HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8a. Study Session - Transit Program Analysis Item 8a
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 5201
For Agenda of: 8/16/2022
Placement: Study Session
Estimated Time: 60 minutes
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Austin O’Dell, Interim Transit Manager
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a report updating Council on SLO Transit and the Transit Program Analysis,
which was recently completed by IBI Group.
POLICY CONTEXT
The City’s Transit Program has a crucial role in the Major City Goal (MCG) for Climate
Action, Open Space & Sustainable Transportation as well as the MCG for Economic
Recovery, Resiliency & Fiscal Sustainability. Specifically, Strategy 4.4 of the work plan
for the Climate Action, Open Space & Sustainable Transportation MCG has the objective
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by planning and investment in transit service
enhancements and transit fleet electrification, in order to achieve the mode ‐share split
objectives identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Strategy 1.7 of the
work plan for Economic Recovery, Resiliency & Fiscal Sustainability specifically identifies
the need to review SLO Transit’s operations and infrastructure to determine if there may
be benefits to sharing infrastructure and equipment or centralizing services to provide
increased community services at the same or reduced purchasing requirements.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The purpose of this report is to introduce the Transit Program Analysis report that was
completed by IBI Group on behalf of the City. The Transit P rogram Analysis report
reviewed the City’s Transit Program organizational structure, identified funding and
partnerships opportunities, reviewed the regulatory environment, and provided eight
recommendations for Council’s consideration.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo’s operates a fixed route transit service that allows for
convenient access from neighborhoods to major shopping centers, local schools
(including Cal Poly), and medical offices from one of the eight fixed routes. The City’s
transit service is branded as SLO Transit. SLO Transit is managed by the City’s Transit
Program within the Public Works Department.
Page 373 of 418
Item 8a
Operations and maintenance of transit services is completed by contract and the City
currently contracts with First Transit to provide these services to the community. SLO
Transit provides the City’s transit needs and complements the countywide services by the
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA), which provides more regional transit
service.
With the recent completion of the new RTA transit facility on Prado Road, questions were
raised; were opportunities for SLO Transit and RTA to partner on shared infrastructure to
lower transit overhead costs for both agencies since RTA’s new facility is located rou ghly
1,500 feet from SLO Transit’s maintenance yard ? This, coupled with the impacts of the
pandemic and staffing vacancies on the City’s Transit Service program, created an
opportune time for a Transit Program Analysis.
In November 2021, proposals were solicited from qualified firms to prepare a study of the
City’s Transit Program to analyze the organizational structure, to identify funding and
partnerships opportunities, review the regulatory environment, and provide
recommendations on these topics. Staff secured the services from IBI Group to prepare
the study.
It should be noted that the Transit Program Analysis is a different work effort than the
Transit Innovation Study that staff is currently soliciting proposals for. The Transit
Innovation Study will look at new trends in transit technology, delivery methods, and
transportation technology to increase transit route efficiencies and mode share.
Moreover, it will analyze what efforts and funding are required to revitalize public transit
after the unprecedented changes in ridership following the worldwide pandemic which
have created unique challenges across the industry.
Transit Program Analysis Report Highlights
Included as Attachment A to this report is the Transit Program Analysis that was
completed by IBI Group. The overall finding of the report is that the City’s Transit Program
is outperforming other transit agencies in the County. These Key Performance Indicators
are shown page 7 of Attachment A. This section highlights the major sections of the
report.
1. Key Performance Indicators (KPI) – SLO Transit Top System
The Transit Program Analysis compared operating and financial data with other transit
systems in the County. The consultant sourced the data from the Transportation
Development Act (TDA) performance audits and the National Transit Data Base
(NTD). When comparing SLO Transit with peers in the County, SLO Transit leads the
County with total number of passengers serviced, provides more total hours of service ,
and covers the most distance at the lowest cost per vehicle hour of operation.
Providing a high level of service at the lowest cost in the County has allowed SLO
Transit to exceed the state mandate to recover at least 20% of operating cost by use
fee or what is referred to as f arebox recovery. Based on these KPIs, the SLO Transit
is the top performing transit system in the County. More information concerning
these KPIs can be found on page 7 of the Transit Program Analysis (Attachment A).
Page 374 of 418
Item 8a
2. Evaluation of Opportunities.
The Transit Program Analysis looked at opportunities for collaboration and
outsourcing. The study evaluated eight scenarios and reviewed impacts, benefits,
opportunities, constraints, and drawbacks of each. The scenarios range from status
quo or doing nothing to full consolidation with RTA and having one entity provide
transit service to the community. Excluding these two scenarios, the remain ing six
scenarios have independent utility meaning each alternative could be implement or
not implemented without invalidating the remaining scenarios. Please refer to page 30
of the Transit Program Analysis (Attachment A) for the complete analysis of each
scenario.
3. Recommendations.
Based on the KPIs for SLO Transit and no clear efficiencies or improvements as a
result the study did not recommend consolidation with RTA. Below is the list of
recommendations in the report with the corresponding status:
# Recommendation
1 Recommendation: Annually review fare structure relative to ridership and quarterly
farebox recovery ratio trends.
Status: This is a best practice for transit operators and this action is planned to
continue.
Next Steps: No new action is needed. This work is operationalized , included in the
Transit Program’s workplan and done quarterly.
2 Recommendation: Negotiate new Cal Poly zero-fare program payments that
capture fully allocated cost of Cal Poly ridership. The agreement should reserve the
right to annually review payments based on changes in allocated costs.
Status: The City recently approved an agreement with Cal Poly for service for the
next two years. Future contract negotiations are on-going.
Next Steps: The current agreement approved by Council on July 19, 2022, is a two
year agreement and increases funding to the City each year. Staff will continue to
meet with Cal Poly to ensure this remains a priority for each agency and a new
agreement is ready for execution in two years.
3 Recommendation: Utilize Capital Cost of Contracting provisions allowed by FTA to
capitalize certain contractor preventative maintenance. This reduces the local match
requirement compared to FTA funding for operations.
Status: Recommendation has been implemented.
Next Steps: No new action is needed. This work is operationalized and included in
the Transit Program’s workplan.
Page 375 of 418
Item 8a
4 Recommendation: Develop a grants team including retaining a dedicated transit
grants specialist to develop an annual program of grant research, education,
positioning and preparation, and application, as well as post -award administration
and reporting. The grants specialist would help determine when partnering
opportunities with other agencies might be advantageous to win grant funds from
FTA, State of California, or another grantor agency. An increase in grant funding
could reduce reliance on other existing sources, or shift revenues among program
needs.
Status: This recommendation is currently under development as staff is developing
a plan to reorganize several vacant positions in Transit with the intent of addressing
this recommendation as well as increasing the fiscal management resources for both
the Transit, Bicycle, and Parking Services programs. It should be noted that while
the City has used a consultant grant writer with much success in the last several
years for many programs, this work differs as there is a need for staff to focus on the
continued administration and reporting on the transit grants. Since a majority of all
transit funding is State and Federal grants the required administration and reporting
work is considerable.
Next Steps: Once the reorganization plan is complete, staff will begin the position
job descriptions, complete any meet and confer obligations with any represented
positions and begin implementation.
5 Recommendation: Work with RTA to identify opportunities for joint procurement
and/or use, such as fuel contracts, specialized maintenance outsourcing (e.g. body
work, deep cleaning), or common assets (e.g. bus washing)
Status: Staff is currently working to address this recommendation with several new
grant funded electric transit vehicles purchases.
Next Steps: Staff will continue to work with the RTA on this opportunity.
6 Recommendation: Evaluate the potential to monetize city transit assets to generate
increased local revenue, such as public fueling/EV charging, a nd external
advertising at key transit stop locations. Work to prioritize city funding and investment
in infrastructure such as roadway rehabilitation and bike/ped amenities at strategic
locations most frequented by bus routes.
Status: No action has been taken with this recommendation as of this report. Based
upon the level of analysis that was completed with this recommendation and staff’s
estimate of the level of funding the recommendation could provide, it is
recommended that this action be deferred t o an unspecified future date and future
work plan.
Next Steps: None
Page 376 of 418
Item 8a
7 Recommendation: Hold discussions with SLOCOG and RTA regarding current
regional funding policies and procedures. One possible area of discussion can be
on the TDA-LTF allocation process. Rather than RTA currently receiving a share of
each jurisdiction’s LTF apportionment “off the top”, the LTF based on population can
first be allocated to the local jurisdictions by the COG. Each RTA member agency
independently reviews their respective budgeted cost share of services provided by
RTA and then locally approves the amount to fund the regional agency. While this
entails additional steps above current process during the TDA claims and typically
results in similar outcomes, it provides an additional layer of funding allocation so
that the city can evaluate their impacts on a council level and approve of RTA budget
changes prior to fund disbursement. This method is practiced by other transit
JPAs/districts in the state. This recommendation is detailed in Attachment A pages
33, 34
Status: No action has been taken with this recommendation as of this report. Staff
plan to include this work effort in the 2023-25 Financial Plan work programs.
Next Steps: With the 2023-25 Financial Plan budget include work program tasks to
develop further regional funding policies and procedures
8 Recommendation: Continue building a strong brand for SLO Transit. The current
labor shortage is hurting transit, and while the public general views transit favorably,
conveying a strong brand that communicates good service and integrates well in a
multimodal environment could draw further interest and more investment in the
transit program.
Status: Strong branding for SLO Transit is in progress and on-going. The current
work in this area is planned to be supplemented by future recommendations received
by the future Short Range Transit Plan and the Transit Innovation Study.
Next Steps: Identify this as a need in the Transit Innovation Study to ensure transit
innovation recommendations include any opportunities to increase branding.
Current Challenges
The most immediate need for SLO Transit is to restore pre-pandemic level of service to
the community. The primary obstacle to achieving this level of service is the local and
national shortage of transit drivers. First Transit, the City’s contractor that p rovides
operations and maintenance services for SLO Transit, is making every effort to recruit
new drivers to restore service.
Currently, First Transit employs 22 drivers and needs 32 drivers to provide pre-pandemic
levels of service. In May 2022, the City Council amended the agreement with First Transit
to allow First Transit to increase driver wages. Increased wages have been successful in
increasing First Transit retention of existing drivers but there has not been a large
increase in new drivers being hired. Despite the challenges, ridership is recovering.
Current Total Ridership has increased by 154% from the prior year which is 64% below
historic ridership pre-pandemic. As service is restored, ridership will continue to increase.
The push for public ridership this fall will be paramount to reestablishing public ridership
after the pandemic.
Page 377 of 418
Item 8a
Moving Forward
COVID-19 changed the landscape in the manner how goods and services are provided
in nearly all industries during the “shut down” and the curre nt recovery period. Transit is
no different. SLO Transit will be exploring improvements and new delivery mechanisms
to adapt to the current community needs and expectations. The Short-Range Transit Plan
and the Transit Innovation Study will explore innovat ed technology and delivery
mechanisms that include reduced headways, micro transit, express bus routes, signal
priority, and other trends. The Short-Range Transit Plan will be completed in conjunction
with the RTA and RTA is taking the lead to procure the consultant team and develop the
project plan in consultation with the SLO Transit.
Once a more definitive timeline is available for each work effort, this information will be
made available as part of the outreach work. The Transit Innovation Study is currently
advertising for proposals from consultant teams for the second time as no proposals were
received during the first advertisement. Once a consultant team is selected and
timeframes are better known, this information will be communicated out as part of this
plans outreach work as well.
Additionally, there are needs to improve the City’s transit facilities including technology,
electrification, and bus stops to attract and retain riders. This effort is currently being
scoped as a work program item for the for the 2023-25 Financial Plan, Council will be
presented a project to rehabilitate and improve the Downtown Transit Center. This project
is currently planned to update SLO Transit facilities to mirror facilities that were recently
installed by the County of San Luis Obispo in conjunction with RTA. Improvements to the
new passenger waiting areas and shelters are planned to be coupled with security
cameras, new real time schedule displays and trip planning, improved lighting, and new
restroom facilities. In addition to these passenger amenities, electric transit vehicles
chargers are planned to be installed as well as replacing portions of damaged roadways
due to repetitive large vehicle loading.
Transit Innovation Study
Fall 2022 Receive Proposals
Early Spring 2023 Study
Complete
Short Range Transit Plan
Winter 2023 RFP
Spring 2023 Select Consultant
Early Fall 2023 Study
Complete
Page 378 of 418
Item 8a
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
With the 2021-23 Financial Plan, Council approved the workplan for the Major City Goals.
This item directly supports tasks identified in the strategies.
Public Engagement
This is an administrative item, so no outside public engagement was completed. Public
comment can be provided to the City Council through written correspondence prior to the
meeting and through public testimony at the meeting.
