CR 99-06 Cost Agreement Transit Service
G\TY OF
December 30, 1998 ~ Council Report 99-006
HOPKINS
. COST AGREEMENT FOR TRANSIT SERVICE SECTOR STUDY
Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to authorize Mayor and City
Manager to enter into a contract with the Metropolitan Council for cost sharing on a Transit
Service Sector Study.
Adoption of this motion will result in the City of Hopkins, along with the cities ofSt. Louis Park
and Minnetonka, to proceed with a transit service study with the Metropolitan Council.
Overview
The cities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, and Minnetonka completed a Phase I Transit Study in
1997, which outlined a vision for transit within the three-city area.
The three cities agreed to move forward with a secondary study to analyze potential options to
carry the vision forward from Phase I to fruition.
The proposed study with the Metropolitan Council would provide information necessary to
implement a revision to the current transit system. Staff is recommending its adoption.
. Primary Issues to Consider
. What is the City's cost for this study?
The City will be paying $3,500 for the study. The total study cost is anticipated to be
$125,000.
. What actions will be involved in the study?
The study builds off of the work done in Phase I of the transit analysis by collecting
actual data from the existing transit services, reviewing service alternatives that were
identified in Phase I, and identifying ridership estimates to implement the proposed
vision for transit. An implementation plan would then be developed leading toward
implementation of the finalized plan.
Supportin2 Documentation
. Cost agreement for transit service sector study
. ~~
Steven C. Mielke
City Manager
COST AGREEMENT FOR
. TRANSIT SERVICE SECTOR STUDY
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the Metropolitan Council ("the Council") and the City
of Hopkins ("the City").
WHEREAS, the Council is authorized in accordance with Minnesota Statutes section 473.405 to
operate public transit systems in the metropolitan area and to exercise all powers necessary or
convenient to discharge its duties; and
WHEREAS, the Council has initiated 1998-1999 transit service sector studies to assist in
improving the transit service available to residents of and visitors to the City and the metropolitan
area; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to participate with the Council in reviewing current transit service
levels in the service sector in which the City is located and identifYing alternatives which would
improve transit service in and around the service sector; and
WHEREAS, the City has agreed to share in the costs of conducting the transit service sector
study; and
WHEREAS, the Council and the City are authorized by Minnesota Statutes section 471.59 to
enter into this agreement.
. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE:
SECTION 1
TRANSIT SERVICE SECTOR STUDY
The Council will engage appropriate consultant(s) to conduct the transit service sector study in
general conformance with the study Scope of Services and Specifications, attached to and
incorporated in this agreement as Exhibit A. The Council shall be the contracting agency for any
consultant contract funded under this agreement and is responsible for managing the work of the
consultant(s) and making payments to the consultant(s) as provided in the Council's contract(s)
with the consultant(s).
SECTION 2
FINANCING OF STUDY COSTS
The City shall contribute an amount not to exceed $3,500.00 of the study cost. The Council will
contribute the remainder of the funding for the study costs, either from Council funding sources
or other study participants. The total cost of the sector study funded under this agreement is
expected to be $125,000.00. If the actual cost of the sector study exceeds this amount, the City
will not be required to contribute additional funds. If the actual cost of the sector study is less
. than this amount, the City shall not be entitled to reduce its funding contribution. The Council
shall invoice the City for the City's contribution to the sector study costs. The City shall pay the
invoice not later than October 1, 1999.
- 1 -
SECTION 3
". ADMINISTRA TION OF AGREElVIENT
3.1 Staff Su pport. The parties agree to contribute sufficient staff support to ensure that the
study will be completed expeditiously and that all actions pertaining to its development will be
documented and circulated. The Council will provide a contract manager to administer the
consultant contract(s). The City will identifY at least one representative from its organization who
will serve on the study's coordination group and will maintain effective communication among the
parties and the consultant(s).
3.2 Amendments to Agreement. The terms of this agreement may be changed by mutual
agreement of the parties. Such changes shall be effective on the execution of written amendments
signed by the parties.
3.3 Report Distribution. The consultant(s) will deliver original copies of all data, computations,
working papers, reports, and recommendations to the Council. The Council will provide to the
City up to ten (10) color copies, if applicable, of the final service report for the sector and one (1)
additional black and white copy of the report. All documents and data, whether maintained by the
Councilor the City, shall be maintained and disseminated in compliance with the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes chapter 13, except the Council will not
charge the City for any costs of copying the documents or data for a period offive (5) years from
the termination of this agreement.
