Report template · Web viewThe external committee recommended and final award to fund the budget at...

2020 Public Transit Solicitation Summary2/26/2020

Table of Contents

2020 Public Transit Solicitation Summary................................................................................................................1

Two Year Operating Budgets....................................................................................................................................3

Evaluation Process................................................................................................................................................3

Rural Systems...................................................................................................................................................3

Small Urban......................................................................................................................................................7

New Service..............................................................................................................................................................9

Evaluation Process................................................................................................................................................9

Applications Summary......................................................................................................................................9

Facilities and Large Cap..........................................................................................................................................19

Evaluation Process..............................................................................................................................................19

Applications Summary....................................................................................................................................19

Vehicle Replacement..............................................................................................................................................30

Evaluation Process..............................................................................................................................................30

Appendix – Scoring Criteria....................................................................................................................................31

Facilities and Large Capital Scoring Guidelines...................................................................................................32

Replacement Vehicles........................................................................................................................................34

Two Year Operating BudgetsTwo Year Program Operating budgets were developed with the guidance to keep the level of service constant (no increase in service hours) and an OTAT estimated annual inflationary rate of 3.45 percent.

Evaluation Process

Step 1. Transit Project Manager Review. All applications were due to MnDOT from the Greater Minnesota transit agencies via BlackCat by July 15, 2019. At this point transit project managers were given the task of conducting an in-depth review for their respective systems. Considerations included:

Comparison of request to historic spending patterns both overall and by budget line item. The budgets were reviewed by for any line item variations in excess of the inflationary rate. Written

justification was provided by the System to explain budget line item variations. Determination of eligibility for activities identified. Consideration of immediate needs as identified in recently completed Five-Year Transit System Plans for

rural systems and Transit Development Plans for small urban systems. Considerationof known initiatives and challenges for the individual systems.

Transit Project Managers provided comments and recommendations to the Operating Grant Review Committee

Step 2: Operating Grant Review Committee. A three-person Operating Grant Review Committee was established to provide a second round of review and to make recommendations to the OTAT Office Director. The review committee considered the comments and recommendations provided by the TPM’s with added focus on those systems with the greatest proposed increase in operating funding levels. The objective of the review committee was to assure consistency of review across all systems to confirm that funding levels proposed and recommended were justified by the application narrative.

Step 3: Final Review and Approval by OTAT Director. The comments and recommendations of the transit project managers and the review committee were presented to the OTAT Director for consideration. Final awards were set by the Director.

Rural Systems

Arrowhead

Arrowhead’s overall two year budget request of $18,340,000 was 13 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The main issue with this budget request was how to fund four mobility managers. The decision was that the mobility managers are not part of public transit and will be considered in the implementation of the RTCC’s. The external committee recommended and final award to fund the budget at $18,077,617.which is a 5 percent increase.

Report Title 3

Becker County

Becker County’s overall two year budget request of $1,106,118 was 2 percent lower annually than their 2019 budget. No major changes or budget observations. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this.

Brown County

Brown County’s overall two year budget request of $1,671,533 was 6 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. No major changes or budget observations. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this.

Cedar Valley Services

Cedar Valley’s overall two year budget request of $7,126,725 was 7 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The line item cost projections rates were higher than historical amounts. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this.

Central Community Transit

CCT’s overall two year budget request of $7,560,009 was 13 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund and final award as set at the requested budget level. This was based on CCT’s recent merger into a three county system.

City of Brainerd

Brainerd’s overall two year budget request of $2,474,821 was 22 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund and final award as set at the requested budget level. This was based on Brainerd’s proposed addition of a full time staff person.

City of Fosston

Fosston’s overall two year budget request of $190,343 was 26 percent higher than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund and final award as set at the requested budget level. This was based on Fosston’s explanation of increased staffing and insurance costs.

City of Granite Falls

Granite Falls’ overall one year budget request of $146,400 was 2 percent higher than their 2019 budget. Granite Falls will be merging with Prairie Five in spring 2020. The external committee recommendation was to fund the requested budget level for the first year.

Report Title 4

City of Hibbing

Hibbing’s overall two year budget request of $926,810 was 8 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this..

City of Morris

Morris’s overall two year budget request of $994,249 was 11 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this..

City of Winona

Winona’s overall two year budget request of $1,943,470 was 24 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. Though the amount awarded is largely responsive to the request, there are elements of the proposed budget that exceeded historic spending patterns. The external committee recommendation was to fund $1,843,434.

Faribault-Martin

Prairie Lakes’ overall two year budget request of $2,515,900 was 13 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this. Hubbard County

Hubbard’s overall two year budget request of $1,063,783 was 53 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The application does not provide enough justification for the increase in operating budget proposed. The external committee recommendation was to fund $907,000.