CONCURRENCE
The Public Works Department concurs with the content and recommendations of this
report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended
action in this report, because the action does not constitute a "Project" under CEQA
Guidelines Sec. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: N/A Budget Year: 2021-22
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund - - - -
State - - - -
Federal - - - -
Fees - - - -
Other: - - - -
Total - - - -
There is no fiscal impact related to the study session itself. All recommendations and
resulting work efforts will be brought to the City Council through the budgeting effort and
included in the requested budget appropriations.
ALTERNATIVES
Council could provide alternate direction regarding consolidation of services with
RTA. This is not recommended as SLO Transit KPIs for performance exceed other local
agencies.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Transit Program Study
Page 379 of 418
Page 380 of 418
City Transit Program Analysis and
Assessment
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
by IBI Group
May 2022
Page 381 of 418
IBI GRO UP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted t o the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Overview of Transit System ..................................................................................... 2
2.0 Organizational Structure/Governance ............................................................................ 8
2.1 SLO Transit ............................................................................................................ 8
2.2 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) ........................................... 9
3.0 Partnerships/Finance .................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Local Transit Funding Sources .............................................................................. 10
3.1.1 Passenger Fares ....................................................................................... 10
3.1.2 California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo Zero Fare
Agreement ................................................................................................. 13
3.1.3 Transportation Development Act (TDA) .................................................... 14
3.1.4 G-20 Measure ........................................................................................... 15
3.2 State Transit Funding Sources ............................................................................ 15
3.2.1 Senate Bill 1 ............................................................................................ 15
3.2.2 State Transit Assistance Fund ................................................................ 15
3.2.3 State of Good Repair .............................................................................. 17
3.2.4 Proposition 1B – Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and
Service Enhancement Account ................................................................. 19
3.2.5 California Air Resources Board – Low Carbon Transit Operations Program
.................................................................................................................. 19
3.3 Federal Revenue Sources ................................................................................... 21
3.3.1 FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Funding Program ................ 21
3.3.2 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ................ 22
3.3.3 FTA Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Program .................................. 23
3.3.4 Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement Program ............ 23
3.4 Future Revenue Considerations .......................................................................... 24
3.5 Expenditures .......................................................................................................... 24
3.5.1 Operating Expenditures ............................................................................ 24
3.5.1 Capital Expenditures ................................................................................. 25
4.0 Regulatory Environment ............................................................................................... 26
4.1 Federal Requirements ........................................................................................... 26
4.2 State Requirements ............................................................................................... 27
4.3 Transit’s Role in Sustainability ............................................................................ 28
5.0 Opportunities – Collaboration/Outsourcing ................................................................. 30
5.1 Status Quo ........................................................................................................... 30
Page 382 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 1
5.2 Collaboration of Discretionary Grant Applications ............................................... 31
5.3 Collaboration of Auxiliary Functions .................................................................... 31
5.4 Capital Cost of Contracting .................................................................................. 32
5.5 Cooperative Procurements .................................................................................. 32
5.6 Alternative Delivery ................................................................................................ 33
5.7 Regional Discretionary Funding Amendments ...................................................... 33
5.8 Consolidation with RTA .......................................................................................... 34
6.0 A Way Forward - Recommendations ............................................................................ 35
Page 383 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 2
1.0 Introduction
The City of San Luis Obispo (SLO) retained the consulting firms IBI Group and Michael Baker
International to assist with an analysis and assessment of the City’s transit program, SLO
Transit. The assessment of the transit program includes organization, structure/governance,
finances, partnerships, infrastructure, regulatory environment, and personnel with an eye on
both outsourcing opportunities and the identification of alternate program structures.
This opportunity comes at a time of ongoing success and significant challenges for the City’s
transit system.
1.1 Overview of Transit System
SLO Transit commenced service in April 1974. The transit system is
administered through the City’s Public Works Department and overseen
by a transit manager and support staff. The City contracts with First
Transit for operations and maintenance of the transit system. The
contract was executed in June 2016 for a three-year term from July 1,
2016, through June 30, 2020. The agreement includes three one-year
contract extension options.
Based on the 2019 American Community Survey, 5-
Year Estimates, the city’s population was 47,302, of
which 13.2 percent was age 65 or older. The 2021
population was estimated to be 46,058 as reported by
the California Department of Finance (DOF). Of the
whole population, 99 percent live within a 0.25-mile of
a public transit route, reflecting very good overall coverage by SLO Transit.
As illustrated in Figure 1.1, SLO Transit operates a total of eight regular routes on weekdays
and four routes on weekends, as well as a San Luis Drive Tripper, Laguna Tripper, and
Highland Tripper on academic weekdays, 6 Express (6X) on Thursday (September –November),
and a Downtown Trolley Thursday year-round, Friday (June–Labor Day), and Saturday (April–
October). Of the eight regular routes, four routes are aligned clockwise, and the others are
aligned counterclockwise. SLO Transit partners with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority (SLORTA), which operates the Runabout ADA complementary paratransit service for
qualified riders with mobility-related disabilities.
Cal Poly students, faculty, and staff comprise about 64 percent of the transit system’s riders
based on a three-year average. The university encourages its students, faculty, and staff to
utilize SLO Transit. A transit service agreement has been in place between the City and the
university since 1985. The service agreement involves the payment of funds for service by Cal
Poly to the City for discount fares at no cost to the rider. The provided Cal Poly funding is
derived from parking citation revenue on the campus.
In November 2017, SLO Transit implemented the sale of digital bus passes via the Token
Transit smartphone app. Riders can download the app via their smartphone, create an account,
and start purchasing their digital bus passes. All SLO Transit pass categories are available for
purchase through the app.
The pandemic-driven impact
on transit ridership is an
opportunity to accelerate
innovations in service
design.
Page 384 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 3
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and statewide Shelter-in-Place order issued on March
19, 2020, SLO Transit implemented its weekend service schedule, and all tripper and trolley
services were suspended until further notice. Effective August 3, 2020, SLO Transit
implemented summer service on both its “A” and “B” routes. The FY 2018-2020 triennial
performance audit recommended that the City pursue a new transit service agreement with Cal
Poly that reflects the post-COVID-19 operating environment.
Figure 1.1: SLO Transit Map
Page 385 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 4
The City commissioned the SLO Transit Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP), which was adopted
in August 2016. The cornerstone of the SRTP has been the clockwise-counterclockwise route
alignment that was implemented by SLO Transit. The service plan also recommended
expansion of the transit program to half-hour bus service to support the growing ridership
demand and alleviate peak ridership loads, enhancing rider experience, and to foster and
support further ridership growth.
The transit division used Remix during the development of the SRTP. Remix is a transit data
and analysis platform that helps to determine the impacts of transit route design on scheduling
and the built environment. After the adoption of the SRTP, the City retained Remix to fine -tune
timepoints along the routes. Remix has also served as a powerful public communication tool.
Performance measures and indicators for SLO Transit reflect the strong sustained ridership
base while operating costs saw modest increases. The average annual increase in o perating
costs was 4.8 percent for the review period. Pre-pandemic, the SRTP had noted that the
negotiated costs with the contract provider were lower than previously expected over the five-
year life of the service contract.
The system underwent route restructuring in FY 2017 as part of the implementation of the 2016
SRTP adopted in August 2016. Ridership decreased 16.5 percent in FY 2018 from 1,131,879 to
945,288 trips due to some route restructuring resulting in fewer transfers. Ridership increased
3.9 percent in FY 2019 to 981,995 trips.
Data showed an initial decline in ridership due to an increase in fares and a more efficient route
alignment, which generated fewer one-way trips from transfers. SLO Transit received no
complaints after the service implementation. New routes were implemented in response to
student body growth at Cal Poly. Routes 6A/6B were streamlined to be more conducive to the
change in travel patterns and demand from Cal Poly. Route 1A began service to the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport on November 2, 2017. Savings in fuel cost also permitted
reinvestment in additional later hour bus runs.
Operating cost per
hour, which is a
measure of cost
efficiency, increased
21.1 percent from
$89.06 in FY 2017 to
$107.89 in FY 2020
based on audited
operating cost data. In
consideration of the
COVID-19 pandemic
impacts toward the
end of FY 2020, cost
per hour was $78.11
in the first quarter, $73.41 in the second quarter, $75.05 in the third quarter, and $114.76 in the
fourth quarter, when the statewide Shelter-in-Place order was in full effect. The average cost per
hour in FY 2020 was $85.33.
Table 1.1 presents SLO Transit key performance indicators (KPIs) for the period FY 2017
through FY 2020.
Page 386 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 5
Table 1.1: SLO Transit KPIs (FY2017 - FY2020)
Performance Data and Indicators
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
%
Change
FY 2017-
2020
Operating Cost* $3,090,324 $3,387,490 $3,522,076 $3,547,711 14.8%
Total Passengers 1,131,879 945,288 981,995 715,383 -36.8%
Vehicle Service Hours 34,698 37,535 39,599 32,882 -5.2%
Vehicle Service Miles 437,145 382,799 441,483 372,376 -14.8%
Employee FTEs 44 33 33 49 11.4%
Passenger Fare Revenue** $658,601 $690,168 $759,450 $630,067 -4.3%
Operating Cost per Passenger $2.73 $3.58 $3.59 $4.96 81.6%
Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $89.06 $90.25 $88.94 $107.89 21.1%
Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $7.07 $8.85 $7.98 $9.53 34.8%
Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 32.6 25.2 24.8 21.8 -33.3%
Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 2.59 2.47 2.22 1.92 -25.8%
Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 788.59 4,691.88 1,319.97 671.06 -14.9%
Average Fare per Passenger $0.58 $0.73 $0.77 $0.88 51.4%
Fare Recovery Ratio 21% 20% 22% 18% -16.7%
Consumer Price Index - (CPI-West
Region, BLS) 2.5% 3.6% 2.7% 1.2%
Note: Figures in percentage change column may not equate to the annual numbers due to
rounding.
Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits; National Transit Database; Transit Operators
Financial Transactions Reports; Internal Ops
*Audited operating costs exclude depreciation
**Audited passenger fare revenues include advertising and other income.
Transit Fleet: SLO Transit has 17 vehicles in revenue service. All vehicles in revenue service
are wheelchair accessible with tie-downs in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (ADA), as well as have front-loading bicycle racks. Table 1.2 summarizes the SLO
Transit fleet.
The two, 2007 Gillig 30’ (low floor) diesel buses will be replaced by two electric buses: one in
July 2022 and the second in the fall of 2022.
Page 387 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 6
Table 1.2: SLO Transit Fleet
Source: 2020 SLO Transit Fleet Inventory; National Transit Database
Facilities: The SLO Transit operations and maintenance facility is located at 29 Prado Road. The
primary passenger facility is the Downtown Transit Center adjacent to City Hall. SLO Transit
serves over 170 bus stops, of which 66 have benches and an additional 46 have shelters and
benches.
SLO Transit Relative to County Peers: Table 1.3 presents key performance indicators for SLO
County transit providers.
Of note:
✓ SLOT has the highest ridership (total passengers).
✓ SLOT has the lowest cost per vehicle service hour (VSR) except for Morro Bay.
✓ SLOT has the lowest operating cost per passenger.
✓ SLOT operates the greatest number of VSRs per full-time (employee) equivalent (FTE).
✓ SLOT has the highest farebox ratio.
Conclusion: SLO Transit’s KPIs relative to both industry norms and SLO County peers, performs
effectively and efficiently. Further, as presented in the following section, SLO Transit also
provides greatest number of vehicle service hours per full time equivalent, relative to County
peers.
Further, as presented in Table 1.3, SLO Transit outperforms RTA in performance measures
especially in terms of cost per VSH hour (76.83% less) and farebox ratio (16.09% more).