. 3.4 Term of Agreement. This agreement is effective upon execution and shall remain in effect
until December 31, 1999.
3.5 Audit. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the
Council relevant to this agreement shall be subject to examination by the City, the Legislative
Auditor, and the State Auditor for a period of six (6) years after the term of this agreement.
IN WITNESS \VHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly
authorized representatives.
CITY OF HOPKINS METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
By: By:
James 1. Solem
Its: Regional Administrator
Date: Date:
hopkO I. doc
e
- 2-
EXHIBIT A
-_ SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SPECIFICA TTONS
This study will be performed by the Council, through Metro Transit, and the consultant(s), in
cooperation with the cities of Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Saint Louis Park (the "3-city" group).
TASK 1: DATA COLLECTION
1.1 Express Bus Service (Route productivity by segment and time of day)
1.1A 1-394 Express Service-Routes 71, 73, 74, 75, 52M
LIB 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 Dia1-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, [-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.
RESPONSIB fLITIES
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.
e TASK 3: SERVICE AL TERNA TIVES
3.1 Express Bus Service
A-I
3.1A 1-394 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-RidelParatransit 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.
RESPONSIBIT.JTfES
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 the 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.
RESPONSIB !LITIES
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 1-394 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 T AZ data.
e
A-2
TASK 6: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
". 6.1 Prepare an Implementation Plan including time schedule, plan offinance,
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 m~lmplementation.
TASK 7: MEETINGSIPRESENT A TIONS
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, I 0 ~ Present service and facility alternatives to three
e 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.
e
A-3
.
-
- II. Express Services
-
A. Summary Observations
I 1. Express services traveling along the fastest and most direct route are overwhelmingly desired by
-_ riders.
It 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.
It . 3. In a number of cases, service on the ]-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 1-394 corridor reported that riding the bus (from park and ride lots) was as fast ifnot faster
It that driving during rush hour.
. 5. Because there are only a few trips available, passengers report that consistency and on-time
It performance are essential.
It 6. The number of riders on local portions of express service in the westernmost portions of the study
It area is low enough that small buses would be sufficient to meet current needs.
It 7. Express rider inconveniences are created by: infrequent headways; slow or unavailable midday
It 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.
It .;-
--'~ - ...--. ..
It ..._--,
:,.
. ! ., _ H'IJY 5S.~,/ _ . -,-
< ..
.. 1'--- ....c
.. --0
It .'" l8 l- 394
.". -0:; o.
:e -= l'-
::l ('t)
0 r--
E --0
It >- ltl
a. 0
" 0::
~ .....
q-
" (J) c.-
':::J'
67' q- . ",,"&~=:=-~"-'"""
iii "4__~ -!.. - . _-......,..~. U -
" r . '-^~~efOnka -
" :'-i
~ 1()
" ---
- -
iii I,
It 10 Average Dai(v
" ~~ Passengers:
iii .~.-'" - 995
iii Month(v Expenses:
" / 64 ! $90,261.18
It '\...._~._._~.<<".!, , Average Subsidy "
per Passenger:
It " $3.17 .~-
It }, /
IN -1_ J-=-- E
. Y : ,
s
"
" IV Route within acceptable subSidy range SW Express Route Performance
' ,Hopkins
. (Route 671
M1nnelonka N RoU\e above subsidy Threshold level prior to Figure 2
:e 51 lOUIS Park compeliliva contracting (Routes 64 and 70)
Note~ Routes are only shown exlend~ilg 1 mile beyond Study Area borders. Profiles are from mIXed limB pBriods 1 0 1 i 1\IlI1l"'J
, ~
.
Ii DRAFT-PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY :l€ SAINT LOUIS PARK :l€ MINNETONKA ~ HOPKINS pAGE 3
t LSA Design, Inc. January 3, 1998
t
.
.
.
.
B. Improvements
· 1. Reconfigure express services to a simplified, hierarchical trunk and feeder route structure around
· major facilities, with peak period small bus feeders and pulse dial-a-ride services in less dense
!e 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 1-394 express service and apply savings to a small bus all day frontage road circulator
. plan with enhanced frequency and utility for midday trip needs alolilg 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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ,i. . u. u
. ;
.. ,'~HW'5~ "
· '74' 75 m "7-.tI ' . ..' , ,. " .
f,~ ~--~ !,f"~, 76 :, . ,
· ....." " .... .. . J 0'. . ' ,.., . 73 - . '94
"' . . . ~.r,'" "l-" '.' . . _ ,
... ~""",-"~~"",-~~",",:.~,:.ciI''''7""t''-.~''1.;'"",''~ ,~~ ~.,.- ~ ' .' ~ ~. ~ ':0- 1- 3 __
r-,.".....- , \d ,. .~ __ "',,'
, /'. '" "'71:., ....~,
. ' \'.I"d' '\]),,:,-'U
.1CJ' ,
.. r:::. ! Sf.' Louis Park
I!