Isanti County

Isanti’s overall two year budget request of $ 5,354,330 was 49 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. Historic spending patterns do not support the budget increase proposed for 2020 and 2021. The external committee recommendation was to fund $4,507,656.

Minnesota River Valley

Minnesota River Valley’s overall two year budget request of $1,777,592 was 11 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this. Paul Bunyan

Paul Bunyan’s overall two year budget request of $4,114,000 was 16 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this. Prairie Five

Prairie Five’s overall two year budget request of $5,612,066 was 28 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this.

Report Title 5

Productive Alternatives

Productive Alternatives’ overall two year budget request of $3,874,675 was 3 percent lower annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this. Rainbow Rider

Rainbow Rider’s overall two year budget request of $7,493,917 was 57 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The majority of the proposed increase was awarded to support implementation of the recently completed salary study. The external committee recommendation was to fund $7,400,000

SEMCAC

SEMCAC’s overall two year budget request of $2,741,176 was 12 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund $2,729,372.

SMOC

SMOC’s overall two year budget request of $965,112 was 13 percent lower annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this..

Three Rivers

Three Rivers’ overall two year budget request of $8,429,721 was 57 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. Award reflected continued growth along with personnel cost increases. Proposed additional cost increases were not well defined. The external committee recommendation was to fund $8,104,301.

Trailblazer

Trailblazer’s overall two year budget request of $13,283,000 was 33 percent higher than their 2019 budget. Committee approve $12,983,000 due to building lease not being eligible in operation application.

Tri CAP

Tri CAP’s overall two year budget request of $5,922,486 was 4 percent higher than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this.

Tri Valley

Tri Valley’s overall two year budget request of $6,145,654 was 18 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this.

United

Report Title 6

United’s overall two year budget request of $7,544,194 was 14 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this.

Vine

Vine’s overall two year budget request of $1,866,019 was 37 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. Historic spending patterns do not support the budget increase proposed for 2020 and 2021. Committee approved increasing operating budget to meet 3.4% annual growth. The external committee recommendation was to fund $1,650,977.

Wadena

Wadena’s overall two year budget request of $1,866,891 was 3 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this..

Watonwan

Watonwan’s overall two year budget request of $1,026,675 was 52 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this.

Small Urban

City of Duluth Regular Route

Duluth’s overall two year budget request of $ 33,777,722 was 18 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommended to fund $33,014,792. Award reflected continued growth along with administrative cost increases.

City of East Grand Forks Regular Route

East Grand Fork’s overall two year budget request of $1,499,182 was 16 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this.

City of La Crescent Regular Route

La Crescent’s overall two year budget request of $746,453 was 8 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this. City of Mankato Regular Route

Mankato’s overall two year budget request of $5,943,411 was 6 percent lower annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this..

Report Title 7

City of Moorhead Regular Route

Moorhead’s overall two year budget request of $5,990,842 was 22 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this. City of Rochester Regular Route

Rochester’s overall two year budget request of $24,750,000 was 20 percent higher annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommended to fund $24,160,505. Award reflected continued growth along with administrative cost increases

City of St Cloud Regular Route

St Cloud’s overall two year budget request of $ 17,907,504 was 5 percent lower annually than their 2019 budget. The external committee recommendation was to fund the amount requested. The final award reflects this..

Small Urban Dial A Ride Programs (ADA Paratransit)

The external committee recommended to fund the requested amount for all requests with the exception of Mankato. Mankato’s funded amount was adjusted because the historic spending pattern does not support the proposed budget increase.

Report Title 8

New ServiceThe new service solicitation addressed proposed increases to service hours. Awards for increased operations were included in the systems’ 2020-2021 operational budgets. The awards may also include additional capital in support of the additional service hours.

Evaluation Process

Systems completed the application for each funding request. Each service proposal is scored based on the scoring criteria by the review committee made up of OTAT staff. The review team was made up of OTAT staff from the Planning and Programming Units.

The proposals were scored and ranked based on the published scoring criteria. OTAT asked systems that submitted multiple proposals to identify their top ranked project. Each of the projects was reviewed by a OTAT Committee made up of program unit and planning unit staff. Each project was reviewed by at least three reviewers.

After ranking the projects, the scoring variations were evaluated and in cases where similar scores existed between two projects, priority was given to funding system’s number 1 priority project.

Reviewers scored the applications (See Scoring Criteria in Appendix) in the following areas:

Plan Alignment criteria Performance Promotions

Risk was scored by OTAT and not by the reviewers.

Applications Summary

Arrowhead

Arrowhead submitted 11 projects totaling $1,378,100.