Year Make/Model Quantity Fuel Type Seating
2007 Gillig 30’ Low Floor 2 Diesel 23 (2 W/C)
2008 Double K Trolley 1 Unleaded 24 (2 W/C)
2008 Gillig 35’ Low Floor 2 Diesel 32 (2 W/C)
2008 Gillig 40’ Low Floor 4 Diesel 36 (2 W/C)
2009 Alexander Dennis Double Decker 1 Diesel 81 (2 W/C)
2011 El Dorado Aero Elite Cutaway 1 Unleaded 28 (2 W/C)
2012 Gillig 40’ Low Floor 1 Diesel 36 (2 W/C)
2013 Gillig 40’ Low Floor 2 Diesel 36 (2 W/C)
2017 Gillig 40’ BRT Low Floor 3 Diesel 36 (2 W/C)
Total 17
Page 388 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 7
Table 1.3: SLO County Performance by Agency
RTA Fixed
Route Pase Express Paso DAR Runabout SoCo Fixed
Route Avila Atascadero Morro Bay
Operating Cost 3,522,076$ 5,702,031$ 707,777$ 126,587$ 3,271,234$ 1,317,274$ 74,383$ 404,193$ 304,776$
Total Passengers 981,995 700,433 109,410 2,576 39,848 22,528 9,184 12,826 38,755
Vehicle Service Hours 39,599 36,256 6,168 1,242 26,594 13,847 738 4,542 5,088
VSH per FTE 1,320 740 685 621 700 1,065 738 1,136 1,272
Vehicles Service Miles 441,483 104,077 85,888 10,515 444,322 219,113 15,812 45,329 45,211
FTEs 30 49 9 2 38 13 1 4 4
Passenger Fare Revenues 759,450$ 1,031,700$ 136,762$ 5,909$ 162,618$ 152,755$ 8,786$ 37,499$ 40,987$
Operating Cost per Passenger 3.59$ 8.14$ 6.47$ 49.14$ 82.09$ 58.47$ 8.10$ 31.51$ 7.86$
Operating Cost per VSH 88.94$ 157.27$ 114.75$ 101.92$ 123.01$ 95.13$ 100.79$ 88.99$ 59.90$
Operator Cost per VSM 7.98$ 54.79$ 8.24$ 12.04$ 7.36$ 6.01$ 4.70$ 8.92$ 6.74$
Passengers per VSH 24.80 19.32 17.74 2.07 1.50 1.63 12.44 2.82 7.62
Passengers per VSM 2.22 6.73 1.27 0.24 0.09 0.10 0.58 0.28 0.86
Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 1,319.97 739.92 685.33 621.00 699.84 1,065.15 738.00 1,135.50 1,272.00
Average Fare per Passengers 0.77$ 1.47$ 1.25$ 2.29$ 4.08$ 6.78$ 0.96$ 2.92$ 1.06$
Farebox Ratio 21.56%18.09%19.32%4.67%4.97%11.60%11.81%9.28%13.45%
SLOTIndicator
RTA SoCo
Page 389 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 8
2.0 Organizational Structure/Governance
The organizational assessment task is an introspective evaluation of how the City delivers
transit services in the context of both the city and regional operating environment.
2.1 SLO Transit
SLO Transit is a municipal system administered through the City’s Public Works Department
and overseen by a transit manager and two staff. The City contracts with First Transit for
operations and maintenance of SLO Transit.
The City’s Transit Manager position has primary responsibility for the development,
implementation and expansion of the City’s operation and maintenance of the City’s public
transport system, which includes: the SLO Transit fixed route bus system; taxicab system;
administration of federal, state, and local transportation grants; and the City’s participation in the
San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Authority (RTA). The Transit Manager oversees a
Transit Coordinator and Transit Assistant.
The San Luis Obispo City Council is the govern ing body for SLO Transit. The City Council has
four elected council seats and one elected Mayor. The City has a City Manager who serves at
the pleasure of the City Council. The Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) is an advisory
committee of city residents who are appointed by the City Council. The Transit Program hosts
quarterly meetings with the MTC to report on the status of service and request
recommendations to improve productivity of the transit services, including short-range transit
plans, the unmet transit needs process, and monitoring transportation performance
improvement recommendations and measuring progress through monthly statistical data
provided by First Transit. MTC will make recommendations on service changes, fare changes,
and other actionable items to City Council for approval.
Current First Transit (contractor) personnel are composed of a general manager, one operations
manager, one maintenance manager, one safety manager, 17 drivers, 3 dispatchers, 2 road
supervisors, one full-time maintenance technician and one part-time maintenance technician.
Five drivers are classified as casual part-time employees. Non-exempt employees are
represented and covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with Teamsters Local
986.
Vehicle hours per full time equivalent (FTE), which measures labor productivity, decreased 14.9
percent from 788.59 hours to 671.06 hours between the FY 2017 and FY 2020.
As presented in Figure 2.1, SLO Transit provides greatest number of vehicle service hours per
full time equivalent, relative to regional peers.
Page 390 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 9
Figure 2.1: Vehicle Service Hours per Full Time Equivalent
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
SLOT RTA Fixed Route Pase Express Paso DAR Runabout SoCo Fixed Route Avila Atascadero Morro BayVSH/FTEVSH per FTE (FY2019)
2.2 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) serves as the Regional Transportation
Planning Agency (RTPA) for SLO Transit and the county. The RTPA is responsible for the
county’s improved productivity of the transit services, including short-range transit plans, the
unmet transit needs process, and monitoring transportation performance improvement
recommendations and measuring progress through monthly statistical data provided by the
contract operator.
SLOCOG is responsible for allocating federal and state funds, planning for the future and
facilitating the collaboration of all levels of government, interested parties and residents toward a
common goal: to improve the quality of life in San Luis Obispo County.
SLOCOG is an association of local governments in San Luis Obispo County, which is made up
of seven cities (Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo
Beach, and San Luis Obispo) and the County of San Luis Obispo.
The organization’s central purpose is to examine common regional problems and suggest
solutions. SLOCOG’s prime responsibilities include transportation planning and funding for the
region, while also serving as a forum for the study and resolution of regional issues.
In addition to preparing the region’s long-range transportation plan, SLOCOG plans and
provides funding for public transit services, highway and roadway improvements, other
alternative methods of transportation, and prepares the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and
the Sustainable Communities Strategy as part of the Regional Transportation Plan.
Every two years1, SLOCOG is responsible for developing and adopting a Regional
Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) -- a five-year program for planned transportation
projects. The program includes a listing of recommended capital outlays for transportation
improvements, including new facilities, rehabilitation, and operational improvements using
Regional Improvement Program funds available to the San Luis Obispo region. The RTIP is one
of two programming documents for development of the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP), the other document being the Interregional Transportation Improvement
Program developed by Caltrans.
1 The final 2022 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) was approved January 5, 2022 .
Page 391 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 10
3.0 Partnerships/Finance
The City receives its funding from fare revenues generated from its fix ed-route service mode as
well as contributions from local, state, and federal grant programs. The funding sources
discussed in this section include both actual and projected revenue sources from the latest
adopted budget supporting operations and capital. Table 3.1 summarizes the revenues received
and projected.
3.1 Local Transit Funding Sources
3.1.1 Passenger Fares
One of the largest direct local revenue sources is derived from SLO Transit’s farebox, which
helps support operations and meet state-required performance measures. Farebox revenues
are composed of cash fares sold on the bus, passes purchased at various vendors (including
City Hall Finance counter, SLO Chamber of Commerce, Boo Boo Records, Laguna Middle
School, and SLO High School), and digital passes purchased through the Token Transit mobile
app. Fares encompass six fare categories: General, Senior (65-79 years old)/Disabled, VIP (80+
years old), Children (under 5 years old), Trolley General, and Trolley Senior/Disabled. One,
three, five, seven, and thirty-one-day general passes are available for purchase as well as
sixteen-ride general passes. Additionally, thirty-one day and fifteen-ride senior/disabled passes
are available for purchase. Student, regional, and Downtown Access pas ses are also available.
Fares by category and available passes are shown in Table 3.2.
The one- to seven-day passes and the regional day passes are sold on the buses . The
Downtown Access Pass is available to riders who work in downtown San Luis
Obispo. Identification is required for senior, disabled, and student fares. Seniors aged 80 or
older who are VIP pass holders have unlimited free rides on all SLO Transit fixed routes. VIP
pass applicants can obtain a special photo ID card in person from SLORTA or show their valid
ID. VIP passes must be obtained in person at SLORTA’s main office or SLO Regional
Rideshare.
In November 2017, SLO Transit implemented the sale of digital bus passes via the Token
Transit mobile app. Riders can download the app via their smartphone, create an account, and
start purchasing their digital bus passes. All SLO Transit pass categories are available for
purchase through the app. App users show or flash their pass to the driver from their
smartphones as proof of payment. Token Transit also has the added benefit of allowing users to
send digital bus passes to others electronically. Middle school students are the biggest users of
the app followed by choice riders.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, fare collection was suspended on March 23, 2020, in
addition to other safety changes on the bus. SLO Transit reinstated fare collection effective July
1, 2020.
Page 392 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 11
Table 3.1: SLO Transit Financial Plan, FY 2018 through FY 2022
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Revenues
Federal FTA 5307- Operating $1,441,620 $1,484,870 $917,175 $552,077 $1,897,234
FTA 5339 $132,084 0 0 0 0
CMAQ $761,000 0 0 0 0
CARES 0 0 $1,390,418 $2,805,689 0
Federal Total $2,334,704 $1,484,870 $2,307,593 $3,357,766 $1,897,234
State LTF $1,160,677 $1,548,644 $1,558,960 $1,571,874 $1,550,000
STA $143,846 $282,289 $431,004 $234,814 $244,000
SGR $7,358 $7,358 $192,000 0 0
LCTOP 0 0 $39,999 0 0
State Total $1,311,881 $1,838,291 $2,221,963 $1,806,688 $1,794,000
Local Fares (passenger paid) $318,164 $185,450 $196,892 $59,410 $65,598
Cal Poly (service agreement) $453,697 $517,611 $433,175 $150,000 $500,000
Local Total $771,861 $703,061 $630,067 $209,410 $565,598
Total Revenues $4,418,446 $4,026,222 $5,159,623 $5,373,864 $4,256,832
Expenses
Operations $1,200,744 $1,181,234 $2,548,971 $2,794,565 $2,837,720
Maintenance $304,246 $318,393 $486,651 $602,500 $606,100
General Administration $2,027,320 $2,033,877 $356,946 $590,267 $579,517
Indirect Costs (Cost Allocation) 0 0 $276,806 $282,342 $287,989
Total Operating Expenses $3,532,310 $3,533,504 $3,669,374 $4,269,674 $4,311,326
Capital Expenses $49,413 0 $231,999 $3,120,000 $1,560,000
Total Expenses $3,581,723 $3,533,504 $3,901,373 $7,389,674 $5,871,326
Data Source Key:
SLO Budget
National Transit Database
SLO Transit TDA Perf. Audit
Page 393 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 12
Table 3.2: SLO Transit- Fares & Passes
FARES
General $1.50
Senior (65–79)/Disabled $0.75
VIP (80+) Free
Children (under 5) Free
Trolley General $0.50
Trolley Senior/Disabled $0.25
Passes
31-Day General $40.00
31-Day Student $25.00
31-Day Senior/Disabled $20.00
16-Ride General $24.00
15-Ride Senior/Disabled $11.25
7-Day $15.00
5-Day $12.00
3-Day $7.00
1-Day $3.25
Regional Day $5.50
Downtown Access Free
The SLOCOG TDA Claim Filing & Administration Guidelines (2016 Addendum) includes a description
of the fare revenue ratios for each transit operator. The SLOCOG Board of Directors adopted a
resolution (Res. 18-13) at its June 6, 2018, meeting updating the farebox recovery ratios of the San
Luis Obispo County transit operators. The new policy was vetted among the various advisory
committees in November 2017 and March 2018. Based on the 2018 Farebox Recovery Ratios
Mandates, the TDA required minimum farebox ratios vary by types of transit operators as follows:
OPERATOR FAREBOX RATIO
RTA Hybrid 15 % to 17.36 %
SLO Transit 20 %
SoCo Transit (South County) 15 % (Interim)
Morro Bay 10 %
Atascadero 14.50 %
Paso Express 15 % (Interim)
Source: SLOCOG
These mandates will be implemented on a five-year trial period (until FY 2023-24) based on the year-
to-year trends in performance by local service area. The Dial-A-Ride services operated by RTA are
to be exempt from the farebox recovery mandate, subject to service and customer base review.
Page 394 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 13
Senate Bill (SB) 508 (Beall) was passed in October 2015 and amends key provisions of the
Transportation Development Act (TDA). SB 508 allows for other locally generated revenues in the
farebox ratio with concurrence by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG).
Examples of possible other local support revenues include gains on the sale of capital assets, lease
revenues generated by transit-owned property, fuel sales, and advertising revenues.
SLO Transit reported annual passenger-purchased farebox revenues totaling $196,892 in FY 2020,
$59,410 in FY 2021, and an anticipated total of $66,598 in 2022.2 The totals reflect impacts from the
COVID-19 pandemic and statewide shelter-in-place order. The data sources for farebox revenues
featured in Table 3.1 are derived from SLO Transit’s FY 2019–2021 budget.
3.1.2 California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo Zero Fare
Agreement
The City of SLO is home to California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly),
which has an enrollment of 21,447 undergraduate and 840 graduate students as of the fall of 2020.
Since 1985, Cal Poly has provided funding to the City transit systb em through a transit service
agreement, allowing its students, staff, and faculty to ride the bus at no cost to the rider. The Cal
Poly funding is derived from parking citation revenue on the campus.
Cal Poly students, faculty, and staff comprise about 64 percent of the transit system’s riders based
on a three-year average. The university encourages its students, faculty, and staff to utilize SLO
Transit.
The last service agreement was in effect from July 2011 through June 2016 and was initially
extended in 2016 for a one-year period through June 2017 involving a 3 percent funding increase
over the FY 2015–16 contribution by Cal Poly. The second extension involved a two-year extension
from July 2017 through June 2019 and an annual contribution increase of 3 percent. A new service
agreement was to be negotiated during this extension period. An addendum to the second
extension was executed in July 2019 that extended the term through June 2020, extended service
on Route 3A, and included a 3 percent contribution increase.