.. ~ J " .... .. .
. /" - ','
r,.,.""........... -.0...".,.., ....!.._,"'._-~.. . . -,"
.. . 'J ,. ".Minnetonka .' , -p\\l.Cl
.. . '..- " ~rjj.Qf",
.. ..... ("-~' ~ '.,.'H' ""':k'~" .. ~..,.G ' ,
. 71 . . '1 ., O.p In,S./.,. ,./
.. , ~..... s\.ate \-\~, . . "-',:;;';'0""_.
.. . .
- '1" -'-"'< - ' Average Daily
..... "'.......'J
.. /' Passengers:
--'" 2833
--
.. lvfonth~v Expenses:
$274,754.27
- Average Subsidy .__'_','_
.. per Passenger:
.. .J, . $2.91 .... -
.. W""'.l~E !
.. ,~ .~
~V , ]
.. s
.
It.A 'Hopkins N ~~o~~e7ii~i,~;,G7G4~j~b'eSUbsidY range I -394 Express Route Performance
.- Mlnnelonka N Route above Threshold Level 2 Weekday Service Figure 3
': S1. Lows Park (Routes 76} _ 1 0 2 MIC5-
It Nole~ Routes are only shDwn extending 1 mile bevond Study Area borders. Profiles are from October 1996 -------,
· DRAFr~PHASE I EXECUTNE SUMMARY :It: SAINT LOUIS PARK ~ MINNETONKA :It: HOPKINS PAGE 4
· LSA Design, Inc. January 3, ] 998
..
.
t
.
~ III. Suburban Local Services
t A. Summary Observations
. 1. Route head ways 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 ]egible 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 medica] 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 Mobi]ity 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. [mprovemen ts
I. 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.
. I.
Of'
. ;i
. . 'H'N)' 55- .'.
.
:- '-. f""7"" .'~' ,1~3~~
_0"'
1
. i
. ~ .
. " uis Park
~
. ""'" I "
CD
. ""'" r
....!... I
. Minnetonka . ",..sO
i
, ,. gpt .
..... .!
0 cu"
. .....
. ~ state \-\'ll'i 1.
I
. --- .
. Average Daily
. Passengers:
. ~. 56
It ivfonthly Expenses:
$13,900,78
. Average Subsidy
',.~-.~
. per Passenger:
. " $7.65
A-
I w~ , ,
,I=-- E
. Y
"
It
:e Hopki ns IV Route privalely contracted: subsidy not available Suburban Local Route Performance
(Route 661
Minnetonka /\/ Raute In demonslralion period Figure 4
. . SI. Louis Park (Route 614)
Nole: R oules are only shoym exlending 1 mils beyond Study Area borders. Profiles are from mixed lime periods. 0 2 M111:J.
.. ----,
. DRAFT-PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY :JC SAINT LOurs PARK :JC MINNETONKA :JC HOPKINS PAGE 5
. LSA Design, Inc. January 3, 1998
t
.
.
t IV. 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
:e 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,
t 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
t prefer a more direct, highway-oriented trip between suburban origins/destinations and downtown
t Minneapolis.
4. Multiple branches of the same route (different ending points or route segments) make routes
t difficult to understand or inconvenient for riders not traveling to the specific locations served by
t the route diversions.
t 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
t percentage of total Urban Local trips range between I % and 7% depending upon the route,
t B. Improvements
t 1. Design services to fulfill only one or two of the above mentioned trip needs.
t 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 regu lar route.
t 3. Provide passengers with safe, secure, comfortable, and convenient places to board the bus,
. transfer between buses, and obtain system information.
.
.
.
. ". HIoVY!5-5., "
:e
.
It
It
/~
tL-.J
.q-
(J).
"'<t"
,
MinnetOnka
. ..- . ~ ....
0
...-'-
~ 1
:c sta\e \\~
Average Daily
F/ i. ~!J Passengers:
" 14,745
~ Monthly Expenses:
""\ 1-1
$667,431.55
. : ~~ .,-.;;- ~ r Average Subsidy !'.;;.....L..........:...'._....:...-
. " per Passenger:
X $1.35
. . )
""--1 ,.:.=.r- ~
. '{ I'.
s
.