1. Mountain Iron “Dial A Ride” (DAR) Weekday Expansion2. Grand Rapids DAR Expansion3. Mountain Iron DAR Weekend Expansion 4. Deer River DAR New Service5. Two Harbors DAR Expansion6. St Louis Hwy 169 Service –Hibbing7. Cloquet DAR Expansion8. Two Harbors DAR increased Capacity

Report Title 9

9. St Louis Hwy 169 – Hibbing10. Saint Louis County Route C1 Route Deviation11. Grand Rapids DAR 3 Expansion

Some Key Comments:

All Arrowhead proposals have the same performance projections, suggesting that there was never any analysis done at the new service level. It is all aggregated. The need is well established.

Proposed cost per hour 40% over current system average cost. Good description of need. Promotions very basic.

Proposed new service is identified in the system 5-year plan. Based on assessment new service would be expected to perform greater than or equal to 5 Passengers per hour within two years of service initiation. New service promotion strategy includes a brief and general summary of the approach.

Arrowhead may consider a promotion strategy that incorporates other languages, or if there are service groups, clinics that may distribute information to attract new ridership. With Arrowhead, plan alignment might be easier to score on a scale if the plan prioritized new service.

Central Community Transit (CCT)

CCT submitted 1 project for $209,500.

1. Kimball – Litchfield Day Activity Center (DAC)

Some Key Comments:

Demand response expanded hours; requires increase 1.25 FTE and new class 400 vehicle; identified in plan with RTCC

Proposed new service is identified in the system 5-year plan. Based on assessment new service would be expected to perform greater than or equal to 5 Passengers per hour within two years of service initiation. New service promotion strategy includes a detailed description of the steps to be taken to promote the new service.

Contracted service will allow for additional access for all. Don't understand the operating cost request, given the contracted service. Cost recovery=cost per hour. Can we cover the capital cost only?

Contract service High ridership human services client route. Using RTCC's as part of marketing strategy

Duluth

Duluth submitted 2 projects for $811,700.

1. Increased Evening and Weekend Frequency – Route 12. Downtown Circulator

Some Key Comments:

Report Title 10

Need is established. Promotional activities are very specific and geared toward this specific change in service.

Not specific on how many bus operators (FTE's?). Monthly monitoring for ridership levels for new service. Passengers per hour a little lower than average.

Proposed new service is identified in the system Transit Development Plan. Based on assessment new service would be expected to perform greater than or equal to 5 Passengers per hour within two years of service initiation. New service promotion strategy includes a detailed description of the steps to be taken to promote the new service.

2020 fixed route; additional hours weekday and weekend; it appears that this would require additional staff but no FTEs were identified; would NOT need a vehicle

Faribault/Martin

Faribault/Martin submitted 1 projects for $96,000.

1. Evening Service Expansion - Fairmont

Some Key Comments:

202 demand response hours; expansion of weekday hours from 6-10 pm; wonder if coordinating with District 6 equity findings may help with promotion; states no increase in FTE, existing drivers will be used, but wonder how that could work for their FTEs?; requires a new class 200 vehicle


Extension of an existing route, adding night hours. Survey results show 83% want the week night route. This would be utilizing a Class 200 vehicle. Assessment of demand is anecdotal. More information on

survey method/results would be useful.

Fosston

Fosston submitted 1 project for $34,000.

1. Saturday Service Expansion - Fosston

Mankato

Mankato submitted 5 projects for $ 1,777,900.

1. Increased Capacity Route 1A2. Increased Capacity Mobility Bus Service3. Evening Service – Routes 2,6,3,54. Increased Capacity Mobility Bus Service5. Spare Bus

Report Title 11

Some Key Comments:

High Trip denials due to capacity constraint. Collaboration with stakeholders that have identified the increase as a need is a great promotion plan. Low passengers per mile.

Need is well documented. Requires adding not only drivers but additional supervisory staff.

Prairie Five

Prairie Five submitted 2 projects for $ 262,000.

1. Clinton-Graceville Expansion of Service2. Benson Deviated Route Expansion

Some Key Comments:

2021 deviated route; would service promotion be conducted in 2020 to gather input?; suggest coordinating with MnDOT health equity work to identify opportunities to engage communities; requires additional 1.0 FTE, a class 400 bus, and facility improvements


Surveys completed by their TAC and RDC's to understand transit needs, but not in the 5 year plan or any other plan.

Need is well documented. This is identified as a high priority in the plan. Proposal CPH 17% over system avg. Good description of need. Well articulated promotions plan

Rochester

Rochester submitted 4 projects for $2,848,000.

1. West Park and Ride Service2. 75th Street NW Park and Ride Service 3. Service Increases to Existing Park and Rides4. Expanded Geographic Coverage

Some Key Comments:

Confusing Application. Most of the information pertained to a new park and ride facility versus the park and ride transit service to the new location. Did not receive enough information finalizing the park and ride location.