The COVID-19 Shelter-in-Place order implemented in March 2020 necessitated a third extension of
the 2011 transit service agreement. The term was extended for one year from July 2020 through
June 2021. This agreement included an annual payment of $533,139 with quarterly payments of
$133,285. The City reduced Cal Poly’s fourth quarterly payment for FY 2019–20 by 75 percent
based on the reduced COVID-19 service levels and ridership.
In July 2021, the fourth service extension was signed, extending service to June 2022. This
agreement included an annual payment of $537,500 with quarterly payments of $134,375 and
stipulates that service levels can be altered in response to ridership and that a new agreement will
be negotiated over the extension period.
In assessing the agreement relative to ridership, a comparison shows fares collected per
passenger, based on the Cal Poly agreement and from general ridership (see Table 3.3). In FY
2018, the fare/passenger for Cal Poly ($0.77) was lower than that for the general public ($0.89).
This was reversed in FYs 2019 and 2020 when fare/p assenger for Cal Poly was higher compared
to that collected for the general public. The share of passenger revenue from Cal Poly increased at
a higher rate compared to the share of Cal Poly ridership in those years.
2 Revenues include only passenger-purchased fares and do not include the Cal Poly subsidy agreement, which is
detailed separately, in Section 3.1.2.
Page 395 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 14
Table 3.3: Fares Per Passenger
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Ridership % Total % Total % Total
Cal Poly Ridership 586,446 62% 639,685 65% 437,084 61%
General Public 358,842 38% 342,310 35% 278,296 39%
Annual Ridership 945,288 100% 981,995 100% 715,380 100%
Fare Revenue % Total % Total % Total
Cal Poly Agreement $453,697 59% $517,611 74% $433,175 69%
Passenger Fares $318,164 41% $185,450 26% $196,892 31%
Total $771,861 100% $703,061 100% $630,067 100%
Fares/Passenger
Cal Poly $0.77 $0.81 $0.99
General Public $0.89 $0.54 $0.71
System-wide $0.82 $0.72 $0.88
Source: City Ridership Reports; Fare revenue-NTD & Budget
3.1.3 Transportation Development Act (TDA)
The Transportation Development Act (TDA) was enacted by the State Legislature in 1971 to make
funds available for transit, pedestrian way and bikeway projects, transportation planning,
ridesharing and street and road improvements. TDA funds are the largest sole source of operating
revenue for most public transportation systems in the state. Funds for the TDA come from 1/4 cent
of the retail sales tax (for LTF), and from sales taxes on diesel fuel (for STA). These funds are
allocated annually by SLOCOG to eligible claimants under two funding programs: the Local
Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance (STA).
Local Transportation Fund
LTF tax revenues are collected by the Board of Equalization but administered locally through
SLOCOG, which then allocates the revenue to local jurisdictions based on population. Local
jurisdiction LTF contributions are made to RTA as a requirement of their membership in the
Authority to fund the regional transit service.
The spirit of the TDA statute guiding the use of LTF intends for the revenue to be prioritized for
transit. This means that the funds are intended to be spent on transit projects to the extent that
such projects are needed to fill “unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet” before any LTF is
spent on local streets and roads.
The unmet transit needs process, by law, is conducted by SLOCOG. SLOCOG conducts the annual
unmet needs process in consultation with the statutorily required Social Services Transportation
Advisory Council (SSTAC). Members of the SSTAC participate in the review of the comments made
Page 396 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 15
during the hearings. TDA funds can be used for capital or operations expenditures or a combination
thereof and can provide an important source of local match for federal funding.
Pursuant to the TDA, the City received LTF proceeds under Article 4 for transit operations and
capital expenditures. The City of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo County have, by prior
agreement, removed the estimated Cal Poly student housing population (7,215) from San Luis
Obispo County and added that population to the City of San Luis Obispo, hence increasing the
City’s share of LTF.
LTF revenues received were $1,160,677 in FY 2018, $1,548,644 in FY 2019, $1,558,960 in FY
2020, $1,571,874 in FY 2021, and an anticipated $1,550,000 in FY 2022.
3.1.4 G-20 Measure
SLO residents passed a new city sales tax measure, G -20, in November 2020 that is anticipated to
provide approximately $20 million annually to preserve and enhance quality of life by accomplishing
a variety of objectives, one of which is for transportation improvements such as repairing potholes,
reducing traffic congestion, and expanding bike lanes. SLO Transit will benefit from this new tax
measure indirectly through City projects that enhance local operating conditions and multimodal
access and connectivity.
3.2 State Transit Funding Sources
3.2.1 Senate Bill 1
The most recent development at the state level concerns the passage and signing into law of SB 1
(Beall) in April 2017. SB 1, The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, provides the first
significant, stable, and ongoing increase in state transportation funding in more than two decades.
SB 1 is composed of a series of measures and revenue enhancements such as increases in the
diesel and gasoline excise and sales taxes and vehicle registration fees. To raise a projected $52.4
billion over 10 years, changes to taxes and fees include:
• A 12-cent increase in the gasoline excise tax
• A 20-cent increase in the diesel excise tax
• A 5.75 percent increase in the diesel sales tax
• A new vehicle fee, which will annually charge drivers between $25 and $175, depending on
the value of the vehicle
• A $100 annual fee on zero-emission vehicles
Several transit funding programs benefit from SB 1, including the State Transit Assistance Fund and
State of Good Repair.
3.2.2 State Transit Assistance Fund
The State Transit Assistance (STA) program is a second funding component of the TDA. Revenues
are derived primarily through the state sales tax on diesel fuel and are allocated by the state
legislature. Fifty percent of the revenue is allocated by the state based on county population within
the jurisdiction of the regional transportation planning agencies, and the remaining 50 percent is
allocated by the transit systems based on qualifying revenue such as passenger fares and other
local sources. SB 1 increases STA apportionments significantly and can be used for both
operations and capital.
Page 397 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 16
The population share (PUC 99313) is a discretionary source in which SLOCOG has established
eligibility criteria. Adopted from a SLOCOG staff report, the criteria factors are described below and
funding allocation for the most recent fiscal year.
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMMING FY 21/22
Proposed Allocation by
Jurisdiction
1 2 3 4 5 6
PUC 99314 PUC 99313
$2,049,481
Rev
Allocation -
Revised
$135,256
Vehicle-Miles-of-
Travel Reduced
$500,000
Service Population
Allocation
$400,000
Degree of Regional
Integration Allocation
$400,000
Special
Projects
Contingency
$614,225
$33k ↑ $50k ↓ $200k ↑ $200k ↑ $122k ↑
(FY 20/21 $102k) (FY 20/21 $550k) (FY 20/21 $200k) (FY 20/21 $200k) (FY 20/21 $492k)
Updated Award
%
Award
% Awarded in
April
Share for
apportionment
%
Award LCTOP &
Other
a) Atascadero $1,822 0% $0 13.7% $54,800 $54,800 65% $35,620 $271 $92,513
$28,293
$123,600
$247,954
$172,000
$745,669
$200,530
$225,000
b) Morro Bay $2,044 0% $0 4.6% $18,400 $18,400 41% $7,544 $305
c) Paso Robles $0 2% $10,000 14.2% $56,800 $56,800 100% $56,800 $0
d) City of SLO $39,591 7% $35,000 24.2% $96,800 $96,800 73% $70,664 $5,899
e) County of SLO $0 0% $0 21.5% $86,000 $86,000 100% $86,000 $0
f) RTA $80,669 88% $440,000 NA NA NA NA NA $225,000
g) So. County Transit $11,130 3% $15,000 21.8% $87,200 $87,200 100% $87,200 $0
h) COG TransPlan/Prog/Audits $0 0% $0 NA $0 $0 0% 0 $225,000
i) Regional Vanpool Subsidies $0 0% $0 NA $0 $0 0% $0 $80,000 $80,000
j) Contingency $0 0% $56,172 $77,750 $133,922
SUB TOTAL $135,256 NA $500,000 NA $400,000 NA NA $400,000 $614,225 $2,049,481
GRAND TOTAL PROGRAMMED $2,049,481
Source: SLOCOG
Column 1 – The revenue allocations “by operator” are determined by the SCO, proportional to the
transit system fare box revenue, relative to statewide fare revenue from two years ago.
Column 2 - Is based on an approved methodology for “Vehicle Miles Travel (“VMT”) Reduced” per
transit operator. It is calculated based on average trip length and uses annual ridership by route
data from FY 19/20. This apportionment benefits RTA most notably because RTA’s average trip
length is significantly longer than other operators. Note: RTA does not receive a Service
Population allocation. SLO Transit’s average trip lengths data has not been updated since FY
18/19.
Column 3 - The service population is updated per 2020 Department of Finance projections and
2019 ACS 5-YR Pop Estimate (for unincorporated CDPs).
Column 4 - “Degree of Regional Integration” represents improvements in coordination &
consolidation with RTA. In FY 19/20, per agreement with SLO Transit, SLOCOG increased their
percentage value from 53% to 71%, now 73%. Other percentage values have been essentially
unchanged for the past four years, with the exception of SCT. SCT’s percentage was increased to
100% in 18/19 and 19/20, in anticipation of conso lidation into RTA. It was lowered to 73% for
20/21, but since integration was completed (January 2021), the percentage has been increased to
100%.
Column 5 - Special Projects:
1. Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) (rows a-b, d). These amounts were
consolidated in this year’s LCTOP programming for South County Transit, to be used for
FY21/22 Operating Assistance for the new Routes 27 and 28. This is the “payback” for SLO
Transit, Atascadero and Morro Bay.
Page 398 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 17
2. SLOCOG (row h,i). In row h, SLOCOG is recommended to receive $225k (flat from 20/21,
row h). SLOCOG’s required oversight and coordination with transit operators on SRTP’s,
audits, studies, and programming cannot be sustained with LTF funds and requires STA
support.
New row i represents support for the pass-through to SLOCOG’s Regional Vanpool
program. These funds go to private vendors (Enterprise, etc.) to subsidize the cost of
joining a vanpool. Due to a 5-year funding restriction, CMAQ is no longer available for
Vanpool subsidies. Retaining the Vanpool program is critical to achieving the Air Quality
benefits in the Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Historically, the STA allocations have included a cash reserve in order to smooth periodic
shortfalls in the fund. These funds helped minimize mid-year cuts, when they were needed
after the SCO released a mid-year estimate that represented a substantial decrease.
SLO Transit’s STA funding received was $143,846 in FY 2018, $282,289 in FY 2019, $431,004
in FY 2020, $234,814 in FY 2021, and an anticipated $247,954 in FY 2022.
3.2.3 State of Good Repair
The State of Good Repair (SGR) program is the result of the passage of SB1 and provides
approximately $105 million annually to transit operators in California for eligible transit
maintenance, rehabilitation and capital projects. The SGR program benefits the public by
providing public transportation agencies with a consistent and dependable revenue source to
invest in the upgrade, repair and improvement of their agency’s transportation infrastructure,
and in turn improve transportation services. These funds are allocated under the State Transit
Assistance (STA) Program formula to eligible agencies pursuant to Public Utilities Code (PUC)
section 99312.1. Half is allocated according to population and half according to transit operator
revenues.
Projects that solely expand capacity or service are not eligible projects. However, expansion of
capacity within replacement projects to meet current or projected short-term service needs (for
example replacing a maintenance facility with a larger facility or replacing a bus with a larger
bus) are eligible.
Assembly Bill (AB) 149 amends AB 107 providing the ability for transit agencies eligible to
receive SGR funds for FY 2019-20 through FY 2022-23 to redirect these funds from projects as
originally identified to address funding shortfalls in operating or capital expenses resulting from
the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Prior to receiving funds from the SGR Program, SLOCOG is required to authorize the annual
SGR Project List and to adopt a Governing Body Resolution. Below is an example of the FY
20/21 SGR programming action taken by the SLOCOG Board. This amount includes both
regional discretionary and operator apportionments.
FY 20/21 State of Good Repair (SGR)
State of Good Repair Projects
Jurisdiction
SGR Request
Regional
Competitive
Operator
Apportionment
Recommended
MB City Park Transit Hub Improvements Morro Bay $119,000 $119,000 $379 $119,379
New RTA Bus Maintenance Facility RTA $378,000 $0 $20,222 * $20,222
Two Zero-Emission Electric Buses SLO Transit $378,000 $269,862 $8,239 $278,101
Total $875,000 $388,862 $28,840 $417,702
* RTA and SoCo Transit operator amounts.
Source: SLOCOG
Page 399 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
18
May 2022
According to Caltrans’ annual approved SGR project list, as the sub-recipient, the City was
allocated $7,358 in FY 2018 for clean fuel vehicle, $7,064 in FY 2019 for automated vehicle
location system, and $192,000 in FY 2020 for farebox replacement. An amount of $278,343
in FY 2021 was allocated for electric vehicle purchase, while $8,468 is allocated in FY 2022
for bus shelter replacement.
