Metropolitan Council
Transportation Committee, recommending that Met Council authorize the Met Council staff to
negotiate a joint powers agreement with the three cities for proceeding with the Phase 11
analysis.
As indicated in the report, the Phase II analysis will cost roughly $85,000 for the Metropolitan
Council to complete the study, and they are requesting the three cities jointly share $25,000 of
the cost of the study. In discussing this with the other city managers, it was determined best to
divide the local share on a population basis. Thus, the City of Hopkins cost for the Phase II
analysis is $3,500.
Assuming Council concurrence, staff will work to prepare a joint powers agreement between the
three cities and the Metropolitan Council for completion of the Phase II study. That joint powers
agreement would require Council approval and would be brought back at a future Council
meeting.
Staff is requesting Council concurrence to proceed with negotiations of a joint powers
agreement of a Phase I1 transit feasibility study.
Mayorccphsl !study
Transportation Committee Meeting of September 28, 1998
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612- 291 -6359 TDD 612- 291 -0904
DATE: September 24, 1998
TO: Chair and Members of the Transportation Committee
FROM: Arthur T. Leahy, General Manager, Metro Transit (349 -7510)
SUBJECT: Joint Powers Agreement With the Cities of Saint Louis Park, Hopkins and Minnetonka
for the Purpose of Funding the 1998 -99 Service Sector Studies
Prepared by:
Brian J. Lamb, Director of Service Development
c: \windows \temp \jointws.doc
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ISSUE: Metro Transit staff and representatives from the cities of Saint Louis Park, Hopkins and Minnetonka
have been discussing ways to improve the transit service available to residents of the western suburban area.
To that end it has been agreed to jointly commission a transit service review and alternatives analysis to
provide a framework for future service improvements.
FUNDING IMPLICATIONS: The total project cost for the western suburban sector study, including the data
collection, is approximately $85,000. This sector study will be jointly funded by Metro Transit, and the cities
of Saint Louis Park, Hopkins and Minnetonka. Minnetonka will contribute $11,500, Saint Louis Park $10,000,
and Hopkins $3,500, for a total local contribution of $25,000. The balance will come from Metro Transit
approved budget.
DISCUSSION: In 1997, LSA Inc., under contract with the cities of Saint Louis Park, Hopkins and
Minnetonka completed a first phase Transit Feasibility Study. The purpose of the study was to summarize and
quantify the existing transit service and identify opportunities for reinvestment. Since that time Metro Transit
has been meeting with representatives from the three cities in the effort to identify the next steps in developing
a service improvement plan. In recent weeks Metro Transit and the three cities have agreed on a scope of work
that is consistent with the service sector studies being performed in other parts of the metro area. It has been
agreed that LSA Inc. will be retained to provide assistance to Metro Transit in completing the western
suburban sector study. The study work has started already and will result in a final report by mid -1999.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Metropolitan Council authorize the Regional Administrator to negotiate
and enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the cities of Saint Louis Park, Hopkins and Minnetonka to jointly
fund the completion of a service sector study to include the cities mentioned and adjoining suburbs.
St. Louis Park—Hopkins—Minnetonka Transit Study: Phase II
In order to take the next step toward improving transit services and completing the work that
began with the Phase I Transit Feasibility Study, the following Phase II work tasks have been
identified. The products of Phase II will be presentations of recommended transit service and
facility improvements for the three cities and an Implementation Plan spelling out the costs
associated with those improvements and the roles and responsibilities for moving ahead with
Phase III — Implementation.
Task 1: Data Collection
1.1 Express Bus Service (Route productivity by segment and time of day)
1.1A I -394 Express . Service — Routes 71, 73, 74, 75, 52M
1.1B Southwest Corridor Express Service— Routes 64, 67, 70
1.2 North -South Connections— Routes 66, 614 (Route productivity by
segment and time of day)
1.3 Local Area Circulators (Review of existing services /activity centers)
1.4 Ridgedale Circulator (Meetings with Ridgedale area business groups)
1.5 Dial -A- Ride /Paratransit Services (Service productivity and
origin/destination volumes)
1.6 Reverse - Commute (define parameters for currently successful reverse-
commute services, meetings with service providers, TwinWest Chamber
of Commerce, and other members of the business community)
1.7 Suburb -to- suburb travel demand /connection opportunities (e.g. Eden
Prairie, Plymouth)
Note: Route productivity by segment and time of day for fixed route services will be evaluated
by counts of on -board passenger loads on arrival and departure from route time points. This data
will be supplemented by electronic fare box data collected by route segment. It is assumed that
Hop -A -Ride will be able to provide origin- destination volumes for its service area.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Metro Transit will assume overall data collection responsibilities and formatting into
spreadsheets for all existing transit service. LSA Design responsibilities include gathering
information on items 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6. including meeting with Ridgedale business
representatives, I- 394/CR 73 retail group, Hop -A -Ride, and area Opt -Out agencies.
Task 2: Data Analysis
2.1.1 Evaluate adequacy of routings, service frequencies, span of daily service
hours, and size of vehicles for all fixed route services.