2020 fixed route; does NOT require additional FTE or vehicles; does require facility improvements to park & ride; would like more detail about where people are traveling from and efforts to encourage people to walk/bike to stop, and efforts to improve ped/bike facilities nearby?

Report Title 12

Not detailed description of new service request. Same Promotion plan in all applications. Rochester included all STIP vehicles, not just 2021 needs. Need better explanation for funding breakdown.

References Rochester Transit Development plan, but doesn't elaborate beyond that. Same promotion plan in all applications. Shelter & bus stop sign needed. Application is not clear at first what is exactly needed. Shelter & Bus stop sign needed, would like to see better denial records or documentation on service requests.

SEMCAC

SEMCAC submitted 3 projects for $462,000.

1. Caledonia Route Service expansion2. Chatfield Route Service expansion3. Kasson Route Service Expansion

Some Key Comments:

2021 demand response; additional weekday hours; promotion in coordination with WSU; and consultant support; requires additional 1.0 FTE and class 400 or 500 bus

Denials documented, stakeholder engagement in 2018 explained nicely and marketing materials are elaborate.

It is actually $100,000 for vehicle (depending on class) and $58,000 for annual operating. At a projected three passengers per hour, not sure that the increased ridership justifies the cost. It certainly wouldn't justify the Class 500. Quantifying the number of denials would be useful.

SMART/Cedar Valley

SMART submitted 1 project for $114,000.

1. Austin Preschool/Fair Service

Some Key Comments:

Must make sure that fair service is not charter service Promoting the new service with private groups along with interested stakeholders. Denials for school

students high. 2020 deviated route; additional service hours during school year; requires .5 FTE and class 400 bus

Three Rivers

Three Rivers submitted 2 projects for $133,330.

1. Faribault Saturday Demand Response service expansion2. Northfield-Faribault Route

Some Key Comments:

Report Title 13

2020 deviated route; expanded hours based on public involvement; wonder who didn't / wasn't able to respond; for promotion consider coordinating with D6 equity work and service organizations to advertise the service; requires 2.0 FTE for operations; no new vehicles or facilities; Unclear how performance / recovery was calculated


Correcting incorrect data from denials, good to see corrections being made. Marketing to specific groups and the broad public.

cost per hour 20% over system average

Trailblazer

Trailblazer submitted 2 projects for $600,000.

1. Wright County Added Capacity (2 buses) 20202. Wright County Added Capacity (2 buses) 2021

Some Key Comments:

[Not Full Cost ($83/hr) The current denial rate makes for a compelling argument for new service in Wright County. 2021 demand response; expansion of service building off 2020 increase; coordinate with D3 equity

interviews with service organizations (not yet scheduled); requires increase in 5.5 FTEs

Tri CAP

TriCAP submitted 5 projects for $340,057.

1. Melrose Service 2. Mille Lacs County – Milaca to St Cloud3. Mille Lacs County – Milaca to Onamia4. Princeton Service Area Expansion5. Mille Lacs County – Milaca to Princeton

Some Key Comments:


The application is projecting lower anticipated performance costs. The costs are quite reasonable. Need has been sufficiently established. Milaca to Onamia higher system priority than Milaca to St Cloud

Report Title 14

Tri Valley

Tri Valley submitted 3 projects for $237,400.

1. Crookston Evening Service2. Thief River Falls Evening Service3. Clearwater County Additional Day

Some Key Comments:

Cost per passenger trip is more than double the average, raising concern about method for estimating costs.

TAC group suggested the additional day route. Comparing performance data to the other days would be good for future years. Passengers per hour is low.


2020 demand response; extend hours of operation to 9 pm; would like to see promotions include local employers like Digikey and strategies for outreach beyond presentations; requires .375 FTE; unsure how to score cost recovery

UCAP

UCAP submitted 1 projects for $114,000.

1. Pipestone Deviate Route

Some Key Comments:


TAC group requested route, call volumes for dial-a-ride service are high. Promotional incentives will be provided to get people riding.

Winona

Winona submitted 1 projects for $31,300.

1. Evening Dial A Ride Service

Some Key Comments:

Solid Proposal

Report Title 15

2020 demand response; expand hours from 6:15 until 9:00 pm; states connection to plan for expansion of hours, but wonder if / how it aligns with denials for timing?; for promotions coordinate with D6 equity findings; requires .35 FTE

Table 1 – New Service Scoring 2020-2021 (Awarded Projects Highlighted in Green):