Each potential recipient as listed in the SCO Allocation Estimate letter shall submit a list of
projects to SLOCOG including the following:
• A proposed list of projects to utilize, at a minimum, the estimated amount of SGR
funding programmed for the recipient for the upcoming fiscal year. The recipient
may include project information for future fiscal years but are expected to update
the project list as needed each fiscal year and submit each year to the
Department. This list must include the following:
1. Project Title
2. Proposed Project Description (Scope of Work)
3. Proposed Project Schedule (Start to Completion)
4. Project Location
5. Estimated Project Cost by Fiscal Year
6. Estimated Useful Life of the Improvement
7. Additional Project information required on the Project List template.
SLOCOG collects and compiles all project lists from the operators within their region and
submits one project list including the anticipated use of PUC Section 99313 and Section
99314 funds to Caltrans. In anticipation of the SGR Program’s September 1st deadline,
SLOCOG establishes its own timelines in its efforts to collect project lists from transit
providers within their region.
Upon receiving the project lists, SLOCOG reviews the packets to ensure each candidate
meets the following criteria:
a. The project meets the SGR eligibility requirements.
b. Contains Board Resolution from the operators governing body approving
the project or operator has enclosed Short Range Transportation Plan
that lists the project.
c. Confirm that the project is appropriate for overall transit plan designed for
the region.
d. Verify the total estimated amount of SGR funds to be made available to
the region agrees with the estimate letter issued by the California State
Controller’s Office.
e. Include any requirements the Regional Entity determines best to suit their
respective regions and transit/transportation needs.
After completion of their review, SLOCOG forwards the list of projects to Caltrans SGR
staff for review.
Page 400 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
19
May 2022
If a potential recipient misses the deadline for submittal, or submits incomplete/inaccurate
project information, the potential recipient may submit a project list to be eligible for
inclusion in the allocation of funds, or revise/correct project information, the following
quarter by submitting the information electronically through CalSMART. The SCO will
allocate all the revenue each quarter only to those potential recipients that have submitted
timely and complete information. Funds will not be held for allocation to agencies who have
submitted late project lists.
3.2.4 Proposition 1B – Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement,
and Service Enhancement Account
On November 7, 2006, California voters approved Proposition 1B, the Highway Safety,
Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006. This act authorized the
issuance of $19.925 billion in general obligation bonds to invest in high-priority
improvements to the state's surface transportation system and to finance strategies to
improve air quality. Among the programs contained in Proposition 1B is the $3.6 billion
Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account
(PTMISEA). PTMISEA funds are to be used to fund various mass transportation projects,
including rehabilitation, safety, or modernization improvements, capital enhancements or
expansion, rail transit improvement, bus rapid transit improvements, the acquisition of rolling
stock, and other similar investments. PTMISEA funds are to be dispersed according to the
same formula used to distribute STA funds. Management and administration costs are not
allowable for Proposition 1B funds. The program has sunset and transit agencies are
spending down their remaining balances.
Based on audited financial data, SLO Transit has been spending down its PTMISEA
balance. Proposition 1B PTMISEA funds received for vehicle procurement and capital
improvements included $146,598 in FY 2015; $51,823 in FY 2016; and $8,118 in FY 2017.
There was an unearned balance of $4,888 as June 30, 2017.
3.2.5 California Air Resources Board – Low Carbon Transit Operations
Program
The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) is one of several programs that are
part of the Transit, Affordable Housing, and Sustainable Communities Program established
by the California Legislature in 2014 by Senate Bill 862 (SB 862). The LCTOP was created
to provide operating and capital assistance for transit agencies with the goal of reduc ing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve mobility, with an emphasis on serving
Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) and low-income communities. This program is
administered by Caltrans in coordination with the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
and the State Controller’s Office (SCO). These funds are part of the State Cap-and-Trade
program and are derived from annual auction proceeds in the GHG Reduction Fund.
CARB issues competitive grant solicitations for the Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP)
and Low Carbon Transportation Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Investments pursuant to
AB 118. Each fiscal year, CARB must submit a proposed funding plan to its board for
approval. The funding plan serves as the blueprint for expending the AQIP
funds appropriated to CARB
in the state budget. Annual funding allocations could aid in future procurements of low- or
zero-emission transit and support vehicles.
Page 401 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
20
May 2022
Approved projects in LCTOP could support new or expanded bus or rail services, expanding
intermodal transit facilities, and potentially equipment acquisition, fueling, maintenance, and
other costs to operate those services or facilities, with each project intended to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. SB 862 continuously appropriates 5 percent of the annual
auction proceeds in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for LCTOP, beginning in FY
2015–16.
According to SLOCOG staff reporting on LCTOP, since the formula distribution to
operators is so small, and the required monitoring and project tracking and reporting is
so extensive, it is preferable to merge smaller operator apportionments and regional
discretionary funding into one or two projects. Based on the LCTOP project lists, SLO
Transit staff requested LCTOP funding toward the purchase and deployment of real-time bus
stop information technology at high boarding stops based on SLO Transit’s 2017 Bus Stop
Analysis. In FY 2020, SLO Transit received $39,999 in LCTOP funds. SLO Transit budget
documents indicate that the agency did not receive LCTOP funds in FY 2021 and does not
anticipate receiving any in FY 2022.
As an example of the project selection process, in response to SLOCOG’s call for projects in
November 2019, SLO Transit requested LCTOP funding as partial funding for two zero-
emission electric buses to expand the SLO Transit fleet. The LCTOP grant application
review committee scored this project the lowest among the three applications submitted for
funding because this funding request is for fleet expansion, according to the City’s adopted
2017-22 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) recommendations. It has historically been the
practice of SLOCOG to fund replacement vehicles over expansion vehicles. As such, staff
did not initially recommend any regional discretionary LCTOP funding for this project.
However, the City is in discussions with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) to exercise a contract
to participate in their “E-Fleet Ready Program” in which PG&E will build-out the electric
vehicle (EV) infrastructure at the City’s Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility to
support EV charging at no cost. The execution of the contract is contingent on the
procurement of electric vehicles. Since SLO Transit is further along in implementing their
electric vehicle charging infrastructure plan, both SoCo Transit and SLOCOG staff agree d
that the initial funding recommendation towards the SoCo Transit project, which scored
higher for LCTOP, be deferred until next fiscal year. The funding table is below.
FY 19/20 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP)
* Includes SoCo Transit, RTA, Morro Bay, and Atascadero 99314 amounts
** Includes SLO Transit 99314 amount
*** Defer $250,000 for SoCo Transit until next fiscal year (see discussion below).
Note: Amount are based on FY 19/20 SCO LCTOP apportionments
Source: SLOCOG Score
LCTOP
Project Title
Lead Agency
LCTOP
Request
A) Regional
Competitive
B) Operator
Apportionment
Total
Recommended
126 Continuation of Operating Assistance for Routes 27 and 28 in
FY 20/21 SoCo Transit $267,000 $267,000 $0 $267,000
120 Two Replacement Zero-Emission Buses and Equipment SoCo Transit $250,000 $0*** $27,694* $27,694
95 Two Zero-Emission Electric Buses for Fleet Expansion SLO Transit $517,000 $245,864 $10,867** $256,731
Page 402 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
21
May 2022
3.3 Federal Revenue Sources
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides financial and technical assistance to local
public transit systems. Since 1964, the FTA has partnered with state and local governments to
create and enhance public transportation systems, investing more than $11 billion annually to
support and expand public transit services. The FTA provides annual formula grants to transit
agencies nationwide as well as discretionary funding in competitive processes.
The most recent development concerning the provision of federal transportation funding support
has been the passage of The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), signed
into law by President Obama on December 4, 2015. The FAST Act is the first law enacted in
more than a decade that provides long-term funding certainty for transportation. In FY 2016, the
FTA had a funding allocation of $11,789 billion, which it disperses to states and other recipients
through a combination of formula and discretionary grants. Retroactively effective on October 1,
2015, the FAST Act authorizes transit program funding for five years through September 30,
2020. The recent signing of the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act reauthorizes a
new transportation bill.
The following table lists the formula and competitive discretionary grant opportunities under the
FAST Act:
Source: Federal Transit Administration
3.3.1 FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Funding Program
The Urbanized Area Formula Funding Program makes federal resources available to urbanized
areas for transit capital and operating assistance, and for transportation planning and related
planning in urbanized areas. An urbanized area is a census-designated area with a population of
50,000 or more as designated by the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Because SLO Transit operates in a small-urbanized area between 50,000 and 200,000 people,
the City has used these funds for both operating and capital expenditures.
Federal transit funds are allocated in SLO County to the three designated small-urbanized areas
(UZAs) in SLO County. Those UZAs are Arroyo Grande-Grover Beach (Southern area); San
Luis Obispo (Central area); and El Paso de Robles-Atascadero (Northern area). The 5307
program includes formula revenues and the small transit intensive cities program formula f unds.
Formula Discretionary
Section 5307: Urbanized Area Formula
Funding Program
Sections 5303, 5304, and 5305:
MPO/Statewide/Non-MPO Transportation
Planning
Section 5310: Enhanced Mobility of Seniors
and Individuals with Disabilities
Section 5309: Capital Investment Grant program
(New Starts, Small Starts, Core Capacity)
Section 5311: Rural Formula Programs
Section 5337: State of Good Repair (High
Intensity Fixed Guideway and High Intensity
Motorbus)
Section 5329: Public Transportation Safety
and Oversight
Section 5339: Bus and Bus Facilities and No
and Low Emission
Page 403 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
22
May 2022
The apportionment formulas used by FTA incorporate various performance measures including
passenger miles, vehicle revenue miles and hours, passenger trips, population, and population
density.
Federal transit urbanized grant funds in the Central area under the FTA Section 5307 program
are administered by the City of SLO in coordination with the San Luis Obispo Urbanized Area
Technical Committee. A Program of Projects (POP) is developed in consultation with SLOCOG
and other parties, and includes funding for SLO Transit and SLORTA, which operate within
urbanized areas. Projects range from preventive maintenance and bus capital repair to bus
replacement and transit operations. The draft POP is approved by the SLO City Council and
forwarded to SLOCOG for final approval and inclusion in the FTIP.
According to City budget documents, federal 5307 funding assistance grants received were
$1,441,620 in FY 2018, $1,484,870 in FY 2019, $917,175 in FY 2020, $552,007 in FY 2021, and
an anticipated $1,897,234 in FY 2022. When compared to RTA financial projections, the City
amounts in FYs 2018 and 2019 were 62 percent and 64 percent of the 5307 allocations for the
Central area, with the remaining allocated to RTA. SLOCOG’s funding summary provides that
Section 5307 is formula driven.
As a matter of comparison, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) a dopts
the transit project selection procedures for the federal Fiscal Year FTA 5307 Program cycle and
initiates a countywide call for projects. Caltrans Division of Mass Transportation is the federally
designated recipient of FTA 5307 funding for small urbanized areas in California. Local projects
that are funded with FTA 5307 funds are selected by SBCAG as the Metropolitan Planning
Organization, in consultation with the State and transit operators. SBCAG is required by federal
regulation to adopt procedures that will be used to select projects for FTA 5307 funding. Any
public agency with public transit capital and operating funding needs within, to\from, or between
urbanized area(s) in Santa Barbara County may apply for FTA 5307 funding. Generally, FTA
5307 funds are programmed to projects in three-year cycles and are used within the
corresponding urbanized area. If priority needs are being met in urbanized areas, they can also
be used to support “regional” services to or from an urbanized area and even outside urbanized
areas. SBCAG and transit operators collaborate on the development of a project scoring system
that is adopted by the SBCAG Board of Directors. The scoring system prioritizes projects for
funding in each urbanized area on the basis of mobility needs and not use formulas or
predetermined percentages to fund modes or jurisdictions, consistent with 23 CFR Part
450.222(b). The SBCAG Board reserves the right to modify these procedures in consultation
with the designated grantees in each urbanized area at any time to promote the most efficient
and effective use of FTA 5307 funding in Santa Barbara County.
3.3.2 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, SLO Transit received
$1,390,418 in pandemic relief to cover operating and capital expenditures in FY 2020 and
$2,805,689 in FY 2021. Of the FY 2020 funds, $1,350,230 has been designated to reimburse
100 percent of the FY 2019-20 operations costs and losses in revenues incurred from February
1 through June 30, 2020. The remaining FY 2020 CARES Act funds reimbursed FY 2020-21
expenditures, and the unused balance of conventional state and federal funds will be used to
support SLO Transit services in later years once all CARES Act funds have been expended.
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), enabled in March 2021, may provide additional
stimulus funding for transit.