2.1.2 Identify opportunities for existing transit services and potential new
markets for transit service.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Metro Transit and LSA Design would work together to assess data and determine the best course
of action for existing and new transit service markets.
Task 3: Service Alternatives
3.1 Express Bus Service
3.1A I -394 Service
3.1B Southwest Corridor Service
3.1C Southwest Transitway Impacts
3.2 North -South Connections
3.3 Local Area Circulators
3.4 Ridgedale Circulator
3.5 Dial -A- Ride/Para- transit Services
3.6 Reverse - Commute
3.7 Suburb -to- Suburb Connections
Note: This task includes preparing service alternatives for the above service categories that are
designed to meet the stated goals of the three cities and evaluating the feasibility of those
alternatives. Service alternatives will include maps of suggested routes and recommended
frequency by hour; they will not include preparing detailed time point schedules.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Metro Transit and LSA Design will work together to develop service alternatives for review by
the three cities. The team will select service design alternatives for further study if required.
Metro Transit will complete all mapping for review and presentation to 3- cities. The team will
complete cost benefit analysis of alternatives and determine service vehicle make -up of each
route.
Task 4: Facility and Infrastructure Requirements
4.1 Identify necessary transit facility and right of way improvements in the
three cities based upon proposed service alternatives.
4.2 Develop preliminary cost estimates for necessary facilities.
RESPONSIBILITIES
LSA Design will complete a preliminary feasibility assessment of new facilities within the three
cities as well as cost estimates. Metro Transit will provide capital funding alternatives for budget
and scheduling purposes.
Task 5: Ridership Estimation
5.1 Update ridership estimates for a southwest transitway option. It is assumed
that adjacent service provider will estimate the impacts of a transitway on
ridership in their service area.
5.2 Develop preliminary cost - benefit estimates for a southwest transitway.
5.3 Develop ridership projections for revised I -394 service, north -south
service, local area circulators, dial -a -ride, reverse - commute services, and
suburb to suburb connections.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Metro Transit will take the lead in developing ridership projections for selected service
alternatives. LSA Design will provide demographics information and GIS database gathered
during the Phase I analysis for population, employment, and TAZ data.
Task 6: Implementation Plan
6.1 Prepare an Implementation Plan including time schedule, plan of finance,
vehicle acquisition plan, service phasing plan, facilities phasing plan, and
roles and responsibilities.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Metro Transit and LSA Design will amend alternatives based on City Council and Planning
Commission input and finalize recommendations. Metro Transit will prepare timeline, vehicle
acquisition plan, and phasing plans based on available operating and capital funding. Metro
Transit and LSA Design will draft outline for Phase III Implementation.
Task 7: Meetings/Presentations
7.1 Prepare press releases /community information updates for local
newspapers throughout Phase II
7.2 Meeting #1 — Project Initiation Meeting with 3 -city work group to discuss
process and review overall service goals and objectives
7.3 Meeting #2 — Meeting after Task 2 with 3 -city work group to review data
and discuss directions for Task 3
7.4 Meeting #3 — Meeting during Task 3 with 3 -city work group to review
service alternatives and solicit recommendations for further investigation
7.5 Meeting #4 - Follow -up meeting with 3 -city work group to review further
investigations into service alternatives and review Task 4
7.6 Meeting #5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 — Present service and facility alternatives to three
City Councils and Planning Commissions individually and solicit
comments
7.7 Meetings #11, 12, 13 — Community input with "Open House" type work
session and presentation in each of the three cities
7.8 Meeting #14 — Review Implementation Plan and presentation schedule
with 3 -city work group
7.9 Meetings #15, 16, 17 — Individual Presentations to City Councils of
results, recommendations, and Implementation Plan
RESPONSIBILITIES
Metro Transit and LSA Design will attend meetings and present information as a team. Metro Transit and LSA
Design will prepare necessary graphics to describe results in conjunction with 3 -City committee.
(revised 9/21/98)
1998 -99 Western Suburban
Transit Improvement Plan
Task Target Dates
Work Plan Components Identified
Work Plan Completed and Agreed Upon
Data Collection RFP Issued
Data Collection Vendor Selected
Data Collection Starts
Data Collection Complete
Data Analysis Complete
Local Needs Assessment Completed
Service Alternative Concepts Completed
Prelim. Cost Estimates for Concepts Due
Consultant Review and Recommendations
Community Input Completed
Preferred Concept Selected /Preliminary
Presentation to Local Legislators
Phasing Recommendations Due
Plan Approved by Met.Council and Cities
Plan Presented to Local Legislators
Phase I Service Implementation (Near -term
Improvements)
Phase II Service Implementation (Longer -
term Improvements)
Aug 12, 1998
Sep 10, 1998
Sep 01, 1998
Sep 20, 1998
Oct 01, 1998
Nov 15, 1998
Dec 20, 1998
Jan 04, 1999
Jan 25, 1999
Jan 25, 1999
Feb 01, 1999
Feb 01, 1999
Feb 15, 1999
Mar 01, 1999
Mar 15, 1999
Mar 30, 1999
Sep 25, 1999
TBD