Agency Application # Total Score

Duluth 1 - Increased Evening and Weekend Frequency – Route 1

9.6833

Duluth 2 - Downtown Circulator 9.4667

Rochester 2 - 75th Street NW Park and Ride Service 9.4333

Rochester 1 - West Park and Ride Service 9.4000

Rochester 3 - Service Increases to Existing Park and Ride 9.3833

UCAP 1 - Pipestone Deviate Route 9.3833

Prairie 5 2 - Benson Deviated Route Expansion 8.8750

Rochester 4 - Expanded Geographic Coverage 8.8167

Prairie 5 1 - Clinton-Graceville Expansion of Service 8.8000

SMART/Cedar Valley 1 - Austin Preschool/Fair Service 8.7333

Central Community Transit

1 - Kimball – Litchfield Day Activity Center (DAC) 8.7333

Three Rivers 1 - Faribault Saturday Demand Response service expansion

8.6167

Three Rivers 2 - Northfield-Faribault Route 8.5833

Report Title 16


Faribault Martin County 1 - Evening Service Expansion - Fairmont 8.5500

SEMCAC 1 - Caledonia Route Service expansion 8.5333

SEMCAC 2 - Chatfield Route Service expansion 8.4833

Tri-Valley 1 - Crookston Evening Service 8.4833

SEMCAC 3 - Kasson Route Service Expansion 8.4333

Trailblazer 1 - Wright County Added Capacity (2 buses) 2020 8.3667

Tri-Valley 3 - Clearwater County Additional Day 8.3667

Mankato 3 - Evening Service – Routes 2,6,3,5 8.2500

Mankato 2 - Increased Capacity Mobility Bus Service 8.2000

Trailblazer 2 - Wright County Added Capacity (2 buses) 2021 8.1667

Tri-Cap 4 - Princeton Service Area Expansion 8.1333

Tri-Cap 2 - Mille Lacs County – Milaca to St Cloud 8.0667

Tri-Cap 5 - Mille Lacs County – Milaca to Princeton 8.0667

Tri-Cap 3 - Mille Lacs County – Milaca to Onamia 8.0333

Mankato 4 - Increased Capacity Mobility Bus Service 8.0000

Arrowhead 8 - Two Harbors DAR increased Capacity 7.9500

Arrowhead 11 - Grand Rapids DAR 3 Expansion 7.8000

Report Title 17


Arrowhead 6 - St Louis Hwy 169 Service –Hibbing 7.7833

Arrowhead 2 - Grand Rapids DAR Expansion 7.7500

Tri-Cap 1 - Melrose Service 7.7167

Tri-Valley 2 - Thief River Falls Evening Service 7.6000

Winona 1 - Evening Dial A Ride Service 7.5500

Arrowhead 10 - Saint Louis County Route C1 Route Deviation 7.4500

Arrowhead 7 - Cloquet DAR Expansion 7.4500

Arrowhead 9 - St Louis Hwy 169 – Hibbing 7.4333

Arrowhead 3 - Mountain Iron DAR Weekend Expansion 7.4000

Arrowhead 1 - Mountain Iron “Dial A Ride” (DAR) Weekday Expansion

7.3500

Mankato 5 - Spare Bus 6.6000

Arrowhead 4 - Deer River DAR New Service 5.5667

Arrowhead 5 - Two Harbors DAR Expansion 5.2000

Mankato 1 - Increased Capacity Route 1A 4.5167

Report Title 18

Facilities and Large CapEligible projects may include facilities and related repairs along with other proposed capital investments of $5,000 or greater.

Evaluation Process

Each proposal was scored based on the scoring criteria by the review committee made up of OTAT staff. The reviewers were from the Planning, Data and Programming Units, along with the facilities coordinator. Each project was reviewed by at least three reviewers.

The proposals were scored and ranked based on the published scoring criteria. For projects with similar scores, consideration was given to the distribution of funding.

After ranking the projects it was determined that shovel ready projects would be given priority.

Reviewers scored the applications in the following areas:

Customer Service Operational Efficiency Safety Environmental Impacts Extend Service Life Cost Effectiveness Agency Fit

Applications Summary

Arrowhead

Arrowhead submitted 6 projects totaling $388,600.

1. GILBERT GARAGE PARKING LOT REHAB PROJECT 2. WEBSITE MODERNIZATION3. HERMANTOWN PORTABLE BUS WASH4. SANDSTONE GARAGE ROOF REPAIR5. SANDSTONE GARAGE PORTABLE BUS WASH6. SANDSTONE GARAGE PARKING LOT REPAIR

Report Title 19

Some Key Comments:

MnDOT does not have a vested interest in the Sandstone Facility

Brown County

Brown County submitted 1 project for $108,700.

1. Shop Addition

Some Key Comments:

Shovel ready

CCT

CCT submitted 1 project for $3,620,000.

1. New Willmar Facility

Some Key Comments:

Research is ongoing

Duluth

Duluth submitted 19 projects totaling $6,121,000.