Page 404 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
23
May 2022
3.3.3 FTA Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Program
The FTA Section 5339 program is designed to assist operators with the replacement,
rehabilitation, and purchase of vehicles and related equipment as well as the construction of
bus-related facilities, including technological changes or innovations to modify low - or no-
emission vehicles or facilities. Funding is provided thr ough formula allocations and competitive
grants. A sub-program provides competitive grants for bus and bus facility projects that support
low- and zero-emission vehicles. The federal share is not to exceed 80 percent of the net project
cost.
The FTA apportions a discretionary component and a small urban (population 50,000 to
200,000) formula component to governors of each State annually. Caltrans’ Division of Rail and
Mass Transportation (DRMT) has been delegated the designated recipient respo nsibilities by
the Governor and is the direct recipient for these funds. DRMT administers these funding
components to eligible sub-recipients which include public agencies and private non-profit
organizations engaged in public transportation.
Caltrans releases an annual summary of FY Section 5339 allocations to small-urbanized areas
(UZAs) in the state. The SLOCOG financial summary document includes that Section 5339
provides formula capital funding to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related
equipment and to construct bus-related facilities. A summary of allocations to SLO County UZAs
is presented as follows:
UZA FFY 2018 FFY 2019 FFY 2020 FFY 2021
Arroyo Grande-
Grover Beach, CA $112,791 $103,319 $107,535 $99,112
El Paso de Robles-
Atascadero, CA $134,864 $123,538 $128,577 $118,508
San Luis Obispo, CA $147,954 $135,129 $141,057 $130,010
Total Allocations $395,609 $361,986 $377,169 $347,630
Source: Caltrans, DRMT
SLO Transit received $132,084 in FTA Section 5339 capital assistance in FY 2017 –18 toward
the purchase of replacement vehicles. Based on National Transit Database (NTD) reports, SLO
Transit did not report 5339 funds in FY 2019, 2020, or 2021.
3.3.4 Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement Program
The Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program funds
transportation projects or programs that reduce carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter
emissions. The FAST Act provides just over $12 billion in CMAQ funding over the five years of
the authorization. Eligible projects for CMAQ include but are not limited to:
• Transit vehicle engine retrofits and vehicle replacements
• Street sweeper and school bus engine retrofits and vehicle replacements
• Transit service improvements
• Traffic flow improvements
• Bicycle and pedestrian improvements
Page 405 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
24
May 2022
• Travel demand management
Operating assistance is limited to new transit, commuter and intercity pass enger rail services,
intermodal facilities, and travel demand management strategies, including traffic operation
centers, inspection and maintenance programs, and the incremental cost of expanding these
services.
CMAQ funds are available in federal air quality nonattainment areas. The funds are allocated by
SLOCOG in the San Luis Obispo County region. SLO Transit utilizes CMAQ funding as
available for the purposes of replacing compressed natural gas buses. There wa s $856,000 in
FY 2016–17 and $761,000 in FY 2017–18 in CMAQ funding programmed into the 2017 Federal
Transportation Improvement Plan. Based on budgeting documents, SLO Transit did not receive
CMAQ funds in FY 2019, 2020, or 2021.
3.4 Future Revenue Considerations
SLO Transit currently relies on a myriad of funding sources from local, state, and federal levels.
Cooperative arrangements, such as with Cal Poly, provide SLO Transit with additional resources
to sustain service at optimal levels. At the state level, there are several recently adopted funding
mechanisms for transit capital and operations. As mentioned previously, SB 508 was passed in
October 2015 and amends key provisions of the TDA. Under the new law, other local revenues
can prop up the farebox.
To mitigate declines in future passenger revenue, SLO Transit could further evaluate the market
for advertising revenue and review opportunities without compromising fleet operations.
In addition, SB 508 exempts certain operating cost categories used to determine compliance
with required farebox ratios, including certain fuel, insurance, and claims settlement cost
increases beyond the change in the Consumer Price Index. Startup costs for new transit
services are also exempted for up to two years. Supplemental revenues would serve in
providing a local match for state and federal grants to fund transit expansion. AB 90 and AB 149,
passed in recent state legislative sessions, continue many of the farebox exemptions, and relief
of other TDA eligibility criteria and penalties through FY 2022-23. Of note in AB 149 is the
allowance of federal funds to count as “local funds” toward farebox recovery.
In short, given the competitive nature of grants, the city ought to continue reviewing additional
grant opportunities.
3.5 Expenditures
3.5.1 Operating Expenditures
Operating expenditures are inclusive of administration, purchased transportation, maintenance,
and operations. The financial plan uses data derived from the City’s NTD reports and SLO
Transit budget documents. Expenditures are forecasted to increase at 3.2 percent annually
indexed to inflation and cost-of-living adjustments.
SLO Transit’s operating expenditures totaled $3,532,310 in FY 2018 and $3,533,504 in FY
2019. In FY 2020, operating expenditures totaled $3,669,374, with $2,548,971 going to
operations, $486,651 to maintenance, $356,946 for general administration, and $276,806 in
indirect costs. In FY 2021, operating expenditures totaled $4,269,674, with $2,794,565 going to
operations, $602,500 to maintenance, $590,267 for general administration, and $282,342 in
indirect costs. In 2022, SLO Transit anticipates operating expenditures to total $4,311,326 with
Page 406 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
25
May 2022
$2,837,720 going to operations, $606,100 to maintenance, $579,517 for general administration,
and $287,989 in indirect costs.
The City’s approved 2020 cost allocation plan shows the portion of central government services
costs directed to transit using an allocated unit basis. The cost allocation plan shows costs
totaling $321,727 as indirect cost for transit. These costs include the following services:
CITY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES ALLOCATED TO TRANSIT
1. Building Charge 2. City Council 3. Administration 4. City Attorney
5. City Clerk 6. Finance 7. Network Services 8. IT Support Services
9. Information Services 10. Finance Support
Services 11. Human Resources 12. Risk Management
13. Wellness Program 14. Public Works
Administration
15. Facilities
Maintenance
16. CIP Project
Engineering
17. Transportation/Plan
Engineering
3.5.1 Capital Expenditures
Capital expenditures encompass vehicle replacement and bus stop/shelter improvements. The
financial plan uses FY 2019–20 budget data as a baseline as well as projected capital forecasts
based on the City’s fleet purchasing and capital improvement plans. SLO Transi t reports a total
of $231,999 in capital expenses for FY 2020, $3,120,000 in FY 2021, and an anticipated
$1,560,000 in FY 2022.
The City has been working through partnerships with the SLO County Air Pollution Control
District and Pacific Gas & Electric to reconfigure the bus yard and construct charging
infrastructure to prepare for the future electrification of transit vehicles. The transition to electric
transit vehicles will continue into the foreseeable future.
Future consideration of infrastructure investment, addressing a five-year capital strategy will be
addressed in the City’s next Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP).
Page 407 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
26
May 2022
4.0 Regulatory Environment
This section addresses the regulatory environment in which SLO Transit operates. As a
recipient of various state and federal funds, the City of San Luis Obispo (City of SLO) is
obligated to comply with many state and federal regulatory requirements. This section discusses
which regulatory requirements the City of SLO is responsible for, opportunities for administrative
and cost efficiencies in fulfilling these requirements, and transit’s role and importance in the
overall sustainability of the City of SLO. A greater description of funding sources and how they
are apportioned and allocated is provided in the previous Chapter 3.
4.1 Federal Requirements
The City of SLO is a recipient of Urbanized Area Formula Funding (49 United States Code
[USC] 5307) from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The City of SLO in coordination with
the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) and the San Luis Obispo Urbanized
Area Technical Committee, a committee established by SLOCOG, are responsible for the
administration of the federal funds to SLO Transit.
To receive federal transit funding, all transit-related projects must be included in a federal
Program of Projects (POP). Projects range from preventive maintenance and repair to bus
replacement and transit operations. A draft POP is developed through a collaborative process
led by SLOCOG in coordination with other stakeholders, including SLO Transit and San Luis
Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA). Once a draft POP is approved by the SLO City
Council, it is forwarded to SLOCOG and recommended for approval and inclusion in the Federal
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).
After the POP is finalized and federal funds are awarded, there are many plans, programs, and
processes required by the FTA to monitor the responsible and effective utilization of federal
awards. These requirements are listed below:
Programmatic Requirements:
• Agency coordination with SLOCOG, serving as the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO), State, and FTA for required plans (ongoing effort with varying time horizons)
o Statewide and Federal Transportation Improvement Programs
o Program of Projects
o Metropolitan Transportation Plan
o Unified Planning Work Program
o Long-range Statewide Transportation Plan
• Public Transit Agency Safety Plan (update required annually)
o Small public transit providers (<100 vehicles in peak revenue service across all
fixed-route modes or any one non-fixed-route mode) can create their own plan
or participate in a state-sponsored plan.
• Transit Asset Management (TAM) Plan (full plan updated every four years)
o Tier II providers (<100 vehicles across all fixed-route modes or <100 vehicles in
one non-fixed-route mode) can create their own plan or participate in a group
plan.
Page 408 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
27
May 2022
o TAM serves as an important source of data to gauge the life and utilization of
the transit system’s capital assets.
o TAM is a business model that prioritizes funding based on the condition of
transit assets in order to achieve or maintain transit networks in a state of good
repair (SGR).
o SLO Transit’s last TAM plan was completed on June 18, 2017:
▪ Includes performance targets through 2022
▪ Asset inventory and conditions for:
o 17 revenue vehicles
o 1 support vehicle
o 1 maintenance facility
• Title VI Program (update required every three years)
• Equal Employment Opportunity Program (update required every four years)
Operational Requirements:
• Drug and alcohol testing program (ongoing)
• Americans with Disabilities Act complementary paratransit service (ongoing)
• Vehicle procurement processes (ongoing)
Reporting Requirements:
• Certification of assurances (required annually)
• National Transit Database reporting (annual reporting required for reduced reporters with
<30 VOMS)
• Grant application, monitoring, and reporting (ongoing)
• Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (goal update/submission required every three years)
• Triennial review (review conducted every three years)
o One of FTA’s management tools for examining grantee performance and
adherence to current FTA requirements and policies.
o The City’s most recent FTA triennial review took place in 2019 and covered 21
compliance areas.
▪ No deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements in 17 areas.
▪ Deficiencies were found in the areas of Financial Management and
Capacity, Technical Capacity – Award Management, Procurement, and
Title VI.
▪ The City responded to all deficiencies in letters dated July 16 and 24,
2020, detailing its corrective action steps. All have been addressed.
4.2 State Requirements
The City of SLO is eligible to receive funding from the state, made available through various
programs. California’s Transportation Development Act (TDA) is one such funding source. To
Page 409 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
28
May 2022
initiate the process of receiving TDA funds, the City of SLO must submit a claim to SLOCOG. To
continue receiving TDA funds, the City of SLO must undergo a number of compliance actions
including completing a financial compliance audit of the TDA program funds within six months of
the end of the fiscal year, a triennial performance audit, and the Transit Operator Financial
Transactions Report submitted to the State Controller within seven months after the end of the
fiscal year. To aid SLOCOG’s compliance requirement under law to actively monitor transit
system performance, the City of SLO is also responsible for submitting quarterly performance
reports to SLOCOG.
Further, the City of SLO participates in the Regional TIP planning process under Senate Bill 45
and California Transportation Commission State TIP guidelines. The Regional TIP is a product
of the collaborative planning process enacted to create the POP and Federal TIP, as described
above. Through this process, the City of SLO must coordinate with SLOCOG to ensure all
transit projects of interest are included in the TIPs in order for the projects to be eligible to
receive state funding. The Regional TIP must be updated every two years.
The City of SLO is also eligible to receive SGR funds, which are made available for eligible
transit maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital projects. For a project to be eligible for state SGR
funding, the project must align with state SGR program goals and must be included on
SLOCOG’s SGR project list. Project details, such as the schedule, location, estimated costs,
and estimated useful life of the improvement, should be included in the SGR project list.
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) funds are also available to the City of SLO
for operating and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and improve mobility. Eligible recipients must apply to the state to receive these funds and, once
awarded, a progress report detailing the project status with an itemized list of expenditures must
be submitted every six months until project closeout.
4.3 Transit’s Role in Sustainability
The City of SLO’s Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery establishes a community-wide
goal of achieving complete carbon neutrality by 2035. Achieving a shift in mode split is one of
the six pillars, or areas of focus, the plan identifies as necessary to achieving the overall goal.
The aim of the mode split is to decrease the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips for in-
town trips, shifting the mode used for these trips to low emissions transit vehicles. To achieve
the desired mode shift, the plan supports the implementation of the City’s Electrification
Strategic Plan, which aims to increase the number of electric transit vehicles in the region while
retiring fossil fuel-burning vehicles. The plan also supports a reduction to transit headway in the
Short-Range Transit Plan, which would make transit a more convenient and desirable mode for
residents. Through these goals, this climate plan identifies transit as a key agent in achieving
carbon neutrality.