:e .,.' Hopkins /V Route W11h,n acceptable subsidy '''''ge (Roules 9, 17) Urban Local Route Performance
MI nnelonka N Route above Th",shold Le,el1 (Route S)
Sl. Louis Park IV Route abo.e Threshold Le,el 2 (Route 12) Saturday Service Figure 5
. Nole: Routes are only shemn extending 1 mil. beyond SIL.<ly A",a borders. Profiles are from October 19>16 , 0 , 2 MilC5
,
. DRAFT-PHASE I EXECUTNE SUMMARY :t€ SAINT LOUIS PARK at: MINNETONKA at: HOPKINS pAGE 6
t LSA Design, Inc. January 3. 1998
.
.
.
t
t v. Peak Period Replacement Services
t A. Summary Observations
t 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
t greater portion of the trip.
. 3. Passengers also expressed a desire to have these routes run during the midday.
t 4. These routes are primarily used for work related commute and reverse commute trips.
t 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.
. ,..
'.
-.,.
p.'. ~I" ' 'Hwy 55~, ',de. ..",-'
.. ..II. 'i,"
i .. ---
.. "
.. l<=~""-~ ' I~ 394
"631 .
. I
l .......
\
. l( .~ ..
. '~6'3 F ... .~ .
-'
. ,
"
.......!..: ~~~~ .".". "
. Minnetonka ,,- ",' .~\~
. " ,<. .~~r;j.
..- .n.
0' ~;~ '
. ..-' H()pktrJs
. ~ sa\e \"\~ ! ' - ..
I ..
.
. Average Dai (v
. ,-
Passengers:
. 669
. Month(v Expenses:
. $57,071.58
. '-'" Average Subsh~v '.:_~, ".
per Passenger:
. N $2.58 .. ' . ;: ~ .
,l
. w-{)_e i-
t "
s .i.
.
:. Hap~in s N Route wilhin acceplable subSidy range Peak Replacement Route Performance
(Route 63)
Minn8lan~a N Route Bbove Threshold Level 1 Figure 6
, Sl. Louis Park (Route 59)
. Nole: Roules are only shown extending 1 mile beyond StUdy Area barners, promes are fram OCtober 1995 , 0 , " 2 MI~
~ -
. DRAFT-PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3C SAINT LOUIS PARK 3C MINNETONKA 3C HOPKINS PAGE 7
. LSA Design, Inc. January 3, 1998
.
.
.
~
I VI. Paratransit (Metro Mobility and Hop-A-Ride) and Community-Based Transportation Providers
~ (Senior Organizations, Social Service Agencies, and Religious Organizations)
~
:e 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.
~ s. 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.
I 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 L1ses 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
I 1. Community/social services/welfare to work demand response services
I 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.
l
I
)
.
.
~
~
I
~
~
I
l
l
I
I
:e
l
I DRAFT-PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~ SAINT LOUIS PARK :ff: MINNETONKA :t€ HOPKINS PAGE 8
, LSA Design, Inc. January 3, ] 998
,
,
.
t VIII. Activity Centers
t Activity centers include: Community centers, social service centers, municipal facilities, religious
t institutions, schools, libraries, and retail centers.
t A. Summary Observations
.. 1. Service by multiple providers to the Ridgedale area and other retail centers is not delivered in a
t coordinated manner.
t 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 1/4 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.
t 5. Some activity centers have site design and circulation issues or are in locations that prevent
t transit from servicing them effectively.
B. Improvements
1. Remedy transit access and circulation issues at major activity centers.
2. Involve activity center representatives in the transit planning process to ensure that service
configuration and hours effectively meet the needs of intended patrons.
, -, .'.'--"
-- - : . .. ,
~ !
" !
t J *
. 't- iC' - .
, ~ i c -* ....:.' -- -
0 ~
ri" -:~, * 't
t *-
, ! . .
~
: ~ 1- .'~
, ~,
x... "
<.~ >~,t . p ~
,- . ,
. 4 - ti- I', -, ,
: ',i,
. ..# l!l .. ~ .'
. ''l ,i~
I " . 'tr-'~ - .
-. . f
L -,t ~ t ill
-"~j~-- --, -lie: ~
.!....
;1". , ;;;
~ . of , lfj- "*' ~. =
1 1 ! .; -'4 '" - t.
., ; . r-
,. . ...., -'. ~ ~
L "'~ t ,. ~-
'!'.(
t !
n
,t h~ ."