1. Op Center Roof Replacement2. Operations Center Security Improvements, ADA Rehab, and Lobby Area Remodel3. Operations Center Rear Parking Lot Paving, Security, and Lighting4. Operations Center Plumbing Replacement and Interior Remodel5. Woodland Bus Turn Around/Park and Ride Rehab6. Procure and Install Passenger Amenities7. Operation Center Interior Painting of Bus Barn and Maintenance Areas8. Fat Tire Bike Racks9. Operations Center Electrical System Updates10. Demand Response Call-Back/IVR System11. Procure and Install Passenger Amenities12. Driver Simulator for Training13. Upgrade TransitMaster/Trapeze suite14. DTA Operations Center Exterior Painting15. Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Programming16. Piedmont Bus Turn Around - Park & Ride Pavement Preservation17. Passenger Amenities-Transfer Facility

Report Title 20

18. DTA Operation Center Bus Barn and Maintenance Floor Rehab19. DTA Operations Center Maintenance and Parts Room Storage Racks

Some Key Comments:

No description of amenities to be installed.

Hibbing

Hibbing submitted 2 projects totaling $ 93,500.

1. Upgrade Dispatch System2. Bus Shelters

Some Key Comments:

High cost for size of system. MnDOT will be assessing IT practices across US and will look at right sized solutions for smaller systems.

LaCrescent

LaCrescent submitted 1 project for $ 33,000.

1. Bus Shelters

Moorhead

Moorhead submitted 6 projects totaling $ 1,372,000.

1. Garage Rehab 20222. Auto Voice Announcement and Auto Vehicle Location system on fixed route buses3. shelter and concrete at the Clay County Courthouse / Clay County Family Service Center4. Upgrade 35 Signal and bus equipment for signal preemption5. Upgrade facility lighting to LED, Purchase Diesel Particulate Filter Cleaner6. Bus stop improvements

Some Key Comments:

Would like to have more detail on the shelter and proposed work.

Morris

Morris submitted 3 projects totaling $ 738,000.

1. Dispatch Software

Report Title 21

2. Garage Addition3. Fare Collection System

Some Key Comments:

High cost for size of system. MnDOT will be assessing IT practices across US. Will look at right sized solutions for smaller systems.

Prairie Five

Prairie Five submitted 1 project for $ 250,000

1. Dispatch Software/Phone App

Some Key Comments:

Potential partnership with other providers.

Rainbow Rider

Rainbow Rider submitted 6 projects totaling $ 4,837,480

1. Alexandria Garage2. Fleet Video System3. Lowry Concrete Surface Treatment4. Tube Bending Machine5. Replace Domain Server6. Replace Driver Tablets

Some Key Comments:

More information on current floor condition would be helpful.

Rochester

Rochester submitted 5 projects totaling $ 13,432,500

1. St Mary’s Transit Station Design2. St Mary Station Construction Year 13. Electric Charging Facilities4. Fare Technology Improvements5. St Mary Station Construction Year 2

Some Key Comments:

Beyond the scope of the MnDOT facilities budget. Assess proposed funding sources. What is the role of the City of Rochester.

Report Title 22

SMART/Cedar Valley

SMART/Cedar Valley submitted 3 projects totaling $ 5,520,000

1. Owatonna Facility Expansion2. Electronic Vehicle Inspection Software3. Austin Facility Expansion

St Cloud

St Cloud submitted 4 projects totaling $ 5,500,000.

1. Fare Collection2. Maintenance Equipment3. IT/Office Equipment4. Facilities Expansion

Some key comments:

Look for opportunities to address some of these needs through operating budget

Three Rivers

Three Rivers submitted 1 project for $ 85,000.

1. Upgrade dispatch/vehicle tracking software

Trailblazer

Trailblazer submitted 1 project for $ 544,000.

1. Wright County Facility Lease

Tri Cap

Tri Cap submitted 3 projects totaling $ 2,533,000.

1. Waite Park New Facility2. Waite Park Septic Upgrade3. Milaca Transit Facility

Some key comments:

Adding maintenance capacity. Conceptually designed.

Report Title 23

Tri Valley

Tri Valley submitted 1 project for $ 15,200.

1. Computer Equipment

UCAP

UCAP submitted 5 projects totaling $ 1,145,000.

1. Fare Collection2. Windom Garage Rehab3. Phone System Upgrades4. Laverne Facility Rehab5. Marshall Bus Stop Improvements

Some key comments:

Need owner to participate in improvements. Purchase from County? (1) Examine role of City (2) Good example of collaboration (3)

Table 2 - Facilities and Large Capital Scoring 2020-2023:

Agency Application # Total Points

Rainbow Rider 1 - Alexandria Garage 87

Rainbow Rider 6 - Replace Driver Tablets 85

Tri-Valley 1 - Computer Equipment 84

Moorhead 3 - shelter and concrete at the Clay County Courthouse / Clay County Family Service Center

83

Arrowhead 1 – Gilbert garage parking lot rehab project 82

UCAP 4 - Laverne Facility Rehab 81

Report Title 24

Duluth 3 - DTA Operations Center Rear Parking Lot Paving, Security, and Lighting.