Four goals established in the Circulation Element of the City of SLO’s General Plan point to the
increased importance of public transit in the region: reducing dependence on single-occupancy
vehicles, promoting safety for all modes, funding alternative modes of transportation, and
supporting traffic reduction activities. Bolstering public transit in the region is a strong step
toward achieving each of these goals established by the City.
Additionally, the Safety Element of the City of SLO’s General Plan outlines the need for a
coordinated emergency response system throughout the state as well as for hazard
assessments and emergency response plans from transportation agencies and companies
Page 410 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
29
May 2022
operating in the SLO area to aid in the evacuation of citizens, should an emergency necessitate
it. This includes public transit.
The City of SLO’s Active Transportation Plan emphasizes the importance of public transit as a
key component in achieving the City’s active transportation goal of empowering residents with
the ability to choose from various modes of transportation other than a single-occupancy
vehicle.
Together, these plans guide the development and functioning of the City of SLO ’s transportation
infrastructure and services offered and speak to a greater demand for public transit and the
overall increased importance placed on transit’s role in the City of SLO and the region. While the
demand for transit to fulfill various goals and obligations of the City of SLO is growing, flexible
funding sources to support transit activities are few. As an enterprise program within the City
budget, public transit uses state and federal grant funds and locally generated farebox revenue
to fund services offered.
Page 411 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
30
May 2022
5.0 Opportunities – Collaboration/Outsourcing
Transit agencies are obliged to comply with regional, state, and federal funding requirements.
The administrative requirements can be challenging; however, local agencies have various
potential means to address them. Opportunities that may be considered for the City of San Luis
Obispo are provided below in effort to improve administrative and operational efficiencies, or
funding allocation, for the transit system. Both collaboration and outsourcing opportunities are
addressed and include:
1. Status Quo
2. Collaboration of Discretionary Grant Applications
3. Collaboration of Auxiliary Functions
4. Capital Cost Contracting
5. Cooperative Procurements
6. Alternate Delivery
7. Regional Discretionary Funding Amendments
8. Consolidation with RTA
5.1 Status Quo
a. Description: The status quo assumes current administrative and operational procedures
using existing direct and indirect City staffing and resources to provide transit service
delivery within the City.
b. Impact to City: Transit administration is in-house (exceptions being contracted bus
operations and maintenance, and conduct of special studies) which provides internal
network and ability to plan, coordinate, and deliver transit service more seamlessly while
meeting other City goals (e.g. Climate Action Plan, General Plan policies, multimodal
transportation plan, etc.).
c. Opportunities/Benefits: Decision-making and direction of the transit service does not
require involvement by other outside peer agencies. As a result, more rapid action could be
taken to modify the service as desired. No consideration by City is required on repercussion
of changes beyond city service area. Partnership with Cal Poly for transit service remains
mainly unobstructed. Local control of the transit system is fully maintained. Decision-making
remains solely with the City Council on all aspects of the service including operations,
funding, planning, and administration. Short- and long-term potential cost savings are borne
from City action. Enterprise Fund program within the City enables degree of funding
flexibility to generate dedicated revenue.
d. Constraints/Drawbacks: Full administrative costs to operate the service including direct
and indirect government spending by the City are included in transit operations costs.
Transit competes with other City programs for constrained central city government staff
resources and assistance.
Page 412 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
31
May 2022
5.2 Collaboration of Discretionary Grant Applications
a. Description: The City and other partner agencies, such as RTA, jointly prepare and submit
discretionary grant applications and other competitive funding sources for common projects
and programs as well as for receiving common community benefit.
b. Impact to City: Possible reduced demand on City direct and central government staff
resources, thereby increasing the return on investment in pursuing the grant. Would require
additional coordination with partners for funding.
c. Opportunities/Benefits: Collaboration opens additional opportunity for the City to pursue
grants and revenues that it could not otherwise pursue on its own, whether due to project
scope and benefit, staff constraints, or other eligibility factor. Collaboration on grants and
level of staff commitment can be scaled based on type of project and pursuit requirements.
Shared resources such as joint use or development of an asset or service may be possible
through a collaborative grant. Increased partnership with local agencies could result, with
additional leverage such as local match and more regional presence to pursue larger grants.
Additional intellectual capital and capability would also be broadened and developed for
grant pursuits. City can continue to pursue funding on its own as needed.
d. Constraints/Drawbacks: Additional coordination efforts among agencies for funding
opportunities and in preparing a unified grant. Requires decision-making for selecting lead
agency/sponsor of a multiagency grant. Proposed projects selected by each agency must
be eligible and meet grant funding criteria.
5.3 Collaboration of Auxiliary Functions
a. Description: The City and other partner agencies, such as RTA, jointly provide auxiliary
transit services that enhance public information such as advertising and marketing, as well
as customer service. Functional collaboration could also include other services like routine
light maintenance such as bus cleaning and washing.
b. Impact to City: These auxiliary services could be provided through a number of means
such one of the partner agencies or through a third-party vendor/organization. Reduced city
staff to provide these functions may be possible. Payment for services or in-kind
contributions would occur but at reductions over current expenses.
c. Opportunities/Benefits: Collaboration on these functions could result in some possible
cost savings through access to larger audiences and mix of marketing channels, and from
being a “one-stop shop” for local and regional transit services. There could be increased
public visibility and perception of one service that crosses jurisdictional boundaries from a
more central approach to customer facing services. Bus cleaning and washing could be
handled at one facility rather than two, in light of near -term adjacent parking facilities for
each agency’s vehicles, resulting in some possible cost and space savings.
d. Constraints/Drawbacks: City would lose a degree of autonomy in marketing and
advertising the transit service, both from a content and placement perspective. Some level
of cleaning schedule of two bus fleets would be required plus increased use of the wash
facility.
Page 413 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
32
May 2022
5.4 Capital Cost of Contracting
a. Description: FTA allows eligible service contracts to be funded using capital funds rather
than operational funds.
b. Impact to City: Minimal impact on accounting, reporting, and federal fund draw down.
Minimal additional programming with SLOCOG through its program of projects. The City is
beginning to utilize this mechanism.
c. Opportunities/Benefits: This is intended to assist with the capital consumed over the
course of the service contract and creates opportunities for transit providers to realize local
match savings, as federal match shares are higher (up to 80 percent) for capital assistance
rather than match rates for operational assistance grants (50 percent), which would
traditionally be required for expenses related to contracting ser vice.
d. Constraints/Drawbacks: The City must keep some form of contracting with an outside
vendor for preventative maintenance and/or vehicle lease, at a minimum, to claim capital
cost of contracting, given this mechanism is based on use of contractor assets for the transit
system.
5.5 Cooperative Procurements
a. Description: The City and other partner agencies, such as RTA, jointly procure goods and
services such as vehicles and bus equipment, parts, bus stop amenities, technology assets,
and other services.
b. Impact to City: Possible reduced demand on City direct and central government staff
resources, thereby increasing the return on investment in cooperative procurements. Would
require additional coordination with partners for funding. A change in procurement
procedures may be needed.
c. Opportunities/Benefits: Opens additional opportunity for the City to attain economies of
scale in procurement and better purchasing terms that it could not otherwise receive on its
own, whether due to project scope and size, staff constraints, or other eligibility factor.
Cooperative procurements may save administrative costs while maximizing potential
benefits for all participating parties. This approach could be used for a variety of needs,
including securing joint fuel contracts, constructing shared use assets such as a bus wash
facility, or installing shared electric vehicle charging stations. Collaboration on procurement
and level of staff commitment can be scaled based on type of project and pursuit
requirements. Increased partnership would be established, while building intellectual capital
and capability on joint purchases of different types and scale. City could still maintain option
to continue pursuing its own procurement of items relevant only to its system as needed.
d. Constraints/Drawbacks: Additional coordination efforts and timing among agencies for
procurement of like goods and services. Changes in procurement method and/or software
upgrades may be needed. Changes in accounting, reporting and programming of funding
among agencies might also occur, including decision-making for selecting the lead
agency/sponsor of the procurement.
Page 414 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
33
May 2022
5.6 Alternative Delivery
a. Description: Advances in transit service delivery such as microtransit and technology
innovation. Microtransit is defined by the FTA as follows: IT-enabled private multi-passenger
transportation services, … that serve passengers using dynamically generated routes , and
may expect passengers to make their way to and from common pick-up or drop-off points.
Vehicles can range from large SUVs to vans to shuttle buses. Because they provide transit -
like service but on a smaller, more flexible scale, these new services have been referred to
as microtransit. [TCRP Research Report 188]. Users would tap into technology, generally
with a smartphone, to schedule and pay for a ride.
b. Impact to City: Microtransit would radically change how certain areas within the City would
be served by transit. A pilot project could first be implemented for a certain time period to
gauge accessibility, connectivity to other transportation modes, cost, consumer preferences,
and overall performance relative to established goals.
c. Opportunities/Benefits: Microtransit provides the ability for a passenger to book a trip that
will take them on the fastest route, thus making the service more attractive. Different
branding from fixed route bus is possible. The service may also convey a sense of security
for some users relative to the fixed route. Flexible scheduling of microtransit could be
provided to serve those outside normal fixed route operating hours.
d. Constraints/Drawbacks: Microtransit is a low-capacity service serving fewer people
compared to fixed route buses and resulting in a higher cost per passenger. Its application
would have limitations both from a capacity and cost standpoint. For example, this service
would not function to transport a large crowd from a particular designated stop at once. New
smaller vehicles would be needed, though options to procure vehicles such as leasing or
used could reduce initial capital investment.
5.7 Regional Discretionary Funding Amendments
a. Description: As described in Chapter 3, SLO Transit receives funding from local, state, and
federal sources. Each source has their own apportionment and allocation method, such as
formula based using specific criteria to divide revenue among eligible recipients, and
discretionary based which enables the administering agency to determine how to divide the
funds. Changes, or alterations, to these existing criteria or discretionary actions would
occur, primarily by SLOCOG.
b. Impact to City: Changes to how transit funds are awarded and allocated would directly
impact funding levels for SLO Transit. The change in funding methods could affect not only
revenue amounts, but other considerations such as different information needed for
eligibility and fund application, timing of fund receipt, and monitoring and reporting, among
other potential modifications.
c. Opportunities/Benefits: Shifts to different methodologies could benefit SLO Transit should
the new eligibility or performance criteria weigh in favor of the City’s delivery of service. For
example, funding based on project merits or performance indicators would substitute for
formulas that rely on other factors such as population.
d. Constraints/Drawbacks: Given finite revenue amounts, increases to one agency would
result in decreases to another. SLOCOG, which has discretion over several revenue
sources for transit, would be required to evaluate, adopt, and implement new funding
Page 415 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
34
May 2022
requirements, and determine regional implications on the countywide transportation system.
Several other revenue sources are allocated based on federal or state regulations, leaving
little discretion for change.
5.8 Consolidation with RTA
a. Description: SLO Transit would be integrated into RTA. Full integration would include RTA
annexing the City service area into regional transit services.
b. Impact to City: City would relinquish independent control of the transit system and its
assets to the regional provider but maintain membership on the RTA board. City staff would
have very minimal to no further responsibility for transit administration and service delivery.
RTA would directly claim City’s share of transit funding.
c. Opportunities/Benefits: Integration would provide more seamless services to the customer
wishing to travel within the region. Depending on brand identity among the various regional
services, there could be a standard fare system and more connectivity to additional
destinations. Consolidating transit service into one organization (i.e., acting as a single
funding recipient) has the potential to produce savings by reducing duplication of
administration and management, incorporating more specialized transit administrative
functions, and service efficiencies.3
As previously noted, SLO Transit’s KPIs relative to both industry norms and SLO County
peers, performs effectively and efficiently. Further, as previously presented, SLO Transit
also provides the greatest number of vehicle service hours per full time equivalent, relative
to County peers. Further, SLO Transit outperforms RTA in performance measures
especially in terms of cost per VSH hour (76.83% less) and farebox ratio (16.09% more).
SLO Transit relative to County peers, of note:
✓ SLOT has the highest ridership (total passengers).
✓ SLOT has the lowest cost per vehicle service hour (VSR) except for Morro Bay.
✓ SLOT has the lowest operating cost per passenger.
✓ SLOT operates the greatest number of VSRs per full-time (employee) equivalent
(FTE).
✓ SLOT has the highest farebox ratio.
d. Constraints/Drawbacks: City no longer has full control of the service. City’s contribution of
transit funds to the regional service may not equate to receiving equivalent transit services
within the City. Cost performance metrics for a larger system using in-house drivers are not
as competitive as the City’s current performance indicators using contracted services. Lack
of City control of the service might result in transit not being able to help fulf ill City
transportation and sustainability goals.
3 Recent consolidation of South County Area Transit into RTA included RTA having made an estimation of
potential cost savings of approximately $78,000. This figure has not been validated as having been realized.