.",.
,
~~ '" ,
t 1
. ::
" i~
. ~~ oj(-
:" ,-;:. .' .--
.
. N
,iI..
. W-1 I~F.
Y
. .
~
:e ' Hopkins ~~ Commun~ty Center ! Religious I nslilulion NOTE~ G'~n syrnbCJ.ls r!3'ptl;!5l"rll ElcHvrty t:;l"l1t~B Wlthll"j Activity Centers
, Schaal -ilpprollimldely 1500 fcc1 01 MclIn Transit routes. Red symbols
Mjnnelonka ,t Day Care ill Library reprc:seClt facilities more ttlBl1 1500 Im:t from Melro Transit Figure 7
foolc5. The schools- shown north of tt1e study area in red
. St. laui s Park ~ Municipal lit Retail 1!re selilicc~d by Plymouth Melrollnk roule:; 0 2 '"~
..... -. -
. DRAFT-PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3€ SAINT LOUIS PARK 3€ MINNETONKA :J€ HOPKINS PAGE 9
. LSA Design, Inc. January 3, ] 998
.
.
,
IX. Major EmployerslReverse Commute
A. Summary Observations
l. 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 20 I 0, 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
carpool/vanpool coordinators to increase ridesharing; 79% would be willing to provide employee
information to a localized carpooIlvanpool coordinator for the purpose ofrideshare 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/facil ities.
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
. Q
iI
'---~. . J!;
"'....~), ~t: L,i- t:1i;IJ.:' , _.... ;~ .;.
.,1: ?ofIc~~'==~'0-V
,..! - '"&'; .;:. ',- '.
~
..
" ~
"
)
w-,\}- E
V
S
. ' ;.,; Hopkins <) 50-99 Empayees h. 500-999 Employees * 10,000+ Empoyeeii Major Employers
Minnetonka 'f' 100--249 Employees "'\ 1000-4999 Emp'o~es N E>press Roule Figure 8
.: Sl louis P<I''k . 250-499 Empluyees . 5000-9999 Emp'o~.. N Non-Expres. Roote 1 0 1 1. ,..11""
~
DRAFT-PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY :II: SAINT LOUIS PARK :II: MINNETONKA :II: HOPKINS PAGE 10
LSA Design, Inc. January 3, 1998
.
, X. Transit Facilities
I A. Summary Observations
I l. Park and ride use is heaviest at the most identifiable lots, the lots with the fastest express service,
I and lots with the greatest number of passenger conveniences.
'e 2. Large park and ride facilities directly contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of suburban
I express servIces.
, 3. Kiss-and-Ride and Park-and-Pool increase at identifiable transit facilities with adequate capacity.
I 4. Many passengers are currently waiting for buses at inconvenient, uncomfortable, or unsafe
I 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
I passenger waiting areas.
) 5. Metro Transit has $1 million in FederallSTEA grants available for shelter improvement projects.
I Accessing this money for projects within the study area would require a 20% local match.
I 6. Public transit facilities can create an image of reliability and permanence for transit in suburban
I environments where buses themselves are only occasionally present.
) 7. Southwestern corridor park and rides are generally not large enough to be effective as point
I sources for generating sufficient ridership volumes or creating an image of permanence and
I reliability.
I 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
I to be taken advantage of.
I
I
. I ... j
--
I -I
I i - .,.
I I
. !.. .- "
r." c,.
:. 'il.
1-
'-. "
. .
,- ~Z" Omw,P..-I..-d Rij. FoCi...
. A ,'..--- ._-A--' -A '. '--a. -.& - ....-.-..~
. ..
...._ Ulhmn - -, ,--
~. ;~h.
. . . .. ..A,_as).~!I'_I!;l'
. G . . ~ ...
. ,-.J ~rD&'
Stu:le-Sl& "
"'Wri;i!I BIYd ~ '\-~.--.
. ." Ror GIJliW.FIOId, .. ...
Co 611& ~.-
Eo ... ..'
. \In...brhEl~ ill....... ' '-:;:::.." ~. &.
" ... .J!. -":' :; . .-"; ...." T_mAw.
. ~ .-" ,.., - .. .~, .. ,-.,-
· ~-!i .. :: . #-'-!~~f/.
. ~~ . -~- . .-J
--,*,,& .ffi~..So .-..
, _, ~Hwy7l10l Btt::ill:1iar-6I<<I :~ '.'. .