80

Duluth 5 - Woodland Bus Turn Around/Park and Ride Rehab. 3950 Calvary Rd E. Duluth

80

Duluth 1- DTA Operations Center Roof Replacement. 79

Duluth 2 - DTA Operations Center Security Improvements, ADA Rehab, and Lobby Area Remodel.

79

UCAP 3 - Phone System Upgrades 79

Arrowhead 2 – Website modernization

78

Three Rivers 1 - Upgrade dispatch/vehicle tracking software 78

Arrowhead 4 – Sandstone garage roof repair

77

Moorhead 2 - Auto Voice Announcement and Auto Vehicle Location system on fixed route buses

77

Rochester 1 - St Mary’s Transit Station Design 77

La Crescent 1 - Bus Shelters 76

SMART/Cedar Valley 1 - Owatonna Facility Expansion 76

Duluth 9 - DTA Operations Center Electrical System Updates 75

Rochester 3 - Electric Charging Facilities 74

SMART/Cedar Valley 3 - Austin Facility Expansion 74

Report Title 25

St. Cloud Facilities 4 - Facilities Expansion 74

UCAP 2 - Windom Garage Rehab 74

Duluth 16 - Piedmont Bus Turn Around - Park & Ride Pavement Preservation - 3850 Haines Rd Duluth 55811

73

Tri-Cap 1 - Waite Park New Facility 73

Tri-Cap 2 - Waite Park Septic Upgrade 73

Brown County 1 - Shop Addition 72

Hibbing 2 - Bus Shelters 72

Prairie 5 1 - Dispatch Software/Phone App 72

Rainbow Rider 4 - Tube Bending Machine 72

Rochester 5 - St Mary Station Construction Year 2 72

St. Cloud Facilities 2 - Maintenance Equipment 72

Rainbow Rider 3 - Lowry Concrete Surface Treatment 71

Moorhead 5 - Upgrade facility lighting to LED, Purchase Diesel Particulate Filter Cleaner

70

SMART/Cedar Valley 2 - Electronic Vehicle Inspection Software 70

UCAP 5 - Marshall Bus Stop Improvements 70

Duluth 18 - DTA Operation Center Bus Barn and Maintenance Floor Rehab.

69

Report Title 26

Morris 2 - Garage Addition 69

Duluth 19 - DTA Operations Center Maintenance and Parts Room Storage Racks

68

St. Cloud Facilities 1 - Fare Collection 68

Duluth 6 - Procure and Install Passenger Amenities. Various locations around Duluth, Mn

67

Duluth 13 - Upgrade TransitMaster/Trapeze suite via the cloud 67

Rainbow Rider 2 - Fleet Video System 67

St. Cloud Facilities 3 - IT/Office Equipment 67

Duluth 1 - Procure and Install Passenger Amenities. Various locations around Duluth, Mn

66

Moorhead 1 - Garage Rehab 2022 66

Moorhead 4 - Upgrade 35 Signal and bus equipment for signal preemption

65

Moorhead 6 - Bus stop improvements 65

Duluth 15 - Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Programming - Various Duluth locations

64

Rainbow Rider 5 - Replace Domain Server 63

Tri-Cap 3 - Milaca Transit Facility 63

Arrowhead 5 – Sandstone garage portable bus wash 62

Report Title 27

Duluth 4 - DTA Operations Center Plumbing Replacement and Interior Remodel.

62

Rochester 4 - Fare Technology Improvements 62

Arrowhead 3 – Hermantown portable bus wash

58

Duluth 17 -Passenger Amenities-Transfer Facility. Duluth/Hermantown, Mn

58

Duluth 8 - Fat Tire Bike Racks - Duluth, MN 54

Duluth 14 - DTA Operations Center Exterior Painting. 54

Arrowhead 6 – Sandstone garage parking lot repair 53

CCT 1 - New Willmar Facility 52

Duluth 7 - DTA Operation Center Interior Painting of Bus Barn and Maintenance Areas.

52

Rochester 2 - St Mary Station Construction Year 1 51

Trailblazer 1 - Wright County Facility Lease 51

UCAP 1 - Fare Collection 50

Duluth 12 - Driver Simulator for Training 46

Duluth 10 - Demand Response Call-Back/IVR System. 45

Morris 1 - Dispatch Software 45

Morris 3 - Fare Collection System 43

Hibbing 1 - Upgrade Dispatch System 41

Report Title 28

Report Title 29

Vehicle Replacement

The vehicle solicitation addressed replacing vehicles in the current fleet. Awards for replacement vehicles were made for 2020, with programming through 2023.