Page 416 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
35
May 2022
6.0 A Way Forward - Recommendations
In defining a path forward informed by the opportunities identified in Chapter 5, a likely scenario
includes a combination of actions to be considered. While SLO Transit has expressed concern
regarding funding priorities and allocation through existing policies and procedures on a regional
basis, it is imperative that the City remain pro-active in seeking and successfully diversifying its
funding sources. As an enterprise fund within the City, transit should be self-supported through
dedicated revenues including user fees. For example, fare policies should be reviewed regularly
and adjusted to reflect current and projected operating conditions. In addition, relations hips
with Cal Poly should remain strong in review of the zero-fare program and a new contract
negotiated that incorporates the current allocated cost per passenger for Cal Poly riders.
The following actions are recommended for continued SLO Transit financially sustainability:
1. Annually review fare structure relative to ridership and quarterly farebox recovery ratio
trends.
2. Negotiate new Cal Poly zero-fare program payments that capture fully allocated cost of
Cal Poly ridership. The agreement should reserve the right to annually review payments
based on changes in allocated costs.
3. Utilize Capital Cost of Contracting provisions allowed by FTA to capitalize certain
contractor preventative maintenance. This reduces the local match requirement
compared to FTA funding for operations.
4. Develop a grants team including retaining a dedicated transit grants specialist to
develop an annual program of grant research, education, positioning and preparation,
and application, as well as post-award administration and reporting. The grants
specialist would help determine when partnering opportunities with other agencies might
be advantageous to win grant funds from FTA, State of California, or another grantor
agency. An increase in grant funding could reduce reliance on other existing sources, or
shift revenues among program needs.
5. Work with RTA to identify opportunities for joint procurement and/or use, such as fuel
contracts, specialized maintenance outsourcing (e.g. body work, deep cleaning), or
common assets (e.g. bus washing).
6. Evaluate the potential to monetize city transit assets to generate increased local
revenue, such as public fueling/EV charging, and external advertising at key transit stop
locations. Work to prioritize city funding and investment in infrastruct ure such as
roadway rehabilitation and bike/ped amenities at strategic locations most frequented by
bus routes.
7. Hold discussions with SLOCOG and RTA regarding current regional funding policies
and procedures. One possible area of discussion can be on the T DA-LTF allocation
process. Rather than RTA currently receiving a share of each jurisdiction’s LTF
apportionment “off the top”, the LTF based on population can first be allocated to the
local jurisdictions by the COG. Each RTA member agency independently reviews their
respective budgeted cost share of services provided by RTA and then locally approves
the amount to fund the regional agency. While this entails additional steps above current
process during the TDA claims and typically results in similar outcom es, it provides an
additional layer of funding allocation so that the city can evaluate their impacts on a
Page 417 of 418
IBI GROUP
CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
36
May 2022
council level and approve of RTA budget changes prior to fund disbursement. This
method is practiced by other transit JPAs/districts in the state.
8. Continue building a strong brand for SLO Transit. The current labor shortage is hurting
transit, and while the public general views transit favorably, conveying a strong brand
that communicates good service and integrates well in a multimodal environment cou ld
draw further interest and more investment in the transit program.
Page 418 of 418
Transit Program StudyCurrent state of SLO Transit and the Transit Program AnalysisAugust 2022Matt Horn, Public Works DirectorAustin O’Dell, Transit Manager1
2Policy ContextMajor City Goals (MCG)•Goal: •Climate Action, Open Space & Sustainable Transportation.•Objective: •Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.•Transit service enhancements.•Transit fleet electrification.•Goal:•Economic Recovery, Resiliency, Fiscal Sustainability.•Objective•Reviewing SLO Transit’s operations and infrastructure.•Potential benefits of sharing infrastructure, equipment or centralizing services.
BackgroundSLO Transit•Fixed route transit service for the City of San Luis Obispo.•Convenient access to neighborhoods, major shopping centers, local schools including Cal Poly and medical offices.•Managed under the Public Works Department.•Operations and maintenance is managed by contractor First Transit.•Serves the community of San Luis Obispo while complementing the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) which provides regional transit service.3
•Potential Partnership with Regional Transit Agency (RTA).•Completion of new RTA transit facility within 1,500 feet of SLO Transit’s existing maintenance yard.•Potential for shared infrastructure to lower transit overhead costs for both agencies.•Impacts of the pandemic and staffing vacancies resulted in opportune time for a Transit Program Analysis.•Proposals solicited from qualified firms in November 2021.•Staff secured IBI Group to prepare the study.•Transit Program Analysis is different than the Transit Innovation Study.4Reason for this study
5Report Highlights•Key Performance Indicators (KPI)•Consultant sourced data from Transportation Development Act (TDA) performance audits and the National Transit Data Base (NTD).•Results:•SLO Transit leads County in total number of passengers served.•Provides more total hours of service.•Covers the most distance at lowest cost per vehicle hour of operation and per passenger.•SLO Transit provides high level of service at lowest cost in county.•SLO Transit exceeds state mandate of recovering 20% of operating costs by farebox recovery.•KPIs indicate SLO Transit as top performing transit system in the County.
6Key Performance Indicators
7Evaluation of Opportunities•Collaboration and Outsourcing•Impacts, benefits, opportunities, constraints and drawbacks to 8 scenarios were evaluated in the study.•Scenarios ranged from status quo to full consolidation with RTA.•Full consolidation would maintain RTA as sole entity providing transit service to the community.•Remaining scenarios can be implemented or not implemented, without invalidating the remaining scenarios.•Recommendations•Based on KPIs for SLO Transit, the study does not recommendconsolidation with RTA.
8# RecommendationsStatus1.Annually review fare structure relative to ridership and quarterly farebox recovery ratio trends. This is a best practice for transit operators and this action is planned to continue.2.Negotiate new Cal Poly zero-fare program payments that capture fully allocated cost of Cal Poly ridership. The agreement should reserve the right to annually review payments based on changes in allocated costs. The City recently approved an agreement with Cal Poly for service for the next two years. Future contract negotiations are on-going.3.Utilize Capital Cost of Contracting provisions allowed by FTA to capitalize certain contractor preventative maintenance. This reduces the local match requirement compared to FTA funding for operations. Recommendation has been implemented.4.Develop a grants team including retaining a dedicated transit grants specialist to develop an annual program of grant research, education, positioning and preparation, and application, as well as post-award administration and reporting. The grants specialist would help determine when partnering opportunities with other agencies might be advantageous to win grant funds from FTA, State of California, or another grantor agency. An increase in grant funding could reduce reliance on other existing sources, or shift revenues among program needs. This recommendation is currently under development as staff is developing a plan to reorganize several vacant positions with the intent of addressing this recommendation as well as benefiting both the Transit and Parking Services programs.Recommendations
9Recommendations# Recommendations Status5.Work with RTA to identify opportunities for joint procurement and/or use, such as fuel contracts, specialized maintenance outsourcing (e.g. body work, deep cleaning), or common assets (e.g. bus washing). Staff is currently working to address this recommendation with several new grant funded electric transit vehicles purchases.6.Evaluate the potential to monetize city transit assets to generate increased local revenue, such as public fueling/EV charging, and external advertising at key transit stop locations. Work to prioritize city funding and investment in infrastructure such as roadway rehabilitation and bike/ped amenities at strategic locations most frequented by bus routes. No action has been taken with this recommendation as of this report. It is recommended that implementation of this recommendation take place in future work programs. 7.Hold discussions with SLOCOG and RTA regarding current regional funding policies and procedures. One possible area of discussion can be on the TDA-LTF allocation process. Rather than RTA currently receiving a share of each jurisdiction’s LTF apportionment “off the top”, the LTF based on population can first be allocated to the local jurisdictions by the COG. Each RTA member agency independently reviews their respective budgeted cost share of services provided by RTA and then locally approves the amount to fund the regional agency. While this entails additional steps above current process during the TDA claims and typically results in similar outcomes, it provides an additional layer of funding allocation so that the city can evaluate their impacts on a council level and approve of RTA budget changes prior to fund disbursement. This method is practiced by other transit JPAs/districts in the state.No action has been taken with this recommendation as of this report. It is recommended that implementation of this recommendation take place in future work programs.
10# Recommendations Status8.Continue building a strong brand for SLO Transit. The current labor shortage is hurting transit, and while the public general views transit favorably, conveying a strong brand that communicates good service and integrates well in a multimodal environment could draw further interest and more investment in the transit program. Strong branding for SLO Transit is in progress and on-going. The current work in this area is planned to be supplemented by future recommendations received by the future Short Range Transit Plan and the Transit Innovation Study.Recommendations
11Current Challenges•SLO Transit•Restoring pre-pandemic level of service to the community.•Hiring and training of drivers.•32 drivers required for pre-pandemic service levels.•Current drivers = 22.•First Transit is diligent in efforts to recruit and train drivers.•Through City Council amended agreement, First Transit increased driver’s wages.•Increase in driver retention.•Ridership is recovering.•Current total ridership has increased 154% from prior year.
12Moving ForwardSLO Transit•Recovering from Covid-19 shut down.•Adapting to community needs and expectations.•Short Range Transit Plan and Transit Innovation Study.•Explore improvements in technology and delivery mechanisms.•Reduced headways.•Micro Transit.•Express bus routes.•Signal priority.•Many more. Downtown Transit Center Rehabilitation•2023-35 Financial Plan.•Council presentation.•New passenger shelters.•Security cameras.•Real time schedule displays and trip planning.•Improved lighting.•Damaged roadway repair.
13Questions
14•Overall, the purpose of this recommendation is to improve accountability, transparency, and local control.•Regional service is essential to providing mobility options and effort to reduce vehicle trips in the county.•Recommendation aims to level the funding playing field andensure sufficient funding for SLO Transit to achieve City goals of mode shift and carbon neutrality.•Currently, RTA Budgets and claims TDA off the top before funds are available to other operators. The remainder is available for transit funding to local transit programs. RTA may release if other discretionary are secured.•Models after other counties with transit joint power authorities/districts in the State.•RTA prepare and submit budget to City.•Require review of KPIs and develop performance standards.•Council would the ability to comment and modify service level to better reflect the needs of the City.•Control funding for City’s transit system and MCGs.Recommendation #7 Detail
15•Overall, the study will explore strategies that will enhance the transit experience to attract new riders and viable transportations option to support the City’s carbon neutrality goal.•Reduced headways during peak periods.•Micro-Transit solutions. This is a new and flexible delivery model that ranges from first and last to specific geo-mapped service area. This model is characterized as an on-demand hailing service. •Express bus routes.•Automatic vehicle location and real-time information.•Advanced contactless payment systems.•Signal priority to maintain schedules.•SMART bus stops that will include real time schedule information, rider alerts, and timetable.•Study will include stakeholders to provide input to the study.Transit Innovations Study
•Completion of new RTA transit facility within 1,500 feet of SLO Transit’s existing maintenance yard.•Potential for shared infrastructure to lower transit overhead costs for both agencies.•Impacts of the pandemic and staffing vacancies resulted in opportune time for a Transit Program Analysis.•Proposals solicited from qualified firms in November 2021.•Staff secured IBI Group to prepare the study.•Transit Program Analysis is different than the Transit Innovation Study.16
17AcronymsAcronym DescriptionARPA American Rescue Plan ActCARB California Air Resources BoardCARES Coronavirus Ad, Relief, and Economic Security FAST Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act. Federal transportation bill.FTA Federal Transit AdministrationFTE Full Time EquivalentKPI Key Performance IndicatorLCTOP Low Carbon Transit Operations Program. State funding source.LTF Local Transportation Fund (part of TDA)MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization. In this region, SLOCOG is the MPO.MTC Mass Transportation CommitteePOPProgram of ProjectsRTA San Luis Obispo Regional Transit AuthoritySGR State of Good Repair. State funding source.SLOCOG San Luis Obispo Council of GovernmentsSRTP Short Range Transit PlanSTA State Transit Assistance (part of TDA)TDATransit Development ActTIP Federal Transportation Improvement PlanVSH Vehicle Service HourVSM Vehicle Service Mile
18Acronym DescriptionARPA American Rescue Plan ActCARB California Air Resources BoardCARES Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security FASTFixing America's Surface Transportation Act. Federal transportation bill.FTA Federal Transit AdministrationFTE Full Time EquivalentKPI Key Performance IndicatorLCTOPLow Carbon Transit Operations Program. State funding source.LTF Local Transportation Fund (part of TDA)MTCMass Transportation CommitteeAcronym DescriptionMPOMetropolitan Planning Organization. In this region, SLOCOG is the MPO.POPProgram of ProjectsRTA San Luis Obispo Regional Transit AuthoritySGR State of Good Repair. State funding source.SLOCOG San Luis Obispo Council of GovernmentsSRTP Short Range Transit PlanSTA State Transit Assistance (part of TDA)TDATransit Development ActTIP Federal Transportation Improvement PlanVSH Vehicle Service HourVSM Vehicle Service MileAcronyms