. 4;." . -'" ''''-
. " a
,"_, ",Hii_1&" - ; ---
l -tic ,,' ~ v.....lf;d " ., ~ '1'
.. ,. . ;!'- . j~'
l 'J,~ ~
~ '..,..
or ,- J.. .. -- ,. .~; --<- .~( -~'.: -.?"-"
"'a ., .
l -. .,
.. .
-I.. ! . i.
l . 1~.: . -,- .. ...."-
. '- -
0
. ....... .,,_.
---,. ,,-,-'~"-".'
. N '. _.,.. --.. .
II ~
w--q:J~ E --J.. 1
. \'
l s
.
:e Hopkins ~1j Fl'lirv~ewlB:l;l;'lsjOf A Seth [;1 SynDgoglJ1l' [fi GYitliilm's fietd .A 1-tvoI'/ 1Nine.h.iU SW Park and Riders
Minr,.etmk8 .A Co. Rd. 60iMlnrlelonka . Wm;lWood Lutheran Church . Hwy 7fT e;(os . Hwy 711 01.Krnor1 Figure 9
St Louis Park . S!ecle Sr jMinrlellln~a . Co. Rd. 317th Aile. S .... ~~''hnnetnf1 ~I'IILousioma A ~-)g.. Par~ and Ride
, " 1 2 Mltm
l NOTE: lnrlle symbols d.note pllk u:d rid. h1oililiO'S. Small., s;Yfr'lb~ls c1 th. s.llIm_ color IInd shllpt' r.pr.urlt home loa;ltj"ns of US.fS It thos. fllOllill.~ ~ ~
l DRAFT-PHASE I EXECUTWE SUMMARY ;}€ SAINT LOUIS PARK ;}€ MINNETONKA :Jl: HOPKfNS PAGE 11
. LSA Design, Inc. January 3, 1998
l
.
,
.
. B. Improvements
It L 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
It effectiveness. Major facilities could include:
~ . Highway 7 corridor dedicated transitway: 1-494 to Highway laO/downtown Minneapol is
- HOY access improvements at various locations
~ Transit stations at:
~ . Highway IOO/Excelsior or Highway IOOlHighway 7
~ - Downtown Hopkins
I) . 1-494/Highway 7
~ . CR 73 park and ride improvements or Plymouth Road Transit Center expansion
'" - Park and ride expansion and daycare center at the Louisiana A venue 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
It community residents and to make transfers more convenient. Minor facilities could include:
. Neighborhood Stops/Shelter improvements
It - Trails & Transit integrated signage concept
, - Activity center site design improvements for access and circulation
-
. ..
!t
~
~
!t Plymouth Road A
:. "- Transil Cenler General Mills Golden Valley Lutheran
" ....
- '.\ ,yo ~J;;-;' A.. . .. ..
. ...
Wayzata Park and Ride ~? . Louisiana "'venue ~
~ 6 .?; CR 73 Sooth
Ricgedale
~ Shopping WeslYtOod LLdhera~
iii Center .s . ... Seth HSynagogue
"
., " '1'
Minnetonka Blvd Il. Steele 51. & ffl. ..~~ ~~.
~ c Louisianq,& MinnelOlll<a .
Northome..... Minnetonka Blvd .. ~ ~
II) ... 4- .... .' Roy GlJilliam's. Field 29 m,p
" Co Rd 60 & !eb. e!l '. 4 "6 . ..
II) Minnelonka Blvd ~ If ~.. . ~~7& er"
II) " . ... TexasAvenue~!'l ..
" City Hall (Deephaven) ~..e.'~. !t'Jm.~~...!1 ..
'. ' .
, .. '';' .,. .. '" "...
Co,Rd3&
~ KMart . Fairview Ave 8 : 7th Ave. So.
).. (Hwys 7 & 1 at) 0 ';J Excelsior Blvd
, A '~.' l:l
"
Highway 7 & " .
, ,".\
Vinehill Rd 0
, , ,.,
"
, ,." ~~
,
, N
11
, W~::)",,"E
, 11
.
.
:e .' Hopkins o Bus eench (by US Bench) NOTE: The par" and ride facilities along 1-394 Transit Amenities
all have o...IstQm bus sh~ters and benches.
Minnetonka ~ Bus Shelter Figure 10
. '.' St Louis Park ... P..-k and Ride Facility , " 1 2 ~Ies
,
, DRAFT-PHASE r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3€ SAINT LOUrs PARK n: MINNETONKA X HOPKINS PAGE 12
. LSA Design, Inc. January 3, 1998
.
" ----
-. -- ---