Evaluation Process

Step 1. Fleet Inventory Update: To determine the eligibility of vehicles for replacement the current fleet inventories for all the systems were reviewed and updated.

Step 2. Listing of Eligible Vehicles: The OTAT data unit provided a list of eligible vehicles from which the system could choose to replace. The listing also included all the pertinent scoring factors. (See Below)

Agency ID Replacement VIN VINReplacement

YearIn Service

Date

Eligible Replacement

Year

Projected Replacement Cost Class

Vehicle Year

Condition as of

12/2018

Condition Rating

Mileage as of 12/2018

Transit Replacement Year Option (Drop Down

Selection Required)

Comments

3 1FD4E45S38DB23571 8/5/2008 2020 $88,000.00 400 2008 2.5 Marginal 195801 20205 1FDWE3FLXCDA82620 10/26/2012 2020 $88,000.00 400 2012 3.5 Adequate 85585 20231 1FDFE4FS5FDA09804 1/9/2015 2020 $88,000.00 400 2015 4.5 Good 74819 No Plans to Replace2 1FDFE4FS6HDC16575 11/30/2016 2020 $88,000.00 400 2017 4.5 Good 49169 No Plans to Replace6 1FDFE4FSXJDC06444 5/2/2018 2023 $97,000.00 400 2018 5.0 Excellent 15750 No Plans to Replace7 1FDFE4FS3KDC07369 11/15/2018 2023 $97,000.00 400 2019 5.0 Excellent 1800 No Plans to Replace In Service date needs to be corrected to 12/14/2019

Missing ID 1FDXE45S46DA40645 Missing ISD 500 2006 5.0 Excellent 1800Replaced

Do not have Agency ID or In Service Date This bus has been out of service for four years. Do not know historu or what bus this replaced.

4 1FDFE45S89DA06529 2019 9/28/2009 400 2009 2.5 Marginal 161279 Replaced This bus has not been replaced, replacing in 2020

LegendEligible for replacement in 2020Eligible for replacement in 2021Eligible for replacement in 2022Eligible for replacement in 2023Vehicle already replaced - not eligbile for replacement

Step 3. Scoring and Ranking: The requested vehicles were received for the four year time period, the submitted vehicles were scored and ranked by OTAT.

Step 4. Allocation: The vehicles were scored and ranked the funds were allocated to each vehicle in the prioritized list until the categorical funding target was reached.

Report Title 30

Appendix – Scoring Criteria

New Service Scoring Criteria FEASIBILITY (30% of score) The transit agency has sufficient staffing levels, facilities,

vehicles for current level of service. MARKET RESEARCH/ANTICIPATED PERFORMANCE (15% of score) Based on assessment

new service would be expected to perform well in terms of: Passenger Per Hour Cost Per Hour Cost Per Passenger Trip

ALIGNMENT WITH PLAN (30% of score) Proposed new service is identified in the system Five Year plan (5311), the Transit Development Plan and/or the Regional Transportation Plan (5307)

CONTRACT COMPLIANCE (15% of score) Timely Monthly Reporting State and Federal Requirements

NEW SERVICE PROMOTION (10% of Score)

Report Title 31

Facilities and Large Capital Scoring Guidelines

1. Improve customer experience

0 Points- There is no discernable impact on customer experience/level of service

1 Point-Investment may lead to a higher level of service

3 Points- There is a clear link between investment and customer experience/level of service but impact is moderate

5 Points- There is a clear link between investment and customer experience/level of service and impact would be significant

2. Improve operational efficiency

0 Points- There is no discernable impact on operational efficiency

1 Point-Investment may lead to greater operational efficiency

3 Points- There is a clear link between investment and operational efficiency but impact is moderate

5 Points- There is a clear link between investment and operational efficiency and impact would be significant

3. Improve public or employee safety

0 Points- There is no discernable impact on public or employee safety

1 Point-Investment may lead to enhancement of public or employee safety

3 Points- There is a clear link between investment and public or employee safety but impact is moderate

5 Points- There is a clear link between investment and public or employee safety and impact would be significant

4. Mitigate environmental impacts0 Points- There is no discernable impact on the environment1 Point-Investment may address identified environmental concern

Report Title 32

3 Points- There is a clear link between investment and environmental mitigation objective, but impact is moderate

5 Points- There is a clear link between investment and environmental mitigation objective and impact would be significant

5 Extend Service Life of Existing Facility

0 Points- There is no discernable impact on service life

1 Point-Investment may extend service life of the existing facility

3 Points- There is a clear link between investment and extension of service life but impact is moderate.

Report Title 33

Replacement Vehicles

Report Title 34

Date post:	23-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Report template · Web viewThe external committee recommended and final award to fund the budget at...

Documents